International Journal of English and Literature Vol.

3(5), 112-116, May 2012

Available online at http://www.academicjournals.org/IJEL
DOI: 10.5897/IJEL11.118
ISSN 2141-2626 ©2012 Academic Journals

Full Length Research Paper

A descriptional study on differences in L1 and L2

academic writing
Wang Yingli
Foreign Languages Department, Hebei United University, Xin Hua West Road 46, Tangshan 063000,
Hebei Province, P. R. China. E-mail: [email protected]. Tel: (+86)13613150858.
Accepted 3 February, 2012

Since the first contrastive rhetoric study by Kaplan in 1966, many studies have been produced, and
over several decades of development, there have been many contributions gained from previous
contrastive rhetoric studies. Some researchers summarized and made critiques about certain studies.
Stapleton (2002) claims the differences between academic writing in an L1 and an L2 are often
misrepresented and overstated. The study disagrees with Stapleton. The study believes that there are
differences between academic writing in L1 and L2. Results of many studies support my argument that
there do exist differences between academic writing in L1 and L2 in various aspects and they are not
overstated. The study will categorize the differences in three major parts as following: differences in the
level of lexicon, differences in the level of sentence, and differences in the level of passage. Besides,
one point worth’s further consideration, that is, languages is dynamic and they will change with many
factors such as time, cross-cultural communication, etc. The dynamic development of language could
push contrastive rhetoric studies to go further and wider and then help people understand each other
better in the cross-cultural communication.

Key words: Contrastive rhetoric studies, differences between academic writing, English and Chinese.

INTRODUCTION

Robert B. Kaplan’s study on the differences in discourse paper that the difference between academic writing in an
structures in different languages in 1966 is the beginning L1 and L2 are often misrepresented and overstated. In
of the huge corpus of contrastive rhetoric studies. Then his paper, Stapleton (2002) demonstrates that except for
because of the development of text linguistics and the minor difference in genre, structure and the
discourse analysis during the 1980s (Enkvist, 1987; Leki, development of the article, there are lots of resemblances
1991; Matsuda, 1997), contrastive rhetoric study began in academic writing between L1 and L2. Although
to focus on the systematic study of the organization in L1 Stapleton’s study was persuasive enough to some
and L2 rhetoric (Martin, 1992; Matsuda, 1997) and to audience, in my point of view he neglects the great
“consider whole texts as dynamic entities” (Connor, 1996: diversity in academic writing between L1 and L2. This
19). Later Connor (1996: 5) redefines contrastive rhetoric study disagrees with Stapleton’s point of view. In this
as “an area of research in second language acquisition study’s opinion, the differences in academic writing
that identifies problems in composition encountered by between L1 and L2 are not misrepresented and
second language writers and, by referring to the overstated. There are many kinds of differences existing
rhetorical strategies of the first language, attempts to in L1 and L2 academic writing.
explain them”. Throughout the four decades, many This study will categorize the differences in three major
contributions have been made from previous contrastive parts as following: differences in the level of lexicon,
rhetoric studies in various fields such as in ESL (English differences in the level of sentence, and differences in the
Second Language) education translation, and genre- level of passage. At the level of lexicon, the differences in
specific writing (Connor, 1996; Noor, 2001). the choice of word will be mentioned. Then at the level of
Among those research and studies, one statement sentence, the differences in choosing the sentence
drew my attention particularly. Stapleton claims in his subject will be discussed.
 Yingli 113

Finally, at the level of passage, differences in the 2. 他在第二次世界大战中屡建战功，晋升很快。(He got

choice of writing topic, in the voice, in the organization, in
rapid battle promotion during the Second World War).
the reader's and writer's responsibility, in the attitude
toward quotation, and in the attitude on good writing will
When talking about the great benefit the Second World
be elaborated.
War has brought to him in his career, an English speaking
person may prefer the first type of expression by using a
MAIN DIFFERENCES BETWEEN ACADEMIC WRITING noun phrase to be the subject of the sentence. While, a
IN L1 AND L2 Chinese person may choose the second type of
expression, because Chinese people often use people as
Differences in the level of lexicon the subject in the sentences. Another example:

