The Influence of Gender and Culture on First and Second Language Writing of Chinese and Japanese-speaking University Students
by
Jing Fu
A thesis submitted in conformity with the requirements for the degree of Doctor of Philosophy Department of Curriculum, Teaching and Learning Ontario Institute for Studies in Education of the University of Toronto
© Copyright by Jing Fu 2011
The Influence of Gender and Culture on First and Second Language Writing of Chinese and Japanese-speaking University Students
Doctor of Philosophy, 2011
Jing Fu
Department of Curriculum, Teaching and Learning University of Toronto
Abstract
This study investigated the influence of gender and culture on 23 university students’ first language (L1) and second language writing (L2). Specifically, the study investigated the extent to which gender differences would emerge in students’ L1 and L2 writing and whether any such differences would manifest themselves differentially in L1 as opposed to L2 writing.
Students represented three national groups (8 Japanese students, 7 Chinese students, and
8 Taiwanese students). The Japanese and Chinese groups received their schooling in their home countries and came to Canada for purposes of university studies. However, the Taiwanese group came to Canada during their schooling years and consequently their English academic skills were better developed than their Chinese skills. L1 and L2 writing was sampled with four different writing tasks and analyzed for patterns of lexical and rhetorical usage. Stimulated-recall interviews were conducted with each student after they had completed the four writing tasks. The goal of the interviews was to identify the metacognitive strategies the students utilized in their
ii
L1 and L2 writing. Issues related to how students’ identities intersected with their L1 and L2 writing were also explored.
Because the national groups are heterogeneous with respect to L1 and L2 writing experience, each group was considered as a separate case study for purposes of analysis.
Exploratory cross-group analyses were carried out only to throw additional light on within-group trends. In the sample as a whole, statistical differences related to gender did not emerge.
However, qualitative analysis of students’ L1 writing showed a distinct gender difference within the Japanese group. Specifically, Japanese females used considerably more politeness markers in their Japanese writing in comparison to Japanese males whose L1 writing tended to be more assertive. These differences were not apparent in males’ and females’ L2 (English) writing. No gender differences were observed in either L1 or L2 among the Chinese and Taiwanese groups.
The findings suggest that learners absorb the instruction they receive in relation to effective ways of writing in their L2 environments and are fully capable of adjusting lexical and rhetorical features from L1 norms to L2 norms. The fact that female Japanese students did not generalize the politeness features they used in Japanese to English suggests that student identities are fluid and shift according to the cultural and linguistic context.
iii
Dedicated to the Memory of My Mother
Who loved me with all her heart and encouraged me
to complete this research project
iv
Acknowledgments
I would like to express my sincere gratitude to the people who supported me during my academic journey to the completion of my PhD degree. I could not have done my doctoral research without their generous support in different capacities. Definitely any remaining errors are mine.
At the very first, my foremost gratitude goes to my thesis supervisor Dr. Jim Cummins wholeheartedly, who supervised my research for many years and always provided his insight and valuable comments to guide me marvelously through the process. Dr. Cummins advised me at every step of my doctoral study. He supervised my taking courses, selecting the topic of research, developing the proposal, designing the research, the data analysis and writing up the thesis. Especially for the data analysis, Dr. Cummins has spent much time helping me to identify and to check every single element in order to make sure that it was rational. His insightful comments refined my thinking and my writing. Although he had other important commitments,
Dr. Cummins always made himself available to me for discussion and helped me figure out the problems in the research whenever I had difficulties. He spent countless hours with me and consistently encouraged my critical thinking in order to get a good shape of my thesis, and to help me to reach my goal. At the writing stage, Dr. Cummins read my multiple drafts, gave me very valuable comments, and edited my thesis. He also provided his generous support and advice in my difficulty times. Dr. Cummins’s academic intelligence and insights on literacy, multilingual and multicultural theory and researches, and his outstanding and noble integrity inspired me and motivated me to work on my research. I would never have been able to finish my PhD study without Dr. Cummins’s generous support and understanding.
v
Secondly, my appreciation goes to my thesis committee members and exam committee members: Dr. Normand Labrie, Dr. Rick Guisso and Dr. Nina Spada. Their guidance was very helpful, wise and encouraging. Dr. Labrie provided references for my research and he also gave me very useful suggestions. Dr. Guisso supported me and encouraged me from my Master study to doctoral study. Dr. Spada provided her very valuable insightful suggestions to my research.
She always encouraged me, supported me, and befriended me.
I am very grateful to my external examiner Dr. Liming Yu who sent his appraisal ahead of time during his busy work schedule. Dr. Yu’s generous and critical evaluation provided insights for my future research. Thank you very much, Dr. Yu.
Thirdly and most importantly, my sincere appreciation extended to the twenty-three participants in my project. It would not be able to make this project possible and successful without their mature understanding and their enthusiastic participation.
Three people who provided knowledgeable advice on the statistical analysis deserve special thanks. Olesya Falenchuk gave me insight and valuable advice for the data analysis, statistical data sorting and data organizing. Wataru Suzuki and Naxin Zhao were very kind, and helped me in different capacities.
I have received extensive academic support and guidance from professors, scholars and colleagues. I appreciate Dr. Mayumi Yuki Johnson. She gave me valuable suggestions and helped me with some of the Japanese data. Dr. Jill Cummings helped me to revise my thesis proposal, tasks, and data with very useful suggestions. Dr. Alister Cumming, Dr. Frances
Giampapa, and Dr. Tara Goldstein provided some research methods and concepts in language and education. Dr. Clare Brett provided accelerated support and suggestions for my research and my work. Dr. Alan Alexandroff has witnessed the ups and downs of my doctoral journey for
vi
these years. Thank you very much for your advice, your good cheer, and your encouragement,
Alan. Dr. Dezi Yang, thank you for your precious time to help me and encourage me in my difficult times for many years. I greatly appreciate the following people: Dr. Ingrid Piller,
Dr. Mitsuyo Sakamoto, Dr.Seiji Kodawaki, Dr. Penny Kinnear, Dr. Chih-Min Shih, Dr. Kyoko
Baba, Dr.Yasuhiro Imai, Dr. Luxin Yang, Dr. Ling Li, Dr. Shijing Xu and Dr. Huamei Han. All have made fruitful suggestions, insightful comments, and unfathomable wisdom. They encouraged me to complete my dissertation. They were willing to listen to me and help me find the ways to continue writing.
Recalling the memory at the beginning of my PhD journey, I could not to forget to thank
Professor Kazuko Nakajima, who was my MA supervisor and who provided her valuable advice and encouragement to pursue my doctoral study. I would not have started my research without her generous support. My gratitude also goes to Professor Jun Shigemtsu and Professor Kazuhiro
Isomura in Japan who provided valuable insight to encourage me to continue my PhD study when I finished my MA degree. And they encouraged me to the completion of my study. Thank you very much, Shigematsu-sensei, Isomura-sensei. I also thank my former colleagues and my friends Emiko Yamamoto, Shoko Tanaka, Dr. Li Zang, Dr. Ryoko Hayshi, and Dr. Midori
Hayashi in Japan. They provided their valuable comments, their support and encouragement from start to finish of my doctoral journey.
I am also deeply grateful to the Ontario Institute for Studies in Education at the
University of Toronto (OISE/UT) for the scholarship given to cover my tuition fees for the initial four years of my program. And I also appreciate the University of Toronto for awarding me the
Dissertation Travel Grant to support my data collection. As well as, the OISE Doctoral Thesis
Completion Grant for 2007-2008 and 2008-2009. I appreciate Al Millers Memorial Award 2009 .
vii
I especially want to thank OISE Student Services which provided me with important information and support during my PhD study. It is the best Student Services Office ever. I also appreciate
Tony Gallina, Alfredo Chow, and other staffs in the Education Commons at OISE who provided prompt and helpful support whenever needed.
I deeply appreciate the OISE faculty and administrative staffs’ kind support and understanding. Margaret Brennan, Carrie Chassels, Mary MacDonell, Eleanor Gower, Lise
Watson, Michelle Pon, Kristian Galberg, and Lisa Rupchand provided their great support and their friendship. Thank you all for supporting me for so many years. Margaret, I cannot find the right words to express my appreciation to you. Thank you very much for your kindness, your time and your support from the bottom of my heart.
During my PhD journey, I am grateful for the faculty members and friends in the Modern
Language Centre (currently changed to The Centre for Educational Research on Languages and
Literacies (CERLL) for their support and friendship. I witnessed our centre change the name, and the centre is like my home where I was comfortable to study and to work. My friends here and throughout OISE gave me very useful comments, suggestions and inspirations in different stages of my research and their friendship: Paul Quinn, James Corcoran, Mario Lopez Gopar,
Margaret So, Yuko Watanabe, Jing Zhang, Ji An Liu, Jingshun Zhang, Christian Wai Chun, and
Li Ju Shiu.
And last but not least, I am indebted to my family for their long term encouragement and their trust. My heartfelt appreciation goes to my father and my mother who supported me for so many years with their warmest love and care. And my brothers and sister were always there to comfort me and listen to me. They were my spirit support whom I could share my joy, my successes, and my sadness. They relieved my stresses and encouraged me to reach my goal.
viii
Finally, my wholehearted Thank you goes to my beloved sweetest Fanfan, Zhouzhou and Keke.
I owe you guys so much. I could not always stay with you guys and could not play with you guys when I had to work on my research and on my teaching. Thank you so much for your understanding, your patience, and your encouragement, sweeties. “Mommy, you are almost there. …Mommy, you can do it….” my young sweetie’s cute voices and their love were always there to encourage me to finish my dissertation. I am done now, my sweeties!
ix
TABLE OF CONTENTS
ABSTRACT ...... II
ACKNOWLEDGMENTS ...... V
CHAPTER 1: INTRODUCTION ...... 1
CHAPTER 2: REVIEW OF LITERATURE ...... 5
2.1 ORIGINS OF THE RESEARCH QUESTIONS ...... 5
2.2. GENDER IN SECOND LANGUAGE EDUCATIONAL (SLE) CONTEXTS ...... 6 2.2.1. Definitions of gender in SLE research ...... 6 2.2.2. Gender-related differences in English language use and performance ...... 7
2.2.2.1 Empirical studies that focus on L1 language use and performance ...... 7
2.2.2.2 Empirical studies that focus on L2 language use and performance ...... 9
2.2.2.3. Differences in the persuasive writing between males and females...... 10
2.2.2.3. Potential impact on language learning of learning style differences between males and females ...... 13
2.2.3 Gender differences in Japanese language use and performance ...... 15 2.2.4. Ethnolinguistic background, social roles and identity ...... 21
2.3 GROUP DIFFERENCES IN RHETORICAL STRATEGIES ...... 23 2.3.1. Contrastive rhetoric research ...... 23 2.3.2. Controversies in contrastive rhetoric research ...... 24 2.3.3. Chinese rhetorical strategies ...... 27 2.3.4. Japanese rhetorical strategies ...... 28 2.3.5. Rhetorical patterns in persuasive writing ...... 30
2.4 CROSS -LINGUISTIC TRANSFER OF LINGUISTIC AND RHETORICAL FEATURES ...... 33
2.5 RATIONALE FOR THIS STUDY AND RESEARCH QUESTIONS ...... 34
CHAPTER 3: METHODOLOGY ...... 36
3.1 DESIGN OF THE STUDY ...... 36
3.2. DESCRIPTION OF THE PARTICIPANTS ...... 38
3.3. DATA COLLECTION PROCEDURES ...... 40
x
3.3.1. Recruitment of participants ...... 40 3.3.2. Meeting with participants ...... 40
3.4 TASKS ...... 41 3.4.1. Task design ...... 41 3.4.2. Design of the writing prompts ...... 42 3.4.3. Topics of writing tasks ...... 43
3.5. LANGUAGE BACKGROUND AND EXPERIENCES QUESTIONNAIRE ...... 44
3.6 DATA ANALYSIS ...... 44 3.6.1. Coding and rating of writing texts ...... 44 3.6.2. Coding details ...... 46
3.6.2.1. Selected linguistic elements ...... 46
3.6.2.2. Metacognitive strategies ...... 48
3.7 ANALYSES OF THE DATA ...... 51 3.7.1. Analyzing rhetoric ...... 52
3.7.1 .1. Logical appeal ...... 52
3.7.1. 2. Ethical Appeal ...... 53
3.7.1 .3. Emotional Appeal ...... 53
3.7.2. Pattern-based case studies ...... 53
CHAPTER 4: LINGUISTIC AND RHETORICAL VARIATION IN WRITING PERFORMANCE ...... 54
4.1. OVERVIEW ...... 54
4.2 BACKGROUNDS OF THE THREE CULTURAL GROUPS ...... 54 4.2.1 The Japanese group ...... 55
4.2.1.1 Japanese female participants ...... 56
4.2.1.2 Japanese Male Participants ...... 58
4.2.2 The Chinese group ...... 59
4.2.2.1 Chinese female participants ...... 60
xi
4.2.2.2. Chinese male participants ...... 62
4.2.3 The Taiwanese group ...... 63 4.2.3.1. Taiwanese female students ...... 64
4.2.3.2 Taiwanese male students...... 66
4.3 RESULTS OF LINGUISTIC AND RHETORICAL FEATURES OF STUDENTS ’ L1 AND L2 WRITING IN
GENDER GROUPS ...... 68
4.4. CULTURAL GROUP DIFFERENCES IN LINGUISTIC AND RHETORICAL FEATURES OF STUDENTS ’
L1 AND L2 WRITING ...... 74 4.4.1. Pronoun usage ...... 80 4.4.2. Demonstratives Usage ...... 81 4.4.3. Use of Conjunctions, adjectives and adverbs in students’ L1 and L2 writing ...... 81 4.5.4. Conjunctions in students’ L1 and L2 writing ...... 82
4.6 CONCLUSION ...... 82
CHAPTER 5: CULTURE, IDENTITY AND RHETORICAL PATTERNS ...... 84
5.1 PERSONAL PRONOUNS ...... 84
5.2 QUALITATIVE ANALYSIS OF PERSONAL PRONOUNS USAGE IN JAPANESE WRITING ...... 89
5.3 PERSONAL PRONOUN USAGE IN ENGLISH WRITING (L2) ...... 93
5.4 PERSONAL PRONOUN USAGE IN CHINESE WRITING IN THE MAINLAND CHINESE GROUP .... 96
5.5 ENGLISH WRITING IN THE CHINESE GROUP ...... 99
5.6 HONORIFIC STYLES , POLITENESS AND FORMALITY ...... 101 5.6.1 The Japanese group ...... 101 5.6.2 The Chinese group ...... 104 5.6.3 The Taiwanese group ...... 105
5.7 LANGUAGE TRANSFER AND CULTURAL IDENTITY ...... 107 5.7.1 Three languages, combined usage and cross-Identity ...... 108 5.7.2 Age of immigration and identity ...... 110 5.7.3 Written and oral language ...... 111 5.7.4 Thinking and writing styles – Think in L2 directly or translate from L1? ...... 112
5.8 WRITTEN DISCOURSE AND RHETORIC PATTERNS ...... 114 5.8.1. The location of main ideas ...... 114
xii
5.8.2. Group differences in location of the main ideas ...... 116
5.8.3. Placement of main idea in L1 and L2: A comparison of Japanese vs. Chinese
and Taiwanese students...... 121
5.8.4. Placement of main idea in L1 and L2 in the entire group ...... 123
5.9 CONCLUSION ...... 126
CHAPTER 6: WRITING EXPERIENCES, LANGUAGE INFLUENCES AND WRITING STRATEGIES...... 128
6.1 WRITING EXPERIENCES ...... 128 6.1.1 Writing experiences in the Japanese group ...... 128 6.1.2. Writing experiences in the Chinese group ...... 130 6.1. 3. Writing experiences in the Taiwanese group ...... 131 6.2.1. Japanese group ...... 135 6.2.2. Chinese group ...... 135 6.2.3. Taiwanese group ...... 136 6.2.4. Students’ perception of difference between L1 and L2 ...... 136
6.3 WRITING STRATEGIES ...... 137 6.3.1. L1 writing strategies ...... 137
6. 3.1.1. Japanese group ...... 139
6.3.1.2. Chinese group ...... 140
6. 2.1.3. Taiwanese group ...... 140
6.3.2. Metacognitive strategies in L2 writing ...... 142
6.3.2.1. Japanese group ...... 142
6.3.2.2. Chinese group ...... 144
6. 3.2.3. Taiwanese group ...... 145
6.4 CONCLUSION ...... 147
CHAPTER 7: DISCUSSION AND CONCLUSIONS ...... 148
7.1 SUMMARY OF FINDINGS ...... 148
xiii
7.1.1. Linguistic and rhetorical strategies in L1 and L2 writing ...... 149 7.1.2. Rhetorical strategies ...... 150 7.1.3. Expression of identity in L1 and L2 writing ...... 151
7.1.3.1. Cultural group analysis ...... 151
7.1.3.2. Gender analysis ...... 151
7.1.4. Writing strategies ...... 152
7.2 SIGNIFICANCE OF THE FINDINGS IN RELATION TO THEORY AND RESEARCH ...... 152 7.2.1. Gender and writing ...... 152 7.2.2. Cultural variation in writing...... 154 7.2.3. Identity and writing ...... 156
7.3 LIMITATIONS AND FUTURE RESEARCH ...... 157
7.4 IMPLICATIONS FOR TEACHING WRITING IN ASIAN LANGUAGES AND ENGLISH AT THE
UNIVERSITY LEVEL ...... 158
REFERENCES ...... 161
xiv
List of Tables
Table 2.1 Characters of Global and Analytics ……………………………………………. 13 Table 3.1 Writing Tasks…………………………………………………………………… 42 Table 3.2 Metacognitive Strategies in L1 and L2 Writing ……………………………….. 49 Table 4.1 Japanese Group …………………………………………………………………. 56 Table 4.2 Chinese Group………………………………………………………………..… 60 Table 4.3 Taiwanese Group ………………………………………………………………. 64 Table 4.4 Gender Comparisons in Students’ L1 and L2 Writing…………………………. 70 Table 4.5 Independent Samples T-Test Results for Gender Differences………………….. 72 Table 4. Cultural Group Comparisons in Students’ L1 and L2 Writing………………….. 75 Table 4.7 ANOVA Results for Cultural Group Comparisons…………………………….. 78 Table 5.1 An Example of Personal Pronouns Usage in Japanese (Female) vs. English Translation……………………………………. 91 Table 5.2 An Example of Personal Pronouns Usage in Japanese (Male) vs. English Translation……………………………………….. 93 Table 5.3 An Example of Personal Pronoun Usage in English (Female) ………………... 94 Table 5.4 An Example of Personal Pronouns Usage in English (Male) ………………………………………………………………… 95 Table 5.5 An Example of Personal Pronouns Usage in Chinese (Female) vs. English Translation……………………………………… 97 Table 5.6 An Example of Personal Pronouns Usage in Chinese (Male) vs. English Translation………………………………………… 98 Table 5.7 Main Idea in L1 Writing (Task 1)……………………………………………… 115 Table 5.8 Main Idea in L1 Writing (Task 2)……………………………………………… 115 Table 5.9 Main Idea in L2 Writing (Task 1)………………………………………………. 116 Table 5.10 Main Idea in L2 Writing (Task 2)……………………………………………….116 Table 5.11 Crosstabulations of Combined Tasks for L1 Main Idea Location …….... ……. 122 Table 5.12 Chi-square Analysis of Combined Tasks for L1 Main Idea Location……….. 122 Table 6.1 Students’ Perception of Language Influence by Gender and by Cultural Group……………………………………………………………... 134
xv
Table 6.2 L1 Writing Strategies by Gender and by Cultural Group ……………………... 138 Table 6.3 L2 Writing Strategies by Gender and by Cultural Group……………………….. 143
List of Figures
Figure 5.1 First Personal Pronouns Usage in Students’ L1 Writing by Gender….……… 86 Figure 5.2 First Personal Pronoun Usage in Students’ L1 Writing by Cultural Group…… 87 Figure 5.3 First Personal Pronoun Usage in Students’ L2 Writing by Gender……. ………88 Figure 5.4 First Personal Pronoun Usage in Students’ L2 Writing by Cultural Group…... 89 Figure 5.5 Location of Main Idea in L1 Writing Task 1 by Cultural Group……………… 118 Figure 5.6 Location of Main Idea in L1 Writing Task 2 by Cultural Group……………… 119 Figure 5.7 Location of Main Idea in L2 Writing Task 1 by Cultural Group……………… 120 Figure 5.8 Location of Main Idea in L2 Writing Task 2 by Cultural Group…………..… 121 Figure 5.9 Placement of Main Idea in L1 Writing in Cultural Group…………………….. 124 Figure 5.10 Placement of Main Idea in L2 Writing in Cultural Group……………………. 125
List of Appendices
Appendix A: Student Consent Form 1……………………………………………………. 178 Appendix B: Student Consent Form 2 (for interview)……………………………………...179 Appendix C: A Writing Prompt……………………………………………………….….... 180 Appendix D: Multiple Comparisons: ANOVA Results for Cultural Group Comparisons ………………………………………………………………………. 181
xvi
Chapter 1 Introduction
This dissertation study investigates the influence of gender and culture on students’ first language (L1) and second language (L2) writing and also explores the issue of identity in students’ writing. Both gender and cultural identity have been identified in applied linguistics theory and research as variables relevant to individuals’ linguistic performance.
In applied linguistics, gender has been considered primarily as an independent variable impacting linguistic production. It is generally understood that females show faster progress in early first language learning and also experience fewer difficulties with literacy development in schools (Coates, 1993; Organisation for Economic Cooperation and Development [OECD],
2010). Gender issues in second language contexts have been discussed by numerous theorists
(Bermúdez & Prater, 1994; Boyle, 1987; Ellis, 1994; Evans, Schweingrube,
& Stevenson, 2002; Graham, 2002; Janssen & Murachver, 2004; Johnson 1992; Kobayashi, 2000;
Kubota 2003; Oxford, 1994; Pavlenko & Piller 2001; Phakiti, 2003; Sadker, 1994; Swann, 1992;
Wen & Johnson 1997). Numerous studies have also been carried out on cultural influences on students’ second language writing (Connor, 1988, 2008; Kaplan, 1966; Kubota, 1993; Hinkle,
2003) and this topic has occasioned vigorous debate within the field of contrastive rhetoric (e.g.,
Connor, 2005; Kubota & Lehner, 2004, 2005).
The results of studies investigating gender differences in language and literacy performance show that such differences do exist in many contexts. As Shibomoto (1985) points out, studies have reported gender-related differences in language performance “in abundance” (p.
161). However, these differences are not static and are likely to shift as social conditions within
1
2
and across countries change. As a result of rapid technological changes in the late 20 th century, cross-cultural contact and awareness have increased significantly and these changes are likely to exert an impact on social roles generally and gender roles in particular. These changes are likely to be reflected in language behavior and performance.
In recent years, as educational opportunities for females have increased in countries around the world, a pattern has emerged in several contexts for female youth to perform at higher levels than male youth in literacy tasks (e.g., OECD, 2010). This pattern is also apparent on second language tasks which have measured the following second language skills: vocabulary, listening, speaking, reading and writing. In skills such as L2 rhetorical usage, female students have tended to perform better (Ellis, 1994; Graham, 2002; Kobayashi, 2000; Oxford 1994; Wen
& Johnson, 1997). However, the studies rarely measure the same things in the same ways (e.g.,
Chavez, 2000; Wen & Johnson, 1997), and so comparison becomes problematic. One notable gap in the research on gender in linguistic performance is the fact that there are very few studies that focus on both L1 and L2 simultaneously and interpret L2 performance in relation to L1 variables. The present study attempts to bridge this gap. I examine the issue of which linguistic and rhetorical features might be affected by gender and cultural influences, especially with respect to Asian students’ L1 and L2 writing in multilingual and multicultural contexts.
Another gap is that there exists little research focusing on the relationship between gender and cross-cultural perspectives; specifically, the intersections between gender and cultural identity in multilingual and multicultural contexts have not been adequately explored.
For example, what shifts occur in students’ sense of identity as they write in L1 and L2? If there are shifts in identity according to language of writing, are these identity shifts influenced by
3
gender? Do males and females shift identity positions and perspectives differentially in their L1
and L2 writing?
If writing performance is influenced by gender and cultural variables, then differential effects across learners’ persuasive writing in Chinese and Japanese writing might be expected.
Many studies have shown gender effects in spoken Japanese (Bohn, 2008; Matsumoto, 2001;
Shibamoto, 1985, 1987; Siegal & Okamoto, 2003), but few studies have investigated the gender effects for writing in either Japanese or Chinese.
The present study involved university students from three cultural/cultural groups
(Japanese, Chinese, and Taiwanese). Students’ L1 writing (either Japanese or Chinese) and their
L2 writing (English) were assessed with four different writing tasks. The focus of the assessment was on lexical usage and rhetorical patterns in Japanese/Chinese and in English. A stimulated recall interview was conducted with each student after she or he had finished the four writing tasks in order to identify the metacognitive strategies they used in their L1 and L2 writing.
The study investigated two basic hypotheses: (a) that gender exerts an impact on the ways in which males and females engage in persuasive writing in both their L1 and L2; (b) that different patterns can be observed across cultural groups in the interactions between L1 and L2 writing. These hypotheses were elaborated in three specific research questions:
1. What differences and similarities in students’ L1 and L2 writing exist between males
and females within Chinese, Taiwanese and Japanese groups?
2. To what extent do factors such as cultural and gender identity, and previous writing
experience influence writing patterns in L1 and L2?
3. To what extent can male and females’ perceptions of themselves, their social roles
and identities, be identified in their written discourse?
4
This dissertation consists of seven chapters. The opening chapter introduces and provides a rationale for the research. The second chapter reviews earlier studies that led to and frame the present study. The review exposes evident gaps about the influence of gender and cultural identity in L1 and L2 writing. Three research questions are formulated in relation to the influence of gender, culture, and linguistic features on rhetorical patterns in L1 and L2 writing.
The third chapter documents the methodology used in my study. First, the overall design of the study is outlined. Then the specific research procedures are described with respect to methods used to collect data, the process of gathering L1 and L2 writing samples, and information on participants’ backgrounds. Finally, the procedures for transcribing, coding, and analyzing the data are described.
The fourth chapter presents the results of quantitative statistical analyses conducted to answer
Research Question 1. For question 1, findings from descriptive analyses and one-way ANOVA are reported. Chapter 5 presents the results of quantitative and qualitative analyses of data from the students’ writings and interviews which address Research Question 2. The quantitative analyses focus on the linguistic features and rhetorical patterns while the qualitative analyses focus on the influence of gender and cultural identity.
Chapter 6 presents the results that address Research Question 3, specifically, students’ perspectives on their experience of writing in their different languages. The chapter also explores differences in the writing strategies between the two gender groups and the three cultural groups.
The final chapter discusses the significance, implications, and limitations of the study.
Chapter 2
Review of Literature
This chapter provides a historical overview of the sociolinguistic and sociocultural theories in which my research is grounded. In the first section, the research literature on gender and second language performance is critically reviewed. The second section reviews studies on rhetorical strategies as they relate to L1 and L2 writing performance among adults in multilingual settings.
In the third section, I provide a critical overview of contrastive rhetoric theories and research.
2.1 Origins of the Research Questions
In applied linguistics, gender has traditionally been considered an independent variable that exerts an impact on linguistic production. As noted in Chapter 1, there is considerable research suggesting that females are generally superior on a variety of linguistic tasks. However, my own teaching observations lead me to question this generalized claim and have led me to focus my research on the relationship between gender and second language writing. While I was teaching both Japanese and Chinese to undergraduates in Canada, I noticed that female students often listened to and followed instructions to practice various tasks more effectively than male students.
However, when students wrote essays, I found the essays of male students were more creative, logical, and interesting in style and content. In contrast, the female students paid close attention to grammar, followed instructions, but lacked original ideas and were less original in their essays.
This set of observations led me to reconsider differences between female and male students’ writing performance both in their L1 and L2. I chose to examine persuasive writing because this genre has been used in a number of previous studies (Bermúdez & Prater, 1994; Graham, 2002).
5
6
and it also seemed likely to be sensitive to the differences I observed between males and females
in my teaching practice.
I first discuss the construct of “gender” as it has been discussed in language learning research. Then I outline the findings related to the influence of gender on second language learning with particular focus on studies related to second language writing. Much of the early work on gender differences in language learning and performance has viewed gender as an individual trait or an independent variable. However, more recent research and theoretical analyses have questioned this binary male/female distinction and viewed gender as a system of social relations that is socially and culturally constructed and context-bound (e.g., Kubota, 2003;
Pavlenko, 2001; Sunderland, 2000). In discussing these studies, I initially review the studies that have reported male/female differences on a variety of linguistic performances and then discuss alternative interpretations of these studies suggested by poststructuralist and feminist scholars.
2.2. Gender in Second Language Educational (SLE) Contexts
2.2.1. Definitions of gender in SLE research
The term “gender” is usually defined in contrast to the term “sex” in research on language learning. According to Ounsted and Taylor (1972), “sex” is based on biological differences and
“gender” is related to sociocultural differences. However, Miller and Swift (1976) note that it is risky to oversimplify that sex is biologically given and that gender is socially acquired because these two notions are conjoined. Gender differences partially depend on biological differences.
In fact, sociolinguists and other social scientists have not been able to distinguish “gender” and
“sex” consistently (Chambers, 1995). In second language education contexts, researchers sometimes use the notions of both gender and sex similarly–for example, Graham (2002) and
Kubota (2003) used both terms in their research. For the purposes of my studies, I will focus on
7 the sociocultural characteristics of gender and how gender is socially constructed and mediated in writing.
2.2.2. Gender-related differences in English language use and performance
2.2.2.1 Empirical studies that focus on L1 language use and performance
A starting point for examining gender differences in second language use and performance is to ask whether there are differences between males and females in first language (L1) use in a variety of social situations. This section examines evidence related to this issue drawing primarily on studies that examined gender differences in learning and using English either as a
L1 or L2. Differences associated with gender in Asian language use will be examined in a subsequent section.
A major large-scale study carried out by Newman, Groom, Handelman, and Pennebaker
(2008) goes some way to answering this question. The authors point out that previous studies of gender differences in language use have been limited by the relatively small size of their databases. By contrast, in their study, Newman et al. were able to analyze 14,000 text samples
(93% written, 7% spoken) from 70 separate studies, carried out between 1980 and 2002, using a specifically designed computer program. They summarize their findings as follows:
Comparing the language of men and women in a large, heterogeneous sample of written and spoken text reveals small but consistent gender differences in language use. For the women who contributed 8,353 text files to the study, the English language was more likely to be used for discussing people and what they were doing, as well as communicating internal processes to others, including doubts. Thoughts, emotions, senses, other peoples, negations, and verbs in present and past tense figured high on the list of words that women used more than men. For the men who contributed 5,970 files, language was more likely to serve as a repository of labels for external events, objects, and processes. Along with discussion of occupation, money, and sports were technical linguistic features such as numbers, articles, prepositions, and long words. Swear words added emphasis to male language. (p. 229)
8
Newman et al. (2008) point out that their demonstration of small but systematic differences in the way that men and women use language, both with respect to what they say and how they say it, does not address the question of how these differences come about. They note that gender differences in language use likely reflect a complex combination of social goals, situational demands and socialization.
Male/female differences in language and literacy academic performance have been the subject of considerable debate in recent years with respect to the lower performance of school- aged males on various indices of literacy skills. The most recent demonstration of these differences come from the international studies on literacy achievement carried out by the
Organisation for Economic Cooperation and Development (OECD) in its Programme for
International Student Achievement (PISA) (OECD, 2010). The findings are summarized as follows:
Throughout much of the 20th century, concern about gender differences in education focused on girls’ underachievement. More recently, however, the scrutiny has shifted to boys’ underachievement in reading. In the PISA 2009 reading assessment, girls outperform boys in every participating country by an average, among OECD countries, of 39 PISA score points – equivalent to more than half a proficiency level or one year of schooling. (p. 7)
The OECD points out that the origins of these performance differences are still subject to speculation. However, the findings are robust and have been replicated in many other smaller- scale studies in recent years.
In summary, research has established that gender differences do exist in L1 language use and performance. However, these differences should not be regarded as static or fixed in any way. They are influenced by socialization processes in different contexts and are likely to change over time as social conditions, expectations and roles change.
9
2.2.2.2 Empirical studies that focus on L2 language use and performance
A number of research studies have focused on male/female differences in the development of language competence in second/foreign language (L2/FL) vocabulary, listening, speaking, reading and writing (e.g., Chavez, 2000; Kubota 2003; Wen & Johnson, 1997). For example,
Wen and Johnson’s study examined the English vocabulary learning strategies of 242 Chinese students who studied English in China. This represented the entire cohort of second-year English majors from five tertiary institutions in Nanjing and Shanghai. The students’ English achievement was measured by their scores on a nation-wide standardized English proficiency test that all students take on completion of their two-year intensive English program, which is pursued during the first part of their four-year BA degree. Wen and Johnson reported that female students significantly (p<.01) outperformed their male counterparts on the English proficiency test. Females also reported significantly more use of vocabulary learning strategies that were found to be correlated with success in EFL learning. Wen and Johnson summarize their findings as follows:
The superiority of female students over males was expected, replicating results obtained in other studies of second language learning. … This strong direct effect suggests that the differences in achievement between the sexes at the end of the programme can be attributed primarily to differences which already existed on entry to the programme, i.e., sex had a direct effect also on previous L2 proficiency. Apart from the general tendency for female students to perform better on language tests, language studies in Chinese Universities tend to attract successful female students, while more successful male students tend to be attracted to other areas of study. (p. 34)
10
This latter point suggests that the results should be treated with some caution because part of the effect might be attributable to self-selection whereby academically strong females tend to enter language studies while academically strong males enter other disciplines.
