Academic Writing and Culture A Study of Austrian Tertiary-Level EFL Learners Nick Scott When language learners write an academic essay in a foreign language, they frequently make use of text conventions and discourse patterns from their native language. However, this may sometimes lead to a breakdown in communication due to different cultural expectations about the way information is presented. This paper explores these processes of sociolinguistic transfer and languaculture dissonance with a special focus on German-speaking learners of English. Using previous research from the field of contrastive rhetoric as an analytical framework, it investigates the extent to which a group of 22 Austrian EFL learners attending an advanced-level university writing course are influenced by their German-language writing culture. An analysis of the learners‘ beliefs and written work at the start of the course is followed by a period of targeted instruction informed by the findings of contrastive rhetoric research on Englishand German-speaking writing cultures. A second set of essays, written later in the course, is then analysed to ascertain whether the amount of sociolinguistic transfer observed in the students‘ work was reduced after targeted instruction. 1. Introduction In the last few decades, the emergence of new technology and growth in population mobility have led to increasing recognition of the need to prepare students for an internationalised world (see Egron-Polak & Hudson 2010; Paige & Goode 2009). This is reflected in the policy documents of many higher education institutions, whose stated aim is to produce global citizens with the ability to function in multicultural environments (see Bourn 2010). Consequently, foreign language education has undergone a shift in emphasis from communicative competence to intercultural communicative competence, which incorporates not only linguistic ability AAA - Arbeiten aus Anglistik und Amerikanistik Band 40 (2015) · Heft 1-2 Gunter Narr Verlag Tübingen Nick Scott 76 but also the cultural knowledge necessary to communicate effectively with speakers of other languages (cf. Byram 2001; Feng, Byram & Fleming 2009; Sercu 2005). The integration of this cultural dimension into language education programmes has proved challenging because it requires a reconceptualisation of the fundamental nature of language learning (cf. Liddicoat, 2012). Languages must be understood not only in terms of their grammar and vocabulary, but also with respect to cultural practices that influence their speakers during the processes of meaning making and interpretation. Language and culture are not separate entities that operate independently of each other; rather, they exist in a complex interrelationship that learners must seek to understand to ensure successful intercultural communication (cf. Tomalin & Nicks 2007; Tomlinson & Masuhara 2004). Problems may arise when learners attempt to apply the rules and forms of their native language while communicating in the target language. This process is known as sociolinguistic transfer and can sometimes lead to failures in cross-cultural communication, or languaculture dissonance, due to differences about what is expected in communication (cf. Diaz 2012). Many instances of languaculture dissonance can be found in the field of academic writing, because every language has its own text conventions and discourse patterns that may be fundamentally different from those of other languages. When learners write a text in a foreign language, it may not meet the expectations of native speakers of that language and a breakdown in communication may subsequently occur. Since each person possesses a limited amount of reading energy, some readers may even abandon the text if they cannot make sense of it after a while (cf. Lebrun 2011). If such instances of languaculture dissonance could be decreased or even eliminated, it would undoubtedly be beneficial for intercultural communication. Despite widespread acknowledgement of this fact, however, there has been little discussion of how languaculture dissonance might be reduced in practice (cf. Diaz 2012; Liddicoat 2012). This paper represents an early attempt to bridge this gap, with a particular focus on German-speaking learners writing academic English. Thus far, research on assisting German speakers with the difficulties they experience when writing academic texts in English remains relatively sparse and has tended to concentrate on a limited range of discourse structures such as the usage of connectors (cf. Granger & Tyson 1996) or collocations (cf. Nesselhauf 2003). In contrast, a large number of contrastive rhetoric studies on the different writing styles of Englishand German-speaking academics have been conducted during the last few decades. Contrastive rhetoric has not been without its critics and the field has undergone a number of recent changes, which are discussed in Section 2 below. Nevertheless, it remains perhaps the most comprehensive Academic Writing and Culture 77 source of information on the discourse structures commonly used by English and German speakers in their writing. Identifying these structures allows the creation of an analytical framework that can then be used to examine the beliefs of German-speaking EFL learners about academic writing as well as the written texts they produce in English. In this paper, learners‘ beliefs are investigated using a questionnaire that was administered to a group of German-speaking EFL students attending an advanced-level university writing course. This is followed by an examination of a set of opinion essays written in English, which were produced after an introduction to the text type that took place during the first two lessons of the course. These essays are analysed not only with regard to discourse structures but also in relation to the biographical information from the questionnaire, which is used to explore possible links between the students‘ linguistic background, previous writing instruction and the amount of sociolinguistic transfer observed in their work. Finally, a second set of opinion essays, which were written later in the course after targeted instruction, is also analysed. These essays are examined to explore the possible effect that explicit discussion of Englishand German-language discourse structures can have on raising awareness of culture-specific writing styles and reducing languaculture dissonance. 