Journal of Second Language Writing 36 (2017) 83–84

Contents lists available at ScienceDirect

Journal of Second Language Writing

journal homepage: www.elsevier.com/locate/jslw

Disciplinary Dialogues

Ability to argue: Rooted in nature MARK

Paul Stapleton
The Education University of Hong Kong, 10 Lo Ping Rd., Taipo, 852-2948-8823, Hong Kong

In asserting that argumentation deserves a place near the forefront of second language writing (SLW), Alan Hirvela has stated a
self-evident yet generally overlooked reality. Given that much SL student writing, whether for high-stakes tests or for school or
university essays, is argumentative in nature, Hirvela’s call for more research in the area is both timely and commendable. Although a
case could be made that argumentation falls outside the mandate of SLW because the former is more concerned with the assigned
content of university courses than the bread-and-butter issues of SLW, i.e., language-related (e.g., voice) or pedagogy-related (e.g.,
corrective feedback), argumentation is often at the core of SLW instruction.
Hirvela touches on several thought-provoking elements that are summarized towards the end of his piece in the form of questions
for the SLW community to consider. Given space limitations, I would like to focus on just one of the issues/areas, but one that has
produced a considerable amount of discussion and research: the intercultural element. Specifically, I would like to argue that this
issue may be distracting SLW scholars from more important matters.
Hirvela's second bullet-point question is: “To what extent, and/or in what ways, do SLW teachers account for students’ native
language and cultural background when teaching argumentative writing?" Elsewhere in his essay, Hirvela posits that SL writers:
already possess culturally shaped notions of writing from their L1 background that influence how they write in the target language
[and that they have] already acquired the day-to-day argumentative practices of their native language and culture and perhaps
formal argumentative practices taught in their L1 educational context. (p. XX)
This interest in cross-cultural differences may stem from a rich body of literature that has made claims about qualitative
differences in the way Easterners and Westerners think (e.g., Becker, 1986; Markus & Kitayama, 1991), with much of it claiming that
Easterners lack argumentative abilities due to holistic ways of thinking and a culture of non-contradiction that favors experience-
based knowledge over abstract logic (Nisbett, Peng, Choi, & Norenzayan, 2001). The issue of cultural forces in SLW may have been
jumpstarted, or at least heightened, by two compelling narratives often cited by SLW researchers. In the first, Shen (1989) claimed it
was necessary for East Asian writers to create a new, more assertive, and individualistic identity when writing in English. In the
second, Fox (1994) went further to argue that critical thinking is a Western habit of mind, while implying it is lacking in the writing
of world-majority students. Although the SLW field has steered clear for the most part of making strong claims in this direction,
cultural tendencies or even stereotypes sometimes raise their head when the issue of argumentation is approached (see Canagarajah,
2002; p. 33; Kubota, 1999). Outside of SLW, however, the debate is ongoing (e.g., Chan, Ho, & Ku, 2011; Floyd, 2011; Lun,
Fischer, & Ward, 2010; Manalo, Kusumi, Koyasu, Michita, & Tanaka, 2013; Manalo & Sheppard, 2016), revealing that beliefs about
differences in reasoning and argumentation in non-Western communities continue to resonate, and may be in danger of “washing
back” on SLW in various ways. For instance, given that much of our knowledge in SLW has been, and continues to be, influenced by
L1 writing research (as evidenced in Hirvela's piece), coupled with an increasingly interdisciplinary academic environment, the SLW
research community as well as SL students may be exposed to notions of argumentation and critical thinking as culture-dependent, or
at least culturally influenced. Accordingly, it may be worthwhile to revisit this issue in order to elaborate and/or reinforce the view
that while there may be different ways to argue a point, the ability to reason and think critically is universal.
My reason for claiming there is a strong similarity among Westerners and Easterners (and, for that matter, humankind) is rooted
in both experience and research into basic human nature. Almost everyone is familiar with the string of “whys” emerging from the
mouths of toddlers; this phenomenon has likewise received considerable research inquiry. Investigations reveal that children as

E-mail address: paulstapleton@gmail.com.

