qwertyuiopasdfghjklzxcvbnmqwe

rtyuiopasdfghjklzxcvbnmqwertyui
opasdfghjklzxcvbnmqwertyuiopa
sdfghjklzxcvbnmqwertyuiopasdfg
Internationals Writing in
English
hjklzxcvbnmqwertyuiopasdfghjklz
An Introduction to Contrastive Rhetoric

xcvbnmqwertyuiopasdfghjklzxcvb
Spring 2007

Laurie Miller

nmqwertyuiopasdfghjklzxcvbnmq
George Mason University
English Language Institute

wertyuiopasdfghjklzxcvbnmqwert
yuiopasdfghjklzxcvbnmqwertyuio
pasdfghjklzxcvbnmqwertyuiopas
dfghjklzxcvbnmqwertyuiopasdfgh
jklzxcvbnmqwertyuiopasdfghjklzx
cvbnmqwertyuiopasdfghjklzxcvb
nmqwertyuiopasdfghjklzxcvbnmq
wertyuiopasdfghjklzxcvbnmqwert
yuiopasdfghjklzxcvbnmrtyuiopas
dfghjklzxcvbnmqwertyuiopasdfgh
jklzxcvbnmqwertyuiopasdfghjklzx
cvbnmqwertyuiopasdfghjklzxcvb
 2

Author’s Note
This is a copy of a paper I wrote for the World Bank in the spring of 2007. They use it in training for employees
whose first language is not English to help them focus on underlying patterns of explanation in their English writing
that may make it difficult for native speakers of English to read.
 3

Internationals Writing in English

Writing in any language involves more than a working knowledge of grammar, vocabulary and spelling.

There are thought connections and organization patterns that extend beyond sentences and go deeper than the

surface meaning of sentences alone. These elements of writing can be referred to as elements of discourse. And, as

any person who has command of more than one language knows, these larger communication patterns are not the

same in every language. No matter how strong an American high school student’s written French is in terms of

grammar and vocabulary, if she becomes a foreign exchange student in France, she will not earn good grades on her

essays if she writes American style essays in French. Her teachers will not find the important “introduction-thesis-

antithesis-synthesis-conclusion” pattern they expect to find. Our student’s problem can be easily fixed, of course, by

introducing her to the appropriate elements she must include in her French essays, but sometimes non-native writers

have different kinds of problems related to discourse.

Take, for instance, a twenty-three year old Korean writer who has completed his undergraduate degree in

Korea. Throughout his studies there, whether he wrote in Korean or English, his teachers advised him to write in the

“introduction-body-conclusion” format that demands a writer use the main idea–support pattern so familiar to

American students. Yet, when he took classes at a university in the United States, his professor always complained

that she could not easily differentiate between main ideas and supporting details in his papers. She said she could

find an introduction, body and conclusion in his essays, but that within the body section his main ideas were vague

and that he did not include enough details. This student’s problem was not leaving out an element as the American

foreign exchange student had, rather his problem was related to how he presented his ideas within an accepted

pattern: he placed the ideas before his reader without overtly emphasizing connections and conclusions that could be

drawn from them; his sentence and over-arching argumentation style were more “indirect” than what his American

professor expected to find.

Such problems are inevitable for people writing in a language that is not their first, “native” language. But

it is not easy to say how to overcome them. Being immersed in the target language and its culture for an extended

period of time is always helpful, but sometimes not enough. One possible approach is to look at the common

discourse patterns and strategies of a writer’s first, native, language and then look to see if those patterns appear in

his or her writing in English. If they do, the writer can work to more consciously use the discourse patterns of
 4

written English to make his or her reports and other written non-fiction material more readable to readers whose first

language is English.

With this idea in mind, you will be presented with descriptions of writing patterns found in different world

languages. These discourse patterns have been identified by scholars in the field of contrastive rhetoric. Contrastive

rhetoric posits the idea that writers tend to use discourse patterns that are “embedded” in their language and, thus,

culture. Therefore, when writers learn an additional language, they run the risk of using the underlying discourse

pattern of their first language when writing in the new language. As a result, their writing may be difficult for native

speakers of the new language to read because it does not meet their subconscious discourse expectations. When you

write in English, discourse patterns from your first language may be carrying over into your text; being aware of the

discourse strategies used in your first language will reduce your risk of using them when you write in English for

native English readers.