2. Literature Review 2.1. Contrastive Rhetoric and Rationale Contrastive rhetoric seeks to understand how a learner‘s first language influences their writing in a foreign language by comparing texts written by native and non-native speakers of English. The traditional approach, which dates back to the work of Kaplan (1966), has been heavily criticised in recent years due to its tendency towards a reductionist view of national cultures as static, monolithic entities (cf. Atkinson, 2004; Kubota & Lehner 2004) and because it neglects to consider the role of other factors such as the writer‘s educational background and previous experience of L1/ L2 writing in text formation (cf. Liu 2010; Xinghua 2011). Kaplan (2005) himself has acknowledged some of the shortcomings of his original approach. In spite of this, however, studies continue to emerge that report promising findings for implementing contrastive rhetoric-oriented writing instruction in the classroom (cf. Walker 2006; Xing, Wang & Spencer 2008). In addition, new approaches such as the move from contrastive rhetoric to intercultural rhetoric, which uses research methods that go beyond the text to promote a broader view of crosscultural writing, have once again breathed life into the field (cf. Connor 2004, 2008, 2011). Nick Scott 78 This paper attempts to take these recent developments into account, while also harnessing the value of earlier contrastive rhetoric studies. In recognition of the fact that rhetorical patterns do not necessarily derive from negative transfer from the writer‘s L1 but may also be influenced by other factors, the analysis of written work produced by a group of German-speaking EFL learners is supplemented by a questionnaire designed to elicit biographical data and explore the learners‘ beliefs about academic writing in English. This multifaceted approach allows the study to go beyond mere textual analysis and begin to understand some of the complex processes that have often been neglected during more traditional approaches. Earlier work in the field is not completely discounted, however, because it remains a useful source of information as long as its limitations are understood. The discourse structures identified by various researchers as characteristic of an Englishor German-language writing style can be used to create an analytical framework, which allows an examination of the learners‘ written work. If it does show signs of a supposedly German-language style, this can be situated within the broader context of the learners‘ educational background and previous experience as well as their beliefs about academic writing and possible explanations can be considered. 2.2. Englishand German-Language Writing Cultures Early studies on the different writing styles of English and German speakers were not always based on empirical evidence and tended to be rather speculative. Galtung (1981), for example, identifies four intellectual styles within academia, which include a ―Saxonic‖ and a ―Teutonic‖ approach. The Saxonic approach is described as very strong in terms of hypothesis generation and collection of data, but weak in terms of theory formation and paradigm awareness. The Teutonic approach, on the other hand, focuses more on theory formation instead of data, which is used primarily to illustrate rather than demonstrate. Both approaches are considered strong at commenting on the work of others, although they do so in different ways: while the Saxonic style is claimed to promote cordial debate and team work, Teutonic intellectual discussions are said to be more concerned with highlighting weaknesses in others‘ arguments. Galtung‘s description of these two intellectual styles is interesting, but it is also purely anecdotal: it is based, as he himself acknowledges, on ―impressions and intuitions‖ rather than hard evidence (Galtung 1981: 817). Despite its speculative nature, however, there are a number of studies that provide empirical support for Galtung‘s thesis. The most substantial of these is the work of Clyne (1981, 1987, 1991), who analysed 52 academic texts written by English and German speakers according to four main parameters: textual hierarchy, dynamics, symmetry and uniformity. He found that texts written by German speakers not only displayed more Academic Writing and Culture 79 subordination in the hierarchy of propositions, but were significantly more asymmetrical. This asymmetry was often the result of digressions, which occurred more often in texts written by German speakers. Clyne‘s analysis also showed that texts written by German speakers were more frequently characterised by discontinuity, created for example by abandoning an argument mid-way through its development and starting a new one. English speakers, on the other hand, used more advance organisers as well as topic sentences in their writing. Definitions were more frequent and normally placed near the start of the text if the author was English educated, and examples, quotations and statistics were more likely to be embedded into the text by English academics rather than presenting them in an unintegrated fashion, which was more common in German texts. Clyne‘s research has been criticised for not revealing its corpus sources (cf. Sachtleber 1993) and using terminology such as ―digression‖ and ―circular style‖ that implies a negative view of the writing of German speakers (Pöckl 1995). Despite these criticisms, however, several other studies have come to similar conclusions about the differences between English and German academic writing. In his analysis of text structures, for example, Schröder (1988) suggests that English writing is characterised by a point-early structure where the main point is made at the beginning of the text, whereas German speakers tend to employ a point-late structure with the main point at the end of the argument. Similarly, an analysis of English, French and German journal articles by Trumpp (1998) found that 63% of English paragraphs started with a topic sentence compared to only 36% of German paragraphs. Hutz (1997) is more critical of Clyne‘s work, arguing that although English texts display a higher frequency of metalanguage designed to facilitate text comprehension, this is compensated for in German texts by a larger number of markers of logical relationships. His findings have subsequently been questioned by Siepmann (2006), however, who criticises the lack of consideration of multi-word markers in Hutz‘s analysis, which may have skewed his results. In addition, some writers may use logical markers to camouflage incoherence or digression, and variation in the use of metadiscursive expressions among English native speakers must be taken into account (cf. Siepmann 2006: 138-9). Two other areas investigated by Clyne, namely thematic progression and the use of text structuring devices, are considered by Baumann (1998). Baumann‘s analysis suggests that German texts are more likely to deviate from the main topic and typically contain fewer text-structuring devices than texts written by English speakers. Another study by Buhl (1999) found that German speakers were less likely to define technical terms, and their papers exhibited fewer instances of metacommunication. Consequently, both Baumann and Buhl agree with Clyne that in Englishspeaking countries, ―most of the onus falls on writers to make their texts Nick Scott 80 readable, whereas it is the readers who have to make the extra effort in German-speaking countries‖ (Clyne 1987: 238). Recent research also supports Clyne‘s suggestion that passive constructions are more common in texts