基于语料库的中韩大学生英语议论文论证结构与质量比较研究
A Corpus-Based Comparative Study of Argumentative Structure and Quality in English Argumentative Essays by Chinese and Korean University Students
摘要: 英语议论文写作是衡量英语学习者批判性思维与语言综合运用能力的重要载体。然而，既有研究多局限于单一学生群体，常将论证要素视为“结构清单”，对论证本身的推理质量及跨文化对比关注不足。本文依托亚洲英语学习者国际语料库(ICNALE)，选取中、韩两国大学生欧洲共同语言参考标准B1高级水平英语议论文共190篇，采用改编图尔敏模型标注论证结构，并基于相关性、可接受性、充分性(RAS)框架改进后的量表评估论证质量。结果表明：1) 中韩学生普遍掌握“主张 + 论据”的基础框架，但在高阶要素上差异显著：中国学生更倾向于构建包含反方与驳论的完整闭环，而韩国学生结构较为线性；2) 中国学生论证质量得分显著高于韩国学生；3) 在论证策略上，两国学生均以逻辑推理为主，但中国学生的倾向较为明显，而韩国学生则相对更多地保留了个人经历作为辅助论证。研究结果揭示了中韩大学生在英语议论文写作中差异化的修辞偏好，并探讨了教学范式与文化惯习对写作的潜在影响。
Abstract: Argumentative writing serves as a crucial vehicle for assessing EFL learners’ critical thinking and comprehensive language proficiency. However, previous research has largely been confined to single student populations, often reductively treating argumentative elements as “structural checklists”, while paying insufficient attention to the intrinsic reasoning quality and cross-cultural comparative perspectives. Drawing on the International Corpus Network of Asian Learners of English (ICNALE), this study selected 190 argumentative essays by Chinese and Korean university students at the CEFR B1 high level, employing an adapted Toulmin model to annotate argumentative structures and a rubric refined from the Relevance-Acceptability-Sufficiency (RAS) framework to evaluate argumentative quality. Results demonstrate that: 1) Both groups have mastered the basic “claim + data” framework, yet diverge significantly in advanced elements—Chinese students show a stronger tendency to construct complete counterargument-rebuttal loops, whereas Korean students display more linear structures; 2) Chinese students’ essays scored significantly higher in overall quality; 3) Regarding argumentative strategies, both cohorts primarily relied on logical reasoning, albeit more prominently among the Chinese, while Korean students comparatively retained more personal experience as a supplementary form of support. These findings reveal differentiated rhetorical preferences between Chinese and Korean university students in English argumentative writing and explore the potential influences of instructional paradigms and cultural habitus on writing performance.
文章引用：曾粤, 刘宏涛. 基于语料库的中韩大学生英语议论文论证结构与质量比较研究[J]. 现代语言学, 2026, 14(2): 175-182. https://doi.org/10.12677/ml.2026.142128

参考文献

[1] Toulmin, S.E. (2003) The Uses of Argument. 2nd Edition, Cambridge University Press. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] 
[2] Qin, J. and Karabacak, E. (2010) The Analysis of Toulmin Elements in Chinese EFL University Argumentative Writing. System, 38, 444-456. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] 
[3] Stapleton, P. and Wu, Y.A. (2015) Assessing the Quality of Arguments in Students’ Persuasive Writing: A Case Study with Chinese Undergraduates. Journal of Second Language Writing, 30, 12-24.
[4] Hitchcock, D. (2005) Good Reasoning on the Toulmin Model. Argumentation, 19, 373-391. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] 
[5] Voss, J.F. (2005) Toulmin’s Model and the Solving of Ill-Structured Problems. Argumentation, 19, 321-329. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] 
[6] Crammond, J.G. (1998) The Uses and Complexity of Argument Structures in Expert and Student Persuasive Writing. Written Communication, 15, 230-268. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] 
[7] Nussbaum, E.M. (2011) Argumentation, Dialogue Theory, and Probability Modeling: Alternative Frameworks for Argumentation Research in Education. Educational Psychologist, 46, 84-106. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] 
[8] 李凯. 基于图尔敏模式的大学英语六级作文段落的论证结构分析[D]: [硕士学位论文]. 重庆: 重庆大学, 2014.
[9] Liu, X. and Furneaux, C. (2015) Argument Structures in Chinese University Students’ Argumentative Writing: A Contrastive Study. English Text Construction, 8, 65-87. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] 
[10] 刘应亮, 陈愿. 中国学生英语议论文写作中的论证因素分析[J]. 外国语文研究, 2016(6): 27-34.
[11] 陈愿. 非英语专业研究生议论文写作中的论据分析[D]: [硕士学位论文]. 武汉: 武汉理工大学, 2017.
[12] 都建颖, 李琼, 彭啟敏. 图尔敏模型在议论文写作中的应用[J]. 工业和信息化教育, 2018(5): 46-55.
[13] 王金璐. 中国大学生议论文写作中图尔敏模型元素研究[D]: [硕士学位论文]. 沈阳: 东北师范大学, 2021.
[14] Johnson, R.H. (2000) Manifest Rationality: A Pragmatic Theory of Argument. Lawrence Erlbaum.
[15] Govier, T. (2010) A Practical Study of Argument. 7th Edition, Wadsworth.
[16] Johnson, R.H. and Blair, J.A. (2000) Logical Self-Defense. 3rd Edition, McGraw-Hill Ryerson.
[17] Kaewpet, C. (2018) Criteria and Scale for Argumentation. Theory and Practice in Language Studies, 8, 564-569. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] 
[18] Packer, J.E. and Timpane, J. (1997) Writing Worth Reading: A Practical Guide. St. Martin’s Press.
[19] 刘应亮, 习梦, 陈愿. 学习者英语议论文写作中论据使用特点分析[J]. 外国语文, 2020, 36(1): 141-149.
[20] 段芳丽. 研究生议论文写作中的论据使用研究[D]: [硕士学位论文]. 长春: 东北师范大学, 2020.
[21] Hinds, J. (1987) Reader versus Writer Responsibility: A New Typology. In: Connor, U. and Kaplan, R., Eds., Writing across Languages: Analysis of L2 Text, Addison-Wesley, 141-152.
[22] Hyland, K. (2005) Metadiscourse: Exploring Interaction in Writing. Continuum.
[23] Ishikawa, S. (2023) The ICNALE Guide: An Introduction to a Learner Corpus Study on Asian Learners’ L2 English. Routledge. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] 
[24] 陈紫瑞. 基于“产出导向法”和“过程体裁教学法”的大学英语写作教学模式的有效性研究[J]. 现代英语, 2023(7): 25-30.
[25] 张如莹, 黄丽鋆, 张维益, 等. 大学英语写作支架式教学模式构建探究[J]. 现代英语, 2023(23): 11-13.
[26] Lee, E.K. and Oh, S. (2018) Korean EFL Learners’ Use of I in English Argumentative Writing: Focusing on Genre-Specific and Proficiency-Specific Characteristics. Language Research, 54, 357-381. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]