Before we begin looking at different discourse patterns, it is important to note that not every writer of a

specific language writes in exactly the same way as every other writer in the language group, so the generalizations

made here are just that, generalizations. They are presented as diagnostic tools, as a way to begin looking at the

discourse structure of non-native English writing.

Semitic Discourse: Arabic, Farsi, Hebrew

Writers in this group tend to use a series of coordinated parallel forms, in contrast to English which favors

subordination. An Arabic writer would be inclined to write, “The boy was here, and he had a goat, and the goat ate

the grass, and the boy took the goat home”; whereas an English writer would write, “The boy was here with a goat,

but he took it home after it ate the grass.” Turning two of the independent clauses into dependent elements makes

the sentence feel smoother to a native English writer. Researchers have found that when Arabic writers write in

English, they use a significantly higher number of coordinated sentences than writers who first language is English

(Ostler, 1987).

Another characteristic of semitic discourse is repetition. This can be in the form of paraphrasing content on

the idea level or on a smaller scale through the use of specific synonyms and hyponyms (class/subclass

relationships; falcon is a hyponym of bird). Careful analysis of Arabic newspapers and student writing shows this
 5

preference (Al-Jubouri, 1984 and Hamdi, 2006). The effect this has on native English readers is that it seems the

writer’s explanations stay on a surface level; they do not go into a deeper analysis.

Reasons for the heavy use of coordination and repetition in Semitic languages is often attributed to their

strong oral traditions. In oral communication, keeping your message simple and clear makes sense. It is difficult to

follow a train if thought if you constantly have to attend to layers of explanation and their connection to a more

general idea. It follows that languages with strong oral traditions favor coordinate structures. Likewise, the use of

repetition is an effective oral communication device as it ensures that your audience understands your ideas.

This relates to another characteristic of semitic writing, attention to the writer’s relation to the reader.

Arabic writers often start essays with broad sweeping information about their place within their families and

societies, including references to religion. Attention to the social interaction between people is important and often

includes stylistic features that honor the reader’s position.

Asian Discourse

Contrastive rhetoric traditionally grouped all Asian languages into one group and called it oriental rhetoric.

Much research has been done since this initial categorization was made, specifically focusing on discourse styles

used by Chinese, Japanese and Korean writers, but there are still some generalizations that can be made about the

group as a whole.

These writers tend to use an inductive, or “quasi-inductive,” pattern of idea development in which there is a

“delayed introduction of purpose” (Hinds, 1990). Main ideas are not strongly stated at the onset and while details are

presented, direct connections between them and a main idea are not. The purpose of this technique is to get “readers

to think for themselves, to consider the observations made, and to draw their own conclusions. The task of the

writer, then, is not necessarily to convince, although it is clear that such authors have their own opinions. Rather, the

task is to stimulate the reader into contemplating the issue or issues that might not have been previously considered”

(Hinds, 1990, p. 99-100). This means Asian discourse, in general, requires more effort on the behalf of the reader

than English. In English, writers take on primary responsibility for creating meaning; they have to spell everything

out for the reader: main ideas, details and how the details connect to one another as well as to the main idea. As a

result, native speakers of English find Asian discourse styles more like poetry or literature than non-fiction prose.

Asian writers work to present details without explanation of the connections between them or their connections to a
 6

main idea; the writer shepherds the reader toward a main idea, but the responsibility of actually arriving at it is left

up to the reader. In addition, Asian discourse strategies often employ abstract vocabulary that gives it an official or

artist “sound”, but this can create difficulty for English readers, especially Americans, who are used to direct,

concise vocabulary. These readers often “give up” before they get to the writer’s main idea at the end of the

inductive discourse pattern. They will think they know what the writer is talking about but not be sure and feel that it

takes too much effort to read through the text again to find out if they are correct or not.

