L1 Literacy Practices’ Impact on L2 Text Organization

Aisha Sayidina

doi:10.19136/etie.a2n3.3246

Authors

Aisha Sayidina Assistant Professor of Applied Linguistics Department of Writing Studies Office: LAN 206 American University of Sharjah PO Box 26666, Sharjah United Arab Emirates

DOI:

https://doi.org/10.19136/etie.a2n3.3246

Abstract

Situated within the Intercultural Rhetoric (IR) framework, this study uses text linguistic analysis of Arab students’ English academic papers to investigate the transfer of the Arabic language instruction practices into ESL written texts. The analysis involves a comparison of surface linguistic features (syntactic relations and cohesive devices) in a corpus of Arab students and English-speaking students’ papers. Furthermore, the Arabic and English-speaking students completed surveys about the skills emphasized in their L1 classrooms. It is believed that the methods of writing instruction in Arabic, which are influenced by diglossia, are transferred into ESL written texts. The results show that the Arabic speaking and English-speaking students’ texts exhibit differences at the rhetorical level. The characteristics of the ESL texts are similar to Arabic native texts which suggest a transfer of L1 learned writing methods into L2 texts. The findings from the linguistic analysis and the data obtained from the surveys are discussed with reference to Arabic teaching methodology, diglossia, orality, and learning experience transfer from Arabic into English.

References

Asuncion-Lande, N. (1983). Language theory and language practice. International and Intercultural Communication Annual. 253-257.

Bacha, N. N., & Bahous, R. (2013). Cultures of learning in academia: A Lebanese case study. In Cortazzi, M & Jin, L. (Eds.), Researching cultures of learning (pp. 116–135). London: Palgrave Macmillan.

Bolgün, M. A. & Mangla, A. (2017). A contrastive rhetoric analysis of English and Hindi editorials. Journal of Pan-Pacific Association of Applied Linguistics, 21(2), 15-39.

Collins, J. & Blot, R. (2003). Literacy & literacies: text, power, and identity. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

Connor, U. (2004). Intercultural rhetoric research: beyond texts. Journal of English for Academic Purposes. 3, 291-304.

Connor, U. (2008). Mapping multidimensional aspects of research: reaching to intercultural rhetoric. In Connor, U., Nagelhout, E., & Rozycki, W. (Eds.), Contrastive Rhetoric Reaching to Intercultural Rhetoric (pp. 299-315). Amsterdam/Philadelphia: John Benjamin.

Connor, U. (2011). Intercultural Rhetoric in the Writing Classroom. Ann Arbor: the University of Michigan Press.

Enkvist, N. E. (1973). Linguistic Stylistics. The Hague: Mouton.

Ferguson, C. (1959). Diglossia. Word. 15(2), 325-340.

Gleason, H.A. (1965). Linguistics and English Grammar. New York: Holt, Rinehart, and Winston.

Gutwinski, W. (1976). Cohesion in Literary Texts: A Study of Some Grammatical and Lexical Features of English Discourse. The Hague: Mouton.

Huddleston, R. & Pullum, G. K. (2002). The Cambridge Grammar of the English Language. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

Halliday, M.A. K. & Hassan, R. (1976). Cohesion in English. London: Longman.

Halverson, J. (1992). Goody and the implosion of the literacy thesis. Man. 27(2), 3 01- 317.

Havelock, E. A. (1983). The linguistic task of the pre-Socratics: Ionian science in search of an abstract vocabulary. In Robb, K. (Ed.). Language and thought in early Greek Philosophy (pp.7- 41). La Salle, IL: The Hegeler Institute, Monist Library of Philosophy.

Hinds, J. (1983). Contrastive rhetoric: Japanese and English. TEXT. 3(2), 183-195.

Hirose, K. (2003). Comparing L1 and L2 organizational patters in the argumentative writing of Japanese EFL students. Journal of Second Language Writing. 12(2003), 181-209.