written by German speakers. In a corpus analysis of medical and linguistic texts, Busch-Lauer (2001) found that particularly in medical texts, German speakers used more impersonal constructions than English speakers. A study of English and German scientific writing conducted by Baumgarten (2008) produced similar findings, suggesting that although German speakers are beginning to use more personal constructions in scientific discourse due to their increasing exposure to English, this is a relatively new development and many still write in a more impersonal style. Another recent study by Thielmann (2009) compared research article introductions written by English and German speakers. The articles written by English speakers were usually linear and displayed a high level of internal coherence, while those written by German speakers required readers to create this coherence for themselves. In a similar vein, Breuer (2013) found that essay introductions written by German-speaking students often did not adequately define the topic or lacked a clear thesis. Her analysis also showed that passive constructions were a common feature of the students‘ work as well as digressions, which sometimes constituted as much as 50% of the text. In sum, there is a sizeable body of research on the different writing styles used by Englishand German-speaking academics. A summary of these writing styles and the suggested differences between them can be found in the table below (see Figure 1). The ten categories in this table will be used as the basis for a questionnaire investigating beliefs about academic writing held by German-speaking students attending an advanced-level writing course as well as an analysis of the students‘ essays before and after targeted instruction. The design of this questionnaire and methodology used to examine the students‘ work are presented in the following section. Aspect of Writing Reference(s) English German Linearity Clyne, 1987; Baumann, 1998; Thielmann, 2009; Breuer, 2013 Strict focus; texts contain few departures from the main topic. Less strict focus; texts more likely to depart from the main topic. Continuity Clyne, 1987 Characterised by continuity; each argument is fully developed be- More likely to be characterised by discontinuity, e.g. Academic Writing and Culture 81 fore proceeding to the next one. leaving an argument mid-air and starting a new one. Symmetry Clyne, 1987 Characterised by textual symmetry and propositional symmetry. Frequently characterised by textual and/ or propositional asymmetry. Paragraph Structure Trumpp, 1998 Paragraphs usually begin with a topic sentence that summarises its main point. Fewer topic sentences; main point often revealed at the end of the paragraph. Text Structure Schröder, 1988; Breuer, 2013 Point-early structure (main point usually made at the beginning of the argument). Point-late structure (main point revealed at the end of the argument). Definitions Clyne, 1987; Buhl, 1999 More definitions; usually placed at beginning of the text. Fewer definitions; usually found later in the text. Data Integration Clyne, 1987 Examples, quotations and statistics always integrated. Examples, quotations and statistics sometimes unintegrated. Personal Constructions Clyne, 1987; Busch-Lauer, 2001; Baumgarten, 2008 Many personal constructions. Fewer personal constructions. Advance Organisers Clyne, 1987; Hutz, 1997; Siepmann, 2006 Advance organisers used to indicate how the text will be structured. Fewer advance organisers than in English. Relationship between Writer and Reader Clyne, 1987; Baumann, 1998; Buhl, 1999 Reader-oriented; main focus is on clear communication of ideas. Hierarchical; complex language is used to demonstrate the writer’s authority. Figure 1. Summary of suggested differences between English and Germanacademic writing. Nick Scott 82 3. Methodology The study was conducted with a group of German-speaking students attending an advanced-level EFL writing course at an Austrian university. Participation in the study was voluntary, with 22 of the 26 students in the class agreeing to take part. The students had all been studying English at university for at least four semesters, which offered two important advantages. Firstly, they possessed a high level of linguistic proficiency corresponding to approximately level C1 of the Common European Framework of Reference, which enabled them to concentrate primarily on the discourse structures in their writing rather than problems with vocabulary and grammar. Secondly, all the students had previously attended at least two universitylevel writing courses. If any of the discourse structures from the analytical framework were found in their essays, therefore, these would be more likely to be a product of sociolinguistic transfer from the students‘ native language as opposed to inexperience with expectations of writing at university level. The main focus of the course was the production of a five-paragraph opinion essay and a magazine article. Of these two text types, the opinion essay was selected as the most suitable for analysis since an effective essay would need to include the aspects of writing under investigation in this study such as a thesis statement and topic sentences as well as examples, quotations and statistics to support the writer‘s argument. It was hypothesised that this text type might have an influence on the students‘ approach to writing since the five-paragraph essay is very much an artefact of the English-language writing culture. If German-language discourse structures were still detected in the students‘ essays, however, then this would probably be a product of sociolinguistic transfer from their native language. The study comprised three parts. Firstly, a questionnaire was conducted to elicit biographical information and explore the students‘ beliefs about academic writing in order to help contextualise the findings. Secondly, a set of opinion essays, produced after an introduction to the text type during the first two lessons of the course, was examined for evidence of possible German-English sociolinguistic transfer. Thirdly, a second set of opinion essays, produced after targeted instruction that foregrounded the different discourse structures said to be used by Englishand Germanspeaking academics, was analysed in comparison to their first essays to see whether a reduction in sociolinguistic transfer could be observed in their writing. The remainder of this section is divided into three subsections, which correspond to these three parts. Academic Writing and Culture 83 3.1. Questionnaire The questionnaire consisted of three main sections. The first section was designed to elicit biographical information that could potentially be related to the students‘ writing style such as their nationality, native language(s) and the country of their secondary school education. The second section focused on the language-learning history of the participants, who were asked whether they had attended a secondary school where English