Uysal_Tracing the Culture Behind Writing

8/4/2019 Uysal_Tracing the Culture Behind Writing

1/25

Tracing the culture behind writing: Rhetorical patternsand bidirectional transfer in L1 and L2 essays ofTurkish writers in relation to educational context

Hacer Hande Uysal *

Gazi University, College of Education, Department of Foreign Languages Education,Egitim Fakultesi, Yabanci Diller Egitimi Bolumu C Blok Teknikokullar, 06500 Ankara, Turkey

Abstract

The study examines whether writers from shared cultural backgrounds display common writing patterns

in their texts and whether these patterns differ while writing in L1 versus L2. The study explored the

presence and bidirectional transfer of rhetorical patterns in eighteen Turkish participants writing in relation

to previous writing instructional context defined as small culture. Participants were first given a survey

about their writing instruction history. Then, each participant wrote two argumentative essays in Turkish and

English. These texts were analyzed and stimulated recall interviews were given to discover the reasoningbehind certain rhetorical patterns and their transfer. The results revealed some rhetorical preferences and

their bidirectional transfer. However, although most rhetorical patterns could be traced to the educational

context, various other influences, such as L2 level, topic, and audience were also found to account for these

patterns and their transfer.

# 2007 Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.

Keywords: Contrastive Rhetoric; L1 writing; L2 writing; Transfer; Writing instruction; Culture; Cultural writing

patterns; Turkish writing

Culture behind writing

Berlin (1984, p.1) states that rhetoric is a cultural social event and a social invention

which arises out of a time and place, and a peculiar social context. As writing is a consciously

learned skill through schooling that is often done according to each societys needs, expectations,

and desires for future generations, it is inextricably interrelated with education and in accord with

larger cultural contexts. For that reason, it is very likely that unique writing conventions exist in

Available online at www.sciencedirect.com

Journal of Second Language Writing 17 (2008) 183207

* Tel.: +90 312 202 8488; fax: +90 538 7603935.

E-mail address: [email protected].

1060-3743/$ see front matter # 2007 Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.

doi:10.1016/j.jslw.2007.11.003
mailto:[email protected]://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.jslw.2007.11.003http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.jslw.2007.11.003mailto:[email protected]


2/25

each society; once a person learns a certain way of writing in one culture, this schema influences

writing in a second language (Hirose, 2003; Kadar-Fulop, 1988; Kaplan, 1966; Purves, 1988).

However, the relationship between culture and writing, and whether cultural rhetorical

conventions might transfer from L1 to L2 writing, has not been investigated sufficiently in second

language writing research. Although Contrastive Rhetoric studies have provided evidence for theinfluence of linguistic, cultural, and educational backgrounds on the structures of ESL texts, they

have also revealed that these are not the only factors, they are not mutually exclusive from each

other, and which type of factor is the most important factor is still not known (Matsuda, 1997).

Over the last thirty years, Contrastive Rhetoric has received constant criticisms, mainly resulting

from simplistic approaches in research and underestimation of such a challenging and extremely

complex research area that combines at least three large and complicated areas: writing;

learning and using second languages; and culture (Atkinson, 2004, p. 278). Therefore, the

present study aimed to further explore the relationship between culture and writing in L1 and L2.

The study examined whether any cultural writing patterns exist in the argumentative essays of

Turkish writers and whether these possible patterns were similar in L1 and L2 writing, usingwithin-subject comparisons to obtain direct evidence. In order to understand the possible links

between rhetorical patterns and culture or the transfer of these patterns, not only the written texts,

but also the processes underlying the products were examined through stimulated recall

interviews. The presence of any Turkish rhetorical preferences or patterns and the nature of any

possible transfer was explained in relation to the context of previous writing instruction in L1 and

L2, which will serve as the cultural context.

Previous research

Contrastive Rhetoric (CR) research started with Kaplans 1966 pioneering study, which found

that speakers of different language backgrounds organized their paragraphs in a unique way

related to their L1 background. Kaplan maintained that rhetoric was language and culture

specific, and that L2 rhetorical organization was the result of the transfer of L1 rhetorical

organization, which later became the basis for the traditional definition of Contrastive Rhetoric.

Contrastive Rhetoric research has provided evidence that rhetorical conventions and patterns

are somewhat related to the cultural backgrounds of the writers. CR research pointed out the

presence of some culture-specific rhetoric patterns such as paragraph organization (Kaplan,

1966); reader-versus-writer responsibility (Hinds, 1987); linear organization structure (Connor,

1987); coordinating conjunctions (Soter, 1988); indirectness devices (Hinkel, 1997, 2002);rhetorical appeals and reasoning strategies (Kamimura & Oi, 1998); and the use of metatext

(Mauranen, 1993; Valero-Garces, 1996). However, CR research has been the target of harsh

criticisms for being too simplistic in its research methodology and conceptualization of the CR

notion (Martin, 1992; Matsuda, 1997); for overgeneralizing and stereotyping about rhetorical

conventions (Leki, 1991, 1997); for ignoring L2 developmental variables or the difficulties of

writing in a second language (Mohan & Lo, 1985); and for considering transfer from L1 as a

negative influence (Kubota, 1998a). In most cases, research comparing only ESL essays or ESL

texts and L1 writing could not provide direct evidence for any transfer from L1 to L2, but just

inferred existence of transfer.

Only a few studies compared the L1 and L2 essays of the same individuals to explore culturalpatterns while providing directevidence for the transfer from L1; however, these studies also had

design problems and controversial results. Indrasuta (1988) found some differences between

American and Thai students narratives in terms of discourse microstructures. While Thai

H.H. Uysal / Journal of Second Language Writing 17 (2008) 183207184


3/25

students wrote only about real events to teach about life and used more descriptions of mental

states and highly figurative language, American students invented stories to captivate readers

interest and used more verbs of action. As for the within-analysis results, the Thai groups L1 and

L2 narratives were similar in terms of language use and rhetorical style.

In terms of Turkish rhetorical patterns, Enginarlars (1990) study revealed thatsituation + problem + solution + evaluation was the most common pattern used by the Turkish

high school student subjects in both their L1 and L2 expository essays. However, the bilingual

subjects (students who attended an English immersion school) wrote more linearly in both

languages, and their essay introductions were shorter and more direct than those of the

monolingual subjects essays, which contained high occurrences of indirectness, digression,

embellishment, and poetic endings. These results pointed out a possibility of transfer from L2 to

L1 writing. A similar study was conducted by Oktar (1991), who found a tendency of Turkish

university students to use coordination at the levels of modification in the logical organization in

L1 writing. However, the English major subjects used more subordination and fewer occurrences

of coordination than the non-English majors, indicating a possibility of transfer from L2 to L1.Two important studies were conducted with Japanese writers. Kubota (1998a) found that half

of the Japanese subjects used similar patterns in terms of organization and the location of main

ideas in their L1 and L2, and they also received lower scores on their ESL essays compared to

their L1 essays than the dissimilar group. However, according to Kubota, this finding was not

caused by a negative transfer of the L1 writing pattern. Overall, she concluded that L1 writing

skills, L2 writing experience, and L2 proficiency level affected the quality of ESL organization.

Hirose (2003), on the other hand, found that English major Japanese students organized both their

L1 and L2 essays the same way, using a deductive pattern. Hirose attributed this result to the non-

existence of culture-specific writing patterns for Japanese that are different from those of English.

