Chinese students are influenced by the thought patterns of their native language. Such thought patterns are manifest not only in structural differences between the two languages, but also in cultural differences.
Researchers often compare “second language learning” to “learning to think in that language”, which implies that if the learners do not think in the second language, they must still be using their native language as a reference point for cognitive activities. Such an assertion is partly supported by semantic transfer appearing in Chinese EFL writing at the level of syntax, as manifest in the following sentences:
(11) Everything has two sides.
As a coin has two sides….
(12) Although he has not culture, ….
Although he is an illiterate, ….
(13) Because with the development of industry, energy is much needed.
With the development of industry, energy is much needed.
(14) If is no electricity, we will have no TV to watch, and no radio to listen to.
If there is no electricity, we will have no TV to watch, and no radio to listen to.
3.3 Discourse level transfer
Asians differ from Anglo-Americans with respect to directness, and this difference is sometimes reflected in the Asian students’ writing. Kaplan observes that Asian ESL discourse is “marked by what may be called an approach of indirection” [9]. Hinds takes a similar view. He states, “In Japan, in Korea, and certainly ancient China, there is a different way of looking at the communication process. In Japan it is the responsibility of the listener/reader to understand what it is that the speaker or author intended to say”[10]. Hinds points out that in reader-responsible languages (such as Japanese), “there is greater tolerance for ambiguity, imprecision of statement, and an entirely different attitude toward the writer... such that English-speaking writers go through draft after draft to come up with a final product, while Japanese authors frequently compose exactly one draft which becomes the final product”[10]. In a recent article, Chen compares approaches to writing in the United States and China, “U.S. English writing is very direct and formulaic. Writers should first clearly identify the topic or goal of an article and then support their argument with specific examples…. In contrast, Chinese writers prefer indirection… they use metaphor to make subtle, implied connections between ideas. Examples must be subtly inserted, so that connections are neither obvious nor direct” [11].The following paragraph is an illustration of the view:
(15) Firstly, at present information is the most important for us. So the Internet will bring us the fastest information. Secondly, we want to remember much important information, but our brain can’t remember it very long time. We will use computers which will help us remember it whenever we want to use.
One can detect that the learner has been running a long way before she came to her point in her writing. In the writing, the Chinese student follows a circumlocutory way in presenting their ideas.
4 Some suggestions for English writing teaching in China
Based on the above study of language transfer and the analysis of the errors in the students’ compositions, we can safely come to a conclusion that special instructions are needed in order to facilitate positive transfer negative transfer in teaching English writing. So in this chapter, we are to discuss the implications we can elicit from the previous discussion for the teaching English writing in China.
4.1 Enhancing the awareness of intercultural differences in teaching English writing
In the eye of native English speakers, Chinese students’ English writing is often incoherent and illogic. This perception is just, due to the lack of knowledge of the differences between English and Chinese rhetoric norms. A case in point is Chinese students’ frequent reference to proverbs, famous sayings, and allusions in their writing. To a Chinese reader, they are normal or even expected to ornament and enliven the discourse, but to the Western readers, they are distractions. Rhetorical patterns are cultural specific. According to Kaplan, each language or culture has rhetorical conventions that are unique to it. As Kaplan explains, ‘logic (in the popular, rather than the logician’s sense of the word), which is the basis of rhetoric, is evolved out of a culture; it is not universal. Rhetoric, then is not universal either, but varies from culture to culture and even from time to time within a given culture’ [9]. Thus lack of knowledge about rhetorical differences of different cultures may create intercultural miscommunication. Different culture has different expectations about rhetorical patterns. The reason why the native speakers sometimes fail to interpret the English writing of Chinese students is that the patterns of the organization of Chinese students’ writing fail to meet the expectation of English language speakers.转贴于 酷文网-论文下载中心 http://www.coolwen.net
共8页: 上一页 [1] [2] [3] [4] [5] 6 [7] [8] 下一页
网摘收藏:
当前位置:
载入中...
-> 在百度中搜索：
-> 在Google中搜索：