Writing and Related Problems for EFL Learners

In a research paper presented at 2003 Midwest Research to Practice Conference in the United
States, Min-Fen Wang and Lori L Bakken (2003) have assessed ESL clinical
investigators' learning needs for academic writing for scholarly publication.
The findings suggest that these ESL researchers who came with different nationalities
lacked the knowledge for adequate writing experience as well as basic understanding of
academic writing for scholarly publication. The most important finding of this research is the revelation of the fact that ESL researchers' passive attitudes formed by their native rhetorical experiences create barriers to learning. (Min-Fen Wang and Lori L. Bakken 2003).
The problems these clinical researchers reveal in their writings are the ones which many instructors and researchers are concerned with in the field of writing. (Sundre, 2002).
The research paper, just mentioned, reveals important key elements that should be considered in discussing writing problems of non native English students in general and writing errors of English major students in Tabriz University in particular.
In the case of writing, we should reject a narrow focus on individual learner deficiencies as the only cause of writing problems (Collins, 1991; Tait, 1999). It is clear that different rhetoric follow different logic and logic of every nation affect the rhetoric of that nation (Reid, 1993:46). It is also obvious that language of each nation is part of the culture of that nation.
ESL students who write in English may present written material in a rhetorical and organizational mode that reflects the pattern which is valued in the native culture and rhetoric. It can be said with certainty that the rhetorical system of one language is different from the other language for this simple reason that their approach to logic is different (Silva, 1993:657).
Relating the violation of English code of writing to the writings of Iranian students, we will notice one common characteristic: Students are reluctant (or ignorant of) to write a unified paragraph. Their writing consists of one whole page or two. They do not divide their writing into separate paragraphs. The knowledge of the writer on any subject begins and ends as much as the time or space for writing allows with no paragraph separation. The length of sentences is extraordinary, and the position of modifiers does not seem natural according to the code of English sentence pattern. This means that elements transferred from L1 rhetoric result in a production which does not match the English language style and rhetoric, despite the fact that some students lack grammatical competence. As a result, the writing of this type is labeled unacceptable, vague or erroneous by English language standards.
The focus of this study is to use English major students' writings to identify the elements which violate English language pattern of writing. The sources of errors responsible for non-English language rhetoric will be classified after a short theoretical review in the literature and finally suggestions for the elimination of errors will be presented.
A Review of Related Literature
Contrastive rhetoric began in 1966 as a result of a self-initiated study of international students writing in English by Kaplan, who then made the pronouncement that "each language and each culture has a paragraph order unique to itself, and that part of the learning of a particular language is the mastery of its logical system" (Kaplan, 1966: 14).
Kaplan argues that rhetorical logic, that is how ideas and concepts are lexicalized and arranged in a text, is shaped by culture and that there is a preference for certain discourse patterns in each culture. Rhetoric here refers to pattern for presenting ideas and developing those ideas effectively. Related to languages with Eastern culture and philosophy, he found that English paragraphs have a linear structure, whereas those in Oriental languages have circular organization.
Contrastive rhetoric was developed as a means to identify the patterns of paragraph development in the expository essays of L2 writers at university-level composition courses. These patterns were analyzed in terms of how they differed from the expectations of the readers, presumed to be native English-speaking teachers. Connor explains:
Contrastive rhetoric, like contrastive analysis, began as an effort to improve [L2 writing] pedagogy and its adherents believed that interference from L1 was the biggest problem in L2 acquisition. It was initially founded on error analysis; ‘errors’ in beginning-level students’ paragraph organization were examined and reasons for them were hypothesized based on the language background from which the student came (Connor, 1996:14-15).

