Contrasting Rhetorical Patterns: Discovering Effects of First and Second Language Writing Conventions

Yıl 2015, Sayı: 61, 0 - 0, 01.04.2016

Volkan İnceçay

Öz

Problem Statement: In this qualitative small-scale study, I aimed at investigating why students have difficulties in adjusting themselves to English writing conventions. I also examined the possible bilateral effects of Turkish and English writing conventions to determine whether engaging learners in contrastive rhetoric exercises can elucidate the phenomenon of transfer in rhetorical patterns.

Purpose of Study: The aim of this study was to discover whether bilingual writers with the same first-language background (i.e., Turkish) demonstrate similar composing patterns or whether these patterns diverge when writing in first or foreign language (i.e., English). Its broader aim was to describe whether transfer pertains to rhetorical patterns.

Method: To investigate the existence and transfer of rhetorical patterns, we examined four opinion essays—two in English, two in Turkish—written by each of six freshman students registered for an English composition course at an English-medium university in Istanbul,  Turkey. Additional data came from students’ reflective tasks and semi-structured interviews conducted with them.

Findings: The analysis of the essays demonstrated that the students placed thesis statements in the initial, middle, or final positions in their Turkish essays, indicating that some students used a deductive style of writing, a common US English writing convention, in their Turkish essays. This finding suggests that the students practiced aspects of English composition learned at the university level. Notably, students also used discourse markers more than typical Turkish essayists would, indicating that students were able to transfer knowledge not only from their first to the foreign language. Other results reveal that it was somewhat challenging for students to write in their first language given their adjustment to English writing conventions.

Conclusion and Recommendations: This study’s findings suggest that students initiated the construction of an academic discourse community identity and membership, implying that writing instructors can raise learners’ awareness of academic environment and involve them with different academic conventions by engaging them in contrastive rhetoric studies. Contrastive rhetoric could also prompt students to think more critically, which would further assist them in writing process. Lastly, the findings suggest that engaging students in exercises of contrastive rhetoric can assist and empower them in their writing practices.

 Keywords: Writing instruction, contrastive rhetoric, transfer, academic discourse community

 

Kaynakça

• Akyel, A. & Kamışlı, S. (1996). Composing in first and second languages: Possible effects of EFL writing instruction. Paper presented at the Second IATEFL Balkan Conference, Istanbul, Turkey.
• Bolton, K. (2015). Yamuna Kachru and World Englishes. World Englishes, 34(1), 37–44.
• Chandler, D. (1995). The Act of writing. Aberystwyth, UK: University of Wales.
• Connor, U. (2002). New directions in contrastive rhetoric. TESOL Quarterly, 36(4), 493–510.
• Crawford, T., Mora Pablo, I., Goodwin, D., & Lengelin, M. (2013). From contrastive rhetoric towards perceptions of identity: Written academic English in Central Mexico. Colombian Applied Linguistics Journal, 15(1).
• Davies, I. R. L., Sowden, P. T., Jerrett, D. T., Jertett, T., & Corbett, G. G. (1998). A cross‐cultural study of English and Setswana speakers on a colour triads task: A test of the Sapir–Whorf hypothesis. British Journal of Psychology, 89(1), 1–15.
• Gao, L. (2012). Investigating ESL graduate students’ intercultural experiences of academic English writing: A first person narration of a streamlined qualitative study process. The Qualitative Report, 17(24), 1–25.
• Grabe, W., & Kaplan, R. B. (1996). Theory and practice of writing: An applied linguistic perspective. New York, NY: Longman.
• Hirose, K. (2003). Comparing L1 and L2 organizational patterns in the argumentative writing of Japanese EFL students. Journal of Second Language Writing, 12(2), 181–209.
• Kaplan, R. B. (1966). Cultural thought patterns in inter‐cultural education. Language Learning, 16(1/2), 1–20.
• Kay, P., & Kempton, W. (1984). What is the Sapir–Whorf hypothesis? American Anthropologist, 86(1), 65–79.
• Kobayashi, H., & Rinnert, C. (2008). Task response and text construction across L1 and L2 writing. Journal of Second Language Writing, 17(1), 7–29.
• Kubota, R. (1998). An investigation of L1–L2 transfer in writing among Japanese university students: Implications for contrastive rhetoric. Journal of Second Language Writing, 7(1), 69–100.
• Kubota, R., & Lehner, A. (2004). Toward critical contrastive rhetoric. Journal of Second Language Writing, 13(1), 7–27.
• Leki, I. (1991). Twenty‐five years of contrastive rhetoric: Text analysis and writing pedagogues. TESOL Quarterly, 25(1), 123–143.
• Matsuda, P. K. (1997). Contrastive rhetoric in context: A dynamic model of L2 writing. Journal of Second Language Writing, 6(1), 45–60.
• Matsuda, P. K. (2001). On the origin of contrastive rhetoric: A response to HG Ying. International Journal of Applied Linguistics, 11(2), 257–260.
• McKinley, J. (2013). Displaying critical thinking in EFL academic writing: A discussion of Japanese to English contrastive rhetoric. RELC Journal, 44(2), 195–208.
• Miles, M. B. & Huberman, A. M. (1994). Qualitative data analysis: An expanded sourcebook. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
• Petrić, B. (2005). Contrastive rhetoric in the writing classroom: A case study. English for Specific Purposes, 24(2), 213–228.
• Quinn, J. M. (2012). Using contrastive rhetoric in the ESL classroom. Teaching English in the Two-Year College, 40(1), 31–38.
• Uysal, H. H. (2008). Tracing the culture behind writing: Rhetorical patterns and bidirectional transfer in L1 and L2 essays of Turkish writers in relation to educational context. Journal of Second Language Writing, 17(3), 183–207.
• Xing, M., Wang, J., & Spencer, K. (2008). Raising students’ awareness of cross-cultural contrastive rhetoric in English writing via an e-learning course. Language Learning & Technology, 12(2), 71–93.