A number of other studies of L2/FL male/female differences also suggest a trend for female superiority in some aspects of writing. For example, Ho (1987) examined the English writing and speaking skills of 117 male and female Chinese students of English at the University of Hong Kong. He found that gender is one of the most powerful factors for success in language learning (the others are personality and attitude). The performance of females was notably better in writing than males, but even better in speaking. However, what Ho concluded was based on students’ scores. He did not evaluate a possible bias in how instructors judged the students’ writing. Also, he did not address the sociocultural background of students and instructors and the possible impact of these background differences on speaking and writing performance.
The next section focuses specifically on male/female differences in persuasive writing in their second language.
2.2.2.3. Differences in the persuasive writing between males and females
One key area related to my interest in second language writing and gender is differences in persuasive writing. Looking at contextual support in persuasive writing, Bermúdez and Prater
(1994), adopted Cummins’ (1981, 2000) “quadrants” framework to investigate how gender affected Hispanic writers’ persuasive writing. This research was based on the premise that persuasive writing is more complicated and abstract than other types of writing because it requires writers to operate within more context-reduced situations that frequently involve abstract thinking. Cummins (1981, 2000) distinguished two dimensions of language proficiency and use: “context-embedded” language use that occurs because of the presence of concrete,
11 situational clues that help clarify the meaning of utterances; and “context-reduced” language use that requires learners to rely more on the language itself for meaning rather than on contextual cues. An example of context-embedded language use is everyday face-to-face conversation while persuasive writing for academic purposes represents an example of context-reduced use.
Bermúdez and Prater examined 37 Hispanic ESL students’ essays. The participants were asked to write in response to a standard prompt designed to elicit persuasive writing. They compared four aspects of the overall quality of persuasive essays: (i) gender differences; (ii) differences between students acquiring English (SAP) and students who already had acquired a high level of proficiency in English (SPE); (iii) the interaction effects of group by gender; and,
(iv) the differences between SAP and SPE. On a writing task which prompted the ESL students to write a letter to persuade city constituents to vote for them for mayor of a city, they found that essays written by Hispanic females showed a greater degree of elaboration and a clearer attempt to express the writer’s points of view than those written by male Hispanic students, regardless of proficiency level. They accounted for these gender differences in writing by pointing to the experiences of females and males in social interaction.
Bermúdez and Prater’s findings are consistent with those of Lakoff (1975) who argued that gender-specific discourse is shaped from childhood. Lakoff pointed to the effects of different socialization practices on the type and quality of written persuasive discourse revealed by male and female students. Bermúdez and Prater advocated for more practice in persuasive discourse for ESL learners based on the fact that these learners may not have had extensive prior experience in this type of writing--either in their L1 or L2.
A similar pattern emerges among adults in Graham’s (2002) study of university students’ persuasive writing in introductory composition. She used feminist theories and textual analysis to
12 investigate 97 first year students’ compositions. In terms of rhetorical strategies, females appealed much more to ethical concerns than males. In persuasive writing, females scored higher than males. Females wrote a greater number of words, especially first-person pronouns and parenthetical expressions as compared to males. Males used a significantly larger number of judgmental adjectives and passive verbs. Her findings also demonstrated that males’ ways of thinking differed from females’ thought processes, but this may depend again on the context, the type of writing, and the measurements used. There are several limitations to this research study.
For example, only one 30-minute writing task is not enough to judge the differences between male and female writing. More confidence could be placed in the findings if the researcher had been able to obtain two or three pieces of writing. Also, the study did not obtain interview and observation data from the writers/learners and the instructors to explore what factors influenced these male/female writing differences.
On the basis of studies such as those reviewed above, a number of researchers have identified some “feminine” features in written language (Brody 1993; Graham, 2002; Mulac,
Studley, & Blau, 1990). For example, Graham points out:
Written language deemed as feminine has been marked as less assertive, more hesitant, [indirect], more polite and less authoritarian, less confrontational, more emotional and more personal. In contrast, written language deemed as masculine has been marked as more assertive, more assured, more direct, less polite, more authoritarian, more confrontational, less emotional, and less personal. (2002, p. 73)
Similarly, Mulac et al. (1990) state that uncertainty verbs have been negatively linked to audiences’ rating of writing as low on dynamism. Thus, uncertainty in writing is linked to females and these trends suggest that females exhibit less confidence in their opinions. On the other hand, they claim that males’ more confident writing reflects the dominance and greater ambition of males in the wider society.
13
In short, these stereotypical characterizations of males’ and females’ written language may operate in very different ways within persuasive writing. The greater empathy attributed to females may be an advantage in some contexts while the greater confidence and assertiveness attributed to males may operate to their advantage in others.
A final area to consider is the potential impact of learning styles on the writing of males and females.
2.2.2.3. Potential impact on language learning of learning style differences between males and females
Rebecca Oxford (1990c, 1994) and Ronald Schmeck (1983) have argued that all learning style differences reflect a dichotomy between people who are more or less global and those who are more or less analytical . The characteristics of each style are outlined below (Oxford, 1994, p.
140):
Table 2.1
Characteristics of Global and Analytic Learning Styles (Oxford, 1994)
Global Analytic Subjective Objective Feeling Thinking Field dependent Field independent Right-brain dominant Left-brain dominant Extroverted Introverted Co-operative Competitive Impulsive Reflective
14
According to Oxford (1994), in a second language acquisition context, males and females take different routes in learning a new language. Females tend to favour subjectivity (feeling, cultural sensitivity, empathy), and males favour objectivity (rules, facts, logic). Those learning style differences are related to female and males’ writing. My initial observations in my Japanese and Chinese classes coincided with Oxford’s claim in so far as females’ writing was more sensitive to instructions, and males’ writing emphasized more logic and focus on facts. Previous cognitive research also reported that males are oriented towards abstract thought, and females tend to be oriented towards intimate thinking (McGuinness, 1998). Different learning styles may somehow affect and be reflected in students’ second language writing.
In summary, the research considered above has viewed gender as an independent variable
and explored its relationship to L1/L2 language use and performance. There is clear evidence of
differences in use and performance, as one might expect given the different socialization
experiences and societal power relations affecting males and females in most societies. However,
the differences observed are clearly not static—if they have resulted from socialization
experiences then they can, in principle, be changed by society and by the agency of social actors.
As gender equality becomes more the norm in many societies, one would expect to see a shift in
the stereotypical oral and written language behaviors exhibited by men and women. Language is
changing constantly, sometimes through spontaneous innovations by particular sub-groups (e.g.,
adolescents) and sometimes through a shift in societal norms (e.g., the fact that using the male
pronoun as the generic is no longer acceptable in academic English writing or oral use). Thus,
the gender differences discussed in these studies should not be essentialized as inherent
characteristics of males and females but rather snapshots in time and place of a dynamic and
15 constantly shifting reality. This perspective is supported by studies of male/female differences among Asian language users, particularly Japanese which are considered in the next section.
2.2.3 Gender differences in Japanese language use and performance
The field of contrastive rhetoric was originally explored by Robert Kaplan (1966) who identified differences between the typical discourse and rhetorical patterns used by Asian students and those favored or prescribed in North American formal writing. Controversies surrounding the interpretation of cultural differences in speech and writing are discussed in a later section. Here, I review claims regarding male-female differences in the speech patterns of speakers of Asian languages. There is general agreement that, historically, males and females in Japan used different speech patterns or what Tanaka (2004) calls genderlects. However, there is controversy surrounding the extent to which these patterns are stable characteristics of gendered speech or alternatively variable and dynamic in the sense that they shift according to context and the relationships among interlocutors.
Shibamoto’s (1985) study was one of the first to use actual recorded speech samples of males and females to assess variation in language use. She pointed out that most previous studies were based on anecdote or self-report data which she regarded as unreliable. Her study was based on the recording of casual speech by 15 males and 15 females, evenly split among the age categories of 20-29 years, 30-39 years, and 40-49 years. She reported marked differences in a number of linguistic features, particularly in the usage of the case-marking particles and the noun phrases that accompany them. She notes that “case particles are more freely deleted by female than by male speakers for subjects (23.9% vs. 11%) and direct objects (40.4% vs.
25.3%)” (1985, p. 148).
16
Tanaka (2004) has summarized the major differences to emerge in research on male and female language in Japan. These differences are more apparent in informal as compared to formal situations. She highlights six dimensions of language where differences in genderlects have been observed:
• Lexical features. There are many lexical items that are exclusively used by women or
men. Tanaka points out that the female forms ‘are considered more polite and softer than
the male forms” (p. 27).
• Personal pronouns. Men have more choice of first and second personal pronouns than
women.
• Sentence final particles. These particles are used mostly in informal situations and
convey additional semantic information pertaining to the speaker’s mood and intent.
Some particles are available to both men and women but others are used exclusively by
either men or women.
• Verb forms. Tanaka points out that Japanese verbs have polite and plain endings. Both
males and females use plain endings in in informal situations, women typically choose to
use the polite form in formal situations. She points out that the feminine forms are
associated with softness and politeness.
• Syntax. Tanaka notes that women seem to be less conservative in applying some
grammatical rules than men; for example, they tend to omit case particles and use more
adjectives where the noun is deleted than is the case with men.
• Politeness. Women tend to use more polite language than men at the discourse level. For
example, female speech is characterized by more extensive use of honorific forms than is
the case with male speech.
17
The findings of Tanaka’s own study of television interviews “reinforce the fact that we cannot underestimate the influence of centuries in the inculcation of ‘genderlects’ (p. 204) (see also,
Bohn, 2008). She points out that the route to gender equality for women does not necessarily involve adopting male speech styles. These styles are so ingrained that in formal situations a woman using male speech is likely to be judged uneducated and a man using female speech will also be very negatively evaluated. Thus, Tanaka adopts the perspective that real differences exist between male and female speech despite the fact that she notes that some previous studies have suggested that a process of neutralization is taking place where the linguistic forms are devoid of any gender-associated particles or lexical items.
A very different perspective is advanced by Abe (2000) who collected speech samples from a group of eight established professional women in the early 1990s. She acknowledges that the women in her sample were atypical or non-conforming in several respects (e.g., only three were currently married). Abe criticizes previous studies for ignoring the role of context in determining appropriate patterns of speech among men and women. She claims that the issue of gender differences in speech is much more complex than the generalization that women’s language is “polite, soft, indirect, and essentially, stereotypically, powerless” (p. 139). She reported very different patterns of particle ellipsis among her sample of professional women than the patterns reported by Shibamoto (1985). For example, she reported an average particle ellipsis for subjects of 8.99% (compared to 23.9% in Shibamoto’s study) and for direct objects 10.45%
(compared to 40.4% in Shibamoto’s study). Furthermore, there was significant variation in language use across contexts (i.e., a meeting, conversation with family members, and conversation with friends). Abe concludes that her professional women were not necessarily
18 more polite or less assertive than their male counterparts. In the workplace, their speech was more aggressive than in the private spheres of conversing with family and friends.
Thus, Abe (2000) rejects the notion that rules for gender marking in Japanese are categorical (sex exclusive), arguing instead that they are variable (sex preferential). She points out that the line between categorical and variable often becomes blurred depending on context.
For example, the first-person pronoun boku (“I”) which is typically only used by males has been widely adopted by female elementary and junior high school students. While some linguists see this kind of shift simply as a passing fad, Abe argues that it reflects the dynamic nature of language use and its intersection with societal power relations. She draws two major conclusions from her research:
(1) women’s and men’s speech do not form a continuum—women’s at one end and men’s at other with neutral in the middle—rather they form separate realms with a neutral area where native speakers do not associate linguistic variables with the speaker’s gender; and (2) both women’s and men’s speech can be very assertive or non-assertive, powerful or powerless, and a given speaker ranges across [these dimensions] regardless of their biological sex. (p. 141)
She elaborates on these conclusions as follows:
…women may not be taken seriously if they use strong women’s speech, however, if they stick to very neutral speech they are indexed as genderless, and thus not human. In the end I conclude that the notion of women’s speech exists in people’s perception of Japanese language, however, the range and scope of women’s speech varies a great deal and is not fixed even in the speech of an individual speaker. I do not believe that the elimination of women’s speech brings equality between women and men, rather it is the notion of women as well as men’s speech which needs to be changed, and I am glad to say it is changing. (p. 144)
Other research points in similar directions, highlighting the dynamic and context-specific nature of women’s linguistic choices. For example, Okamoto (1995) analyzed young women’s speech styles in specific contexts and argued that their “unfeminine” speech styles are chosen
19 strategically in order to negotiate meanings and construct particular identities. Speech choices depended on contextual and relationship variables such as age, marital and occupational status, degree of intimacy, and formality level of the situation. She concludes that the construct of
“Japanese women’s language” is more ideology than reality. This strong conclusion might be challenged on the grounds that historically gender-specific language patterns have certainly existed and current manifestations of these “genderlects” are also readily apparent in Japanese society. However, these genderlects, like all language, are dynamic and subject to change. In fact, it seems likely that the electronic environment that has become an almost universal platform for communication, particularly among youth, during the past decade has accelerated the pace of change in gender norms and as well as other dimensions of language.
Endo (2006) has pointed to some of the social tensions and power relations associated with language usage that are currently being contested within Japanese society:
Japanese women have been forced to use language contrary to their true feelings. Although many women I know dislike calling their husband shujin “master” because it implies they are his slave, they continue to use the word for fear of being labeled “haughty” or “strong-willed.” Many young women who refer to themselves as boku in junior high school change from boku to watashi because their parents and teachers scold them or because they give in to pressure from their surroundings. (p. 111)
Clearly, language within Japanese society represents a site of struggle where identities and social roles are being negotiated. This raises the issue of what happens when Japanese women switch languages—do their identities and linguistic choices change as a result of the shift to a different linguistic context? This is an issue that the present study investigates in the context of written language. Evidence that language switch may entail a partial identity shift is provided in a study by Ohara (1992) who investigated the pitch level of bilingual Japanese male and female students when they spoke Japanese and English. Ohara reported that male students showed no differences
20 in the pitch at which they spoke in Japanese and English but female students spoke at a significantly higher pitch in Japanese as compared to English. She attributed this difference to the gender ideology that dictates that it is desirable for Japanese women to speak at a higher pitch but they revert to a lower pitch in English when they are freed from this gender ideology.
What emerges from this review of “Japanese women’s language” is well expressed by
Miyazaki (2004) on the basis of her study of language usage among junior high school students:
The processes of creating actual speech and its meanings in a specific community reach far beyond the imagination of the fixed, dichotomous picture of traditional gender ideology. Such complex, contradictory, and unexpected processes can be understood only by following the naturally occurring linguistic practices of a specific community. (p. 270)
In short, social pressures to adopt gender-specific language styles continue to exist within
Japanese society but these pressures are being resisted in various ways by different communities and in different contexts. Thus, the situation is dynamic and fluid rather than being fixed and static. This pattern reflects the dynamics of identity negotiation and construction more generally.
Most of the research reviewed above has focused on gender influences on speech rather than on written language. However, we would expect similar types of identity and language interactions in the sphere of writing. For example, recent discussions on voice in second language writing have revealed the influence of broader social structures (Ivanic, 1998; Kubota,
2003). Ivanic noted that writers’ identities are socially constructed and writers locate themselves in the social identities available to them as members of a discourse community. As well, Kubota
(2003) suggested that it is important to give gender a part in a writer’s multiple identities and to investigate how the development of second language writing reflects, affects, and constructs gender identity. These issues are taken up in the present study. By interviewing female and male students about their writing and use of mediational means (Ivanic, 2003), I hope to find out how
21 their gender identity and beliefs impact their writing. The next section briefly considers concepts such as culture and identity insofar as they are relevant to writing behavior.
2.2.4. Ethnolinguistic background, social roles and identity
Because cultural differences in writing styles are a focus of my study, I outline in this section the meanings of the constructs of culture as well as identity, which is a core component of belonging to a particular cultural group. I am using the term culture to refer to the cumulative knowledge,
experience, beliefs, values, attitudes, and world views acquired by a group of people over the
course of generations. Culture is reflected in communication patterns that exist within a group.
I am using the term identity to refer to the perception of self that is manifested in the
communication patterns and behavior of individuals or groups. The construct is fluid, dynamic
and multidimensional rather than fixed (Cummins, 2001; Norton, 2000). Notions of identity can
include social identity, cultural identity, gender identity, national identity and other identities.
Language is a communication tool within which aspects of culture and identity are embedded.
As children acquire their first language, they are also acquiring aspects of the culture and identity
positions that are embedded in that language. After individuals leave their native environments
and go to new language and cultural environments, they are faced with learning not only
additional languages, but also the cultural perspectives and orientations that are embedded in
these languages (Lantolf, 1999). As with other forms of communication, writing reflects and
represents writers’ identities within social, cultural, and gender groups.
Heller (1988) has argued that membership within particular ethnolinguistic groups
impacts the individual’s social identity, which requires certain forms of language use and
behaviors that signify identification with the group. Heller (1988) also claimed that languages
may be “symbolized group identity and become emblems of that identity, especially when there
22 is contact with other groups whose ways of being are different” (p. 3). Thus social identity is enacted as social categories according to in-groups and out-groups. From this point of view, gender is a part of social identities, which means society recognizes and supports certain kinds of gender roles, such as women being more polite in both verbal and non-verbal communication
(e.g. Holmes, 1995; Lakoff, 1975). As noted above, however, these societal pressures are not static and are frequently resisted, with the result that they change over time and in different circumstances.
Similarly, other research on sociolinguistic differences emphasizes that human instincts also establish and maintain social identities (Chambers, 1995). The social identity of in-groups and out-groups clearly indicate that people do prefer to belong to their group, although
poststructuralists persist in arguing that there are no longer significant differences between male
and females in our rapidly changing society (Cameron, 1997a).
In language writing classrooms, the operation of gender roles and identity include both
teachers and students. As Ivanic (1998) has pointed out: “Writing is an act of identity in which
people align themselves with socioculturally shaped possibilities for self-hood, playing their part
in reproducing or challenging dominant practices and discourse, and the values, beliefs and
interests which they embody” (p. 32). This is illustrated in Graham’s (2002) observation that
female students use more first-person pronouns and parenthetical expressions in their writing
than males. According to Graham, this pattern signals the writer’s female identity to readers. In
contrast, the fact that male students used a larger number of judgmental adjectives and passive
verbs in their writing reflects their identification as man-beings in a male-dominated society.
How these gender roles and identities are reflected and constructed in learners’ L1 and L2
writing and how they are perceived by their instructor(s) is a major focus of my study.
23
2.3 Group Differences in Rhetorical Strategies
2.3.1. Contrastive rhetoric research
A number of researchers have claimed that Asian students tend to use indirect expressions to assert their points (Hinds, 1987). Other research studies have reported that Chinese, Japanese,
Korean, and Indonesian students use rhetorical questions to convey their “hesitations” and
“uncertainties” (Hinkel, 2002). Indeed, from the perspective of Chinese traditional rhetorical strategy, a rhetorical question may emphasize the writer’s key concern without offending the reader. This strategy is a form of politeness, because Chinese people pay attention to “face”.
“Saving face” for each other is important in Chinese communication. Maynard (1993) has also claimed that rhetorical questions in Japanese speech and writing convey the writer’s attitude including emphasis of points, accusation or persistence. Maynard (1993) also states that Japanese adverbial phrases play important roles in expressing the writer’s or speaker’s emotion and attitude.
The issue of how to interpret cultural differences in writing patterns and styles has been highly controversial (e.g., Connor, 1996, 2002, 2005; Hinds, 1981; Kaplan, 1966; Kubota, 1992,
1998; Kubota & Lehner, 2004, 2005). Specifically, are the rhetorical differences between cultural groups “real” in some objective and independent sense, as claimed by researchers such as Kaplan (1966) and Connor (1996, 2002, 2005), or are these differences reflective of “a historical, fixed, and simplistic definitions of cultural rhetoric” that ignore human agency and
“the multiple factors that may affect the structures and interpretations of L2 texts or texts in various languages” (Kubota & Lehner, 2004, p. 24). This issue is considered in the next section.
24
2.3.2. Controversies in contrastive rhetoric research
In developing contrastive rhetoric theory, Kaplan’s (1966) intent was to provide information to teachers who teach English as a Second Language (ESL) writing regarding differences between the typical discourse and rhetorical patterns used by Asian students and those favoured or prescribed in North American formal writing. In identifying and highlighting these patterns,
Kaplan attempted to alert teachers to the fact that what teachers might consider to be ESL learners’ “problematic” writing was actually a function of transfer of discourse and rhetorical patterns from their L1 to English. Subsequent contrastive rhetoric research (e.g., Connor, 1986;
Eggington, 1987; Hinds, 1987, 1990) elaborated on Kaplan’s original claims. As the field evolved during the 1990s, the understanding of discourse and rhetorical differences across languages shifted from a primary focus on linguistic variables to perspectives that drew from both cognitive and sociocultural considerations in addition to linguistic. As summarized by
Connor (2005), the existence of culturally preferred patterns of writing is real and derives from a range of complex historical, educational, cultural, and social factors.
Contrastive rhetoric claims have been extensively criticized by a number of researchers
(Kubota, 1992, 1998a, 1998b; Kubota & Lehner, 2004, 2005; Leki, 1997; Spack, 1997; Zamel,
1997). These writers have called attention to the “reductionist, deterministic, prescriptive, and essentialist orientation” of contrastive rhetoric and have highlighted the “plurality, complexity, and hybridity of rhetorical patterns within one language as well as similarities among languages or cultures” (Kubota & Lehner, 2004, p. 10). According to Kubota and Lehner (2004), analyses of texts written by experienced writers (e.g., newspaper or scholarly articles) show extensive similarities in discourse and rhetorical patterns across languages. They point out:
25
While many of the above studies analyzed published texts written by experienced writers, traditional contrastive rhetoric, with its pedagogical interest in ESL writing, has often analyzed L2 English texts to explore the cultural influence of the writers’ L1. However, such investigation tends to ignore the multiple factors that contribute to the process and product of L2 writing, such as L1 writing expertise, developmental aspects of L2 proficiency, and individual writers’ agency reflected in their intentions and preferences. (p. 12)
Kubota’s (1992, 1998a, 1998b) own research debunked the claim that Japanese students’ writing employs an inductive rather than a deductive style. She found no overall preference for inductive patterns among her 22 university student participants. Rather, there was a similarity of
L1 and L2 writing patterns and the choice of inductive versus deductive orientation depended on the purpose of writing; specifically, scientific writing tends to be more deductive whereas art and literature writing is more inductive.
Kubota (1992) claimed on the basis of her research that “ESL/EFL teachers must understand rhetoric in social, political, ideological and historical context which is implicated in unequal power relations” (p.164). Kubota and Lehner (2004) highlight the failure of traditional contrastive rhetoric to adopt a critical view of language and literacy as follows:
[t]raditional contrastive rhetoric … is largely concerned with acculturating students into dominant discourse conventions without significantly problematizing the ideology of literacy or power inequity. … With regard to culture, … traditional contrastive rhetoric assumes the existence of a set of fixed cultural conventions as the norm that is preferred in specific settings yet that differs from culture to culture. Traditional contrastive rhetoric is not concerned with the question of how power works to devalue or marginalize a certain language use that is different from a preferred norm; instead, it assumes the existence of rhetorical conventions as the status quo. (pp. 14-15)
Connor (2005) responded to Kubota and Lehner’s (2004) critique by arguing that they had misrepresented contrastive rhetoric by reducing and essentializing the entire field. She pointed out that many of those working in the contrastive rhetoric framework have focused on
26 providing learners of English with a varied repertoire of rhetorical strategies rather than attempting to impose the dominant variety and substituting it for the writing styles of their first languages and cultures. She also argues that studies purporting to show no differences in writing style between Japanese and North American students (Hirose, 2003; Kubota, 1992) are not convincing and concludes as follows:
In sum, a large body of contrastive rhetoric research and Kubota’s own research on Japanese scholarship points to culturally preferred patterns of writing. Reasons for these differences—educational, historical, social, cultural—are complex and need further investigation in all languages. (pp. 135-136)
Kubota and Lehner’s (2005) response to Connor’s critique reiterates their rejection of the underpinnings of traditional contrastive rhetoric, namely, the assumption that “there exist distinct patterns of written texts in different languages as an objective fact, almost devoid of any sociopolitical practices that shape our understanding of cultural rhetoric” (p. 137). They clarify their stance as follows:
Although we did not and do not argue that there are no cultural differences, we are proposing to move beyond merely discovering, describing, and thus perpetuating cultural differences as given. Instead, we are suggesting that we critically explore how cultural labels and images are produced and reproduced in contested discourses and how critical consciousness about taken-for-granted cultural knowledge can be fostered among teachers and students. (p. 138)
This debate reflects the dynamism and vitality of the field of contrastive rhetoric and cross-cultural teaching of writing generally. As Kubota and Lehner (2005) point out, the issue is not so much the influence of culture on writing but how it is interpreted for educational purposes.
This issue will be revisited in later chapters where I discuss my findings.
27
2.3.3. Chinese rhetorical strategies
The Chinese traditional rhetorical pattern “ qi-cheng-chuan-he ” ("Opening – Development -
Change - Conclusion") comes from Chinese classic poem writing during the Tang Dynasty (618
- 907) and Song Dynasty (960 - 1279) which was intended to make the poem persuasive and
exhibit a vague beauty. These qi-cheng-chuan-he rhetorical strategies were adopted in later
Chinese literature and Chinese persuasive writing, such as that practiced during the Qing
Dynasty (1644 -1912). These rhetorical patterns have also been handed down across generations and are still used in contemporary Chinese writing.
Nevertheless, because of the western cultural influence over the decades, contemporary
Chinese persuasive writing has changed somewhat from vaguer expressions to more direct expressions. However, Kaplan (1966) has claimed that from a contrastive rhetoric perspective,
Chinese writers still tend to be indirect, which means Chinese writers still do not fully follow the
Western writers’ pattern of putting a topic sentence at the beginning of the paragraph, followed by support sentences, and then drawing the conclusion. Young (1982) supported Kaplan’s theory by reporting that in Chinese business meetings, participants introduced their main points at the end. Connor (1996) and Hinds (1987) also claimed that Chinese writing displays this indirectness.
In my research I examine the extent to which these Chinese and Japanese rhetorical styles are represented in students’ L1 and L2 writing in a Canadian context.
A complicating factor in examining rhetorical styles among Chinese students is that, in recent years, many Chinese students and Chinese scholars have studied and mastered English rhetorical patterns in order to pass the English writing proficiency exams (TOFEL, GRE, IELTS, etc.) as a prerequisite to travelling overseas to study or to carry out research. Thus, most Chinese
28 students and Chinese scholars have formal English writing training when they prepare for
English writing proficiency exams. Therefore, after they have English writing training, their writing styles are likely to change in their first language writing. It is unclear to what extent these changes might affect only their English writing or also their Chinese writing.
2.3.4. Japanese rhetorical strategies
Traditional Japanese rhetoric has been highlighted as “ ki-sho-ten-ketsu ” (Opening –
Development – Change -- Conclusion) (Hinds, 1983; Kubota, 1992, 1998), a similar four-part rhetorical pattern to the Chinese and Korean pattern. In the system of ki-sho-ten-ketsu, the supporting points loop around the main point without creating a linear argument. The points are intended to only obliquely reference the main point; it is up to the reader to infer how this relates to the main thesis. There is no firm conclusion, only an ambiguous ending that may point to several possible outcomes. Japanese ki-sho-ten-ketsu is slightly different from Chinese “ qi- cheng-chuan-he”. The Chinese pattern derives originally from Chinese poem writing conventions.
Hinds (1987) claims that Japanese students’ writing adopts a “readers-responsibility” approach in which it is up to readers to infer the meaning. According to Hinds, the writer feels no obligation to write clearly for readers. This claim may not be adequate to explain writing patterns in the Japanese context. In the Japanese context, both speakers and listeners, and writers and readers, are supposed to understand by indirect expression. The indirectness is a kind of politeness within the Japanese context. Leaving the meaning open for readers to interpret, letting the reader reflect on what the writer wants to indicate is the Japanese cultural way. Thus, giving the choices of interpretation to the reader is seen as a way of respecting the reader.
29
An observation in James’ (2010) study of cross-linguistic transfer in university students’ writing supports the argument that many Japanese writers adopt a looser organizational structure in Japanese writing than they do when writing in English. The student in the excerpt below reports using the general essay structure (introduction—main point—conclusion) that she had learned in an English for Academic Purposes (EAP) course, a structure very different from what she used in Japanese writing:
Researcher: Did you consciously, you thought ‘‘I should use an introduction, body, conclusion’’? Participant: Yes, yes. Researcher: When you thought about the structure, and introduction, body, conclusion, did you think about [EAP106] or did you think about learning back in Japan? Participant: [EAP106]. Researcher: Is this something you talked about [in EAP106]? Participant: Yes. Researcher: Is this structure new for you? Participant: Because in Japanese, we don’t use this part, the introduction, body part, the conclusion. We just write. So I didn’t think about that before. So it’s kind of new. I know in English we have to write an introduction, body, conclusion, and when I came here and learned the [EAP106], or the other essay thing, I have to think about that. So yes, it is new. (James, 2010, p. 191)
With respect to the contrastive rhetoric of English and Japanese, Qi (1984) examined
Japanese students’ Japanese and English writing in Japan and American students’ English writing in the United States. He found firstly that Japanese students in Japan tended to use a specific-to-general pattern whereas Americans writing in English used fewer connectives than
Japanese writing in either English or Japanese. Secondly, Japanese students writing in both
English and Japanese tended to repeat the same word over and over again, while Americans
writing in English used synonyms. Japanese students frequently used personal expressions such
30 as “I think” or “I feel”. These patterns are also reflected in studies of persuasive writing, considered in the next section.
2.3.5. Rhetorical patterns in persuasive writing
Liu (2008) examined the rhetoric structure of English expository writing among three cultural groups in China (Tibetan, Mongolia and Han). Students in the study were third-year college
English majors in an cultural university attended by cultural students from different regions of
China. A total of 30 English language texts were collected from 10 Tibetan, Mongolian and Han students. The text was part of a test used by the university to determine the students’ English language proficiency level. Liu was specifically interested in the extent to which the traditional
Chinese rhetoric structure of Qi – Cheng – Zhuan – He (called QS by Liu) was transferred to
students’ English writing. Specifically, the following two questions were the focus of Liu’s study:
(1) What are the salient generic and rhetorical features of expository writing
in English by the Chinese cultural minority students?
(2) How are these features similar to, or different from, expository texts
composed by EFL students from the majority Chinese Han population?
Liu reported that the texts from all three groups reflected a combination of Anglo-
American and Chinese rhetoric. She also found that the QS structure is a common rhetorical
occurrence in the Tibetan, the Mongolian and the Han samples. She summarizes her main
finding as follows:
Basically, however, the three groups vary little in this regard. This suggests that the two cultural minorities’ texts are homogenous with the Han texts in terms of rhetorical sequence. Such a finding suggests that the subcultures share organisational patterns of writing with the dominant culture. (2008, p. 13)
31
Cultural differences also influence writers’ persuasive writing. Kubota (1992) compared expository and persuasive essays of both American students and Japanese students in their L1, and examined Japanese students’ L1 transfer in their English writing (L2). She found that many rhetorical patterns were shared by both languages and there was no indication that an inductive style with the main idea placed at the end was a preferred pattern in Japanese writing. She summarizes her findings as follows:
In this study, the Japanese expository group contained more essays with the main idea placed in the Final position than the English counterpart. However, all of the Japanese expository essays with the main idea in the Final position received scores below the mean. This indicates that although placing the main idea at the end may more likely happen in Japanese than in English … it may not be a “preferred” style. In the persuasive mode in both languages, … there were about an equal number of Japanese and English essays with the main idea placed in the Final position … This indicates that in writing on a persuasive topic such as the one used in this study, it may be that placing the main idea at the end is not a style specific only to Japanese nor is it necessarily a preferred style. (1992, p. 125)
Kubota goes on to argue that perceptions about rhetorical patterns associated with different languages should not be taken at face value but rather interrogated with respect to their origins and the sociopolitical purposes they serve. She concludes that “ESL/EFL teachers must understand rhetoric in a social, political, ideological and historical context which is implicated in unequal power relations” (p. 164).
According to Hyland (2001), persuasive writing as manifested in written academic argument, requires writers to develop an appropriate relationship with their readers; they are expected to demonstrate the truth supported by empirical evidence or flawless logic. That means the linguistic features in writers’ text should give audiences clear and coherent ideas and easy to refute claims. The arguments should convince readers that they are credible and persuasive. As
Hyland states, “Argument, results, and interpretations need to be presented in ways that readers
32 are likely find both credible and persuasive, and this means that writers must draw on familiar ways of expressing their arguments, representing themselves, and engaging their audiences”
(Hyland 2001, p. 549). Thus, persuasive writing is considered a “writer-reader dialogue”. In educational contexts, writers are generally students; readers are mostly educators. Students as writers need to “seek to balance claims for the significance, originality, and truth of their work against the conviction of their readers” (Hyland, 2001, p.550).
