Brigham Young University
BYU ScholarsArchive
,,9&2&2".%*22&13"3*/.2
Nature or Nurture in English Academic Writing:
Korean and American Rhetorical Paerns
Sunok Kim
Brigham Young University
/,,/63)*2".%"%%*3*/.",6/1+2"3 ):022$)/,"12"1$)*5J&%4&3%
"13/'3)& *.(4*23*$2/--/.2
9*29&2*2*2#1/4()33/7/4'/1'1&&".%/0&."$$&22#7 $)/,"121$)*5&3)"2#&&."$$&03&%'/1*.$,42*/.*.,,9&2&2".%*22&13"3*/.2#7".
"43)/1*8&%"%-*.*231"3/1/' $)/,"121$)*5&/1-/1&*.'/1-"3*/.0,&"2&$/.3"$3 2$)/,"12"1$)*5J&%4&,,&.!"-"3".(&,/#74&%4
$)/,"121$)*5&*3"3*/.
*-4./+"341&/141341&*..(,*2)$"%&-*$1*3*.(/1&".".%-&1*$".)&3/1*$",":&1.2 All eses and
Dissertations
):022$)/,"12"1$)*5J&%4&3%
Nature or Nurture in English Academic Writing:
Korean and American Rhetorical Patterns
Sunok Kim
A thesis submitted to the faculty of
Brigham Young University
in partial fulfillment of the requirements for the degree of
Master of Arts
William Eggington, Chair
Cynthia Hallen
Troy Cox
Department of Linguistics
Brigham Young University
Copyright © 2017 Sunok Kim
All Rights Reserved
ABSTRACT
Nature or Nurture in English Academic Writing:
Korean and American Rhetorical Patterns
Sunok Kim
Linguistics, BYU
Master of Arts
For many years, linguists, ESL writing teachers, and especially students have puzzled
over the phenomenon where non-native English writers’ sentences are grammatically correct, but
their paragraphs and complete essays often appear illogical to native English speaking readers.
From the perspective of Kaplan’s original contrastive rhetoric theory where American rhetoric is
“linear,” Korean L2 writers’ apparently circular rhetoric causes problems. Even though Korean
writers are trying to write paragraphs that are logical for native English readers, this illogical
output results in Korean ESL students being perceived as poor writers. In order to discover more
about the nature of the rhetorical problems Korean ESL writers face, this study reports on a close
contrastive analysis of a corpus consisting of 25 Freshmen Korean ESL students’ unedited, first
draft essays and 25 Freshmen native-English speaking American Freshmen’ unedited, first draft
essays randomly collected from a series of 1st year writing classes at a U.S.-based university.
The analysis focused on areas where the logical flow breaks down from a native English reader’s
perspective. The Topical Structure Analytical approach (TSA), developed by Lautamatti (1987),
was used to analyze the data. Results show that both American and Korean Freshmen have
difficulty controlling topical subjects and discourse topics in their writing. Instead, they often
introduced irrelevant subtopics that did not advance overall topic development, making their
writing difficult for general readers to follow. The key finding of the study shows that to
overcome these rhetorical weaknesses, both Korean and American Freshmen need to be educated
in academic writing regardless of their first language.
Keywords: Intercultural Rhetoric, Academic Writing in English, Korean Language, Korean
Culture
ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS
This work would not have been possible without the support of professors. I am
especially indebted to Dr. William Eggington, Dr. Cynthia Hallen, and Dr. Troy Cox, my
committee members. They have provided me with extensive support, personal and professional
guidance and taught me much about scientific research.
I would especially like to thank Dr. Eggington, the chair of my committee. As my mentor
and ultimate role model, he has taught me more than I could ever give him credit for here. He
has shown me what a good teacher should be.
I am grateful to Dr. Hallen. She has provided me new perspectives toward my research
ideas with her creative thoughts. I especially appreciate her comprehensive feedback.
Dr. Cox gave me helpful suggestions. I also appreciate his guidance regarding a
quantitative approach to data analysis. His knowledge of statistics transformed this thesis.
I am especially grateful to my fellow students in the TESOL and Linguistics MA
programs in the department for their support, patience, and inspiration.
Most importantly, I would also like to thank my loving and supportive mother, younger
sister, Sun-Young and younger brother, Jin-kyu. My mother has sacrificed her life for her family
members, and she is always there for me.
Without the help of these professors, friends, and family, I would not have been able to
finish my study and this research would not have been possible.
iv
TABLE OF CONTENTS
TITEL PAGE ................................................................................................................................... i
ABSTRACT .................................................................................................................................... ii
ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS ........................................................................................................... iii
TABLE OF CONTENTS ............................................................................................................... iv
LIST OF TABLES ......................................................................................................................... vi
LIST OF FIGURES ...................................................................................................................... vii
LIST OF EXAMPLES ................................................................................................................. viii
Chapter 1: Introduction ................................................................................................................... 1
Chapter 2: Review of Literature ..................................................................................................... 5
Korean Writing Patterns ..................................................................................................... 6
Coherence in Writing .......................................................................................................... 8
Topic Structural Analysis ................................................................................................... 8
Chapter 3: Features of Korean Language, Culture, and Academic Writing ................................. 11
Related grammatical features of the Korean language ..................................................... 12
Word order ............................................................................................................ 12
Omitting grammatical elements ............................................................................ 15
Miscellaneous ....................................................................................................... 16
Cultural differences ........................................................................................................... 17
Collectivism or harmonious culture in Korean culture ......................................... 17
Face, Politeness in Korean culture ........................................................................ 19
Inductive way of reasoning Vs. Deductive way of reasoning .......................................... 20
Academic writing .............................................................................................................. 22
v
Chapter 4: Methodology ............................................................................................................... 24
Research questions: ........................................................................................................... 24
Subjects ............................................................................................................................. 25
Three Paragraphs .............................................................................................................. 26
Reliability and Validity ..................................................................................................... 27
Lautamatti’s types of sentence .......................................................................................... 27
Lautamatti’s TSA and Simpson’s ESP ............................................................................. 28
Topic Sentences and Thesis Statements ........................................................................... 33
Deductive versus inductive problem ................................................................................. 33
Chapter 5: Results and Analysis ................................................................................................... 35
Identifying Topic Sentence and Thesis Statements .......................................................... 36
The Total number of Topics in the sentences ................................................................... 41
Topic Development Using the TSA Analytical Method................................................... 42
The Topical Structure Analytical approach (TSA) ........................................................... 48
Type of sentence ............................................................................................................... 50
Chapter 6: Discussion and Conclusion ......................................................................................... 60
References ..................................................................................................................................... 68
APPENDIX ................................................................................................................................... 72
vi
LIST OF TABLES
Table 5.1 Topic Sentence of Inductive & Deductive .................................................................... 37
Table 5.1.1 Each Student’ Topic Sentence Following an Inductive or Deductive Pattern ......... 38
Table 5.2 Thesis Statement of Inductive & Deductive ................................................................. 39
Table 5.2.1 Each Student’s Thesis Statement Following an Inductive or Deductive Pattern ..... 40
Table 5.3 Total Number of Sentences .......................................................................................... 41
Table 5.4 Total Number of Words................................................................................................ 41
Table 5.5 Total Number of Topic Subjects................................................................................... 42
Table 5.6 American Freshmen’ TSA and Korean Freshmen’ TSA .............................................. 48
Table 5.7 American Freshmen’ Topical Structure Analytical Approach (TSA) .......................... 49
Table 5.8 Korean Freshmen’ Topical Structure Analytical Approach (TSA) ............................. 50
Table 5.9 American Freshmen’ Type of sentence ........................................................................ 51
Table 5.10 Korean Freshmen’ Type of sentence ......................................................................... 51
vii
LIST OF FIGURES
Figure 1.1 Five Cultural Rhetorical Patterns ................................................................................ 2
Figure 4.1 Summary of the Topic Structure Analytical Approach ............................................... 31
Figure 5.1 Discourse Topic Analysis of American No.2 Freshmen’s first paragraph ................ 44
Figure 5.2 Discourse Topic Analysis of Korean Student No.6’s a Paragraph ............................ 46
Figure 5.3 Discourse Topic Analysis of Example 4 ..................................................................... 47
viii
LIST OF EXAMPLES
Example 5.1 Korean Freshmen No.9’s a Paragraph ................................................................. 43
Example 5.2 American No.2 Freshmen’s a first paragraph ........................................................ 44
Example 5.3 Korean student No.6’s Paragraph .......................................................................... 45
Example 5.4 Korean Student No6’s Paragraph Rewritten by a professional native
English writer ......................................................................................................... 47
Example 5.5 American Freshmen’s quotation I .......................................................................... 53
Example 5.6 American Freshmen’s quotation I .......................................................................... 54
Example 5.7 Korean Freshmen’s quotation II ............................................................................ 55
Example 5.8 American Freshmen’s oral spoken discourse ......................................................... 56
Example 5.9 Korean Freshmen’s grammar mistakes .................................................................. 57
Example 5.10 American Freshmen’s grammar mistakes ............................................................ 58
1
Chapter 1: Introduction
As English has become a worldwide lingua franca, many Korean Freshmen attempt
to follow native English speakers’ language styles in speaking and writing. However, as
widely known, significant lexico-grammatical and writing style differences present
difficulties for many Korean English language learners. For example, a fundamental
tradition of the native English academic writing style is that it follows a linear logical
development where the writer is responsible for making meaning clear, following
Aristotelian deductive reasoning. On the other hand, the traditional Korean writing style is
based upon inductive reasoning where the reader takes responsibility for understanding the
writer (Eggington, 1987). As a native speaker of Korean and a learner of English as a
second language, I have personal experience with the rhetorical problems students may face.
Kaplan (1967) and other researchers claim that each culture’s rhetorical pattern
reflects the people’s logical preferences. After Kaplan analyzed English expository essays
written by ESL students whose native languages were Arabic, Korean, Japanese, Spanish,
and Russian, he then proposed a diagram (Figure 1.1) that represented five cultural
rhetorical patterns
1
.
1
A linear pattern for native English users, a parallel pattern for Semitic language users, an indirect pattern for
oriental language users, and a digressive pattern for Russian and Romance language users.
2
Figure 1.1
Five Cultural Rhetorical Patterns
According to Kaplan’s research, the English rhetorical pattern is depicted as
‘predominantly linear.’ This may be because the Western, or Anglo-American way of
thinking is affected by Aristotelian syllogisms
(Kaplan, 1967). However, the Oriental or
Asian pattern is a spiral as represented by the graphic form shown in Figure 1.1 above.
Initially, the rhetorical preferences portrayed in Figure 1.1 were generally accepted by
Western ESL teachers, linguists and researchers, but the concept has been challenged
primarily on cultural elitist grounds (Kubota and Lehner, 2004).
In response, other researchers assert that there do appear to be common patterns
based upon a set of similar experiences. For example, most recently, Grabe (2017) states
that:
In the last 15 years, in particular, I do not think that serious researchers come to
conclusions where, for example, all Chinese write a certain way because they have
had Chinese experiences and live in a Chinese culture. But there is no reason not to
explore carefully how prior educational experiences, cultural preferences, and other
national factors might generate patterns of variation that are less common or not as
pronounced in some other group of learners from a different L1 background or a
different country (Grabe, 2017: 125).
With respect to English, the general expectation is that an academic essay written in
English needs to present a clear purpose within a writer-responsible culture (Noor, 2001).
As such, English native readers expect to be presented with an explicit thesis and a direct
topic sentence early in the essay (Hinds, 1987). In addition, each paragraph is expected to
3
contain an early statement of its topic, and each sentence is expected to contain a related
topic subject, or the idea that the sentence is focusing on. As a result, the writer’s rhetorical
goal should be described clearly, straightforwardly, and efficiently (Kaplan, 1967).
However, as many previous studies have shown (Cho, J. H.A., 1999; Kubota and Lehner,
2004; Eggington, 1987), Korean freshman students in U.S. colleges, writing in English,
have transferred their preferred Korean rhetorical patterns into English.
From a Western reader’s perspective, these Korean preferences include an inductive
style with indirect topic development leading to a weak conclusion. Korean writer’s reader-
responsible writing style (Hinds, 1987) presents English native readers with more inferential
work to do such as decoding ambiguity, abstract ideas, and imprecise information.
Consequently, many ESL writing teachers, when they teach Korean Freshmen, stress
structuring essays with explicit theses and topic sentences (Choi, 2006; Choi, 2010; Ryu,
2006; Burns and Joyce, 2005; Vygotsky, 1978).
These findings suggest a need to examine the rhetorical problems Korean writers
face in academic writing, particularly in their freshman composition classes. This suggestion
leads to the following general research question: What are the major rhetorical development
problems that Korean ESL students face in freshman composition classes? This general
research question is then made more specific resulting in the following four research
questions.
1) What are the differences if any, between Korean Freshmen writing and American
Freshmen writing?
2) If there are differences, what are the major rhetorical development problems that
Korean ESL students face in freshman composition classes?”
4
3) If American Freshmen write in a linear way, is it natural or is the linear “logical”
frame a learned feature of academic writing in western culture?
4) Do American Freshmen write in a deductive style, while Koreans write in an
inductive style?
In order to answer these research questions, Korean and American Freshmen first
draft essays, all of which had no previous teacher edits, were analyzed with respect to their
rhetorical development. As will be seen below, both groups’ essays are written by writers
without long-term college-level training in academic writing, so there are frequent
coherence and cohesion weaknesses, and there are many grammatical errors. Most previous
related research has focused on more polished and edited essays, so the research results
from this present study provide insight into the unedited writing process of novice Korean
and American writers.
Before proceeding with the study, I will first present a review of relevant literature
regarding intercultural rhetoric studies in Chapter 2. This will be followed in Chapter 3 by a
discussion of linguistic and cultural differences between Korean and American writers with
a focus on Korean writers. I will then introduce the research design in Chapter 4. Chapter 5
will present the results and their analysis, and then a discussion and conclusion of the
research will be presented in Chapter 6.
5
Chapter 2: Review of Literature
As will be discussed below, the past decades have witnessed a major paradigm shift
in the teaching and study of academic writing for ESL students (Connor, 1987, 1996;
Eggington, 1987, Hinds, 1987). This shift was initiated by Kaplan’s article about cultural
thought patterns which argued that cultural preferences in rhetorical development influence
writing (Kaplan, 1966). Kaplan’s notion has contributed to our understanding as to why so
many ESL students struggle with rhetorical development in their writing in freshman
composition classes even after graduating from Intensive English Program (IEP) advanced
writing classes (Connor, 1987).
Among the wide range of international students studying at American universities,
Korean Freshmen seem to have particular difficulties in rhetorical development (Kaplan,
1966; Eggington, 1987; Noor, 2001; Connor, 1996; Hinds, 1987). Even when sentence level
grammar and word use is satisfactory, Korean Freshmen’ rhetorical development is often
labeled by instructors as “awkward,” “illogical,” and “lacking focus.” Unfortunately, many
learners do not know why their writing is judged as inadequate, so problems continue,
sometimes even after students finish freshman composition classes (Eggington, 2015:206;
Hinds, 1987; Connor, 1996).
