Week 6 Readings

In her article Differences in ESL and NES writings: The research and Its Implications, Silva gives a clear and comprehensive account on the types of differences that exit between an ESL writer and an NES writer. She does so by reviewing the findings of imperial studies comparing the two writers and their inference for ESL writing theories. The ESL subjects were undergraduate college students in their late teens or early twenties. There were writers from Arabic, Chines, Japanese and Spanish backgrounds. The research examined short exposition or argumentative essay written by both ESL and NES.  The results were very surprising to me. Although I had prior knowledge that there exits difference between each participants writing style, I was very astonished to see that the gap was big. The research concluded that there exists a wide difference between ESL and NES writers depending on the L1.  Most tests written by ESL subjects were less effective (according to NES peers),  had shorter word counts and with more mistakes overall. Different patterns based on native language for example, English native speakers have a linear organizational pattern, Arabic subjects had a parallel pattern  , circular pattern for Japanese, centrifugal patterns in native speakers of Chinese, and linear patterns and  tangential break in Spanish natives. Depending on the native language, and the type of writing assignment (argument structures, narrative structures, essay exam response, etc.) the differences are broken down even further.  Page 214 talks about how NES writers used more attention getter, and putting emphasis on their themes. This just remind me of the fact that many of us “BS” especially when we don’t know what we want to say. We tend to fill our paper with decorative words at least that is what I always thought was happening, but after reading this it seems that it is just a natural process “NES” seem to perform. Another component of the article is spent looking at the differences between the comprising processes (planning, writing, and revising) of NES and ESL. The result seem strange to me once again. I thought that because writing was more laborious for ESL students, it would take them longer to plan for essay that NES.  Another thing that I found surprising was that ESL writers made fewer changes when revising. I thought because much effort was used therefore more doubts was produced which lead to more revisions. One thing I would like to see or wonder if the finding would have been different if they used another language besides English. Overall, through this research educators can have an insight on how different language impact how students write. One criticism made in this article that I agree with, is that this research gives students and educators the idea that ESL students can never achieve or perform as well as NES writers no matter their proficiency, which to me seems very discouraging for people who are trying to learn the language.

In the second article, Changing currents in the CR: Implications for Teachings and Research, Ulla Connor looks at the different component of the contrastive rhetoric. The contrastive rhetoric looks at the differences and similarities between in language across different cultures. She began her article by giving some examples to demonstrate how the CR view can illuminate the differences in the text from writers of different culture background. She ends the article with recent criticism of the CR. The research and findings described in his article were very similar to that of Silvia’s. The research looked at a text in regards to job application written by an ESL students and one by NES students. During the job application research showed that the Flemish applicant letter was shorter and more to point, while the U.S applicant was filled with larger number of words performing the same function, thus their work was longer ( this also reminds me of the idea of “BS”. Another research was done, which looked  at the cross-cultural differences in writing between a text written by a Finnish and Swedish scientist. This also revealed that there exists a difference in the content as well as the style of writing base on an individual culture. Different cultures have different rhetorical tendencies.  As I was reading page 226, a thought came to mind about the difference between the schools in the USA versus schools in other countries. I have always heard that although school is, it is easier in the USA compare to other countries. After reading this section I am divided as to whether that statement is true or whether it is a learning style.  The article suggested that Japanese students write in a more “reader responsible”, meaning that the readers need to work harder to understand the text. I found this very interesting because in school teachers always advised us to write in a clear and comprehensible manner so that the readers can easily understand our point. That is why so much emphasis is put on organization (e.g putting thesis at the beginning, including transitional or “metatext to guide the reader” so on). Is this a proof that validates my thoughts, that school in the USA is easier or is it a writing style? (Technology also plays a big role as to why school seen as easy in the USA).   I found it interesting when the author talked about the “tertium comparationis, or common platform of comparison” (226). I believe it is important to keep this in mind when looking at a text from students of different cultural background. One should compare texts that are deemed equal. For example a student can write an essay in which for the teacher is not a great argumentative essay based on the American standard but based on his culture standards his/her essay includes all the parts of an argumentative essay. Although the CR give great insight in the field of ESL, EFL, TESOL and others, we still lack a concrete/ valid method of testing/measuring the writing abilities of an L2 students.