James, C. (1983). Contrastive Analysis. London: Longman.

Jandt, F.E. (1998). Intercultural communication: an introduction (second edition). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage Publications, international educational and professional publisher.

Kaplan, R. B. (1966). Cultural thought patterns in intercultural communication. Language Learning, 14(2), 1-20.

Kaplan, R. B. (1972). The Anatomy of Rhetoric: Prolegomena to a Functional Theory of Rhetoric. Philadelphia: Center for Curriculum Development.

Kaplan, R.B. (1976). A further note on contrastive rhetoric. Communication Quarterly, 24(2), 12-19.

Kupota, R. (1999). Japanese culture constructed by discourses: implications for applied linguistics research and ELT. TESOL Quarterly, 33(1), 9-35.

Liebman, (1992). Toward a new contrastive rhetoric: differences between Arabic and Japanese rhetorical instruction. Journal of Second Language Writing. 1(2), 141-165.

Maamouri, M. (1998). Language education and human development: Arabic diglossia and its impact on the quality of education in the Arab region. Mediterranean Development Forum. September 3– 6. Marrakech, Morocco.

Mohamed, A. & Omer, M. (1999). Syntax as a marker of rhetorical organization in written texts: Arabic and English. International Review of Applied Linguistics in Language Teaching. xxxvii (4), 291-305.

Mohamed-Sayidina, A. (2010). Transfer of L1 cohesive devices and transition words into L2 Academic Texts: The case of Arab students. RELC Journal, 41(3), 253-266.

Mohan, B. & Lo, W. (1985). Academic writing and Chinese students: transfer and developmental factors. TESOL Quarterly. 19, 515-534.

Myhill, J. (2014). The effect of diglossia on literacy in Arabic and other languages. In Saiegh-Haddad, E. and Joshi, M. (Eds.). Handbook of Arabic Literacy: Insights and Perspectives (pp.197-223). Dordrecht Heidelberg, New York and London: Springer.

Ong, W. J. (1982). Orality and Literacy: The Technologization of the Word. London and New York: Routledge.

Ong, W. J. (1992). Writing is a technology that structures thought. In Downing P., Lima, S. D., Noonan, M. (Eds.), The Linguistics of Literacy (pp. 293-319). Amsterdam/Philadelphia: John Benjamins Publishing Company.

Quirk, R. et al. (1989). Comprehensive Grammar of the English Language. London: Longman.

Saiegh-Haddad, E. & Spolsky, B. (2014). Acquiring literacy in a diglossic context: problems and prospects. In Saiegh-Haddad, E. and Joshi, M. (Eds.). Handbook of Arabic Literacy: In sights and Perspectives (pp. 225-240). Dordrecht Heidelberg, New York and London: Springer. DOI 10.1007/978 -94 - 017- 8545-7.

Sheikholeslami, C. & Makhlouf, N. (2000). The impact of Arabic on ESL expository Writing. In Ibrahim, Z., Aydelott, S. & Kassabgy, N. Diversity in Language: Contrastive Studies in Arabic and English. Cairo: The American University in Cairo Press.

Shockley, M. & Nurcholis, A. (2016). features of diglossic stability in Arabic with counterexamples. Journal Lisanudhad. 3(2), 69-85.

Uysal, H.H. (2008). Tracing the culture behind writing: rhetorical patterns and bidirectional transfer in L1 and L2 essays of Turkish writers in relation to educational context. Journal of Second Language Writing. 17(3), 183-207

Van De Wege, M. (2013). Arabic rhetoric: main idea, parallelism, and word repetition. Unpublished Master ‘s dissertation. Eastern Washington University.

Zamel, V. (1997). Toward a model of transculturation. TESOL Quarterly. 31(2), 341-352.

Zhou, L. (2015). Is There a Place for Cross-cultural Contrastive Rhetoric in English Academic Writing Courses? Bellaterra Journal of Teaching & Learning Language & Literature. 9(1), 47-70.