According to the contrastive rhetoric studies cited above, there are learner variables,
cultural variables, and pragmatic variables that contribute to rhetorical difficulties in ESL
writing. However, these variables are difficult to isolate. In addition, there are differences
between writing pedagogy within an ESL tradition and writing pedagogy within a freshman
composition tradition (Moussu & David, 2015:50).
6
Korean Writing Patterns
Choi (2005) examined differences in Korean ESL students’ and native English
speakers’ writing regarding error types, textual organization, and cohesive devices. The
most significant difference was that the Korean ESL students wrote shorter essays. Also,
their writing showed more errors, more textual organization patterns, and less use of
cohesive devices. However, similarities in argumentative writing between the two groups
include a preference for a three-unit organizational structure (introduction, body, and
conclusion), as well as both groups using similar subcategories in each organizational type
such as claim, justification, and conclusion.
Kim (2008) explored the learning experiences of five Korean college ESL students
in U.S. college classes, and how they responded to required writing tasks. She focused on
differences between Korean and American cultures in communication, writing styles, and
classroom practices and how these differences influenced these students’ learning in
American university contexts. She indicated that the most influential contributor to both
positive and/or negative experiences was subjects’ perceptions of professors’ responses to
their writing. In addition, these perceived responses directly affected their students’
learning. According to study participants, for successful learning, students' effort should be
given priority.
Jung (2006) analyzed samples written by both Korean and American university
students. She also reviewed previous research on Korean rhetoric. This is because she
wanted to discuss the pedagogical role of Contrastive Rhetoric (CR) in bridging rhetorical
differences in specific EFL writing instruction for Korean Freshmen. In her literature
review, she found that Korean rhetoric is indirect, implicit, non-linear, mostly inductive,
7
specific-to-general, emotional, and reader-responsible. However, American rhetoric is
direct, explicit, linear, mostly deductive, general-to-specific, logical, and writer-responsible.
Xing, M., Wang, J., and Spencer, K. (2008) compared and contrasted five features of
contrastive rhetoric applied to English writing instruction in an on-line “e-course” program.
The first feature was inductive vs. deductive development, specifically, the presence and
placement of a thesis statement. The second feature was “start-sustain-turn-sum” vs.
“introduction-body-conclusion.” They found that English essays generally place more
emphasis on form, because the introduction of English essays brings out the theme, the
middle contains the argument with its supporting evidence, and the ending summarizes the
essay. The third feature that they studied was circular vs. liner topical development with
respect to topic sentences and topic changes. They found that Asian ESL students delay
introducing the purpose of their writing and can abruptly shift their viewpoint. Their fourth
contrastive rhetoric feature involved metaphorical language which covered making use of
metaphors and proverbs versus straightforward language. They found that Asian ESL
writers use allusion, analogy, and proverbs to show the beauty of their language, and see this
use as important criteria for grading any writing. Their fifth feature involved explicit
discourse markers which are the marks of coherence and unity. They found that academic
essays written by native English speakers use explicit discourse markers to signal direct
relations between sentences and parts of texts, while Asian ESL writers consider that the
beauty of writing lies in delicacy and subtlety, not in its straight-forwardness.
With respect to teaching and learning applications, their experimental results showed
that an e-course group was successful in learning about defined aspects of English rhetoric
in academic writing. In these courses, ESL student performance reached the level of native
8
English speakers. Data analysis also revealed that e-learning resources helped students
compare rhetorical styles across cultures suggesting that making rhetorical differences
explicit can help learners acquire target language rhetorical development.
Coherence in Writing
In Moore’s research on the nature of coherence (1971), he suggested that good
writing requires logically consistent ideas where sentences are clearly and smoothly
connected. This way, the writing is readable and understandable. He also mentioned that
“writing puts the burden of achieving coherence on both native and non-native writers of the
target language, since both have the responsibility to produce coherent discourse to indicate
unobtrusively logical interrelationships of parts to their readers.” However, as Kaplan has
shown, the difficulty of creating coherent texts is even more challenging for second
language learners who come from a different cultural background (Kaplan, 1987).
Tannen (1984) mentioned that L2 writers may feel compelled to go beyond the
boundaries of their native culture’s writing conventions because organizing their ideas into a
unified coherent discourse bears cultural significance. However, coherence in English
writing can be better achieved through certain strategies, such as introductory activities,
explicit teaching, awareness-raising tasks, and writing practice (Lee, 2002).
Topic Structural Analysis
Somlak, et al. (2013) examined two groups of Thai students’ writing. Their data was
collected through a pre-test and the post-test essay writing protocol with two selected essays
from each participant across a subject cohort consisting of high and low proficiency
students.
9
Results indicated that Topical Structural Analysis (TSA) instruction had a
significantly positive effect on students’ writing quality. TSA is a revision strategy taught to
students that raises student “awareness of [the] importance of textual coherence and helps
them clearly understand its concept (Somlak, et al: 2013:60). More specifically, TSA
instruction was found to be more beneficial to low proficiency students than high
proficiency students. Further, they found that both successful and less successful students
employed sequential progression the most in their essays.
In a similar study involving an analysis of a corpus of Philippine student writing,
Yin (2015) found that topical clause sequencing, uncovered by marking initial sentence
elements (ISE), grammar subjects, and topical subjects revealed the relationship not only
between topical structure and the logical presentation of ideas, but also between the
development of extended discourse meaning (Yin, 2015).
These results suggest that Topic Structural Analysis (TSA) can be used to identify
problems in student writing. For this reason, TSA forms one of the analytical instruments
used in this present study. The topical structure analytical approach (TSA), developed by
Lautamatti (1987), analyzes coherence by examining the internal topical structure of each
paragraph as reflected in the repetition of key words and phrases. TSA also considers both
global and local coherence of overall discourse topic.
Lautamatti (1978) investigated the relationship between sentences in a text and
discourse topic. Sentence topics, which are units of meaning organized hierarchically in the
text, make a semantic contribution to the development of the discourse topic.
She states that:
"The development of the discourse topic within an extensive piece of discourse may
be thought of in terms of a succession of hierarchically ordered subtopics, each of which
10
contributes to the discourse topic, and is treated as a sequence of ideas, expressed in the
written language as sentences. We know little about restrictions concerning the relationship
between sentences and subtopics, but it seems likely that most sentences relating to the same
subtopic form a sequence. The way the written sentences in discourse relate to the discourse
topic is ... called topical development of discourse." Lautamatti (1978: 71)
The discourse topic is the central idea of a stretch of connected discourse. The topic
is what the discourse is about as a whole paragraph. In order to develop the discourse topic,
sub-topics are treated as a sequence of ideas, which contributes to the discourse topic.
11
Chapter 3: Features of Korean Language, Culture, and Academic Writing
Given the strong relationship between language and culture (Wierzbicka, 1985;
Goddard, 1992; D’Andrade, 2001) as well as the previously discussed relationship between
culture and rhetorical development, it is now necessary to discuss some of the relevant
linguistic features of Korean and English. This chapter presents similarities and differences
between Korean and English in terms of origin, typology, phonology, syntax, and so forth.
Linguistically, there are huge differences between English and Korean. English is an
Indo-European language, while Korean is often placed in the Altaic language family
2
.
Typologically, Korean is an agglutinative language
3
, whereas English an analytic language.
Although not related to writing, phonologically English is a stress-timed language, but
Korean is a syllable-timed language which means individual word stress is insignificant.
English is primarily a right-branching SVO language, but Korean is primarily a left-
branching SOV language. These different linguistic features hinder Korean Freshmen’
attempts to write English essays. The Integrated Korean textbook (2010: 13) explains how
learning Korean is extremely difficult for native English speakers:
Korean is one of the most difficult languages for native English speakers to learn
because of the vast differences between English and these languages in vocabulary,
pronunciation, grammar, and writing system, as well as in the underlying tradition,
culture, and society. English speakers require three times as much time to learn this
“difficult language” as to learn an “easy language,” such as French or Spanish, to
attain a comparable level of proficiency.
2
It is a language whose classification is in dispute. Some linguists believe it exists in a family of its own;
others place it in the Altaic language family and claim that it is related to Japanese.
3
Verb information such as tense, mood and the social relation between speaker and listener is added
successively to the end of the verb.
12
Many Koreans believe it is also as hard for Korean native speakers to acquire English
(Kim, 2012). Additional distinctive and salient differences are discussed below including
word order and a situation-oriented focus which means that, for Korean speakers, it is
possible to omit important elements in an argument.
Related grammatical features of the Korean language
Word order
The most obvious distinctive feature between English and Korean is word order.
Declarative sentence word order in English is SVO, whereas in Korean it is SOV (Subject +
Object + Verb), where the information-heavy verb comes at the end of the sentence or
utterance. Listeners or readers of Korean need to pay attention until the speakers or writers
finish their sentences. However, sometimes Korean is called a “free-word order” language
because the elements can be scrambled for emphasis or other figurative purposes, as long as
the verb or adjective retains the final position (Greenberg, 1963; Seong et al, 2008; Korean
grammar dictionary, 2010:8). All other elements, such as the subject and the object, appear
before the verb or adjective. Integrated Korean further explains:
In the English sentence “John plays tennis with Mary at school”, for example,
“John” is the subject because it appears before the verb and denotes an entity which
the rest of the sentence is about. “Tennis” is its object because it appears
immediately after the verb and denotes an entity that directly receives the action of
the verb. The other elements (“with,” “Mary” and “at school”) follow the object. The
Korean word order would be “John school-at Mary-with tennis plays”. Notice here
that while English prepositions always occur after the element they associate with, as
in “at school” and “with Mary,” Korean particles are all postpositions.
(Integrated Korean, 2010, p.4)
Also, Korean is a pre-modifier language (left-branching language) and head final
language, whereas English is generally a post-modifier language (right-branching language)
and head initial language. In the Korean language, modifiers always appear in front of a
13
noun. Those features are important grammatical elements used to express a Korean writer’s
intention or information indirectly to readers while not imposing on the reader. Since the
head follows its complements (modifiers), messages (heads) are delayed. In other words,
core data is delivered indirectly, so readers are required to predict the message. These
features make it easy to express abstract or vague concepts between interlocutors by using
the Tact Maxim
4
which can impose less on the other party (Lakoff, 1973; Leech, 1983).
The last distinctive feature of Korean language I wish to discuss is the discourse
ordering concept. Although Korean rhetoric is “mostly inductive” and “specific-to-general”
(Jung 2006), when ordering hierarchical concepts in discourse, Korean speakers generally
progress from the large and whole concept to the smaller and more detailed concept.
For example,
Larger concept Smaller concept
A Korean address is:
Nation, State, City, Street address or P.O. box number
South Korea, Seoul, gang-nam gu, gang-nam dong 1987
Many scholars suggest that English rhetoric is “mostly deductive” and “general-to-
specific” (Jung 2006). English speakers generally place the detailed concept first and
develop their logic toward the larger concept.
4
One of the politeness theory elements (Leech, 1983): Sympathy Maxim, and Agreement Maxim.
14
Smaller concept Larger concept
An English address is:
Street address or P.O. box number, City or town, State, Nation
1987 N 650 W, Provo, Utah, U.S.
Son (2001) provides further examples of these discourse ordering differences between
Korean language speakers and American English speakers that are summarized below.
Conversation between Korean and American (Son, 2001)
American: Where are you calling from?
Korean: Downtown.
American: Where is downtown? Bigger concept
Korean: Myungdong.
American: Where is Myungdong?
Korean: Near the post office.
American: Are you calling from a telephone booth?
Korean: No, I’m calling from a coffee shop.
American: What coffee shop? Smaller concept
Korean: The Rose Coffee Shop.
Conversation between Americans (Son, 2001)
American1: Where are you calling from?
American2: From the Rose Coffee Shop, near the post office in Myungdong.
American1: Where’s Myungdong?
American2: It’s downtown, near the Lotte Department Store.
Smaller concept
Bigger concept
As can be seen, in general Korean discourse ordering style follows larger to smaller concept,
but American ordering style follows smaller to larger concept. As will be discussed below, this
difference in discourse ordering impacts the development of topic in student essays.
15
Omitting grammatical elements
The Korean language is a context dependent language, meaning its discourse is
oriented toward its context (Jang, 1994). Since verbs reflect the interlocutors’ relationship
and contain situational information, important informational elements do not have to be
repeated. In the Korean language, verbs are more important than subjects. Consequently,
discourse topics can be omitted if they are redundant as determined by the preceding
context. In Korean, subjects/topics are often omitted when they are obvious. Omissions are
not limited to subjects, but also include any element that can be omitted as long as the
context makes the referent clear.
For example,
“How are you?” “안녕하세요(Annyeonghaseyo)?” means “How are?”
There is no subject.
Another example,
“Thank you.” “고맙습니다 (Gomapseupnida)” means “Thank.”
There is no subject as well.
Inserting the pronoun ‘you’ or ‘I’ in the above Korean expressions would sound
awkward in a normal context, unless ‘you’ or ‘I’ is emphasized or contrasted with someone
else. On the other hand, Academic English requires explicit reference in order to avoid
ambiguity (Halliday and Hasan, 1976) and create a sense of exactness and scientific
credibility. As will be seen below, Korean writers writing in English may omit discourse
topics, relationships, or conclusions that they view as being obvious based upon the context
or previously supplied information within a reader-responsible stance. Native English
readers, however, require more of that information so they can make sure that they totally
understand the writer’s intent within a writer-responsible stance.
16
Miscellaneous
The most common grammatical mistakes by Koreans in writing English essays are
misuse of tenses, definite and indefinite articles, prepositions, and pronouns. (Seong et al,
2008). Some of these errors are caused by differences between Korean and English. Korean
has three tenses: past, present, and future; while English only has two tenses: present and
past, with several other verb aspects. However, future and Korean tense usage is different
than English (Cho, 2003).
“Even though the tense/aspect systems of two languages show some similarities in
their basic meanings of the tense/aspect formatives, many differences can be found
in expressing their specific or contextual meanings. In English, the meanings of the
tense/aspect formatives have quite systematic correspondence among them, because
temporal meaning is expressed by means of strict formal, grammatical opposition of
verbs. On the other hand, Korean language depends on adverbial expressions or
contexts for its temporal meaning, as well as on the formal, grammatical opposition
of verbs. That is, the various specific, contextual meanings of the tense/aspect
formatives in Korean are mostly caused by its formative-neutralization tendency.
Therefore, the differences in tense/aspect systems of English and Korean seem to be
explained as typological differences between the languages in which tense/aspectual
meanings mainly depend on grammatical devices, and the languages in which
tense/aspectual meanings depend on lexical devices as well as grammatical devices.”
For example,
Korean way of speaking
English way of speaking
나는 지금 노래를 부른다.
(Naneun jigeum noraereul bureunda)
Grammatically correct
I sing a song now.
Grammatically incorrect
나는 지금 노래를 부르고 있다
(Naneun jigeum noraereul bureugo itda)
Grammatically correct
I am singing a song now.
Grammatically correct
The use of articles is also very limited in Korean. Instead of articles, using
demonstrative pronouns is common. Personal pronouns are not used much in normal
contexts. Instead of using a personal pronoun, Koreans use a title for addressing or referring
17
to other people. They especially do not use “he” or “she” when referring to the elderly. In
addition, Korean has post-positions, because it is an agglutinative language, and the usage of
postpositions is quite different from English preposition use.