Overall, these CR studies found some evidence for the presence of possible L1 specific

rhetorical preferences, which were also observed in L2 writing. However, these studies also had

serious limitations. First, they were mainly text-based. Methods such as think-aloud or stimulated

recall interviews were not used; thus, important information about the processes writers go

through while making use of their L1 or L2 knowledge and the reasons for their specific

rhetorical behaviors is missing. Matsuda (1997) states that, the examination of text alone

without asking the writer about his intentions can reveal neither the thought patterns of the

writers nor the rhetorical patterns of L1 written discourse (p. 50). Connor also suggests that

CR studies include qualitative research methods that will investigate both L1 and L2 writing,

observe and interview L1 and L2 writers, and study influences on L1 writing developments tounderstand contrastive writing (Connor, 1996, p. 162). Therefore, the present study aimed to

provide a richer and deeper profile about the presence and transfer of particular writing behaviors

through qualitative data collection methods.

Second, most of these studies used a homogeneous group of subjects in terms of L2 level and

L2 writing knowledge, and they had subjects write on the same topics in their L1 and L2 essays,

which makes the claims about any L1-related writing patterns questionable. For example,

subjects that were all highly proficient in L2 and familiar with L2 writing conventions as in

Hiroses study (2003) might have written similarly in L1 and L2 due to the transfer of L2 writing

knowledge to L1 writing. In this case, any conclusions about non-existence or existence of L1

specific cultural patterns or their transfer to L2 writing would be questionable. Hirose (2003)suggests that, while investigating language-specific patterns, the writer-related factors (L2

proficiency, L2 writing experience and instruction) and task related factors (topic, time) should

be considered to better understand the effect of these factors in any transfer. Therefore, the

H.H. Uysal / Journal of Second Language Writing 17 (2008) 183207 185


4/25

present study recruited a heterogeneous group of subjects in terms of their L2 writing instruction

history and L2 level and used different topics in L1 and L2 essays.

Third, the possibility of bidirectional transfer, a very important yet neglected area, was

brought into investigation by only two studiesEnginarlar (1990) and Oktar (1991). The results

of these two studies indicated a possibility of transfer from L2 to L1 even greater than the transferfrom L1 to L2. The bidirectionality of the transfer observed in these studies seemed to be parallel

to Hirose and Sasakis (1994) findings in relation to the existence of composing competence

regardless of the language used. Akyel and Kamisli (1997) and Atakent (1999), who examined

student essays before and after they received writing instruction in English, also suggested that

students could transfer L2 rhetorical knowledge to L1. Therefore, this study also aimed to

investigate the existence and nature of bidirectional transfer in more detail.

Finally, most CR studies examined the texts in isolation, not in relation to the cultural context

that may have played a role in their production. Connor (2002, 2004) suggests that CR research

should become more context sensitive, exploring how writing is tied to social structures of a

given culture and considering new definitions of culture. Therefore, this study aimed to explainthe findings in relation to the Turkish cultural context. However, while contextualizing the

findings, unlike previous studies which viewed cultures as national entities (big culture) causing

overgeneralizations (Atkinson, 2004), a small cultural context Turkish schooling in terms of

writing instruction was chosen to provide a more detailed and accurate cultural picture

(Holliday, 1994, 1999). The reason for choosing Turkish schooling as small culture was that

writing, writing instruction, and the larger cultural context are reported to be strongly related to

one another (Kadar-Fulop, 1988; Li, 1996; Liebman, 1992; Liu, 2005; Purves, 1988; Severino,

1993). Moreover, any descriptions that would hold true for the entire Turkish society would be

very difficult due to the heterogeneity of the Turkish population resulting from the countrys

unique geographic location and historical background (Akarsu, 1999; Kinzer, 2001).

Research questions

Considering the aforementioned limitations of previous studies and new directions in CR

research, the research questions explored were:

Are there any common writing preferences or patterns in the argumentative essays of Turkish

writers that might be associated with previous writing education?

What commonalities and differences exist in rhetorical patterns within participants in theirTurkish and English argumentative essays?

Methodology

Participants

Eighteen Turkish native speaker adults (ten female, eight male) who currently live in the U.S.

were selected from among the research volunteers. To ensure that the participants had acceptable

knowledge and skills in L1 writing, only participants who hold at least a B.A. degree from

Turkish universities were chosen. These participants constituted a heterogeneous group in termsof their knowledge and experience in English and in English writing. Among these, eleven

participants had formal writing instruction in both Turkish and English, and seven participants

had received writing instruction only in Turkish. Thirteen participants were currently in a



5/25

graduate program or in a post-doctoral research position in an American university, and the others

were housewives who had only attended short-term ESL programs or were planning to apply to a

graduate program. Therefore, the participants English language skills varied from low to high.

(For more information about the participants, see Appendix A.)

Data collection

Multiple data collection methods were used to provide in-depth information and to increase

the validity of the findings by realizing a form of data triangulation (Bogdan & Biklen, 1992;

Denzin, 1978). The data were collected from three data sources: (I1) A Background

Questionnaire about previous L1 and L2 writing instruction; (I2) argumentative essays generated

by the participants in Turkish and English; and (I3) audiotaped stimulated recall interviews.

1. Background Questionnaire: A questionnaire was given to the participants mainly to obtain

information about Turkish and English writing instruction and to establish a context for theexplanation of findings. In the questionnaire, there were also questions related to the

participants English proficiency level. The questionnaire was prepared by adjusting and

combining the questionnaires used in the Martin (1992) and Liebman (1992) studies. (Please

see Appendix B for the Background Questionnaire.) The questionnaire was translated into

Turkish to enable all participants to better understand the questions. To overcome the semantic

and conceptual problems that may stem from the translation of the questionnaire instrument,

the translation/back-translation method, which was rated high in informativeness, source

language transparency and security was employed (Behling & Law, 2000, p. 19).

2. Essays: A total of 36 argumentative essays were produced by the participants to answer the

first and second research questions. Each participant wrote one essay in Turkish and another

essay in English in different order to counterbalance the effect of writing order on writing

performance. Unlike other studies, participants in this study wrote on two different topics. The

rationale for using different topics was that, if they had written on the same topic, they might

have translated from L1 or they might have written in the same way in both compositions, and

this would have potentially compromised claims about transfer. The topics were selected

among the essay prompts of the TOEFL TWE test as Lee, Breland, and Muraki (2004) and

Breland, Lee, Najarian, and Muraki (2004) found evidence that overall, TWE topics have an

acceptable level of comparability. The Turkish essay topic was: When people succeed, it is

because of hard work. Luck has nothing to do with success. Do you agree or disagree with thestatement above? Argue your position to convince a Turkish reader by using the strategies that

you think are appropriate. The English topic was: When people move to another country,

they should adopt the customs and the lifestyles of the new country to succeed. Do you agree or

disagree with the statement above? Argue your position to convince an American reader by

using strategies that you think are appropriate. The statement at the end of the TWE topics

such as use specific and clear reasons and examples to explain your position was not used in

order not to impose any ways of writing on the participants. Participants were given

45 minutes to write each essay, they were allowed to use a dictionary, and they were given a

choice of writing by hand or writing on a computer.

3. Audiotaped stimulated recall interviews: The stimulated recall interview method (retro-spective protocol) was chosen to collect data about the reasons for participants certain choices

in their writing. Gass and Mackey (2000) suggest that stimulated recall can be used to

uncover the cognitive processes in L2 research (p. 19) as a participant may be enabled to



6/25

relive an original situation with vividness and accuracy if presented with a large number of

cues or stimuli which occurred during the original situation (Bloom, 1954, p. 161; also cited

in Smagorinsky, 1994). Stimulated recall interviews have also been found to be effective and

less disruptive to make retrospective reports of thinking and they reveal not only what

happened, but also why it happened (Greene & Higgins, 1994; Sasaki, 2002; Shavelson, Webb,& Burstein, 1986). Therefore, they provide a richer understanding of the relationship among

texts, situational factors, and writers constructive processes and help identify patterns in

writing (Greene & Higgins, 1994, pp. 117118). Bloom (1954) found that if the stimulated

recalls were prompted up to 48 hour after the event, recall was 95% accurate. Therefore, in the

present study, stimulated recall interviews were administered within two days after the writing

activity to answer the first research question.