was the main language of instruction or had spent an extended period of time studying in an English-speaking country. In addition, they were questioned about whether they had received essay writing instruction in their native language, in English, or in both English and their native language at school, as well as their perceived familiarity with the opinion essay text type prior to attending the course. These questions were designed to reveal any previous exposure to English-speaking discourse patterns, which might have an influence on the students‘ written work. The third section of the questionnaire focused on beliefs about essay writing in English. The participants were presented with ten statements about academic writing based on the categories previously established in Section 2. Each statement expressed a particular attitude towards an aspect of academic writing, which the students could respond to using a sixpoint Likert scale to indicate the extent to which they agreed or disagreed with each statement. In addition to these three sections, the questionnaire included a consent form. The students were assured that taking part in the study was voluntary and their participation would not affect their grade for the course. Their responses would be used to conduct research on the influence of culture on academic writing and would be reported on the condition of strict anonymity. The questionnaire was piloted four times with colleagues and students from the target population. Based on the feedback from these pilots, a number of changes were made to the wording of certain items to make them as clear and unambiguous as possible. The questionnaire was presented to the students at the end of the first lesson. It was introduced by the course instructor, who was also the survey administrator. In accordance with guidelines suggested by Dörnyei (2010), the purpose and significance of the study were explained, and it was emphasised that participation was voluntary. The students were assured that their responses would be treated confidentially and invited to ask questions about the study and questionnaire. The questionnaire itself was completed by participants at home in an attempt to minimise the risk of students copying each other‘s responses, and to allow participants more time for reflected responses. The completed questionnaires were returned to the instructor at the beginning of the next lesson. Nick Scott 84 The data from the questionnaire were recorded in a spreadsheet and analysed. The responses to the statements about academic writing were converted into numerical scores and the average score for each statement was calculated. The biographical data were then compared with these scores to explore possible links between the students‘ beliefs about academic writing in English and their previous exposure to English-language discourse patterns. The results of this analysis are presented in Section 4. 3.2. First Set of Opinion Essays The questionnaire was followed by a first set of opinion essays, which were written after an introduction to the text type that took place during the second and third lessons of the course. These two ninety-minute periods included a discussion of model texts and the completion of practice exercises provided by Oshima and Hogue (2007: 168-180) in their overview of opinion essays. The students were then asked to write an essay on one of the topics suggested by Oshima and Hogue (2007: 173), which they handed in at the beginning of the fourth lesson. These essays were analysed in relation to the framework established in Section 2. This framework was used to create a list of ten features that might be considered signs of German-English sociolinguistic transfer (see Figure 2). 1. The writer uses overly complex language that obscures the intended meaning. 2. The topic sentence is either missing or ineffective in one of the body paragraphs. 3. The writer departs from the main topic of the essay. 4. The writer uses impersonal constructions in a way that seems awkward or forced. 5. A thesis statement is missing from the introduction or is ineffective. 6. One of the body paragraphs is noticeably longer or shorter than the others. 7. A potentially ambiguous term is defined later in the essay or remains undefined. 8. The writer does not adequately develop their point before moving on to the next argument. Academic Writing and Culture 85 9. The writer presents data such as a statistic or quotation in an unintegrated fashion. 10. The writer does not include an advance organiser where it would facilitate comprehension, or uses an advance organiser incorrectly. Figure 2. List of features suggesting German-English sociolinguistic transfer. For most features, two or more occurrences were considered necessary before German-English sociolinguistic transfer could be assumed. The only exceptions were features 5 and 6: here, one occurrence was considered sufficient because feature 5 refers to the thesis statement, which is normally found just once within an essay, and feature 6 concerns the overall structure. Since determining the presence of some of these features is somewhat subjective (e.g. ‗overly complex‘ in feature 1, or ‗seems awkward or forced‘ in feature 4), the support of two colleagues was enlisted to provide a degree of validation and triangulation during the analysis of the data. The data were analysed to determine the extent to which the students‘ essays appeared to represent a German-language writing culture. These findings were then compared with the information obtained from the questionnaire to see whether there was any link between the students‘ linguistic background or previous exposure to English-language discourse patterns and the degree of possible sociolinguistic transfer in their written work. The results of this analysis can be found in Section 4. 3.3. Targeted Instruction and Second Set of Opinion Essays After the first set of essays had been corrected and returned to the students, the next three ninety-minute lessons were used for targeted instruction that focused on the discourse structures suggested to be typical of an Englishand a German-language writing culture respectively. These discourse structures and the supposed differences between the two writing styles were highlighted in accordance with recent research, which suggests that raising students‘ awareness of the culture-specific language schemas used in their own language as well as English is essential for avoiding languaculture dissonance (cf. Diaz 2012: 37-8). These schemas were explicitly foregrounded using three methods: (1) teacher-guided analysis of German-language discourse structures taken from the first set of student essays; (2) comparison with English-language discourse structures from texts produced by the instructor; and (3) writing exercises that required the students to rewrite selected parts of their homework in a style more in line with the expectations of English-speaking readers. Nick Scott 86 This targeted instruction was followed by another homework task that required the students to write a second opinion essay. The students‘ work was again analysed for evidence of possible sociolinguistic transfer according to the ten categories presented in Figure 2. The findings of this analysis were then compared with the findings from the first set of opinion essays to determine possible changes following the targeted instruction. A summary of these findings as well as the results of the comparison can be found in Section 4. 