This writer-reader interaction has been examined according to writer-oriented features– for example, how writers build up their credible academic identity through self-mention (Hyland,
2001; Ivanic, 1998). This may result in differences in self-mention in written argument according to gender since women and men may express differences in their socioculturally influenced ways of thinking and writing, men frequently being stereotypically considered more competitive and productive while women are constructed as cooperative and emotional (Tannen, 1990, 1993;
Pavlenko & Piller, 2001). If these differences actually exist, they should, therefore, be represented and traceable in women’s and men’s writing.
Persuasive writing is important and difficult for second language learners. According to
Bermúdez and Prater (1994), persuasive writing involves more conflict than other forms of writing. Persuasive writing requires writers’ performance in “context-reduced” situations, because it needs writers to express abstract thoughts and more experiences with academic content and language. Writers need to provide enough evidence and elaborated roles to the readers. Writers need to read, think, respond and then compose and write down their ideas. Just as in speech behaviours writing reflects the individual’s own speech community and the patterns of interpersonal negotiation (Bermúdez & Prater, 1994; Wolfson, 1988).
33
People from different cultural backgrounds also have different persuasive strategies. Zhu
(2001), for example, contrasted English and Chinese cross-cultural persuasive strategies. She reported that English invitations were found to appeal strongly to logic whereas Chinese invitations, by contrast, tended to appeal both to logic and to the emotions. Zhu interpreted her findings as reflecting different ideologies of interpersonal communication across cultures. She suggested that English culture is more direct and logical in contrast to Chinese culture, which includes both logic and emotion. In fact, in my experience, Chinese culture attaches significant importance to the network ( Guanxi ). In order to maintain a good network, Chinese people try to treat people with respect. In a written context, as Zhu points out, Chinese people not only think how to achieve their communicative goals in a narrow sense but also tend to add some emotional words that connect them to the reader. Those emotional expressions typically reproduce the features of Chinese culture in which Chinese society believes emotional words will help people to reach their goals.
An issue which is related to contrastive rhetoric is the extent to which cross-linguistic transfer of linguistic and rhetorical features will occur in students’ writing. This issue is considered in the next section.
2.4 Cross-linguistic Transfer of Linguistic and Rhetorical Features
Yu (1996) carried out the only study that I have been able to locate that compared linguistic transfer effects among both Japanese and Chinese learners of English. Specifically, he examined transfer effects related to the use of motion verbs by Chinese and Japanese students in the
Canadian context. Yu points out that Chinese shares a similarity with English in how motion verbs are used whereas Japanese does not. Both groups of students performed three motion verb tasks in English. Yu reported that: “The study produced clear evidence that the Chinese learners
34 performed better than the Japanese learners on all the three motion verb tasks, demonstrating the facilitative role of cross-linguistic similarity in target lexical acquisition” (p. iii). He concluded that the item analysis carried out on the data “reveals that superior performance of Chinese learners can be attributed to the positive transfer of learners’ L1 knowledge” (p.181).
Yu’s (1996) study suggests that cross-linguistic transfer does occur at the lexical level
(see also Cummins, 2000 for an extensive review of cross-linguistic interdependence) and it raises the issue of the extent to which this kind of transfer might also occur at the rhetorical level.
Certainly, it might be expected that initial writing patterns in L2 would reflect L1 rhetorical habits but that this is unlikely to remain the case in contexts where L2 writing instruction explicitly rejects those patterns in favour of alternative L2-specific rhetorical and organizational patterns. This issue is examined in the present study.
2.5 Rationale for this Study and Research Questions
Previous studies that have focused on the influence of gender, culture, or L1 on L2 writing have been limited by the fact that they generally have not examined L1 and L2 together nor have they looked at the influence of culture and language in ways that incorporated more than one contrast across languages. In this study, I examine learners’ writing and perspectives on writing in order to explore the role of gender-related identity and cultural identity in their writing performance. I focus on the mediational means by which learners write and learn to be writers of English,
Chinese, Taiwanese, and Japanese in a university context in Canada.
Two basic hypotheses are investigated in the study: (1) Gender does exert an impact on the ways in which males and females engage in persuasive writing; (2) Cultural differences are reflected in students’ L1 and L2 writing. These hypotheses are elaborated in a number of specific research questions:
35
1. What differences and similarities in students’ L1 and L2 writing exist between males and
females within Chinese, Taiwanese and Japanese groups? What linguistic and writing
style features are different with respect to lexical, rhetorical structure, content and ideas?
2. To what extent do factors such as cultural and gender identity, and previous writing
experience influence writing patterns in L1 and L2?
3. To what extent can male and females’ perceptions of themselves, their social roles and
identities, be identified in their written discourse?
The next chapter outlines the methodology employed to gather and analyze the research data.
Chapter 3 Methodology
This chapter documents the context and participants of my research, the data I gathered, and my methods of analysis. The first section provides an overview of my study design. The next section describes procedures for data collection, including the recruitment of the participants, the process of each meeting, and the design of tasks. Then I describe the coding scheme and rating procedures for students’ writing, and I present inter-rater reliability data. Lastly, I highlight the statistical analyses and qualitative analyses of the texts and the stimulated recall that I conducted for each research question.
3.1 Design of the Study
I designed this research based on my many years of experience in teaching Japanese and Chinese in various language contexts and in many countries. I am familiar with the range of proficiency skills (listening, speaking, reading, and writing) and with typical patterns of strengths and weaknesses that students manifest. In particular, I have observed various cultural- and gender- related differences in students’ writing of persuasive compositions. In Chinese essays of students in a Canadian university, my initial observations suggested that females tended not to express their own opinions in their essays. Furthermore, it appeared that Chinese students’ patterns of writing and thinking differed from those of Japanese students. In this study, my goal is to examine the extent to which and the ways in which male and female students of Chinese and
Japanese origin write differently, particularly in regard to their expression of their own opinions and ideas.
36
37
In developing the design of the study, I drew on previous empirical research and theoretical accounts of writing performance (Cumming, 1988; Graham 2002; Hinkel, 2002;
Matsumoto, 2001; Shibamoto, 1987; Siegal & Okamoto, 2003; Yang et al., 2004 ). I also consulted the persuasive writing guide incorporated into the Grade 12 literacy test of the US
Department of Education. Hyland’s (2003) classification of different types of writing performance was used in designing the writing tasks. According to Hyland, the tasks in second language writing can be divided into two categories which he terms “real word tasks” and
“pedagogic tasks”. From the task component perspective, the tasks can be classified into three components: graphology, scaffolding and composing. Graphological tasks usually involve basic knowledge of writing, like handwriting, spelling, punctuation and other basic skills. Scaffolding tasks involve language familiarization (comparison, gap-fill, etc.), model analysis (reordering, transforming, etc.), guided composition (data transfer, information transfer, etc.). Composing tasks involve developing strategies and composition heuristics, including planning, rewriting, multi-drafting and extended writing. I adopted this framework in designing the writing prompts to investigate how students used various types of strategies in the composing process.
Most recent studies focus on either L1 or L2 only. As noted in the previous chapter, gender in Japanese language has been widely studied, particularly in Japanese women’s language
(e.g., Bohn, 2008; Matsumoto, 2001; Shibamoto, 1987; Siegal & Okamoto, 2003). However, there has been little research on how these gendered and cultural differences influence Japanese speakers’ L1 and L2 writing. My research attempts to fill these gaps in the research literature concerned with language, gender and identity in multilingual and the multicultural contexts. As a result, the research uses both L1 and L2 prompts and combines a focus on L1 and L2 writing
38 performance with an attempt to explore students’ insights and perspectives through the use of stimulated recall and student questionnaires.
To examine the three research questions, I conducted quantitative analyses for the first research question and addressed the other two research questions primarily through qualitative analysis. The results of the quantitative analysis for research question 1 are outlined in Chapter 4, and those for research questions 2 and 3 are presented in Chapters 5 and 6. For research question
1, an independent sample t Test and univariate and multivariation analysis of variance were used to analyze the data relating to 20 variables that measured aspects of students’ L1 and L2 writing.
Question 2 was addressed by coding students’ writing and stimulated recall transcripts on the 20 variables. For research question 3, I divided participants into three groups to look at their gender identity and cultural influences. I examined the extent to which metacognitive strategies were identifiable in students’ texts and in the information they provided in the interviews. Six students’ writing samples totaling 24 samples were used in these analyses.
3.2. Description of the Participants
A total of 23 graduate and undergraduate students from three cultural groups who were studying in a university in Canada participated in my study. The first group was comprised of eight graduate students (five females and three males) who were originally from Japan. The second group was comprised of seven Chinese graduate students (four females and three males) who were from Mainland China. The third group comprised four female and four male students who self-identified as being from Taiwan (one graduate and seven undergraduates). The participants’ major fields of study were varied. Slightly less than half of them were majoring in humanities and social sciences including Archaeology, Education, Economics, History, and East Asian studies. The remainder were majoring in Science, Engineering and Medical Science, specifically,
39
Computer Engineering, Actuarial Science, Chemical Engineering, Biochemistry , Medical
Radiation Science , and Neuroscience.
Most participants in the Japanese group claimed that they did not have Japanese writing training although they wrote Japanese essays in elementary school, junior high and high school.
However, for English writing (L2 writing), most Japanese participants had English training and had English writing experiences for 3.3 years on average. The participants in the Chinese group had been in Canada for five years on average. Half of the participants in the Chinese group claimed that they had Chinese writing training from elementary school. The average of their
English writing training was three years. The other half of the Chinese participants claimed they had no English writing training. They learned English writing by themselves. In the Taiwanese group, most participants were immigrants and they had been in Canada 8.2 years on average.
They had considerable English writing training from junior high and high school. Furthermore, they had extensive English writing experiences but much less training in Chinese (L1) writing.
Obviously, the Taiwanese-origin group differs from the other groups with respect to length of residence in Canada and location of their pre-university schooling. Although Mandarin was their L1 in the sense of chronological exposure to languages, for most English was their stronger language as a result of the fact that their schooling had been conducted primarily through English. I continue to use “L1” to refer to these students’ first language but the differences in L1 language dominance and proficiency between this group and the other two later-arriving immigrant groups should be borne in mind.
The group differences in L1/L2 experience between the groups means that comparisons between the Taiwanese and Chinese/Japanese groups must be treated with caution since the
40 groups are not equivalent on a number of background variables. Thus, all quantitative analyses of
L1 and L2 writing differences between the groups are exploratory, intended to point to variables that might be further investigated rather than demonstrating differences that can be attributed to cultural differences in rhetorical styles.
3.3. Data Collection Procedures
3.3.1. Recruitment of participants
I collected the data between October 2005 and March 2007. After I obtained approval for the study from the university ethical review committee, I posted recruitment notices on the bulletin boards in cafeterias and libraries of the campus at the university. I also explored personal contacts to find participants who would fit the cultural background and gender criteria for participation. I recruited the participants from various departments and different universities. I delivered the information letter (Appendix A) to the participants and explained to them the purpose of my study at the very first meeting. After each participant indicated an interest in participating in my study, we exchanged contact information including the phone number and email to confirm the date of our next meeting.
3.3.2. Meeting with participants
At the beginning of the meeting, each participant was asked to read the information letter and consent form (Appendix B). Participants were encouraged to ask me questions for clarification if they did not understand very well. Afterwards, each participant was asked to sign the consent form. I met participants individually to administer the writing tasks and stimulated-recall interviews in a quiet room of the university. Each meeting for the writing tasks took about 2.5 to
41
3 hours (Each task took 30 minutes because I designed the tasks based on the requirements of the
TOFEL test). Each stimulated-recall took 30 – 40 minutes (I met each student twice).
At the beginning of each session, I explained to each participant about the duration and requests of each writing task. Each participant was asked to write two English essays and two
Japanese or Chinese essays (Japanese students wrote Japanese essays, Chinese and Taiwanese students wrote Chinese essays).
For the stimulated-recall, I met each participant within two days after he or she had finished the writing tasks. The meeting was held within this short time frame in order to ensure that participants’ memory of the tasks would be fresh.
3.4 Tasks
3.4.1. Task design
The tasks that I designed were based on Hyland’s (2003) research. One task was designed to connect with participants’ real world experience while the other was a scaffolded task in which a writing prompt was provided. Participants were interviewed twice about their writing performance, once for the English writing and once for their L1 writing (Mandarin Chinese or
Japanese). I conducted the stimulated-recall in English. Some of participants answered me in
English, but some of them preferred to answer me in Japanese or Chinese in order to make their answer more clear. Table 3.1 outlines the specific writing tasks that participants completed.
42
Table 3.1
Writing Tasks
First Language First Language Second Language Second Language
Writing Task1 Writing Task 2 Writing Task1 Writing Task 2
Japanese group In Japanese In Japanese In English In English
Chinese group In Chinese In Chinese In English In English
Taiwanese group In Chinese In Chinese In English In English
3.4.2. Design of the writing prompts
In order to avoid students’ translating from their L1 writing to L2 writing, I specified different
topics and styles of writing for the L1 and L2 tasks. The topics of the two English writing
prompts were more formal and more academic whereas the topic of the Japanese and Chinese
writing prompts were more informal. Moreover, the two English writing prompts were context-
reduced (Cummins, 2000) because all participants were studying in universities in Canada. A
more academic or formal writing task was considered appropriate because this is the kind of
writing that students employ in their academic study in Canada. On the other hand, the Japanese
and Chinese (L1) writing prompts were more informal and context-embedded corresponding to
the real-life or everyday contexts in which these languages are likely to be used.
With respect to the content, time, and the writing length of tasks, I drew on the
procedures elaborated in the TOFEL test. The writing tests of the new TOFEL focus primarily on
academic contexts. As Cumming et al. (2005, p. 3) claimed, “Authenticity should be a
fundamental criterion for the validity of tasks that aim to evaluate how well people can really
43 communicate in a language.” Because the participants are all university students studying in
English, authenticity of the English writing tasks implies a focus on academic contexts.
The timing of the tasks was also influenced by the procedures adopted by the National
Assessment of Educational Progress (NAEP) tests administered to school-aged students in the
United States. Grade 12 students taking the NAEP writing tests were given 25 minutes to complete the writing task based on a prompt. Furthermore, writing studies conducted at the university level have shown that 30 minutes is suitable for college students to write 300 words or
1-2 pages (Graham, 2002; Janseen & Murachver, 2004). Thus, the present study allowed participants 30 minutes to complete each writing task.
For the design of the L1 writing tasks, I drew on my teaching experiences in the various universities where I have been teaching. The writing tests involving Japanese and Chinese languages for undergraduates in the universities in which I taught usually allowed 30 minutes for writing between 400 and 600 characters. In this study, the Japanese group wrote on average 400
Japanese characters and the Chinese and Taiwanese group also wrote approximately 400 Chinese characters. Most of the participants used word processing to complete the writing tasks except for two participants who preferred to use handwriting. I later word-processed these two students’ writing.
3.4.3. Topics of writing tasks
Each participant was asked to write in response to four prompts in letter format, two of which were written in their first language and the other two in English. The English writing prompts asked students (a) to write a letter to the vice-president of a university to state the writer’s opinion regarding a tuition fee increase, and (b) to write a letter for a job application. The L1
44 writing prompts (Chinese/Japanese) asked students (a) to write a letter to their landlord to complain about a problem with the heating system, and (b) to write a letter to invite the writer’s partner to go to a concert. All these four writing prompts require students to state their own opinion with evidence about why or why not the reader should support their opinions.
3.5. Language Background and Experiences Questionnaire
In order to investigate the relationship between the linguistic performance of participants and their previous writing experiences, I designed a questionnaire based on Graham’s (2002) study.
The questionnaire was designed to obtain background information that might be useful in interpreting the patterns of participants’ writing performance in L1 and L2. With the exception of one female student who missed the stimulated recall interview, all participants completed the L1 and L2 writing tasks and the interviews.
3.6 Data Analysis
3.6.1. Coding and rating of writing texts
In order to compare students’ L1 and L2 writing, I evaluated students’ English writing with respect to both lexical and rhetorical features. The goal was to explore how lexical and rhetorical features in participants’ writing were related to the variables of gender, culture, and language background. Previous studies of contrastive rhetoric (Connor & Kaplan, 1987; Graham 2002;
Hinkel, 2002) have focused on the contrasts between two languages but are somewhat limited by virtue of the fact that their findings are limited to those two language contexts. Because the present study focuses on three languages a broader set of generalizations are potentially possible.
The English and Japanese essays were rated by two raters, one a native-speaker of the language and the second a non-native speaker. The Chinese essays were rated by one native
45
Mandarin speaker. All of the raters had extensive language teaching experiences in different universities involving Japanese, Mandarin Chinese, or English teaching.
In coding the placement of the main ideas, I originally planned to code for three possible placement locations (beginning, middle, end) based on previous empirical studies (i.e. Hinkle,
2002; Kubota, 1993, 1998). However, it turned out that no student placed the main idea at the end of their essays, so the coding scheme was reduced to two categories: (i) at the beginning; (ii) in the middle.
In coding the Japanese essays, I focused primarily on the lexical features in students’ essays. Japanese is a gendered language in which Japanese women have traditionally been expected to use more polite and feminine language whereas Japanese men use more male- oriented or less formally polite language. In addition to analysis of male-female differences in lexical features, I also use case studies to illustrate salient features in Japanese females’ and males’ writing.
For the Chinese essays, I focused on the lexical, rhetorical and organizational features of the writing. One consideration in analyzing students’ writing is that simplified Chinese differs from the traditional writing system with respect to gender markers. For example, as pointed out by Cook and Bassetti (2005, p. 19), in third person pronoun, there are three different written forms in simplified Chinese: ta 他 (masculine), 她 (feminine), 它 (neutral). By contrast, there are five forms in the Taiwanese variety of the Chinese writing system for the same sound in spoken language: 他 (masculine), 她 (feminine), 它 (inanimate entities), 牠 (for animal), 祂 (for divine entities). Most of the participants’ Chinese essays were written in simplified Chinese characters
46 in both the Mainland Chinese group and the Taiwanese group. Only two Taiwanese participants’
Chinese essays were written in traditional Chinese characters.
3.6.2. Coding details
From the language family perspective, Japanese belongs to the Altaic language family whereas
Chinese is affiliated with the Sino-Tibetan language family. English is an Indo-European language. These three languages are completely different. For instance, from a grammatical perspective, the typical structure of English expression is subject + verb + object (SVO) whereas that of Japanese is subject + object + verb (SOV). The grammar structure of Chinese is also SVO but the position of clauses in the sentence differs from that in English. How students use these languages in their writing is a major focus of my study.
3.6.2.1. Selected linguistic elements
Because of the linguistic differences between Japanese, Chinese and English, I selected the following linguistic features in order to examine my first research question.
(1) Personal Pronouns—First, Second and Third Person Pronouns : Many studies show
that use of first-person pronouns is related to feminine language (Hyland, 2001; Janssen &
Murachver 2004). The Japanese language avoids using first-person pronouns, because the
first-person pronouns are interpreted as “talking big” which violates conventions of Japanese
language usage. Japanese people always speak in polite ways to show their humility. On the
other hand, regarding pronoun usage in Japanese, Kanaya (2002) claimed that Japanese also
needs subjects in sentences similar to English whereas some other researchers claim that in
Japanese it is not necessary to use pronouns that indicate people. Thus, I was interested to
know how Japanese students used the first-person pronouns in their L1 and L2 writing, and
47 also how Chinese and Taiwanese students used the first-person pronouns in their L1 and L2 writing.
(2) Demonstrative pronouns point to and identify a noun or a pronoun. "This" and "these" refer to things that are nearby either in space or in time, while "that" and "those" refer to things that are farther away in space or time.
(3) The use of intensifiers, underlining, exclamation points, and references to emotion are typically considered feminine language since they are viewed as reflecting more emotional writing (Graham, 2002).
(4) Adjectives are considered reflective of masculine language since previous literature has suggested that masculine language is less concerned with being polite (Graham 2002,
Holmes, 1995). The polite strategies that seek agreement or avoidance of complex disagreement reflect the orientation of women to be more “cooperative”. On the other hand, the first person pronoun is consistently thought to be feminine language, because women write more subjectively and employ more personal experiences.
(5) Adverbs: According to Hinkel (2002), Japanese and Chinese students used adverbs or particles to express duration or continuity.
(6) Passive voice is generally considered as reflective of masculine language since it reflects a more abstract perspective (Hyland, 2001; Oxford, 1994)
(7) Rhetoric strategies and conjunctions usage consist of logical, ethical and emotional appeals, according to Graham’s study. These three dimensions appeared originally in
Aristotle’s book on Rhetoric , and also have been used to evaluate students’ persuasive
48
writing throughout the literature. According to Graham, emotional appeals are traditionally
viewed as feminine; in contrast, ethical appeals are thought of as masculine. According to
Aristotle, rhetoric is the ability, in each particular case, to see the available means of
persuasion. He distinguishes three appeals in rhetoric-- ethos, logos, and pathos. Ethos refers
to “moral and moral characters” or “moral competence”. Logos refers to “words” and more
broadly as rational discourse. Pathos represents an appeal to the audience’s emotion and
often employs metaphor and storytelling to generate an emotional connection with the
audience.
(8) Cultural or Cultural Influences: Some research has investigated the differences in
rhetorical patterns between Chinese and English (Xiao, 2000; Hu, 1992), and the differences
between Japanese and English (Kubota, 1992; Kobayashi, 1984). In Chinese writing, Hu
(1992) claims that there is no persuasive pattern in Chinese writing. However, Xiao (2000)
investigated public speech and advertisements, and found that Chinese persuasive discourse
does include two dimensions of Aristotle’s basic rhetorical framework, namely, logical
appeals and ethical appeals. However, Xiao did not mention whether emotional appeals exist
in Chinese persuasive discourse. Xiao mentioned that in Chinese persuasive discourse
analogy, idioms, and historical examples are essential parameters. This study will mainly
focus on examining the differences of rhetoric patterns between Chinese and Japanese in
students’ persuasive writing; and how their L1 influences L2 writing.
3.6.2.2. Metacognitive strategies
Flavell (1976) first used the word “metacognition”. He describes it in these words:
“Metacognition refers to one’s knowledge concerning one’s own cognitive processes or anything related to them, e.g., the learning-relevant properties of information or data” ( p. 232). Grabe
49
(2002) claims that metacognitive knowledge permits students to reflect on their preplanning, goal setting, processing of tasks, monitoring of progress, recognition of problems and repair of these problems. In the present study, I analyzed the transcribed interview protocol and the questionnaire data using an adaptation of Baba’s five measurements of metacognitive strategies together with one additional measure. These are outlined in Table 3.2.
Table 3.2 Metacognitive Strategies in L1 and L2 Writing L1 Writing L2 Writing
1. Self-awareness Self-awareness Self-awareness (regulation) (regulation)(marking, memos, (regulation) in L1 writing in L2 writing outline, mopping, underline)
2. Macrostructure (Developing Macrostructure (L1 Macrostructure (L2 structures in the text, revising the writing) writing) paragraphs, or editing the text)
3. Key ideas Key ideas (L1 writing) Key ideas (L2 writing)
4. Key words Key words (L1 writing) Keywords (L2 writing)
5. Thinking patterns Think in L1 a. Thinking in L1, then translates into L2 b. Thinking in L2 directly, and wrote in L2
6. Previous knowledg e resource Previous knowledge Previous knowledge ( Knowledge of formal scheme, resource (L1 writing) resource (L2 writing) background knowledge, L1 and L2 mixed up)
50
The coding scheme consisted of six categories for both L1 and L2 writing. These categories are: self- awareness (regulation), macrostructure, key ideas, key words, use of L1and L2 in thinking, and previous knowledge resources . Self- awareness (regulation) indicates some visualization such as essay planning, mapping, word selection, and outline. Macrostructure involves student’s competence in analyzing and organizing essays. Key ideas are associated with whether the student presents his/her main ideas in the writing, and develops the main ideas logically.
Key words are followed by the key ideas, which indicate how learners use some specific words to develop their key ideas. Previous knowledge resource concerns how students adopt their skills, previous experiences and knowledge into their L1 and L2 writing.
These metacognitive strategies were used only in the analysis of the interviews and questionnaires. All the analyses are based on the students’ answers, how they comprehended the tasks and what strategies they used during the writing of the L1 and L2 essays. The coding schemes also helped to answer Research Question 3. I used pseudonyms to refer to participants in the protocols. Here is an example of Kimiko (K: a female Japanese graduate; R: me as a researcher):
R: How did you begin planning this composition? Did you make a plan or jot down your ideas ? Did you read a lot? What else? Tell me how you did that. Can you give me some examples?
K: Yes, I did.
R: 4 essays?
51
K: No, for both English ones, I wrote ideas first, and think for one. For the job application one I did same thing. And but for one of them, I didn’t do like write answer before starting writing.
R: The Japanese one?
K: ah…
R: So you mean that for the English essays, you wrote down the ideas first, but for the
Japanese essays you didn’t write ideas first
K: only one (Note: Kimiko wrote ideas first only in one Japanese essay)
As outlined earlier, interviews were conducted in English, Japanese and Chinese.
However, after I transcribed all the interview protocols, I translated the Japanese and Chinese protocols into English. The interaction above was conducted in both English and Japanese.
3.7 Analyses of the Data
For Research Question 1, I employed independent sample t Tests and univariate and multivarariate analysis of variance to analyze the pattern of results. Independent sample t Tests evaluate the difference between the mean of two independent groups” (Green & Salkind, 2008, p.175) and therefore I used this procedure to analyze differences between the two gender groups.
I employed a one-way ANOVA to analyze the differences among three cultural groups, because
“The ANOVA F test evaluates whether the group means on the dependent variable differ significantly from each other” (Green & Salkind, 2008, p.183). As noted above, this analysis of differences among the cultural groups is intended to highlight aspects of within group language choices that may be worthy of further investigation rather than identifying actual rhetorical differences between the groups.
52
For Research Questions 2 and 3, I used case studies to investigate the contribution of identity on the students’ L1 and L2 writing performance. Research Question 1 is addressed in
Chapter 4 while Chapters 5 and 6 attempt to provide answers to Research Questions 2 and 3. In analyzing participants’ English essays, I focused on lexical, rhetorical, and organizational aspects of the data. For rhetorical patterns, I adopted nonparametric procedures to examine the main idea placement in students’ L1 and L2 writing. My analysis of the influence of gender went beyond just quantitative comparison of females’ and males’ writing performance. I also integrated an analysis of features occurring naturally in students’ writing with information derived from interviews and stimulated recall transcripts.
3.7.1. Analyzing rhetoric
In analyzing rhetorical strategies, I employed Aristotle’s three fundamental strategies for persuasion—appeals to the logical (logos), ethical (ethos ) and emotional (pathos) sentiments which are described in Aristotle’s book On Rhetoric. These three appeals have been used to evaluate students’ persuasive writing in previous research (e.g., Graham 2002; Ramage & Bean,
1995) and throughout the extensive philosophical literature on rhetoric. It is generally agreed that strong arguments will balance these three appeals.
3.7.1 .1. Logical appeal
A handout from the university writing centre which a number of the participants attended described logical appeal as follows: “Logical appeal is the strategic use of logic, claims, and evidence to convince an audience of a certain point.” The writer uses the elements of a clear claim, strong evidence (e.g., statistics, personal experiences, acknowledgement of the point by the opposition) to persuade the audience.
53
3.7.1. 2. Ethical Appeal
The same handout from the university writing centre described ethical appeal (ethos) as follows: ethical appeal “is used to establish the writer as fair, open-minded, honest, and knowledgeable about the subject matter. The writer creates a sense of him or herself as trustworthy and credible.” The writer needs to provide adequate information relevant to the topic with confidence, sincerity, and honesty. The writer also needs to take into consideration the reader’s concern and other possible objections to the point she or he is arguing.
3.7.1 .3. Emotional Appeal
Emotional appeal (pathos) targets the emotions of the reader and makes connections between the reader and the writer. Adjectives and adverbs are usually used to emphasize the emotional expression. The function of emotional appeals is to reinforce logical appeals, and highlight the beauty, color, humor, and sympathy of the position being promoted. Appeal to pathos is a very powerful strategy because humans are highly emotional in many ways.
3.7.2. Pattern-based case studies
I employed pattern-based case studies to further analyze my data. The goal of these case studies was to contrast the gender, cultural group and identity influences on students’ writing. Because the number of participants in my study is small-scale for quantitative analysis, but a significant number for qualitative analysis, I examined individuals as specific cases and looked for patterns across cases in order to identify broader trends in the data.
54
Chapter 4 Linguistic and Rhetorical Variation in Writing Performance
Chapter 4 presents the findings for Research Question 1, including results of both the descriptive and ANOVA analyses. This documents the context and the variation in linguistic and rhetorical features in participants’ writing. The first section gives an overview of the framework of my research. In the next section, I introduce the participants of the three groups and describe the process for administering the writing tasks and interviews. Lastly I outline the linguistic and rhetorical features that the three groups exhibited in their writing.
4.1. Overview
As described in Chapter 3, the participants came from three different countries--Japan, China and
Taiwan. There were 23 participants in total, 13 (56%) females and 10 (44%) males. Some participants were immigrants and some of them were international students. The numbers in the different cultural groups were similar (see Table 4.2). There were eight (35%) Japanese, seven
(30%) Chinese, and eight (35%) Taiwanese. Nine (39%) participants were Doctoral students, seven (30.4%) of them were Masters students and seven were undergraduates. Eleven (47.8%) participants were immigrants and twelve (52.2%) were international students. The age ranges of participants were: 18-22 (13%), 23-27 (43.5%), 28-32 (21.7%), and over 33 (21.7%).
4.2 Backgrounds of the Three Cultural Groups
In this section, I will address the background of the three cultural groups. With respect to family education background, the parents’ education of the Chinese group is highest whereas that of
55
Taiwanese group is lowest with the parents’ education of the Japanese group in the middle. I will introduce the details of each group in the next section.
4.2.1 The Japanese group
There were five female students and three male students in the Japanese group. They were all graduates who were studying in Canadian universities. Four Masters students and four Doctoral students participated in my study. All participants from the Japanese group had finished their undergraduate studies in Japan, and then they came to Canada to pursue their Masters or
Doctoral degree. Some of them had studied in the United States or Canada for a while before they came to pursue their higher degree. Some of them had studied English as their major when they were undergraduates in Japan. All the students’ names in my dissertation are pseudonyms.
The Japanese students’ profiles are shown in Table 4.1.
56
Table 4.1
Japanese Group
Student ID Pseudonym Gender Age Native Years in Years Years Status
Language English of L1 of L2
Environment Writing Writing
S1 Ayano Female 28-32 Japanese 5 3 7 International
S2 Ayumi Female 23-27 Japanese 3 10 4 International
S3 Kimiko Female 23-27 Japanese 2 6 6 International
S4 Sachiko Female 23-27 Japanese 2 6 2 International
S5 Mayumi Female 23-27 Japanese 3 8 3 International
S6 Yoshihiro Male 28-32 Japanese 4 10 6 Immigrant
S7 Kosaku Male 23-27 Japanese 3 8 2 International
S8 Daisuke Male 33 and Japanese 4 6 10 International over Average 3.3
4.2.1.1 Japanese female participants
S1. Ayano
Ayano, is a 5 th year female Ph.D. student. Her research is in the area of the social sciences. She
came to Canada after she finished her Masters degree in Japan. She had been in Canada for
almost five years. Ayano had engaged in Japanese writing during her schooling and university
studies in Japan but had no formal writing training. She had published some Japanese articles.
With respect to English writing, Ayano started to write in English for academic purposes when
she was doing her Masters degree in Japan.
57
S2. Ayumi
Ayumi is a 2 nd year Masters student in the area of social sciences. Her goal is to continue her
Ph.D. study after she finishes the Masters program. She studied pedagogy for her first Masters degree in Japan. She had learned Mandarin Chinese in Japan for three years, and then she had been to China for five weeks for language training. Ayumi took English as a second language courses (ESL) for six months in Japan and took ESL for one year in Canada. She considered
Japanese writing to be much easier than English because that was the language in which she wrote during all her studies up to her first Masters degree in Japan.
S3. Kimiko
Kimiko is a 2 nd year Masters student who is also studying in the area of social sciences. She came to Canada to pursue her Masters degree. She had her native language (Japanese) education before she entered a university for undergraduate study in Japan. After she entered university, her major was English language and literature. Therefore, she had formal English training for four years. After she graduated from the university, she came to Canada to pursue her Masters degree.
S4. Sachiko
Sachiko is a 2 nd year Masters student. She came to Canada to pursue a graduate degree. She is also studying in the area of the social sciences. Her undergraduate study was psychology in
Japan. She took an English writing course in Canada for six weeks. She emphasized that the
English writing, especially academic writing needs to be more clear whereas Japanese writing allowed more vagueness.
58
S5. Mayumi
Mayumi is also a 2nd year Masters student. Her study area is social science as well. Mayumi learned several languages. Her native language was Japanese. She learned English for four years.
She also learned some French when she was as an exchange student in Montreal for a year. And she also knows some Japanese sign language. She had been working with some deaf students in
Japan. Mayumi learned how to write academic essays in Japanese when she was in high school and in university in Japan. She took regular English language arts course in Junior/Senior, high school, which was a required English course (writing, reading, conversation) in Japan. She also took an ESL (English as second language) course for one year.