http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.jslw.2017.05.007

Available online 18 May 2017

1060-3743/ © 2017 Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.
P. Stapleton Journal of Second Language Writing 36 (2017) 83–84

young as three make causal inferences (Gopnik & Schulz, 2004), and similar research has shown that this finding is not confined to
children brought up speaking English. In other words, as a species we innately seek cause-and-effect patterns. Although the reasons
why humans have uniquely developed this capacity remain somewhat speculative, the majority view is that it evolved to enhance
individual cognition (Mercier & Sperber, 2011). The Nobel Prize-winning psychologist Daniel Kahneman (2003), for example,
suggested that humans may have developed the capacity to reason as a check against our intuitive reactions and biases. Mercier and
Sperber (2011), for their part, stated that the function of reasoning is argumentative. They explain that during communication we
need to “avoid being victims of misinformation” (p. 60); thus, as children we develop an ability to detect deception and evaluate
arguments in order to persuade others, and we are convinced by others only as we deem appropriate. This holds true across cultures
(Mercier, 2011).
I do not intend to create a straw man here by focusing only on general reasoning while ignoring written argumentative patterns
that may have been acquired only through schooling. Rather, the basic proposition I wish to stress is that argumentative writing –
whether in the West, East, or places in between – is premised upon claims supported by reasons and evidence. And while that
reasoning in some cases may be judged as unpersuasive, and may sometimes have cultural resonances – e.g., appealing to
authoritative voices in Asian discourses (Jensen, 1992) or (among Chinese) preferring arguments that defeat those of their
adversaries “mainly by showing the weakness of their opponent’s positions directly, not by claiming that their own were
unassailable” (Lloyd, 2006; p. 167) – it still falls within the broad realm of reasoning as universally understood. After all, in the
example just mentioned – to defeat the argument of an opponent – one must provide some evidence that, at its core, relates causes to
effects.
The point here, then, is to urge some caution regarding forms of argumentation that are said to be culturally unique or culturally
distinctive. I wholeheartedly agree with Hirvela that “SL writers are not blank slates when they move into SL writing” (p. ##).
However, I would contend that this “tabula inscripta” is filled with what we all share as part of universal human nature, with culture
playing only a supplemental role.

References

Becker, C. B. (1986). Reasons for the lack of argumentation and debate in the Far East. International Journal of Intercultural Relations, 10, 75–92.
Canagarajah, S. (2002). Multilingual writers and the academic community: Towards a critical relationship. Journal of English for Academic Purposes, 1, 29–44.
Chan, N. M., Ho, I. T., & Ku, K. Y. L. (2011). Epistemic beliefs and critical thinking of Chinese students. Learning and Individual Differences, 21, 67–77.
Floyd, C. B. (2011). Critical thinking in a second language. Higher Education Research and Development, 30, 289–302.
Fox, H. (1994). Listening to the world. Urbana, IL: National Council of Teachers of English.
Gopnik, A., & Schulz, L. (2004). Mechanisms of theory formation in young children. Trends in Cognitive Sciences, 8, 371–377.
Jensen, J. (1992). Values and practices in Asian argumentation. Argumentation & Advocacy, 28, 153–166.
Kahneman, D. (2003). A perspective on judgment. American Psychologist, 58, 697–720.
Kubota, R. (1999). Japanese culture constructed by discourses: Implications for applied linguistics research and ELT. TESOL Quarterly, 33, 9–35.
Lloyd, G. E. R. (2006). Cognitive variations: Reflections on the unity and diversity of the human mind. Oxford: Clarendon Press.
Lun, V. M. C., Fischer, R., & Ward, C. (2010). Exploring cultural differences in critical thinking: Is it about my thinking style or the language I speak?
Learning & Individual Differences, 20, 604–616.
Manalo, E., & Sheppard, C. (2016). How might language affect critical thinking performance? Thinking Skills & Creativity, 21, 41–49.
Manalo, E., Kusumi, T., Koyasu, M., Michita, Y., & Tanaka, Y. (2013). To what extent do culture-related factors influence university students’ critical thinking use?
Thinking Skills & Creativity, 10, 121–132.
Markus, H. R., & Kitayama, S. (1991). Culture and the self: Implications for cognition, emotion and motivation. Psychological Review, 98, 224–253.
Mercier, H., & Sperber, D. (2011). Why do humans reason? Arguments for an argumentative theory. Behavioral & Brain Sciences, 34, 57–111.
Mercier, H. (2011). On the universality of human reasoning. Journal of Cognition and Culture, 11, 85–113.
Nisbett, R. E., Peng, K., Choi, I., & Norenzayan, A. (2001). Culture and systems of thought: Holistic versus analytic cognition. Psychological Review, 108, 291–310.
Shen, F. (1989). The classroom and the wider culture: Identity as a key to learning English composition. College Composition & Communication, 40, 459–466.

84