There are some differences in the choice of word. English English speaking people may write: Fear rooted him to
speaking students use more nominalizations. Kachru the ground. But Chinese people use the sentence:
(1983) compares Hindi and English, and finds that more 他吓得呆若木鸡。to express the same meaning and they
pronouns are used in narratives in English than in Hindi
(Noor, 2001: 260). English language speakers prefer use 他 (he) to be the subject of the sentence. More
simple words. similar examples:
Therefore, they would like to use nominalizations and
pronouns to express meaning simply. It is different from 1. What happened to you? (English people’s expression)
Chinese writing. 你怎么了？ (The corresponding Chinese expression with
Chinese speaking writers tend to use more verbs. Here
is an example between English and Chinese: a pronoun 你 as the subject)
2. The problem of population control has to be recognized
Before China’s entry into WTO, there were fears that and approached in a world environmental context
China would have to make too much concession (English expression).
(English expression. Two nouns are highlighted) 人们必须联系世界环境去认识和研究人口控制问题。(The
corresponding Chinese expression with a general term of
在中国加入世界贸易组织之前,
people 人们as the subject).
人们担心中国要做出过多的让步。(The corresponding 3. Some things have been said here tonight that ought
Chinese expression. The two highlighted English nouns not to have been spoken. (English expression)
are translated into two Chinese verbs). 今晚有人在此讲了些不该讲的话。(The corresponding
Chinese expression with a general term of somebody
Differences in the level of sentence 有人as the subject).

Many differences exist in the choosing sentence subject.

In academic argument essays, Chinese speakers often Differences in level of passage
use people as the subject in the sentences. They like to
involve the role of people in the description of activities. Differences in the choice of writing topic
Chinese believe people play a very important and active
role in the process of knowing and reforming the outside The choice of writing topic is influenced by cultural back-
world (He Shanfen, 2002: 474). ground and social conditions. Choice of writing topic is
In English academic argument essays, in order to show one factor which reflects individual’s cultural background
what they are saying is the objective fact, English spea- and social context. The social and cultural background
king people prefer to use passive tense in the sentences influences choice of topic in writing.
of which the subjects are objects. Ostler’s (1988) study For example, in Chinese writing, people will discuss
shows that English speaking students use more passives their personal beliefs because they consider them to be
in their essays (Noor, 2001: 257). This point is also common and public topics. While in English writing,
supported by Pan (1997) and He Shanfen (2002), people seldom discuss around the topics of personal
respectively. beliefs because in English speaking cultures, issues like
In Pan’s (1997) book, he provides some text examples beliefs are personal and it is not suitable to be discussed
and explains why Chinese speakers like to use people as publicly.
subjects in sentences. Here is an example: This is an example of cultural influence on choosing
writing topics. There is another example of social con-
1. The Second World War brought him rapid battle ditions influencing topic choice. In western society, most
promotion. people advocate laws and would like to discuss issues
114 Int. J. English Lit.