4.2.1.2 Japanese Male Participants
Japanese men occupy a dominant position in Japanese society in comparison to Japanese women.
This dominance is reflected in language use. From a linguistic perspective, Japanese men use less formal language than Japanese women in spoken language.
S6. Yoshihiro
Yoshihiro is a 4 th year Ph.D. student. His research is in the area of humanities. He came to
Canada after he finished his Masters degree in Japan. Yoshihiro claimed that he did not learn
how to write Japanese essays during his education in Japan. But he had some English writing
training after he came to Canada. He took an English writing course for six weeks, and the
instructor guided students in ways to write effective English essays. He took English classes in
junior high school, high school, and during his undergraduate program in university. These
classes at school in Japan tend to focus on grammar. Yoshihiro also took English conversation
classes at a private school in Japan.
59
S7. Kosaku
Kosaku is a 2 nd year Ph.D. student. His research is in the area of the social sciences. He came to
Canada to pursue his Ph.D. degree after he finished his Masters degree in Japan. He studied as an exchange student in the United States for a year when he was doing his Masters degree. When
Kosaku was a high school student, he had to prepare for examinations and the essays in the examination always included persuasive writing. He prepared for the entrance examination of the university intensively by writing a persuasive essay once a week. For English writing, Kosaku took two English writing courses in Canada.
S8. Daisuke
Daisuke is a 4 th year Ph.D. student in the area of social sciences. He came to Canada to pursue
his Ph.D. degree after he finished his Masters degree in linguistics in the United States. Dasuke
claimed that he often had trouble in the kind of writing assessed by the TOFEL (Test of English
as a Foreign Language) test because the topics were seldom of interest or meaningful to him.
Throughout his school days, he had little opportunity to practice persuasive writing. Writing
tasks mostly involved responses to books or articles that the students had read.
4.2.2 The Chinese group
All participants of the Chinese group came from Mainland China. Some of them had native-
speaker interactions and exposure to English before they came to Canada (e.g., they had studied
in the United States). Five of the Chinese students were immigrants and two of them were
international students. They spoke various languages as their L1. Four of them were native
Mandarin speakers, three of them reported both a Chinese dialect and Mandarin as their L1.
From the perspective of parents’ educational background, the Chinese group had the highest
60 level of completed education among the parents. The profiles of the Chinese participants are shown in Table 4.2.
Table 4.2
Chinese Group
Student Pseudonym Gender Age Native Years in Years Years of Status
ID Language English of L1 L2
Environment writing Writing
S9 Elaine Female 33over Mandarin 5 15 7 Immigrant
S10 Brianna Female 33 over Mandarin 6 10 8 Immigrant
/Chinese
dialect
S11 Angela Female 23-27 Mandarin 2 12 4 International
/Chinese
dialect
S12 Helen Female 28-32 Mandarin 5 10 4 Immigrant
S13 Edward Male 28-32 Mandarin 6 12 10 International
S14 Sam Male 33 over Mandarin/ 5 10 7 Immigrant
Chinese
dialect
S15 Hank Male 28-32 Mandarin 6 10 7 Immigrant
Average 5
4.2.2.1 Chinese female participants
S9. Elaine
61
Elaine is a 2 nd year Ph.D. student. Her major is science engineering. Elaine immigrated to
Canada five years prior to the start of the study. She was exposed to extensive writing tasks from
her elementary school years through her university education. After graduation she searched for
jobs that required her to write numerous job application letters. Elaine has taught in a university
for ten years. During her ten years teaching career, she has written papers, reports and research
proposals in both Chinese and English.
S10. Briana
Briana had just recently graduated from her Masters program. Her native language is a Chinese
dialect but she learned Mandarin in schools in China. She only used Chinese dialect at home or
with her friends in China. She received first Bachelor’s degree in English literature in China.
After she worked for a few years, she immigrated to Canada. Then she changed her major to
Actuarial Science and continued to pursue her Masters degree. Briana felt that English writing
was much easier for her because she did not write any Chinese essays after she entered university
in China. She was largely immersed in an English environment after that. However, when
Briana was in high school, she wrote a lot of Chinese essays, some of which were published.
S11. Angela
Angela was a 2 nd year Masters student. Her major was economics. She had been in Canada for
1.5 years. She had her first Masters degree in China, and then she came to Canada to learn more
western economics. She attended an intensive English training school in China which prepared
students who wanted to study in North America for the TOEFL and the GRE (Graduate Record
Examination). Angela’s native language was a Chinese dialect, but her education was in
Mandarin before she came to Canada.
62
S12. Helen
Helen is a 3 rd year undergraduate. Her major is science. She obtained her first Bachelor’s degree in China. After she came to Canada, Helen pursued her second Bachelor’s degree. For her first language writing, she had learned how to write persuasive essays in middle and high school. She prepared for the TOFEL by herself and did not attend any TOFEL class.
4.2.2.2. Chinese male participants
S13. Edward
Edward is a 4 th year Ph.D. student in humanities. He finished his undergraduate degree in
English literature in China. Then he went to the United States to pursue his Masters degree. After
that, he came to Canada to continue his Ph.D. study. Edward had some Chinese writing
experiences in college and he gained a lot of English writing practice at the graduate level.
Edward’s native language is a Chinese dialect, but he had Mandarin education in schools. This is
the same pattern as that of the other Chinese students--they spoke Chinese dialects at home or
with their friends, but they used Mandarin at school. This pattern derives from the language
policy in China which states that Mandarin is the national language and thus everyone has to
acquire it.
S14. Sam
Sam was a 5 th year Ph.D. student in science. He finished his undergraduate and Masters degrees in China. He came to Canada to pursue his Doctoral degree. With respect to first language writing experiences, Sam claimed that he did not receive explicit instruction in how to write
Chinese essays in either elementary or secondary school. Although teachers sometimes gave students topics to write about, Sam did not develop a sense of expertise in his ability to write
63
Chinese essays. He claimed that writing is his weakness. With respect to English writing, he learned how to write English essays when he was preparing for the TOEFL.
S15. Hank
Hank is also a 5th year Ph.D. student. His major is engineering. He came to Canada to pursue his
Doctoral degree after he obtained his Masters degree in China. Hank claimed that he was a scientific person. When he wrote papers, he always followed a logical approach. Hank felt that
Chinese writing was much easier than English writing.
4.2.3 The Taiwanese group
The Taiwanese group had eight participants, seven undergraduates and one graduate. Thus the
Taiwanese group is younger, on average, than the Chinese or Japanese group. Their majors are various. Most of Taiwanese students in my study were immigrants. Some came to Canada as preschoolers and some came in elementary or junior high school. Those who came as preschoolers can be regarded as having virtual native-speaker ability in English even though
English is not their L1. Their linguistic situation is further complicated by the fact that several also had exposure to Taiwanese at home. One of the Taiwanese students was a Japan-born
Taiwanese. Her background and her writing were particularly interesting and I elaborate on her experiences and profile in a case study. The summary information on the Taiwanese group is shown in Table 4.3.
64
Table 4.3
Taiwanese Group
Student ID Pseudonym Gender Age Native Years in Years of Years of Status
Language English L1 L2
Environment writing Writing
S16 Cindy Female 23-27 Mandarin 10 6 10 International
S17 Winnie Female 23-27 Mandarin 11 3 11 Immigrant
S18 Brook Female 18-22 English 13 1 13 Immigrant
S19 Penny Female 23-27 Japanese/ 4 International
Taiwanese
S20 Felipe Male 33 over Taiwanese 5.5 9 6 International
S21 David Male 23-27 Taiwanese/ 15 3 10 Immigrant
Mandarin
S22 Bill Male 18-22 Taiwanese 12 1 10 Immigrant
S23 Mark Male 18-22 Mandarin 11 3 8 Immigrant
Average 8.2
4.2.3.1. Taiwanese female students
S16. Cindy
Cindy was a 4 th year undergraduate in humanities. She came to Canada when she was 11 years
old. She finished her grade 7 in Taiwan, and came to Canada to continue her junior high and high
school education. Her native language is Mandarin. Cindy claimed that she never wrote Chinese
essays after she came to Canada. She learned some classic Chinese in Taiwan but forgot lot of
Chinese words and writing skills after immigration. She only used Mandarin with her parents
65 after she came to Canada. She learned how to write persuasive and narrative essays in high school (in English). She took a course focused on English writing in high school. So she felt more comfortable writing an English essay than writing a Chinese essay.
S17. Winnie
Winnie was a 2 nd year undergraduate in humanities. She came to Canada when she was in grade
3 in elementary school. She spoke Mandarin with friends and relatives, but her parents spoke
Taiwanese. Sometimes Winnie spoke Taiwanese with her parents. She did not have Chinese
writing experiences after she came to Canada. She found it difficult to find appropriate words
when she wrote the Chinese essay in my study. She also felt that persuasive writing was most
difficult, because she did not know how to persuade people.
S18. Brook
Brook was a 2 nd year undergraduate in humanities. She is the youngest female student in my study. Brooke came to Canada when she was six years old. She learned some Mandarin in kindergarten in Taiwan. After she came to Canada, she did not learn Mandarin. Therefore, Brook considered that her native or first language was English. Brook wanted to find a position teaching English in China after graduation from the university.
Regarding her writing experiences, she claimed that:
In elementary school, we were taught how to write a general formal essay. For example how not to start a sentence with “because” and use “do not” instead of “don’t”. We also learned that first person narrative is most persuasive because a story that is told from third-person’s point of view is not as direct. In 1 st person stories, the reader can put himself in the shoes of the character. This applies to both Mandarin and English classes. In high school, we were taught to start forming a thesis statement for every essay, and that the first paragraph should give the reader a main idea of what is to be discussed in the essay. Basically, it’s an introduction to the essay. The conclusion also needed to end the essay. The conclusion should touch on the main points and thesis, but it should be phrased differently. Both introduction paragraph and concluding paragraph are vital to a well-written essay. This again, applies to both English and Chinese essay writing. As we got older and more up to
66
higher levels in education, we are taught dense vocabularies to make an essay more interesting and captivating. For Chinese, the past tense and present tense seldom conflicted, whereas in English essay-writing, one has to be aware which tense he wants to write the essay in and stick to it in order to make the essay flow. Overall, English and Chinese do not conflict, mainly because the grammar and vocabulary are totally different. (S18, Brook)
S19. Penny
Penny was a 3 rd year undergraduate in humanities. She had multiple language backgrounds.
Penny grew up in Japan, but her parents were from Taiwan. Penny was a Japan-born Taiwanese.
Penny claimed that her first language should be considered as Japanese because she used
Japanese mostly both in schools and at home. Because her parents spoke Mandarin she acquired some Mandarin at home. Penny also went back to Taiwan twice to learn Mandarin in summer when she was in elementary school. However, she did not have the opportunity to get extensive exposure to a Mandarin language environment. When she went back to Taiwan to visit her grandparents, they still communicated in Japanese. Because her grandparents grew up during the
Japanese colonial time in Taiwan, they all spoke Japanese at home. Penny claimed that Mandarin was actually her third language.
After Penny graduated from high school in Japan she came to Canada to pursue undergraduate study. She had been in Canada for four years. She took some English courses before she enrolled in the undergraduate program. Penny felt her English proficiency was much better than her Mandarin proficiency.
4.2.3.2 Taiwanese male students
S20. Felipe
Felipe was a 4 th year Ph.D. student in the area of social sciences. He obtained his Masters degree in the United States and he came to Canada to pursue his Doctoral degree. His native language
67 was Taiwanese, but he was more fluent in Mandarin and English than Taiwanese. With respect to writing instruction, Felipe learned that in Mandarin, thesis writing should follow the four parts model --“qi- cheng-zhuan-he ”, which means prepare a topic ( qi )--develop the topic ( cheng )--turn to unrelated subjects ( zhuan ), and then summarize the result ( he ). He claimed that his Chinese
writing in my study was influenced by English writing styles. He came to North America and
was exposed to an English language environment for more than five years. He perceived his
English writing skill to be stronger than his Chinese writing skill.
S21. David
David was a 2 nd year undergraduate in Engineering. He immigrated to Canada with his parents
when was in Grade 2. He had Mandarin education in Taiwan up to Grade 2. After that, he was
immersed in an English-language environment and had English education. David had some
writing experiences in Mandarin in his childhood, but he had considerably more English writing
(L2) experiences than those in his L1. David claimed that he used Mandarin with his family and
Chinese friends but he used English in the university and with English-speaking friends. David
considered that his first language was Mandarin Chinese, but when he was thinking and writing
in English, he felt that English was his first language.
S22. Bill
Bill was a freshman in the area of social sciences. He was also the youngest participant in my
research. Bill’s native language was Taiwanese. He spoke Taiwanese with his family and spoke
Mandarin and English with his friends. Bill immigrated to Canada with his parents when he was
6 years old. Bill had a little Mandarin education in Taiwan. After that, he was exposed primarily
to an English-language environment. However, He was also sent to Chinese school from Grade 4
68 to Grade 7. Bill wanted to apply for an English teaching position in China after he graduated from university in Canada.
S23. Mark
Mark was also a freshman in the social sciences. His native language was Mandarin Chinese.
Mark immigrated to Canada with his family when he finished Grade 2 in Taiwan. His education up to that point was in Mandarin. After he came to Canada, Mark was entirely immersed in an
English-language environment. His had 11 years of English education. Therefore, he felt more comfortable in writing English essays than Chinese essays.
In the next section, I contrast the linguistic and rhetorical features of students’ L1 and L2 writing according to gender and cultural group.
4.3 Results of Linguistic and Rhetorical Features of Students’ L1 and L2 Writing in Gender Groups
I selected eight linguistic and rhetorical elements from students’ L1 and L2 writing for quantitative analysis. They are: 1) first person pronouns, 2) second person pronouns, 3) third person pronouns, 4) demonstratives “this” and “these”, 5) demonstratives “that” and “those”, 6) adjectives, 7) adverbs, 8) conjunctions. I carried out Independent sample t Tests and Univariate and Multivarariate Analysis of Variance to test for gender differences on these features within the entire sample. The descriptive data are shown in Tables 4.4 and 4.5. None of the differences between females and males in personal pronoun usage or other linguistic features were statistically significant. In these comparisons, L1 means students’ first language (Japanese or
Mandarin Chinese) while L2 indicates students’ second language (English). I examined all personal pronouns including singular and plural; specifically, the first person pronouns (I, me, my, we, etc.), second person pronouns,(you, your, yours), third person pronouns (he, she, him,
69 hers, it, they, etc.), demonstrative pronouns (this, that, these, those), adjectives, adverbs, and conjunctions (and, however, etc) in both students’ L1 (Japanese or Chinese) and L2 (English) writing. The descriptive data and t-test results are shown in Tables 4.4 and 4.5.
70
Table 4.4
Gender Comparisons in Students’ L1 and L2 Writing
Gender N M SD SEM
ConjunctionL1 female 13 13.23 6.19 1.72
male 10 16.00 6.27 1.98
ConjunctionL2 female 13 12.08 4.39 1.22
male 10 10.00 2.45 .77
FirstPronL1 female 13 21.69 15.96 4.43
male 10 20.80 14.75 4.66
FirstPronL2 female 13 34.62 8.81 2.44
male 10 34.00 12.18 3.85
SecondPronL1 female 13 13.62 10.19 2.83
male 10 15.90 8.82 2.79
SecondPronL2 female 13 6.69 4.44 1.23
male 10 4.30 3.80 1.20
ThirdPrL1 female 13 3.54 3.78 1.05
male 10 3.00 2.83 .89
ThirdPronL2 female 13 7.77 5.79 1.61
male 10 5.80 5.33 1.69
DemonThisL1 female 13 8.00 4.22 1.17
male 10 8.20 4.64 1.47
DemonTHISL2 female 13 6.15 3.53 .98
male 10 7.30 3.92 1.24
DemonTHATL1 female 13 2.77 3.37 .93
71
male 10 2.20 2.15 .68
DemonThatL2 female 13 2.31 2.93 .81
male 10 1.40 2.50 .79
AdjectiveL1 female 13 17.92 4.99 1.38
male 10 16.60 6.93 2.19
AdjectivesL2 female 13 34.92 10.89 3.02
male 10 33.60 11.71 3.70
AdverbL1 female 13 23.92 9.27 2.57
male 10 32.10 14.63 4.63
AdverbL2 female 13 34.92 10.89 3.02
male 10 33.60 11.71 3.70
72
Table 4.5
Independent Samples T-Test Results for Gender Differences
Levene's Test for Equality of Variances t-test for Equality of Means 95% Confidence
Interval of the Difference Sig. (2- Mean Std. Error F Sig. t df tailed) Difference Difference Lower Upper ConjunctionL1 Equal .10 .75 -1.06 21.00 .30 -2.77 2.62 -8.22 2.68 variances assumed Equal -1.06 19.39 .30 -2.77 2.62 -8.25 2.71 variances not assumed ConjunctionL2 Equal 2.54 .13 1.34 21.00 .19 2.08 1.55 -1.15 5.30 variances assumed Equal 1.44 19.44 .17 2.08 1.44 -.94 5.09 variances not assumed FirstPronL1 Equal .37 .55 .14 21.00 .89 .89 6.50 -12.62 14.41 variances assumed Equal .14 20.21 .89 .89 6.43 -12.51 14.29 variances not assumed FirstPronL2 Equal .04 .85 .14 21.00 .89 .62 4.37 -8.47 9.70 variances assumed Equal .13 15.78 .89 .62 4.56 -9.07 10.30 variances not assumed secondPronL1 Equal 1.34 .26 -.56 21.00 .58 -2.28 4.05 -10.71 6.14 variances assumed Equal -.58 20.64 .57 -2.28 3.97 -10.55 5.98 variances not assumed SeconPronL2 Equal .86 .37 1.36 21.00 .19 2.39 1.76 -1.26 6.05 variances assumed
73
Equal 1.39 20.70 .18 2.39 1.72 -1.19 5.98 variances not assumed ThirdPrL1 Equal 1.06 .31 .38 21.00 .71 .54 1.43 -2.44 3.52 variances assumed Equal .39 21.00 .70 .54 1.38 -2.33 3.40 variances not assumed ThirdPronL2 Equal .06 .80 .84 21.00 .41 1.97 2.35 -2.93 6.87 variances assumed Equal .85 20.25 .41 1.97 2.33 -2.88 6.82 variances not assumed demonThisL1 Equal .03 .86 -.11 21.00 .92 -.20 1.85 -4.05 3.65 variances assumed Equal -.11 18.50 .92 -.20 1.88 -4.14 3.74 variances not assumed DemonTHISL2 Equal .02 .90 -.74 21.00 .47 -1.15 1.56 -4.38 2.09 variances assumed Equal -.73 18.38 .48 -1.15 1.58 -4.46 2.17 variances not assumed DemonTHATL1 Equal 2.21 .15 .46 21.00 .65 .57 1.22 -1.98 3.12 variances assumed Equal .49 20.43 .63 .57 1.16 -1.84 2.98 variances not assumed DemonThatL2 Equal .09 .77 .78 21.00 .44 .91 1.16 -1.50 3.32 variances assumed Equal .80 20.71 .43 .91 1.13 -1.45 3.27 variances not assumed AdjectiveL1 Equal .40 .53 .53 21.00 .60 1.32 2.48 -3.84 6.49 variances assumed Equal .51 15.73 .62 1.32 2.59 -4.18 6.83 variances not assumed
74
AdjectivesL2 Equal .25 .62 .28 21.00 .78 1.32 4.73 -8.52 11.16 variances assumed Equal .28 18.74 .78 1.32 4.78 -8.69 11.33 variances not assumed AdverbL1 Equal .56 .46 -1.64 21.00 .12 -8.18 4.99 -18.56 2.20 variances assumed Equal -1.54 14.39 .14 -8.18 5.29 -19.50 3.15 variances not assumed AdverbL2 Equal .25 .62 .28 21.00 .78 1.32 4.73 -8.52 11.16 variances assumed Equal .28 18.74 .78 1.32 4.78 -8.69 11.33 variances not assumed
No significant differences emerged between gender groups in any of the quantitative comparisons. Significant differences, however, characterized the writing performance of the different cultural groups, as outlined in Tables 4.6 and 4.7.
4.4. Cultural Group Differences in Linguistic and Rhetorical Features of Students’ L1 and L2 Writing
Because three groups were being compared, I used post-hoc comparisons, together with
Bonferroni correction, to test for pair-wise differences among the group means. Purely by chance, one out of every 20 hypothesis-tests is expected to be significant at the p = 0.05 level and
Bonferroni correction provides a safeguard against multiple tests of statistical significance on the same data which might falsely give the appearance of significance. The detailed pair-wise comparisons and Bonferroni correction are shown in Appendix D.
75
Table 4.6
Cultural Group Comparisons in Students’ L1 and L2 Writing
95% Confidence
Interval for
Mean
Lower Upper
N M SD SE Bound Bound Min Max
ConjunctionL1 Japanese 8 11.63 3.11 1.10 9.02 14.23 8.00 16.00
Chinese 7 19.71 8.65 3.27 11.71 27.72 6.00 32.00
Taiwanese 8 12.63 2.83 1.00 10.26 14.99 9.00 18.00
Total 23 14.43 6.24 1.30 11.73 17.13 6.00 32.00
ConjunctionL2 Japanese 8 11.75 5.06 1.79 7.52 15.98 6.00 22.00
Chinese 7 11.29 3.45 1.30 8.09 14.48 8.00 17.00
Taiwanese 8 10.50 2.73 .96 8.22 12.78 6.00 14.00
Total 23 11.17 3.75 .78 9.55 12.80 6.00 22.00
FirstPronL1 Japanese 8 3.75 3.24 1.15 1.04 6.46 1.00 10.00
Chinese 7 29.86 10.57 4.00 20.08 39.64 16.00 48.00
Taiwanese 8 31.38 8.31 2.94 24.42 38.33 20.00 45.00
Total 23 21.30 15.10 3.15 14.77 27.83 1.00 48.00
FirstPronL2 Japanese 8 32.38 8.35 2.95 25.40 39.35 24.00 47.00
Chinese 7 32.57 7.98 3.01 25.19 39.95 21.00 45.00
Taiwanese 8 37.88 13.35 4.72 26.72 49.03 26.00 67.00
Total 23 34.35 10.16 2.12 29.96 38.74 21.00 67.00
SecondPronL1 Japanese 8 5.13 4.42 1.56 1.43 8.82 .00 13.00
Chinese 7 20.43 6.78 2.56 14.16 26.70 9.00 29.00
Taiwanese 8 19.00 8.04 2.84 12.28 25.72 5.00 30.00
Total 23 14.61 9.48 1.98 10.51 18.71 .00 30.00
76
SeconPronL2 Japanese 8 4.88 5.22 1.85 .51 9.24 1.00 17.00
Chinese 7 6.00 3.06 1.15 3.17 8.83 2.00 10.00
Taiwanese 8 6.13 4.55 1.61 2.32 9.93 .00 14.00
Total 23 5.65 4.26 .89 3.81 7.49 .00 17.00
ThirdPrL1 Japanese 8 .88 .99 .35 .05 1.70 .00 2.00
Chinese 7 4.29 4.46 1.69 .16 8.41 1.00 12.00
Taiwanese 8 4.88 2.53 .90 2.76 6.99 .00 8.00
Total 23 3.30 3.34 .70 1.86 4.75 .00 12.00
ThirdPronL2 Japanese 8 4.75 4.53 1.60 .96 8.54 .00 15.00
Chinese 7 7.14 7.73 2.92 -.01 14.30 .00 23.00
Taiwanese 8 8.88 3.94 1.39 5.58 12.17 3.00 14.00
Total 23 6.91 5.56 1.16 4.51 9.32 .00 23.00
DemonThisL1 Japanese 8 5.00 1.77 .63 3.52 6.48 2.00 7.00
Chinese 7 9.57 5.29 2.00 4.68 14.46 4.00 18.00
Taiwanese 8 9.88 3.80 1.34 6.70 13.05 6.00 17.00
Total 23 8.09 4.31 .90 6.23 9.95 2.00 18.00
DemonTHISL2 Japanese 8 8.25 3.58 1.26 5.26 11.24 3.00 13.00
Chinese 7 4.86 2.97 1.12 2.11 7.60 2.00 10.00
Taiwanese 8 6.63 3.96 1.40 3.31 9.94 .00 12.00
Total 23 6.65 3.66 .76 5.07 8.24 .00 13.00
DemonTHATL1 Japanese 8 4.75 3.54 1.25 1.79 7.71 .00 9.00
Chinese 7 1.29 1.38 .52 .01 2.56 .00 4.00
Taiwanese 8 1.38 1.69 .60 -.03 2.78 .00 4.00
Total 23 2.52 2.86 .60 1.29 3.76 .00 9.00
DemonThatL2 Japanese 8 .50 .76 .27 -.13 1.13 .00 2.00
Chinese 7 2.57 2.94 1.11 -.14 5.29 .00 7.00
Taiwanese 8 2.75 3.45 1.22 -.14 5.64 .00 10.00
77
Total 23 1.91 2.73 .57 .73 3.09 .00 10.00
AdjectiveL1 Japanese 8 13.38 3.50 1.24 10.45 16.30 10.00 21.00
Chinese 7 17.86 2.85 1.08 15.22 20.50 14.00 22.00
Taiwanese 8 20.88 7.36 2.60 14.72 27.03 8.00 32.00
Total 23 17.35 5.80 1.21 14.84 19.86 8.00 32.00
AdjectivesL2 Japanese 8 39.38 5.26 1.86 34.98 43.77 31.00 49.00
Chinese 7 33.43 14.34 5.42 20.17 46.69 17.00 58.00
Taiwanese 8 30.13 11.27 3.98 20.70 39.55 18.00 49.00
Total 23 34.35 11.01 2.30 29.59 39.11 17.00 58.00
AdverbL1 Japanese 8 16.13 5.77 2.04 11.30 20.95 7.00 22.00
Chinese 7 29.57 5.88 2.22 24.13 35.01 17.00 34.00
Taiwanese 8 37.00 12.58 4.45 26.48 47.52 23.00 64.00
Total 23 27.48 12.31 2.57 22.15 32.80 7.00 64.00
AdverbL2 Japanese 8 39.38 5.26 1.86 34.98 43.77 31.00 49.00
Chinese 7 33.43 14.34 5.42 20.17 46.69 17.00 58.00
Taiwanese 8 30.13 11.27 3.98 20.70 39.55 18.00 49.00
Total 23 34.35 11.01 2.30 29.59 39.11 17.00 58.00
78
Table 4.7
ANOVA Results for Cultural Group Comparisons Sum of
Squares df MS F Sig (p). ConjunctionL1 Between 284.47 2.00 142.24 4.96 .02 Groups Within 573.18 20.00 28.66
Groups Total 857.65 22.00 ConjunctionL2 Between 6.38 2.00 3.19 .21 .81 Groups Within 302.93 20.00 15.15
Groups Total 309.30 22.00 FirstPronL1 Between 3788.64 2.00 1894.32 30.85 .00 Groups Within 1228.23 20.00 61.41
Groups Total 5016.87 22.00 FirstPronL2 Between 152.75 2.00 76.38 .72 .50 Groups Within 2116.46 20.00 105.82
Groups Total 2269.22 22.00
SecondPronL1 Between 1110.89 2.00 555.44 12.85 .00 Groups Within 864.59 20.00 43.23
Groups Total 1975.48 22.00 SeconPronL2 Between 7.47 2.00 3.73 .19 .83 Groups Within 391.75 20.00 19.59
Groups Total 399.22 22.00 ThirdPrL1 Between 73.69 2.00 36.85 4.30 .03
79
Groups
Within 171.18 20.00 8.56
Groups Total 244.87 22.00 ThirdPronL2 Between 68.59 2.00 34.30 1.12 .35 Groups Within 611.23 20.00 30.56
Groups Total 679.83 22.00 DemonThisL1 Between 117.24 2.00 58.62 4.03 .03 Groups Within 290.59 20.00 14.53
Groups Total 407.83 22.00 DemonTHISL2 Between 42.99 2.00 21.49 1.70 .21 Groups Within 252.23 20.00 12.61
Groups Total 295.22 22.00 DemonTHATL1 Between 60.94 2.00 30.47 5.13 .02 Groups Within 118.80 20.00 5.94
Groups Total 179.74 22.00 DemonThatL2 Between 24.61 2.00 12.31 1.77 .20 Groups Within 139.21 20.00 6.96
Groups Total 163.83 22.00 AdjectiveL1 Between 227.61 2.00 113.81 4.43 .03 Groups Within 513.61 20.00 25.68
Groups Total 741.22 22.00 AdjectivesL2 Between 350.75 2.00 175.38 1.51 .24 Groups
80
Within 2316.46 20.00 115.82
Groups Total 2667.22 22.00 AdverbL1 Between 1787.15 2.00 893.57 11.54 .00 Groups Within 1548.59 20.00 77.43
Groups Total 3335.74 22.00 AdverbL2 Between 350.75 2.00 175.38 1.51 .24 Groups Within 2316.46 20.00 115.82
Groups Total 2667.22 22.00
4.4.1. Pronoun usage
Mean differences between the groups in aspects of linguistic usage are shown in Table 4.6.
Table 4.7 identifies variables on which the differences reached significance. With respect to pronoun usage, highly significant (p< .01) mean differences were observed in first person L1 pronoun usage between Japanese and Taiwanese groups (3.75 vs. 31.38) and between Japanese and Chinese groups (3.75 vs. 29.86). With respect to L1 second person pronoun usage, similar differences were observed between the groups: Japanese 5.12/ Chinese 20.43/ Taiwanese 19.00.
The differences were also significant (p <.05), although to a lesser extent, in L1 third person pronoun usage: Japanese .88/ Chinese 4.29/ Taiwanese 4.88. There are no significant differences between Chinese and Taiwanese groups in usage of any of the L1 pronouns. Also, no significant differences were observed in first, second or third person use in participants’ English (L2) writing.
81
Although caution must be exercised in interpreting these differences because the groups are not entirely comparable (particularly the Taiwanese group in relation to the other two), the size of the differences in pronoun usage between the Japanese and Chinese/Taiwanese groups suggests that there are real cultural differences with respect to this feature in L1 writing.
Interestingly, these differences do not carry over into L2 (English) writing where no group differences were observed.
4.4.2. Demonstratives Usage
Significant differences (p< .05) between the groups were observed in L1 demonstratives ( This and That ) but no significant differences emerged in L2 demonstrative usage. The pattern of differences was reversed for “This” and “That”. Japanese-speakers used “This” less than both of the Chinese-speaking groups but used “That” more than the Chinese-speaking groups.
4.4.3. Use of Conjunctions, adjectives and adverbs in students’ L1 and L2 writing
Significant differences were observed between the groups in students’ L1 Conjunctions,
Adjectival and Adverbial usage. Japanese-speaking students used these features significantly less than the other groups. The mean comparisons in students’ L1 writing are: Japanese 13.38/
Chinese 17.86/ Taiwanese 20.88 and Bonferroni comparisons (Appendix D) indicated that the significant difference is between the Japanese and Taiwanese groups.
With respect to adverbial usage, the mean differences between the groups were: Japanese
16.12/ Chinese 29.57/ Taiwanese 37.00. The Taiwanese group used most adverbs while the
Japanese group used fewest adverbs in their L1 writing.
82
4.5.4. Conjunctions in students’ L1 and L2 writing
The conjunctions that I examined in students’ L1 and L2 writings included all types of conjunctions, specifically phrase-level conjunctions (either…or; not only, etc.), sentence-level conjunctions (first…secondly, next, etc.), and logical or semantic conjunctions and prepositions
(as well, because of, etc.). Conjunctions play important roles in writing because the conjunctions are detached from the clauses and phrases but operate as connectors between sentential units. In addition, they connect the ideas and discourse flows and play essential roles in the organization and coherence of texts (Hinkel, 2002; Quirk et al., 1985).
The mean L1 conjunction comparisons are: Japanese 11.62/ Chinese 19.71/ Taiwanese
12.62. The Chinese group used significantly more conjunctions in their L1 writing than other two groups. The Japanese group and Taiwanese group had no significant differences in adverbial usage in their L1 writing.
4.6 Conclusion
The findings reported above reveal no statistical differences with respect to gender in students’
L1 writing but significant differences across cultural groups in L1 writing styles and patterns. In general, Japanese-speaking students showed considerably less pronominal usage (first, second, and to a lesser extent, third person pronouns). They also used the demonstrative “This” less than the other groups but showed greater usage of “That”. Their L1 Adjectival and Adverbial usage was less than the other groups. The only difference that deviated from the pattern of Japanese- speaking versus Chinese/Taiwanese-speaking group differences was the greater use of L1 conjunctions by the Chinese group. No significant differences appeared across the groups in
English writing, indicating that students from all three groups have internalized the patterns of
83
English writing that they have been taught in language classes and that any L1-transfer in rhetorical styles that may have been evident at some point in their learning of English writing has receded. These cross-group patterns in students’ writing are discussed in more detail in Chapter 5.
Chapter 5 Culture, Identity and Rhetorical Patterns
In this chapter, I am concerned with how students in the three cultural groups represent their cultural and gender identities in their first and second language writing. I consider students’ perspectives on how they have immersed themselves into a new language and culture. I also examine the extent to which cultural identity changes when students live in other cultural environments.