For example,
나는 방에서 친구와 밥을 먹었다.
(Naneun baneseo chinguwa babeul meogeotda.)
I was eating rice at the kitchen with my friend.
The above description of different grammatical and discourse features of Korean and
English shows the potential sources of first language interference problems in English
academic writing for Korean Freshmen. The actual nature of some of this interference will
be discussed in detail in the results and analysis section of this thesis.
Cultural differences
As has been noted, cultural differences play a large part in how ideas are presented
in discourse. It is commonly understood that the underlying nature of Korean society can be
encompassed by referencing three key words: collectivism (harmonious), politeness
(indirectness), and face (reputation). Those features can also affect Korean Freshmen’
English writing style with respect to a reader-responsible orientation, and an inductive
writing style that creates, from an English reader’s perspective, a weak development of the
author’s arguments.
Collectivism or harmonious culture in Korean culture
As noted previously, traditional Korean culture is oriented toward collectivism
5
.
5
5
Culture’s Consequences: (Individualism vs. Collectivism) “The degree to which individuals are integrated
into groups.” This dimension has no political connotation and refers to the group rather than the individual.
Cultures that are individualistic place importance on attaining personal goals. In collectivist societies, the
goals of the group and its wellbeing are valued over those of the individual. (Hofsted, 1980)
18
Collectivism tends to create vertical hierarchy along with an emphasis on horizontal
harmonious relationships (Hofstede, 1980). Historically, within socio-political contexts,
Korea maintained a relatively harmonious hierarchical bureaucratic system from the
Gojoseon Dynasty to the Joseon Dynasty era, a period of about 5000 years. In contrast to
Japan and many other civilizations, Korea never experienced a feudal system where social
stability was based on land ownership with the higher classes protecting the lower classes in
return for portions of their crops or services. Instead, a strict caste system existed where the
land-owning free citizens were protected by a strong centralized bureaucratic system (Seth,
2006).
The Korean bureaucratic system depended on a perpendicular relationship. This
means that, in order to become a government official under the King, and thus ensure social
success, people had to take a civil service examination. So, in the bureaucratic system,
social status was emphasized, and was intertwined with educational achievement. This
structure remains to the present day (Hong, 1992).
Korean society’s basic unit is the family. Family is important in traditional Korean
culture because Korean’s traditionally lived within a clan society where everyone was
related by blood (Choi, 1996). Members in their family are tied to each other, so a family
members’ behavior can reflect on the rest of their family. It is important for them to behave
themselves with discretion, not to humiliate other family members, or the clan society they
belong to. In other words, keeping other members’ face is the one of the crucial elements in
a harmony-emphasized society (Kim, 2013; Choi, 1996).
In this system, one must show respect to their parents, seniors in their village, people
who have higher social standing, and their king. Such a sophisticated society system created
19
a pattern of circumlocutions, verbosity, innuendo, equivocation, or euphemisms as a
politeness strategy when communicating with each other. Those strategies leave room for
interpretations that avoid conflicts and show their respect to the counterpart. The example
below provides a simple and common way of showing politeness by using deference
vocabulary at the grammatical level.
For example,
친구에게 말할 때: 아침밥 먹자.
(achimbab meogja)
Addressing friends: Let’s eat breakfast. (Omit subject)
할아버지께 말씀드릴 때: 할아버지! 아침 진지 잡수세요.
(Harabeoji! Achim jinji japsuseyo.)
Addressing a Grandfather (elder person): Grandfather! Have a breakfast, please.
(Speak the title of “grandfather”)
As Hall (1976) mentions, Korea is a highly context-based society. Language is used
in a collectivism society to enhance social structure either positively with politeness
strategies, or negatively with shaming strategies, all in an effort to preserve others’ face.
This means that Koreans are reluctant to be overly assertive in presenting or defending an
individualistic or creative idea or proposition. This stance is in contrast to more
individualistic Western notions of creative independence and speaking or writing with one’s
own “voice” (Wierzbicka, 1985). As will be seen in the Results and Analysis section of this
thesis, these stance differences create difficulties for Koreans writing in English within
Western Academic genres.
Face, Politeness in Korean culture
As noted, emphasis on face and politeness is a result of the collectivist social system
and society. Someone who has a higher sensitivity to face also has a higher desire to protect
20
or keep others’ face by avoiding conflict and by maintaining amicable relationships (Kim,
2009).
Lakoff (1990) builds upon Grice’s (1975) Cooperative Principle and sees politeness
as ‘a system of interpersonal relations designed to facilitate interaction by minimizing any
inherent conflict or confrontation (Lakoff, 1990:34).” Consequently, it may be that a writer
from a collectivist society is less likely to be assertive and direct than a writer from an
individualist society. In addition, Brown and Levinson (1987: 5) consider politeness as a
strategy to avoid conflict or minimize any face threats. Thus, in a Korean context, polite
face-saving writers are going to be less assertive, and express their ideas more indirectly.
As will be explained below, the dominant Korean ethnic values of collectivism,
indirectness, and face are distinctive features that contribute to a reader-responsible
orientation and inductive rhetorical reasoning.
Inductive way of reasoning Vs. Deductive way of reasoning
In order to further understand the differences between reader responsibility (a
preferred Korean pattern) and writer responsibility (a preferred English pattern), it is
important to first understand inductive and deductive ways of thinking and their connection
to cultural backgrounds and philosophies. The deductive approach versus the inductive
approach can be seen in terms of pursuing scientific logic versus pursuing philosophical
logic.
Deductive reasoning starts with a general statement and examines the possibilities to
reach a specific and logical conclusion following Aristotle’s notion referred to as a
syllogism. This idea implies that there is a generic rule which can be applied to everything
by transcending space and time. Based on this fundamental principle and theory, a deductive
21
writing style draws a conclusion. The English-based academic writing style in most fields
usually follows this approach because it emphasizes conceptual and logical comprehension
through deduction of facts. So, a writer needs to persuade a reader with a coherent
movement toward a reasonable interpretation of the logic. Thus, it becomes the writer’s
responsibility to persuade the reader.
On the other hand, as Xing, M., et al, (2008) explain, Asian-based inductive
reasoning is based on shared knowledge with a shared context or set of shared examples that
indirectly lead to the development of an understanding, result, or conclusion. This approach
suggests that there are various methods or pathways to find answers to problems. A concept
is interpreted within a context shared by the writer and reader. Inductive reasoning shows
how the rule or concept works. That means that the major point of view of a piece of writing
derives from the “experiencer” or reader of the text, not the writer. For example, in his book
Unchangeable
6
(Chapter 20), Confucius says that knowledge is accomplished through doing
what is to be learned. Without individual experience, one cannot know that they know
knowledge. So, in Confucian-influenced Asian culture, knowledge (theory) and experience
(practice) are not separated.
Experiential conceptual understanding is embedded in Asian culture, and the
interaction between reader and a writer is central. This is in contrast to a Western approach
where the writer unilaterally leads or persuades a reader. Since the Korean persuasion
process depends on a reader’s own experiences, a reader’s role is interpreting the writer’s
intention, understanding ambiguity, and independently inferring abstract ideas. Knowledge
6
Chung yung 中庸 which means "Centre," or "Unchangeable" is one of four Confucian texts. When published
together in 1190 by Chu Hsi, a great Neo-Confucian philosopher, they became the famous Ssu shu ("Four
Books").
22
is gained through analysis and observation of phenomenon, as well as looking deep inside of
ourselves or deeply inside others. When a reader “reads between the lines” in a text, the
reader and the writer develop a special connection.
For this reason, reader subjectivity through inferring abstract ideas from the writer’s
text is not seen as an obstacle to understanding within a reader responsibility writing
context. This concept is a common idea in Asian cultures (Xing, M., et al, 2008).
Academic writing
According to Biber (2010), the definition of academic writing in English refers to a
particular style which has elaborated structures with complex grammar and with explicit
meaning relations. This feature is the opposite of spoken registers. In his research, he finds
that academic writing and spoken registers, especially conversation, have dramatically
different linguistic characteristics.
…academic writing is structurally 'compressed', with phrasal (non-clausal)
modifiers embedded in noun phrases. Additionally, we challenge the stereotype
that academic writing is explicit in meaning. Rather, we argue that the
'compressed' discourse style of academic writing is much less explicit in
meaning than alternative styles employing elaborated structures. These styles
are efficient for expert readers, who can quickly extract large amounts of
information from relatively short, condensed texts. However, they pose
difficulties for novice readers, who must learn to infer unspecified meaning
relations among grammatical constituents (Biber, 2010).
Mastery of the complex academic code is difficult for students at both secondary and
tertiary levels. Catherine Snow’s research (1991) suggests that to achieve academic success
requires improving the ability to comprehend and produce decontextualized language by
exposing students to large quantities of explanatory theme-based reading in addition to
narrative reading. She shows that academic writing is different from narrative writing found
in diaries or e-mails used in daily lives. Cummins (1979) labels this type of narrative writing
23
“Basic Interpersonal Communication Skills” (BICS) and academic writing as “Cognitive
Academic Language Proficiency” (CALP). BICS-based conversational fluency is required
to act at a functional level to interact socially with other people in social day-to-day
situations.
CALP refers to formal academic learning. Academic language acquisition not only
means the understanding of vocabulary in content areas, but also the acquisition of the
ability to compare, classify, synthesize, evaluate, and infer using appropriate academic
language. The distinction between BICS and CALP has contributed to an understanding of
language proficiency and its relationship to academic achievement. That means, students
regardless of their language, need to be educated in CALP by practicing academic writing.
24
Chapter 4: Methodology
Having reviewed relevant research literature including the nature of academic
English, and differences between Korean and Western cultural preferences with regards to
writing, I will now discuss the research methodology.
Research questions:
As noted earlier, the research questions for this study are:
1) What if any, are the differences between Korean Freshmen writing and
American Freshmen writing?
2) If there are differences, what are the major rhetorical development problems
that Korean ESL students face in freshman composition classes?”
3) If American Freshmen write in a linear way, is it natural or is the linear
“logical” frame a learned feature of academic writing in western culture?
4) Do American Freshmen write in a deductive style, while Koreans write in an
inductive style?
In order to answer the research questions, the following procedural steps were taken.
First, I constructed a corpus of international Freshman Composition Korean student writing
and a corpus of Freshman Composition American student writing. Second, I conducted
discourse analyses on these corpora using the TSA method while adding identification
markers for TS (Topic Sentence), and TH (Thesis Statement), and IR (Irrelevant
Information). Third, I analyzed the corpora using ISE (an Initial Sentence Element), GS
(Grammatical Subject), and TS (Topical Subject) according to Lautamatti’s five types of
25
ISE, GS, and TS
7
categories. Forth, I examined the corpora using a modification of
Lautamatti’s three types of thematic progression that allow for the identification of topic
development using: (1) PP (parallel progression), (2) EPP (extended parallel progression),
(3) SP (sequential progression) (4) ESP (extended sequential progression), and (5) IR
(Irrelevant Information such as transition or listing new topic). Lastly, after analyzing the
essays, I sorted their grammatical error types according grammar rules in order to discover
differences in error types between American and Korean Freshmen essays.
Subjects
Applying these discourse analytical strategies provides insights into the
organizational patterns favored by 25 international Korean Freshmen and 25 American
Freshmen. Consequently, 50 students’ Rhetorical Analysis
8
writing samples were taken
from Korean Freshmen and American Freshmen in their freshman composition classes at
Brigham Young University (Utah, U.S.A.).
I chose writing samples from BYU freshmen composition classes because students
in these classes have been admitted to BYU so they have met minimal standards for BYU
entrance which are very high compared to most other universities. They satisfied the
7
Lautamatti (1987) proposes five types of the co-occurrence of ISE (an initial sentence element), Grammatical
Subject and Topical Subject: Type 1 occurs when all the three elements coincide. Type 2 occurs when the ISE
is separate from the mood subject and the topical subject, in which the latter two coincide. Type 3 occurs when
the ISE coincides with the mood subject, but the topical subject is separate. Type 4 occurs when the ISE
coincides with the topical subject but the mood structure is separate. And Type 5 occurs when all three
elements are separate. Lautamatti provides the simplified presentation of the five types as mentioned in
Chapter 2.
8
Rhetoric is the art of effective or persuasive speaking or writing, especially the exploitation of figures of
speech and other compositional techniques. the study of how writers use words to influence readers. (Oxford
dictionary) A rhetorical analysis requires writers to apply their critical writing skills to break a text in their
essay. They use a rhetorical analysis to articulate how the author writes, and to create a certain effect such as
persuasion or inform. UBC Writing Centre. 7 May 2007. The University of British Columbia. 10 December
2007. http://www.writingcentre.ubc.ca/workshop/tools/rhet1.htm
26
standard for getting into university so they are ready to begin academic study. Even though,
I did not consider students’ personal backgrounds with respect to their prior-to-BYU-
admittance writing ability and instruction in writing, I am confident that they had reached
certain minimal standards due to their BYU admittance.
The reasons why I chose the students’ rhetorical analysis essays and draft are:
1. Using the rhetorical analysis, it is easy to evaluate elements of writers’ purpose
and the development ideas
2. Using the rhetorical analysis, it is easy to discover the writer’s style, such as a
deductive approach to writing or an inductive approach, because writers make many
strategic decisions when attempting to persuade their readers
3. In this study, students’ first draft essays, without teacher feedback, were used
because there is a possibility of teachers’ feedback influence in their final essays. So if we
used later drafts it would be hard to know the original rhetoric used by the writers.
Three Paragraphs
A total of 150 paragraphs were analyzed in this study. Three paragraphs of longer
essays were analyzed in each Korean and American Freshmen’ writing. According to the
Oxford Dictionary definition, a “paragraph” means “A distinct section of a piece of writing,
usually dealing with a single theme and indicated by a new line, indentation, or numbering.”
However, since this study analyzed drafts of novice freshmen’s essays, the length of
the essays and paragraphs displayed huge differences. In addition, writers did not divide
their ideas into clearly defined paragraphs. Some of the students wrote one whole page as a
single paragraph, while other students only wrote two short sentences.
27
So, for the purposes of this research, paragraphs were designated based upon how
the students had decided what a visual paragraph was. According to this definition, I chose
three paragraphs from each student writing sample.
I chose not to focus on each student’s complete essay because the writing samples
were not the final essays in their assignment. Many students had not finished their essays
when they turned in these paragraphs. Thus, I concluded that analyzing three paragraphs
was sufficient to determine the presence or absence of each writers’ logic or rhetorical
development.
Reliability and Validity
Lautamatti’s (1987) TSA method is widely used in peer reviewed published
literature and, as noted in Chapter 2, many peer-reviewed, published studies have used this
method. Thus it is a valid research method. Also, when I analyzed students’ essays, I set up
coding criteria and checked my coding with a professional writer, an experienced ESL
teacher, and other professors thus increasing rater reliability.
