Proessors Reactions To Essays of Non Native Speakers

Teachers of English to Speakers of Other Languages, Inc.
(TESOL)
Professors' Reactions to the Academic Writing of Nonnative-Speaking Students Author(s): Terry Santos Source: TESOL Quarterly, Vol. 22, No. 1 (Mar., 1988), pp. 69-90 Published by: Teachers of English to Speakers of Other Languages, Inc. (TESOL) Stable URL: http://www.jstor.org/stable/3587062 . Accessed: 08/05/2013 07:49
Your use of the JSTOR archive indicates your acceptance of the Terms & Conditions of Use, available at . http://www.jstor.org/page/info/about/policies/terms.jsp
.
JSTOR is a not-for-profit service that helps scholars, researchers, and students discover, use, and build upon a wide range of content in a trusted digital archive. We use information technology and tools to increase productivity and facilitate new forms of scholarship. For more information about JSTOR, please contact support@jstor.org.
Teachers of English to Speakers of Other Languages, Inc. (TESOL) is collaborating with JSTOR to digitize, preserve and extend access to TESOL Quarterly.
http://www.jstor.org
This content downloaded from 143.52.64.85 on Wed, 8 May 2013 07:49:21 AM All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions
TESOL QUARTERLY, Vol.22, No. 1, March1988
to the Reactions Professors' AcademicWriting of Students Nonnative-Speaking

TERRY SANTOS StateUniversity, Los Angeles California
The study inthis article thereactions of178 reported investigated to two 400-wordcompositions, one written professors by a Chinese studentand the other by a Korean student.The 96 ofwhomwereinthehumanities/social sciences and professors, 82 ofwhomwereinthephysical wereeach askedtorate sciences, one ofthetwocompositions on six10-point ofwhich scales,three focused on content(holisticimpression, development,and sophistication) and three of which focused on language and irritation). The results were (comprehensibility, acceptability, as follows: received lowerratings thanlanguage; (a) Content (b) found the errorshighlycomprehensible, professors generally but academically withlexicalerrors unirritating, unacceptable, ratedas themostserious; in the humanities/social (c) professors sciencesweremorelenient in their thanprofessors in judgments thephysical wereless irritated sciences;(d) olderprofessors by errors than andnonnative-speaking younger professors, professors were moreseverein their thannativespeakers. The judgments resultssuggestthe need for greateremphasison vocabulary and lexical selection. improvement Withinthe past several years,a previously unexaminedaspect of errorevaluationhas begun to generateinterest-thatof professors' judgmentsof, and subjective reactionsto, errorsin the writingof As thissegmentof the student nonnative-speaking (NNS) students. population in the United States has grown, the demands on ESL have also increased. Consewriting programs and instructors instructional in quently,thereis a need to establishfirmer priorities the teachingof composition.One way to do thisis to investigate the reactionsof the audience to whom the writing of NNS studentsis directed: theirprofessors(Santos, 1984; Secord, 1978; Sheorey & Ward, 1984; Vann & Meyer,1984; Vann, Meyer,& Lorenz, 1984).
69
The purpose of the studyreportedhere was to investigate reactions to theacademicwriting of NNS students. The professors' were What is the difference between following questions posed: (a) of the content of an essay written professors' ratings by a NNS student and theirratings of the language?(b) Whatis the rank and irritation for orderingof comprehensibility, acceptability, inthewriting errors ofthose as judgedbyprofessors inthe students, sciences? (c) Do physical sciences and the humanities/social in the physical sciences and the humanities/social professors sciences exhibitsimilarpatterns in theirjudgments? (d) What factors in professors' are significant For example, are the ratings? of professors who are themselves NNSs similar to those judgments who arenative speakers (NSs)? Errorevaluation has been broadlydefinedas NSs' reactions to NNSs' errors. Varioustypesof reactions are encompassed under thisumbrella notion. is thedegreeto whichthe Comprehensibility interlocutor understands whatis saidorwritten. Comprehensibility hasbeentested boththrough and subjective for measures, objective and Likert-scale restatement, example, repetition, rankings (Bansal, & Djordjevi6, 1969;Dimitrijevic' 1971;Guntermann, 1978;Olsson, Irritation has been definedas "the resultof the formof the message intruding upon the interlocutor's perceptionof the communication.... The irritation continuum ranges fromunundistracted awareness of a communicative error to a concerned, conscious with form" Some 1982, preoccupation (Ludwig, p. 275). researchers 1978;Ludwig, (Johansson, 1982)consider comprehensiand irritation lowercomprehenlinked, bility inextricably equating and vice versa, whereas others sibilitywith higherirritation, & Vann the 1984;Vannet al., 1984)separate (Santos,1984; Meyer, irritation more as a function of and the two,regarding expectations ofinterlocutors, whomaybecomeirritated characteristics by errors evenwhenthemessageis comprehensible to them. is thedegreeto whichtheinterlocutor the regards Acceptability oftheNNS as approximating thetarget speechor writing language norms.Acceptability thusappeals to judgments about language, whereas irritation appeals to subjectivereactions(the "bother notions ofacceptability. however, which, factor"), mayalsoinclude METHODOLOGY Thisstudy a split-plot 1982,p. 562) design(Pedhazur, employed to answerthe research Two compositions written questions. by
70 TESOL QUARTERLY
1973).
ofKorean)were NNS students theother ofChinese, (one a speaker two setsof ratings selectedforevaluation; were elicited(one for theother overallcontent and language, forindividual and errors); were consulted(those in the physical two types of professors inthehumanities/social In addition, and those sciences all sciences). of theprofessors wereaskedto complete a questionnaire designed to determinewhich independentvariables (sex, age, native be significant in their etc.) might language, ratings. Subjects A totalof 178 professors at the University of California, Los in on Angeles(UCLA), participated thestudy. Theywereselected at thetime ofdata collection thebasisoftheir and their availability to participate in thestudy. inage from 27 Theyranged willingness Of the178,156weremales, to 77,witha medianage of45.6years. 34 werenot;96 represented 144 were NSs of English, 22 females; in the and 82 represented humanities/social sciences, departments in the sciences. schools/departments physical The participants were dividedintofourgroupson thebasis of in eitherthe humanities/social availabilityand representation sciences orthephysical sciences. was madetomaintain Everyeffort a balancein each groupbetween thedisciplines. Group1 consisted of 10 professors who read, rated,and corrected thecomposition written the Chinese 2 student. consisted of 10 professors by Group who performed thesame taskson thecomposition written by the Koreanstudent. The 80 professors in Group3 read and rateda corrected versionof the Chinesestudent's partially composition, and the78 professors in Group4 performed thesame taskson the Koreanstudent's composition. Materials a questionnaire that Subjectswereaskedto complete requested thefollowing information: sex; age; nativelanguage; department; proficiency in speaking other languages; the approximate intheprofessor's ofNNS students whether these percentage classes; students tendedto be undergraduates or graduates; whether the had a policyin dealing with thewriting ofNNS students; professor and which ofthefollowing statements most to closely corresponded the way the professor dealt withthe writing of NNS generally
71
students:(a) does not correcterrors and does not downgrade them,