From a linguistic and rhetorical perspective, the statistical results outlined in Chapter 4 showed no significant gender differences in the three cultural groups’ L1 and L2 writing. In this chapter I examine students’ writing from a qualitative perspective to investigate the extent to which certain differences may emerge within groups that were not picked up by the quantitative analysis. In particular, I examine personal pronouns usage, honorific styles and politeness, and the intersection of culture and identity in language transfer.
5.1 Personal Pronouns
As noted by my participants, first person narrative is most persuasive because it is more direct than a narrative told from a third-person’s point of view. In first person stories, the reader can put himself or herself in the shoes of the character.
Gender roles in Japanese society have been described as “social narrative of appropriate behavior” (Okamoto & Shibamoto Smith, 2004) from the ancient era literature ( Joodai 、上代)
of the Nara period (710-794) to the contemporary period. Japanese women’s writing, called
Japanese women’s diary, has been recorded since the Heian Period (794-1185). Gendered
language in Japanese reflects ideologies about gender, social roles and cultural experiences.
84
85
The gendered nature of Japanese language is reflected in the fact that Japanese women and men tend to speak differently, at least in certain contexts, and in written contexts, Japanese women authors also write differently from male authors. As Shibamoto (2004) states, “First- and second- pronoun referential forms have been one of the centerpieces of the literature and gender in Japanese…Japanese first- and second- pronoun reference is significantly marked for gender and for formality.” (Shibomoto, 2004, p. 120). Many studies show that use of first person pronouns is related to feminine language (Hyland, 2001; Janssen & Murachver, 2004).
China has 55 cultural groups. The majority (91.59%) group is Han min zu (汉民族).
Regarding the Standard Chinese language, which is the language of Han min zu (汉民族), there are seven main dialects. Although labeled as dialects within China, the dialects are essentially separate (oral) languages and there are huge language differences across the seven dialects
(Mandarin 北, Cantonese 粵, Hakka 客, Wu 吳, Min 閩, Xiang 湘 and Gan 贛). Mandarin
Chinese, which is called Putonghua (普通话) in Mainland China whereas it is called Guoyu (国
语) in Taiwan, and is called Huayu (华语) in Singapore and Malaysia , is used by most of the
Han (汉民族) population, which are the dominant nationality in China. Mandarin differs from the Japanese language insofar as it has no obvious symbols to define whether it is male or female language. Regarding the gender difference in Mandarin, some studies have demonstrated that there are some gender-related phonetics and phonological differences but unlike Indo-European languages, it does not have grammatical gender (Chan, 1998; Farris, 1987, p. 278).
Since the Republic of China (hereafter, ROC) was established in 1911, there have been national language policies and planned language changes and development for the country. The language movement of Baihuawen (白话文) was one of revolution. In 1949, the government of
ROC moved to Taiwan as a result of political upheaval. Subsequently, Mandarin became the
86 official language in both Mainland China and Taiwan. However, the Government of Mainland
China has changed the Chinese traditional characters to simplified characters ( Jiantizi, 简体字)
whereas Taiwan still keeps Chinese traditional characters (Fatizi , 繁体字). In my study, both
Chinese and the majority of Taiwanese students used simplified Chinese characters. Only two
Taiwanese students used traditional Chinese characters to write L1 tasks. Contemporary
Mandarin Chinese has no significant gender differences in semantics, syntax, and discourse.
Prior to discussing the qualitative data regarding pronoun usage, I represent the quantitative data according to gender and cultural group in graphic form (Figures 5.1, 5.2, 5.3, 5.4).
Figure 5.1
First Personal Pronoun Usage in Students’ L1 Writing by Gender
87
Figure 5.2
First Personal Pronoun Usage in Students’ L1 Writing by Cultural Group
88
Figure 5.3
First Personal Pronoun Usage in Students’ L2 Writing by Gender
89
Figure 5.4
First Personal Pronoun Usage in Students’ L2 Writing by Cultural Group
The data presented in the four box plots show that there are highly significant differences in
first person pronoun usage between the Japanese and the two Chinese-language groups in L1
writing but no group differences in L2 writing or across gender groups.
5.2 Qualitative Analysis of Personal Pronouns Usage in Japanese Writing
Japanese people have tended in the past to avoid using the personal pronouns wherever possible in oral communication. The data in my study reveals the same phenomenon in Japanese written
90 discourse. Both female and male students seldom used the personal pronouns, especially first person pronouns, in their Japanese writing. Two examples, one female and one male, illustrate the pattern.
Ayano, is a 5 th year female Ph.D. student. Her research is in the area of social sciences. She
came to Canada after she finished her Masters degree in Japan. For the prompt of concert
invitation (written in Japanese), Ayano used personal pronouns only four times in 426 Japanese
characters. A male student, Kosaku, used personal pronouns only once in writing 419 Japanese
characters. Part of Ayano’s writing is shown below:
改めてこんな手紙を書くのもどうかと思ったのですが、先日お話したコンサ ートに ぜひ一緒に行きたいと思って、靖男君を説得するために書くことにしました。先日ちらっ と話したときはあまり興味をそそられなかったようですけれど、あのコンサートはとても 評判がいいんです. (Translated by Researcher): Writing this letter to (you) is probably funny. (I) just want to invite (you) to go to the concert that( I) told (you) on other day, so (I ) decided to write to (you) and persuade (you / 靖男君) to go with (me). When (I) talked to (you) on the other day, (you) did not seem to be interested, but the concert is really great. (S1, female, Ayano).
The following is an excerpt of Ayano’s English writing:
Dear Vice President,
Hello. I am writing this letter to plead for tuition freeze. I read the university newsletter the other day, and found out that you are planning to increase the tuition fee for both domestic and international students. I, as an international graduate student, would like to ask you to kindly abandon the plan for the following two reasons. First, almost all the international graduate students are not well funded now, and if you increase the tuition, we will be in a difficult situation. Especially because the university changed the policy on funding two years ago, there is an upper limitation on money that graduate students can receive from the university. The limitation is $21,000 per year, from which we have to pay the tuition, health insurance, rent, living cost, and books. $21,000 is not enough for all the cost even now, and if the tuition is increased, our quality of life will be lowered. Especially, the
91 housing situation in Toronto is not ideal, and we have to pay at least $500 per month to secure an appropriate living space to do research. (S1, female, Ayano)
The comparison between Japanese pronoun usage and the English translation in the paragraph above is shown in Table 5.1.
Table 5.1
An Example of Personal Pronouns Usage in Japanese (Female) vs. English Translation
First Pronouns Second Pronouns Third Pronouns
Japanese (S1) 0 0 0
English 5 7 0
translation (R)
• S1 indicates student’s ID, R means me as a researcher.
As the example above shows, in the Japanese part, Ayano did not use any Japanese personal
pronouns. Ayano’s Japanese followed Japanese women’s identity roles, which minimize use of
the first person pronoun ( watakushi/ watashi, means “I”). The first person pronoun “ watashi”
includes more demanding meanings, and is perceived as less polite, despite the fact that Japanese
men and women use different first person pronouns to define the gender difference. For example,
Japanese women use “ watashi ” or “ watakushi ”, whereas Japanese men use “ boku” or “ ore ”.
Ayano’s writing also reflects another aspect of the Japanese cultural model, which highlights
“heterosexual attractiveness” (Shobamoto, 2004) through forms of self-reference. For example,
women’s first person pronoun “ atashi ” (I) expresses self-reference in “feminine” language.
However, in most cases, Japanese females do not use the first person pronoun in order to show
that the speaker is humble and to avoid exerting pressure on listeners or readers. It is evident in
92 comparing the English translation with Ayano’s Japanese writing presented above that there are many differences in personal pronoun usage between Japanese and English versions.
Instead of using second person pronouns, Ayano employed the reader’s name, which is a very common usage when the speaker or writer needs to reference the listener or readers in
Japanese communication. Japanese second person pronoun usage is very limited--it is only used in the context of very close relationships (husband vs. wife or lovers) or by seniors to juniors. As
Shibamoto (2004, p.123) points out, second person pronouns “are avoided by subordinate members of status-asymmetric dyads.” Ayano’s usage also reflects the fact that Japanese women’s language is more polite than that of Japanese men. Therefore, her use of the more polite form reflects the Japanese cultural model.
The second example draws from Kosaku’s writing. Kosaku is a second year Ph.D. student who has been in Canada for 1.5 years. In the concert writing task, he wrote 419 Japanese characters. He used Japanese first personal pronouns once only. The following is part of
Kosaku’s Japanese writing.
手紙を書いた理由は、一ヵ月後の12月10日に、仙台市青葉区の市民ホールで 、ラフマニノフのピアノコンサートとマーラーのオーケストラが、夜６時にあり ます。時間の都合がよければ、一緒に行きませんか.
(Translated by Researcher): The reason that (I) am writing this letter to (you) is because a piano performance of Sergei Vasilievich Rachmaninoff’s work and Mahler’s orchestra will be held in Resident Hall of Aobaku, Sendai city on December 10 th . Would (you) like to go with (me), if it is convienent for (you)? (S7, male, Kosaku).
The comparison of between Japanese pronoun usage and the English translation in the paragraph above from Kosaku’s writing is shown in Table 5.2.
93
Table 5.2
An Example of Personal Pronouns Usage in Japanese (Male, Kosaku) vs. English Translation
First Pronouns Second Third Pronouns Pronouns Japanese (S7) 0 0 0 English 2 3 0 translation (R) • S7 indicates student’s ID, R means me as a researcher.
Kosaku did not use any Japanese personal pronouns in the writing segment shown above.
His communication partner must infer his meaning. Kosaku did not use first person pronouns
“boku ” (Japanese males’ way to say “I” ) or second person pronoun “ Anata ” (you) to indicate clearly the person referred to.
Kosaku and Ayano’s Japanese writing reflects the fact that, in Japanese, it is the reader’s responsibility to figure out the meaning. Hyland (2002) has claimed that from the perspective of written discourse, languages can be divided into those where the responsibility of conveying meaning is the writer’s (e.g., English) and those where the reader is responsible for figuring out the meaning (e.g., Japanese). This pattern is illustrated in the samples from these two Japanese writers.
5.3 Personal Pronoun Usage in English Writing (L2)
According to Darling (1996), English pronouns are divided into personal pronouns, demonstrative pronouns, indefinite pronouns, relative pronouns, reflexive pronouns, intensive pronouns, interrogative pronouns, and reciprocal pronouns. The data show that when Japanese students wrote in response to English prompts, they followed the English writing style to
94 describe their ideas. The following examples are from the same two Japanese students’ English writing.
Hello. I am writing this letter to plead for tuition freeze. I read the university newsletter the other day, and found out that you are planning to increase the tuition fee for both domestic and international students. I, as an international graduate student, would like to ask you to kindly abandon the plan for the following two reasons. (S1, Ayano)
Table 5.3
An Example of Personal Pronoun Usage in English (Female) First Second Third Third Indefinite Relative Demonstratives Person Person Person Pronouns pronouns pronouns or determiners Pronouns Pronouns Pronouns things English 3 2 0 0 1 1 1 (S1) (other) (that) (this) • S1 indicates student’s ID.
The above paragraph is the opening part of a Japanese female student’s English writing. The writing prompt asks the participant to write a letter to the Vice-President of a University regarding the increase in tuition fees. In this paragraph, Ayano used the English first person pronoun “I” three times and second person pronoun “you” twice. Thus, Ayano followed the
English writing style to express her opinions. She used personal pronouns to express the meaning clearly. Moreover, she also used indefinite pronoun, relative pronoun and demonstratives in this paragraph. Clearly, Ayano wrote more directly in English than in Japanese. The contrast can be summed up by saying that Ayano’s Japanese writing is more connotative and her English writing more denotative.
The next sample is Kosaku’s English writing sample. It is also the opening part of the
writing task that focused on tuition fees increasing.
95
I am Kosaku Miyazawa, second-year Ph.D. student at University of East Coast. I am writing this letter because I would like to discuss with you the issue regarding increasing tuition fees for the coming academic year. The issue is critical for all students, especially international students, who want to continue Doctoral research at University of East Coast. I really wish that university would take it into account that there are many international students pursuing their graduate studies at the University of East Coast. (S7, male, Kosaku)
Table 5.4
An Example of Personal Pronoun Usage in English (Male)
First Second Third Third Indefinite Relative Demonstratives or
Personal Personal Personal Pronouns pronouns pronouns determiners
Pronouns Pronouns Pronouns things
English 3 1 1 1 2 1 (who) 1 (this)
(S7) (all, many) 2 (that)
• S7 indicates student’s ID.
Kosaku used English personal pronouns when he thought it necessary. In this part, Kosaku
not only used the first and second person pronouns, but also third person pronouns, indefinite
pronouns, relative pronouns, and demonstratives. Compared to Ayano’s writing, Kosaku used
more varied pronouns in his English writing task. Kosaku used some third person pronouns to
emphasize his opinion. Using third person pronouns to explain the speaker’s or writer’s
viewpoint represents a somewhat indirect way of persuasion. Indirect expression is a “soft” way
to convince the listener, or respect the listener’s face. From the perspective of politeness theory,
Brown and Levinson (1987) claimed that face was divided into positive and negative face. Face
is a metaphor for people’s public image. Kosaku used third person pronouns to express his
96 opinion rather than using only the first and second person pronouns. According to face theory, this can be interpreted as saving face for himself, and also respecting the reader’s face as well.
5.4 Personal Pronoun Usage in Chinese Writing in the Mainland Chinese Group
Chinese pronouns generally are divided into the possessive pronoun, the reflexive pronoun, pronouns in imperial times and self-deprecatory, inclusive and exclusive first-person plural. The
Chinese group’s personal pronoun usage differed significantly from that of the Japanese group.
Students from the Chinese group used first and second person pronouns much more in their L1 writing (Chinese writing task) than did the Japanese group. I illustrate the differences with reference to the writing of one Chinese female and one Chinese male students’ writing. Elaine
(S9) is a second year Ph.D. student in science. She immigrated to Canada five years ago.
亲爱的老公： 希望你带孩子学完钢琴课后回来能看到这封信。也许你会觉得奇怪 ，为什么有些 话我们不能说，而非得要写出来呢？那让我慢慢告诉你。 还记得上次我和你谈到我们一起去欣赏(多伦多) 交响乐团的演奏会的事吗？你当时 很反对，以来因为门票很贵，而且我们家三口人要是一起去的话，会花一大笔钱；二来你 说是古典音乐，也听不动，要是流行音乐会还好一点。但是我和你有不同的看法，而且我 认为这是一个很好的机会让我们全家在一个轻松愉悦的氛围里欣赏和学习西方文化。我的 理由如下：(S9, female, Elaine)
(Translated by Researcher):
Darling,
Hope you could read this letter after you come back from our kid’s piano lesson. You may feel strange why I write a letter instead of talking to you. Let me explain to you.
Did you remember the thing I talked to you about going to the concert of Toronto Orchestra last time? You protested at that time. Because you said, first, the ticket was too expensive. If our family went together, we would spend too much money. Secondly, you said that, you did not like classic music. You suggested the pop music was better. However, I have different opinion. I think this is a good opportunity that our family can
97
enjoy the western music in a relaxed environment. The following are my reasons (S9, female, Elaine).
Table 5.5
An Example of Personal Pronouns Usage in Chinese (Female) vs. English Translation
Chinese (S9) English Translation (R) First Personal Pronouns 3 singulars ( wo ) 4 4 plurals (women ) Second Personal 7 ( ni) 7 Pronouns Third Personal Pronouns 0 0 Possessive Pronouns 1 ( wode ) 3 • S9 indicates student’s ID, R means me as a researcher.
As shown above, Elaine used many Chinese personal pronouns in the same writing task
regarding the concert, especially first and second person pronouns. Elaine used most Chinese
personal pronouns as self-reference.
Next, I present a Chinese writing sample from a Chinese male student. Edward (S13) was a
4th year Ph.D. student. He is studying humanities in Canada. He had his Bachelor degree in
China before he came to North America to pursue his higher degree. He has been exposed to an
English environment in university since he studied English at a university in China.
亲爱的玲子: 开学后一直很忙, 很久没有约你出去了, 希望你没有生我的气. 你知道, 这是我博士最后一年, 很 关键, 论文如果写得不顺利, 会影响到将来找工作, 甚至我们的未来. 其实这写道理你都懂, 你对 我的学业一直很支持, 我时常想, 如果没有你, 我真不知这么多年来自己能否坚持下来. 所以我要 说, 谢谢你, 我爱你!
下个周末, 等我把论文交上去, 我们何不去庆祝一番? 刚好你的期中考试也完了, 咱们一起去放 松一下, 我请客! 下周六, 海滨艺术中心有一场音乐会, 是巴赫的室内乐, 你感不感兴趣? 我知道 古典乐不是你的最爱, 可是巴赫真的很不一样, 而且他们这次是用现代摇滚乐的方式演奏, 非常 有试验性, 我听说很有意思. 你是学现代雕塑的, 去看看他们在音乐方面的尝试, 也许对你会有帮 助, 说不定你会得到一些灵感. (S13, male, Edward)
98
(Translated by Researcher):
Dear Lingzi, It has been a while; I have not invited you to go somewhere after the new semester started. Hopefully you were not angry at me. This is the last year of my Ph.D. program. It will affect my job hunting and our future if the dissertation writing was not going smoothly. I know, you understand all these reasons. You always support my academic study. I cannot image whether I can continue my Ph.D. study without your support. So I have to say, thank you, my dear.
Would you go with me for celebration after I hand in my dissertation next week? You have also finished your exams, let’s go to relax, I will pay all the expenses. There is a concert of Bach’s work in Lakeshore Art Centre, would you like to go? I know (understand) classic music is not your favorite. But Bach’s work differs from other classic. The musicians will performance it by using Rock music styles. It’s really challenging. I heard that it was very interesting. Because your major is sculpture, you may probably find it useful to observe musicians’ experiment in music. (S13, male, Edward)
Table 5.6
An Example of Personal Pronouns Usage in Chinese (Male) vs. English Translation
Chinese (S13) English Translation (R)
First Person 14 12 Pronouns singulars ( wo ) singulars plurals ( women ) plurals Second Person 12 ( ni) 10 Pronouns Third Person 3 ( Tamen ) 5 ( it ) Pronouns Possessive 2 ( wode, 6 ( my, ou r) Pronouns womende ) 5 ( your ) • S13 indicates student’s ID, R means me as a researcher.
99
Both the Chinese female and male students used many Chinese first person pronouns and second person pronouns in the invitation letter. In Edward’s Chinese writing, in order to suggest to his partner to go to the concert, he uses many adverbs and conjunctions to make his voice appear very soft. He also used a suggestive question for persuasive purposes (“Would you go with me for celebration after I hand in my dissertation next week?”). Edward appreciates his partner’s understanding over a period of years, and then gives several reasons to persuade his partner. The flow of content is very logical.
Elaine also uses abundant Chinese first and second person pronouns in the concert task. She starts with a question that references a previous shared experience and then develops her points with additional questions. This kind of rhetorical style is powerful and works well to get the reader’s attention. However, Edward uses many adjectives, adverbs and conjunctions to soften his voice, or make the content more polite. Edward uses an indirect style to emphasize his points whereas Elaine uses a more direct way to persuade her partner. Elaine uses fewer adjectives, adverbs and conjunctions and her writing seems more demanding than Edward’s. For example,
Elaine uses “I think”… to develop her ideas whereas Edward uses the more diplomatic expression (“I understand…”) to support his points.
5.5 English writing in the Chinese group
Part of Elaine’s English writing sample is shown below:
To support my opinion, I have several reasons. First, as a 2 nd year Ph.D. student in the department A, I have received my financial support annually as of either external scholarship or stipend from my supervisor. However, the amount has remained same as that of it in the past years. But the necessary expenses have been increased at the meanwhile. For examples, I have paid more on purchasing books and study materials, as well as on transportation to school everyday. If considering the normal inflation, the regular living expense has also been increased in the past years. A good example is that my landlord has increased my residential rent at a yearly rate of 2.5%. Second, I think the
100
university needs to collect different opinions extensively from faculties, staffs, and students, before to make such an important decision. As the decision of increasing tuition fees will not only affect the students, but also will have great social impact. For example, I have already heard about that several student organizations or unions are planning to take actions to protest this decision. Lastly, I wonder how the university decides the increasing rate, as of 5%. If the university has sufficient reasons to increase the tuition fees, I believe the students have the right to know the reasons and why you decide to increase that much. (S9, female, an extract from Elaine’s writing)
Chinese students like to use third person pronouns when they provide examples in order to avoid using the first or second pronouns. Using third person pronouns is vaguer and softer. This phenomenon represents the nature of the Chinese language. Chinese language always tries to avoid direct expression. This indirect expression is able to give others a face, or protect the speaker’s own face as well. The following is part of Chinese female student Briana’s English writing:
Since education is so important, letting education more/ accessible to more people have significant meanings in encouraging people to get more education and continue with their education. However, increasing tuition fees will prevent some people to get the education they want. And at some level, it is also discouraging for people to finish their study. For example, I have a classmate who is paying her education by doing a part time work because her parents can’t even afford their own rents and daily expense. She really like Computer Science and also wants to get a high salary job after graduation so that she can support her family, while taking four Computer Science courses as a full time student, she also work three hours a day and seven days a week to earn about $140 per week. So that she can earn approximately $7000 a year to pay her tuition and text book fees. However, taking four Computer Science courses is already a lot of work in our school. Students have to stay days and nights in lab in order to get our assignments done. So you can just imagine how hard she is working right now in order to survive both her study and work. If our school is going to increase tuition fees even by 5%, I can’t imagine where she is going to get more energy to accommodate her study and work. Furthermore, at higher level study of Computer Science program, assignments will be a lot harder and will take more time to accomplish four courses within one term. What will be her solution for life? Will she continue with her dreams or will she quit? (S10, female, Brianna)
As shown above, Brianna used nineteen third personal pronouns in this selection.
101
She used third personal pronouns to persuade the reader in order to avoid the direct expressions that would lose face.
Helen’s writing provides another example of this pattern as illustrated in the selection below:
First of all, the increase in the tuition fee poses a lot of stress on students and their families. For most middle-class families, supporting a child in the university is a big financial plan that they have to prepare several years before the children graduate from high school because they have to pay back their mortgage at the same time. If unfortunately, they have more than one child who will go to university at the same time. They have to prepare for many years. So it is not difficult to image how hard for those families to withdraw extra money from their tight budget to pay the increase of tuition fee. For those students who could get support from their families, the only choice that they can make is to apply for more loan, and pay back more interest in the future. In order to reduce the loan or the burden of the families, some students are forced to work more time. And this will obviously distract students from the normal study activity. I don’t see the point why to increase the tuition fee. If the purpose is to improve the quality of education, I would say this may produce opposite result. (S12, female, Helen)
In this passage, Helen used ten third personal pronouns which can be attributed to her desire to avoid the direct expression.
5.6 Honorific Styles, Politeness and Formality
As discussed earlier in this chapter, Japanese language is a gendered language whereas the
Chinese language only has slight marking of gender in phonology. English also does not significantly mark gender in discourse styles. Honorific styles represent one of the most typical
Japanese examples of gendered language and are important linguistic features identifying women’s politeness (Okamoto, 2004). I discuss this issue in the following sections.
5.6.1 The Japanese group
102
The L1 writing of the Japanese group shows that Japanese female students prefer to use honorific
styles and indirectness to express their opinions whereas Japanese male students prefer to use
more direct and demanding expressions. Here are some examples:
クラシックというと退屈に思う人も多くて、お誘いできる人が限られてきますが、 確か、太郎さんはクラシックにお詳しいという/お話でしたよね。それを思い出して、 せっかくですから一緒に楽しめる人と行きたいなと思って、こうしてご連絡していま す。 (S2 Ayumi, female)
(Translated by Researcher): Because many people feel that classical music is kind of boring, the friends whom I can invite are very limited. However, you (Taro-san) are very familiar with classical music, aren’t you? I would like to invite you to enjoy this moment together, so I write to you (S2, Ayumi).
As shown above, when Ayumi tries to persuade her partner to go to a concert, she used four verb honorific styles (underlined parts) and one noun suffix (~san) to express her politeness.
By contrast, on the same topic, the male student wrote the following:
エアロスミスの曲とか智子があまり知らないのは知っているけれど、とても有名 で、アルマゲドンの映画とかにも使われているし、智子も聞いたことのある曲がきっと あると思います. (S6 Yoshihiro, male)
(Translated by Researcher): I know that you may not be familiar with Aerosmith’s work, but it is very famous, and it was used in the movie about Armageddon. I am sure you must hear this music that you listened to before.
From the perspective of genre analysis, Yoshihiro used indirect expressions to persuade his partner to go to a concert. In this paragraph, he used a more casual speech style, instead of using high degree of honorific style, which is the “o…” that Ayumi used. Furthermore, Yoshihiro shows his directness and confidence in the last sentence. He uses “must” with “I am sure”.
Comparing Japanese male and female students’ first language writing, it shows that female students use more examples of the polite honorific style than male students.
103
This pattern does not hold for Japanese students’ English writing, as illustrated in the
following extract from Ayumi’s English writing:
I am writing regarding the increase of the tuition fees for the coming academic year. Basically, I strongly disagree with this plan of increasing the tuition fees, therefore would like to ask you to keep it in the current amount. However, if it is inevitable to increase the tuition fees for the university, I suggest increasing only that of the Canadian students, without increasing the fees of the international students. (S2, female, Ayumi)
As shown above, in English writing, Japanese female student Ayumi follows the English writing styles to state her opinion. She states her points very firmly but also uses a polite strategy involving suppositions to assert her points--“if it is inevitable…”.
The Japanese male student, Yoshihiro, is also polite in his English writing but also somewhat more forceful and direct.
I believe that this great openness of the university is realized by the fact that the university not only keeps equal and fair stance in accepting applicants with various cultural background, but the tuition fees of the university were maintained at a reasonable level. The reasonable level of tuition fees allowed students with various backgrounds to afford attending the courses at the university. However, the raised tuition fee may eliminate some students who do not have privileged access to rich funding sources, resulting in the less diversity in the students’ backgrounds in the university. Thus, I request that the university will report this possible negative ramification of increase in tuition fees to the provincial government in order to have this issue discussed in the council. (S6, male, Yoshihiro)
From Yoshihiro’s English writing, we can see that Yoshihiro wrote more directly than in his
Japanese writing. His English writing is straightforward and makes his main point directly. In contrast, his Japanese writing follows a typical Japanese style in which he uses more conjunctions to make his point and to enable the language to flow well (e.g., “keredo”, “shi”). He also uses more indirect expressions to state his points reflecting the fact that in Japanese society speaking or writing directly is considered less polite.
104
5.6.2 The Chinese group
Use of honorific style is not as prominent in contemporary Chinese as it is in Japanese.
Politeness strategies related to saving face (of the listener or reader) are however characteristic of Mandarin Chinese usage. Use of metaphor and connotative expressions are also significant politeness strategies. Both Japanese and Chinese are connotative, but Japanese is vaguer than
Chinese. From the perspective of rhetoric, as Hyland (2003) claims, Chinese and Japanese writing tend to place extraction of meaning as the reader’s responsibility whereas in English, it is seen as the writer’s responsibility to express the point clearly. However, from my research data, I find that Hyland’s claim needs to be revised or updated. The writing of Chinese students’ in my study in both their L1 and L2 revealed a variety of strategies.
Gender, for example, appeared not to influence discursive styles adopted by students. As
I showed in a previous section, Chinese male student Edward’s Chinese writing is more connotative whereas Chinese female student Elaine’s writing is more denotative. This pattern differs from that of previous research, which claims women are more polite in their language usage than men. In my study, Chinese students’ writing style seemed to be related to their background experience and field of studies. Edward studies humanities and Elaine studies science and their writing appears to reflect the styles characteristic of these disciplines. The
English writing of some Chinese students is illustrated below:
One of the advantages of pursuing graduate education at the University of East Coast, besides its academic excellence, is its affordability compared to many institutions in the United States. However, for an international student who comes from a developing country like China, the current fee of $11,000 a year is by no means cheap. Chinese families have to save up for years to be able to send their children to schools in Canada. While studying at the University of Toronto has been an academically rewarding experience for me, it has been a heavy financial burden on my family. (S13, male, Edward)
105
In the first two sentences, Edward highlights the advantages associated with study at
University of East Coast and then he turns to his concerns about the increasing tuition fees. He provides some evidences to support his opinions. The last sentence is very important, because
Edward uses a contrastive construction to emphasize his point. The flow is logical and his points are clear. The writing relies on rational argument rather than emotional appeal.
More emotion in evident in the passage quoted earlier from Elaine where she provides evidence to support her opinion but her voice and tone are stronger than those of Edward, which makes reader to feel her real emotion.
To support my opinion, I have several reasons. First, as a 2 nd year Ph.D. student in the department A, I have received my financial support annually as of either external scholarship or stipend from my supervisor. However, the amount has remained same as that of it in the past years. But the necessary expenses have been increased at the meanwhile. For examples, I have paid more on purchasing books and study materials, as well as on transportation to school everyday. If considering the normal inflation, the regular living expense has also been increased in the past years. A good example is that my landlord has increased my residential rent at a yearly rate of 2.5%. (S9, female, Elaine)
Edward’s more logical argument may reflect both the focus within humanities on this style of argument and the fact that he has been exposed to English for a longer period of time than
Elaine. Elaine has probably had less practice in discursive writing than Edward in view of the fact that her field of study is science.
5.6.3 The Taiwanese group
From a linguistic and rhetorical perspective, the Taiwanese students show a different pattern from the Chinese and Japanese groups. As outlined in Chapter 4, for example, Taiwanese students used a similar number of L1 first person pronouns in their Chinese writing compared to
106 the Chinese group but they used considerably more English first person pronouns in their English writing than both of the other two cultural groups. This is likely due to their greater socialization into western patterns of writing where assertiveness in relation to expressing personal opinion is accepted as appropriate within persuasive writing contexts. These trends are illustrated in the example of David’s writing outlined below:
Dear Vice President: This mail is from student David Lee. I have a concern towards the recent decision made by the school to increase our tuition fees. Since students like us are responsible to our parents to explain these new policies, I would like to ask more about it.
Personally, I protest against this new rule, and I would like to let you know my thoughts; therefore, you can take these facts into consideration. Firstly, under my understanding, our tuition fee is not lower than other universities, and other universities are not planning to increase their students’ tuition fee. Unless there is something special going on in our school, I don’t think there is a need to increase the tuition fee. Secondly, I have been studying in our school for two years, and I didn’t feel there were significant improvements in neither education quality nor school facilities. Since these two factors are the most/ important references for people to evaluate our university, I recommend that we should figure out a way to improve our educational quality first. Thirdly, as an experience of mine, it’s getting harder for students who drive to school to have a parking space. I understand that our school locates in downtown Toronto, but from my point of view, the popularity of our school is growing very quickly /especially in these two years. I strongly recommend you to resolve this problem before it turns worse. (S21, male, David)
David’s Chinese writing:
下个星期日就是你的生日了, 你一定已为*我已经忘记了吧. 我当然还记得, 而且我发现了 一件事, 你听了一定会很高兴.
你生日那天, 你最喜欢的萧亚轩要来多伦多开演唱会. 听说那天是个很大型的演唱会, 有好几千个人. 今天一早我就去找了资料, 跑去买票了. 我选了两张最前面的位置, 所以, 今 年你的生日应该会很特别. (S21, male, David)
(Translated by Researcher): Next Sunday will be your birthday. Probably you thought
107
that I forgot it. I am sure I remember your birthday. And I found a good thing that you may feel happy after you hear from me.
On your birthday, your favorite star Elva Hsiao will come to Toronto to have a concert. I heard that it will be a very popular concert, and there will be thousands people to come. I did research and bought two tickets today. I chose two most front seats. Therefore, your birthday this year will be very special. (S21, male, David)
*已为: It should be “以为” /think, it was an error that student made.
In David’s English writing, the points he makes flow very logically and are well developed. He uses more a soft tone and polite forms such as “would like” and “I understand” to convey his ideas to readers. In David’s Chinese writing, he uses a similar polite writing strategy involving expressions such as “should”, “probably”, “I think” etc. Thus, there are minimal differences in his writing style across languages.
5.7 Language Transfer and Cultural Identity
All the students in the study are bilingual in English and their L1 and some have knowledge of additional languages. This raises the question of how much language transfer is going on across languages and how students’ cultural identities are manifested in their writing in each language.
The examples presented below illustrate the fact that language transfer does influence students’ writing and also that writing is an expression of self and therefore closely connected to cultural identity. The examples are suggestive rather than definitive. A larger-scale study would be required to draw broader generalizations about trends in the data.
Identities including cultural, social and national identities are changeable. The longer students live in a different society and experience a second culture, the more their identities are likely to change. For example, most of the Taiwanese students have lived in Canada from an early age. Therefore, Taiwanese students position themselves into the discourse of Taiwanese
108
Canadians. Nevertheless, the ways in which identity infuses itself into students’ writing in L1 and L2 appears to be an individual characteristic rather than a group-determined pattern.
First, I discuss a participant who has acquired three languages for her study and daily life.
Then I demonstrate more examples of language transfer and cultural influences on students’ writing.
5.7.1 Three languages, combined usage and cross-Identity
As discussed in Chapter 4, Penny (S19) is a Japanese-born Taiwanese and she grew up in Japan.
As a child she used Japanese almost all the time and seldom heard Taiwanese from her family.