Lautamatti’s types of sentence
Lautamatti (1987) describes three basic concepts used in the TSA method: (1) the
initial sentence element (ISE), (2) the mood/Grammatical Subject (GS), and (3) the Topical
Subject (TS). The ISE is the first element in the sentence. It is the first indicator of what the
sentence is about, but often it is not the topic of the sentence. The mood subject is the
Grammatical Subject (GS) and will hereafter be referred to as the grammatical subject. This
element is usually, but not always, what the sentence is about. So, readers expect this to be
the main idea of the sentence. Lastly, the Topical Subject (TS) is what the sentence is
28
actually about. Sometimes the topical subject is not in initial or grammatical subject
position.
Lautamatti (1987) proposes five types of the co-occurrence of ISE, Grammatical
Subject and Topical Subject: Type 1 occurs when all the three elements coincide. Type 2
occurs when the ISE is separate from the mood subject and the topical subject, in which the
latter two coincide. Type 3 occurs when the ISE coincides with the mood subject, but the
topical subject is separate. Type 4 occurs when the ISE coincides with the topical subject
but the mood structure is separate. And Type 5 occurs when all three elements are separate.
Lautamatti provides the simplified presentation of the five types as follows:
Type 1: ISE = topical subject = mood subject
Type 2: ISE ≠ topical subject = mood subject
Type 3: ISE = mood subject ≠topical subject
Type 4: ISE = topical subject ≠ mood subject
Type 5: ISE ≠ topical subject ≠mood subject
For clarity, examples taken from the corpus of Yin’s study (2015) of each type are
offered below (where the ISE is italicized, the grammatical subject is underlined, and the
topical subject is bold-faced):
Type 1 example: Outdoor games offer a lot of health benefits and also the
opportunity to have social interaction and new connections with the people of the
same sport. (H9)
Type 2 example: However, indoor games are very limited in terms of advantages
compared to outdoor games. (H9)
Type 3 example: There are different kinds of dresses that a woman may wear. (L8)
Type 4 example: Although college life has been hell-like, there you can experience
almost everything you haven’t experienced in high school. (L9) (Type 4)
Type 5 example: Because of this, it is a lot easier to screw up lead guitar. (H15)
(Yin, 2015)
Lautamatti’s TSA and Simpson’s ESP
29
I also analyzed the corpora according to Lautamatti’s three types of thematic
progression that allow the topical structure analytical approach (TSA) to track how the topic
is developed. She suggests three types of thematic progression that allow the TSA to track
how the topic is developed: (1) parallel progression (PP), (2) extended parallel progression
(EPP), and (3) sequential progression (SP).
Parallel progression (PP) occurs when two consecutive clauses contain the same
topical subject in the same sentence position. These clauses, consisting of the same topical
subjects placed one after the other, develop the topic along parallel lines. This method of
topical development is expected by native English readers and helps them follow the logic
of the text.
Extended parallel progression (EPP) occurs when a topical subject is repeated in two
clauses that are not consecutive. These clauses, with the same topical subject, but separated
by other sentences or clauses, enable readers to link back to the first parallel clause or
sentence, thus enhancing textual cohesion and coherence.
Sequential progression (SP) occurs when the rheme element of a clause becomes the
theme element of the consecutive clause. Clauses that take the rheme element and make it
into the following theme element follow a form of topical development expected by readers,
thus adding to the readability of the text.
According to Lautamatti's notion, topical depth is the relationship between the
progression of sentence topics and the semantic hierarchy of a text. The sentence topic
stated at first in an extended sentence indicates the highest level in the semantic hierarchy. It
is the discourse topic. The sequence of sentences showing a discourse topic by developing a
30
succession of sentence topics is called topical progressions. Topical progression helps
individual sentences cohere logically. These notions are summarized in Figure 4.1 below:
Connor (1996) explains a system of three distinct progressions
9
by mapping: parallel
progression: (a,b), (a,c), (a,d), extended parallel progression: (a,b), (b,c), (a,d), sequential
progression: (a,b), (b,c), (c,d).
Simpson (2000) introduced extended sequential progression (ESP) which can be
defined as the rheme
10
element of a clause being taken up as the theme of a non-consecutive
clause. That is, a new rheme is revealed for the first time in an initial sentence, but not as the
topical subject. This rheme is then repeated as the topical subject, or, in this case, theme of a
subsequent clause. However, a number of clauses intervene between the first rheme and the
following theme.
9
Parallel progression, in which topics of successive sentences are the same, producing a repetition of topic that
reinforces the idea for the reader; • sequential progression, in which topics of successive sentences are always
different, as the comment of one sentence becomes, or is used to derive, the topic of the next; and • extended
parallel progression, in which the first and the last topics of a piece of text are the same but are interrupted
with some sequential progression. (Hoenishc, 2009)
10
Rheme is the remainder of the message in a clause which theme is developed. Theme is the given
information serving as the point of departure of a message (Halliday, 2004).
31
Figure 4.1
Summary of the Topic Structure Analytical Approach
The Topical Structure Analytical Approach (TSA)
Three basic concepts used in the TSA method:
(1) the initial sentence element (ISE)
(2) the mood/grammatical subject (GS)
(3) the topical subject (TS)
Three types of thematic progression that allow the TSA to track how the topic is developed:
(1) parallel progression (PP): occurs when two consecutive clauses contain the same
topical subject in the same sentence position.
(2) extended parallel progression (EPP): occurs when a topical subject is repeated in two
clauses that are not consecutive. These clauses, with the same topical subject, but separated
by other sentences or clauses, enable readers to link back to the first parallel clause or
sentence, thus enhancing textual cohesion and coherence.
(3) sequential progression (SP): occurs when the rheme element of a clause becomes the
theme element of the consecutive clause.
(4) extended sequential progression (ESP) which can be defined as the rheme element of a
clause being taken up as the theme of a non-consecutive clause. That is, a new rheme is
revealed for the first time in an initial sentence, but not as the topical subject. This rheme is
then repeated as the topical subject, or, in this case, theme of a subsequent clause. However,
a number of clauses intervene between the first rheme and the following theme. In my
analysis, the absence of these rhetorical development devices is indicated as either “no
progression” of topic, or, in some cases, “irrelevant information.” (Simpson, 2000)
As noted, it has been shown that uncovering these rhetorical strategies are keys in
understanding how a writer develops a topic in a paragraph, and how a reader follows the
development of that topic (Lautamatti, 1987; Simpson 2000). This present study is based on
the notion that applying an analytical method that uncovers these elements will help identify
areas in paragraphs where novice writers may not have developed their topic to meet the
expectations of native English readers.
32
In addition to Lautamatti’s criteria and Simpson’, my analytical method also marked
common rhetorical errors including Irrelevant Information (IR)
11
and repetitive or redundant
information as categories that may contribute to problems in rhetorical development. In my
analysis, Irrelevant Information (IR) is defined as the absence of these rhetorical
development devices as well as the transition or listing of a new topic which does not add to
or develop the main topic.
The absence of cohesive rhetorical development devices is indicated as “Irrelevant
information” (IR) a new category developed for this research. IR is information provided by
the writer that is extraneous to the topic. IR is also information provided by the writer that is
a distraction from the topic under development. This type of information hinders the reader
from understanding the writers’ intent. Redundant information which is included in the
Irrelevant Information category is information provided by the writer that has already been
provided. Repetitive or redundant information is a distraction from the topic under
development. This type of information also hinders the reader from understanding the
writers’ intent. The IR category also involves new topic or new information which does not
belong to the PP, EPP, SP, or ESP.
The Topical Structure Analytical Approach (TSA) method, with Topic Sentence
(TS), and Thesis Statement (TH), criteria as mentioned above were used to analyze the
rhetorical development of these essays. Because both Korean and American students were
writing unedited first drafts with so many rhetorical and grammatical weaknesses, doing a
11
If there is absence of the rhetorical development devices, it is regarded as IR (Irrelevant
information) which can include “Transition or Listing new topic” which leads to no progression of the topic. In
other words, Irrelevant Information (IR) is not a clear topic statement (TS), but it is possible for it to be a
“Topical Subject.”
33
narrow analysis would not develop meaningful results. For this reason, I used four analytical
approaches: The Topical Structure Analytical Approach (TSA), Topic Sentences (TS),
Thesis Statements (TH), and an analysis of grammar errors. Also, I wanted to do a cross-
cultural analysis so I felt that focusing on thesis statements and topic sentences allowed this
research objective to be achieved.
Topic Sentences and Thesis Statements
In my analysis, in order to distinguish between inductive style and deductive style in
Freshmen’s essays, I coded for Topic Sentences (TS) and Thesis Statements (TH) (Condit
and Koistinen, 1989, Tomlin, 1985, Van Dijk, 1980, and Grimes, 1989). In standard
academic writing, native English readers expect one topic sentence at the beginning of each
paragraph. The Thesis Statement (TH) is a sentence that tells the reader what the writer
believes, and what the writer is trying to convince the reader to believe in.
Consequently, identifying the location of the topic sentence is a way to discover the
possible inductive versus deductive style used by the writer. Experienced academic readers
would expect each of the introductory paragraphs to contain a thesis statement as well as a
topic sentence, with the topic sentence located near the beginning of the paragraph.
Deductive versus inductive problem
Deciding on deductive versus inductive development is difficult especially for first
draft unedited student writing. For the purpose of this present analysis, I have labeled
deductive and inductive development based upon the location of the thesis statement in a
paragraph. The reason why I distinguished between inductive style and deductive style, is
because there is a relationship between linear and spiral/circular development and
deductive/ inductive development. I interpreted Kaplan’s “linear” style as deductive and the
34
non-linear style as inductive. According to Hinds (1987), Korean writers’ reader-responsible
writing style presents English native readers with more inferential work to do such as
decoding ambiguity, abstract ideas, and imprecise information. Such traditional Korean
writing style and rhetoric patterns can be interpreted by native English readers as a non-
linear style which uses more topic subjects because of this indirect “beating the bushes”
approach.
I will now present the results of this analysis in the following chapter.
35
Chapter 5: Results and Analysis
In this chapter, I describe how 50 essays written by Korean and American Freshman
composition class students with the same topic assignment were analyzed within a
qualitative research framework, using the criteria mentioned above. Results are indicated in
the tables below.
Surprisingly, the results of this study showed that overall Korean Freshmen used a
more linear deductive style of writing with fewer grammatical errors than the American
Freshmen did, even though the American Freshmen writers wrote more sentences and their
sentences were longer. American Freshmen used more non-linear, spoken rhetorical patterns
rather than a linear academic writing style. Korean Freshmen used a higher number of linear
deductive writing features. Overall findings suggest that instruction in the academic writing
style is more important than possible culturally influenced rhetorical patterns.
The results for the 25 American Freshmen also show it is necessary to be trained to
write in a linear style of writing. This is because an academic writing rhetorical pattern is
different from ordinary personal writing (letters, texts, emails, journal entries) and different
from literary genres such as poems or novels.
This suggests that the so-called circular style is not inherently Asian, and neither is
the Western linear pattern inherent in American writers. It may be that apparent differences
have more to do with instruction and the pragmatic intent of writers from both cultures.
English readers expect a clear thesis statement in an expository text. However,
Korean writers may not wish to assert their beliefs so noticeably in a way that, for Koreans,
may suggest arrogance. Thus, Korean writers may hide their thesis statement within a
36
suggestive discourse strategy (Eggington, 1987). Consequently, the presence or absence of a
clear TH is a way to measure if a paragraph conveys clear meanings.
Identifying Topic Sentence and Thesis Statements
The analysis begins with Table 5.1 (look at page 36), which shows the position of
the Topic Sentence (TS)
12
and the Thesis Statement (TH)
13
in Korean and American
Freshmen’s writing in their paragraphs. The position of a Topic Sentence and a Thesis
Statement can be an indicator of inductive or deductive development. Most traditional
Korean style of writing is inductive, but, as Table 5.1 shows, many Korean Freshmen used
an inductive writing style. Also, many students wrote the topic sentence and thesis statement
in the middle of the paragraph. So it is unclear if this approach is inductive or deductive.
Also, there were nine more examples of Korean Freshmen who did not write topic sentences
and five more examples of Korean Freshmen who did not write thesis statements than
American Freshmen’ paragraphs.
As mentioned previously, within an ideal academic writing style, a topic sentence
offers the main idea of the paragraph, and thus every paragraph should include it. This is
because a topic sentence indicates the writer’ intention for the paragraph. Generally, the
topic sentence appears at the beginning of the paragraph especially in academic essays. A
thesis statement contains a concise summary of the main point, or claim, of the essay. A
12
In writing, the topic sentence is the main idea of each paragraph. It contains the focus of the paragraph and
tells readers what the paragraph is going to be about. In academic essays, it is usually located at the beginning
of each paragraph.
13
A thesis statement focuses your ideas into one or two sentences. It should present the topic of your paper
and also make a comment about your position in relation to the topic. Your thesis statement should tell your
reader what the paper is about and also help guide your writing and keep your argument focused.
37
thesis statement usually appears toward the end of the introductory paragraph of a complete
paper though it may occur more than once in a paper.
As we can see in Tables 5.1, 29 percent of the Topic Sentences in paragraph of
American Freshmen were located in the middle of the paragraph, or at the end of the
paragraph, or there was no Topic Sentence. Unpredictably, 63 percent of Korean Freshmen
wrote their essays following a deductive pathway. Since traditionally Koreans prefer an
inductive writing style, this 63 percent of Koreans Freshmen result exceeded my
expectations. This number is close to the American Freshmen’s deductive development
percentage which is 69 percent.
Table 5.1
Topic Sentence of Inductive & Deductive
American Freshmen’ writing
Korean Freshmen’ writing
Deductive
52
69%
47
63%
Inductive
10
13%
18
24%
Located in the
Middle of the
Sentence
12 16% 1 1%
No Topic Sentence
1
1%
9
12%
Total Paragraph
75
100%
75
100%
Table 5.1 presents results of the analysis of the total of 150 paragraphs in the
students’ writing corpus. Table 5.1.1 shows each student preferences and their writing
patterns. 32% of American Freshmen and 28 % of Korean Freshmen wrote in a complete
deductive style in their three paragraphs. 35% of American Freshmen put their topic
sentences in the middle, or in the beginning in their paragraph. 80 percent of American
Freshmen and 60 percent of Korean Freshmen wrote two deductive paragraphs out of three.
38
Table 5.1.1
Each Student’ Topic Sentence Following an Inductive or Deductive Pattern
American
Korean
Total
D-D-D
8
32%
7
28%
15
30%
M-D-D
9
36%
0
0%
9
18%
I-D-D
2
8%
6
24%
8
16%
D-D-I
1
4%
2
8%
3
6%
I-I-D
1
4%
1
4%
2
4%
D-I-D
0
0%
2
8%
2
4%
M-I-M
1
4%
0
0%
1
2%
I-I-I
1
4%
0
0%
1
2%
M-I-D
1
4%
0
0%
1
2%
D-D-None
1
4%
0
0%
1
2%
None-D-D
0
0%
1
4%
1
2%
None-M-D
0
0%
1
4%
1
2%
D-I-None
0
0%
1
4%
1
2%
I-I-None
0
0%
1
4%
1
2%
I-D-None
0
0%
1
4%
1
2%
I-None-I
0
0%
1
4%
1
2%
None-None-None
0
0%
1
4%
1
2%
Total
25
25
50
Deductive-Middle-Inductive
Even though 8 American and 7 Korean students used topic sentences in their whole
essays, Table 5.1.1 shows 7 Korean Freshmen did not use the deductive pattern. 28 percent
of Korean Freshmen paragraphs did not contain a topic sentence at least once in their
writing while only one American student did not write a topic sentence in their last
paragraph.