Data elicitation procedure

The data were collected in three sessions with each participant one by one. First, theBackground Questionnaire was administered. Second, within the following week, each

participant was asked to write two argumentative essays in Turkish and English. Finally, two days

after the completion of tasks, face-to-face semi-structured stimulated interviews were

administered, using textual cues that were found and selected from each participants essays

as a result of a preliminary textual analysis. (For sample interview questions, see Appendix C.)

Data analysis

The present study, aiming for a comprehensive approach to text analysis, included some

aspects of traditional methods related to cohesion and coherence, as well as more globalstructures of text and more cultural aspects of writing. No strict codification schemes were pre-

established; however, the features that previous literature had linked to culture were selected

according to the research interests to form a potential framework for the analysis. The texts were

analyzed qualitatively and by using frequency counts of certain patterns. The elements of writing

that were considered in the analysis were as follows:

1. In terms of overall organization of texts, the presence, order, and functions of the introduction,

body, and the conclusion in the essays were examined.

2. Macro-level rhetorical structure was investigated because it was claimed that connecting ideas

in a deductive and linear way or vice versa (Burtoff, 1983; Oi, 1984; Ostler, 1987, 1990, as

cited in Kubota, 1998b) might be a culture-specific pattern. A mixture ofKubotas (1998a) and

Carrels (1984) categories based on Meyers basic logical relationships model were used as a

framework with slight changes. The seven categories used were:

b Collection is a pattern that enumerates or lists concepts and ideas by association.

b Explanation has a statement of the theme or main idea which is followed by a supporting

reason.

b Specification has a statement of the theme, a main idea or a point of view for the subsequent

argument, which is then explained in more detail by reasons and supporting evidence.

b

Induction presents the main idea toward the end based on the preceding argument whichconstitutes a premise (original emphasis, Kubota, 1998a, p. 79).

b Causation presents ideas both chronologically and causally related, like the if-then

statements of logic or cause/effect statements like antecedent/consequence.



7/25

b Comparison shows a pattern that contains two elements arranged in a compare/contrast,

adversative or alternative relation. The ideas are organized on the basis not of time or

causality, but on the basis of opposing viewpoints.

b Problem-solution has all the features of cause/effect with the additional feature of

overlapping content between propositions in the problem and solution. One or morepropositional elements of the solution can neutralize a causal antecedent of the problem

(Carrel, 1984, p. 442).

3. Because it is suggested that writers from different cultures might show different degrees of

tolerance for digressions (Kaplan, 1966; Clyne, 1981), coherence at both essay and paragraph

levels was investigated. In terms of coherence, Gioras (1983) more meaning-driven thematic

approach to text coherence that suggests looking at segments in terms of their aboutness

and relevance to a discourse topic was used as a framework. Text segments with different

Discourse Topics should meet the relevance requirement, they must be related to an underlying

DT in terms of aboutness, and they must be interpretable as being about a topic which the text

as a whole is in fact about (p. 27).4. It was also stated that writers from different cultural backgrounds might differ in terms of

providing versus not providing explicit transition signaling, which leaves the responsibility for

making the connections between ideas to the reader (Hinds, 1983, 1987). Therefore, the use of

transition signaling was explored through counting the occurrences of conjunctive adverbs,

such as also, besides, furthermore, moreover, however, instead, nevertheless, otherwise,

similarly, likewise, accordingly, consequently, therefore, thus, first, meanwhile, next, then,

finally, indeed, certainly or any other explicit expressions between paragraphs (Fulwiler &

Hayakawa, 1997, p. 392).

5. To provide information for topic development and specific organization of ideas, presence

and location of thesis statement was also examined. Previous research claimed thatintroducing the thesis statement immediately at the beginning or in different locations was a

possible culture-specific feature (Kobayashi, 1984; Oi, 1984; Ostler, 1987, 1990, as cited in

Kubota, 1998b). Kubotas (1998a) categories for the location of main ideas in persuasive

essays were used as a guide. According to Kubota, initial means the thesis statement is in

the introduction paragraph, middle means the thesis statement is in the body of the essay,

final means the thesis statement is in the conclusion, collection refers to essays in which

the writers opinion is expressed in more than one location, and when two different main ideas

were found, both of them were considered as main ideas, and the two locations were noted

(p. 79).

First, a preliminary text analysis for each essay was done by the researcher to see whether an

individual participant had any apparent writing preferences or patterns in his/her essays and

whether these preferences showed any similarities or differences across his/her Turkish and

English essays. Finally, after all the data were collected, all essays were compared to each other

to see if the individual preferences or patterns found were shared by participants. In order to

confirm the results and to reduce the subjectivity of the study, the texts were analyzed not only by

the researcher, but also by two other coders. The other coders were two native English speaking

doctoral candidates who had been teaching rhetoric classes and tutoring in the writing center in

an American university for several years.After the text analysis, the reasons behind common patterns were analyzed by transcribing,

grouping and describing the articulated reasons in the stimulated recall interviews to see which

factors had influenced participants writing choices. The Background Questionnaire about the



8/25

cultural context was analyzed by calculating frequency of markings in closed-ended questions

and mentioned points in open-ended questions, such as differences between writing instruction in

Turkish and English. Then, the findings of the survey were correlated with shared preferences and

with the results of the stimulated recall interview in order to see whether previous writing

education had any relationship with common patterns.

Results

Due to the broad scope of the study, only the important findings of the text analysis for each

rhetorical pattern are presented along with the related survey and stimulated recall interview

results in order to contextualize textual findings and to understand the reasons behind them.

Research Question #1

Are there any common writing preferences or patterns in the argumentative essays of Turkishwriters that might be associated with previous writing education?

1. Overall organization: In terms of overall organization, all participants had an introduction,

body, and conclusion in both their Turkish and English essays except for one participants

English essay, which did not have an introduction. Interview and survey results revealed that

all participants had learned organizing essays around an introduction, body, and conclusion in

both Turkish and English composition classes.

2. Macro-level rhetorical pattern: Specification was the most commonly used macro-level

rhetorical pattern in especially Turkish (67% of the essays), but also in English essays (33%),

regardless of the writing instructional history of participants. However, in English essays,

induction (28%) and problemsolution patterns (22%) were also common.

Because analysis of macro-level rhetorical patterns could not be done prior to the interviews,

no specific questions related to this category were posed to the participants. However, one

participant (Berk) said in the interview that, especially in English writing classes, he learned

strategies regarding how to pose a problem and solve it. Similarly, he used the problemsolution

pattern in his English essay, but not in his Turkish essay. Survey results indicated that the

preference for the specification pattern in Turkish essays might be related to the types of writing

and the topics the participants were given in writing classes. In Turkish writing classes, asreported by the respondents, the most common writing tasks were short answers in exams (94%),

summaries (78%), and petitions and essays (72%); and the most common topics were explaining

a proverb, a saying, or a maxim of Ataturk (78%), writing about historical or national topics such

as Ataturks principles or national holidays (72%), and only then argumentative topics (39%).

These common writing tasks and topics would definitely not require a rhetorical pattern more

complicated than explanation or specification.