4. Results This section is divided into three subsections that correspond to the methods used to investigate the students‘ beliefs about academic writing and their written work: the questionnaire, the first set of opinion essays, and the second set of opinion essays. 4.1. Questionnaire The biographical data from the questionnaire confirmed that all participants were Austrian, their native language was German, and they completed their secondary school education in Austria. However, two students had attended a school where English was used as the main language of instruction, while two other students had spent up to six months studying abroad. The amount of previous essay writing instruction varied significantly among the participants. Of the 22 students, three stated they had never been taught how to write an essay at school, while eight had received instruction only in German. Two students had been taught how to write an essay in English but not in German, and nine students had received instruction on essay writing in both English and German. Previous exposure to the text type also varied. Six of the 22 students said they had never heard of an opinion essay prior to the start of the course, while six were not only familiar with the text type but had also received previous instruction on how to write an opinion essay. The remaining ten students reported having heard of an opinion essay, although they had not had any previous instruction on how to write one. The biographical section of the questionnaire was followed by a section on beliefs about essay writing. The participants used a six-point Likert scale to respond to ten statements about essay writing, six of which reflected beliefs suggested by the analytical framework in Section 2 to represent an English-language writing culture, while the other four reflected beliefs suggested to be typical of a German-language writing culture. Their answers were then converted into numerical scores, with a score of 1 representing strong disagreement with the statement and a Academic Writing and Culture 87 score of 6 representing strong agreement. The mean score for each statement can be found in the table below (see Figure 3). Statement Writing Culture Average To demonstrate their authority, the writer of an essay should use complex language. German 3.59 In the main body of an essay, each paragraph should include a topic sentence. English 5.41 The writer may depart from the main topic of an essay in order to provide more general information. German 3.95 In an essay, the writer should avoid using personal constructions such as ‘I’ or ‘we’. German 3.36 The main argument of an essay should be stated in the introduction. English 5.09 Each paragraph of an essay should be roughly the same length as the others. English 3.91 If it is necessary to define any key terms, this should be done towards the end of an essay. German 4.55 In an essay, each point should be fully developed before the next point is presented. English 5.05 The writer should avoid using a quotation as a stand-alone sentence. English 4.50 In an essay, the writer should indicate in advance how it will be organised or structured. English 4.36 Figure 3. Student beliefs about essay writing in English. These results indicate a strong preference for several discourse structures that are suggested to be typical of an English-language writing culture such as topic sentences, a point-early structure and sequential develop- Nick Scott 88 ment of ideas. In addition, students tended to agree with the statements that the writer should avoid using quotations as stand-alone sentences and should indicate in advance how an essay will be structured. The idea that each paragraph of an essay should be roughly the same length was met with more of a mixed response, however, as were the four statements designed to reflect a German-language writing culture. Indeed, the statement suggesting that key terms should be defined towards the end of an essay received an average score of 4.55, implying that students largely agreed with this perspective when writing in English even though it is more typical of a German-language writing culture. Interestingly, no significant link was found between the students‘ responses and their previous exposure to English as a language of instruction. The two students who had studied abroad in an English-speaking country had average scores of 4.60 and 4.40, which is only marginally higher than the mean score of 4.38, while the average scores of the two students who attended a school where English was used as the main language of instruction were both below the mean (4.20 and 3.50 respectively). A comparison of the students‘ previous essay writing instruction with their beliefs about academic writing also produced surprising results. As expected, those students who had received no instruction on essay writing at school had an average score (4.23) that was below the mean. However, those who had only received instruction on how to write an essay in English had the lowest average of all four groups (4.16), while those who had received instruction in both English and German - and might therefore be most attuned to the cultural differences between the two writing styles - were only marginally above the mean with an average of 4.39. The group which scored highest, suggesting that their beliefs about essay writing were most typical of an English-language writing culture, was in fact the students who had been taught how to write an essay only in German (4.49). A comparison with previous familiarity with the text type produced similarly counterintuitive results, since the highest average score was obtained by the students who had never heard of an opinion essay before (4.47). In contrast, those students who had received specific instruction on how to write an opinion essay had the lowest average score (4.27), while those who had heard of an opinion essay but not taught how to write one had an average of 4.40. 4.2. First Set of Opinion Essays The first set of opinion essays were analysed using the method described in Section 3. German-English sociolinguistic transfer was deemed to have taken place in cases where the issue described in the left-hand column of Academic Writing and Culture 89 the table below occurred multiple times, except for issues 5 and 6 where only one occurrence was required (see Figure 4). Issue Essays containing evidence of sociolinguistic transfer Essays not containing evidence of sociolinguistic transfer 1. The writer uses overly complex language that obscures the intended meaning. 