Chinese

The discourse style specific to Chinese does follow the indirect format noted above, but has its own

specific features, founded on Chinese culture and tradition. Chinese students have been taught specific formats for

essays. The older model was called the “eight-legged essay.” The eight separate parts each had their own purpose,

but the writer’s topic and intended thesis did not come until the second part and much of the supporting material was

drawn from Chinese classics, not the individual writer’s thoughts (Conner, 1996, p. 37). The second model is called

qi-cheng-jun-he. In this style, the writer prepares the reader for the topic (qi), then introduces and develops the topic

(cheng), presents a seemingly unrelated related subject (jun) and ends with a conclusion (he). In both these forms,

the main idea comes later than in Western essays and in a less direct fashion. Studies have shown that up to 50

percent of Chinese students studying English use this pattern in their English compositions (Conner, 1996, p. 39).

Beyond these traditional writing paradigms, Chinese writing is also characterized by a preference to draw

upon the wisdom and knowledge of previous texts rather than to rely upon personal viewpoints. Writers will often

include stories from Chinese history or mythology. Referring to important works or significant historical and

cultural knowledge shows sophistication and respect for authority. While these references demonstrate solidarity

with the group in Chinese writing, to readers’ whose first language is English they come across as distracting

ornaments that avoid direct discussion of the individual writer’s own ideas.

Another notable hallmark of Chinese writing is the use of elaborate and abstract vocabulary. Chinese

writers demonstrate their knowledge of their language and culture by using sophisticated terms and expressions.

Student papers that use common terminology when a more baroque form exists are marked down. On the other

hand, American student papers that use elaborate vocabulary and grammatical forms when simpler ones exist are

often marked down. This is true of business and technical writing in English as well. Business and technical writers

are advised to express their ideas with concrete, clear vocabulary that avoids clichés, jargon and excessively
 7

complex sentence structures. This creates a problem when Chinese writers write in English. If they consistently use

elaborate and abstract vocabulary, their writing will feel overly convoluted and overdone.

Japanese

Japanese discourse also has roots in traditional writing forms. The most famous of these is the four-unit ki-

shoo-ten-ketsu pattern. It is similar to the four-part Chinese style noted above, especially the third part of the model,

ten. It, like its Chinese counterpart, jun, presents a topic that is somewhat related to the main idea, but in Western

standards in a very tangential, almost unconnected way (Conner, 1996, p.42). English texts written using this pattern

are incoherent to their native English readers. Even when Japanese writers do not use this specific four-part format,

they typically write in the inductive pattern characteristic of Asian writing. Studies have shown that Japanese

students writing in Japanese favor a specific-to-general pattern of development in which the main idea is presented

at the end (Kobayashi, 1984; Kubota, 1998). Other research has shown that Japanese students writing in English do

employ the inductive pattern in their essays (Kobayashi, 1984; Oi, 1984).

Korean

Like Chinese and Japanese, Korean writing has a traditional format. In Korean it has four parts: ki

(introduction), sung (development of topic), chon (turning to a somewhat unrelated topic) and kyul (conclusion).

Therefore, when Korean writers use this pattern in their English writing, they tend to withhold their main ideas until

the end (Conner, 1996, p 45-46). An interesting point to note about Koreans writing in English is that when directly

asked if they use a deductive (main idea to specific detail) pattern of support rather than an inductive (specific

details to main idea), they will report that they follow the deductive pattern, that this is what they have been taught

to do in school, in Korean. It is true that many countries around the world now use a Western style education system

that focuses on deductive organization in writing and that students in these countries, including Korea, do write what

appear to be traditional Western style essays with an introduction, body and conclusion. However, just as will be

shown in the next section on the rhetorical patterns found in romance languages, there can be different tactics

applied when writers work within the Western development pattern. And for Koreans writing in English this

manifests itself as “induction within deduction.” They will use the traditional units of a western style essay, even

presenting a thesis in the introduction. But that thesis often turns out to be a “hint” or suggestion that is only

confirmed in the conclusion.

