Power Distance and Persuasion: A Study of Cultural Influences on Rhetorical Variation in EFL Essays
Abstract
The prevalence of power distance in Confucian heritage contexts has been well documented, yet the impact of this cultural value on rhetoric has not been extensively explored. To address the gap in our current understanding of cultural influences on rhetoric, language to assert authority or make a proposition (modals and epistemic stances) and pronouns to express an author’s relationship with their reader (pronoun deixis) were tallied and statistically compared in English as a Foreign Language (EFL) essays from six different Confucian heritage contexts. Essays were obtained from 1,288 participants included in the International Corpus Network of Asian Learners of English (ICNALE). Results of Pearson’s correlation suggest that high-authority modals and first-person singular pronouns are used significantly differently in high- and low-power-distance contexts. Low power distance learners tended to use “I” and obligatory modals to engage the reader in a more direct fashion. Albeit insignificant, high power distance learners also appeared to use more epistemic stances of certainty (e.g., certainly and definitely) to increase the intensity of general and noncontroversial arguments. These writers may have chosen stronger stances with uncontroversial claims to reduce conflict or avoid offending the reader, which mirrors Confucian collective beliefs that value authority and harmony. The study suggests that cultural beliefs may have some impact on rhetoric. These influences should be investigated to develop targeted EFL curricula that enhance intercultural communication in global workplaces.
- Power distance shapes rhetorical choices in EFL persuasive essays.
- High-authority modals decline as power distance increases.
- First-person pronouns are less frequent in high power-distance contexts.
- Confucian heritage contexts show nuanced rhetorical variation.
- Corpus evidence supports intercultural EFL writing pedagogy.
Article information
https://doi.org/10.36923/jicc.v26i3.1506
How to Cite
Full text article
References
Almutairi, S., Heller, M., & Yen, D. (2021). Reclaiming the heterogeneity of the Arab states. Cross-Cultural & Strategic Management, 28(1), 158-176. https://doi.org/10.1108/CCSM-09-2019-0170
Alshahrani, A. (2017). Power distance and individualism-collectivism in the EFL learning environment. Arab World English Journal, 8(2). https://doi.org/10.24093/awej/vol8no2.4
Banks, D. (2024). Systemic functional linguistics: Advances and applications. Journal of World Languages, 10(1), 1-8. https://doi.org/10.1515/jwl-2023-0083
Bardhan, S. (2016). Rhetorical approaches to communication and culture. Oxford University Press.
Belcher, D. (2014). What we need and don't need intercultural rhetoric for: A retrospective and prospective look at an evolving research area. Journal of Second Language Writing, 25, 59-67. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jslw.2014.06.003
Buja, E. (2019). Power distance in the Korean culture as it emerges from a K-drama. Redefining Community in Intercultural Context, 8(1), 137-147.
Cahill, D. (2003). The myth of the "turn" in contrastive rhetoric. Written Communication, 20(2), 170-194. https://doi.org/10.1177/0741088303020002003
Celce-Murcia, M., & Larsen-Freeman, D. (1999). The grammar book: An ESL/EFL teacher's course(2nd ed.). Heinle & Heinle Publishers.
Chen, Z. (2012). Expression of epistemic stance in EFL Chinese university students' writing. English Language Teaching, 5(10), 173-179. https://doi.org/10.5539/elt.v5n10p173
Choy, S. C., Sedhu, D. S., Liew, Y. L., Lee, M. Y., Malenee, A., & Anuar, N. (2015). Influence of culture on students' awareness of how and why they learn. Malaysian Journal of Learning and Instruction, 12, 49-67. https://doi.org/10.32890/mjli2015.12.3
Connor, U., & Traversa, A. (2014). The role of intercultural rhetoric in ESP education. In X. Deng & R. Seow (Eds.), 4th CELC Symposium Proceedings: Alternative pedagogies in the English language & communication classroom (pp. 19-24). National University of Singapore.
Connor, U., Nagelhout, E., & Rozycki, W. V. (Eds.). (2008). Contrastive rhetoric: Reaching to intercultural rhetoric. John Benjamins. https://doi.org/10.1075/pbns.169
Fatihi, A. R. (2019). Waggish coquetry in South Asian street communication. Lexington Books. https://doi.org/10.5040/9781978739598
Hamadouche, M. (2013). Intercultural studies in the Arab world from a contrastive rhetoric perspective. Arab World English Journal, 2, 181-188.
Hamam, D. (2020). A study of the rhetorical features and the argument structure of EAP essays by L1 and L2 students in the UAE. Journal of Asia TEFL, 17(2), 699-706. https://doi.org/10.18823/asiatefl.2020.17.2.28.699
Hammad, H. M. (2002). A contrastive examination of the rhetorical patterns of Arab speakers' Arabic and ESL writing (Master's thesis). University of Calgary. Retrieved from http://hdl.handle.net/1880/42480
Hinkel, E. (2009). The effects of essay topics on modal verb uses in L1 and L2 academic writing. Journal of Pragmatics, 41(4), 667-683. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.pragma.2008.09.029
Hofstede, G. (1980). Culture's consequences: International differences in work-related values. Sage.