PROFESSORS' REACTIONS TO WRITING
(b) does not correctand does downgrade them, (c) correctsbut does not downgrade, (d) correctsand downgrades. The two compositionswere selected fromamong more than 100 writtenby NNSs referred to the ESL section of the English Department at UCLA. To fulfilltheircomposition requirement, such students must successfully complete either English 36, Intermediate Composition for ESL Students, or English 106J, Advanced Composition for ESL Students.Studentsare placed in either English 36 or 106J on the basis of a 350- to 500-word composition theywrite on a set topic in a 75-minute period. The compositions are read and rated by two ESL writinginstructors and, in cases in which there is a differenceof opinion, by a tiebreaking third reader. (Instructions to the students and the compositiontopic are given in AppendixA.) The selectionof thetwo compositions to be used in thestudywas made on the basis of a number of criteria.First, since the vast the compositionrequirementby majorityof ESL studentsfulfill 36 passing English (Intermediate Composition), representative compositionsat thatlevel were chosen. Second, essayswere sought that contained a variety of representative errors,both local and global, made by ESL students.A composite of the findingsof Tomiyama (1980), Vann and Meyer (1984), and Sheoreyand Ward of erroranalysisand conducted (1984), who consultedtheliterature to determinewhich types of errorsare surveysof ESL instructors most common among ESL students,was used to compile the followinglist (no rankingimplied), which served as a reference guide: articles, lexical choice, logical connectors (e.g., relative pronouns,conjunctions),possessives,prepositions, singular/plural, subject-verb tense,and word form. agreement, A thirdconsiderationwas that the compositionsrepresenttwo linguistic and cultural backgrounds found in large number at UCLA. Finally,it was thoughtthatfor greatergeneralizability the in should be standard fiveessays equal length and employ the paragraph system of organization and development, namely, introduction, body (threeparagraphs),and conclusion.Indeed, the instructions to the students the compositiontopic clearly, regarding (see AppendixA). thoughimplicitly, suggestsuch a structure Given the criteria for selection, the two compositions (see Appendixes B and C) thatwere chosen were not radicallydifferent fromone another, althoughat thesame timetheydid exhibitcertain Both conformedto the five-paragraph characteristics. idiosyncratic structure and containedalmost the same numberof words (392 for the Chinese student,388 for the Korean). The Chinese student's
72 TESOL QUARTERLY
consisted of 19 sentences one fragment), 26 (including composition clause togetherwith all of its T-units (a single independent of embedding. subordinate clauses),and 12 instances modifying consisted of 23 sentences, 27 TThe Koreanstudent's composition ofembedding. and 13 instances units, inthecompositions wereclassified. Table 1 showshowtheerrors and Larsen-Freeman Celce-Murcia (1983),all grammatFollowing as beingtheresult a wrong of omission, ical errors wereclassified wordorform. The general ofverbs ora superfluous form, category of agreement, was further dividedintothesubcategories auxiliary, and so on.
TABLE1 intheTwoUncorrected ofErrors Classification Compositions Instances oferror Error category Agreement Articles Discourse cohesion Doublenegative demonstrative + Equative: possessive Fragment Lexical choice connectors Logical Mechanics It Nonreferential Nonreferential There Objects Possessives Prepositions Pronouns Quantifiers Redundancy Register Relative clauses Singular/plural Verbs Agreement Omission Passive Phrasal Tense/aspect Word forms Word order PROFESSORS' REACTIONS TO WRITING Chinese student 15 1 1 1 13 2 21 1 1 3 3 4 1 7 23 Korean student 1 15 1 9 1 18 1 1 1 7 3 5 2 7 9
Auxiliary
2
13 1 1
3 2 2 2
4 2
3 1
73
It shouldbe notedthat at times theclassifying oferrors becomes a matter of individual and judgment. For example, interpretation how to classify theinappropriateness oftheconcluding sentence of theChinese student's two (I should composition sayexample offirst The points I mentionedis commonlyfound) is problematic. hereis notat thegrammatical at levelbutrather primary problem the discourselevel. Therefore, the entire was classified sentence undertheerror of discourse and theindividual cohesion, category errors were also counted forexample, and classified, grammatical in cases when it was articlesand singular/plural. Furthermore, whichof two error to determine was involved, difficult categories was entered theerror twice.For example, the UnitedStatemight withsingular/plural. Since error or an error have been a spelling it was classifiedunder both therewas no way to be certain, categories. Procedures The study consistedof two phases. In the firstphase, 20 witha typed werepresented (10 foreach composition) professors in its uncorrected two one of the of original, compositions copy iton six10-point scales.Three form and wereaskedtoreadandrate of the scales were forcontent development, (holistic impression, and three for language (comprehensibility, and sophistication) to werethen instructed The professors andirritation). acceptability, that seemed over the and correct back everything composition go incorrect to them.Finally, theywere asked to listat the end the in thecomposition. No as themostserious they regarded problems timelimit was setforthecompletion ofthesetasks. whichof the The purposeof thisfirst phase was to determine to the salient in most two errors the appeared compositions many of error Of the studies them. corrected who read and professors McGirt's in error evaluation and (1984) only composition, gravity unaltered startedwithnatural, samples.The otherstudiesused errors(Tomiyama,1980; eithertextbook passages withinserted to extensively or Vann et Vann & Meyer, al., 1984) partially 1984; or and revised, corrected, paragraphs compositions manipulated written 1978; Santos, 1984). Artificially by NNSs (Johansson, of thevariables control by preparedpassagesallow formaximum but they also sacrificethe naturalquality of the researcher, do notallowthe discourse. connected unaltered Furthermore, they are the most whicherrors NS judges to decide for themselves