Romance Discourse: French, Italian, Portuguese, Spanish

 8

Linguists have placed the Latin-based languages into one group for some time, and generalizations about

rhetorical patterns used by writers of all romance languages can be made. The distinguishing feature of romance

discourse, in contrast to English, is diversion. Readers from of these languages expect to find embellishment of ideas

that are tangential to the main line of explanation. The reader knows the writer will eventually get back to the main

topic, so what feels like a sidetrack to an English discourse reader is not a distraction to a romance reader. An

additional feature of romance discourse is the use of broad, philosophical introductions, especially in formal writing.

French

As noted in the introduction, students are taught a specific essay format in French schools, which includes

the school systems in many French speaking African countries. It is a five-part pattern that includes introduction,

thesis, antithesis, synthesis and conclusion sections (Lloyd, 2006; Hyman, 2007; AskOxford, 2007). While most

native English readers find texts written in English by native French writers to be both fairly easy to read in terms of

sentence structure and appropriate vocabulary, they often find it a bit lofty and obtuse. The use of separate sections

for an introduction and thesis can cause this. Native English readers expect to find a succinct introduction that

includes a thesis at the start of a paper. French students, however, are taught to use the introduction to raise questions

or define terms and suggest the form the argument will take in the body, where the thesis itself should be presented.

This makes the beginning of an essay meander and seem unfocused in the mind of a native English reader. After

having identified the thesis, native English readers may think they can settle into a “regular” essay, but the French

inclusion of both an antithesis and synthesis section at the end of the body often feels unnecessary to native English

readers. It feels like a digression, a tangent to the main argument of the text. There are English texts that do include

an antithesis section or/and a synthesis section, but they are not a standard requirements and are often left out. The

extended introduction and additional antithesis and synthesis sections often included by French writers when they

write in English tests English readers’ focus skills since they expect direct, clear statements of main ideas early in a

text and are used to linear thought progression throughout a text without “sidebars” that do not move the main

argument directly forward.

Vocabulary can be another issue for French writers writing in English. They may run into the “faux ami”

problem. Many English words were borrowed directly from French, but for many of these words, their meaning in

English has changed over time either in terms of literal meaning or connotation, so French writers may use them

inappropriately in English.
 9

Spanish

English texts written by Spanish writers also have a flavor of diversion to native English readers. In the

case of Spanish writers, formality and elaboration are typical, and topics develop "through digressions," with "proof

or specific examples passed over in favor of generalization” (Reid, 1984). In addition, Spanish writers tend to favor

“elaborate and ornate language” and demonstrate a preference for long sentences composed with complex clause

structures. Furthermore, they often write run-on sentences (Conner, 1996, p. 52-53). There is also evidence that

Spanish writers use more pronouns than native English writers (Reid, 1988). In contrast, native English writers tend

to use “simple vocabulary, few synonyms, and no flowery language” (Montaño-Harmon, 1991, 424). The end result

is that when native Spanish writers write in English their texts can seem elaborate and unfocused to native English

readers.

Slavic Discourse: Czech, Russian, Polish, Ukrainian

There is some similarity between writing in this language group and that in the Romance language group in

that Slavic writers include more digression in their texts than native English writers. This may take the form of a

discussion of a seemingly unrelated or unimportant topic in relation to the thesis, but a reader’s focus is usually

drawn back to the main argument near the end of the text. This makes Slavic writing less linear than English writing

and rely less on wording and formatting markers of textual structure than English writing does (Petric, 2005, p 216).

Therefore, Slavic writing seems less organized than English writing to native English readers. A further

characteristic of Slavic writing is a delayed presentation of purpose and thesis in comparison to English writing.

This is related to another characteristic of writing in this group, reader responsibility. It is greater in Slavic writing

than in English writing; the reader is expected to invest effort in the process of creating understanding; the writer

tells details but does not need to explain how the details support the main idea – the reader can figure this out

(Petric, 2005, p 216). In addition, writers in this group prefer elaborate wording and sentence structures as a means

to demonstrate mastery of both vocabulary and style (Petric, 2005, p 216).