In English writing instruction, however, argumentation (100%), research papers (82%), and

argumentative topics (91%) were very common. As argumentative writing activities would

require more complicated macro-rhetorical developments, this might be a reason for the

problem-solution pattern occurring twice as much in English than in Turkish essays, and the useof it more by participants who received English writing instruction than participants who did not.

Induction was another commonly used pattern in English. For possible reasons for that, see the

section on thesis statements, p. 14.



9/25

3. Coherence: At essay level, all essays, and at paragraph level, 94% of the paragraphs, were

coherent; thus, no preference for digression was found. In the interview, all participants said

they had learned about coherence as a rule in both Turkish and English writing classes.

Similarly, in the survey, paragraph-level coherence was marked as an emphasized feature in

Turkish classes by twelve participants (67%), and in English writing classes by seven out ofeleven participants (64%) who had received English writing instruction.

4. Transition signaling: Participants used transition signaling frequently in their essays. Among

103 body and conclusion paragraphs, 69 (67%) had some transition signaling (37 in Turkish,

and 32 in English). Transition signaling was used more extensively by the participants who

were exposed to English writing education, and the transitions were shorter, formulaic, and

more explicit in English than they were in the Turkish essays (e.g. . . . this story brings to my

mind an example in Turkish versus for example in English). Interview results indicated

that the use of transition signaling was mainly related to previous English writing education

and/or familiarity with English texts. The ten participants (91%) who received writing

instruction in English stated that they learned about transition signaling in English writingclasses. In addition, the participants who did not receive any formal English writing

instruction, but who were in a graduate program, said they often recognize this feature in

scientific articles in English and use it in their writing. Two participants also said they knew it

from TOEFL books or ESL classes. Fifty-five percent of the participants who received English

writing instruction also mentioned connectives as one of the requirements for effective

organization in English in the survey.

5. Placement of the main ideas: All essays had a thesis statement either in an explicit direct way

in one sentence or in a less direct way in one or more sentences. Regardless of their writing

instructional history, participants preferred an initial use of thesis statement resulting in

deductive and straightforward topic development in Turkish (72%) essays. However, inEnglish essays, participants tended to have inductive developments (39%) or collections

(33%) rather than initial thesis statements (28%) (see Table 1, p. 24).

Education seemed to have a role in the presence and positioning of thesis statements only to a

certain extent. In the survey, ten participants (56%) said they learned to put a thesis statement in

their compositions in Turkish classes. Six of them remembered the place as initial and three

participants as final. These participants placed the thesis in their Turkish essays according to how

they stated they had learned the location in Turkish classes. However, in some cases, participants

who said they did not learn this rule in Turkish also had a thesis statement in their Turkish essays,and except for two of them, they all positioned their thesis statements initially.


Table 1

Between subject analysis for placement of thesis statements

Turkish English

Participants Percentage Participants Percentage

Location of thesis statement

Initial 13 72 5 28

Middle 0 0 0 0

Final 4 22 7 39Collection 1 6 6 33

Two or more different theses 0 0 0 0

Obscure 0 0 0 0


10/25

When asked whether they learned that they should have a thesis statement in their English

writing classes, all participants who had an English writing education said they learned that they

should have a thesis statement at the beginning of their compositions. Surprisingly, only three of

them put their thesis in an initial position in their English essays. For some reason, participants

did not use their knowledge regarding the initial use of thesis statements in their English essays,but used it in their Turkish essays.

6. Separate example paragraph pattern: An interesting pattern writing topic sentences and

examples in separate paragraphs or starting the paragraph with an example was found in 17

essays and 26 (16 Turkish, 10 English) paragraphs. This paragraph division by twelve

participants resulted in obscure topics (no topic sentences) in the following paragraphs.

Although it was revealed by the interview that this structure was not explicitly taught in either

Turkish or English writing classes, eight participants seemed to have formed a belief that

presenting an example in a new paragraph would make it more effective, appealing, original,

or practical, and because the example speaks for itself, it is unnecessary to use a topic sentencealong with the example. In the survey, it was also found that having a topic sentence in a

paragraph was not an emphasized feature in Turkish writing classes (marked by only 28% of

participants). Thus, this lack of emphasis on topic sentences in Turkish might be a reason for

the finding that 23 paragraphs had obscure topic sentences especially in Turkish, but also in

English essays. Other reasons were found to be related to the essay topic and previous reading

experiences.

Research Question #2

What commonalities and differences exist in rhetorical patterns within participants in their

Turkish and English argumentative essays?

L1 and L2 essays of participants demonstrated both similarities and differences according to

different categories. Similarities were observed especially in terms of overall organization,

coherence, and transition signaling. For example, almost all participants wrote coherent essays in

both L1 and L2 around an introduction, body, and conclusion. Fifteen participants who had

transition signaling in Turkish often had transition signaling in English essays, but with equal or

less frequency. However, for other categories, similarities between L1 and L2 essays were

observed in fewer participants essays. In terms of macro-level rhetorical patterns, for example,

seven participants (39%) had similar macro-level rhetorical patterns in both their essays as themain or secondary pattern. The separate example pattern was also observed in six participants

Turkish and English essays although it was used more in Turkish essays (16 essays) than in

English essays (10) (see Table 2, p. 24).

Differences between L1 and L2 essays particularly came into play in the location of the thesis

statements. For example, although all participants had thesis statements in both their essays, only

five participants positioned their thesis statements in the same location in the Turkish and English

essays. When participants were asked in the interview why they used different locations for their

thesis statements in their Turkish and English essays, it was found that L2 level, writertopic

interaction, emotional state, and audience played a role in the positioning of thesis statements.

For example, one participant (Sinem) said she knew the rule of initial thesis statement from herEnglish classes; however, although it was easy for her to use that knowledge in Turkish, she

completely forgot about this rule while writing in English as she was busy with grammar

concerns. It was also found that when the participants thought the topic was abstract, subjective,



11/25

and relative, and was not able to decide what side to take in the argument they delayed the thesis

statements. The more they were hesitant about the topic, the more inductive their essays became

(Ali, Esen, and Banu). Also, participants who went deeper in their thinking, included

philosophical and emotional elements, and considered all dimensions of the topic could not put

the thesis at the beginning (Sebnem, Ali, Sedat, and Berk). Two participants (Ali and Taner) also

said that because they were writing to an American audience in the English essay, they felt the

need to include more explanations before they stated their thesis, fearing that the American

audience would not understand their point.

Coders reached full agreement for the analysis of overall organization, coherence, and

transition signaling. The intercoder reliability was 83% for analyzing macro-level rhetoricalpattern, and 92% and 95% for analyzing thesis statements and topic sentences, respectively.

Discussion and conclusion

Despite the fact that the participants constituted a heterogeneous group in terms of their

English level and their history of L2 writing education, they still demonstrated some common

rhetorical patterns in their essays as well as individual differences. The patterns were often linked

to educational context, but other factors were also found to play roles in the shape of the texts. In

terms of similarities in L1 and L2 essays of the participants, the patterns showed similarities for

some categories more than others, and various factors were found to be influential in the use ofsimilar versus different patterns in essays of each individual.

The commonalities or preferences in rhetorical patterns were observed particularly in terms of

a number of factors: participants organizing essays around an introduction, body, and


Table 2

Within-subject analysis for separate example paragraph pattern in L1 and L2 essays

Turkish English

Ayse II. example paragraph

Sebnem II. starts with an example

III. starts with a counter example

Ali III. example paragraph II. starts with example

III. counter example paragraph

Sinem IV. example paragraph

Merve II. example paragraph

Esen II. starts with an example III, IV, V are all separate example paragraphs

IV. example paragraph

Berk III, IV, V are all separate example paragraphs

Irem II. example paragraph with two examplesUfuk III. example paragraph III. example paragraph

Zafer III. example paragraph II, IV both start with an example

Derya II. example paragraph

Leyla II. example paragraph II. example paragraph

III. example paragraph with multiple examples

Total: 16 paragraphs Total: 10 paragraphs

Roman numerals stand for the sequence of the paragraph; e.g. II. is the second paragraph.