errors inserted give equal weightto each glaring.Finally,selectively them only once each, an unrealistic error type by representing
TESOL QUARTERLY
74
thefrequent recurrence ofcertain error that condition types ignores occurrence of others. For these and the relatively infrequent used in this first were unaltered authentic, compositions reasons, phase. werecorrected In Phase2, thecompositions forall butthemost D and E), as identified salienterrors(see Appendixes by the as were salient most errors in 1. The Phase regarded professors For the or 9 of the10 corrected. thosethateither all 10 professors thesenumbered Chinese student's 17, and for the composition, a list of the errortypes 12. Table 2 presents Korean student's, inthis phase. represented
TABLE2 ofErrors intheTwoPartially Corrected Classification Compositions oferror Instances Error category Articles Discourse cohesion Doublenegative Lexical choice connectors Logical Nonreferential There Possessives Pronouns Verbs Auxiliary Passive Tense/aspect Word forms Chinese student 1 1 4 1 1 1 7 student Korean 3 1 4
Agreement
1 3
2 1 2
2 -
and corrected weretyped, Copies of thepartially compositions in 1 thesame 10-point scalesforcontent and language Phase given wereusedinPhase2. In addition, thesentences the most containing salienterrors were typed separately and the errors underlined. each sentence were three scales for of Following 10-point ratings and irritation. comprehensibility, acceptability, All of the professors in the studywere seen who participated were told that they should personally by this researcher and consider thecomposition werebeingaskedto readand rateas they a piece of academic writingproduced under the conditions describedin theinstructions to thestudents. They werealso told
PROFESSORS' REACTIONS TO WRITING 75
how theterms and irritation were comprehensibility, acceptability, meant to be interpreted. The results in the following sectionare based on the reported of the158professors 3 and 4) who participated responses (Groups inPhase2. RESULTS ofContent Versus Ratings Language The first research askedwhether there was a significant question on a 10-point scale betweenprofessors' difference of the ratings and thelanguage ofan essaywritten overall content by a NNS. The means and standarddeviationsof the ratingsof contentand inPhase2 werecomputed and language given bythe158professors Duncan'sMultiple thegeneral linear modelof using RangeTestrun, The results theSAS program. werethesamefor bothcompositions: The content was ratedsignificantly lower thanthe language.In other words, the professorsmade a statistically significant ofthecomposition thecontent readandits distinction between they moreseverely thanthelanguage they judgedthecontent language; 3 (see Tables and 4). Variables ofLanguage Order The second research question asked about the order of in the and irritation fortheerrors acceptability, comprehensibility, of deviations fortheratings The meansand standard compositions. and Duncan's were computed in thetwo compositions each error if there difference was a significant Test runto determine among order variables. The samestatistically thethree significant language receivedthe was foundin bothcompositions. Comprehensibility 7.9 forthe student's composition, (7.5 fortheChinese rating highest for Chinese the second irritation the Koreanstudent's), (5.8 highest the the lowest and 5.6 for theKorean), acceptability (3.7for student, found That the 3.9 for the Chinesestudent, is, Korean). professors the sentenceswith errorshighlycomprehensible, reasonably This same orderalso but linguistically unacceptable. unirritating, ofthecomposition. of theoverall fortheratings obtained language errors were also rankorderedby meansin four The individual variable(comprehensibility, acceptability, ways:foreach language for overall meansofthethree and byaveraging (obtained irritation) Table 5 givestherankorderof of thethree theratings variables). errorsin the Chinese student'scomposition.The errorsare
presented in order of seriousness,from most serious to least,
TESOL QUARTERLY 76
'dT
TABLE3 Means andStandard Deviations for Content andLanguage of Overall Content Composition Holistic impression 4.90 1.78 5.94 2.01 Development 5.29 1.91 6.38 2.05 Sophistication 4.89 1.95 4.99 2.20
0 3ct
Compr
0i
H 0
Chinese (n = 80) M SD Korean (n = 78) M SD
7 1
8 1
areona scaleof 1 to 10.The scalealwaysmovesf Note:The ratings bythemeans represented themore therating, andviceversa. negative
TABLE4 Overa for Testfor ofRatings Duncan's Comparison Multiple Range Composition Chinese Korean
a
Constant 5.63 6.28
Overall R2 .70 .73
Root MSEa
MS
1.25 1.27
1. 1
MSE = meanstandard error. * a = .05.
TABLE5 ofErrors Order inChinese Rank Student's Comp
Error
Error type
-4 ... it is theChinesewayofbeingpolite-bydenying their Lexical that