Conclusion

Different underlying rhetorical, or discourse, styles can in found in all languages. Writers are often unaware

of the fact that they use a discourse style characteristic of their language; they write that way because they have been

taught to write that way either through direct instruction or passive learning as a result of reading and

communicating in their native language. However, it is beneficial for writers to become aware of the underlying
 10

rhetorical style commonly used in their native language. When they are aware of it, they may be able to see it in the

texts they produce in English. They can then realize that their writing is not easily accessible to native English

readers because it does not match the rhetorical pattern these readers subconsciously expect. The simple fact that

writers utilize different discourse styles in writing is not a negative thing. Different views and approaches are often

very helpful when explaining complex ideas. What international writers need to pay attention to is making their

writing accessible to their audiences. If the primary audience for a text is native English readers, they should adjust

their discourse pattern so that it matches what their readers expect. If they are writing for an American audience, this

means using a direct line of explanation that utilizes overt connections between ideas as it moves from a general

statement of main idea or purpose to concrete details will be the most effective approach to take.
 11

References

AskOxford.com. (2007). General advice on writing in French. Retrieved May 17, 2007 from
http://www.askoxford.com/languages/fr/writing_advice/style/structure/?view=uk

Al-Jubouri, A.J.R. (1984) The role of repetition in Arabic argumentative discourse. In English for Specific Purposes
in the Arab World, edited by J. Swales and H. Mustafa. Birmingham, UK: The Language Studies Unit, University of
Aston, 99-117.

Conner, U. (1996). Contrastive rhetoric: cross-cultural aspects of second language writing. New York: Cambridge
University Press.

Hamdi, S. (2006). On the interference of rhetorical patterns in L2 writing: the case of Arabic learners of English.
Presentation given at the Second International AUC OXF Conference in Cairo, Egypt, March 24-25, 2006.
Retrieved May 15, 2007 from http://www.aucegypt.edu/conferences/aucoxf/presentations.html

Hinds, J. (1987). Reader Versus Writer Responsibility: A New Typology. In Writing across languages: analysis of
L2 text, edited by U. Conner and R.B. Kaplan. Reading, MA: Addison-Wesley, 141-152.

------------. (1990). Inductive, deductive, quasi-inductive: Expository writing in Japanese,

Korean, Chinese, and Thai. In U. Connor & A. M. Johns (Eds.), Coherence in writing:
Research and pedagogical perspectives (pp. 87-109). Alexandria, VA: TESOL.

Hyman, L. (2007). How I psyched the French system out and got a 19 out of 20 on my final. Retrieved May 17,
2007 from http://linguistlist.org/donation/fund-drive2007/linguists/LarryHyman-Appendix.cfm

Kaplan, R. B. (1972). The anatomy of rhetoric: prolegomena to a functional theory of rhetoric. Philadelphia: Center
for Curriculum Development.

Kobayashi, H. (1984). Rhetorical patterns in English and Japanese. Dissertation Abstracts

Internutional, 45(S), 2425A.

Lloyd, R. (2006). Essay. Retrieved May 17, 2007 from http://www.indiana.edu/~phares/Pages/Dissertation.htm

Montaño-Harmon, M.R. (1991) Discourse Features of Written Mexican Spanish: Current Research in Contrastive
Rhetoric and Its Implications. Hispania, 74 (2), 417-425.

Oi, M. K. (1984). Cross-cultural differences in rhetorical patterning: A study of Japanese

and English. Dissertation Abstracts International, 4_5(8), 251 IA.

Ostler, S.E. (1987). English in parallels: a comparison of English and Arabic prose. In Writing across languages:
analysis of L2 text, edited by U. Conner and R.B. Kaplan. Reading, MA: Addison-Wesley, 169-185.

Petric´, B (2005). Contrastive rhetoric in the writing classroom: a case study. English for Specific Purposes, 24, 213-
228.

Reid, J. (1984). ESL Composition: The Linear Product of American Thought. College Composition and
Communication, 35(4), 449-452.

---------- (1988). Qualitative differences in English prose written by Arabic, Chinese, Spanish and English students.
Ph.D. dissertation, Colorado State University.
12