36% 64% 2. The topic sentence is either missing or ineffective in one of the body paragraphs. 36% 64% 3. The writer departs from the main topic of the essay. 45% 55% 4. The writer uses impersonal constructions in a way that seems awkward or forced. 0% 100% 5. A thesis statement is missing from the introduction or is ineffective. 27% 73% 6. One of the body paragraphs is noticeably longer or shorter than the others. 64% 36% 7. A potentially ambiguous term is defined later in the essay or remains undefined. 0% 100% 8. The writer does not adequately develop their point before moving on to the next argument. 41% 59% 9. The writer presents data such as a statistic or quotation in an unintegrated fashion. 32% 68% Nick Scott 90 10. The writer does not include an advance organiser where it would facilitate comprehension, or uses an advance organiser incorrectly. 41% 59% Figure 4. German-English sociolinguistic transfer in the first set of opinion essays. A comparison of these results with the questionnaire data reveals some notable discrepancies between the students‘ beliefs about academic writing and their written work. With regard to body paragraph length and departures from the main topic, a certain amount of sociolinguistic transfer was expected since the students‘ responses to the questionnaire did not indicate a strong preference for an English-language writing culture in these areas. However, a number of essays also displayed signs of sociolinguistic transfer concerning topic sentences and thesis statements, in contrast to the marked preference for an English-language writing culture implied by the questionnaire. A similar amount of sociolinguistic transfer was detected concerning the use of advance organisers and data integration, which suggests that although the students were theoretically aware of the difference between the Englishand German-language writing styles in these areas, they were sometimes unable to apply this knowledge in practice. On the other hand, no sociolinguistic transfer was found regarding definitions or impersonal constructions. This was unexpected given that a number of students indicated a preference for a German-language writing style in these areas in the questionnaire. The lack of sociolinguistic transfer concerning definitions might be explained by the fact that students were writing about well-known topics, so explanations of unfamiliar terms were not always necessary. However, the absence of impersonal constructions from the students‘ work is perhaps surprising in light of the findings of the questionnaire. The results from the first set of opinion essays were also compared with the students‘ biographical data. Once again, previous exposure to English as a language of instruction appeared to have little influence on the amount of sociolinguistic transfer in the students‘ work. The essays written by the two students who attended a school where English was used as the main language of instruction both showed signs of sociolinguistic transfer in four different areas, which was slightly higher than the mean of 3.22, while the work of those students who had previously studied abroad in an English-speaking country showed signs of sociolinguistic transfer in three and five areas respectively. However, comparisons with previous essay writing instruction produced rather surprising results. Those students who had not received any Academic Writing and Culture 91 previous instruction on essay writing scored slightly below the mean with sociolinguistic transfer occurring in an average of three areas per essay, while those students who had only received essay writing instruction in German scored an average of 2.75. In contrast, the students who had only received essay writing instruction in English (4.50) and those who had received essay writing instruction in both English and German (3.44) both scored above the mean. Familiarity with the text type also seemed to confer little benefit regarding the amount of sociolinguistic transfer in students‘ work. The group with the lowest average was the students who had never heard of an opinion essay before the start of the course (2.66), while those who had heard of an opinion essay but had never been taught how to write one averaged 3.33. The group with the lowest average was actually the students who reported having received instruction on how to write an opinion essay at school, who scored 3.66. 4.3. Second Set of Opinion Essays Following targeted instruction, the second set of opinion essays were analysed using the same method as the first set. Two of the students did not submit a second assignment, so they were omitted from the analysis. The results can be found in the table below (see Figure 5). Issue Essays containing evidence of sociolinguistic transfer Essays not containing evidence of sociolinguistic transfer 1. The writer uses overly complex language that obscures the intended meaning. 30% 70% 2. The topic sentence is either missing or ineffective in one of the body paragraphs. 30% 70% 3. The writer departs from the main topic of the essay. 20% 80% 4. The writer uses impersonal constructions in a way that seems awkward or forced. 0% 100% 5. A thesis statement is missing from the introduction or is ineffective. 25% 75% Nick Scott 92 6. One of the body paragraphs is noticeably longer or shorter than the others. 40% 60% 7. A potentially ambiguous term is defined later in the essay or remains undefined. 0% 100% 8. The writer does not adequately develop their point before moving on to the next argument. 45% 55% 9. The writer presents data such as a statistic or quotation in an unintegrated fashion. 30% 70% 10. The writer does not include an advance organiser where it would facilitate comprehension, or uses an advance organiser incorrectly. 25% 75% Figure 5. German-English sociolinguistic transfer in the second set of opinion essays. As can be seen, the most significant improvement occurred in relation to departures from the main topic of the essay, which fell by 25%. Noticeable improvements also occurred in the areas of body paragraph length (down 24%) and advance organisers (down 16%), while more modest changes were observed regarding overly complex language and topic sentences (both down 6%) as well as thesis statements and data integration (both down 2%). However, the proportion of students who did not adequately develop their points before moving on to the next argument was actually higher in the second set of essays, increasing by 4%. Similar to the first set of opinion essays, previous exposure to English as a language of instruction did not appear to reduce the amount of sociolinguistic transfer in the students‘ work. The essays written by the students who attended a school where English was the main language of instruction both showed signs of sociolinguistic transfer in three areas, compared to a mean average of 2.45 for the class as a whole. Those students who had previously studied abroad in an English-speaking