39
Table 5.2
Thesis Statement of Inductive & Deductive
America Students’ writing
Korean Freshmen’ writing
Deductive
25
33%
41
55%
Inductive
37
49%
19
25%
Located in the
Middle of the
Sentence
11 15% 4 5%
No Thesis
Statement
2 3% 11 15%
75
100%
75
100%
Table 5.2 shows the location of the Thesis Statement. Only 33 percent of American
Freshmen’ paragraphs were written following a deductive pattern. 64 percent in American
Freshmen writing was written in an inductive style, where the thesis statement was located
in the middle or at the end of the paragraph. In three percent of the paragraphs, there was no
thesis statement.
In Koreans’ writers’ paragraphs, 55 percent were written using a deductive pattern.
This figure is 22 percent higher than American Freshmen’s writing. Also, 15percent of
Korean Freshmen’ paragraphs were written without a thesis statement.
40
Table 5.2.1
Each Student’s Thesis Statement Following an Inductive or Deductive Pattern
American
Korean
Total
D-D-D
0
0%
3
12%
3
6%
I-D-I
5
20%
0
0%
5
10%
I-D-D
3
12%
9
36%
12
24%
I-I-I
3
12%
2
8%
5
10%
M-D-I
3
12%
0
0%
3
6%
M-I-I
2
8%
0
0%
2
4%
M-D-D
1
4%
1
4%
2
4%
M-I-M
1
4%
0
0%
1
2%
M-I-D
1
4%
0
0%
1
2%
I-M-D
1
4%
0
0%
1
2%
I-I-D
1
4%
0
0%
1
2%
D-I-D
1
4%
0
0%
1
2%
D-D-M
1
4%
0
0%
1
2%
D-None-I
1
4%
0
0%
1
2%
I-D-None
1
4%
0
0%
1
2%
None-D-D
0
0%
3
12%
3
6%
D-I-I
0
0%
2
8%
2
4%
I-D-M
0
0%
1
4%
1
2%
None-M-M
0
0%
1
4%
1
2%
D-M-M
0
0%
1
4%
1
2%
I-None-None
0
0%
1
4%
1
2%
None-None-None
0
0%
1
4%
1
2%
25
25
50
Deductive-Middle-Inductive
Table 5.2.1 presents each student’s Thesis Statement that indicates an Inductive or
Deductive writing style. Three Korean Freshmen wrote all three of their paragraphs
following deductive development while no American Freshmen wrote all three of their
paragraphs following a deductive style. However, 6 Korean Freshmen wrote paragraphs
without thesis statements.
41
The Total number of Topics in the sentences
Table 5.3 shows the Total Number of Sentences, Average of Total Number of
Sentences, and Standard Deviation of Total number of Sentences.
Table 5.3
Total Number of Sentences
American Freshmen
Korean Freshmen
Total Sentences
683
463
Average Number of Sentences
27.32
18.52
Standard Deviation of
Total number of Sentences
7.96 5.54
In Table 5.3, American Freshmen wrote 683 sentences, and Korean Freshmen wrote
463 sentences. In total, American students wrote 220 sentences more than the Korean
students wrote. Table 5.4 below shows the total number of words written by all American
and Korean students.
Table 5.4
Total Number of Words
American Freshmen
Korean Freshmen
Total Words
16,556
9,760
Average Number of Words
662.24
390.40
Standard Deviation of Total
Number of Words
209.97 138.32
In Table 5.4, American and Korean Freshmen’s average word counts and Standard
Deviation are compared. American Freshmen’s Average Words is 662.24 and Korean
Freshmen’s average words are 390.40. American Freshmen wrote more sentences with
more words than Korean Freshmen did. As can be seen in Table 5.3 and Table 5.4 American
42
Freshmen used more words and sentences. It is possible to assume that it would be easier for
American freshmen to write longer essays with longer sentences with more words in
English than for Korean students. This is because English is a first language for native
American students.
Table 5.5
Total Number of Topic Subjects
American Freshmen
Korean Freshmen
Total Topic Subject
464
294
Average of Number of Topic
Subject
18.56 11.76
Standard Deviation of
Total Number of
Topic Subject
6.31 4.30
The results show that in the Table 5.5. American Freshmen introduced more 170 topics
than the Koreans’ did. Both American Freshmen’s higher Standard Deviation of Sentences
and Standard Deviation of Topics than Korean Freshmen’s standard deviation indicate that
they wrote more sentences and used more topics. As Tables 5.3, 5.4 and 5.5 show,
American freshmen used more words and sentences, but they also used more topic subjects.
As Lautamatti mentioned above, when students use more topics, there may be increased
difficulty with respect to topical development. Because American students wrote more
sentences with more words than Korean students, there is the possibility that their logic was
harder because there were so many more distracting topic subjects in their paragraphs.
Topic Development Using the TSA Analytical Method
As noted above, I used the TSA Analytical Method in order to investigate how each
writer developed topic in each paragraph. In this method, certain elements are identified and
43
coded. For example, as shown in Example 5.1 below, there is an Initial Sentence Element
(ISE), Topical Subject (TS), and Grammatical Subject (GS) where the ISE is italicized, the
grammatical subject is underlined, and the topical subject is bold-faced. Text 1 below is
Student No. 9’s paragraph and is included here to show how each paragraph was analyzed.
For convenience, sentence numbers are indicated in square brackets, [S#], and sentence
breaks indicated by //.
Example 5.1
Korean Freshmen No.9’s a Paragraph
Students get sex education from school, from parents, or from many
different sources. [S1] // However, people hardly know how it brings different
effects when taught in different ways. [S2] //There are generally two different
ways of teaching: only-abstinence sex education and comprehensive sex
education. [S3] // Then, why is it important to learn sex education properly?
[S4] // Proper sex education prevents adolescents from being pregnant and
responsible for a huge burden of parenting by impulsive choice. [S5] //
According to CDC, “the USA had a total of 305,388 babies were born to
women aged 15–19 years, for a live birth rate of 29.4 per 1,000 women in this
age group” (About Teen Pregnancy, 2012) [S6] //. This shows how the USA has
such a high number of pregnancy happens to adolescents which implies the
need of proper sex education.[S7] // Also, when adolescents become parents
when they are not ready either mentally or financially, it brings a bad outcome
to both parent and a child. [S8] // Most tragic cases, it leads to abortion.[S9] //
The USA had a ~ percentage of abortion and ~ percent of abortion is coming
from teenagers. [S10] //
Example 5.1 shows that Korean student No.9 used 5 topics: sex education, birth rate,
pregnancy, outcome, and abortion. Korean student No.9 seemed to not use subtopics to
develop their ideas, or any strategies of topical development of discourse.
44
Example 5.2
American No.2 Freshmen’s a first paragraph
The wrong socket to be unplugged, a Rhetorical Analysis
On January 6
th
, 2009, a BYU humanities professor posted an article named “Dear
Students: Don't Let College Unplug Your Future”. /[S1] The professor wrote this article at
the time when college student debts were rising and the number of unemployed graduates
was also steadily increasing./ [S2] He tries to address these concerns in this article by
supporting the idea that the internet is underutilized by students and would be able to help
them build up their resume by investing more time into increasing their internet presence
through sharing their works and ideas./ [S3] new paragraph should start #4 The
professor is trying to draw in college students into helping themselves by working more on
the vast pool of mass intelligence to broaden their own abilities./ [S4] (new idea block)
#5 The problem with his argument however is that he is trying to address a larger audience
than what his ideas would help and uses the emotionally based concepts of creative freedom
that the internet allows students to utilize in advancing themselves which has little to benefit
the core audience. /[S5] The author brings out the logical appeal of how much information
the internet could give future employers but ignores the inner workings of the digital
façade./ [S6] The relation of personal stories shows little of the potential that the internet
has in his debate to use the digital world more than traditional schooling. /[S7] The last
point of ineffective discussion is how few careers could be built without the physical
experience you would receive in formal education. / [S8] He makes the artistic rejoice at
the visions of infinite freedom but leaves the intellects scratching their heads, trying to see
how much a flimsy digital perspective could capture what they do./ [S9]
American No.2 Freshmen’s a first paragraph
Figure 5.1
Discourse Topic Analysis of American No.2 Freshmen’s first paragraph
S1 an article
S2 this article
S3 He? This article? Or the idea?
S4 the vast pool of mass intelligence
S5 the problem with his argument
S6 the author
S7 the relation of personal stories
S8 The last point of ineffective discussion
S9 He
45
As Figure 5.3 shows, each American student used more than 6 topic subjects in their
9 sentences. When unclear topic subjects are excluded, it can be seen that they used
different topic subjects in each sentence.
Example 5.2 and Figure 5.3 reveal an American Freshmen’s topic development. In
American No. 2 Freshmen’s first paragraph, Topical Subjects are not clear. This is because
the writer used many topics so it is hard to discern what thesis the author is trying to
develop. In addition, the writer presented new ideas, but he did not separate them by
creating a new paragraph. At times, he even embedded the new ideas in longer sentences.
Example 5.3
Korean student No.6’s Paragraph
Video games are widespread in our life, and everyone play video game
in these days. [S1] // Some people play video game for fun, and some people
play video games for living such as professional gamers and programmers. [S2]
// Because video games are easy to access, they tremendous affects to people
who play them. [S3] // Especially, children who are under 18 years old get
influenced a lot through video games. [S4] //Playing video games have some
good aspects to children such as release stresses. [S5] // However, there are a
lot more harmful effects and disadvantages playing video games especially
under 18 years old children. [S6] // Video games influence children’s
behavior and health problem. [S7] //There are three points of harmful effects
that could occur to children when they play video game regularly [S8]. // First,
Children learn naturally violence when they play video game. [S9] // Second,
video games increase children’s obesity. [S10] //Third, video games may occur
social problem for children. [S11] //
As Example 5.3 indicates, the Korean Freshmen’s writing in the corpus used
more than one topic in their paragraph. Korean student No.6 used 5 topics in their
paragraph. Korean student No.6 begins talking about “video games,” but then in Sentence 4,
Korean student No.6 mentioned “children.” In Sentence 6, Korean student No.6 mentioned
46
“under 18 years old children,” in Sentence 7, “children’s behavior,” and in Sentence 10,
“children’s obesity.” Korean student No.6 seemed to not use subtopics to develop the ideas,
or any topical development strategies.
Figure 5.2
Discourse Topic Analysis of Korean Student No.6’s a Paragraph
S1 Video games
S2 Video game
S3 they ( = video games)
S4 children(subtopic)
S5 children
S6 under 18 years old children
S7 children’s behavior
S8 children
S9 children
S10 children’s obesity
S11 children
As indicated in Figure 5.4, Korean student No.6 starts the paragraph with a
progressive alignment that indicates parallel progression (PP) with Sentences 1 and 3 with
the topic of “video games.” However, in S4 the writer moved into the subtopic “children.”
In S6, the writer mentioned “under 18 years old children”. This makes readers confused
because native English readers do not catch the writer’s intention as to why the writer
mentioned “under 18 years old children.”
47
Example 5.4
Korean Student No6’s Paragraph Rewritten by a professional native English writer
Video games are very popular for adults and children. [S1] //However, children
are affected by video games in more serious ways. [S2] //These ways include
both positive and negative effects. [S3] (Subtopic) For example, video games
can relieve stress for children. [S4] //However, they can also create harmful
effects such as in the following three areas. [S5] //(subtopic-children) First,
children can learn that violence is natural through video games which can lead
to them becoming more violent. [S6] // Secondly, children who play video
games are susceptible to obesity because they sit so much. [S7] //Third, video
games can result in the children developing social problems such as not being
connected to other people. [S8]
Example 5.4 was rewritten by a professional native English writer who attempted to
retain Korean student No.6’s same topical focus. This re-write is shown in Figure 5.5 below
with a discourse topic analysis provided in Figure 5.4.
Figure 5.3
Discourse Topic Analysis of Example 4
S1 Video games
S2 Video games
S3 positive and negative effects (subtopic)
S4 video games
S5 they ( = video games)
S6 children (subtopic)
S7 children
S8 the children
In the Figure 5.5, the progressive alignment between S1 and S2 indicates Parallel
Progression (PP). In other words, the vertical alignment of S1 with S2 indicates the same
discourse topic. The progressive indentation shows that S3 is a Sequential Progression (SP).
Meantime, the vertical alignment of S4 with line 2 indicates an Extensive Parallel
48
Progression (EPP). The progressive alignment that S4 and S5 indicates Parallel Progression
(PP). The progressive indentation shows that S6 is Sequential Progression (SP). The
sentences From S6 to S8 show a Parallel Progression (PP)
14
. For convenience, S5 has
included the referents of the topics in brackets.
The Topical Structure Analytical approach (TSA)
Table 5.6 below shows the total number of sentences analyzed using the Topical
Structure Analytical approach (TSA).
Table 5.6
American Freshmen’ TSA and Korean Freshmen’ TSA
American Freshmen’ TSA Korean Freshmen’ TSA
Total TSA 603 381
American Freshmen’ TSA sentences are 603 and Korean Freshmen’ TSA sentences are 381.
American students wrote 222 more sentences than the Korean Freshmen.
14
Simpson (2000) introduced extended sequential progression (ESP) which can be defined as the rheme
element of a clause being taken up as the theme of a non-consecutive clause. That is, a new rheme is revealed
for the first time in an initial sentence, but not as the topical subject. This rheme is then repeated as the topical
subject, or, in this case, theme of a subsequent clause.
49
Table 5.7
American Freshmen’ Topical Structure Analytical Approach (TSA)
PP EPP SP ESP
IR
(Irrelevant)
Total
Total 127 47 52 40 337 603
Average 5.08 1.88 2.08 1.60 13.48 24.12
Standard
Deviation
3.46 1.24 1.82 1.38 5.48
Table 5.7 and Table 5.8 show what types of TSA categories were used by American
and Korean writers. American Freshmen used a total of 337 Irrelevant topics (IR) and
Korean used a total 146 Irrelevant topics (IR). Average and Standard Deviations show that
American Freshmen mentioned more irrelevant topics or provided new topics than Korean
Freshmen did.
As noted previously, the “Irrelevant” category is applied when a new topic is
inserted, usually consisting of only one sentence, or unpredictably presented more than once
in the paragraph. This transition or listing of a new topic made another EPP or ESP using
the TSA approach is also included in the IR category. This is because it was not connected
to a paragraph or sentence level theme or rheme. However, because of grammatically-based
lack of clarity, it was hard to determine which categories these sentences could fit into.
American Freshmen’ “Irrelevant” category was 337 and Korean Freshmen’s “Irrelevant”
category was 146. These high numbers of “Irrelevant topic” make it hard to follow ideas
leading to reader confusion.