Current-Traditional Model
In addition to error correction, early contrastive rhetoric was preoccupied with another precept of structuralism: form. Crowley (1998:95) acknowledges, “What matters most in current-traditional rhetoric is form”. Silva (1990:13-14) establishes this connection by referring to Kaplan’s notion of contrastive rhetoric as “the [English as a second language] ESL version of current-traditional rhetoric [because it] is basically a matter of arrangement, of fitting sentences and paragraphs into prescribed patterns”.
Composition theorists like Crowley (1998:96) have criticized the current-traditional pedagogy as a “theory of graphic display” for its failure to promote critical thinking or to consider how socio-cultural issues of ideology and power are reinforced through writing instruction. This sentiment can be found in Pirsig’s sarcastic description of the instructional model implemented in a typical composition classroom:
What you are supposed to do in most freshman-rhetoric courses is to read a little essay or short story, discuss how the writer has done certain little things to achieve certain little effects, and then have the students write an imitative little essay or short story to see if they can do the same little things (Pirsig 1974:176).
Silva states that “one could make a strong case for the notion that the current-traditional approach is still dominant in ESL writing materials and classroom practices today” (1990: 15).
Matters of form are undoubtedly essential to L2 writing instruction since arrangement is an integral component for constructing a rhetorical argument. For example, Hyland (2003) speaks of the importance of form in discourse analysis, which serves “to study the meanings learners are trying to express through their choice and arrangement of forms.” What differs in Hyland’s description of form, however, is the sense of agency awarded to the writer. Such agency is not possible if the writer lacks rhetorical awareness, a skill neglected by current-traditional pedagogy.
In reviewing current L2 research, Krapels (1990) argues that students' problems in EFL composition stem more from the lack of competence in writing strategy than in general language.
Connor (1996) focuses on cross-cultural aspects of L2 writing. Indeed, she does not mention factors other than L1 rhetoric that influence L2 writing. Previous research suggests, however, that L1 writing expertise and L2 proficiency play significant roles in L2 writing (e.g., Cumming, 1989; Sasaki & Hirose, 1996). The central question for language teaching is: how similar/different is L2 writing to/from L1 writing? Initial findings of L2 writing suggest that, while L1 general composing skills - both good and bad - transfer from L1 to L2 (see Arndt, 1987), 'L2 composing is more constrained, more difficult and less effective' (Silva, 1993: 668). Most L2 writers bring with them knowledge and experience of writing in their L1 and this resource should not be ignored. However, they also bring the limitations of their knowledge of L2 language and rhetorical organization.
Related to Oriental mode of a text , Leki (1991) notes that rhetoric in the Asiatic tradition has an historical purpose of announcing truth rather than proving it. It is performed in such a way that the speaker/writer arranges the propositions of the announcement in such a way that references to a communal, traditional wisdom invite easy and harmonious agreement. Rhetoric in the Western tradition, quite conversely, has an object of convincing peers of some (originally political) position, and consequently places much prominence on the speaker/writer's ability to reason and to marshal evidence (Leki, 1991).
In summary then, we might describe the 'Oriental' mode of text development as deferential, anecdotal, and circuitous, one which seeks to address an issue by describing the surrounding terrain. It emphasizes group collectivity, the elicitation of consent, and the avoidance of direct conflict (Fliegel, 1987).
Conclusion
The most recent manifestation of contrastive rhetoric includes much of the theory that has influenced the evolution of first language (L1) writing, such as the theories of cognition, process method, and social constructivism. Connor (1996:18) states: “A broader definition [of contrastive rhetoric] that considers cognitive and sociocultural variables of writing in addition to linguistic variables has been substituted for a purely linguistic framework interested in structural analyses of products”.
Berlin (1996:52) comments on how teachers might consider teaching matters of form in accordance with postmodern theory: “Students need a conception of the abstract organizational patterns that affect their work lives – indeed; it is comprehensive conceptions of the patterns that influence all the students' experiences”. "It is lack of such knowledge", Connor (1996:169) states, "that is believed to be the main cause preventing non-native writers’ success in the international community”. Thus, with greater consciousness comes greater flexibility, and greater success, in the art of writing.
On the basis of foregoing, writing well in another language means thinking in the forms of that language. This can not be achieved unless the language learner is aware of the differences existing between his rhetoric and L2 rhetoric.
Iranian students are not an exception in this regard. With their own rhetorical background, they are inclined to transfer elements from their approach to logic, their outlook, and their rhetoric to their writing in English.
Since it has been hypothesized that in producing erroneous sentences and paragraphs, students do cling strongly on their L1 semantically, syntactically and rhetorically, the focus of this study is to identify the source of errors in the nature and culture of source language, Farsi.
The Purpose and Significance of the Study
This study is based on studying the errors of students on paragraph level in essay writings of Iranian English major students in Tabriz University. Considering the English writings of Iranian essays, it is quite clear that the students do not show any evidence that is the characteristics of English writing model. Out of the models of composition offered by Williams (1998:52-69), the product (current-traditional model) and the process models are of importance because the writings of Iranian students show evidence of product model and lack of process model.
On the basis of the idea that L1 transfer is part of mental process (Selinker1972; Brown,1980; Richards,1974; Ellis 1985,1997; Zobl 1980a,b; Schachter,1983), it is cognitive notion of the role of L1 which is the main concern in this study. The view of Ellis in this respect is considered as touchstone:
There has been widespread acknowledgement that learners draw on their L1 in forming interlanguage hypothesis. Learners do not construct rules in a vacuum; rather they work with whatever information is at their disposal. This includes knowledge of their L1. The L1 can be viewed as a kind of 'input from inside'. According to this view, then, transfer is not ' interference' but a cognitive process (Ellis, 1997:52).

