An Interview with Ulla Connor

Writer(s): 
Muramatsu Mieko, Dokkyo University

Recently I had an opportunity to interview Dr. Ulla Connor from Indiana University. Dr. Connor has published widely on the teaching of writing in second language education. On this occasion we talked mainly about her 1996 book, Contrastive rhetoric: Cross-cultural aspects of second-language writing.

MM: Thank you very much for agreeing to this interview. To begin with, would you tell us how you became involved in research into contrastive rhetoric?

UC: First, my interest derived from my own experiences as a learner of English as a second language. A native of Finland, I came to the United States as a graduate student. I found that writing in EFL was a difficult skill, even for a graduate student of English literature and linguistics. I think "writing" sounds different in English from how we write in Finnish. Writing isn't taught formally, which is true also in Japan, isn't it? To become a good writer in any language, one needs to practice and practice. The codes of writing, rhetoric and conventions of academic disciplines need to be learned. These conventions vary from language to language and, therefore, often need to be learned in L2.

Second, years later, I was influenced by Robert Kaplan's article about contrastive writing patterns (1966) when I was teaching linguistics at Georgetown University. Kaplan, professor at the University of Southern California, investigated different patterns in the EFL writing of international students. He discovered that students wrote English with different organizational patterns depending on their first-language backgrounds. He drew diagrams of the organization of paragraphs in different languages; for instance, a straightforward arrow for the native speaker of English, and a spiral pattern for "oriental" students. Of course, Kaplan's simplistic diagrams have been criticized since then, and he also has adjusted his original position (1987, 1988). Yet, the fact remains that EFL learners experience problems in writing in English and many of these problems seem to be ones of transfer. So, contrastive rhetoric, an area of research in L2 acquisition which identifies problems in writing by referring to the features of L1, is important for teachers and teacher educators.

MM: In Chapter 1 in your recent book, Contrastive Rhetoric: Cross-cultural aspects of second-language writing, you discuss the differences between classical rhetoric and new rhetoric. I understand new rhetoric deals more with the effect of the audience and the awareness of the writing process than do classic models. Would you please tell us briefly about changes in the teaching of composition and the importance of teaching contrastive rhetoric?

UC: In my book, I discuss changes in the field of contrastive rhetoric and expand the definition of traditional contrastive rhetoric. I show how Western models of writing are based mainly on the rhetoric of Aristotle, which focuses on the importance of audience, as well as persuasive appeals; that is, logical, emotional, and credibility appeals. New rhetoric also emphasizes the audience but focuses more on the composing processes. Contrastive rhetoric combines the old rhetoric with the new rhetoric, and promises to be important in explaining the role of structure and rhetoric in the process of writing.

I believe that contrastive rhetoric has a lot to offer teachers. First, it explains styles of writing in different languages and cultures. It emphasizes that one style of writing is not better than others. Second, contrastive rhetoric helps teachers to make students aware of different writing styles and different audience expectations when writing in EFL. These audiences vary; they are often native speakers of English, but in today's global economy, they are often other nonnative speakers of English. Contrastive rhetoric does not force models of writing on students. Instead, it gives students choices, options of styles to choose from depending on the audience.

MM: In Contrastive Rhetoric, you explain the different styles of writing between people in individualist and collectivist cultures. Japanese culture is said to be a collectivist culture. I am interested in how collectivism influences classroom teaching and how it is reflected in writing style. Could you say something about this please?

UC: It has been argued by researchers like Joan Carson and Gayle Nelson (1994) that students in collectivist cultures like Japan work in groups for the good of the whole group while students in an individualist culture like the U.S. work for their own good. Thus, in the U.S., students in writing groups read and comment on each other's writing in order to achieve better individual projects. Many students from Japan and other Asian countries may find this set-up to be alien. Thus, difficulties arise in team work because of different expectations.

Furthermore, it has been found that students from collectivist cultures are often reluctant to produce argumentative writing, preferring to build consensus. This may be another manifestation of a collectivist culture in writing. It certainly is true of editorial writing in my native country of Finland, another homogeneous and collectivist culture where writers don't write editorials in order to argue. Rather writers build consensus, as has been discussed by Tirkkonen-Condit in a recent publication (1996).

MM: It is commonly said that the Japanese style of writing is "ki-shou-ten-ketsu," in other words, "opening, development, deviation, conclusion." It is also suggested that Japanese writers introduce their main idea at the end of their essays. Many Japanese students maintain this writing style when writing in L2. Would you please give us some tips for instruction when we teach writing in Japan?

UC: First, we need to remember that learning to write in a second language is a long, long process; so there are no quick tricks for the Japanese teacher. But, teachers need to demonstrate to students the expectations of the readers, their audiences. The late John Hinds published many articles and books that help us to understand Japanese writing styles. One of his studies analyzed Japanese newspaper columns (1987). He examined the functions of each of the eight paragraphs in one of the Asahi Shinbun's Tensei Jingo columns, using the categories "ki," "shou," "ten," or "ketsu." He found that the rhetorical patterns of Japanese newspaper columns exhibit a proliferation of "ten," or "deviation." From the Western point of view, such deviation is regarded as incoherent. Hinds (1990) also suggested that the delayed introduction of purpose is often preferred in Japanese, Korean, and Chinese, and is also transferred to written English by speakers of those languages. The delayed introduction of purpose may frustrate the native English speaker, who expects the topic sentence at the very beginning of a piece of writing. Hinds also commented on the lack of explicitness in Japanese language texts (1987, 1990).