from the perspective of law. But in Chinese society, a widening gyre’"(Kaplan, 1966 in Noor 2001: 256). In
people prefer moralization so they would like to discuss it other words, Chinese people obviously produce writing in
from the perspective of morals. Therefore, Noor (2001: a curvy way. Here is an example:
265) suggests social conditions constrain the choice One of Shichuan’s finest spots is Huanglong, which lies in
of topic. Songpan County just beneath Xuebao, the main peak of
the Minshan Mountain. Its lush green forests, filled with
fragrant flowers, bubbling streams and songbirds, are rich
Differences in voice in historical interest as well as natural beauty.
English writing is straight linear style with the key
Matsuda (2001) defines the notion of voice which refers information coming at the very beginning of the
to all the language characteristics shown from writing. paragraph.
The voice is social and cultural influenced. It is changing
as time goes on (Stapleton, 2002: 178). As Elbow (1981)
describes, voice is individual’s written reflection of culture 在四川，有一处美妙的去处。它背倚岷山主峰雪宝顶，树
(Stapleton, 2002: 178). 木苍翠，花香袭人，鸟声婉转，流水潺潺，名胜古迹荟萃
When writing academic articles, English writers
establish their claim early and directly in their articles and 。它就是松藩县的黄龙。
like expressing showing their own " voice", and show their The corresponding Chinese writing with key information
" authorial presence" (Hyland, as cited in Stapleton, 2002: coming after mentioning the surroundings.
178) and "authorial identity" (Hirvela and Belcher; Ivanic
and Camps; Tang and John, as cited in Stapleton, 2002:
Deductive and inductive: Kaplan explained that "an
178) in their academic writing such as expository prose
expository discourse in English begin with a topic
and argumentation genre. In contrast, Chinese writers
statement, which was followed by subdivisions supported
seldom use voice, authorial presences and authorial
by examples and illustrations that central idea was
identity and they bring forward the claim much later in the
article and more indirectly. Shen (1989) and Stapleton developed to prove or argue the subject in question,
relating the central idea to all the other ideas in the whole
(2002: 179) explores the reasons why Chinese writers
essay" (Kaplan, 1966 cited in Noor, 2001: 256)". In
experience difficulty using their own voice, by, for
reference to Kaplan’s (1966) seminal paper on
example using the pronoun "I”.
contrastive rhetoric, Shen (1989) claimed that contrary to
the "straight line Western approach" (Shen,1989: 463 in
Differences in organization Stapleton, 2002: 180) of composition, Chinese writing
follows the Confucian style of first starting the conditions
As Kaplan (1972) says that "each language and each of composition: how, why, and when the piece is being
culture has a paragraph order unique to itself" (Mohan composed. All of this will serve as a proper foundation on
and Lo, 1985: 517). There are some differences in aca- which to build a house". (Stapleton, 2002: 180). In other
demic writing between different languages in organization words, Chinese academic writing is inductive and English
aspect. writing is deductive (Stapleton, 2002: 180). Hinds (1990)
suggested the same idea. Hinds did research on
Linear and curvy: There is huge diversity in paragraph expository writing in Japanese, Chinese, Korean and
organization between L1 and L2 academic writing. In Thai. He claimed that Oriental writers used the inductive
1966, Kaplan suggested that western people especially approach. English speaking people prefer deductive
English speakers “use a predominantly linear paragraph writing (Noor, 2001: 261).
organization in expository texts" (Kaplan, as cited in Noor In Chinese writing, students would like to start with the
2001, p.256). Clyne (1980, 1981, 1983) studies essay explanation of conditions. After clearing the surroundings,
writing and makes a conclusion that German writing is in the Chinese students get to the real target. As a Chinese,
a less linear way than English (Noor, 2001: 260). the same feeling will be applied; before talking about the
In contrast, other languages show a different, non- real target, some words would be used to explain why,
linear organization of paragraphs in expository prose. how and when this work began. By using the analysis
Arabic speaking students have elaborate introductions and critique of other studies, this study’s claim was
but less consistent conclusions. Japanese students put shown indirectly as seen in the article. This is the reason
more details in the latter parts and these details often why some English-speaking people have difficulty in
have less relation with the topics (Noor, 2001: 257). finding the clear claim within an academic article written
Shen (1989) claims English writing is straight linear by a Chinese writer. Here is an example:
style but Chinese writing is different. In Chinese writing,
students would like to start with the explanation of
conditions. After clearing the surroundings, the Chinese Differences in reader’s and writer's responsibility
students get to the real target (Stapleton, 2002: 181).
Therefore, the Chinese approach is 'turning and turning in It is considered that there is a great diversity of reader
 Yingli 115