Her parents are from Taiwan and speak both Taiwanese and Japanese at home. Penny once went to Taiwan to learn Mandarin in summer when she was in elementary school. However, her grandparents still spoke to her in Japanese during that visit. Her only opportunity to pick up
Mandarin Chinese was in summer school.
The complex influences on her cultural and linguistic background and identity are evident in her writing. She hand wrote the writing sample below and so I was able to observe her editing in ways that would not have been possible had she composed on the computer.
（leave one pace ）你好吗？你最近忙不忙？我要问你一个门 （error ）题。你这星 期有时间吗？（put punctuation at the very beginning of a row ）。如果你有时间，我想跟你 去参观友友马的演奏会。我姉姉（姐姐）本来是跟我去的，可是因为她女儿和她的丈夫生 了病了，所以她不能跟我去。她一定要陪他们。(S19, Penny)
(Translated by researcher): How are you? Are you busy? I want to ask you a question. Do you have time this week? If you have time, I would like to go to Ma You You’s concert with you. My sister planed to go with me, but her daughter and her husband are sick, so she cannot go with me. She needs to stay with them. (S19, Penny, translated by the researcher)
109
In the Chinese writing task, Penny wrote 304 Chinese characters. She followed the Japanese
convention of leaving one space at the beginning of each paragraph whereas Chinese format
involves leaving two spaces. Also, the third sentence (I want to ask you a question) is a Japanese
writing style (chotto oukagai shitaidesuga). In Chinese writing, this type of sentence is regarded
as redundant and would not be included. In Japanese, however, it is common to add this kind of
politeness-oriented question (I would like to ask you), but not in Chinese.
Japanese influences on Penny’s Chinese writing are also evident in her usage of Chinese
characters. Penny wrote a lot of Japanese characters in her Chinese essays. For example, “ 姉姉”
(elder sister) reflects Japanese character usage. In Chinese, it should be “ 姐姐 jiejie”.
On the other hand, Penny’s English writing is not significantly affected by her Japanese.
Probably she had explicit instruction in English writing and therefore her English writing follows typical North American writing conventions. The following passage illustrates her English persuasive writing.
I am writing you to protest the university’s announcement on the tuition fees. An increase of the tuition fees would be unfair especially to students who have to support themselves financially. I believe an opportunity for having a good education should be equal to everyone. On one hand, I understand the university needs certain amount of money to maintain the facilities. However, that necessarily does not seem to justify eliminating some student’s accessibility to higher education.(S19, Penny)
In the passage above, Penny states her main point at the very beginning and then she adds some additional points to support her main point. This is typical of English persuasive writing style. Penny appears to adopt different cultural identities in her writing styles in Chinese and
English.
110
When Penny writes in Chinese, she seems to imagine herself as Taiwanese but there is a lot
of Japanese language influence on her Chinese writing, reflecting her dominant language
experience as a child. When she writes English, she appears able to put herself into an English
language environment; she uses English writing stylistic conventions and performs herself in a
Canadian cultural context. This variant identity is also evident in her interview, as outlined
below:
Though I am a Taiwanese, but I was born and grow up in Japan. I am familiar Japanese culture most. Even at home, my family followed the Japanese culture more. So Japanese is my first language. Though Taiwanese should be my native language, I cannot speak it that much. After I came to Canada, I used English every day. So in some word, English should be my second language. I learn Mandarin Chinese. But I am not fluent at both Mandarin and Taiwanese. (S19. Penny)
Indeed, what Penny said is a tendency that a number of Taiwanese group students exhibited.
Most Taiwanese students claimed that they were comfortable with both Canadian and Taiwanese
culture. They exhibit different identity orientations depending on what social group they are in or
the event in which they are participating. As Brook claimed, “I am Canadian and I am Taiwanese
as well. I grow up here; I definitely adopted the Canadian culture most. However, I also feel I am
Taiwanese. For example, I sometimes celebrate Taiwanese and Chinese traditional festivals with
my family. Like Lunar New Year.” (S18, Brook).
5.7.2 Age of immigration and identity
Most Taiwanese students in my study came to Canada at a very early age. They have been immersed in an English-language environment for an average of more than eight years. They are familiar with Canadian culture and the multilingual community of Toronto. These students endorse the mainstream Canadian culture and immerse themselves in the mainstream society
111 while at the same time keeping allegiance to their original cultural origins. The writing task allowed the students to put themselves into the specific situation evoked by the task to state their points. Thus, students shift their identities across multiple positionings. These identities include gender, cultural or culture and social class identities. The results of my study suggest that the earlier participants came to Canada, the more their cultural and cultural identity changes.
Double-identities are characteristic of the Taiwanese group. As expressed by Brook in the quotation above, sometimes she positions herself within Taiwanese culture, but most of the time she identifies herself as Canadian. Thus, on one hand, Brook represents herself as a Canadian because she came to Canada at a very young age and her English proficiency is much higher than her first language, Mandarin. Therefore she feels more comfortable with Canadian culture and the Canadian community. However, she also identifies herself as Taiwanese because whenever
Chinese traditional festival comes, she feels that she is back to her original cultural position. The phenomenon of those complementary self-identities applies to most participants of the
Taiwanese group. The reason here is that most of them came to Canada at an early age and they grew up in Canada. In contrast, the Chinese and Japanese groups came at a much later age and consequently exhibit a different pattern of cultural identification, being more rooted in their original cultures.
5.7.3 Written and oral language
Students who came to Canada at an early age have been exposed to English for many years but have not had much education in their first language. This reality is common within the
Taiwanese group. As Taiwanese female student Brook says: “Chinese writing is definitely
112
slower than English. Because many words that I want to use, I know it, but I cannot write it”
(S18, Brook). Briana expressed a similar sentiment:
I feel Chinese writing is really hard, because I have not written Chinese for a long time. I didn’t write Chinese since I came to Canada. I speak and write English every day. When I wrote Chinese essays for your research, I felt very difficult. I don’t know how to write Chinese essay. I forgot some Chinese expressions and Chinese words. (S10, Briana)
By contrast, Japanese students are more recent arrivals (average stay 3.3 years) and therefore most of these students think Japanese writing is much easier than English writing. Most
Taiwanese and Chinese students think English writing is easier than Chinese writing. With respect to the Chinese group, their cultural identities appear to depend on the specific situation and life experience of the individuals. Students who stay in Canada longer have shifted towards more of a Canadian cultural identity.
5.7.4 Thinking and writing styles – Think in L2 directly or translate from L1?
The interview data reveal that the students who have more English exposure think and write in
English directly, whereas students who are more recent arrivals rely more on their L1 to conceptualize their ideas and then translate these ideas into L2. There is no clear-cut gender pattern in this issue. However, there are differences according to cultural group. Taiwanese group students essentially think in English directly when they write in response to English prompts. When Taiwanese students write a Chinese essay, they need to figure out which
Chinese characters they are going to select. Taiwanese students claim that they can speak
Mandarin Chinese very well. But when they write a Chinese essay, it is difficult to find the right words or right Chinese characters. Therefore, there are some errors or misusage in Taiwanese students’ Chinese writing. By contrast, the Japanese group students claim that they need to think
113 their important ideas in Japanese first, and then translate these ideas into English when they write in response to English prompts.
Among the Chinese students, the longer they stay in Canada, the less they report using their L1 (Mandarin) to think. For example, Edward had many years of studying and teaching in an English environment. Therefore, his English writing is very fluent. On the other hand,
Angela’s stay in Canada is shorter and her English writing still reveals a lot of influence from
Chinese culture and language styles. The following is Angela’s English writing:
Dear Vice president,
My name is Angela . I am a graduate student majoring in Economics at Eastern University. I know you are very busy and I hope I am not taking you much time, but I have to express my opinion concerning the increase of the tuition fees for the coming academic year. I don’t think that raising the tuition is a good idea, not only for myself, but also for the whole society. (S11, Angela)
As shown above, Angela used many first person pronouns to emphasize her opinion and she also used very direct stylistic features to express her points. For example, “I don’t think that raising…” and then she extended this point far beyond her own situation “but also for the whole society”. This pattern is common in Chinese writing style where writers exaggerate the situation to persuade people rather than focusing on specific logical points. This hyperbolizing phenomenon also occurred in Japanese females’ writing. For example, Ayumi said, “I suggest increasing only that of the Canadian students, without increasing the fees of the international students”.
In the case of both Angela and Ayumi, they present themselves as representatives and speak for a much broader group (“…the whole society…”, “…international students…”). In contrast,
114 male students tended to focus more on the individual case. The following is a Chinese male student, Sam, who writes to support the tuition fee increase:
As everybody knows, compare to the universities in the United States, Canadian universities charge far more less tuition fees on students. The education in the university level is not like the basic educations at primary or secondary schools. University needs large investment to produce high quality elite education. But this investment should not come from government, because the government money will be mainly used for the basic education to guarantee the basic education right for every Canadian. (S15, male, Sam)
Sam states his observations and viewpoints to argue for the necessity of tuition fee increases.
Sam did not use first person pronouns to emphasize his points. Instead, he used facts (cheaper fees in Canada compared to the United States) and he attempted to persuade by logical flow rather than by emotional appeal.
5.8 Written Discourse and Rhetoric Patterns
5.8.1. The location of main ideas
Although as noted in Chapter 2, issues related to contrastive rhetoric have been controversial, there is evidence that traditional patterns of East Asian written discourse differ from English written discourse (e.g., Hinds, 1984, 1990). This general finding appears particularly the case in persuasive writing. For example, traditionally in both Chinese and Japanese persuasive writing the major point is delayed until near the end of the discourse. The Chinese discourse pattern of
Qi- cheng- zhuan – he (start -- follow – change direction – summarize) gives readers a surprise conclusion after providing many reasons and long discussions. This rhetorical pattern originated from the rhetorical pattern of the classic Chinese poems. These traditional differences in discourse organization may be related to the differences we have observed between the L1 and
L2 writing of Chinese and Japanese students.
115
I employed a Two-way Contingency Table Analysis (Chi Square Test) to analyze
differences in rhetorical patterns between the three cultural groups and the gender groups.
“Two-way Contingency Table Analysis evaluates whether a statistical relationship exists
between two variables” (Green & Salkind, 2005, p. 366). The frequency distributions for the
location of main ideas in L1 and L2 writing for the entire group are shown in Table Tables 5.7 to
5.10.
Table 5.7
Main Idea in L1 Writing (Task 1)
f % Valid Percentage Beginning 16 69.57 69.57 Middle 7 30.43 30.43 Total 23 100 100
Table 5.8
Main Idea in L1 Writing (Task 2)
f % Valid Percentage Beginning 13 56.52 56.52
Middle 10 43.48 43.48 Total 23 100 100
As shown above, in the first task of L1 writing, 69.57% of students put the main idea at the beginning of their essays and 30.43% put the main idea in the middle. In task 2, the differences are less but still in the same direction.
116
Table 5.9
Main Idea in L2 (Task 1)
F % Valid Percent Beginning 20 86.96 86.96 Middle 3 13.04 13.04 Total 23 100.00 100.00
Table 5.10 Main Idea in L2 Writing (Task 2) f % Valid Percent
Beginning 21 91.30 91.30 Middle 2 8.70 8.70 Total 23 100.00 100.00
Clear differences are evident in students’ English writing. In the first writing task (tuition fee increase), 86.96% of students put the main idea at the beginning of the essay, and only 13.04% put the main idea in the middle of the essay. These differences increase in the second task.
In summary, students adopt the conventional English rhetorical style when they write in
English but in their L1 the tendency to put the main idea at the beginning is less evident. These patterns are broken down by cultural group in the next section.
5.8.2. Group differences in location of the main ideas
Frequency distributions and Chi-square tests of main idea location within cultural and gender groups for L1 and L2 writing are presented below. The major differences in distributions emerged between the Japanese and other two groups. For example, for the first task of L1 writing,
117
50% of the Japanese group placed the main idea at the beginning and 50% in the middle of their
writing. For the second task of L1 writing, the distributions were 37.5% and 62.5%. This
contrasted with the other two groups where the predominant pattern in L1 writing was to put the
main idea at the beginning. However, these differences across cultural groups largely
disappeared in English writing where the main idea was overwhelmingly placed at the beginning.
No gender differences were observed in these patterns.
Chi-square analyses were conducted for all four writing tasks to assess the extent to
which the differences outlined in Figures 5.5 to 5.8 were statistically significant. Two variables
(beginning and middle) with three groups were tested. For Task 1 of L1 writing, the results were
as follows: Pearson χ2 (2, N=23) = 2.67, P = .26 (>.05), Cramer’s V = .26. Therefore, the
differences among the groups in Task 1 of L1 writing do not reveal a statistically significant
effect. For Task 2 of L1 writing, the following results were obtained: Pearson χ2 (2, N=23) =
1.93, P = .38 (>.05), Cramer’s V = .38. For L2 writing, Chi-square analysis also showed no significant differences.
118
Figure 5.5
Location of Main Idea in L1 Writing Task 1 by Cultural Group
119
Figure 5.6
Location of Main Idea in L1 Writing Task 2 by Cultural Group
120
Figure 5.7
Location of Main Idea in L2 Writing Task 2 by Cultural Group
121
Figure 5.8
Location of Main Idea in L2 Writing Task 2 by Cultural Group
5.8.3. Placement of main idea in L1 and L2: A comparison of Japanese vs. Chinese and Taiwanese students
I recoded the cultural groups in order to assess the extent to which there were differences between the Japanese group and the other two groups combined in relation to the location of the main ideas. I combined the two tasks in both L1 and L2. The scoring categories were as follows:
122 a) main idea in the beginning in both tasks, c) main idea in the middle in both tasks, and c) main idea in the beginning in one task and middle in the other. The Chi-square analysis of these differences is presented in Tables 5.11 and 5.12.
Table 5.11
Crosstabulations of Combined Tasks for L1 Main Idea Location
ML1
Begging and
Beginning Middle Middle Total
Japanese Count 3 4 1 8
% within Rce recoded 37.5% 50.0% 12.5% 100.0%
Chinese or Count 8 1 6 15
Taiwanese % within Rce recoded 53.3% 6.7% 40.0% 100.0%
Total Count 11 5 7 23
% within Rce recoded 47.8% 21.7% 30.4% 100.0%
Table 5.12
Chi-square Analysis of Combined Tasks for L1 Main Idea Location
Asymp. Sig. (2-
Value df sided) Pearson Chi-Square 6.077 a 2 .048 Likelihood Ratio 6.084 2 .048 N of Valid Cases 23 a. 5 cells (83.3%) have expected count less than 5. The minimum expected count is 1.74.
123
The Chi-square analysis revealed a statistically significant difference in main idea
placement between the Japanese and Chinese/Taiwanese groups. When main idea placement is
compared across L1 and L2 tasks, the descriptive frequencies reveal a substantial difference. As
shown in Table 5.9, more than half of the sample (12 out of 23) placed the main idea in the
middle in at least one of the L1 tasks. By contrast, in the L2 tasks, the main idea was placed in
the middle in at least one of the tasks by only 17.3% (4 out of 23). The corresponding figures for
placement of the main idea in the beginning are 47.8% for L1 writing tasks and 82.6% for L2
writing tasks.
5.8.4. Placement of main idea in L1 and L2 in the entire group
The final section in this chapter analyzes the placement of main idea in L1 and L2 in the entire group. The scoring categories were as follows: a) main idea in the beginning in both tasks, c) main idea in the middle in both tasks, and c) main idea in the beginning in one task and middle in the other. Chi-square tests were conducted to evaluate the significance of the observed differences.
124
Figure 5.9
Main Idea Placement in L1 in the Entire Group
125
Figure 5.10
Main Idea Placement in L2 in Entire Group
The results of the Chi-square test in main idea placement in L1 was not significant, χ2 ( 2,
N = 23) = 2.44, p = .30. A trend was observed in which the main idea was placed in the beginning more often than in the other two categories (Beginning N = 11, Middle N = 5,
Beginning and Middle N = 7.)
For main idea placement in L2, the results of the test in main idea placement were significant, χ2 ( 2, N = 23) = 25.39, p = .00. The proportion of placement of the L2 main idea in the beginning was much greater than the middle and mixed group (Beginning N = 19, Middle N
= 1, Beginning and Middle N = 3).
Overall, the results suggest that placement of the main idea in the beginning has been
internalized among the sample as the appropriate pattern when writing in English in a Canadian
context whereas this tendency is less obvious when students are writing in their L1. One of the
126
Chinese students expresses the more relaxed orientation to main idea placement in his L1 in comparison to English, a tendency which is reflected in the quantitative data:
The difference of English writing and Chinese writing are the location of the writer’s main points….when my supervisor read my paper, he always emphasizes that I should state my main point at the very beginning. However, Chinese writing is not necessary to put writer’s main points at the beginning. (Sam, S14)
5.9 Conclusion
The analyses presented in this chapter show highly significant differences in first person pronoun usage between the Japanese and the two Chinese-language groups in L1 writing but no group differences in L2 writing. There was also a trend for all students to place the main idea consistently in the beginning in their English writing but in L1 writing among the Japanese students the main idea was as likely to be placed in the middle as opposed to the beginning. The lack of significant differences in main idea placement in the Chi square analyses of the individual L1 writing samples may be attributable to the relatively small sample and the resulting lack of power in the statistical comparisons. When L1 writing tasks were combined, the differences between the Japanese and other groups did attain statistical significance. A larger- scale study would be required to reach more definitive conclusions.
A number of interpretations of these trends are possible. In the first place, the two
Chinese-speaking groups have been in Canada longer than was the case for the Japanese group and they may have become more acculturated to using English language rhetorical patterns even in their L1 writing. This interpretation was expressed by one student as follows:
“Actually my Chinese writing are largely influenced by my English writing, because I have not written any Chinese essays for a long time. I even forgot how to write in Chinese. But for English writing, I write various papers, emails and other documents every day. So I got used to write English than Chinese.” (S20, Felipe)
127
It may also be that cultural influences on writing patterns and conventions are stronger and more persistent in Japanese than in Chinese. However, these patterns are by no means fixed.
The fact that all students followed English rhetorical patterns when they wrote in English shows that writing styles are subject to instructional and experiential influences. Once again, it is appropriate to caution that these analyses of group differences are exploratory, intended to generate hypotheses for future more extensive investigation rather than to specify group differences in any definitive way.
Chapter 6 Writing Experiences, Language Influences and Writing Strategies
This chapter is devoted to Research Question 3. Research Question 3 states: “To what extent can male and females’ perceptions of themselves, their social roles and identities, be traced in their written discourse? How have these writing identities and differences in writing been mediated by their sociocultural and writing experiences?” In this chapter, I describe students’ writing experiences in their L1 and L2 writing and I also examine students’ accounts of their writing strategies in each language.
6.1 Writing Experiences
In this section, I examine the students’ writing experiences through their questionnaire and
stimulated-recall responses. Students’ writing experiences are categorized within cultural groups
in the following way: 1) had both L1 and L2 training; 2) had L1 writing training but not much L2
training; 3) had some L2 training but not much; 4) had no writing training in either L1 or L2.
6.1.1 Writing experiences in the Japanese group
All Japanese students in my study finished their undergraduate degree in Japan and thus
experienced all their education through Japanese. However, students reported some variation in
the kinds of L1 and L2 writing they carried out in their schooling.
Most of the Japanese students reported Japanese writing experiences from their elementary
school where they engaged in writing essays that drew on their personal feelings (kansobun).
Some Japanese students also reported that they had some Japanese writing training when they
prepared for the university entrance examination. However, all Japanese male students and one
128
129 female student reported that they did not have persuasive writing training. They learned persuasive writing primarily through practice. Some students claimed that they learned Japanese persuasive writing through books and articles. For example, Ayano (S1, female) claimed that she learned persuasive writing through her own writing practices. For example, she published some
Japanese articles when she was in a graduate school in Japan. As she said, “Those articles may be considered my Japanese writing experiences.” One Japanese male student claimed that he never had writing training, either Japanese or English. He learned how to write by actually engaging in writing. As he emphasized: “The more you write, the more you acquire how to write good essays”. (S7, male, Kosaku). Another Japanese male student said: “Throughout my school days, I have had little opportunity to experience persuasive writing (mostly giving my impressions of a book, articles, etc.)” (S8, male, Daisuke).
In summary, most Japanese students claimed that because they did not have formal L1 writing training, they learned L1 writing by practicing writing. Most Japanese students had experiences of writing reports or descriptions of one’s impressions (i.e., field trip, book review, movie review etc.). For example, Ayano claimed, “I didn’t have many experiences in writing persuasive essays in Japanese, but wrote a few articles. I wrote several papers for graduate courses.” (S1. Female, Ayano).
For the L2 writing experiences, most Japanese students had English writing training when they were preparing to apply for graduate school in Canada. Three female students and one male student also took English writing courses after they came to Canada. Two female students and one male student were majoring in English studies. Therefore, these students had more formal
English writing practice than they reported having in the L1. Only one male Japanese student claimed that he did not have any writing training in either L1 or L2. The typical experience of
130
students is summed up by Yoshihiro: “I didn’t have formal education of persuasive writing in my
native language, while I took some academic course in English at U of East Coast that taught me
persuasive writing.” (S6, male, Yoshihiro)
6.1.2. Writing experiences in the Chinese group
The Chinese group reported more extensive focus on L1 writing in their schooling than did the
Japanese group. Six out of seven students had L1 writing experiences from elementary school to
high school in China. Only one male student claimed that he did not have formal L1 writing
training. Some students stated that they wrote many L1 essays, such as descriptive writing and
persuasive writing. Helen said: “In my first language class, we learned how to write persuasive
writing in middle and high school. But I never have formal lecture about it in English class.”
(S12, female, Helen).
For L2 writing experiences, 50% of the Chinese students reported studying how to write
English persuasive essays when they prepared for the TOFEL test. Two Chinese male students claimed that they did not have English writing training; however they did engage in writing when they wrote their theses and published papers. Only one female student claimed that she had not taken any English writing course; she reported learning English writing by means of her own writing practices. As Helen (S12) said: “In my first language class, we learned how to write persuasive writing in middle and high school. But I never have formal lecture about it in English class.” On the other hand, Edward and Brianna had exposure to English writing when they studied in China. Edward reported: “I had some English writing training in college. And I had a lot of English writing training in graduate school”.
131
6.1. 3. Writing experiences in the Taiwanese group
The writing experiences of the Taiwanese group differ from those of the Chinese and Japanese
groups. As noted previously, seven out of the eight participants came to Canada at an early age
whereas Japanese and Chinese participants came to Canada after they finished their Bachelor
degrees in their home countries. Only one Taiwanese male student finished his Bachelor degree
in Taiwan. Although Mandarin Chinese was not the first language of several of the Taiwanese
group from a strictly chronological point of view, I am labelling it as L1 here for the following
reasons:
a) Mandarin Chinese is the official language in Taiwan, and it is widely used in Taiwan
society and educational institutions.
b) Most of Taiwanese students had more or less basic Mandarin education in Taiwan.
c) All Taiwanese students speak Mandarin Chinese with their friends and families.
d) Most Taiwanese younger generation use more Mandarin Chinese than their native
language, Minnanese or Hakka.
e) Some Taiwanese students in my study were still learning Mandarin in order to work in
China after they graduate from the university.
For Taiwanese students’ L1 writing, most of them did not have Chinese writing training except one male student who received his Bachelor degree and graduated from university in
Taiwan. The rest of the Taiwanese students did not learn formally how to write Chinese essays and had no experience or training in writing Chinese persuasive essays. Because most students
132 had learned how to write English essays and had considerable practice in English writing, their
Chinese writings were influenced by their English writing.
Not surprisingly, these students felt that writing English (L2) was more comfortable than writing Chinese (L1). Here is Cindy’s voice:
I think that when I write in English, I would be more comfortable, because I am used to use English when I write. As in Chinese, my writing experiences were not many. Hence, I don’t think that I have ever written any persuasive writing in Chinese/Mandarin. (S16, female, Cindy)
It is interesting to note that the students who came to Canada early in their schooling felt that
Chinese and English writing are similar. Brook (S18, female) came to Canada at the age of six after attending Mandarin Chinese kindergarten in Taiwan. She can speak Mandarin well, but her
Chinese writing is not at the same level as her English writing:
In elementary school, we were taught how to write a general formal essay. For example how not to start a sentence with “because” and use “do not” instead of “don’t”. We also learned that first person narrative is most persuasive because a story that is told from third-person’s point of view is not as direct. In 1st person stories, the reader can put himself in the shoes of the character. This applies to both Mandarin and English classes. In high school, we were taught to start forming a thesis statement for every essay, and that the first paragraph should give the reader a main idea of what is to be discussed in the essay. Basically, it’s an introduction to the essay. The conclusion also needed to end the essay. The conclusion should touch on the main points and thesis, but it should be phrased differently. Both introduction paragraph and concluding paragraph are vital to a well-written essay. This again, applies to both English and Chinese essay writing. As we get older and more up to higher levels in education, we are taught more tense and vocabularies to make an essay more interesting and captivating. For Chinese, the past tense and present tense seldom conflicted, whereas in English essay-writing, one has to be aware which tense he wants to write the essay in and stick to it in order to make the essay flow. Overall, English and Chinese do not conflict, mainly because the grammar and vocabulary are totally different. (S18, female, Brook)
133
6.2 Language Influences
Table 6.1 shows the students’ perception of cross-language interaction influences by gender and by cultural group.
134
Table 6.1
Students’ Perception of Language Influence by Gender and by Cultural Group
Grammatical Vocabulary L1 Influence on L2
Difference of L1 and Difference of L1 and
L2 L2
Japanese Females Totally different 4 Totally different 4 More positive than negative 3
(N= 5) Largely different 1 Largely different 1 Either positive or negative 1
Other 1
Japanese Males Totally different 2 Totally different 3 Either positive or negative 2
(N= 3) Largely different 1 Other 1
Chinese Females Totally different 2 Totally different 2 More positive than negative 2
(N= 4) Largely different 1 Largely different 1 Either positive or negative 1
A bit different 1 A bit different 1 Totally negative 1
Chinese Males Totally different 1 Totally different 2 More positive than negative 2
(N= 3) Largely different 2 A bit different 1 Either positive or negative 1
Taiwanese Females Totally different 1 Totally different 1 Either positive or negative 4
(N= 4) Largely different 2 Largely different 3
A bit different 1
Taiwanese Male Largely different 4 Totally different 2 More positive than negative 1
(N=4) Largely different 2 Either positive or negative 3
135
6.2.1. Japanese group
As Table 6.1 shows, in the Japanese group, with respect to the cross-language influence of semantics and syntax, all of students thought the Japanese language is very different from
English. Specifically, 4/5 Japanese females and 2/3 Japanese males think that Japanese grammar differs from English totally, 1/5 Japanese females and 1/3 Japanese males think that Japanese and English are largely different. For the lexis of Japanese and English, all Japanese students think these two languages are totally different.
Regarding the influence of L1 on L2, 3/5 female students think Japanese exerts a positive effect on their English (L2) writing. 1/5 Japanese female and 2/3 Japanese male students think
Japanese has both positive and negative effects on their English writing. In sum, most Japanese students (females and males) believe that their L1 differs significantly from English and most also think that their Japanese knowledge exerts a positive impact on their English learning and writing.
6.2.2. Chinese group
In the Chinese group, 2/4 Chinese females and 1/3 Chinese males think that Mandarin Chinese differs from English totally. One out of four females and 1/3 males think Mandarin Chinese differs from English largely. One out of four Chinese females think these two languages are slightly different. One male student thinks Chinese lexis is only a bit different from that of
English. One out of two Chinese females and 2/3 Chinese males think that the lexica of Chinese and English are totally different, another1/4 females think they are largely different. And 1/4 females and 1/3 males think that they are a bit different.
136
Regarding L1 influence on L2, 2/4 Chinese females and 2/3 Chinese males think that their
Chinese (L1) is positive for their English learning and writing. One out of four females and 1/3 males think their L1 is both positive and negative for L2 writing. And only one Chinese female thinks that Chinese has a negative effect on her English learning.
6.2.3. Taiwanese group
As Table 6.1 shows, one out of four Taiwanese females think that Mandarin Chinese differs from
English totally. One out of two females and all Taiwanese males think Chinese and English are largely different. For lexis, 1/4 females and 1/2 males think that, Chinese and English are totally different while 3/4 females and 1/2 males think that Chinese and English are largely different.
Regarding the influence of L1 on L2, all female Taiwanese students and 1/2 male Taiwanese students think that their L1 is both positive and negative for L2 writing. One male Taiwanese student thinks that his L1 is more positive than negative for his L2 writing.
6.2.4. Students’ perception of difference between L1 and L2
Several students felt that each language was specialized for different functions. For example, one of the Japanese students stated that, “In English, writing in a logical manner can be seen as persuasive, while in Japanese, we can be allowed more vagueness” (S4, female, Sachiko).
A Taiwanese male student claimed,
1st language is more natural. When I write Chinese essay, I feel more natural and there is no much artificial stuff. It could be said, 1 st language writing is good for narrative writing. But English writing is good for persuasive writing. (S21, male, David)
137
6.3 Writing Strategies
Students in my study used various writing strategies. Most of them claimed that they just wrote
whatever came to their minds because of time limitations. I outline their writing strategies using
the five points that I outlined in Chapter 3. Also, I examine students’ writing strategies by gender
and cultural group, and I present the results of L1 and L2 writing separately.
6.3.1. L1 writing strategies
As discussed in Chapter 3, I examine the writing strategies in this study from a metacognitive
perspective. According to Wenden (1998):
Metacognitive knowledge and metacognitive strategies are two separate and distinct components of the broader notion of metacognition. Therefore they should not to be considered interchangeable or similar. Metacognitive knowledge refers to information learners acquire about their learning, while metacognitive strategies are general skills through which learners manage, direct, regulate, guide their learning, i.e. planning, monitoring and evaluating (Wenden, 1998, p. 519).
Therefore, I outline metacognitive strategies based upon six categories ( self-awareness,
macro-structure, key ideas, key words, thinking patterns, and previous knowledge resource ).
Table 6.2 shows the results of the writing strategies used in L1 writing among three cultural groups and two gender groups.
138
Table 6.2
L1 Writing Strategies by Gender and by Cultural Group
Japanese Group Chinese Group Taiwanese Group
F M F M F M
1. Self-awareness Yes 1 Yes 2 Yes 2 Yes 2 (regulation) (marking, memos, No 4 No 3 No 2 No 3 No 2 (followed No 2 (followed outline, mapping, by what came By what came underlining) up) up)
2. Macrostructure Yes 5 Yes 3 Yes 4 Yes 2 Yes 2 Yes 2 (Developing structures in the No 1 No 2 No 2 text, revising the paragraphs, or editing the text)
3. Key ideas Yes 5 Yes 3 Yes 4 Yes 3 Yes 4 Yes 4
4. Key words Yes 5 Yes 3 Yes 4 Yes 3 Yes 2 Yes 2
No 2 No 2 5. Thinking patterns L1in Jap L1 in Jap. L1 in Ch. L1 in Ch. L1+L2 L1+L2 5 3 4 3
6. Previous Yes 5 Yes 1 Yes 3 Yes 1 Yes 2 Yes 1 knowledge resources No 2 No 1 No 2 No 2 No 3 ((Knowledge of formal scheme, background knowledge, L1 and L2 mixed up)
• F means female, M means male.
139
6. 3.1.1. Japanese group
As Table 6.2 shows, in L1 writing, most Japanese female students used five of the six metacognitive strategies. Only the first category, self-awareness was seldom used. The reason for that, as Kimiko claimed, is “because Japanese is my first language, I don’t have to think that much. I just wrote what came to my mind” (S3, female, Kimiko). For the category of self- awareness only one Japanese female student used mapping and outlining strategies to prepare her Japanese essay. The rest of the seven Japanese students did not use this strategy because they claimed that, as the Japanese language was their first language, they were able to write whatever came to their minds whereas they had to prepare an outline when they wrote English essays.
For the second category, macro-structure , all of the Japanese students, both male and female, revised or edited their essays. Use of this strategy is probably based on the students' daily academic writing training since all the students in the Japanese group were graduate students and they needed to write many essays for their academic studies. Therefore, the Japanese students' use of macro-structures in the Japanese writing tasks was influenced by their English academic writing practice. As Kosaku said, “Regarding the language influence, I would like to say that my
English writing practice influence on my L1 writing” (S7, male, Kosaku).
For key ideas and key words , all the Japanese students used both strategies to support their main points. For thinking patterns , all the Japanese students thought in their L1 when they wrote
L1 writing tasks. For previous knowledge resources , all the Japanese female students claimed that they used previous information. However, 2/3 of the Japanese male students claimed that they did not use previous knowledge; they just wrote whatever came to their mind.
140
6.3.1.2. Chinese group
In the L1 writing of the Chinese group, the metacognitive strategies used were similar to the
Japanese group, especially in key ideas , key words , and thinking patterns , as all Chinese students used those three metacognitive strategies. However, for self-awareness , all male students and two female students used this strategy whereas two female students did not use it. One of the students who used self-awareness strategies said: “I just brainstorm in my mind, and write it down. Because there were only 30 minutes for the writing tasks, I had no time to write down the outlines. However, for my academic writing, I always write down the outlines” (S9, female,
Elaine).
With respect to macro-structure , all female students and two male students revised or edited the writing tasks. Only one male student did not revise or edit his writing.
For previous knowledge resources , 3 out of 4 female students and 1 out of 3 male students used this strategy, whereas 1 out of 4 female students and 2 out of 3 male students did not use previous knowledge resources.