O
... when someone appreciatea Chinese person'soutlook Lexical orthoughtfulness... belonging
4.1 (1
aregood... belongs However,even these Chinese still have that the cultural Article to a certain background degree. their aregoodorappredable. that Lexical belongs ... bydenying theChinese are very related to therelative and Finally, closely peoplecompared toother races. surrounding ... someone ... when appreciate ... he may notaccept bythesociety. Lexical Verb-agreement Verb-passive Logicalconnector Verb-auxiliary
4.4 (2 6.8 (5 6.0 (3 6.1 (4 7.3 (6 8.1
(1
0 C Hp
The modemChinese in are not as strongly boundto tradition totheancient Chinese. respect Thisis especially whodidnotborn inChina. true ofthose
7.6 (8
8.8 (13
rtT 0
friends once ask me whythe main Verb-tense/aspect ... one of myAmerican character in a Chinese wouldnotran away from home story when hisfamily himtomarry toforce a girl he doesnotlike try ornever meet. When a Chinese finds that there aresomething with Verb-agreement person wrong hisfriend ... I should I mentioned are Discourse cohesion two saytheexamples ofthe points first commonly found. He haslost hisroot is something theChinese androot wouldnever Wordform change. ... theChinese intheUnited States is inareased ... population Verb-auxiliary
8.7 (1
z
H 0
8.8 (1
7.5 (7
8.1 (9 8.8 (1 ... standards 9.1 Possessive ... theCbinese's (1 He haslost hisroot issomething androot theChinese never Verb--tense/aspect 8.6 would change. (1 There wasa large number ofChinese whoimmigrated to theWest Nonreferential 9.2 Coast... There (1
Note:C = comprehensibility; A = acceptability; I = irritation; Overall= thecombined means belowthemeans theerror's rank-ordered The lowerth parentheses represent placement.
--4
according to the overall means. The rank order of each errorfor each language variable is also indicated in parenthesesbelow the The patternthatemerged shows thatlexical errors mean ratings. in the compositionwere judged to be the most seriouserrortype. Of thefivemostseriouserrors, fourwere lexical errors and one was the single article error.No otherdiscerniblepatternof orderby error type was found. Of the seven verb errors,for example, two were ratedtowardthenegativeend of thescale, threetowardthemiddle, and two toward the positiveend. Table 6 shows the rank order of errorsin the Korean student's composition. Again, the lexical errorswere considered the most serious, followed by one of the three article errors. It is also to note thatthedouble negativeerror(They wouldn'tget interesting error,even thoughhighlycompreacceptable and most irritating hensible (8.77 on the 10-pointscale). Field by Professorial ComparisonofRatings The thirdresearch question asked whetheror not professorsin sciences exhibitedthe the physical sciences and humanities/social same or similar patternsin theirjudgmentsof the compositions. This questionwas answeredby meansof severalmultiple regression analyses performed with the SAS program. The first analysis examined the overall ratings of content (holistic impression, development, sophistication) and language (comprehensibility, in the physicalsciences and by professors acceptability,irritation) differenceamong sciences. The one significant humanities/social the six variables was language acceptability. Professorsin the physical sciences rated the acceptability of the language of the lower thandid those in the humanities/ compositionssignificantly social sciences. The second and third analyses examined the ratings of the differences in thetwo compositionsforsignificant individualerrors between the two groups of professors.In the Chinese student's composition, a clearly delineated pattern appeared. Of the 51 variables (17 sentences with errorsand three 10-pointscales for all in the same direction: difference, each), 12 showed a significant lower Professorsin the physical sciences rated the 12 significantly sciences. Of the 12, 10 were thandid those in the humanities/social and 2 forcomprehensibility. forirritation The results for the ratings of errors in the Korean student's compositionwere less clear-cut.Of the 36 variables (12 sentences with errors and three 10-point scales for each), 11 showed a
80 TESOL QUARTERLY
nowhere unless they used a translator) ranked as the least
significantdifference for the two groups of professors. Five variables, all for language acceptability,were rated lower by the humanities/socialscience professors,despite the fact that these were thesame professors who had ratedtheoveralllanguage of the compositions significantly higher for acceptability than had the physical science professors.On the otherhand, 6 variables, 5 for and 1 for irritation, were rated significantly comprehensibility lower by the physicalscience professors. Based on theseresults, two generalizations mightbe made. First, by certain only professorsin the physical sciences were irritated errors. science professors exhibiteda Second, thehumanities/social remarkabledegree of tolerancein theirratings.Of the 93 variables in the Chinese (6 foroverall contentand language,51 forthe errors student'scomposition,and 36 in the Korean student's),theyrated lower-less acceptable-than did their only 5 errorssignificantly colleagues in the physicalsciences. Factorsin Professors' Significant Ratings The fourth researchquestion asked what factorsmightaccount for the professors' ratings. This question was answered by a stepwise multipleregression performing analysis;the ratingsfor overallcontentand language of thecompositions were regressedon the itemson the questionnaire thatthe professors completed. Two itemsproved to be significant: age and nativelanguage. The age of the professors was a significant factorin theratings of one variable: the degree of irritation aroused by the language of the compositions.The older professors in displayed a lower degree of irritation theirratingsthan did the youngerprofessors. For nativelanguage, the32 NNS professors rated theacceptability of thelanguage of the lower thandid the 126 NS professors. compositionssignificantly DISCUSSION In brief,thisstudyyielded the following results: The language of the essays written by the two NNS studentswas rated higherthan the content;therankorderof errors in the compositions, according to the professors' was (fromhighestto lowest) comprehenratings, and acceptability; the errortype consideredmost irritation, sibility, serious was the lexical error;humanities/social science professors tended to be more lenient in theirjudgments than did physical science professors;and two variables-age and native languagewere significant in the professors'ratingsof some aspect of the language, but not of the content. The older professorsrated
Go to