Hofstede, G., Hofstede, G. J., & Minkov, M. (2010). Cultures and organizations: Software of the mind: Intercultural cooperation and its importance for survival (3rd ed.). McGraw-Hill.
Holliday, A. (1999). Small cultures. Applied Linguistics, 20(2), 237-264. https://doi.org/10.1093/applin/20.2.237
House, R. J., Hanges, P. J., Javidan, M., Dorfman, P. W., & Gupta, V. (Eds.). (2004). Culture, leadership, and organizations: The GLOBE study of 62 societies. Sage Publications.
House, R. J., Hanges, P. J., Ruiz-Quintanilla, S. A., Dorfman, P. W., Javidan, M., Dickson, M., & Gupta, V. (1999). Cultural influences on leadership and organizations: Project GLOBE. In W. Mobley (Ed.), Advances in global leadership (pp. 171-233). JAI Press.
House, R., Javidan, M., Hanges, P., & Dorfman, P. (2002). Understanding cultures and implicit leadership theories across the globe: An introduction to project GLOBE. Journal of World Business, 37(1), 3-10. https://doi.org/10.1016/S1090-9516(01)00069-4
Hu, C., & Li, X. (2015). Epistemic modality in the argumentative essays of Chinese EFL learners. English Language Teaching, 8(6), 20-31. https://doi.org/10.5539/elt.v8n6p20
Hu, G., & Cao, F. (2011). Hedging and boosting in abstracts of applied linguistics articles: A comparative study of English- and Chinese-medium journals. Journal of Pragmatics, 43(11), 2795-2809. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.pragma.2011.04.007
Huh, M. H., & Lee, I. (2019). A search for EFL college students' culture-related rhetorical templates of argumentative writing. English Teaching, 74(3), 55-77. https://doi.org/10.15858/engtea.74.3.201909.55
Hyland, K. (2005a). Metadiscourse: Exploring interaction in writing. Continuum.
Hyland, K. (2005b). Stance and engagement: A model of interaction in academic discourse. Discourse Studies, 7(2), 173-192. https://doi.org/10.1177/1461445605050365
Ishikawa, S. (2013). The ICNALE and sophisticated contrastive interlanguage analysis of Asian learners of English. In S. Ishikawa (Ed.), Learner corpus studies in Asia and the world (pp. 91-118). Kobe University Press. Retrieved from http://www.lib.kobe-u.ac.jp/infolib/meta_pub/G0000003kernel_81006678
Jiang, X. (2006). Cross-cultural pragmatic differences in US and Chinese press conferences: The case of the North Korea nuclear crisis. Discourse & Society, 17(2), 237-257. https://doi.org/10.1177/0957926506060249
Kang, B. (2024). Enhanced beauty can be compatible with intellectual development. Chinadaily.com.cn. Retrieved from https://www.chinadailyhk.com/hk/article/595326
Kaplan, R. B. (1966). Cultural thought patterns in intercultural education. Language Learning, 16(1), 1-20. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1467-1770.1966.tb00804.x
Kecskes, I. (2007). Formulaic language in English lingua franca. In I. Kecskes & L. R. Horn (Eds.), Explorations in pragmatics: Linguistic, cognitive and intercultural aspects (pp. 191-218). Mouton De Gruyter. https://doi.org/10.1515/9783110198843.3.191
Kecskes, I. (2015). Intracultural communication and intercultural communication: Are they different? International Review of Pragmatics, 7(2), 171-194. https://doi.org/10.1163/18773109-00702002
Kim, E. Y. J. (2017). Academic writing in Korea: Its dynamic landscape and implications for intercultural rhetoric. *TESL-EJ, 21*(3), 1-15. Retrieved from https://tesl-ej.org/wordpress/issues/volume21/ej83/ej83a3/
Kostova, B. (2022). The potential of contrastive analysis in the study of discourse. Studies in Linguistics, Culture, and FLT, 10(2), 66-80. https://doi.org/10.46687/YROL6006
Kubota, R., & Lehner, A. (2004). Toward critical contrastive rhetoric. Journal of Second Language Writing, 13(1), 7-27. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jslw.2004.04.003
Li, D., & Guo, X. (2012). A comparison of power distance of Chinese English teachers and Chinese non-English teachers in classroom communication. Intercultural Communication Studies, 11(2), 221-239.