6. 2.1.3. Taiwanese group
L1 writing in the Taiwanese group was a bit complicated, because most Taiwanese participants immigrated to Canada at an early age. Moreover, most participants were undergraduates, and therefore their university writing training had not been as lengthy as for the Japanese and
Chinese groups. Only half of the female and half of the male Taiwanese students used the strategy of self-awareness . Even the students who used self-awareness claimed that they just
141
brainstormed a bit but did not write down outlines because there were only 30 minutes allotted to
each task. As well, only half of the female and half of the male students used the macro-
structure strategy. Those who did not use it claimed that limited time did not allow for revising
and editing. All the Taiwanese students used key ideas . However, only half of the students used some key words; the remaining students just wrote what came to their minds.
For thinking patterns , there are significant differences between the Taiwanese group and the
Japanese and Chinese groups. For the Taiwanese group, except for one male student who came to Canada to pursue graduate study, the remaining students (7/8) came to Canada at an early age.
They had English education for more than 8 years whereas they only had a very short period of
L1 education (Mandarin Chinese). Therefore, L1 writing was difficult for them. Most of the
Taiwanese students needed to think in English when they wrote the Mandarin Chinese tasks.
Some students could speak Mandarin Chinese well, but they could not write it well. Many students reported that they got stuck on occasions with Chinese word choice and vocabulary. The later students came to Canada, the less difficulty they experienced in the Chinese writing tasks.
For example, David came to Canada in Grade 3 and he had some basic Chinese education in
Taiwan. He noted: “I feel OK when I was writing Chinese tasks. But I still need to think in
English for a few points.” (S21, male, David).
Half of the female students and one quarter of the male students used the strategy of previous knowledge resources . The remaining half of the female students and three quarters of the male students did not use this strategy.
In the following section, I present the L2 writing strategies among the three cultural groups
and two gender groups.
142
6.3.2. Metacognitive strategies in L2 writing
6.3.2.1. Japanese group
Table 6.3 shows the metacognitive strategies used in L2 writing by study participants. All female students used macrostructures , key ideas , key words , and previous knowledge resources . Three out of five female students used self-awareness but the remaining 2/5 female students did not.
For thinking patterns , all female students thought in their L1 more or less when they wrote
English writing tasks. As Ayano claimed, “I think in English mostly when I was writing English essay. However, I still need to use Japanese to think some specific words or key ideas. Because
Japanese is my first language, and it is easy for me to think my key points in my own language.”
(S1, female, Ayano).
143
Table 6.3
L2 Writing Strategies by Gender and by Cultural Group
Japanese Group Chinese Group Taiwanese Group
F M F M F M
1. Self-awareness Yes 3 Yes 4 Yes 0 Yes 2 Yes 2 (regulation) (marking, memos, No 2 No 3 No 3 No 2 No 2 (followed by what outline, mapping, came up underlining) (followed by what came up
2. Macrostructure Yes 5 Yes 3 Yes 4 Yes 3 Yes 2 Yes 2 (Developing structures in the No2 No 2 text, revising the paragraphs, or editing the text)
3. Key ideas Yes 5 Yes 2 Yes 4 Yes 3 Yes 4 Yes 4
No 1 4. Key words Yes 5 Yes 3 Yes 4 Yes 3 Yes 4 Yes 3
No 1 5. Thinking patterns L2 in Eng = L2 = 0 L2 in English = 3 L2=1 L2 = 3 L1+L2 = 4 0 L2 in Eng= L1+L2 = 1 L1+L2=2 L1+L2 = 1 L1+L2= For 1 Eng. 5 (L2 in Eng = L1+L2=For 1, Eng. 2 L1+L2=For Eng. 2)
6. Previous Yes 5 Yes 1 Yes 3 Yes 1 Yes 2 Yes 3 knowledge resources No 2 No1 No 2 No 2 No 1 (Knowledge of formal scheme, background knowledge,L1 and L2 mixed up)
• F = female, M = male.
144
All the Japanese male students used key words and macro-structure strategies. However, none of the male students used the self-awareness strategy , which includes mapping, outlining, and so on.
Two out of three of the male students used key ideas. For thinking patterns , one of the three
Japanese male students thought in English directly when he wrote English writing tasks. This male student had more exposure to an English environment during his undergraduate study in
Japan. Afterward, he came to the USA and Canada and undertook graduate study. Because of his many years of English exposure, he became used to thinking in English directly when he wrote
English essays or papers. On the other hand, 2/3 of the males needed to use Japanese (L1) to think of key points or words, and then translated L1 key words into English (L2). For previous knowledge resources , one of the three male students used his previous knowledge to help with the writing tasks, but 2/3 of the male students did not use this strategy and simply wrote whatever came to their minds.
6.3.2.2. Chinese group
In terms of the metacognitive strategies used in L2 writing, all Chinese female students used self- awareness , macro-structures , key ideas and key words . For thinking patterns , 3/4 of the female students thought in English directly when they wrote the English tasks whereas one of the four female students thought in Chinese for some key points or key words when she wrote English essays. She had only been in Canada for about two years. Among the Chinese group, as in the
Japanese group, the longer the students are exposed to an English environment, the more they report thinking in English directly. For previous knowledge resources , 3/4 of the female students used this strategy.
In the Chinese male group, all male students used the metacognitive strategies of macro- structures , key ideas and key words . None of them used self-awareness . As Hank claimed,
145
“There were only 30 minutes for each task. So I had no time to outline anything. I just wrote whatever I thought.”(S15, male, Hank). For thinking patterns , one of the three male students thought in English directly when he wrote English essays. This student had been exposed to
English environments since his undergraduate study in China. The remaining 2/3 of the male students had to think in their L1 for their key points. 1/3 of the male students used the strategy of previous knowledge resources but 2/3 of the males did not use this strategy.
6. 3.2.3. Taiwanese group
In L2 writing (English), the Taiwanese group differs from the Japanese and Chinese groups. All of the female students in the Taiwanese group used key ideas and key words . One half of the females used the strategies of self- awareness and macro-structures . Cindy explains her use of these writing strategies in the following statement:
R: How did you begin planning this composition? Did you make a plan or jot down your ideas? How did you organize your essay? (Researcher)
C: “Well, I just read the questions of the writing tasks. And then, I imagined the context, and brainstormed the content, and tried to make key points which I learned from high school. Our high school English teacher taught us that writers should always make their arguments to support their main points.” (S16, female, Cindy).
However, half of the females did not use the strategies of self- awareness and macro- structures . For thinking patterns , 3/4 of the female Taiwanese students thought in English directly when they wrote English tasks. They all had more than 8 years of English education in
Canada. Only one of the females used both L1 and L2 to think, because she had come to Canada only four years previously, and she needed to use her L1 to help her make her main points. One half of the female students used the strategy of previous knowledge resources but the other half of the female students did not use it.
146
In the Taiwanese male student group, all male students used key ideas . For thinking patterns ,
all male students used both L1 and L2 to think when they wrote English tasks. The interesting
thing is that even though the male students had lived in Canada for many years, they still needed
to use both L1 and L2 to think of key ideas or some words when they wrote English essays
whereas the female Taiwanese students who had similar backgrounds did not need to use L1 to
help think of key ideas. Furthermore, 1/2 of the male students used the strategies of self- awareness and macro-structures, while another 1/2 did not use these two strategies. For the key words and previous knowledge resources , 3/4 of the males used these metacognitive strategies.
To summarize, all students used key ideas and most of them used key words . Due to the time limitation, most of them used brainstorming strategy instead of outlining or mapping. Most students used macro-structures in their writing as they were used to writing academic papers.
About half of the students used previous knowledge resources to write the tasks. The most interesting finding relates to thinking patterns . The thinking patterns of L1 and L2 writing depend on students’ language proficiency--the higher the language proficiency, the more directly students think in that language. For example, the Japanese group had been in Canada for the shortest period of time. Therefore, the Japanese students thought in L1 directly when they wrote
L1 tasks, whereas they had to use both L1 and L2 to think when they wrote L2 tasks. The
Chinese group reflects a similar pattern. The longer these group members had lived in Canada, the more direct thinking they did in English when they wrote English tasks. The Taiwanese group reveals an opposite pattern from Japanese and Chinese groups. The Taiwanese group needed to use both L1 and L2 to think when they wrote Chinese (L1) essays, whereas in the
English task they had little difficulty in thinking directly in English when they wrote English (L2) tasks. However, in this case, Taiwanese male students showed a different trend from the
147
Taiwanese female students. Males needed both L1 and L2 to think in L1 and L2 writing tasks, whereas females just thought directly in English when they wrote English tasks.
6.4 Conclusion
Students from the three groups all reported formal writing experiences and instruction in their L2
(English) but an inconsistent pattern was revealed for their L1. The Japanese group tended to report relatively little formal instruction in Japanese writing whereas many of the Chinese group did report having received instruction in L1 writing. The experience of the Taiwanese group was influenced by the fact that most of them had immigrated at a relatively early age and thus the opportunity for formal instruction in Chinese writing was limited. The lack of formal L1 writing instruction among the Japanese group suggests that the L1 patterns observed in the present study
(e.g., minimal pronominal usage, more frequent main idea placement in the middle than was the case for the other groups) are the result of general cultural influences rather that representing a preferred pattern that students have been instructed to use. With respect to metacognitive and metalinguistic strategy use, few differences were observed across languages in any of the groups with the exception of thinking patterns. Limitations in students’ L2 proficiency led some members of the Japanese and Chinese groups to report thinking in L1 when they composed in
L2. Among the Taiwanese group whose Chinese (L1) skills were somewhat limited, the opposite pattern was observed—students reported using English as a thinking tool when they wrote in their L1.
Chapter 7 Discussion and Conclusions
In this chapter, I interpret the findings presented in Chapters 4, 5 and 6. The first section
summarizes the main results and addresses the significance of the findings in relation to the
three research questions outlined in previous chapters. The second section presents the
interpretations of results in relation to the research literature in the field. The final section offers
some linguistic, educational and anthropological implications of the findings and outlines both
the limitations of the study and suggestions for future research.
7.1 Summary of Findings
Three main findings emerged from the research:
• Quantitative analyses showed variation in linguistic and rhetorical features of
L1 and L2 writing across the three cultural groups but not across gender
groups.
• Qualitative analyses suggested that male students emphasized their own
opinions more than female students did. There was also evidence that female
students showed more emotion in their writing whereas male students
invoked rational argumentation to a greater extent than did the female
students.
• Length of time that students were in an English-speaking social environment,
and their consequent relative level of proficiency in L2, played a role in the
writing strategies they adopted; specifically, students whose L1 was stronger
148
149
than their L2 relied more on L1 than L2 and students whose L2 had become
stronger than their L1 relied more on their L2 in both writing and thinking.
7.1.1. Linguistic and rhetorical strategies in L1 and L2 writing
The analyses of linguistic and rhetorical strategies showed that Japanese students used culturally- specific patterns to write the L1 tasks but all groups used patterns that are typical of North
American formal writing to complete the L2 writing tasks. The Taiwanese group showed a more complex pattern manifesting influences from their L1 and L2 cultures and languages in their writing in both languages. As discussed in Chapter 6, this reflects the fact that most of these students arrived in Canada at a relatively early age and for some, Chinese was not, in fact, their first or stronger language.
Statistical analysis revealed group differences in the following linguistic features of L1 writing:
(a) First person pronouns : Chinese and Taiwanese students used L1 first person pronouns
much more than the Japanese group did. No significant differences were found between
Chinese and Taiwanese groups.
(b) Second person pronouns : Chinese and Taiwanese groups used considerably more L1
second person pronouns than the Japanese group. No significant differences were found
between Chinese and Taiwanese groups.
(c) Third person pronouns : Once again, Chinese and Taiwanese students used third person
pronouns more than the Japanese group did. No significant differences were found between
Chinese and Taiwanese groups.
150
(d) Demonstratives “this” and “these” : Chinese and Taiwanese groups used these
linguistic features more than did the Japanese group. No significant differences were found
between Chinese and Taiwanese groups.
(e) Demonstratives “that” and “those” : Japanese groups used the demonstrative pronouns
“that” and “those” more than the Chinese and Taiwanese groups did.
(f) Adjectives: The Taiwanese group used L1 adjectives somewhat more often than the
Chinese group and both Taiwanese and Chinese groups used L1 adjectives more than did the
Japanese group.
(g) Adverbs: The Taiwanese group used L1 adverbs considerably more than did the Chinese
and Japanese groups. The Chinese group also used L1 adverbs more than the Japanese group.
(h) Conjunctions: The Chinese group used L1 conjunctions more than either the Japanese
or Taiwanese groups.
No significant differences were found between the groups in L2 writing.
In summary, major differences were found between the groups in various aspects of L1 writing but the differences in L2 writing were minimal. As one example, the Japanese group avoided using first person pronouns in their L1 writing, but they used many first person pronouns in their English writing.
7.1.2. Rhetorical strategies
The most consistent pattern with respect to rhetorical strategies was observed among the
Japanese students who were less likely than the other two groups to place main ideas in the beginning in their L1 writing. All three groups tended to place the main idea at the beginning in their English writing. There is no indication that the Japanese students viewed this as a preferred strategy for expressing meaning in their writing but it does seem to reflect a more general
151 tendency for indirectness that a number of peoples have reported as characteristic of Japanese communicative styles.
7.1.3. Expression of identity in L1 and L2 writing
7.1.3.1. Cultural group analysis
The three cultural groups revealed aspects of their different cultural identities in their L1 and L2 writing. The Japanese students used more polite and formal expressions in their L1 writing such as expressions of humility and avoidance of first person pronouns. They also employed more honorific styles in L1 writing. They tended to use indirect expressions to express their opinions when they wrote in Japanese. However, they switched their writing styles to those typical of
Canadian culture when they wrote English essays. Their writing styles reflected what they had learned from English writing classes or English writing books.
By contrast, the Chinese students focused on their own experiences or their own opinions in both L1 and L2 writing. Honorific styles and politeness are not typical rhetorical features in
Chinese contemporary pragmatics. As a result, Chinese students did not demonstrate this feature in their writing. Instead they tended to use more self-assertion to emphasize their points. Their
L1 and L2 writing is more self-centered and focused on their own opinions.
Taiwanese students’ L1 writing was intermediate between Japanese and Chinese students.
They used more expressions of politeness that the Chinese but less than the Japanese.
7.1.3.2. Gender analysis
Male students across the three groups tended to emphasize their own opinions more than was the case for the female students. The female students expressed more emotion and experiential
152 reference in their writing whereas the males relied more on logical argumentation. Male students also used more judgmental adjectives than female students did.
7.1.4. Writing strategies
The interview data revealed some of the strategies that students used in their L1 and L2 writing.
For example, the thinking patterns that students reported using in L1 and L2 appeared to depend on the level of their language proficiency in each language. Japanese and Chinese students thought in L1 directly when they wrote the L1 tasks but used both L1 and L2 to write the English tasks. Their length of residence in Canada emerged as an important factor in the extent to which they depended on L1 in their writing of L2. The Taiwanese group, by contrast, needed to use both L1 and L2 to think when they wrote Chinese (L1) essays, whereas in the English task they had little difficulty in thinking directly in English. However, in this case, Taiwanese male students showed a different trend from the Taiwanese female students. Males needed both L1 and L2 to think in L1 and L2 writing tasks, whereas females just thought directly in English when they wrote English tasks. Caution is obviously required in interpreting this pattern given the small number of students involved in these comparisons.
7.2 Significance of the Findings in Relation to Theory and Research
7.2.1. Gender and writing
As noted in Chapter 2, previous research has provided evidence of gender differences in orientations to writing. Specifically, the writing of males has been characterized as more assertive, more assured, more direct, less polite, and more authoritarian while the writing of females is described as less assertive, more hesitant, more polite, less authoritarian, less
153 confrontational, more emotional and more personal (Brody, 1993; Graham, 2002; Mulac, 1990,
Oxford, 2004). The statistical analyses of gender differences in L1 and L2 writing carried out in the present study did not support the trends observed in previous studies. Qualitative analysis, however, provided some evidence for gender differences in L1 writing among the Japanese students. No gender-related differences emerged in the qualitative analyses among the Chinese or Taiwanese groups. Among the Japanese group, Japanese female students write L1 in the conventional Japanese way using politeness strategies considered appropriate for females. By contrast, when they write in English, female students make lexical choices and use rhetorical patterns that are indistinguishable from those of their male counterparts and appropriate for a
North American cultural context.
This finding is consistent with previous research (reviewed in Chapter 2) which reported that Japanese women, in many contexts, tend to speak more politely than Japanese men, a trend that has been interpreted as reflecting the power relations historically and currently operating in
Japanese society which relegate Japanese women to an inferior status and enforce this status through linguistic mandates (Brody 1993; Endo, 2006; Graham, 2002; Mulac, 1990; Okamoto,
2004; Shibamoto, 2004). These linguistic mandates are not static, however, and are contested by women in a variety of contexts. It is interesting to note that in the present study this gender difference was observed only in Japanese and not in English writing. This finding is analogous to
Ohara’s (1992) finding that among bilingual Japanese students, female/male differences were evident in pitch of spoken Japanese usage but not in pitch of spoken English usage. As discussed below, this pattern highlights the strong influence of cultural context and expectations on both oral and written language behavior.
154
The fact that the Japanese female students shifted their writing styles from L1-appropriate to L2-appropriate patterns suggests that when students are learning a second language and functioning in a new cultural and academic context, they are also engaging in an identity shift whereby their identities and linguistic behaviours are merging into those considered “normal” and appropriate within the new culture.
7.2.2. Cultural variation in writing
A significant body of research suggests that there are differences among cultural and cultural groups in their orientations to certain genres of writing. Specifically, it has been argued that
Asian students including Chinese, Japanese, and Korean like to use inductive rhetorical patterns to write English essays (Conner, 1996; Hinds, 1988; Kaplan 1966). Also, other scholars have claimed that students from these Asian backgrounds tend to write essays that reveal “hesitations” and “uncertainties” (Hinkel, 2002). Other researchers (e.g., Kubota, 1992, 2003; Kubota &
Lehner, 2004) contest this interpretation claiming that there are no cultural differences in writing that can be generalized in any absolute way beyond the influence of specific contextual factors.
The findings of the present study are somewhat at variance with those of previous research claiming rhetorical differences between different cultural groups. Differences in rhetorical patterns between L1 and L2 writing were not found among the Chinese and Taiwanese groups. This is not surprising for the Taiwanese group since most of these students had been instructed for much of their schooling in an English-medium context. For the Japanese students, notable L1-L2 differences emerged in rhetorical patterns. In both quantitative and qualitative analyses, many (but by no means all) Japanese students were found to follow the Japanese
155 writing approach to write Japanese tasks whereas they switched to follow English writing styles to write English tasks.
This finding appears to reflect the influence of specific instruction on L2 writing strategies which has raised students’ awareness of the different approaches and the importance for their academic outcomes of adopting an English-appropriate style when they write in that language. As reported in previous research (Hinds, 1988; Kubota, 1992), Japanese students tend to use an inductive rhetorical style in Japanese writing, although Kubota (1992) emphasizes that this style is not necessarily a preferred or recommended style. However, contrary to the findings of some other research, the present study suggests that Japanese students studying in a North
American context have learned to switch from an L1 to an L2 writing style when they write in
English.
Kubota’s (1992) research demonstrated that “placing the main idea in the final position often overlaps the use of induction, one of the large category or macro-level patterns (1992, p.125). Kubota concludes that Japanese students use inductive pattern because they “tend to formulate one elaborated argument which will eventually lead to conclusion or introduce an argument opposite to the subsequent one and then based on the contrast with the first argument, draw the main opinion at the end” (pp.125-126). With respect to Kubota’s research, the findings in the present study provide evidence consistent with her results. In addition, the findings suggest that being immersed in an overseas context may contribute to Japanese students’ ability to adapt their writing strategies in comparison to Japanese students who write in English in Japan. As
Kubota has argued, the claims of previous research about the rhetorical patterns of Asian students are over-generalized and fail to take account of the flexibility of students in adapting their writing styles according to cultural expectations.
156
As would be expected in view of the fact that they learned most of their writing skills in a
North American context, the Taiwanese group used a predominantly deductive style in their
English writing. The Chinese group showed a varied pattern with some using primarily deductive style and others inductive.
In summary, the findings suggest caution in making any sweeping generalizations about
“Asian” rhetorical patterns in L1 or L2 writing. Students’ writing styles are likely to be a function of a variety of factors that will vary both between and within groups. Traditionally, there has been a documented pattern of inductive and less direct argumentation in the L1 writing of some Asian groups in comparison to the greater deductiveness characteristic of North
American rhetorical patterns. However, the present study suggests that these patterns do not necessarily generalize to students’ L2 writing, which is influenced both by instructional experiences and cultural influences as a result of contact with North American societal and academic institutions. In addition, it is quite likely that broad patterns of globalization with dramatically increased cross-cultural and cross-linguistic contact are exerting an effect on both oral and written language use patterns in both L1 and L2.
7.2.3. Identity and writing
As Ivanic (1997, p. 17) claims, “discourse is a mediating mechanism in the social construction of identity,” in which people need to produce and receive cultural recognition, group recognition and ideological representation. The analysis of L1 and L2 writing in the three cultural groups and the two gender groups, suggests that, in the particular academic context of the present study, both culture and gender emerge as influential in the Japanese group but not in the other two groups.
The cultural differences in rhetorical patters have already been discussed with respect to
157 differences between Japanese and the other groups. Qualitative analysis of Japanese students’ writing suggested an impact of gender roles in their Japanese writing but this was not the case for the other two groups. In Japan, the identities and social roles of women and men are encoded linguistically to a greater extent than is the case for the other cultural groups and these social roles were observable in the L1 writing samples of the Japanese group.
It is interesting that these patterns were observable in the actual writing samples in view of Ivanic’s claim that “A particular self-representation cannot usually be traced in the linguistic characters of the text, and can only be accessed through in-depth interview with the writers of the sort drawn on here ” (1998, p. 215). In addition to the writing samples, evidence for the patterns observed in the present study came from interviews with the participants suggesting that the findings are robust.
The fact that all groups adopted conventional North American rhetorical strategies in their L2 writing and that gender differences in Japanese students’ L1 writing disappeared when they wrote in L2 suggests that identities are fluid and shift when the cultural and linguistic environment changes. This pattern provides additional evidence for Gumperz’ (1982) claim that the realization of communicative tasks as social practice is culturally variable.
7.3 Limitations and Future Research
The major limitation of this research study is the small number of research participants in each group which makes the findings tentative and subject to further elaboration in future research. In addition, the Taiwanese group included students with a variety of L1 and L2 language learning experiences. Thus, it was difficult to make generalizations that applied to this group. However, it is worth noting that this group is somewhat representative of many contemporary immigrant
158 groups who have transnational experiences and whose L1 (understood chronologically) may not be their stronger language.
Future research might address similar issues of gender and cultural influences on writing in multiple languages by including greater numbers in each sample and by varying further the writing topics that students write about. The differences observed within the Japanese group with respect to Japanese and English writing preferences might be probed further through interviews to assess the extent to which students are aware of this shift in rhetorical style between their L1 and L2. These issues were not probed in the present study because at the time of the interviews, the pattern of L1/L2 differences had not been analyzed.
7.4 Implications for Teaching Writing in Asian Languages and English at the University Level
The findings of this study show that students adjust their writing patterns according to the language they are writing and the context in which the writing occurs. In Japanese and Chinese writing, politeness is often signaled through the use of vague or indirect expressions on the grounds that too much directness or explicitness may hurt the feelings of the reader. English writing typically emphasizes a greater degree of directness. Thus, writing instructors should be aware of these culturally normalized patterns and ensure that learners also become aware of the fact that conventions of effective writing are likely to vary in different contexts.
Instructors should also be aware that these cultural patterns are not invariant across different genres of writing. Within Asian languages, different styles will be appropriate for different purposes. For example, scientific writing does not follow the same pattern as more general persuasive writing. As Japanese participant Kosaku claimed, “For Japanese writing, the rhetoric strategies are more flexible. I did not learn how to write Japanese essay. I just write
159
whatever I think” (S7, Kosaku, male). Thus, the style of Japanese persuasive writing is not really
constant. It could be vague sentences mixed with clear, and it could also be “ ki-sho-ten-ketsu ”
(opening-developing-turn-closing). Similarly, the rhetorical strategies in Chinese vary across different contexts and purposes. Persuasive writing and scientific writing are different from writing in the humanities. As Elaine said, “I don’t think there is any difference of rhetoric patterns between Chinese writing and English writing in my research field. Our science papers in both Chinese and English require clear ideas and statements, strong data support, logic flow and conclusion” (S9, female).
An additional consideration for instructors of English writing to Asian students is the potential need to focus explicitly on critical thinking and ways of expressing it in writing. The education system in both China and Japan tends to be more teacher-centered than is the case in
North America and consequently many students may have had little opportunity to engage in critical thinking about curricular topics or current events. Thus, explicit instruction in the rhetorical forms that are likely to be employed in critical inquiry should be a focus of English writing instruction. These rhetorical forms will obviously vary across different genres of writing and thus it is important that instructors orient their teaching of writing to the particular needs of the learner. For example, academic writing in the humanities will follow different conventions from writing in the sciences and all forms of academic writing will differ from more casual forms of writing (e.g., letters, email, etc.).
In conclusion, this research study has contributed to the growing body of research on gender and cultural identity in first and second language writing. The findings challenge claims regarding the transfer of rhetorical styles from Asian languages to English. It appears that students in the present study acquired appropriate rhetorical conventions for writing in English in
160 an academic context and adjusted cultural and gender orientations to writing in their L1 to the realities of writing in English in a North American environment. A more in-depth study would be required to explore the extent to which students’ identities shifted in any fundamental way as opposed to a more superficial shift when they interacted in English both orally and in writing.
One could speculate that in the early stages of using English in a North American multicultural environment the identity shift is somewhat superficial but over time more fundamental changes in identity emerge as learners internalize a broader range of cultural and linguistic influences in their new environment.
161
References
Abe, H. (2000). Speaking of power: Japanese professional women and their speeches. Munich:
LINCOM Europa.
Aristotle. (2004). Art of rhetoric . London, UK: Penguin Books.
Arnaudet, M. L., & Barrett, M.E.(1984). Approaches to academic reading and writing .
Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice Hall.
Baba, K. (2007 ). Dimensions of lexical proficiency in writing summaries for an English
as foreign language test . (Doctoral dissertation, Ontario Institute for Studies in Education,
University of Toronto, 2007).
Bachman, L. F., & Palmer, A.S. (1989). The construct validation of self-ratings of
communicative language ability. Language Testing, 6(1), 14-29.
Belcher, D. (2001). Does second language writing theory have gender? In Silva, T., &
Matsuda, P. K. (Eds.), On second language writing (pp.59-71). Mahwah, NJ:
Lawrence Erlbaum Associates, Publishers.
Bermúdez, A. B., & Prater, D. L. (1994). Examining the effects of gender and second
language proficiency on Hispanic writers’ persuasive discourse. Bilingual Research
Journal, 18 , 3-4, summer/fall, 47-62.
Bohn, M. (2008). Educated Japanese young women's diverse linguistic and social behaviors
during the Meiji and Taisho periods (1868--1926) with implications for Japanese
language pedagogy. Unpublished doctoral dissertation, Stanford University.
Boyle, J. P. (1987). Sex differences in listening vocabulary. Language Learning , 37,
237-284.
162
Brody, M. (1993). Manly writing: gender, rhetoric, and the rise of composition . Illinois:
Southern Illinois University.
Bruner, J.S. (1975). Language as instrument of thought. In A. Davies (ed.) Problems of
Language and Learning . London, UK: Heinemann.
Cameron, D. (1997). Performing gender identity: Young men’s talk and the construction
of heterosexual masculinity. In Sally, J. & Meinhof, U. (Eds .), Language and
masculinity (pp. 47-64) . Oxford, UK: Blackwell.
Cameron, D. (2007). Review of the book: Feminist Critical Discourse Analysis: Gender,
Power, and ideology in discourse . M. M. Lazar (ed.). Language in Society , Vol 36 ( 1) ,
112-115.
Casanave, C. P. (1992). Cultural diversity and socialization: A case study of a Hispanic woman
in a Doctoral program in sociology. In Murray, D. (eds.), Diversity as resource:
Redefining cultural literacy . Alexandria, VA: TESOL
Casanave, C. P. (2006). Controversies in second language writing . Ann Arbor: The
University of Michigan Press.
Chambers, J. K. (1995). Sociolinguistic Theory: Linguistic variation and its social
significance . Oxford, UK, & Cambridge, USA: Blackwell Publishers Ltd.
Chavez, M. (1996a). Non-revised writing, revised writing, and error detection by learner
characteristics. International Journal of Applied Linguistics , 6 (2), 3-38.
Chavez, M. (2000). Gender In the language classroom. Boston, MA: McCraw-Hill High
Education.
Chen, W.C. (2007). Some literatur e review on the comparison of the Chinese Qi-Cheng-
Zhuan-He writing model and the Western problem-solution schema. WHAMPOA-
163
An Interdisciplinary Journal 52(2007), 137-148
Chomsky, N. (1965) Aspect of the theory of syntax. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.
Clark, J. B. (2008). So why do you want to teach French? Representations of multilingualism
and language investment through a reflexive critical sociolinguistic ethnography.
Ethnography and Education, Volume 3 (1), 1-16.
Coates, J. (1993). Women, men and language: a sociolinguistic account of gender
difference in language . London, New York: Longman.
Connor, U. (1996). Contrastive Rhetoric: Cross-cultural aspects of second language writing.
New York: Cambridge University Press.
Connor, U. (2005). Comment on “Toward critical contrastive rhetoric.” Journal of Second
Language Writing, 14, (2), 132-136.
Connor, U. (2008). Mapping multidimensional aspects of research: reaching to intercultural
rhetoric. In U. Connor, E. Nagelhout, &W. V. Rozycki, (Ed.), Contrastive Rhetoric:
reaching to intercultural rhetoric . Amsterdam/Philadelphia: John Benjamins Publishing
Company.
Cook, V., & Bassetti, B. (2005). An introduction to researching second language
writing systems. In V. Cook, & B. Bassetti (Ed.), Second language writing
systems (pp.1- 67). Clevedon, UK: Multilingual Matters Ltd.
Cumming, A., & Gill, J. (1992). Motivation or accessibility? Factors permitting Indo-
Canadian women to pursue ESL literacy instruction. In Burnaby, B., & Cumming,
A. (Eds.), Socio -political aspects of ESL . Research in education series 21. Toronto:
Ontario Institute for Studies in Education, University of Toronto.
Cumming, A. (1988). Writing expertise and second language proficiency in ESL writing
164
performance . (Unpublished Doctoral dissertation, Ontario Institute for Studies in
Education, University of Toronto, 1988).
Cumming, A., Kantor, R., Baba, K., Erdosy, U., Eouanzoui, K., Janmes, M. (2005).
(2005). Differences in written discourse in independent and integrated prototype tasks
for next generation TOEFL. Assessing Writing, 10(1), 5-43.
Cummins, J. (1981). The role of primary language development in promoting educational
success for language minority students. In California State Department of Education
(Ed.). Schooling and language minority students: A theoretical framework . (pp. 3-49).
Los Angeles: National Dissemination and Assessment Center.
Cummins, J., Swain, M. (1986). Bilingualism in Education. Essex, UK: Longman Group
UK Limited.
Cummins, J. (2000). Language, power and pedagogy: Bilingual children in the crossfire .
Clevedon: Multilingual Matters LTD.
Darling, C. (1996). Guide of grammar and writing. Retrieved from
http://grammar.ccc.commnet.edu/grammar/
Ellis, R. (1994). The study of second language acquisition . Oxford, UK: Oxford University
Press.
Edwards, J. (1985). Language, society and identity . Oxford, UK: Basil Blackwell Ltd.
Eggington, W. (1987). Written academic discourse in Korean: Implications for effective
communication. In U. Connor, & R. B. Kaplan (Eds.), Writing across languages:
Analysis of L2 text (pp. 153–168). Reading, MA: Addison-Wesley.
Endo, O. (2006). A cultural history of Japanese women’s language. Ann Arbor: University of
Michigan Press.
165
Evans, E. M., Schweingruber, H., & Stevenson, H. W. (2002). Gender differences in interest and
knowledge acquisition: The United States, Taiwan, and Japan. Sex Roles, 47, 3/4 , 153-
167.
Farris, C. (1987). Gender and Grammar in Chinese: With Implications for Language
Universals. Modern China. 1988; 14: 277-308.
Fillmore, C.J. (1968) The case for case. In E. Bach and R. Harmes (eds) Universal in
Linguistic Theory . New York: Holt.
Fishman, J. A(1999). Sociolinguistics. In J. A. Fishman (Eds.), Handbook of
language and cultural identity (pp.153-163). New York: Oxford University Press.
Flavell, J. H. (1976) Metacognitive aspects of problem solving. In L. B. Resnick (Ed.), The
nature of intelligence (pp. 231-236). Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum
Flavell, J. H. (1979). Metacognition and cognitive monitoring: A new area of cognitive-
developmental inquiry. American Psychologist, 34, 906-911.
Fowler, E. (1988) The rhetoric of confession: shishosetsu in early twentieth-century
Japanese fiction . Berkeley: University of California Press.