In attempting to discover 'the input from inside' (Ellis, 1997) of Iranian students, it is of outmost importance to find out which aspect of L1 has the most potentiality to force this cognitive process? Such a notion has led to posing the following research question.

Are stylistic and linguistic differences in L1 and L2 the causes of errors in the writings of Iranian students?
Related to the review of literature, the study shows that L1 with all its associations stands first in the rank for the cause of most of the errors English major students had committed. In other words, L1 is the cause for the errors of Iranian students and stylistic and rhetorical differences between Persian and English impede English major students to learn English efficiently.
Participants
Forty senior English majors studying at English department of Tabriz University participated in this study. These students had begun studying English six years before they entered university. However, their use of English Language has been limited to their English courses offered in schools. Nearly, all of them spoke Farsi or their native tongue after their English classes and their use of English language continued in the next English class. These students belonged to different ethnic groups, who came from different regions and had their own different dialects but with the same official Farsi language taught throughout their education.
The group was taught for three months during the whole term of their forth year of study at English department of Tabriz University. During the term, the participants were administered a treatment about paragraph organization, process of writing a paragraph, and organizing as well as writing an essay. It was intended to see the students' success in following the instructed material to write a well organized paragraph and, as a result, an acceptable essay on English standards. The group consisted of 40 intact subjects and no attempt was made to randomly assign subjects to the group. Indeed, the design did not provide any additional groups as comparison. Thus, the group was given one treatment and one observation was made.
There was a question of whether any expected effects will result from the treatment. It was intended to see if the students follow the instruction in writing an organized paragraph and essay in accordance with English language standard.
Procedure
Following guidelines offered by Ellis (1985:51-52), a sample of written language was collected from students' final essay writing exam. The students were asked to provide an outline and then write an essay for one out of three different topics: 1- The world today 2- Television 3- Relationship between parents and their children. Most of the students had tried to write about the second subject i.e. Television. They were given sufficient time to write. This was their final exam in their essay writing course in winter semester 2004.
During treatment, a textbook by Reid (1982), The Process of Composition, was the focus of study. Students were informed of the fundamentals of writing. The key subjects discussed were basic organization, the difference between subject and topic, the nature of topic sentence, rules for writing topic sentence, paragraph unity and completeness, the process of writing a paragraph, writing an outline for a paragraph, techniques of support, organizing the essay, essay outlining and the process of writing, writing thesis sentence and introductory paragraph for an essay. After the introduction of every item, practical examples from the book were studied closely to help students practice the subjects, followed by writing activities practiced in small groups in class and homework to be prepared for the following week.
Students were expected to show their ability in writing a sound topic sentence, a well organized paragraph, a well organized introductory paragraph for the essay and a complete essay on the basis of what they had learned during the course. The individual sentences students had included in their writings were also considered. The sentences were expected to be based on the English sentence patterns with right word choice, right choice of modifiers, and right position for modifiers, right punctuation, and logical length of sentence. It was presupposed that the students had gained enough knowledge about writing a suitable sentence.
Data Collection Procedures
The final production of the students was chosen to answer the question in reference to post treatment behavior: What was the behavior of the subjects after treatment? It was of outmost importance to find out the extent of the effect of Persian language on the production of English sentences and the organization of paragraph and essay.
Every paragraph was studied closely to show those characteristics which were discussed fully during the course. The explanation of the errors will be presented in detail in Table 1.
Errors in Paragraph Organization and Rhetorical Devices
Table 1 deal with paragraph organization and rhetorical devices. There are important points to be considered in dealing with L2 written materials (Christensen,1963; Tylor,1981; Zamel,1982; Silva, 1993; Min-Fen Wang & others, 2003),and the following points are the focus of attention in each paragraph .

1- Suitable topic sentence on the basis of thesis sentence: abbreviated as T.S.

2- Inclusion of controlling ideas in the topic sentence: abbreviated as I .C.I.

3- Developing controlling ideas: abbreviated as D.I.

4- Summation or synthesis: abbreviated as S.

5- Announcing the truth and providing information instead of narrowing the idea: abbreviated as P.I.

6- Inclusion of "that" or "which" as a way to sound less "basic" i.e. to use the structure to change the subject. Such structures first provide information; on the other hand, since no idea remains as a central focus, no argument can logically be developed: abbreviated as I.that/what.I.

7- Inclusion of "that" or "which" to modify a single idea. This will help the writer to focus on the idea to refine it and add ideas about it without moving away from it: abbreviated as I.that.M.

8- The technique of embedded and recursive structures. Students repeat syntactic structures to produce parallelism: abbreviated as P.

9- The number of sentences in each paragraph: abbreviated as N.