12/25

conclusion; using specification as the macro-level rhetorical pattern in the Turkish essays;

writing coherently; using transition devices between paragraphs; having initial thesis statements

in Turkish, and final thesis statements and collections of thesis statements in English essays;

having initial, obscure, or collection of topic sentences in their paragraphs; and starting their

paragraphs with examples.The common preferences of participants regarding overall organization, macro-level

rhetorical pattern and coherence, and the use of transition devices were similar to the stereotyped

English ways of writing reported by previous research. For example, Turkish participants essays

followed the linear order of introduction, body, and conclusion with similar functions to English:

an introduction presenting the main idea and conclusion ending the discussion with a suggestion,

restatement, or summary of the argument. In addition, the participants tended to organize

especially their Turkish essays using specificationa popular Western pattern as it is front

loaded, introducing the thesis statement and then providing explanation and evidence for the

argument (Kubota, 1998b). Again, the participants essays and paragraphs were coherent with

use of frequent transition devices similar to traditional English writing.However, a tendency to use obscure topic sentences and collections of topic sentences, which

was not consistent with the stereotyped English writing, were also observed in the present study.

The common use of obscure topic sentences or presenting only examples without a topic sentence

in the present study might be a sign of reader responsibility, as participants stated that they did not

feel the need to include a topic sentence along with examples because their examples were

effective enough to speak for themselves. Therefore, Turkish participants might have assumed

and expected that readers would make the connections between the example and the argument by

themselves, similar to Japanese and Chinese writers (Hinds, 1983; Matalane, 1985). Kimura and

Kondo (2004) also found that obscure and multiple different topic sentences were used by

Japanese writers, possibly influenced by the danraku style, which allows multiple topic

sentences in a paragraph, and by Japanese writing instruction that is not detailed and specific in

terms of paragraph-level organization (Kimura & Kondo, 2004), similar to Turkish writing

education.

In short, participants demonstrated some rhetorical preferences similar to both stereotyped

English and Asian writing preferences surprisingly parallel to Turkeys geographical location

right in the middle of West and East. However, it is also important to note that, besides these

common patterns, many exceptions and individual preferences were also found. For example,

participants not only used specification, but also other macro-level rhetorical patterns in their

essays such as problemsolution, comparison, and induction. Five participants demonstrateddigression at paragraph level; one participant did not have transition signaling in any of the

essays; and a few participants had middle positioning of topic sentences in their paragraphs.

In terms of the relationship between the common preferences and the educational context,

strong and direct connections were found for some categories, but for others, the connections

were not that salient, as various other factors were influential in writing as well. For example, use

of overall organization and coherence in both essays was directly linked to writing education in

both L1 and L2 writing classes. The use of frequent transition signaling in the essays was also

found to be related to previous writing instruction, particularly in English, as it was explicitly and

strongly encouraged by English writing teachers. Nevertheless, because almost all participants

who were both familiar and not familiar with English writing used this feature, it cannot beclaimed that transitions were non-existent in Turkish writing, but that they were probably not

emphasized as much. The common use of specification, especially in Turkish essays, on the other

hand, might have roots in Turkish writing instruction in which the writing topics and writing



13/25

types practiced such as writing about national holidays were consistent with use of that macro-

level pattern. Turkish writing education, which was described as very general and ambiguous,

might have been related to high instances of obscure topic sentences and separate example

paragraphs in both essays similar to the findings of Kimura and Kondos study (2004) that

suggested a link between ambiguous Japanese writing education at paragraph level and obscuretopic sentences in Japanese essays.

In terms of the use of thesis statements, on the other hand, the situation was more complicated.

More than half the participants said they learned to write thesis statements in Turkish classes, and

all participants who received English writing instruction said they learned about this rule in

English writing classes; however, initial thesis statements could be observed only in the Turkish

essays. Other factors such as L2 level, essay topic, and audience were found to play role in the

locations of thesis statements rather than previous writing instruction as a result of the stimulated

recall interviews.

These findings provided support for the claims of CR regarding the relationship between

culture and writing. However, it was also found that cultural context is not the only factor thatdetermines the way participants write, as in some categories cultural connections seemed to not

be straightforward and simple, but complicated.

In terms of similarities in Turkish and English essays of participants, participants used similar

patterns for some categories, but not for the others due to various factors. The similarities found

in some patterns or preferences in Turkish and English essays of the same individuals essays

point out the possibility of transfer across languages. The interview and survey results provided

further evidence for the possibility of transfer as they revealed whether the pattern had its roots in

L1, L2, or both, as mentioned earlier. For example, knowledge and skills related to overall

organizational patterns and coherence were probably transferred in both directions. On the other

hand, the separate example paragraph patterns and having obscure and collections of topic

sentences were probably transferred from Turkish to English. Frequent use of transition signaling

in essays was likely to be transferred from English to Turkish. These results are consistent with

Enginarlar (1990), Oktar (1991), and Atakent (1999), who found evidence for transfer of L2

knowledge to Turkish, in addition to a L1 to L2 transfer.

However, it was also found that, while participants could easily transfer information from

English to Turkish in some categories, they did not use their L2 knowledge in other categories

in either essay. All participants, regardless of their L2 level, L1 and L2 writing skills, and their

previous L2 writing history, could easily make use of their knowledge about overall

organization structure, coherence, and transition signaling into both their essays. However,transfer in the use of macro-level rhetorical patterns and location of main ideas at essay and

paragraph levels was interrupted. Participants especially did not apply their knowledge about

the initial positioning of thesis statement while writing in L2. These findings contrast with

Hiroses (2003) study in which Japanese students used a deductive organizational pattern in

both their L1 and L2 essays. However, writing on the same topic and having similar L2 levels

and L2 writing instruction histories might have caused the parallelism in L1 and L2 essays of

Hiroses subjects.

L2 proficiency was found to be an important reason for participants not being able to use their

writing knowledge in L1 and L2. However, it was also found that even the participants who were

proficient in L2 as they currently study in doctoral programs in the U.S. had problems usingcertain features, such as initial thesis statements in their L2 writing. Other features such as

transitions, on the other hand, were used effortlessly in both essays, even by participants who had

very low L2 language levels. These results might indicate that, if there is a threshold necessary for



14/25

the transfer of L1 writing skills to L2, then that threshold might be higher for transferring certain

patterns than others.

Another explanation for this might be related to the fact that the degree of the participants

L1 and L2 writing knowledge and experiences differed from one category to another. For

example, for the category related to initial topic sentences, participants might have had lowerL1 knowledge due to superficial and vague instruction in L1, as well as having inadequate

opportunities to practice this feature in English. Therefore, L2 proficiency was not the only

reason that hampered the use of L1 or L2 knowledge of writing in the essays, but as Kubota

(1998a) also suggested, L1 writing knowledge and a lack of writing experience in L2 might

have influenced participants writing. In the present study, besides L2 related problems,

inadequate L1 writing education, inexperience in L2 writing with the use of certain patterns, as

well as other factors, such as topic, audience concerns, and individual or emotional factors

articulated by participants, were sources for not being able to use L1 or L2 writing knowledge

in L2 writing.