Fu, J. (2003). Do men and women speak differently? Comparing Japanese and
Mandarin Chinese. Paper presented in New England Asian Conference,
Oct 2003, Harvard University.
Gardner, R. C., & Lambert, W. E. (1972). Attitudes and motivation in second language
learning. Rowley, MA: Newbury House.
Gardner, R. C. (1979). Social psychological aspects of second language acquisition. . In
H. Giles, and R.N. ST Clare (Eds.), Language and social psychology, pp.193-
220.
166
Giles, H. (1979). Sociolinguistics and social psychology: introductory essay. In H. Giles,
and R.N. ST Clare (Eds.), Language and social psychology (pp.1-20). Oxford,
UK: Basil Blackwell.
Giles, H., & Johnson P. (1987) Ethnolinguistic Identity Theory: A Social Psychological
Approach to Language Maintenance . International Journal of the
Sociology of Language , 68, pp. 69-99.
Gold, D., Crombie, G., & Noble, S. (1987). Relations between teachers’ judgment of girls’ and
boys compliance and intellectual competence. Sex Roles , 16, 351-358.
Goldstein, T. (2003). Teaching and learning in a multilingual school, choice, risk, and
dilemmas. Mahwah, New Jersey: Lawrence Erlbaum Association, Inc., Publisher.
Grabe, W., & Stoller, F.L. (2002) Teaching and researching reading . London, UK:
Longman, Pearson Education.
Graham, J.G. (2002). Sex differences in the persuasive writing of university students
enrolled in introductory composition . (Doctoral Dissertation, University of
Maryland, College Park, 2002). ProQuest Digital Dissertations, AAT
3070526.
Green, S. B, & Salkind, N. J. (2008). Using SPSS for Windows and Macintosh
analyzing and understanding data . New Jersey, USA: Pearson Education, Inc.
Gu, Y. Q. (2002) Gender, Academic Major, and Vocabulary Learning Strategies of
Chinese EFL Learners . RELC Journal, 33, 35-54.
Hamp-Lyons, L. (1993). Assessing second language writing in academic contexts . New
Jersey,USA: Ablex Publishing Corporation.
167
Heller, M. (1988). Codeswitching: An anthropological and sociolinguistic perspective . Berlin,
New York: Mouton de Guyter.
Heller, M. (1999). Codeswitching: An anthropological and sociolinguistic perspective . London,
New York: Addison Wesley Longman Inc.
Hinds, J. (1987). Reader versus writer responsibility: A new typology. In U. Connor &
R. B. Kaplan (Eds.), Writing across languages: Analysis of L2 text . Reading, Mass:
Addison-Wesley Publishing Company: 141-152.
Hinds, J. (1990). Inductive, deductive, quasi-inductive: Expository writing in Japanese, Korean,
Chinese, and Thai. In Connor, U., & Johns, A. M. (Eds.), Coherence in writing:
Research and pedagogical perspectives , 87-110. Alexandria, VA: TESOL.
Hinkel, E. (2002). Second language writers’ text: Linguistic and rhetorical features.
Mahwah, New Jersey: Lawrence Erlbaum Association, Publishers.
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.
Hoey, M. (1991). Patterns of lexis in text . Oxford, England: Oxford University Press.
Holmes, (1995). Women, men, and politeness . London and New York: Longman Group
Limited.
Ho, D. (1987). Prediction of foreign language skills: A canonical and part canonical
correlation study. Contemporary Educational Psychology , 12 , 119-130.
Huang, S.M. (2007). The rhetoric roles of professional English writing. Retrieved April
2007,from
http://www.cavesbooks.com.tw/e_magazine/e_magazine_article.aspx?language1=0&sn=
209
168
Hyland, K. (2001). Bring in the reader: Addressee features in academic articles. Written
communication, Vol. 18, No.4. 549-574.
Hyland, K. (2003). Second language writing . Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University
Press.
Hyland, K. (2005). Metadiscourse. London, UK: Continuum.
Hu, S.Z. (1992). Comparative studies in English and Chinese rhetoric. Shanghai, China:
Shanghai Foreign Studies Educational Publisher.
Ivanic, R. (1998). Writing and identity: The discoursal construction of identity in
academic writing . Amsterdam: John Benjamins.
James, M. A. (2010). An investigation of learning transfer in English-for-general academic-
purposes writing instruction. Journal of Second Language Writing, 19, 183–206.
Jessner, U. (2008). A DST Model of Multilingualism and the Role of Metalinguistic
Awareness. The Modern Language Journal. 92, ( 2), 270-283.
Johnson, D. M. (1992). Interpersonal involvement in discourse: gender variation in L2 writers’
complimenting strategies. Journal of Second language Writing, 1, (3), 195-215.
Kachru, Y. (2004). Culture, context, and writing. In E. Hinkel
(Eds.), Culture in second language teaching and learning (pp.75-89). New York:
Cambridge University Press.
Kanaya, T. (2002). Japanese does not need subjects: correcting the misleading of
hundreds years. Tokyo, Japan: Kodansha, Ltd.
Kaplan, R. B. (1966). Cultural thought patterns in intercultural education. Language
learning 16, 1-20.
169
Kobayashi, Y. (2000). Japanese social influences on academic high school students’
attitudes toward long-term English learning . (Unpublished Doctoral Dissertation,
Ontario Institute for Studies in Education, University of Toronto, 2000).
Koda, K. (2004). Learning to read across writing system: transfer, metalinguistic
Awareness, and second-language reading development. In V. Cook, & B. Bassetti
(Ed.), Second language writing systems (pp.311-334). Clevedon, UK:
Multilingual Matters Ltd.
Kubota, R. (1992). Contrastive rhetoric of Japanese and English: A critical approach .
(Unpublished Doctoral dissertation. Ontario Institute for Studies in Education, University
of Toronto).
Kubota, R. (1998a). An investigation of L1-L2 transfer in writing among Japanese university
students: Implications for contrastive rhetoric. Journal of Second Language Writing, 7 ,
69-100.
Kubota, R. (1998b). An investigation of Japanese and English L1 essay organization:
Differences and similarities. The Canadian Modern Language Review, 54 , 475-507.
Kubota, R. (2003). New approaches to gender, class, and race in second language writing.
Journal of Second Language Writing, 12 , 31-47.
Kubota, R., & Lehner, A. (2004). Toward critical contrastive rhetoric. Journal of Second
Language Writing, 13. 7-27.
Kubota, R., & Lehner, A. (2005). Response to Ulla Connor’s comments on “Toward critical
contrastive rhetoric.” Journal of Second Language Writing, 14, (2), 137-143.
170
Kubota, R., & Shi, L. (2005). Instruction and reading samples for opinion and argumentative
writing in L1 junior high school textbooks in China and Japan. Journal of Asian Pacific
Communication, 15 (1), 97-127.
Lakoff, R. (1975). Language and women’s place . Harper and Row Publishers.
Lantolf, J. (1999). Second culture acquisition- cognitive considerations. In E. Hinkel
(Eds.), Culture in second language teaching and learning (pp.28-46). New York:
Cambridge University Press.
Larsen-Freeman, D., & Cameron, L. (2006). Research methodology on language
developments from a complex theory perspective. Paper presented at AAAL /CAAL
conference. Montreal, Canada.
Leki, I. (1997). Cross-talk: ESL issues and contrastive rhetoric. In C. Severino, J. C. Guerra, & J.
E. Butler (Eds.), Writing in multicultural settings (pp. 234–244). New York, NY: The
Modern Language Association of America.
Liebkind, K (1999). Social psychology. In J. A. Fishman (Eds.), Handbook of language
and cultural identity . New York: Oxford University Press.
Liu, J. X. (2008). The generic and rhetoric structures of expositions in English by
Chinese cultural minorities: a perspective from intercultural rhetoric. Language and
intercultural communication, Vol.8 (1), pp.1-19
Matsumoto, Y. (2001). Sedai to kotoba no sentaku (Young generations and their language
usage. In Sasaki, A. Y. (Eds.), Gengogaku to nihongo kyoiku (Linguistcs and Japanese
language education) , 33-48. Tokyo: Kuroshio Publisher, Ltd.
171
Maltz, D. & Borker, R. (1982). A approach to male and female miscommunication. In
Gumperz, J. (eds.), Language and social identity, Cambridge: Cambridge
University Press. P.196-206.
Maynard, S. K. (1997). Japanese communication, language and thought in context.
Honolulu, USA: University of Hawaii Press.
McGuinness, C. (1998). Cognition. In Trew, K. & Kremer, J. (Eds.), Gender and psycholog y.
London, UK: Arnold Publishers.
Miller, C., & Swift, K. (1976). Words and women . Garden City (NY): Anchor Press,
Doubleday.
Miller, S. (1991). The feminization of composition. In R. Bullock, & J. Trimbur, (Ed.), The
politics of writing instruction: postsecondary (pp.39-53). Portsmouth, NH:
Boynton/Cook.
Miyazaki, A. (2004). Japanese junior high school girls’ and boys’ first-person pronoun use and
their social world. In S. Okamoto, & J. S. Shibamoto (Eds.), Japanese language, gender,
and ideology, cultural models and real people (pp. 256-274). New York: Oxford
University Press.
Morris, L. A. (1998). Differences in men’s and women’s ESL Writing at the junior college level:
consequence for research on feedback. The Canadian Modern Language Review , 55, pp.
219-238.
Mulac, A., Studley, L.B., & Blau, S. (1990). The gender-linked language effect in
Primary and secondary students’ impromptu essays. Sex Role , 23 (9/10), pp. 439-
469.
172
Myers, J. L. (2000). Rhetorical style: Chinese encounter Aristotle. In A. Brown (Ed.), English in
Southeast Asia 99 (pp.71-79). Singapore: National Institute of Education.
NAEP 2002 Assessment: National Assessment of Educational Progress, reading and writing,
twelfth grade, USA Retrieved from
http://nces.ed.gov/nationsreportcard/pdf/demo_booklet/gr12demobook.pdf
Newman, M. L., Groom, C. J., Handelman, L. D., & Pennebaker, J. W. (2008). Gender
differences in language use: An analysis of 14,000 text samples. Discourse Processes, 45,
211-236.
Norton, B. (2000). Identity and language learning: Gender, culture and educational change .
Harlow, England: Pearson Education Limited.
OECD (2010d). PISA 2009 results: Learning to learn – Student engagement, strategies and
practices (Volume III). Paris: OECD. Retrieved from
http://dx.doi.org/10.1787/9789264083943-en
Ohara, Y. (1992). Gender-dependent pitch levels: A comparative study of Japanese and English.
In K. Hall, M. Bucholtz, and B. Moonwomon (Eds.), Locating power: Proceedings of the
Second Berkeley Women and Language Conference (pp. 469-477). Berkeley: Berkeley
Women and Language Group.
Okamoto, S. (1995). “Tasteless” Japanese: Less “feminine” speech among young Japanese
women. In K. Hall and M. Bucholtz (Eds.), Gender articulated: Language and the
socially constructed self (pp. 297-325). New York: Routledge.
Okamoto, S. (2004). Ideology in linguistic practice and analysis, gender and politeness in
173
Japanese revisited. In S. Okamoto, & J. S. Shibamoto (Eds.), Japanese language,
gender, and ideology, cultural models and real people (pp. 38-56). New York: Oxford
University Press.
Okan, Z. (2004). A contractive view of learning strategies. In N. Kassabgy, Z. Ibrahim, &
S. Aydelott (Ed.), Contrastive rhetoric, issue, insights, and pedagogy (pp.131-
142). New York: The American University in Cairo Press.
Ounsted, C., & Taylor, D. C. (1972). The Y chromosome message: a point of view. In
C. Ounsted, & D. C. Taylor (Eds.), Gender differences: Their ontogeny and
significance (pp.241-262).
Oxford, R. (1990c). Language learning strategies: what every teacher should know . Boston,
Mass.: Heinle & Heinle.
Oxford, R.(1994). Gender differences in second/foreign language learning style and strategies. In
Sunderland, J. (Eds.), Exploring gender: Questions and implications for English
language education (pp.140-147) . New York, London, Toronto: Prentice Hall.
Phakiti, A. (2003). A closer look at gender and strategy use in L2 reading. Language
Learning, 2003, 53, 649-702.
Pavlenko, A. & Piller, I. (2001). New direction in the study of multilingualism, second
language learning, and gender. In Pavlenko, A., Piller, & Teutsch-Dwyer (Eds.),
Multilingualism, second language learning and gender . Berlin: Mouton W de G.
Qi, M. K (1984). Cross-cultural differences in rhetorical patterning: A study of Japanese
and English. (Unpublished Doctoral dissertation, State University of New York at
Stony Brook), ProQuest Digital Dissertations, AAT 8422565.
Quirk, R., Greenbaum, S, Leech, G., &Svartvik, J. (1985). A comprehensive grammar of
174
the English language . New York: Longman.
Ramage, J. D., & Bean, J. C. (1995). Writing argument: A rhetorical with readings.
Boston: Longman.
Robin, D. (1993). Gender influences: reading students texts . Carbondale and
Edwardsville: South Illinois University Press.
Sadker, M. & Sadker, D. (1994). Failing at fairness: How American’s schools cheat girls.
New York: Charles Scribner’s Sons.
Sandler, B. R. (1996). The chilly classroom climate: a guide to improve the education of women.
Washington, DC: The national association for women in education.
Schmeck, R. (1983). Learning style of college students. In Dillon, R. F. & Schmeck, R. (Eds.),
Individual differences in cognition. Vol.1 . New York: Academic Press.
Shavelson, R.J. (1996). Statistical reasoning for the behavioural sciences. Third edition .
Boston: Allyn and Bacon.
Shibamoto, J. S. (1985). Japanese women’s language. New York: Academic Press.
Shibamoto, J. S. (1987). The womanly women: manipulation of stereotypical and
nonsterotypical features of Japanese female speech. In Philips, S. U. et al. (Eds.),
Language, gender and sex in comparative perspective. London, New York:
Cambridge University Press.
Shibamoto, J. S. (2004). Language and gender in the (hetero) romance. In S. Okamoto, &
J.S. Shibamoto (Ed.), Japanese language, gender, and ideology, cultural model
and real people (pp.113-130). New York, USA: Oxford University Press.
175
Siegal, M., & Okamoto, S. (2003). Toward reconceptualizing the teaching and learning of
gendered styles in Japanese as a foreign language. Japanese Language and
Literature, 37 , 49-66.
Spack, R. (1997). The rhetorical construction of multilingual students. TESOL Quarterly , 3 1,
765–774.
Suleski, R., & Masada, H. (1982). Affective expression in Japanese. Tokyo, Japan: The
Hokoseido Press.
Sunderland, J. (2004). Gendered discourses . New York, USA: Palgrave Macmillan.
Swann, J. (1992). Girls, boys and language . Oxford, UK: Blackwell.
Tanaka, L. (2004). Gender, language and culture: A Study of Japanese television interview
discourse. Amsterdam/Philadelphia: John Benjamins Publishing Company.
Tannen, D. (1990). You just don’t understand. Oxford, UK: Blackwell.
Trudgill, P., Labov, W., & Fasold, R.W. (1979). Editor’s preface: Language in society series. In
H. Giles, and R. St.Clare (Eds.) Language and social psychology . Oxford, UK: Basil
Blackwell.
Uysal, H.H. (2006). Tracing the culture behind the writing: Rhetorical patterns and
Bidirectional transfer in L1 and L2 essays of Turkish writers in relation to
educational context. (Unpublished Doctoral dissertation, The University of Iowa,
2006). ProQuest Digital Dissertations, AAT 3225679.
Uysal, H.H. (2008). Tracing 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 18 , pp.183-207.
Wen, Q., & Johnson, R. K. (1997). L2 variables and English achievement: A study of tertiary
176
–level English majors in China. Applied Linguistics, 18, 27-48.
Wolfson, N. (1988). The bulge: A theory of speech behaviour and social distance. In Fine, J.
(Eds.), Second language discourse . A textbook of current researc h, pp.21-40. Norwood,
New Jersey: Ablex.
Xiao, H. L (2000 ). A comparison of rhetorical patterns in contemporary Chinese and
American argumentation and persuasion. (Unpublished Doctoral dissertation. Texas
Woman’s University, 2000) ProQuest Digital Dissertations, AAT
9988404.
Yamada, H. (1997). Different games, different rules: Why Americans and Japanese
misunderstand each other . New York: Oxford University Press.
Young, D. J & Oxford, R. L (1997). A gender-related analysis of strategies used to process
written input in the native language and a foreign language. Applied language learning 8 ,
43-73.
Yu, L. (1996). The role of cross-linguistic lexical similarity in the use of motion verbs by
Chinese and Japanese learners . Unpublished doctoral dissertation, University of
Toronto.
Zamel, V. (1997). Toward a model of transculturation. TESOL Quarterly, 31 , 341–352.
Zhou, A. (2004). Writing the dissertation proposal: A comparative case study of four
Non-native- and two native- English speaking Doctoral students in education.
(Unpublished Doctoral dissertation. Ontario Institute for Studies in Education, University
of Toronto).
Zhu, Y. (2001).Comparing English and Chinese persuasive strategies in Trade Fair
177
invitations: A sociocognitive approach . Document Design, vol. 2, (1) 2-17. John
Benjamins Publishing Company.
Electronic Resources
NAEP 2002 Assessment: National Assessment of Educational Progress, reading and writing,
twelfth grade, USA Retrieved from
http://nces.ed.gov/nationsreportcard/pdf/demo_booklet/gr12demobook.pdf
Definition of three appeals
http://www.uwc.ucf.edu/Writing%20Resources/Handouts/appeals.htm
Definition of culture
http://www.tamu.edu/classes/cosc/choudhury/culture.html
178
Appendix A
Student Consent Form 1
You have been selected to be included in a Doctoral study that is investigating gender differences in students’ persuasive writing. With your consent, your essay will be photocopied and will used in this study. Please be assured that your anonymity will be preserved. Students’ essay will be typed and will use your pseudonym. Your original copy will be returned to you. In addition, with your consent, you will be interviewed regarding your experiences in first language (L1) and second language (L2) writing and gender identity in this study. Please be assured that your anonymity will be preserved. Furthermore, you also participate in a role play that examines how you use your L1 and L2 in spoken language. Both the interview and role play will be audio- taped. The data will be processed in two stages: transcription and analysis. The data will be destroyed 5 years after the study is completed. Please understand that your participation in this study is completely voluntary.
Please indicate your choice below of giving or not giving consent for your essay to be included in the study.
______I give consent for my essay to be included in the study and possibly reproduced in its entirety within the dissertation of researcher.
______I do not give consent for my essay to be included in the study.
______I do not give consent back because I don’t want to participate in this study.
Name (Please print) ______
Signature ______
Investigator ______
Meeting time ______
179
Appendix B
Student Consent Form 2 (Interview)
You have been selected to be included in a Doctoral study that is investigating gender differences in * students’ persuasive writing. With your consent, you will be interviewed regarding your experiences in first language (L1) and second language (L2) writing and gender identity in this study. The interview will be audio-taped. Please be assured that your anonymity will be preserved. The data will be processed in two stages: transcription and analysis. The data will be destroyed 5 years after the study is completed. Please understand that your participation in this study is completely voluntary.
Please indicate your choice below of giving or not giving consent for your essay to be included in the study.
______I give consent for my essay to be included in the study and possibly reproduced in its entirety within the dissertation of researcher.
______I do not give consent for my essay to be included in the study.
Name (Please print) ______
Signature ______
Investigator ______
Meeting time ______
180
Appendix C
Persuasive Writing Prompt (Mandarin Chinese)
Code Number: ______
Instructor: ______
Situation:
The winter is coming. The building where you live becomes very cold due to deficient condition. Write a letter to the landlord to request them to repair the heating in your apartment. In your essay, please explain why you request to repair the heating. Please provide evidence, which include your own experiences. Write the letter in Mandarin Chinese. Take ONE side opinion.
Be sure: This is NOT a test. There is no right and wrong answer. Your letter should be between 400-500 words. Please write your letter on the paper provided. You have 30 minutes to finish this writing task. When you have finished, stop and wait for further instruction.
181
Appendix D Multiple Comparisons:
ANOVA Results for Cultural Group Comparisons
95% Confidence Interval Mean Difference Std. Lower Upper Dependent Variable (I) Group (J) Group (I-J) Error Sig. Bound Bound ConjunctionL1 Bonferroni Japanese Chinese -8.089 * 2.77 .03 -15.33 -.85 Taiwanese -1.00 2.68 1.00 -7.99 5.99
Chinese Japanese 8.089 * 2.77 .03 .85 15.33 Taiwanese 7.09 2.77 .06 -.15 14.33
Taiwanese Japanese 1.00 2.68 1.00 -5.99 7.99 Chinese -7.09 2.77 .06 -14.33 .15 Dunnett C Japanese Chinese -8.09 3.45 -18.64 2.46 Taiwanese -1.00 1.49 -5.38 3.38
Chinese Japanese 8.09 3.45 -2.46 18.64 Taiwanese 7.09 3.42 -3.37 17.55
Taiwanese Japanese 1.00 1.49 -3.38 5.38 Chinese -7.09 3.42 -17.55 3.37 ConjunctionL2 Bonferroni Japanese Chinese .46 2.01 1.00 -4.80 5.73 Taiwanese 1.25 1.95 1.00 -3.83 6.33
Chinese Japanese -.46 2.01 1.00 -5.73 4.80 Taiwanese .79 2.01 1.00 -4.48 6.05
Taiwanese Japanese -1.25 1.95 1.00 -6.33 3.83 Chinese -.79 2.01 1.00 -6.05 4.48 Dunnett C Japanese Chinese .46 2.21 -6.15 7.08 Taiwanese 1.25 2.03 -4.74 7.24
Chinese Japanese -.46 2.21 -7.08 6.15 Taiwanese .79 1.62 -4.12 5.69
Taiwanese Japanese -1.25 2.03 -7.24 4.74 Chinese -.79 1.62 -5.69 4.12 FirstPronL1 Bonferroni Japanese Chinese -26.107 * 4.06 .00 -36.70 -15.51 Taiwanese -27.625 * 3.92 .00 -37.86 -17.39
Chinese Japanese 26.107 * 4.06 .00 15.51 36.70
182
Taiwanese -1.52 4.06 1.00 -12.11 9.08
Taiwanese Japanese 27.625 * 3.92 .00 17.39 37.86 Chinese 1.52 4.06 1.00 -9.08 12.11 * Dunnett C Japanese Chinese -26.107 4.16 -38.82 -13.39 Taiwanese -27.625 * 3.15 -36.92 -18.33
* Chinese Japanese 26.107 4.16 13.39 38.82 Taiwanese -1.52 4.96 -16.53 13.49
* Taiwanese Japanese 27.625 3.15 18.33 36.92 Chinese 1.52 4.96 -13.49 16.53 FirstPronL2 Bonferroni Japanese Chinese -.20 5.32 1.00 -14.11 13.71 Taiwanese -5.50 5.14 .89 -18.94 7.94
Chinese Japanese .20 5.32 1.00 -13.71 14.11 Taiwanese -5.30 5.32 .99 -19.21 8.61
Taiwanese Japanese 5.50 5.14 .89 -7.94 18.94 Chinese 5.30 5.32 .99 -8.61 19.21 Dunnett C Japanese Chinese -.20 4.22 -12.89 12.49 Taiwanese -5.50 5.57 -21.89 10.89
Chinese Japanese .20 4.22 -12.49 12.89 Taiwanese -5.30 5.60 -21.99 11.39
Taiwanese Japanese 5.50 5.57 -10.89 21.89 Chinese 5.30 5.60 -11.39 21.99 secondPronL1 Bonferroni Japanese Chinese -15.304 * 3.40 .00 -24.19 -6.41 Taiwanese -13.875 * 3.29 .00 -22.46 -5.29
Chinese Japanese 15.304 * 3.40 .00 6.41 24.19 Taiwanese 1.43 3.40 1.00 -7.46 10.32
Taiwanese Japanese 13.875 * 3.29 .00 5.29 22.46 Chinese -1.43 3.40 1.00 -10.32 7.46 * Dunnett C Japanese Chinese -15.304 3.00 -24.41 -6.19 Taiwanese -13.875 * 3.24 -23.43 -4.32
* Chinese Japanese 15.304 3.00 6.19 24.41 Taiwanese 1.43 3.83 -10.05 12.91
* Taiwanese Japanese 13.875 3.24 4.32 23.43 Chinese -1.43 3.83 -12.91 10.05 SeconPronL2 Bonferroni Japanese Chinese -1.13 2.29 1.00 -7.11 4.86
183
Taiwanese -1.25 2.21 1.00 -7.03 4.53
Chinese Japanese 1.13 2.29 1.00 -4.86 7.11 Taiwanese -.13 2.29 1.00 -6.11 5.86
Taiwanese Japanese 1.25 2.21 1.00 -4.53 7.03 Chinese .13 2.29 1.00 -5.86 6.11 Dunnett C Japanese Chinese -1.13 2.18 -7.61 5.36 Taiwanese -1.25 2.45 -8.46 5.96
Chinese Japanese 1.13 2.18 -5.36 7.61 Taiwanese -.13 1.98 -6.04 5.79
Taiwanese Japanese 1.25 2.45 -5.96 8.46 Chinese .13 1.98 -5.79 6.04 ThirdPrL1 Bonferroni Japanese Chinese -3.41 1.51 .11 -7.37 .55 Taiwanese -4.000 * 1.46 .04 -7.82 -.18
Chinese Japanese 3.41 1.51 .11 -.55 7.37 Taiwanese -.59 1.51 1.00 -4.55 3.37
Taiwanese Japanese 4.000 * 1.46 .04 .18 7.82 Chinese .59 1.51 1.00 -3.37 4.55 Dunnett C Japanese Chinese -3.41 1.72 -8.69 1.86 Taiwanese -4.000 * .96 -6.83 -1.17
Chinese Japanese 3.41 1.72 -1.86 8.69 Taiwanese -.59 1.91 -6.40 5.22
* Taiwanese Japanese 4.000 .96 1.17 6.83 Chinese .59 1.91 -5.22 6.40 ThirdPronL2 Bonferroni Japanese Chinese -2.39 2.86 1.00 -9.87 5.08 Taiwanese -4.13 2.76 .45 -11.35 3.10
Chinese Japanese 2.39 2.86 1.00 -5.08 9.87 Taiwanese -1.73 2.86 1.00 -9.21 5.74
Taiwanese Japanese 4.13 2.76 .45 -3.10 11.35 Chinese 1.73 2.86 1.00 -5.74 9.21 Dunnett C Japanese Chinese -2.39 3.33 -12.52 7.74 Taiwanese -4.13 2.12 -10.38 2.13
Chinese Japanese 2.39 3.33 -7.74 12.52 Taiwanese -1.73 3.24 -11.60 8.13
Taiwanese Japanese 4.13 2.12 -2.13 10.38
184
Chinese 1.73 3.24 -8.13 11.60 demonThisL1 Bonferroni Japanese Chinese -4.57 1.97 .09 -9.73 .58 Taiwanese -4.88 1.91 .06 -9.85 .10
Chinese Japanese 4.57 1.97 .09 -.58 9.73 Taiwanese -.30 1.97 1.00 -5.46 4.85
Taiwanese Japanese 4.88 1.91 .06 -.10 9.85 Chinese .30 1.97 1.00 -4.85 5.46 Dunnett C Japanese Chinese -4.57 2.09 -10.97 1.83 Taiwanese -4.875 * 1.48 -9.24 -.51
Chinese Japanese 4.57 2.09 -1.83 10.97 Taiwanese -.30 2.41 -7.60 6.99
* Taiwanese Japanese 4.875 1.48 .51 9.24 Chinese .30 2.41 -6.99 7.60 DemonTHISL2 Bonferroni Japanese Chinese 3.39 1.84 .24 -1.41 8.19 Taiwanese 1.63 1.78 1.00 -3.01 6.26
Chinese Japanese -3.39 1.84 .24 -8.19 1.41 Taiwanese -1.77 1.84 1.00 -6.57 3.03
Taiwanese Japanese -1.63 1.78 1.00 -6.26 3.01 Chinese 1.77 1.84 1.00 -3.03 6.57 Dunnett C Japanese Chinese 3.39 1.69 -1.68 8.46 Taiwanese 1.63 1.89 -3.93 7.18
Chinese Japanese -3.39 1.69 -8.46 1.68 Taiwanese -1.77 1.79 -7.14 3.60
Taiwanese Japanese -1.63 1.89 -7.18 3.93 Chinese 1.77 1.79 -3.60 7.14 DemonTHATL1 Bonferroni Japanese Chinese 3.464 * 1.26 .04 .17 6.76 Taiwanese 3.375 * 1.22 .04 .19 6.56
Chinese Japanese -3.464 * 1.26 .04 -6.76 -.17 Taiwanese -.09 1.26 1.00 -3.38 3.21
Taiwanese Japanese -3.375 * 1.22 .04 -6.56 -.19 Chinese .09 1.26 1.00 -3.21 3.38 Dunnett C Japanese Chinese 3.46 1.35 -.55 7.48 Taiwanese 3.38 1.38 -.70 7.45
Chinese Japanese -3.46 1.35 -7.48 .55
185
Taiwanese -.09 .79 -2.46 2.29
Taiwanese Japanese -3.38 1.38 -7.45 .70 Chinese .09 .79 -2.29 2.46 DemonThatL2 Bonferroni Japanese Chinese -2.07 1.37 .43 -5.64 1.50 Taiwanese -2.25 1.32 .31 -5.70 1.20
Chinese Japanese 2.07 1.37 .43 -1.50 5.64 Taiwanese -.18 1.37 1.00 -3.75 3.39
Taiwanese Japanese 2.25 1.32 .31 -1.20 5.70 Chinese .18 1.37 1.00 -3.39 3.75 Dunnett C Japanese Chinese -2.07 1.14 -5.57 1.42 Taiwanese -2.25 1.25 -5.93 1.43
Chinese Japanese 2.07 1.14 -1.42 5.57 Taiwanese -.18 1.65 -5.13 4.77
Taiwanese Japanese 2.25 1.25 -1.43 5.93 Chinese .18 1.65 -4.77 5.13 AdjectiveL1 Bonferroni Japanese Chinese -4.48 2.62 .31 -11.33 2.37 Taiwanese -7.500 * 2.53 .02 -14.12 -.88
Chinese Japanese 4.48 2.62 .31 -2.37 11.33 Taiwanese -3.02 2.62 .79 -9.87 3.83
Taiwanese Japanese 7.500 * 2.53 .02 .88 14.12 Chinese 3.02 2.62 .79 -3.83 9.87 Dunnett C Japanese Chinese -4.48 1.64 -9.41 .44 Taiwanese -7.50 2.88 -15.98 .98
Chinese Japanese 4.48 1.64 -.44 9.41 Taiwanese -3.02 2.82 -11.36 5.33
Taiwanese Japanese 7.50 2.88 -.98 15.98 Chinese 3.02 2.82 -5.33 11.36 AdjectivesL2 Bonferroni Japanese Chinese 5.95 5.57 .90 -8.61 20.50 Taiwanese 9.25 5.38 .30 -4.81 23.31
Chinese Japanese -5.95 5.57 .90 -20.50 8.61 Taiwanese 3.30 5.57 1.00 -11.25 17.86
Taiwanese Japanese -9.25 5.38 .30 -23.31 4.81 Chinese -3.30 5.57 1.00 -17.86 11.25 Dunnett C Japanese Chinese 5.95 5.73 -11.56 23.45
186
Taiwanese 9.25 4.40 -3.70 22.20
Chinese Japanese -5.95 5.73 -23.45 11.56 Taiwanese 3.30 6.73 -17.04 23.65
Taiwanese Japanese -9.25 4.40 -22.20 3.70 Chinese -3.30 6.73 -23.65 17.04 AdverbL1 Bonferroni Japanese Chinese -13.446 * 4.55 .02 -25.34 -1.55 Taiwanese -20.875 * 4.40 .00 -32.37 -9.38
Chinese Japanese 13.446 * 4.55 .02 1.55 25.34 Taiwanese -7.43 4.55 .36 -19.33 4.47
Taiwanese Japanese 20.875 * 4.40 .00 9.38 32.37 Chinese 7.43 4.55 .36 -4.47 19.33 * Dunnett C Japanese Chinese -13.446 3.02 -22.53 -4.36 Taiwanese -20.875 * 4.89 -35.29 -6.46
* Chinese Japanese 13.446 3.02 4.36 22.53 Taiwanese -7.43 4.97 -22.20 7.34
* Taiwanese Japanese 20.875 4.89 6.46 35.29 Chinese 7.43 4.97 -7.34 22.20 AdverbL2 Bonferroni Japanese Chinese 5.95 5.57 .90 -8.61 20.50 Taiwanese 9.25 5.38 .30 -4.81 23.31
Chinese Japanese -5.95 5.57 .90 -20.50 8.61 Taiwanese 3.30 5.57 1.00 -11.25 17.86
Taiwanese Japanese -9.25 5.38 .30 -23.31 4.81 Chinese -3.30 5.57 1.00 -17.86 11.25 Dunnett C Japanese Chinese 5.95 5.73 -11.56 23.45 Taiwanese 9.25 4.40 -3.70 22.20
Chinese Japanese -5.95 5.73 -23.45 11.56 Taiwanese 3.30 6.73 -17.04 23.65
Taiwanese Japanese -9.25 4.40 -22.20 3.70 Chinese -3.30 6.73 -23.65 17.04