Embed Size (px)
DESCRIPTION
Citation preview
Building on Polish Students’ L1 Discourse Constructions
and Culture to Write in Their L2
Amanda WiehlFulbright Teaching Assistant
Institute of LinguisticsAdam Mickiewicz University
Contrastive Rhetoric Debate
In EFL classrooms:
CR promotes Western writing superiority and cultural stereotypes
However, to ignore differences can lead to a ‘discrimination of another sort’
CR allows speakers to acknowledge and appreciate subtle differences previously unknown
Tannen 1985
CR Importance
Recall Studies show that readers remember information if the text is presented in a familiar form
• Students’ texts will be more understandable by international audiences if they have awareness of audience expectations while writing
• Members of a variety of discourse communities
Connor 1984
Polish Discourse Style
Minimal discourse instruction
Polish academic essays contain literary devices
Unclear line between literary and scientific texts
Literary and historical pieces used in teaching writing
Polish scientific texts place emphasis on lexical and syntactic complexity
Duszak 1998
English Discourse Expectations
Typical English Discourse - Linearity preferred
Repetition undesirable
Relevance is key
Topic sentence
Paragraph transition
Clyne as cited in Duszak 1997
Anglo vs. Polish Discourse
Polish - Emphasis on Content, Topic Digression, Reader Responsibility
Anglo - Emphasis on Style, Linearity of Topic, Writer Responsibility
Reichelt 2005; Duszak 2005
Discourse Transfer
Course Evaluation (University College London)
“The force of the writing is let down by repeated problems with clear expression and by a seeming unwillingness to explain, develop, and demonstrate key points...essay also reads a bit hyperbolically at times with a profusion of overly flowery epithets.”
“A degree of repetition...a lack of development of more subtle and complex lines of argument.”
Implications
Current education system (Polish) does “not meet pragmatic communication needs in modern multi-cultural environments”
Polish students unprepared to communicate in global setting
Need to be led in comparison of texts of Polish and Anglo-Saxon style
Duszak 1998
Goal of CR as a Class Activity
Consciousness-raising activity
Avoid prescriptive CR
To demonstrate the link between culture and writing
Connor 2002; Grabe & Kaplan 1989; Hirsch 1987
Role of Teachers
Use authentic student texts to guide students in the comparison of Polish and English texts
Educate students when each rhetoric is appropriate
• Polish professional articles
Implement Student Teacher Conferences
Duszak 1998; Cumming 1989; Leki 1991
Plan of Action
Two lessons: Cohesion and Coherence
Style: Lessons in Clarity and Grace (Williams 2005)
Analyze Anglo non-cohesive and cohesive passages
Flow? Difference between passages? How is the cohesive passage structured?
Cohesion And Coherence Lessons
Textual Orientation
• Discern textual devices
• Uncover patterns
• Analyze how patterns and devices create meaning
Leki 1991
Cohesion And Coherence Lessons
Students initially uncomfortable with sharing ideas individually
Cultural Accommodations
• Initial teacher instruction
• Partners discussion
• Partner/individual sharing of observations to whole class
• Student led discussions
L1 Validity
Students need to be aware of cultural differences in rhetoric so they do not perceive themselves as inadequate
Analysis of Polish politicians’ speeches
• Functionality of Polish discourse in native context
Comparison to American speeches
• Functionality of Anglo discourse in global contexts Leki 1991
Student Application
Written assignments created for an Anglo audience
Student-Teacher individual meetings
• Analyzed multiple drafts
Students are active participants in negotiating meaning
Not recipients of “best” discourse instruction
Play important role in helping students become better writers
Results
Paragraph from Early Text of Student B
The film I chose is about epilepsy. There are two children who suffer from this disorder. Their names are Ashley and Jason. Dr. Fritz Dreifuss from University of Virginia explains us what epilepsy really is.
Paragraph from End of Semester of Student B (after cohesion/coherence lessons)The program I chose is about epilepsy. Dr. Fritz Dreifuss from the University of Virginia explains to us what kind of disorder epilepsy really is. He gives us example of two children who suffer from this disorder, their names are Ashley and Jason.
Student Evaluations
Q- What was the most beneficial thing you learned from this course?
•“That writing in English and in Polish requires different ways of thinking. Not only because of language but because of culture and way of perceiving/analyzing things.”
• “Firstly, Polish writing style and American writing style are completely different so I highly value that I could learn about this and how to write in academic writing style of Americans.”
Student Evaluations
Q- What did you think of your teacher’s style of teaching?
• “I think it was good... we were obligated to make our corrections personally and discuss every problem during class.”
• “I liked the individual approach to students (seldom seen in Polish schools).”
Teaching Implications
Provide a variety of texts in English to analyze and see rhetorical structures
• Purpose and audience
• Extend rhetorical analysis skills to L1
Consciousness raising
Non-Prescriptive
References
Connor, U. (1984). Recall of text: Differences between first and second language readers. TESOL Quarterly, 18, 239-256.
Connor, U. (2002). New directions in contrastive rhetoric. TESOL Quarterly, 36(4), 493-510.
Cumming, A. (1989). Writing expertise and second language proficiency, Language Learning, 39(1), 81-141.
Duszak, A. (1998). Academic writing in English and Polish: Comparing and subverting genres. International Journal of Applied Linguistics, 8(2), 191-213.
Hirsch, E.D., Jr. (1987). Cultural literacy: What every American needs to know. Boston: Houghton Mifflin.
References
Goldstein, L.M. & Conrad, S.M. (1990). Student input and negotiation of meaning in ESL writing conferences. TESOL Quarterly, 24, 443-460.
Grabe, W. (2005). Discourse analysis and reading instruction. In T. Miller (Ed.), Functional approaches to written text: Classroom applications (pp. 2-17). Washington, DC: Office of English Language Programs.
Kaplan, R. (2005). Contrastive rhetoric. In T. Miller (Ed.), Functional approaches to written text: Classroom applications (pp. 18-32). Washington, DC: Office of English Language Programs.
Leki, I. Twenty-Five years of contrastive rhetoric: Text analysis and writing pedagogies. TESOL Quarterly, 25, 123-143.
Raimes, A. (1991). Out of the woods: Emerging traditions in the teaching of writing.TESOL Quarterly, 25, 407-430.
References
Reichelt, M. (2005). Language writing instruction in Poland. Journal of Second Language Writing, 14, 215-232.
Scollon, R. (1997). Contrastive rhetoric, contrastive poetics, or perhaps something else? TESOL Quarterly, 31, 352-363.
Tannen, D. (1985). Cross-cultural communication. In T.A. Van Dijk (Ed.), Handbook of discourse analysis, 203-316.
Wallace, M.J. (2007). Action research for language teachers (Williams, M., & Wright, T. Eds.). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Williams, J.M. (2005). Style: Lessons in clarity and grace. New York: Pearson.