No significant difference was found in the patterns and their transfer among participantsaccording to gender, previous history of ESL versus EFL writing instruction, writing order,

writing on computer versus by hand, or subjects graduate programs of study.

Limitations of the study

Due to the small sample size, the patterns found cannot be claimed to be the cultural

representations of Turkish writing. Secondly, as the essays were written in argumentative mode

for a specific purpose, the results cannot be generalized to other types of writing. Another

limitation was the subjectivity inherent in the analysis of texts, although this subjectivity was

attempted to be reduced by correlating three readers coding. Moreover, the essays were

produced in a limited time; thus, they were only first drafts. Therefore, the results should be

approached cautiously.

Implications and suggestions for further research

Most Contrastive Rhetoric studies have received criticism, mainly due to research designs that

analyzed texts merely based on researchers impressions or made claims about L1 to L2 transfer

by just looking at L2 essays. Possibly because of these criticisms regarding problems with

objectivity in CR research, the current direction seems to be large corpus studies as suggested byConnor and Moreno (2005) based on structured linguistic analysis, but not process-oriented

qualitative research. This study, on the other hand, revealed that process-oriented qualitative

methodologies can contribute to understanding which observed patterns in texts stem from

cultural influences and which patterns stem from other factors such as L2 level, audience, topic,

and so on. Therefore, it is hoped that future studies will take this suggestion into consideration.

In order to explore language or culturally specific writing patterns, the best way is to look at

the L1 texts of participants who have no prior knowledge about L2 writing. It would be very

misleading to examine L2 essays of a language group, as developmental factors in L2 proficiency

and many other factors might play a role in the shape of L2 essays. For example, in the present

study, if we had just examined L2 essays for the location of thesis statements, we could havefalsely concluded that Turkish writers write inductively, despite the fact that the participants used

deductive organization in their L1 essays. It is also misleading to examine the L1 essays of people

with previous L2 writing knowledge, as transfer from L2 to L1 can cause contamination.



15/25

While investigating transfer from L1 to L2 and vice versa, subjects should also be grouped

according to their L2 proficiency and L2 writing education history, and they should write on

different topics to better understand how these various factors interact with each other during any

possible transfer of cultural patterns across writing.

Further research on Turkish cultural writing patterns should investigate each rhetoricalcategory with more subjects to see if the patterns found hold true for a larger population with

implications for a larger cultural context. Longitudinal case studies investigating Turkish writers

learning processes of academic English writing conventions would also be helpful to reveal more

details about the relationship between culture and writing and the reasoning behind certain

writing behaviors this present study might have overlooked.

Conclusions

With the increasing popularity of social and genre theories of writing, the focus of attention

has turned to social and cultural factors that play a role in writing (Atkinson, 2003a, 2003b),which has helped CR gain new momentum. The present study revealed that many different

factors interact with each other and play a role in the final shape of written texts, and cultural

factors are only a part of the big picture. However, culturaleducational factors still were found to

constitute an important part of second language writing processes and products. Therefore, it is

hoped that the present study will contribute to the attempts to formulate a comprehensive theory

of second language writing, while pointing out that CR is an indispensable area for second

language writing research and has important potentials that should be utilized.

Acknowledgments

I would like to thank Carol Severino, Ilona Leki, and the reviewers for their comments on an

earlier version of this paper. I would also like to thank Carol Severino, Michael Everson, Leslie

Schrier, Kathy Heilenman, and Anne DiPardo for their invaluable feedback that improved the

study.

References

Akarsu, F. (1999). Transition and education: A case study of the process of change in Turkey. In K. Mazurek, M. Winzer,

& C. Majorek (Eds.), Education in a global society: A comparative perspective (pp. 315329). Boston: Allyn & Bacon.Akyel, A., & Kamisli, S. (1997). Composing in first and second languages: Possible effects of EFL writing instruction.

Odense working papers in language and communication, 14 (p. 69105). Odense, Denmark: Odense University Press.

Atakent, A. (1999). The effects of teaching L2 rhetorical organization on Turkish freshman students L1 expository

writing. Unpublished masters thesis. Ankara, Turkey: The Middle East Technical University.

Atkinson, D. (2003a). L2 writing in the post-process era. Journal of Second Language Writing, 12(1), 315.

Atkinson, D. (2003b). Writing and culture in the post-process era. Journal of Second Language Writing, 12(1), 4963.

Atkinson, D. (2004). Contrasting rhetorics/contrasting cultures: Why contrastive rhetoric needs a better conceptualization

of culture. Journal of English for Academic Purposes, 3(4), 277289.

Behling, O., & Law, K. S. (2000). Translating questionnaires and other research instruments: Problems and solutions.

Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage Publications.

Berlin, James A.. (1984). Writing instruction in nineteenth-century American colleges. Carbondale: Southern Illinois

University Press.

Bloom, B. (1954). The thought processes of students in discussion. In S. J. French (Ed.),Accent on teaching: Experiments

in general education (pp. 2346). New York: Harper.

Bogdan, R. C., & Biklen, S. K. (1992). Qualitative research for education: An introduction to theory and methods (2nd

ed.). Boston, MA: Allyn & Bacon.



16/25

Breland, H., Lee, Y., Najarian, M., & Muraki, E. (2004). An analysis of TOEFL CBT writing prompt difficulty and

comparability for different gender groups. Report No. RR-04-05, Report 76. TOEFL Research Reports (ERIC

Documentation Reproduction Service No. ED492919). Princeton, NJ.

Carrel, P. (1984). The effects of rhetorical organization on ESL readers. TESOL Quarterly, 18, 441469.

Clyne, M. (1981). Culture and discourse structure. Journal of Pragmatics, 5, 6166.

Connor, U. (1987). Argumentative patterns in student essays: Cross-cultural differences. In U. Connor & R. Kaplan(Eds.), Writing across languages: Analysis of L2 text (pp. 5771). Reading, MA: Addison-Wesley.

Connor, U. (1996). Contrastive rhetoric: Cross-cultural aspects of second language writing. New York: Cambridge

University Press.

Connor, U. (2002). New directions in contrastive rhetoric. TESOL Quarterly, 36(4), 493510.

Connor, U. (2004). Intercultural rhetoric research: Beyond texts. Journal of English for Academic Purposes, 3(4), 291

304.

Connor, U., & Moreno, A. I. (2005). Tertium Comparationis: A vital component in contrastive research methodology. In P.

Bruthiaux, D. Atkinson, W. G. Eggington, W. Grabe, & Ramathanan (Eds.), Directions in applied linguistics: Essays

in honor of Robert B. Kaplan (pp. 153164). Clevendon, England: Multilingual Matters.

Denzin, N. K. (1978). The research act: A theoretical introduction to sociological methods (2nd ed.). New York: McGraw-

Hill.

Enginarlar, H. (1990). A contrastive analysis of writing in Turkish and English of Turkish high school students.Unpublished Ph.D. dissertation. Ankara, Turkey: Hacettepe University.

Fulwiler, T., & Hayakawa, A. R. (1997). The Blair handbook (2nd ed.). Upper Saddle River, NJ: Blair Press.

Gass, S. M., & Mackey, A. (2000). Stimulated recall methodology in second language research. Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence

Erlbaum Associates.

Giora, R. (1983). What is a coherent text? In Sozer, E. (Ed.). Text connexity, text coherence: Aspects, methods, results.

Papers in text linguistics. Vol. 49 (pp.1636). Hamburg: Buske.Greene, S., & Higgins, L. (1994). Once upon a time: The use of retrospective accounts in building theory in

composition. In P. Smagorinsky (Ed.), Speaking about writing: Reflections on research methodology (pp. 115140).

Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage Publications.

Hinds, J. (1983). Contrastive rhetoric: Japanese and English. TEXT, 3(2), 183195.

Hinds, J. (1987). Reader versus writer responsibility: A new typology. In U. Connor & R. Kaplan (Eds.), Writing across

languages: Analysis of L2 text (pp. 141152). Reading, MA: Addison-Wesley.

Hinkel, E. (1997). Indirectness in L1 and L2 academic writing. Journal of Pragmatics, 27, 361386.

Hinkel, E. (2002). Second language writers text: Linguistic and rhetorical features. Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum

Associates.

Hirose, K. (2003). Comparing L1 and L2 organizational patterns in the argumentative writing of Japanese EFL students.

Journal of Second Language Writing, 12(2), 181209.

Hirose, K., & Sasaki, M. (1994). Explanatory variables for Japanese students expository writing in English: An

exploratory study. Journal of Second Language Writing, 3(3), 203229.

Holliday, A. (1994). Appropriate methodology and social context. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

Holliday, A. (1999). Small cultures. Applied Linguistics, 20(2), 237264.

Indrasuta, C. (1988). Narrative styles in the writing of Thai and American students. In A. Purves (Ed.), Writing across

languages and cultures: Issues in contrastive rhetoric (pp. 206227). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage Publications.Kadar-Fulop, J. (1988). Culture, writing, and curriculum. In A. Purves (Ed.), Writing across languages and cultures:

Issues in contrastive rhetoric (pp. 2550). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage Publications.

Kamimura, T., & Oi, K. (1998). Argumentative strategies in American and Japanese English. World Englishes, 17(3),

307323.

Kaplan, R. B. (1966). Cultural thought patterns in intercultural education. Language Learning, 16, 120.

Kimura, K., & Kondo, M. (2004). Effective writing instruction: From Japanese danraku to English paragraphs. JALT

Pan-Sig Conference Proceedings. Tokyo, Japan: Tokyo Keizai University.

Kinzer, S. (2001). Crescent and star: Turkey between two worlds. New York: Farrar, Straus, and Giroux.

Kubota, R. (1998a). An investigation of L1L2 transfer in writing among Japanese university students: Implications for

contrastive rhetoric. Journal of Second Language Writing, 7(1), 69100.

Kubota, R. (1998b). An investigation of Japanese and English L1 essay organization: Differences and similarities.

Canadian Modern Language Review, 54(4), 475507.Lee, Y., Breland, H., & Muraki, E. (2004). Comparability of TOEFL CBT essay prompts for different native language

groups. Research Reports: 77. TOEFL Research Reports (ERIC Documentation Reproduction Service No.

ED464963), Princeton, NJ.



17/25

Leki, I. (1991). Twenty-five years of contrastive rhetoric. TESOL Quarterly, 25, 123143.

Leki, I. (1997). Cross-talk: ESL issues and contrastive rhetoric. In C. Severino, J. Guerra, & J. Butler (Eds.), Writing in

multicultural settings (pp. 234244). NY: The Modern Language Association of America.

Li, X. M. (1996). Good writing in cross-cultural context. Albany: State University of New York Press.

Liebman, J. (1992). Toward a new contrastive rhetoric: Differences between Arabic and Japanese rhetorical instruction.

Journal of Second Language Writing, 1, 141165.Liu, L. (2005). Rhetorical education through writing instruction across cultures: A comparative analysis of select online

instructional materials on argumentative writing. Journal of Second Language Writing, 14(1), 118.

Martin, J. E. (1992). Towards a theory of text for contrastive rhetoric: An introduction to issues of text for students,

practitioners of contrastive rhetoric (Series XIII, Vol. 19). NY: American University Studies.

Matalane, C. (1985). Contrastive rhetoric: An American writing teacher in China. College English, 47(8), 789808.

Matsuda, P. K. (1997). Contrastive rhetoric in context: A dynamic model of L2 writing. Journal of Second Language

Writing, 6(1), 4560.

Mauranen, A. (1993). Contrastive ESP rhetoric: Metatext in Finnish-English economics texts. English for Specific

Purposes, 12, 322.

Mohan, B., & Lo, W.A.-Y. (1985). Academic writing and Chinese students: Transfer and developmental factors. TESOL

Quarterly, 19, 515534.

Oktar, L. (1991). Contrastive analysis of specific rhetorical relations in English and Turkish expository paragraphwriting. Unpublished Ph.D. dissertation. Izmir, Turkey: Ege University.

Purves, A. C. (1988). Introduction. In A. Purves (Ed.), Writing across languages and cultures: Issues in contrastive

rhetoric (pp. 921). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage Publications.

Sasaki, M. (2002). Building an empirically based model of EFL learners writing processes. In S. Ransdell & M. L.

Barbier (Eds.), New directions for research in L2 writing (pp. 4980). Dordrecht, The Netherlands: Kluwer Academic

Publishers.

Severino, C. (1993). The Doodles in context: Qualifying claims of CR. The Writing Center Journal, 14(1), 4461.

Shavelson, R. J., Webb, N. M., & Burstein, L. (1986). Measurement of teaching. In M. C. Wittrock (Ed.), Handbook of

research on teaching. NY: Macmillan.

Smagorinsky, P. (1994). Introduction: Potential problems and problematic potentials of using talk about writing as data

about writing process. In: P. Smagorinsky (Ed.), Speaking about writing: Reflections on research methodology (pp. ix

xix). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage Publications.

Soter, A. O. (1988). The second language learner and cultural transfer in narration. In A. Purves (Ed.), Writing across

languages and cultures: Issues in contrastive rhetoric (pp. 177205). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage Publications.

Valero-Garces, C. (1996). Contrastive ESP rhetoric: Metatext in SpanishEnglish economics texts. English for Specific

Purposes, 15(4), 279294.


Appendix A. Information about participants

Note: In general and vocational high schools in Turkey, English is taught only for 34 hours a

week, but in English medium high schools it is taught for at least 8 hours a week, following apreparation class in which English is taught for 24 hour a week.

Name English level (length of stay in the US, length and quality of

English instruction in Turkey, self-evaluation, etc.)

Formal writing

instruction in L2

Education-vocation

Ayse 5 years of English instruction in a vocational high school in

Turkey (3 hours a week), 3 months of ESL course in the US,

has been in the US for 5 years, ranks her English 5 out of 10.

None B.A. in Embroidery

Teaching, currently

a housewife.

Sebnem Went to an English medium high school in Turkey, stayed in

Britain for 2 years, has been in the US for 2 years, ranks

her English 9/10.

None (skipped the

preparatory class

where writing

instructionwas given)

B.A. in English

literature, M.A. in

Cultural Studies

from Britain,currently Ph.D.

student Communication

Studies in the US.


18/25


Appendix A (Continued)Name English level (length of stay in the US, length and quality of


Formal writing

instruction in L2

Education-vocation

Ali Went to an English medium junior high school and then

a science high school in Turkey, published several articles

in English, ranks his English 8/10.

Yes B.A. in Physics,

Ph.D. in Physics

from an American

University, currently

a post-doc researcher.

Okan Went to a general high school, but then an English

medium university in Turkey, has been in the US

for 4 years, and took ESL classes for 1 year.

Yes (both in Turkey

and in the US)

B.A. in Physics,

currently a Ph.D.

student in Physics

in the US.

Sedat Went to a general high school, but then an English

medium university, ranks his English level 9/10.

None (skipped the

preparatory class)

B.A. in Psychology

and Biology, currently

Ph.D. student in

Psychology.