TABLE6 inKorean Student's Rank Order ofErrors Compo
Error
Error type
in the willsee that thesame tone also Lexical whichflown language They theculture. through flows most Lexical butarebelief which inKorea arevarious, beliefs ... religious Koreansstillbelievein is a pledge that they give to their ancestors. taste ofvegetables. ... a hotand chilly Lexical
6. (3
6.9 (4
6.1
(1
H 0-i ri H
tasteof Article but a hot and chilly mayfinda nothing Foreigners vegetables. Double negative unless useda translator. wouldn't they getnowhere They
7.9 (5 8. (9
tn
C)
cin
Koreans doesnotfollow Buddhism ... Today, many anymore
Verb-agreement
z W
0 0I
C>
theKorean hae beenoriginated morethan five Verb-passive First, language thousand years. There arethree intheKorean that a stranger Lexical culture unique things an outer from notunderstand ... region... may Thesethree ofKorean ... aretheunique andvery Article culture aspects to most Koreans. important Thesethoughts bandeddownmore than five thousand years. Verb-passive A stranger wouldnotbe frustrated ... ifbel/her these Pronoun understood from thebeginning. things arethree There intheKorean a stranger Article culture that unique things an outer from ... may notunderstand andmay leadhim region orhertoa frustration.
8.9 (10 8.4 (7 6.4 (2 8.5 (8 8.4
(6
9.0 (12 9.0 (11
Note:C = comprehensibility; A = acceptability; I = irritation; o means Overall= thecombined belowthemeans theerror's th rank-ordered The lower parentheses represent placement.
the languageless irritating thandid the younger and professors, those who were themselves NNSs gave lower ratingsto the ofthelanguage. acceptability The findings forseveral oftheresearch seemto lead to questions the conclusionthat professors are willingto look beyond the deficiencies of language in thewriting to thecontent oftheseNNS students. This conclusionwould account for the fact that the contentof the essays was rated significantly lower than the in the essays That the errors considered the language. professors but nonetheless higher linguistically unacceptable gavesignificantly to thelanguagethanto thecontent were also suggests they ratings and bothwilling and able tomakea distinction between thecontent of theseNNS students. Putanother way,it languageof thewriting is a markof their tolerance thatalthough errors as theyregarded stilljudgedcontent theprofessors and linguistically unacceptable, to the extentthat this was possible. language independently, seemsnotto have been possiblewiththeerror However,this type considered themost It is precisely with this serious: thelexical error. of error that on when the type language impinges directly content; is word the is to be obscured. used, meaning very wrong likely It is also worth notingthat althoughthe physical science rated the overalllanguageof the essays significantly professors than and were did thehumanities/social lower scienceprofessors ofthe did notratethecontent moreirritated errors, by certain they didthehumanities/social science lowerthan This, professors. essays makea distinction that theposition too,seemstosupport professors toward of their attitude and language, betweencontent regardless in thelanguage. errors of their toseparate tried these The factthat judgments professors contentand language may be a measure of theirtolerance; are is also possible. Professors however,anotherinterpretation the thefactthat and have cometo accept,ifnotappreciate, realists NS students-will NNS all too of often, students-and, writing of languageand thatit would onlybe errors containnumerous forthem. to downgrade and probably futile, heavily punitive, The fact that the double negativeerror(They wouldn'tget rankedas both the least nowhereunlesstheyused a translator) errorin the Korean student's acceptable and most irritating composition, despite its being completely comprehensible, hereis a It seemsclearthatthereaction deserves specialmention. a one and is undoubtedly social rather thana strictly linguistic native as well lesseducated toward from attitudes transfer speakers
education. as attitudes ingrainedafteryearsof prescriptive
84 TESOL QUARTERLY
that ofthetwofactors theimplications Whenconsidering proved of two of the three in the professors' to be significant ratings to explanation seemslessamenable theone that variables, language theolderprofessors wereless is age. It seemscounterintuitive that irritated by the languageof the essays than were the younger Yeta similar result was found (1984) byVannandMeyer professors. in verbform, of errors in their secondstudy of professors' ratings and spelling. to The olderprofessors articles, gave higher ratings One can only those errorsthan did the youngerprofessors. as be so; forexample, professors, perhaps whythis might speculate in their of realistic become more become older, expectations they and thus moretolerant. students' performance for availableexplanation, Thereseemsto be a readily however, ratedthelanguageof theessaysas less whythe NNS professors NNS professors have acceptable than did the NS professors: in Englishand, attainedan extremely highlevel of proficiency in the language, investment of effort because of their judge the NNSs moreseverely do NS professors. than errors ofother IMPLICATIONS PEDAGOGICAL seem to make a in particular-that Two findings professors are lexicalerrors and that distinction content and language between The considered themostserious-havepedagogicalimplications. as a process first thecurrent writing approachtoteaching supports NNS students of planning, need and editing. revising, composing, in theareasthat mostdirectly affect to improve their skills content, theirideas and such as organizing, and supporting developing, and are the areas that are the attention these arguments, given most the by process approach. In addition, unitson vocabulary and lexical however, building selectionshould be incorporated into an ESL writing course. in to academic has tended be the Vocabulary neglected component ESL courses,but the results of thisstudyindicatethatthisarea This could be done in severalways: deservescloser attention. theuse of vocabulary suchas cloze and wordexercises, through formexercises; students to keep a vocabulary through requiring notebook based on theirreadingsand lectures;and through ontheimportance or oflexical selection and theelicitation emphasis of synonymous formsof expression.Moreover, presentation textbooks thatdeal withvocabulary foracademicpurposes would be valuablesupplements to texts on academicwriting. This studyhas attempted to incorporate the majoraspectsof error evaluation in general-that the notions of comprehensibilis,
85
and ratingsof errorsat sentence ity,acceptability,and irritation,