50
Table 5.8
Korean Freshmen’ Topical Structure Analytical Approach (TSA)
PP EPP SP ESP
IR
(Irrelevant)
Total
Total 126 45 43 21 146 381
Average 5.04 1.8 1.72 0.84 5.84 15.24
Standard
Deviation
3.39 1.47 1.49 1.03 3.73
As a result, the topical progression in American Freshmen’ writing is 127 (PP)
shown in Table 5.7. The topical progression in Korean Freshmen’ writing is 126 (PP) shown
in Table 5.7 and Table 5.8. Both Freshmen group writing show that they tried to write
paragraphs and essays coherently by using parallel progression as determined by the number
of PP, EPP, SP, and ESP. However, in the Table 5.7 and Table 5.8, the number of IR shows
that sequences of sentences which reveal a discourse topic that does not develop into a
succession of sentence topics. In other words, the writers seemed to be unable to use topical
progression. This inability to use topical progression makes individual sentences “cohere”
illogically.
In each group, the fact that the largest Standard Deviation was IR compared to other
elements such as PP, EPP SP, and ESP supports the conclusion that writers from both
groups had difficulty with coherent development. This unskilled writing confuses
experienced native English readers.
Type of sentence
After conducting a TSA analysis on each of the ten paragraphs, results were
categorized according to sentence type (Types 1-5), as indicated in Table 3 below.
51
Type 1: ISE = topical subject = grammatical subject
Type 2: ISE ≠ topical subject = grammatical subject
Type 3: ISE = grammatical subject ≠topical subject
Type 4: ISE = topical subject ≠ grammatical subject
Type 5: ISE ≠ topical subject ≠ grammatical subject
Table 5.9
American Freshmen’ Type of sentence
TYPE 1 TYPE 2 TYPE 3 TYPE 4 TYPE 5
Not clear
TS
or
Grammar
Errors
Total
Number of
Sentences
Total 192 83 177 8 146 73 679
Average
7.68
3.32
7.08
0.32
5.84
2.92
27.16
Standard
Deviation
5.14 2.08 4.39 0.63 3.62 3.37 8.09
Table 5.10
Korean Freshmen’ Type of sentence
TYPE 1 TYPE 2 TYPE 3 TYPE 4 TYPE 5
Not clear
TS
or
Grammar
Errors
Total
Number of
Sentences
Total 150 153 60 4 83 13 463
Average 6
6.12
2.4
0.16
3.32
0.52
18.52
Standard
Deviation
3.50 3.52 1.92 0.47 2.59 0.96 5.54
Table 5.9 shows Korean writers prefer Type 1 and Type 2 sentences where the
topical subject and the grammatical subject are the same. American Freshmen preferred
Type 1 and Type 2 like Korean Freshmen did, but they used more Type 3 which combines
ISE and grammatical subject, and Type 5 which has ISE, topical subject, and grammatical
subject as different. That means American Freshmen employed a more diverse style of
52
sentences than Korean Freshmen did. English is their native language so diverse structure
provides an advantage.
More interestingly, American Freshmen made more grammatical errors (73) because
they used more complicated sentence structures whereas Korean Freshmen’ grammatical
errors were far fewer at 13. Korean Freshmen made 60 fewer grammar errors compared
with American Freshmen’ because they used relatively simple sentence. This difference is
also shown in the Standard Deviations.
Many of Korean Freshmen’ errors are “invisible” topic subjects. Invisible topic
subjects are an indicator of first language interference. One of the characteristics of Korean
spoken and written language is that it is possible to omit core sentence elements such as the
subject or object of a sentence. Many times it is possible to omit important grammar
elements, such as sentence verbs, subjects or object. If interlocutors know about the subject
or object of the discourse, there is no need to mention them repeatedly (Kim et at, 2005).
Quotation Method
As explained in Chapter 2, there are major differences in quotation use and method
between Korean Freshmen’s writing and American Freshmen’s writing. While American
Freshmen quoted some parts of the original phrase, Korean Freshmen quoted the whole
paragraph. In this research, using a part of a quotation in their essay was counted in the
connected sentences. However, quoting a whole phrase was classified as a quotation and it
is not counted as a sentence. Example 5.5 is an example of American Freshmen’ quotation
use, as well as Example 5.6.
53
Example 5.5
American Freshmen’s quotation I
First, Professor Burton’s use of descriptive persuasive word choice leads the
audience to think about a University education as out-of-date and irrelevant to the
audience’s technological and academic needs. He uses descriptive phrases like, “The
insanity of the GLACIAL PACE of the OLD SCHOOL trying lamely to hipify itself”
and “Sheepskin vs. Online Identity” and “My first title here was "castrating student
opportunity by transforming college at the speed of lava," but I thought that was a bit
strong, so I revised”. Reading these descriptions about the curriculum makes the audience
believe what he says because of the connotations of the words he uses to describe a
University education. “Glacial pace”, “sheepskin”, “castrating student opportunity”, are
all very descriptive that causes the audience to picture in their mind what Burton describes
and when they do so, they don’t like it. Although the arguments may have some illogical
fallacies, the emotions that this descriptive language create leaves a lasting feeling of
negativity in the audience towards the current education setup.
Example 5.6 shows how American Freshmen’s used more spoken discourse in their
essays instead of using written discourse style than Korean Freshmen did. Korean Freshmen
rarely used spoken discourse.
54
Example 5.6
American Freshmen’s quotation I
First, Kennedy’s tone in this speech is very persuasive. At the start, Kennedy says
there are more critical issues for 1960 elections to deal with other than religion. By saying
that, he is trying to give the audience an idea that he concerns those critical issues more and
he knows what should come before his religion.
In his speech, Kennedy says:
“I believe in an America where the separation of church and state is
absolute…”
“I believe in an America that is officially neither Catholic, Protestant nor
Jewish…:”
“Finally, I believe in an America where religious intolerance will
someday end; where all men and all churches are treated as equal…”
“That is the kind of America in which I believe. And it represents the
kind of presidency in which I believe — a great office that must neither
be humbled by making it the instrument of any one religious group, nor
tarnished by arbitrarily withholding its occupancy from the members of
any one religious group. I believe in a president whose religious views
are his own private affair, neither imposed by him upon the nation, or
imposed by the nation upon him as a condition to holding that office.”
“That is the kind of America in which I believe. And it represents the
kind of presidency in which I believe…”
In those paragraphs, he uses anaphora saying, “I believe” many times. This strengthens his
appealing to the audience by repeating the same phrase. Instead of saying, “The U.S. is a
free country”, Kennedy softens his tone and says he believes in U.S. Since the audience was
protestant ministers who questioned Kennedy’s ability to govern the U.S. fairly. Kennedy
needed to show them that he would separate the church and state absolutely to make them
see him as a candidate of the U.S. president that they can trust to support; therefore, he
reminds the audience what kind of country the U.S. is. He emphasizes that Catholic is just
one of the religions in the U.S. that everyone has his/her right to choose freely and this right
should not be disrupted by the prejudice because the law protects it. At the same time,
Kennedy shows the audience that he knows how important and heavily responsible job the
president of the U.S. is and his decision will not be influenced by his religious belief.
(This quotation was not counted as the number of sentences.)
Example 5.7 shows Korean Freshmen writing are affected by their mother language,
such as run-on error, missing an article, and pronoun error. Those mistakes make it difficult
55
to strongly express their ideas to readers. As a result, for native English readers, the Korean
writing style is vague and confusing until the reader reaches the last sentence.
Example 5.7
Korean Freshmen’s quotation II
Throughout Obama’s speech, there are multiple occasions in which he uses repetitive,
paralleled sentences to set up climax and to better emphasize his stance. Leading up to the
Presidential Election of 2004, a growing number of Americans began to show frustration
toward the Bush administration, which seemed unresponsive to the increasing sense of
division within the country over the most important issues of the day—some of which were
the Iraq War, poverty, and education reform. In an effort to portray Kerry and Edwards, and
ultimately himself, as problem-solvers who are capable of uniting those on both sides of the
political spectrum, Obama emphasizes, “I say to [pundits trying to divide us] that there is
not a liberal America and a conservative America—there is the United States of
America. There is not a Black America and a White America and Latino America and
Asian America—there’s the United States of America.” Shortly following this statement,
Obama tries to instill a sense of hope for voters by saying, “Hope in the face of difficulty.
Hope in the face of uncertainty. The audacity of hope . . . that is God’s greatest gift to
us. A belief in things not seen. A belief that there are better days ahead.” Thus, by
expressing his unwavering confidence in one united America and the capability that it has to
wend its way through difficulty and uncertainty, Obama establishes himself as a vibrant yet
optimistic leader whom the American people can trust in a time of crisis. In the closing part
of his speech, it is evident that Obama makes one last outcry of effort to reach out to as
many voters as possible— and does so again by resorting to paralleled, repetitive sentences:
“America! Tonight, if you feel the same energy that I do, if you feel the same urgency
that I do, if you feel the same passion that I do, if you feel the same hopefulness that I
do—if we do what we must do, the people will rise up in November, and John Kerry
will be sworn in as President, and I have no doubt that . . . out of this long political
darkness a brighter day will come.” By applying a climactic tone and using parallelism in
a repeated manner, Obama’s message is clear: it is only right that America, faced with an
increasing sense of urgency, choose the Democratic Party if America wants to find a
solution to put an end to the political woes that have been ailing the nation as a whole.
K22 Freshmen’s second paragraph quotation
Example 5.8 shows American Freshmen’s oral spoken discourse in their academic
essays. This error was not found in Korean Freshmen’s writing. Korea is in the EFL context
so learners have less chance to speak English in their daily lives.
Example 5.10 shows American Freshmen’ grammar mistakes are different from
Koreans’ (Example 5.9). They used longer sentences. So, their sentence structures need to
56
be separated by using punctuation marks. However, they were unable to use punctuation
correctly. Thus, these long sentences hindered readers developing an understanding of their
intentions. Also, they wrote with run-on sentences. These mistakes made it hard to follow
the writers’ stream of consciousness.
Example 5.8
American Freshmen’s oral spoken discourse
Here is an experiment to try out. Go up to someone and ask “How many followers
do you have on Instagram?” (assuming they have one) and listen to their estimation. Once
they reply, get on Instagram and check how many followers they actually have. I bet you
will be surprised by the accuracy of their estimation. In general, it is surprising how a
majority of teens are fixated with their social media presence. But is this fixation beneficial
or detrimental for teen’s perceptions of who they should be? With the amount of time spent
on social media, teens are exposed to false personas by those around them that portray
seemingly “perfect” lifestyles. The article “Talking to Your Teen About Instagram and
Perfection” discusses the falsehoods behind social media presences and the impressions they
give to teenagers about their own lives.
American Freshmen No 17’s oral spoken discourse
57
Example 5.9
Korean Freshmen’s grammar mistakes
Along with devastation within the country, the government tried to fix their political status
quickly and to regain the trust of people, many politicians gave speeches about the mistakes
that have been made inside the government and how they were going to try their best to
prevent them further in future.
Korean Freshmen No.5’s run-on sentence error
Some people play video game for fun, and some people play video games for living such as
professional gamers and programmers.
Korean Freshmen No.6’s missing an article error
A college degree is indeed essential to survival. In fact, according to a Georgetown
University report, “The data are clear: a college degree is key to economic opportunity,
conferring substantially higher earnings on those with credentials than those without”
(Carnevale, Rose & Cheah, 2009). If one earns high, then he must definitely be someone
with a college degree. Survival is also about competition and the only way to win is through
a college degree.
Korean Freshmen No.7’s pronoun error
58
Example 5.10
American Freshmen’s grammar mistakes
Next, Burton effectively distinguishes any counterarguments by acknowledging
them succinctly then moving on quickly to make his argument look like the most appealing
and important. He says, “Is the Internet a time waste? Oh, yeah! Aren't there predators and
scam artists and pornographers by the bitload? Yes. And shouldn't we all be careful not to
get sucked into a black hole of any type? We should. But the biggest danger of the Internet
in your generation is that people are keeping themselves from taking advantage of it.” The
audience appreciates the recognition that the internet is not all good because they know that
isn’t true. The audience is familiar with the arguments Burton acknowledges, //(GE:
should be a separated sentence )so when he says the biggest danger is not pornography
or hackers, but not taking advantage of the internet, the audience’s frame of thought
shifts from “the internet has a lot of bad” to “how do I make sure to take advantage of
my potential?” Throughout the article, (punctuation error) Burton addresses
counterarguments and disarms them without many words; this tactic is effective because by
minimizing each counterargument and maximizing his argument, the audience minimizes
the importance of the counterarguments compared to the one Burton is advocating.The
recognition appeases the audiences experience with the counterarguments but Burton’s
approach makes them feel his solution trumps the bad.
American Freshmen No1’s grammar mistakes
Do they hold so strongly to the ideals of traditional marriage and anti-LGBT legislation, or
do they hold to their ideals while trying to protect the rights of LGBT’s.
Interrogative sentence???
American Freshmen No3’s grammar mistakes
The humor helps create a casual tone; as is Garber is having a conversation with a close
friend. (; ,) and (as is as if)
American Freshmen No5’s grammar mistakes
Growing up in a social media, technological based society, I completely understand
teenagers comparison of themselves to others on their social media feed, and being a
teenager myself I’ve only compared myself to others on social media about a million times,
it is extremely hard not to. ( run-on sentences) There will always be at least one girl or
sometimes one guy on our Instagram feed that knows how to pose just right and use the
perfect filter to make themselves look like Hollywood movie stars and Victoria Secret
models, and many times after seeing these pictures we delete certain pictures from our own
social media feeds that we think just don’t measure up or we look at ourselves and think we
need to start working out, trying a new face cream, or getting a different haircut. ( this
sentence is need to be separated)
American Freshmen No6’s grammar mistakes
59
As the results showed, Korean Freshmen and American Freshmen used different
strategies to persuade readers by using quotation, writing styles, and accuracy of grammar
use.
60
Chapter 6: Discussion and Conclusion
As noted earlier, the research questions for this study are:
1) What if any, are the differences between Korean Freshmen writing and American
Freshmen writing?
2) If there are differences, what are the major rhetorical development problems that
Korean ESL students face in freshman composition classes?”
3) If American Freshmen write in a linear way, is it natural or is the linear “logical”
frame a learned feature of academic writing in western culture?
4) Do American Freshmen write in a deductive style, while Koreans write in an
inductive style?
The following discussion will draw on the results of this study to answer these
questions. Perhaps because this is mostly a qualitative study focused on multiple variables,
results for each question are mixed and interrelated so clear answers to each question are not
apparent.
After Kaplan’s famous article, “Cultural thought patterns in intercultural education,”
was published in 1967, many scholars began to consider that cultural factors influence
rhetorical patterns in academic writing. Connor & Carrell (1993), Hamp-Lyons & Kroll
(1996), Park (1998), and Cai (1999) addressed important factors such as genre,
interpretation styles, topic, and cultures (as cited in Jung, 2006). These scholars expressed a
need to acknowledge rhetorical traditions outside of the West in order to help ESL students
learn about native English audience expectations for their English academic composition.