country had an average of 2.50, which was also slightly above the class mean. However, comparison of the second set of opinion essays with the students‘ previous essay writing instruction produced results that corresponded more closely to what one might intuitively expect. The essays of those students who had not received any essay writing instruction at school showed signs of sociolinguistic transfer in an average of three areas, which was significantly higher than those students who had received Academic Writing and Culture 93 essay writing instruction in German (2.25) and in English (2.00). The only slightly surprising finding was that those students who had been taught how to write an essay in both English and German, and might therefore be expected to be most attuned to the differences between the two writing styles, had an average of 2.57 which was slightly higher than the class mean. Comparison of the second set of opinion essays with the students‘ familiarity with text type, on the other hand, produced similarly counterintuitive results to the first set of essays. The group with the lowest average was once again the students who claimed never to have heard of an opinion essay before the start of the course (2.00), while those who reported they had heard of an opinion essay but had never been taught how to write one had a significantly higher average of 2.50. The group with the highest average was the students who had received instruction on how to write an opinion essay at school, who scored 2.80. 5. Conclusion The results of the targeted instruction in this study are encouraging, showing that a moderate reduction in sociolinguistic transfer may be achieved by foregrounding the different discourse structures used by Englishand German-speaking writers. The second set of opinion essays demonstrated improvements in seven of the eight areas in which sociolinguistic transfer was observed in the students‘ work, with reductions ranging from a very minor 2% to a more considerable 25%. These findings support the suggestion made by Diaz (2012) that raising students‘ awareness of the culture-specific language schemas used in their own language as well as in English may represent a useful method for reducing languaculture dissonance in writing. On the other hand, the examination of learners‘ beliefs about academic writing produced some rather unexpected results. In contrast to their essays, which displayed a number of signs of possible German-English sociolinguistic transfer, the students‘ responses to the questionnaire indicated a preference for an English-language writing style in most of the areas investigated in this paper. The reason for this discrepancy is unclear. One interpretation could be that the German-language rhetorical style posited by various researchers in the field of contrastive rhetoric does not in fact exist. Given the findings of the analysis of the students‘ written work, however, I would suggest that a more likely explanation is that the students were theoretically aware of the discourse structures used by English-speaking writers from other courses at university in which these may have been discussed, but they were not yet able to apply these discourse structures in practice. Nick Scott 94 Comparisons of the students‘ beliefs and written work with the biographical data from the questionnaire also produced some surprising results. Students who had received previous instruction on how to write an opinion essay or who had received general essay writing instruction in English scored lower than their peers, even though the latter sometimes reported they had never even heard of an opinion essay before attending the course. Similarly, attending a school where English was used as the main language of instruction or studying abroad in an English-speaking country appeared to confer no significant advantage concerning sociolinguistic transfer. The reason for these seemingly counterintuitive findings is again unclear, but it is possible that the students who had more previous experience began the course with greater confidence in their writing ability, which may have led them to pay less attention to the instruction than those for whom the text type was completely new. Alternatively, Atkinson (2004) suggests that students‘ writing can be affected by several different ―small cultures‖ such as student culture and youth culture in addition to national culture. It may be that these small cultures also exerted an influence on the students‘ written work, but in ways not revealed through the questionnaire. Taken as a whole, the findings of this paper show that cultural differences in writing style are a complicated issue; an issue that will only become more complex in the future as a result of more contact between different writing cultures and the increasingly blurred boundaries between national cultures and identities. As Matsuda (2002) has pointed out, however, contrastive rhetoric should be seen as a communal endeavour in which each individual helps to establish a collection of resources that may then be used by others. One such resource is the targeted instruction used in this study, whose efficacy as a potential method for reducing languaculture dissonance was demonstrated. In addition, the proposed analytical framework could be used in various educational contexts. Learners may wish to use it as a self-reflective tool which provides them with a set of criteria that can be used to examine the discourse structures in their work without necessarily assuming the existence of culture-specific writing styles, or it could be used by instructors as a basis for the discussion and analysis of academic texts in the classroom. Finally, this paper also reveals some directions for future research. The discrepancy between learners‘ beliefs about academic writing and their written work is an interesting and potentially fruitful subject for ethnographic studies, and the correlation between the self-perceived ability of students and their actual performance as well as the influence of so-called small cultures on academic writing may warrant further investigation. While the overall results of the present study are mixed, therefore, it is hoped it may still contribute to the communal endeavour of contrastive rhetoric by demonstrating the efficacy of a potential method for reducing lan- Academic Writing and Culture 95 guaculture dissonance, providing a set of tools that can be used in the classroom, and highlighting areas for future research. References Atkinson, Dwight (2004). ―Contrasting rhetorics/ contrasting cultures: why contrastive rhetoric needs a better conceptualization of culture‖. Journal of English for Academic Purposes 3. 277-289. Baumann, Klaus-Dieter. (1998). ―Die sprachliche Realisierung von Wissenstrukturen in Fachtexten des Englischen und Deutschen‖. In: Lutz Dannenberg & Jürg Niederhauser (eds.). Darstellungsformen der Wissenschaft in Kontrast: Aspekte der Methodik, Theorie und Empirie. Tübingen: Gunter Narr. 299-317. Baumgarten, Nicole (2008). ―Writer construction in English and German popularized academic discourse: The uses of we and wir.