and discourse level-while at the same time examining issues specific to the academic setting-that is, the content/language distinction and significantfactors in professors' ratings. Such research offersmany benefitsto both applied linguistsand ESL instructors of the typesof errorsin by adding to our understanding thatare consideredthemostseriousby professors who read writing the writing of NNS students.
ACKNOWLEDGMENTS
This is an expandedversion of a paper presented TESOL at the 20thAnnual original manuscript.
in Anaheim, Convention 1986.I wouldliketo thank March Marianne CelceofUCLAfor comments onthe andLeigh Burstein their Murcia, Mary McGroarty,
THE AUTHOR
intheEnglish at California State is an assistant Santos professor Department Terry Los Angeles. University,
REFERENCES Bansal, R.K. (1969). The intelligibility of Indian English.Hyderabad, India:Central Institute ofEnglish and Foreign Languages. D. (1983). The grammar book. Celce-Murcia, M., & Larsen-Freeman, MA: Newbury House. Rowley, of the N.R., & Djordjevi5, D. (1971). The reliability Dimitrijevi6, ofEFL. International ofthepupils'pronunciation assessment subjective ReviewofAppliedLinguistics, 9, 245-265. and communicative G. (1978). A studyof the frequency Guntermann, inSpanish. oferrors effects Modern Journal, 62,249-253. Language S. (1978). Native reactions to errors Johansson, producedby Swedish learnersof English(Gothenburg Studiesin English44). Goteborg, Sweden:ActaUniversitatis Gothoburgensis. learners' ofsecond-language J.(1982).Native-speaker judgments Ludwig, A review. Modern at communication: efforts 66,274Journal, Language 283. on the errors and syntactic D. (1984).The effect McGirt, ofmorphological holisticscores of nativeand non-native Unpublished compositions. Los Angeles. ofCalifornia, master's thesis, University
86 TESOL QUARTERLY
Olsson, M. (1973). The effectsof different types of errorsin the In J. Svartvik communication situation. (Ed.), Errata:Papersin error Lund,Sweden:Gleerup. analysis (pp. 153-160). New York: inbehavioral research. E. Pedhazur, (1982).Multiple regression and Winston. Holt,Rinehart Santos, T. (1984). Markedness theory and error evaluation: An of California, University manuscript, experimental Unpublished study. Los Angeles. in English. Secord,M. (1978).A categorization oftransitional expressions Los Angeles. ofCalifornia, master's thesis, University Unpublished Sheorey,R., & Ward, M.A. (1984, March). Using non-ESL teachers' in correcting ESL compositions. Paper of errorgravity perceptions Houston. TESOL Convention, at the18th Annual presented errors and communication breakTomiyama,M. (1980). Grammatical down.TESOL Quarterly, 14,71-79. D.E. (1984, A study Error & Meyer, Vann, offaculty March). gravity: R.J., at the 18thAnnual phase 2. Paper presented opinionof ESL errors, TESOL Convention, Houston. A study F.O. (1984).Error of Vann,R.J., D.E., & Lorenz, gravity: Meyer, 427-440. ESL errors. TESOL of 18, faculty opinion Quarterly, APPENDIX A Instructions to theStudents and Composition Topic Write a 350-to500-word on thetopicbelow.Youwillhave composition inwhich 75 minutes toplanand write theessay.You should payparticular attention to the content, and grammar. and organization, Vocabulary also should be taken into account. punctuation Composition Topic There are things which are unique to each cultureand which an finds to understand. Thislack of understanding difficult "outsider" may lead to frustration, or a lack ofappreciation of thevaluesof the conflict, culture. Findthree aboutyour culture which other things youbelievemost not understand and whichcause themto get a distorted people might a unified Write impression. essayin whichyou explaintheseaspectsof to outsiders, so that willnotmisinterpret whatthey see yourculture they and mayavoidconflicts. APPENDIX B Written Composition by ChineseStudent (Phase 1) Chinese is culture not well understood Generally by Western people; thatChinese's standard of value and relation withpeople are theythink hardto understand and strange. Therewas a largenumber of relatively
three decadesago. Today, to thecoastarea ofAmerica Chinese migrated in down town,called Chineseform a smallcommunity in Los Angeles, most still intheUnited Stateis increased; Chinese ChinaTown.Althought, Chinese well. do notunderstood American is notthesame others attitude towards I found theChinese's Personally as mostWestern people. WhenChinesefindsthatthereare something oftheir orthey do notliketheattitude with their friend friend, they wrong itis disgusting. aboutitunless orcompliant wouldnotmention Sometimes, than friend avoidthat wouldrather takeit,they cannot evenifthey really a make compliant. is hard that cultural there someother Besidestheabove point, practices For example,when someoneappreciatea to understand by outsiders. whathe and telltheperson or thoughtfulness outlook belonging person's itis just not or all" at is not "it theperson "No, really, good feels, mayreply to some rude This be is Chinese. if the by people dening may person fine", their is Chinese's butthis other's wayofbeingpoliteby denying opinion; others. and itdoesnotmeantoreject is good or appreciable, belongs and surrounding to therelative Chineseis verycloselyrelated Finally, ofmyAmerican one once For races. to other instance, people comparing ran in a Chinesestory ask me whywould notthemaincharacter friend he does a girl himtomarry toforce homewhenhisfamily tring awayfrom elderis highly notlikeor nevermeet.Thisis because in Chinesesociety the andmarry if he runs And the elder. must one and away obey respected, his and lost has He the not he root, he society. by loves, accept may girl their lifefor. wouldchange Chinese acient rootis something to the inrespect to theothers related is notso strongly Chinese Modern acientChinese.EspeciallythoseChinesewho did not born in China. level. toa certain thecultural havethat still HoweverChinese background found. is commonly I mentioned twopoints offirst I should sayexample APPENDIX C Written (Phase 1) by KoreanStudent Composition from a stranger that culture intheKorean Thereare three uniquethings to a them lead and not understand or other outer may may country region or the beliefs and the are These three food, frustration. language, things culture. the Korean to are which unique religions morethan 5,000 have been originated Firstof all,theKoreanlanguage or Outsiders the whole culture. years.Language itselfmay represent in or in frustration find him/her-self Korea are who may visiting foreigners that get becauseoflanguage Theywouldn't can'tunderstand. conflict they As theyhearmoreand moreof unlesstheycall thetranslator. nowhere in all same tone are speaking Koreans think Koreanlanguagetheymay is like culture the Korean that find a stranger Soon after is true. which may in the flown thesametonewhich itself. He/shewillsee that thelanguage theculture. flowthru language
88 TESOL QUARTERLY
The Koreanfoodsaremostly madeup ofthevegetables. A foreigner or visitor a nothing buta hotandchilly taste ofvegetables. It doesn't mayfind It is a history which meanthatall of theKoreanare vegetarians. explains how come eatinga meat become our least need. The Koreansuse to believethebuddhism which was thenational In Buddhism religion. killing or eating an animal was a crime. Thesethoughts handeddownmorethan a 5,000years. In these Koreans does notfollow itanymore but daysmany willnotsee anymeaton thedining still a forigner tableexcept vegetables. The third and lastof all,religion or belief in Koreaare various butare beliefwhich most oftheKoreans still believes is a pledgethat giveto they theirancestors. They (Koreans)pick one day froma year-and they forthat whenthey prepare verycarefully day.Theybelievethat prepare all foodsand drinks andpray, all oftheir ancestor whodiedwillcomeeat and drink and enjoy.These beliefmaybe strange and unpleasant to an butitis a very outsiders to most Koreans. important Thesethree kinds ofculture, andbeliefs aretheunique foods, language, and veryimportant to manyKoreans. A stranger or an outsider would understand ifhe/her tried to understand itfrom very easily beginning. APPENDIX D Corrected Versionof Partially ChineseStudent's (Phase 2) Composition the Chinese is culture not well understood Generally, by Western think that theChinese's with people; they standards, values,and relations and relatively hardto understand. Therewas a large people are strange of Chinesewho immigrated number to theWestCoast ofAmerica three decades ago. Today in Los Angeles theChinese form a smallcommunity inthedowntown areacalledChinatown. theChinese Although population in theUnitedStatesis increased, mostAmericans still do notunderstand theChinese well. I havefound that theChinese attitude towards others is not Personally, thesameas that ofmost Western When a Chinese finds that people. person there are something with hisfriend, orhe does notliketheattitude wrong of hisfriend, he wouldnotmention it or complain aboutitunlessit was ifhe really cannot takeit,he wouldrather Sometimes, avoid disgusting. that friend than complain. Besidestheabove point, there are someother cultural that are practices hardforoutsiders to understand. For example, whensomeone appreciate a Chinese outlook orthoughtfulness andtells theperson person's belonging how he feels,thepersonmayreply, "It is notgood at all,"or "No, not it is justfine." This mayseem rudeto some people,but it is the really, Chineseway of beingpolite-by denying thattheir belongsare good or It is notmeant to reject others. appreciable. Finally,the Chinese are very closely related to the relativeand
89
surrounding people compared to other races. For instance,one of my