Sinem Went to a general high school, but then went to anEnglish medium university, has been in the US for

1.5 years, ranks her English 7/10.

Yes B.A. in Physics,currently Ph.D.

student in Physics

in the US.

Merve Graduated from an English medium high school and

university, has been in the US for 3 months, ranks

her English 7/10.

Yes B.A. in Electrical-

Electronic Engineering,

has just applied for

MA in computer

sciences.

Esen Went to an English medium high school and partly

English medium university, has been in the US

for a month, ranks her English 6/10.

None B.A. in Physical

Engineering.

Erdem English medium high school and university, hasbeen in the US for 1.5 years, ranks his

English as 8/10.

Yes B.A. in Economicsand Mathematics,

currently Ph.D.

student in Economics

in the US.

Berk Went to an English medium high school and a university

in Turkey, has been in the US for 1.5 years, ranks

his English as 9/10.

Yes B.A. in Economics,

currently Ph.D.

student in Economics

in the US.

Irem Attended an English medium high school and University,

has been in the US for 3 months, ranks her

English as 5/10.

Yes B.A. in Economics,

Ph.D. student in

Economics in the US.

Ufuk Attended a general high school and a Turkish medium

University, went to ESL classes for three semesters

in the US, has been in the US for 3.5 years,

ranks his English 8/10.

Yes B.A. in Electrical-

Electronic Engineering,

Ph.D. student in

Physics in the US.

Zafer Attended a general high school, English major in the

university, has been in the US for 3.5 years, ranks

his English as 10/10.

Yes B.A. and M.A. in

English Language

Education, Ph.D.

student in Foreign

Language Education

in US.

Banu Attended a general high school and Turkish medium

university, has been in the US for 1 year. Attendedseveral short-term ESL classes in churches,

ranks her English as 5/10.

None B.A. in Agricultural

Engineering. Currentlya housewife.


19/25


Appendix A (Continued)Name English level (length of stay in the US, length and quality of


Formal writing

instruction in L2

Education-vocation

Taner Attended a general high school and a Turkish medium

university. Attended a TOEFL preparation course for

a year in Turkey, has been in the US for 4.5 years,

ranks his English as 6/10.

Yes (as a part of

TOEFL preparation

program and has

been going to

Writing Center in

the US)

B.A. in Science

Education. Ph.D.

student in Science

Education in US.

Derya Attended a religious high school in Turkey, has been

in the US for 2 years, attended ESL classes in

churches for a few months, ranks her English as 5/10.

None B.A. in Theology,

currently a housewife.

Leyla Went to a general high school and a Turkish medium

university, Attended a TOEFL preparation course for a

year in Turkey, has been in the US for 4 years, ranks

her English as 5/10.

Yes (as part of

TOEFL preparation

program, has been

going to Writing

Center in the US)

B.A. in Biology

Education, Ph.D.

student in Science

Education in US.

Nevin Went to a general high school and a Turkish medium

university. Has been in the US for 1.5 years. Attended

two ESL classes at college, ranks her English as 4/10.

None B.A. in Agricultural

Engineering, M.A.

in Plant Protection

and Entomology,

currently a housewife.


20/25


Appendix B. Background Questionnaire


21/25


22/25



23/25


Appendix C. Sample stimulated recall interview questions (Alis case)

An outline of Alis Turkish and English essays.

Turkish essay English essay

Introduction: A short explanation/description about

what luck and success mean + thesis statement:

I think luck plays a big role in a persons success.

Introduction: General information and description

about the people who adapt vs. people who

preserve their own culture.

Development: I. paragraph: Topic sentence (luck is not

the only reason for success, hard work may also

help) + reason (for how luck may influence success).

Development: I. paragraph: Example (a story about his

experiences in the US to support keeping ones own

customs). 1st topic sentence: the more you know

about the American lifestyle, the easier it gets to

communicate with them + reason (because otherwise

as a foreigner you can offend people); 2nd topic sentence

(complementary to the first topic sentence): there is

a positive correlation between being able to communicate

with people and success. 3rd topic sentence: I still

keep my traditions and lifestyle among Americans,

which I do not think had a bad influence on my career

+ reason (actually they appreciate differencesthis is

cultural richness)

II. Example (a short story about two of his friends

to support luck).

II. paragraph: Example (imaginary story) + topic sentence

III. A question to the reader. Conclusion: Thesis statementTherefore, I do not

think that there is a correlation between being successful

and adopting the customs of a new country. However,

understanding and respecting the differences between

cultures might be helpful.IV. Answering the above question summarizing his view.

Conclusion: Restating the claim. In conclusion, I think

luck plays an important place in success . . ..


24/25


Sample interview questions and answers:

1. In the survey you stated that starting an essay with a thesis statement was a feature you learned

in English writing classes, but not in Turkish. However, your thesis statement is in the

introduction part in your Turkish essay, but it comes at the end in your English composition.Why?

- I think this is related to the language of the essay. While I am writing in English I feel a need

to introduce and explain the topic first. Maybe I am afraid that a foreigner would not

understand me. I do not fear that the reader would not understand me while writing in Turkish

at all, so in English I believe that I should explain the subject first and then start writing my

own ideas. Also, I had a strong opinion about the Turkish topic, but in English essay, I could

not decide which side I will take, my ideas developed while I was writing.

2. In general, your paragraphs start with an example or your paragraphs are consisted of only

examples. Why did you do that?

- While we were writing in Turkish at school, the most common writing topic was explaining aproverb and the only way you can do was by giving examples. For example if they ask you to

explain what keep the hay and its time will come means, you give examples from your life

such as once I did not throw something and then I needed it later.

3. Was that something your Turkish or English writing teachers taught you?

- I dont know. I do not remember teachers saying anything about that.

4. In your English essay, in the second paragraph, you have more than one main idea. Why did

you organize this paragraph that way?

- Oh, yes, I should have divided that paragraph into two.

5. What would your English writing instructor say if he saw that paragraph?

- She would correct it. She would divide it. In fact, it is necessary to reverse that paragraph.

The idea below should go to the beginning of the paragraph. There is problem with the focus

of the paragraph. Or, I could have combined it with my conclusion paragraph and after

comparing the two ideas I could have said that the key to success is not adapting, but

respecting others.

6. How about your Turkish writing instructor?

- I really dont know. In English, teachers were interested in such things, but I do not

remember anything like that in Turkish.

7. What were these things your English teachers were interested in? Can you give me some

examples for the writing rules your English writing instructor specifically emphasized?- For example, writing a topic sentence at the beginning of a paragraph and then giving

examples, introducing your topic in the first paragraph, using connectives such as

nevertheless and summarizing your idea in conclusion and talking about the same idea again

. . .. I wrote most of my writings in English because you have to revise a piece of writing for

fifty times and then you learn better ways to write your ideas. In Turkish, we did not do that. I

used to think that only people who have a special talent could write, but here (in the US) I

understood that if you follow certain rules, you can write. In Turkey, I also learned most of

my writing knowledge in English lessons, writing was more important in English.

8. Then why did not you apply your knowledge about the initial topic sentences in your essays?

- I think I forgot that in the flow of writing. I do not know.


25/25

Hacer Hande Uysal is currently a researcher and lecturer at Gazi University, Ankara, Turkey. Currently, she is teaching

classes on advanced writing, oral communication skills, and phonetics. She received her masters degree in English

education and her PhD in foreign language/ESL education from the University of Iowa. She also taught English in public

and private schools at primary and secondary levels in Turkey for six years. Her research interests are second language

writing, language planning, and teacher education.


Documents

Uysal_Tracing the Culture Behind Writing