Also, many earlier contrastive studies focused on culturally different text organizations and
compared English rhetorical patterns with those used by Asian language writers such as
61
Chinese, Korean, and Japanese (Eggington, 1987; Hinds, 1987). However, there is a
problem with many of these studies in that they did not distinguish whether the differences
they found were caused by 1) learner variables, 2) cultural variables, 3) whether it was an
educated academic writing style or not, and 4) pragmatic variables, or a mixture of some or
all. In addition to answering the research questions, this study attempted to investigate these
variables further with an emphasis on cultural variables.
Many previous studies have shown how writers’ cultural backgrounds and their first
language influence the organization of their writing. Korean writer’s essays written in the
unfamiliar academic rhetorical styles of the target culture can be perceived to be illogical to
English readers.
Eggington (1987) investigated a Korean preferred rhetorical structure known as ki-
sung-chon-kyul. It is found in academic writing at the beginning, development, and end of
Korean discourse. This style consists of writers presenting the argument sentence, and then
loosely developing that argument, stating the main point of the argument, developing
concepts directly connected to the argument, and then concluding the main theme. For
native English readers, the Korean writing style is vague and confusing until the reader
reaches the last sentence.
Universally, many researchers have said that the American rhetorical pattern is linear
and that the oriental rhetorical pattern is circular (Kaplan, 1966). Whereas American writing
style is deductive which means a writer responsible orientation, traditional Korean writing
style tended to be more inductive and indirect so they could express their modesty by
avoiding conflicts. Given this tradition, I expected Korean Freshmen’s writing to be
inductive, but 63 percent of Koreans’ essays and 69 percent of Americans’ were written
62
following a deductive style. This result suggests that, across time, the preferred Korean
writing style has changed from an inductive style to a deductive style. It is difficult to say
that a so-called linear style is deductive while the so-called circular style is inductive. These
are more subjective evaluations based upon cultural familiarity. However, what is apparent
from previous research is that traditional Koreans tended to write in a more indirect way
than the Western writing style. These days, however, Koreans are writing in a more direct
and deductive style.
Another significant result is that 67 percent of the American Freshmen’s thesis
statements and 45 percent of Korean Freshmen’s thesis statements were written in an
inductive style, or there was no thesis statement at all. Whereas a total of 4 percent of
American Freshmen did not write a topic sentence and a thesis statement, 27 percent of
Korean Freshmen did not write topic sentences and thesis statements. The absence of a topic
sentences and/or a thesis statement is very confusing for native English readers because,
without these elements, they do not know what the writer is trying to say, especially in an
academic linear way of writing.
There are some possibilities that the student writers did not consider that writing a
topic sentence and a thesis statement were important, or that they thought they had written a
topic sentence and a thesis statement in their essays. This possibility arises because the
writing samples that were used in this research were first drafts written before students
received feedback, and they were written by Freshmen who were not trained yet in how to
write academic writing. These novice writers broke the basic academic writing rules.
The most common American Freshmen’s mistakes were: 1) not dividing the
paragraph when they changed their topic, 2) incorrect punctuation marks, 3) run-on sentence
63
errors caused because they wanted to write long sentences, and 4) using a spoken discourse
style. As many researchers have mentioned, L2 learners’ native language and culture can
affect the L2. Thus, Korean Freshmen’s grammatical mistakes are 1) not using articles, 2)
omitting important grammatical elements, 3) pronoun errors, and 4) run-on sentence errors.
Even though their sentences are not much longer compared to American Freshmen writing
sentences, Korean Freshmen also made run-on sentence errors. Besides these grammatical
errors, their essays were affected from their cultural and rhetorical differences. These
grammatical differences and rhetorical differences can explain why Korean Freshmen
writers wrote less clearly stated topic sentences and thesis statements.
As noted previously, traditionally, Korean society is a farming collectivism society,
and politically, it was a royal regime-ruled bureaucratic society. Those features created a
collectivism culture which required people to be harmonious and obey a hierarchy by
showing respect. Since this hierarchical status system remained for more than one thousand
years, Korea society developed a deep, high context stance (Hall, 1976) making it important
to be aware of another person’s face. This characteristic emphasizes politeness and conflict
avoidance. For this reason, an indirect way of communication becomes one of the most
important features in Korea society. In Korean writing, it is important for a writer to deliver
ideas using circumlocution such as a circular rhetorical inductive pattern, which means it is
a reader’s responsibility to understand the writer. Even though Korean Freshmen have been
educated in a deductive writing style in public schools, this habit still remains causing
students to not present their ideas strongly, or to delay what they wanted to say. In other
words, features of Korean language and rhetorical patterns hindered Korean Freshmen in
their ability to express their ideas strongly, thus not following an academic writing style.
64
In order to write in a liner style following academic writing assumptions, no matter
which native language they use, writers need to be taught. This necessary requirement of
consciously learning an academic writing style has been proven in this research through the
examination of the unedited Korean Freshmen’s writing. As Eggington (1987) mentioned,
traditionally, Koreans used an inductive way of developing topic, but after 30 years have
passed, 63 percent of Korean Freshmen used a deductive style in this research. Thus, even
though Korean language features and rhetorical patterns are still the same, their writing style
has changed from an inductive style to a deductive style.
Well written academic writing requires 1) using a variety of vocabulary, 2) no
grammar errors, and 3) well-developed progression. Among three elements, progression is
the most important for general readers to follow a writer’s coherence. TSA allows
researchers to see progression in the essay. As such, the number of topics is the key element
in the results of a TSA.
By comparing American Freshmen’s “Total number of Topics” with “Total number
of sentences,” it can be seen that they used 68 percent of topics in their essays. That means
they used 6.8 new topics per 10 sentences. Korean Freshmen used 63 percent of “The Total
number of Topics.” The higher number of topics hinders coherence in writing, but
interestingly American Freshmen used more new topics than Korean Freshmen did. This
result indicates that even though novice writers (American and Korean Freshmen) used
several topics per paragraph, these topics were irrelevant in that the topics were not related
to the discourse topic. They tried to develop their ideas using several topics but it produced
confusion.
65
With respect to using complicated sentences, Korean Freshmen preferred Type 1 and
Type 2 discourse structures, but American Freshmen preferred using more diverse
grammatical sentences. The TSA results indicate that novice student writers are not focused
on developing a topical subject preferring instead to almost randomly list ideas without
drawing connections. Table 5.2 shows that total American Freshmen’s 55 percent
(Transition or Listing new topic & Irrelevant topic) and total Korean Freshmen’s 38 percent
of the sentences have no progression instead they inserted irrelevant topics.
In summary, this study analyzed American Freshmen and Korean Freshmen’s
writing to discover discourse topic problems with the aim of eventually being able to
distinguish between learner variables, cultural variables, or pragmatic variables. The results
show that L1 and L1 cultural variables play a significant role in influencing English writing.
One of the remarkable mistakes was wrong word choice perhaps related to pragmatic
variables.
Additionally, the American Freshmen’s results show the necessity of learning
academic writing. Even though English is their native language, they made more mistakes
than Korean Freshmen’s writing. The type of sentences results and the TSA also prove the
necessity of receiving instruction in academic writing.
For this research, I analyzed students’ writing from freshmen writing classes. It may
be seen that a limitation for this study was that I had no knowledge of subjects’ backgrounds
with respect to their writing development and type of instruction that they had received.
However, the main purpose of this study is to investigate rhetorical differences between
American students and Korean students. So, I did not consider how each student
background effects their writing. Instead of researching in-depth personal writing
66
preferences, I wanted to know if there are rhetorical development differences between
American freshmen and Korean freshmen. In other words, I wanted to compare rhetorical
development differences between a English first language writer group and a second
language learner group consisting of Korean speakers. Depending on research purpose,
there are some limitations in making generalizations.
The second limitation is that it analyzes novice American and Korean Freshmen’s
first draft compositions. Unlike professional writing, the novice writers’ essays contain
many vague elements and missing important elements. These features made it hard to
analyze their writing such as finding a topical subject. For this reason, the researcher’s
subjective judgement played an important role. So, in further research, it will be good to
analyze the rhetorical development of other levels of American and Korean writers and then
compare the two groups.
The motivation for this study began by challenging Kaplan’s idea that Americans
naturally preferred a linear style as part of their culture while Koreans naturally preferred a
spiral or circular style. Much previous research in this contrastive rhetoric field had often
compared carefully edited published articles or excerpts from books written by well-
educated Americans such as university professors or professional writers with unedited or
loosely edited rhetoric by Korean ESL students. This approach led to some incorrect
conclusions that suggested Americans naturally wrote in a linear style while Koreans wrote
in a non-linear style. This study contrasted unedited, first draft rhetoric written by both
American and Korean writers. Results show that both American and Korean novice writers
had difficulty following an academic writing pattern. In fact, Korean writers tended to
develop their topics in a linear style possibly because they learned how to do that through
67
their educational experience. On the other hand, many American writers were not taught
how to write following linear logic. For this reason, instruction is more important than
cultural preferences. Even if American students were doing stream of consciousness writing,
the Korean students had structure, whereas there was less structure for the American
students.
Thus, it may be that the acquisition of the academic linear writing style is far more
nurture than nature.
68
References
Almaden, O. (2006). An analysis of the topical structure of paragraphs written by Filipino
students. The Asia-Pacific Education Research. 15(1), 127-153.
Attelisi, A. (2012). The impact of teaching topical structure analysis on EFL writing with
special reference to undergraduate students in Libya. Doctoral dissertation.
University of Newcastle.
Biber, D., & Gray, B. (2010).Challenging stereotypes about academic writing: Complexity,
elaboration, explicitness. Journal of English for Academic Purposes,9(1), 2-20.
Burns, A & Joyce. H (2005). Teachers’ voices 8: Explicitly supporting reading and writing
in the classroom. Macquarie University.
Candlin & K. Hyland (Eds). Writing: Texts, processes & practices. UK: Addison Wesley
Longman Lt, 122-141.
Cheng, X., & Steffensen, M. (1996). Metadiscourse: A technique for improving student
writing. Research in the Teaching of English, 30(2), 149-181.
Cho, J. H.A. (1999). A study of contrastive rhetoric between East Asian and North
American cultures as demonstrated through student expository essays from Korea
and the United States. Linguistics and Language Behavior Abstracts.
Cho, K.S. (2003). The Typological Study on Tense/Aspect Systems of English and Korean.
The Linguistic Association of Korea Journal, 11(4), 185-210.
Cho, Y. M et al. (2010). Integrated Korean: Beginning 1, 2
nd
Edition, University of Hawaii
Press.
Choi, J. S. (2005). A contrastive analysis of argumentative essays written in English by
Korean ESL students and by native English-speaking students. Doctoral dissertation.
Southern Illinois University.
Connor, U. (1987). Research frontiers in writing analysis. TESOL Quarterly, 21(4), 677-
696.
Connor, U. (1996). New Directions in Contrastive Rhetoric. TESOL Quarterly, 36(4), 493-
510.
D’Andrade, R. (2001). A cognitivist’s view of the units debate in cultural anthropology. Cross-
Cultural Research 35(2): 242–257.
De Beaugrande, R., & Dressler, W. (1981). Introduction to text linguistics. UK: Longman
Group Limited. EFL Learners’ Writing. Intercultural Communication Studies, 16.3
148-159.
Eggington, W. G. (1987). Written academic discourse in Korean: Implications for effective
communication. In U. Connor & R. Kaplan (Eds.), Writing across languages.
Reading, MA: Addison Wesley, 153- 168.
Goddard, C. (1992). Traditional Yankunytjatjara ways of speaking—A semantic perspective.
Australian Journal of Linguistics 12(1): 93–122.
Grabe, W. (2017). Shaping an agenda through experience(s).Language Teaching,50(1), 120-
134.
Greenberg, J. H. (1963). Some Universals of Grammar with Particular Reference to the
Order of Meaningful Elements. In Greenberg, Joseph H. (ed.), Universals of Human
Language, 73-113. Cambridge, Mass: MIT Press.
Grimes, J. E (1975). The thread of Discourse. Janua Linguarum, Series Minor, 207. The
Hague, Mouton.
Halliday, M & Hansan. R (1976). Cohesion in English. Longman.
69
Halliday, M (2004). An Introduction to functional grammar (4
th
ed), London: Edward
Arnold.
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).
Hinkel, E. (1994). Native and nonnative speakers’ pragmatic interpretations of English
texts.
Hoenish, S. (2009). Topical structure analysis of accomplished English prose. Master
dissertation. The City University of New York.
Hofstede, G. (1980) Culture’s Consequences: International Differences in Work-Related
Values. Beverly Hills: Sage. Houghton Mifflin Company.
Hong, S (1992). A study on the Hierarchical order of Curtesy and the Architectural
Composition of Placement in the Cho-sun Dynasty. Review of Architecture and
Building Science, Vol. 8 (2), 40.
Johns, A. (1986). Coherence and academic writing: Some definition and suggestions for
teaching. TESOL Quarterly, 20(2), 247- 261.
Jung, M. N (2006). Contrastive rhetoric in second language writing instruction: the context
of Korean Freshmen. Asian Journal of English Language Teaching. 16, 113-127.
Kaplan, R. (1967), Cultural Thought Patterns in Inter-Cultural Education. Language
Learning 16:1-2, 21.
Kaplan, R. (1987). Cultural patterns revisited. In U. Connor & R.B. Kaplan (Eds), Writing
across languages: Analysis of L2 texts (pp. 9-21). Reading, MA: Addison-Wesley
Publishing Company Inc.
Kim, J. Park, D., Lee, B., Lee, H., Jung, H., Choi, J., Hu, Y. (2005). Korean grammar
structure for the foreigner. The National Institute of the Korean Language.
Kim, K. (2008). A descriptive study of Korean ESL students’ experiences and perceptions
of the writing processes in U.S. mainstream college classes. Doctoral dissertation.
Columbia University.
Kim, Y. K. (2012). Inter-relationship between sentence structure (word order) and cultural
structure: A case study in Korean and English. English America research, 27. 272-
301.
Kim, Y.W (2009). The effect of cultural predictors on perceived ethicality of negotiation
behavior: A comparison of Chemyon and Hofstede’s cultural dimensions. South
Korean media information society, 46(2). 212 -244.
Kubota, R., & Lehner, A. (2004). Toward critical contrastive rhetoric. Journal of Second
Language Writing, 13(1), 7-27.
Lautamatti, L. (1987). Observations on the development of the topic of simplified discourse.
In U. Connor & R.B. Kaplan (Eds), Writing across languages: Analysis of L2 texts
87-114.
Lautamatti, L. (1987). Observations on the development of the topic in simplified discourse.
Language center for Finnish Universities, 71-104.
Lee, I. (2002). Helping students develop coherence in writing. Forum, 40(3), 32-39.
McCrimmon, J. (1984). Writing with a purpose (8
th
Ed). Boston: English Teaching Forum
40(2), 32-38.
M-H, & Lee, K-Y. (2008). Syntactic features of Korea English: Word order, ellipsis,
articles, prepositions, passive, miscellaneous. Journal of Pan-Pacific Association of
Applied Linguistics, 12(1), 81-95.
70
Moore, R. (1971). Effective writing (4
th
ed). New York: Holt, Rinehart & Winston, Inc.