in a Chinese American friends once ask me whythemaincharacter story himto marry homewhenhisfamily to force wouldnotranawayfrom try Thisis becauseinChinese a girl he does notlikeornever meet. the society If he ranaway and and one must eldersare highly respected, obeythem. he loved,he maynotacceptby thesociety. He haslosthis married thegirl theChinese wouldnever rootand rootis something change. inrespect arenotas strongly boundto tradition The modemChinese to Chinese.Thisis especially trueof thosewho did notbornin theancient China. However, even these Chinese still have that the cultural to a certain ofthefirst two degree.I should saytheexamples background I mentioned arecommonly found. points APPENDIX E Corrected Versionof Partially
intheKorean culture that a stranger from Thereare three uniquethings and maylead him or another an outer country maynotunderstand region are thelanguage, thefood,and Thesethree or herto a frustration. things which are all uniqueto theKorean culture. thereligious beliefs, more than five First,the Korean language have been originated the whole culture. thousand may represent years.The languageitself becausethey frustrated orconfused themselves to Koreamayfind Visitors unlessthey the language.They wouldn't can't understand get nowhere As they hearmoreand moreof thelanguage, used a translator. they may think all Koreansare speakingin the same tone,whichis true.Soon, is likethelanguage itself. that theKoreanculture They mayfind strangers inthelanguage also flows flown willsee that thesametonewhich through theculture. madeup ofvegetables. Foreigners may Second,Koreanfoodis mostly Thisdoes notmean ofvegetables. taste buta hotand chilly a nothing find meatis Our history thatall Koreansare vegetarians. whyeating explains which was once usedto believeinBuddhism, forus. Koreans unnecessary an animal was a crime. oreating In Buddhism, thenational killing religion. five thousand handeddownmorethan Thesethoughts Today,many years. willnot still but foreigners Koreansdoes notfollowBuddhism anymore, see anymeaton thetable,onlyvegetables. which inKoreaarevarious, butarebelief beliefs Third andlast, religious ancestors. to their still believein is a pledgethat mostKoreans they give and prepare ancestors their The Koreans pickone day each yearto honor foodand whenthey forthat prepare day.Theybelievethat carefully very and willcome to eat,drink, ancestors and thenpray,all of their drinks, is but it to sound This belief themselves. outsiders, very strange may enjoy to mostKoreans. important These threeaspectsof Koreanculture-language, food,and religious A stranger to mostKoreans. beliefs-are theuniqueand veryimportant thesethings if he/her understood or confused would not be frustrated thebeginning. from
90 TESOL QUARTERLY
Korean Student's (Phase2) Composition