Liu, L., & You, X. (2025). The bidirectionality of epistemological theft and appropriation: Contrastive rhetoric in China. Applied Linguistics Review, 16(1), 163-185. https://doi.org/10.1515/applirev-2024-0019
Liu, Y., & Du, Q. (2018). Intercultural rhetoric through a learner lens: American students' perceptions of evidence use in Chinese yìlùnwén writing. Journal of Second Language Writing, 40, 1-11. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jslw.2018.01.001
Llinares, A., & McCabe, A. (2023). Systemic functional linguistics: The perfect match for content and language integrated learning. International Journal of Bilingual Education and Bilingualism, 26(3), 245-250. https://doi.org/10.1080/13670050.2019.1635985
Min, S., Paek, J. K., & Kang, Y. (2019). Exploring the use of hedges and stance devices in relation to Korean EFL learners' argumentative writing qualities. English Teaching, 74(1), 3-23. https://doi.org/10.15858/engtea.74.1.201903.3
Minkov, M., Dutt, P., Schachner, M., Morales, O., Sanchez, C., Jandosova, J., Khassenbekov, Y., & Mudd, B. (2017). A revision of Hofstede's individualism-collectivism dimension: A new national index from a 56-country study. Cross Cultural & Strategic Management, 24(3), 386-404. https://doi.org/10.1108/CCSM-11-2016-0197
Nelson, G. (2000). Individualism-collectivism and power distance: Applications for the English as a second language classroom. The CATESOL Journal, 12(1), 73-91. https://doi.org/10.5070/B5.36463
Oyedele, J. O., & Lasisi, M. I. (2019). Perceived cultural dimensions in classroom interaction: Implications for learning at the Department of Communication and Language Arts, University of Ibadan. Journal of Danubian Studies and Research, 9(1), 40-59.
Petersoo, P. (2007). What does 'we' mean? National deixis in the media. Journal of Language and Politics, 6(3), 419-436. https://doi.org/10.1075/jlp.6.3.08pet
Schenck, A. (2023). Examining the impact of subtle cultural differences on rhetorical variation in EFL essays. Acuity: Journal of English Language Pedagogy, Literature and Culture, 8(1), 1-17. Retrieved from https://files.eric.ed.gov/fulltext/EJ1374876.pdf
Severino, C. (1993). The "doodles" in context: Qualifying claims about contrastive rhetoric. The Writing Center Journal, 14(1), 44-62. https://doi.org/10.7771/2832-9414.1282
Shuter, R. (1999). The cultures of rhetoric. In A. Gonzalez & D. Tanno (Eds.), Rhetoric in intercultural contexts: International and intercultural communication annual (Vol. 12, pp. 11-17). Sage.
Suhadi, J. (2011). Epistemic and deontic modality: Two sides of a coin. JULISA, 11(2), 156-179. https://doi.org/10.31227/osf.io/wv7zx
The Culture Factor Group. (2025). Country comparison tool. Retrieved from https://www.theculturefactor.com/country-comparison-tool
Wang, J., & Zhu, P. (2011). Linking contextual factors with rhetorical pattern shift: Direct and indirect strategies recommended in English business communication textbooks in China. Journal of Technical Writing and Communication, 41(1), 83-107. https://doi.org/10.2190/TW.41.1.e
Winiharti, M. (2012). The difference between modal verbs in deontic and epistemic modality. Humaniora, 3(2), 532-539. https://doi.org/10.21512/humaniora.v3i2.3396
Yi, J. S. (2026). Re-examining the validity of Hofstede's power distance dimension: A cross-cultural comparison of organizational employees in four countries. Journal of Intercultural Communication, 26(1), 103-114. https://doi.org/10.36923/jicc.v26i1.1312
Yoo, A. J. (2014). The effect Hofstede's cultural dimensions have on student-teacher relationships in the Korean context. Journal of International Education Research, 10(2), 171-178. https://doi.org/10.19030/jier.v10i2.8519
Yuk, Y., & Kikutani, M. (2026). The cultural difference in nonverbal expressivity is moderated by the extent of subjective self-construal: A two-study examination targeting Japanese and Korean individuals. Journal of Intercultural Communication, 26(1), 142-152. https://doi.org/10.36923/jicc.v26i1.1389
Yule, G. (1996). Pragmatics. Oxford University Press.
Zhang, W., & Wang, Y. (2022). An analysis on Sino-UK cultural differences in education from the perspective of Hofstede's cultural dimensions theory (A case study of are our kids tough enough?). Journal on Education, 4(2), 373-384. https://doi.org/10.31004/joe.v4i2.438
Zhang, Y. (2013). Power distance in online learning: Experience of Chinese learners in US higher education. International Review of Research in Open and Distributed Learning, 14(4), 238-254. https://doi.org/10.19173/irrodl.v14i4.1557
Zhao, F., & Khan, M. S. (2013). An empirical study of e-government service adoption: Culture and behavioral intention. International Journal of Public Administration, 36(10), 710-722. https://doi.org/10.1080/01900692.2013.791314
Authors
How to Cite
License
Copyright (c) 2026 Andrew Schenck
This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License.
This journal provides immediate and free open access to all its content and is distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License (CC BY 4.0). This means readers are permitted to read, download, copy, distribute, print, search, or link to the full texts of articles, or use them for any other lawful purpose, without asking prior permission from the publisher or the author, as long as proper attribution is given. This policy is consistent with the Budapest Open Access Initiative (BOAI) definition of open access.