‖ Journal of Cross-Cultural and Interlanguage Communication 27/ 4. 409-438. Bourn, Douglas (2010). ―Students as global citizens‖. In: Elspeth Jones (ed.). Internationalisation and the student voice: Higher education perspectives. New York: Routledge. 18-29. Breuer, Esther (2013). ―Academic writing in L1 and FL.‖ In: Bernadette O‘Rourke, Nicola Bermingham & Sara Brennan (eds.). Opening new lines of communication in applied linguistics: Proceedings of the 46 th BAAL annual meeting, 5-7 September 2013. Edinburgh: Heriot-Watt University. Buhl, Silke (1999). ―Gestaltungsprinzipien wissenschaftlicher Texte im Sprachenpaarvergleich Deutsch-Englisch am Beispiel von Texten Einsteins und Russels zur Relativitätstheorie‖. In: Heidrun Gerzymisch-Arbogast (ed.) Wege der Übersetzungs- und Dolmetschforschung. Tübingen: Gunter Narr. 117-142. Busch-Lauer, Ines (2001). ―Kulturspezifik in englischen und deutschen Originaltexten - Medizin und Linguistik im Vergleich‖. In: Ulla Fix, Stephan Habscheid & Josef Klein (eds.). Zur Kulturspezifik von Textsorten. Tübingen: Stauffenburg. 51-67. Byram, Michael (2001). Developing intercultural competence in practice. Clevedon: Multilingual Matters. Clyne, Michael (1981). ―Culture and discourse structure‖. Journal of Pragmatics 5. 61-66. Clyne, Michael (1987). ―Cultural differences in the organisation of academic texts. English and German‖. Journal of Pragmatics 11. 211-247. Clyne, Michael (1991). ―The sociocultural dimension: The dilemma of the German speaking scholar‖. In: Hartmut Schröder (ed.). Subject-oriented texts: Languages for special purposes and text theory. Berlin: de Gruyter. 49-67. Connor, Ulla (2004). ―Intercultural rhetoric research: Beyond texts‖. Journal of English for Academic Purposes 3. 291-304. Connor, Ulla (2008). ―Mapping multidimensional aspects of research: Reaching to intercultural rhetoric‖. In: Ulla Connor, Ed Nagelhout & William Rozycki (eds.). Contrastive rhetoric: Reaching to intercultural rhetoric. Amsterdam: John Benjamins Publishing Company. 299-315. Connor, Ulla (2011). Intercultural rhetoric in the writing classroom. Ann Arbor, MI: University of Michigan Press. Diaz, Adriana (2012). Developing critical languaculture pedagogies in higher education: Theory and practice. Bristol: Multilingual Matters. Nick Scott 96 Dörnyei, Zoltan (2010). Questionnaires in second language research: Construction, administration, and processing (2 nd ed.). New York, London: Routledge. Egron-Polak, Eva & Ross Hudson (2010). Internationalization of higher education: Global trends, regional perspectives - IAU 3 rd Global Survey Report. Paris: International Association of Universities. Feng, Anwei, Michael Byram & Mike Fleming (2009). Becoming interculturally competent through education and training. Bristol: Multilingual Matters. Galtung, Johan (1981). ―Structure, Culture and Intellectual Style‖. Social Science Formation 20. 817-856. Granger, Sylviane & Stephanie Tyson (1996). ―Connector usage in the English essay writing of native and non-native speakers of English‖. World Englishes 15. 19-29. Hutz, Matthias (1997). Kontrastive Fachlinguistik für den fachbezogenen Fremdsprachenunterricht: Fachzeitschriftenartikel der Psychologie im interlingualen Vergleich. Trier: WVT. Kaplan, Robert (1966). ―Cultural thought patterns in intercultural education‖. Language Learning 16. 1-20. Kaplan, Robert (2005). ―Contrastive rhetoric‖. In: Eli Hindel (ed.). Handbook of research in second language teaching and learning. Mahwah, NJ: Erlbaum. 375- 392. Kubota, Ryuko & Al Lehner (2004). ―Towards critical contrastive rhetoric‖. Journal of Second Language Writing 13. 7-27. Lebrun, Jean-Jacques (2011). Scientific writing 2.0: A reader and writer's guide. New Jersey: World Scientific. Liddicoat, Anthony (2012). ―Foreword‖. In: Adriana Diaz, Developing critical languaculture pedagogies in higher education: Theory and practice. Bristol: Multilingual Matters. ix-xii. Liu, Xinghua (2010). ―An investigation of Chinese University EFL learners‘ knowledge about writing‖. Language Studies Working Papers 1. 3-15. Matsuda, Paul (2002). Mission impossible? An agenda for contrastive rhetoric in the 21 st century. Contrastive Rhetoric Roundtable, Purdue University, West Lafayette, IN. Nesselhauf, Nadja (2003). ―The use of collocations by advanced learners of English and some implications for teaching‖. Applied Linguistics 24/ 2. 223-242. Oshima, Alice & Ann Hogue (2007). Introduction to academic writing: Third edition. White Plains, NY: Pearson Education. Paige, Michael & Matthew Goode (2009). ―Intercultural competence in international education administration‖. In: Darla Deardoff (ed.). The SAGE handbook of international competence. Thousand Oaks, CA: SAGE Publications. 333-349. Pöckl, Wolfgang (1995). ―Nationalstile in Fachtexten? Vom Tabuzum Modethema‖. Fachsprache 17. 98-107. Sachtleber, Susanne (1993). ―Textstile in der Wissenschaftssprache‖. In: Hartmut Schröder (ed.). Fachtextpragmatik. Tübingen: Gunter Narr. 61-79. Schröder, Hartmut (1988). ―Fachtext, interkulturelle Kommunikation und Aufgaben einer spezialisierten Didaktik/ Methodik des fachbezogenen Fremdsprachenunterrichts‖. In: Claus Gnutzmann (ed.). Fachbezogener Fremdsprachenunterricht. Tübingen: Gunter Narr. 107-124. Sercu, Lies (2005). ―Teaching foreign languages in an intercultural world―. In: Lies Sercu & Ewa Bandura (eds.). Foreign language teachers and intercultural competence: An international investigation. Clevedon: Multilingual Matters. 1-18. Academic Writing and Culture 97 Siepmann, Dirk (2006). ―Academic writing and culture: An overview of the differences between English, French and German‖. Meta: Translators‟ Journal 51/ 1. 131-150. Thielmann, Winfried (2009). Deutsche und englische Wissenschaftssprache im Vergleich. Hinführen - Verknüpfen - Benennen. Heidelberg: Synchron Wissenschaftsverlag der Autoren. Tomalin, Barry & Mike Nicks (2007). The world‟s business cultures and how to unlock them. London: Thorgood. Tomlinson, Brian & Hitomi Mashuhara (2004). ―Developing cultural awareness: Integrating culture into a language course‖. Modern English Teacher 13/ 1. 5- 11. Trumpp, Eva (1998). Kultur- und textsortenspezifische Vertextungsstrategien. Eine kontrastive fachtextlinguistische Untersuchung zum Kommunikationsbereich der Sportwissenschaft: English - Deutsch - Französisch. Tübingen: Gunter Narr. Walker, Deron (2006). ―Improving Korean university student EFL academic writing with contrastive rhetoric: Teacher conferencing and peer-response can help‖. Journal of Asia TEFL 3/ 4. 71-111. Xing, Minjie, Jinghui Wang & Kenneth Spencer (2008). ―Raising students‘ awareness of cross-cultural contrastive rhetoric in English writing via an e-learning course‖. Language Learning and Technology 12/ 2. 71-93. Xinghua, Liu (2011). ―Directions in contrastive rhetoric research‖. Language Studies Working Papers 3. 58-65. Nick Scott English Department University of Graz