Moussu, L., David, N. (2015). Writing centers: finding a center for ESL writers. In ESL
Readers and Writers in Higher Education: Understanding Challenges, Providing
Support. N. Evans, N. Anderson, W. Eggington.
Noor, R. (2001). Contrastive rhetoric in expository prose: Approaches and achievements.
Journal of Pragmatics. 33, 255-269.
Nunan, D. (1995). The write stuff: Achieving coherence in scientific Rinehart & Winston,
Inc.
Paik, P. J. (2010). Korean grammar dictionary. How press.
Pajares, F. & Johnson, M. (1996). The role of self-efficacy, outcome expectancy, and
apprehension. Research in The Teaching of English, 28(3), 318-329.
Qi, X., Liu, L. (2007). Differences between Reader/Writer Responsible Languages
Reflected in Reading, MA: Addison-Wesley Publishing Company Inc.
Robert, J. T., Jill . L. (1980). The rights and responsibilities of readers. Reading Education
Report No. 15. University of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign.
Ryu, H. (2006). Rhetorical patterns in Korean college students‘ English writing. English
Teaching, 61(3), 273–292.
Seth, M. (2006). A concise History of Korea: From the Neolithic period through the
Nineteenth century. Rowman & Littlefield Publishers, 106.
Simpson, J.M. (2000). Topical structure analysis of academic paragraphs in English and
Spanish. Journal of Second Language Writing, 9(3), 293-309.
Somlak, L., Walaiporn, C., Tipa, T. (2013) The effect of topical structure analysis
instruction on university students’ writing quality. English language teaching. 6(7),
60-71.
Son, B. (2001). The Influence of Thought and Culture on Language, Kyeongsang univ. doctoral
dissertation.
Tannen, B. (1984). The pragmatics of cross-cultural communication. Applied Linguistics
5(3), 189-195.
Tirkkonen-Condit, Sonja and Luise Lieflander-Koistinene (1989). Argumentation in Finnish
versus English and German Editorials. Text, Interpretation, Argumentation.
Hamburg, Germany: Helmut BusketVerlag, 173-181.
Tomlin, R (1985). Foreground-background information and the syntax of subordination.
Text, 5(1-2), 85-122.
Van Dijk, T.A (1980) . Macrostructures. An Interdisciplinary study of Global structures in
discourse, Interaction and Cognition, New Jersey: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.
Veluz, O. (1992). TSA as basis for evaluating coherence in student writing and for
developing self-learning materials to teach coherence in written discourse.
Unpublished dissertation, De La Salle University-Manila, Philippines.
Vygotsky, L. (1978). Interaction Between Learning and development. In Gauvain & Cole
(Eds) Reading on the Development of Children. New York: Scientific American
Books, pp 34-40.
Walker, D. (2004). An examination of contrastive rhetoric teaching methods for EFL
university students. Doctoral dissertation. Southern Illinois University.
Wierzbicka, A. (1985). Different languages, different cultures, different speech acts: English vs.
Polish. Journal of Pragmatics 9: 145–178.
Xing, M., Wang, J., Spencer, K. (2008). Raising students’ awareness of cross-cultural
71
contrastive rhetoric in English writing via an e-learning course, Language Learning
& Technology. 71-93.
Yin, K. (2015) Topical structure analysis as an assessment tool in student academic writing.
3L: The Southeast Asian Journal of English Language Studies, 21(1): 103 – 115.
김문조 (2013). 한국인은 누구인가. 21 세기 북스
최경구 (1996). 한국사회의 이해. 일신사
72
APPENDIX
Table 5.1
Each American student’s Inductive & Deductive
15
NO
Location of Topic
sentence
D/I/M/
None
Location of thesis
statement
D/I/M/
None
total number of
sentences
1
A1 4 M
5
M
7
2
1
I
1
I
5
3
5
M
5
M
11
4
A2
1
D
3
D
9
5
1
D
0
None
7
6
1 D 13 I 13
7
A3
4
D
5
M
20
8
1
D
11
I
11
9
1
D
13
I
13
10
A4
3
D
10
M
15
11
1
D
13
I
13
12
1
D
3
D
9
13
A5
1
D
3
I
5
14
1
D
16
I
16
15
1 D 13 I 13
16
A6
3
M
4
I
4
17
1
D
1
D
2
18
1
D
5
I
5
19
A7
10
M
12
I
14
20
1
D
3
D
11
21
1
D
9
I
10
22
A8
5
M
8
M
11
23
1
D
3
D
13
24
1 D 5 I 7
25
A9
3
M
5
I
5
26
4
D
6
M
17
27
1
D
2
D
9
15
Each student’s three paragraphs were selected in their whole essays.
73
28
A10
6
I
6
I
6
29
1
D
2
D
7
30
1 D 2 D 10
31
A11
4
M
8
I
8
32
1
D
2
D
11
33
1 D 4 I 5
34
A12 12 M 16 M 21
35
1
D
2
D
7
36
1 D 12 I 12
37
A13
3
M
4
M
7
38
1
D
3
D
16
39
1 D 1 D 14
40
A14
4
M
5
I
6
41
1
D
2
D
8
42
1 D 2 D 12
43
A15 10 I 11 I 12
44
5
I
6
I
6
45
9 I 10 I 11
46
A16
9
D
10
M
15
47
1
D
8
I
8
48
1 D 10 I 10
49
A17
9
I
11
I
11
50
1
D
6
I
6
51
1 D 5 I 5
52
A18 2 D 3 I 4
53
1
D
2
D
11
54
1 D 2 D 14
55
A19
3
M
4
I
4
56
1
D
2
D
7
57
1 D 3 I 3
58
A20
3
M
5
I
5
59
7
I
8
I
8
60
1 D 2 D 9
61
A21 1 D 2 D 5
62
2
D
5
I
7
63
1 D 2 D 7
64
A22
1
D
4
M
8
65
1
D
2
D
7
74
66
6
I
7
I
8
67
A23
2
D
5
I
5
68
1 D 2 D 10
69
0
None
0
None
5
70
A24
2
D
3
D
7
71
1 D 2 D 7
72
3 D 4 M 10
73
A25
8
I
8
I
8
74
8
I
1
D
8
75
1
D
7
I
7
Table 5.2
Each Korean student’s Inductive & Deductive
NO
Korean number of
topic sentence
Deductive (D)
Inductive (I)
Middle (M)
None
number of thesis
statement
Deductive
(D)
Inductive (I)
Middle (M)
None
total number of
sentences
K1 2 D 7 I 8
1
D
2
D
10
1
D
5
M
8
K2
6
I
0
None
8
1
D
1
D
5
1
D
1
D
3
K3
1
D
0
None
5
1
D
1
D
7
1
D
1
D
5
K4
7
I
7
I
7
1
D
2
D
8
1
D
2
D
13
K5
0
None
10
I
10
1
D
1
D
4
1
D
2
D
3
K6
4
D
0
None
11
1
D
1
D
5
1
D
2
D
2
K7
3
I
3
I
3
1
D
1
D
6
75
1
D
1
D
13
K8
0
None
0
None
4
5 M 5 M 11
1
D
1
D
3
K9
1
D
3
D
10
10 I 10 I 12
1 D 1 D 4
K10
4
I
5
I
5
2 D 2 D 3
1
D
1
D
3
K11
1
D
3
D
3
1 D 1 D 12
1
D
1
D
5
K12
1
D
1
D
5
6 I 6 I 6
0 None 0 None 5
K13
1
D
1
D
9
1 D 1 D 6
1
D
1
D
3
K14
1
D
4
I
4
1 D 1 D 6
1
D
1
D
9
K15
1
D
12
I
12
1 D 1 D 6
3 I 3 D 10
K16
2
I
2
D
16
4 I 4 M 6
0
None
0
None
5
K17
1
D
5
M
12
1 D 2 D 2
4
I
4
I
4
K18
1
D
10
I
10
3 I 3 I 3
1 D 1 D 4
K19
4
I
5
I
5
7 I 7 I 10
1
D
1
D
4
K20
8
I
9
I
10
76
1
D
1
D
2
1
D
1
D
2
K21 11 I 11 I 11
1
D
1
D
1
1
D
1
D
2
K22 3 I 3 I 3
1 D 1 D 5
0
None
0
None
3
K23
4
I
4
I
4
0
None
0
None
6
1
I
2
I
9
K24
3
D
3
D
3
3
D
3
D
8
1
D
2
D
8
K25
0
None
0
None
2
0
None
0
None
1
0
None
0
None
2
Table 5.3
American Freshmen & Korean Freshmen’ Total Number of Sentences and Topic Subjects
NO of
American’s
essay
Total number
of sentences
Total number
of topic
NO of Korean’s
essay
Total number of
sentences
Total number of
topic
A1
23
20
K1
26
10
A2
29
20
K2
16
12
A3
44
39
K3
17
10
A4
37
19
K4
28
15
A5
34
19
K5
17
12
A6
11
9
K6
18
14
A7
35
20
K7
22
20
A8
31
22
K8
18
16
A9
31
18
K9
26
21
A10
23
13
K10
11
7
A11
24
12
K11
20
14
A12
40
26
K12
16
7
A13
37
26
K13
18
12
A14
26
13
K14
19
11
A15
29
20
K15
28
20
77
A16
33
22
K16
27
13
A17
22
21
K17
18
7
A18
29
24
K18
17
10
A19
14
12
K19
19
11
A20
22
16
K20
14
8
A21
19
15
K21
14
10
A22
23
14
K22
11
10
A23
20
11
K23
19
13
A24
24
19
K24
19
7
A25
23
14
K25
5
4
Total
683
464
Total
463
294
Average
27.32
18.56
Average
18.52
11.76
Standard
Deviation
7.957 6.305
Standard
Deviation
5.539 4.304
Table 5.4
The number of words of American Freshmen & Korean Freshmen
NO of American’s
Essay
Total Number of
Words
NO of Korean’s
Essay
Total Number of
Words
A1
542
K1
648
A2
855
K2
265
A3
1111
K3
317
A4 620
K4
572
A5
783
K5
408
A6
510
K6
331
A7
867
K7
696
A8
627
K8
450
A9
749
K9
443
A10
740
K10
299
A11
641
K11
471
A12
1110
K12
220
A13
1024
K13
276
A14
588
K14
417
A15 493
K15
562
A16
815
K16
291
A17
634
K17
380
78
A18
580
K18
302
A19
417
K19
470
A20
413
K20
210
A21
534
K21
335
A22
334
K22
436
A23
498
K23
429
A24
592
K24
430
A25
479
K25
102
Total 16,556
Total
9,760
Table 5.7
American Freshmen’ TSA
NO PP EPP SP ESP
IR(Irrelevant)
Transition or Listing new
topic
A1
3
2
2
1
12
A2
6
3
0
2
17
A3 9 1 5 3 19
A4
10
3
7
2
12
A5
10
1
1
1
17
A6
1
0
1
1
5
A7
7
2
0
2
21
A8
6
1
2
0
18
A9
6
1
0
1
20
A10
9
2
1
1
11
A11
6
3
2
2
8
A12
12
2
3
0
20
A13
6
2
1
1
23
A14
8
4
0
1
10
A15 3 3 2 2 16
A16
8
1
5
2
14
A17
0
0
1
2
16
A18
2
0
2
2
20
A19
0
1.0
2.0
0
8
A20
5
2
0
0
12
79
A21
2
2
3
2
7
A22
1
1
5
7
7
A23
2
3
2
2
7
A24
3
2
3
1
12
A25
2
5
2
2
5
Total
127
47
52
40
337
Table 5.8
Korean Freshmen’ TSA
NO PP EPP SP ESP
IR(Irrelevant)
Transition or Listing new
topic
K1
7
5
2
3
5
K2
1
2
0
0
7
K3
4
0
1
0
9
K4
15
3
7
0
0
K5
6
1
1
1
5
K6
3
3
1
4
4
K7
2 0 4 1 12
K8
2 0 1 2 10
K9
5
2
2
2
11
K10
4
0
0
1
2
K11
4
2
3
1
8
K12
8 1 2 0 1
K13
7
0
2
1
5
K14
6
3
2
0
6
K15
4
2
3
1
15
K16
11
3
1
1
7
K17
7
4
2
0
2
K18
4
4
2
0
4
K19
4
3
2
0
7
K20
4
2
0
0
5
K21
4
2
1
0
4
K22
1
0
1
1
5
K23
3
2
1
1
9
80
K24
10
1
2
1
2
K25
0
0
0
0
1
TOTAL
126
45
43
21
146
Table 5.9
Each American student’s Type of sentence
NO TYPE 1 TYPE 2 TYPE 3 TYPE 4 TYPE 5
Not clear TS/
Errors
Total
Sentences
A1
8
4
7
0
4
0
23
A2
21
1
4
0
2
1
29
A3
16
7
8
1
10
2
44
A4
9
6
16
0
5
1
37
A5
14
5
11
0
4
0
34
A6 2 1 5 0 2 1 11
A7
9
5
10
0
5
6
35
A8
6
4
11
0
4
6
31
A9
1
3
6
0
11
10
31
A10
2
4
3
0
11
3
23
A11
2
4
5
0
9
4
24
A12
14
4
5
2
1
14
40
A13
7
4
14
0
10
2
37
A14
7
0
8
0
10
1
26
A15
2
2
15
0
5
5
29
A16
8
0
14
0
10
1
33
A17
2
1
5
0
10
4
22
A18 12 1 7 1 3 5 29
A19
7
1
3
0
3
0
14
A20
9
5
6
1
0
1
22
A21
3
6
0
2
8
0
19
A22
7
6
3
0
5
2
23
A23
8
2
3
0
5
2
20
A24
3
2
7
1
9
2
24
A25
13
5
1
0
0
0
19
Total
192
83
177
8
146
73
679
28%
12%
26%
1%
22%
11%
100%
81
Table 5.10
Each Korean student’s Type of sentence
NO TYPE 1 TYPE 2 TYPE 3 TYPE 4 TYPE 5
Not clear TS/
Errors
Total
Sentences
K1
7
12
1
1
5
0
26
K2 6 2 3 0 2 3
16
K3
0
16
1
0
0
0
17
K4
14
10
3
0
1
0
28
K5
7
4
2
0
3
1
17
K6
5
5
5
0
3
0
18
K7
4
5
5
0
8
0
22
K8
8
6
2
0
2
0
18
K9
8
6
6
0
4
2
26
K10
5
4
2
0
0
0
11
K11
5
9
1
0
5
0
20
K12
7
4
3
0
2
0
16
K13
1
1
5
0
11
0
18
K14 4 2 5 2 5 1
19
K15
9
6
5
0
6
2
28
K16
15
4
4
0
3
1
27
K17
6
8
1
0
3
0
18
K18 7 7 1 1 1 0
17
K19
5
8
3
0
3
0
19
K20
8
3
1
0
2
0
14
K21
6
6
1
0
1
0
14
K22
1
7
0
0
3
0
11
K23
7
5
0
0
4
3
19
K24
2
11
0
0
6
0
19
K25
3
2
0
0
0
0
5
Total 150 153 60 4 83 13
463
32%
33%
13%
1%
18%
3%
100%