I believe it is our job as teachers of English to inform students about the expectations of readers. If the readers are native speakers of English, they do expect the main point at the beginning of the paragraph; they do expect the development of an essay to follow "opening, development, and conclusion," they do not expect the "ten" or deviation part. Native English-speaking readers do expect to be guided by explicit transitions, such as "in summary," "in conclusion," "first," and "second." Yet, naturally, it is important that Japanese students should be encouraged to maintain their Japanese rhetorical styles when writing for Japanese audiences.

MM: What do you think about error treatment in writing?

UC: Japanese English teachers, like most EFL teachers around the world, feel responsible for correcting every error in their students' writing. It has been shown in research, however, that students learn better if they are encouraged to write freely without always being corrected. Red marks on papers don't encourage writing. The opposite is true. Correcting errors in students' writing often discourages further revision. So, let's please leave the correcting for later drafts. In student journals, for example, it is best for the teacher just to comment on the content rather than to correct errors in grammar. But, it is important that teachers show their students how to edit their writing in order to produce a final draft.

MM: How can we evaluate writing as teachers?

UC: Evaluation depends on the purpose of writing. Ilona Leki (1990) has said that writing teachers have three personas: teacher as real reader, teacher as coach, and teacher as evaluator. So, teachers need to decide which role to take at which stage. First drafts require a different approach from later drafts.

Recently, portfolio assessment of writing has become popular in the United States. In portfolio assessment, students present their entire work in the final portfolio. Individual writings do not get graded; instead, the portfolio is graded at the end of the semester. The portfolio assessment of writing has been found to encourage students to write and revise more than traditional evaluations.

MM: Would you nominate some activities or methods that you think Japanese writing teachers might use in the classroom?

UC: First, I would recommend journal writing for all classes. Students write what they do during the week, how they react to what happened, or anything else which comes to mind, every week or twice a week. Teachers should encourage students to write journals by commenting on them as readers and should not focus on the accuracy of the writing. Students learn to enjoy writing, to express their thoughts in English, and to find topics for subsequent essay writing.

Second, because the audience for student writers is also important, I would recommend peer response groups in classes, which help create real readers.

MM: We have been talking about the teaching of L2 writing in general. Would you care to tell us about new directions in contrastive rhetoric in the Japanese context?

UC: New research directions in contrastive rhetoric hold a lot of promise for Japanese teachers and students. Two major areas, fairly new to teachers and researchers in Japan stand out: writing for publication in the academic world and writing in professional context. The genre of academic writing such as published research articles and research grant proposals written in English have been found to require certain meaning and rhetorical components. For example, a successful introduction to a research article includes the establishing of the research field, showing the gap in previous research, and explaining how one's own research fills that gap. In professional writing, let's take the genre of job application letters. Contrastive rhetoric points to differing expectations between the Western world and South Asia, for example (Bhatia, 1993). Anglo-American letters include long discussion of the applicant's qualifications while South Asian letters are short on "self-appraisal." Application letters in South Asia depict a modest job candidate who prefers to restrain from discussing his or her qualifications in the letter. After all, the prospective employer has a copy of the candidate's resume and should be allowed to make his or her own appraisal. Now, with the increase in the internationalization of the academic and professional world, nonnative English-speaking writers will be expected to write and publish in English. Research in contrastive rhetoric, which I show in my book, gives Japanese teachers and researchers descriptions of academic and professional writing around the world.

MM: It has been a great pleasure to hear your ideas about teaching writing. I learned of the importance of contrastive rhetoric as well as what instructors should be aware of in class. Thank you very much for your valuable suggestions.

References

  • Bhatia, V. K. (1993). Analyzing genre: Language use in professional settings. London: Longman.
  • Carson, J. G., & Nelson, G. L. (1994). Writing groups: Cross-cultural issues. Journal of Second Language Writing, 3 (1), 17-30.
  • Connor, U. (1996). Contrastive rhetoric: Cross-cultural aspects of second-language writing. New York, NY: Cambridge University Press.
  • Kaplan, R. B. (1966). Cultural thought patterns in intercultural education. Language Learning, 16, 1-20.
  • Kaplan, R. B. (1987). Cultural thought patterns revisited. In U. Connor & R. B. Kaplan (Eds.), Writing across languages: Analysis of L2 text (pp. 9-21). Reading, MA: Addison-Wesley.
  • Kaplan, R. B. (1988). Contrastive rhetoric and second language learning: Notes toward a theory of contrastive rhetoric. In A. C. Purves (Ed.),Writing across languages and cultures. Issues in contrastive rhetoric (pp. 275-304). Newbury Park, CA: Sage.
  • Hinds, J. (1987). Reader versus writer responsibility: A new typology. In U. Connor & R. B. Kaplan (Eds.), Writing across languages: Analysis of L2 text (pp. 141-152). Reading, MA: Addison-Wesley.
  • Hinds, J. (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. 87-110). Alexandria, VA: TESOL.
  • Leki, I. (1990). Coaching from the margins: Issues in written response. In B. Kroll (Ed.), Second language writing: Research insight for the classroom (pp. 69-87). NY: Cambridge University Press.
  • Tirkkonen-Condit, S. (1996). Explicitness vs. implicitness of argumentation: An intercultural comparison. Multilingua, 15 (3), 257-273.