and writer responsibility in academic writing. By giving viewpoint to support their own claim, they find some
examples from Japanese texts and anecdotes of evidence to explain why it is worth quoting, and show
conversations between Americans and Japanese, Hinds how the quotations helps express the author’s claim.
(1987) suggests that "English use a writer responsible
rhetoric, Japanese use a reader responsible rhetoric"
(Hinds, 1987 In: Noor, 2001: 263). That is to say, in Differences in the attitudes on good writing
English academic writing it is the writer's responsibility to
make the article easy to read. Furthermore, in the Different culture made the standard of good writing widely
process of writing, the writer should be aware of the divergent. It can result in the diversity in academic
audience, which can link to Johns' (1993) viewpoint. In writings. The different criteria on good writing were listed
contrast, In Japanese writing, it is the reader’s between Chinese and American composition teachers. In
responsibility to understand the author’s intention for the view of Chinese composition teachers a good article
writing the article. Hinds (1990) said that the two kinds of should not only bring forward valuable but also to disse-
rhetoric fulfill different expectations of the reader. minate the morality of society. Chinese writer consider
Clyne (1980,1981,1983, as cited in Noor,2001:263) disseminating morality in their article as part of their
also brings forward similar claims for English and duties. But in English composition teachers have no right
German. Clyne thinks that the writer should afford the to deal with issues of morality. In China, when students
burden to make their articles easy to read in English- are learning about how to write an academic article
speaking countries. While in German-speaking countries, imitating other’s work is acceptable. But in America it is
"the reader has to make the extra effort to understand the forbidden. A good writing should show the author’s
text" (Clyne, 1987 in Noor, 2001: 263). In the German "unique voice" or particular viewpoint. It is worth
tradition of academic writing, the author would like to mentioning that expressing personal emotion is a good
provide more knowledge and theory beside the main sign in Chinese writing. It can show the author’s
point for the reader. The German way of writing is "not enthusiasm in the certain academic writing and helps
designed to be easy to read" (Clyne, 1987, In: Noor, readers to understand or feel the author’s claim deeply.
2001: 263). That is to say, German writing is to give For English writing, bringing too much emotion in
readers stimulus to think instead of telling them directly. writing is not good. American or English writers think that
Therefore, German writing is not easy to read and it emotion should not appear too much in academic writing.
needs readers to make more effort. Emotion is not an essential part of writing. Expressing
Hinds (1987) compares classic Chinese and modern personal emotion too much in academic writing can
Chinese with Japanese and English (Noor, 2001: 262). mislead the readers. That is to say, readers can not easily
Classic Chinese is more like Japanese. The language grasp the writer’s claim beside too many emotions.
marks in texts can be absent or less and the transition
sentences are less so that readers have to be active to
understand the writing. English is writer-responsible Conclusion
rhetoric. Modern Chinese is more like English. The
discourse needs to be directly presented to readers and Since the first contrastive rhetoric study by Kaplan in
try to persuade readers to believe what the writer says. 1966, many studies have been produced, and over
several decades of development, there have been many
contributions gained from previous contrastive rhetoric
Differences in the attitude toward quotation studies.
However, there are still some limitations and weak
Differences in academic writing also lie in the attitudes points in this area. So some researchers summarized
toward quotation. Chinese writers are fond of using and made critiques about certain studies. Stapleton
quotations and allusions because love, their history and (2002) claims the differences between academic writing
literature of past ages. In 1950 to 1970, Chinese writers in an L1 and an L2 are often misrepresented and over-
liked to quote chairman Mao’s words to make their claims stated. This study disagrees with Stapleton. This study
become more persuasive. In modern Chinese writing, believes that there are differences between academic
people also like using quotations. They may use proverbs writing in L1 and L2, and they are not overstated.
such as "A lazy youth, a lousy age" from Kongzi, the Results of many studies support the study’s argument
founder of Confucianism to persuade the youth who do that there do exist differences between academic writing
not work hard. English writers do not use this approach, in L1 and L2 in various aspects and they are not
and Anglo-American English rhetoric does not consider overstated. However, in order to get more evidence for
quotations from authorities as a proper way of expressing my point of view and make the statement more powerful,
ideas. The English people tend to express their claims more contrastive rhetoric studies are needed. Besides,
directly by using voice, such as I. What is worth men- one point should be further considered, that is, languages
tioning is that when English writers cite some person’s is dynamic and they will change with many factors such
116 Int. J. English Lit.

as time, cross-cultural communication, etc. So the Mohan BA, Lo WA (1985). Academic writing and Chinese students:
Transfer and developmental factors, TESOL Q., 19:515-534.
differences between academic writing in L1 and L2 also Noor R (2001). Contrastive rhetoric in expository prose: Approaches
can change. The dynamic point of view could push and achievements. J. Pragmat,, 33:255-269.
contrastive rhetoric studies to go further and wider and He S (2002). Contrastive studies of English and Chinese languages.
then help people understand each other better in cross- Shanghai: Shanghai Foreign Language Education Press.
cultural communication. Pan Wenguo (1997). The outline of Contrastive studies of English and
Chinese languages. Beijing: Beijing Language and Culture Press.
Stapleton P (2002). Critiquing voice as a viable pedagogical tool in L2
writing: Returning the spotlight to ideas. J. Second Lang. Writing,
REFERENCES 11:177-190.

Connor U (1996). Contrastive rhetoric: Cross cultural aspects of second

language writing. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Matsuda PK (1997). Contrastive rhetoric in context: A dynamic model of
L2 writing. J. Second Lang. Writing, 6 (1): 45-60.