Proessors Reactions To Essays of Non Native Speakers

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Description:

Original Title

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

Proessors Reactions To Essays of Non Native Speakers

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

Teachers of English to Speakers of Other Languages, Inc.

TESOL QUARTERLY, Vol.22, No. 1, March1988

to the Reactions Professors' AcademicWriting of Students Nonnative-Speaking

students:(a) does not correcterrors and does not downgrade them,

Chinese (n = 80) M SD Korean (n = 78) M SD

Constant 5.63 6.28

Overall R2 .70 .73

MSE = meanstandard error. * a = .05.

TABLE5 ofErrors Order inChinese Rank Student's Comp

-4 ... it is theChinesewayofbeingpolite-bydenying their Lexical that

... when someone appreciatea Chinese person'soutlook Lexical orthoughtfulness... belonging

4.4 (2 6.8 (5 6.0 (3 6.1 (4 7.3 (6 8.1

nowhere unless they used a translator) ranked as the least

TABLE6 inKorean Student's Rank Order ofErrors Compo

Koreans doesnotfollow Buddhism ... Today, many anymore

8.9 (10 8.4 (7 6.4 (2 8.5 (8 8.4

9.0 (12 9.0 (11

and ratingsof errorsat sentence ity,acceptability,and irritation,

surrounding people compared to other races. For instance,one of my

Korean Student's (Phase2) Composition

You might also like