Basic English Writing:
An Experimental Course Structure
Against Semantic Misinterpretation
In Undergraduate Student Writing
Fan-yu In, Feng Chia University, TaiwanHui-Chuan Liao, National Kaohsiung University of Applied Sciences, Taiwan
ABSTRACT
Course designs for Basic English Writing classes vary from one course to another. The objective of this study was to investigate the semantic misinterpretation of English words found in the English compositions written by native-Chinese-speaking undergraduate students and to overcome if such a barrier occurred in the process of writing. First, this study made use of both linguistic and literary theories in an attempt of exemplifying the existence of the translation and semantic misinterpretation adopted by undergraduate students when writing in English. This hypothesis could be proved by the detached relation between the sign and the referent, or in Saussure’s terminology, between the signifier and the signified, in particular in translating from Chinese into English. This study included an experimental course structure, which consisted of some feasible teaching methods. These methods were applied to Basic English Writing classes investigated in the present study. They were dictionary-consulting activities, team discussions (brainstorming as a team), sentence-making activities in which signal words were used, and team writing activities, in order to improve the student’s writing skills and his or her vocabulary size. Test instruments included a pretest (pre-class questionnaires) and a posttest (a midterm writing test). Targeted students were Chinese non-English majors taking Basic English Writing (BEW) classes. The students in the treatment group performed better in the posttest than those in the control group. Moreover, the students, who failed to get into the habit of consulting English dictionaries, did not perform better than those consistently consulting English dictionaries. It seems that the experimental course structure may facilitate university students’ learning of how to write in English.
Keywords: English writing, course structure, semantic misinterpretation, text analysis, t-test
INTRODUCTION
ourse designs for Basic English Writing classes vary from one course to another as well as from one teacher to another. Besides the above two variables, students who take the Basic English Writing classes can form another variable. In other words, the students with different backgrounds and in different fields may need the aid of a reformed course structure. English writing classes at some universities are offered to all students without regard to which year the student is in. Except for that consideration, students‘ fields may need to be taken into consideration. Therefore, with a mix of the students in different fields and in different years at university, the course structure designed for Basic English Writing (BEW) classes may need to cater for a wide range of students.
In light of variables in writing, Hinkel (1994) asserted that ―Written texts represent a convergence of different stylistic, cultural, religious, ethical, and social notions, all of which comprise written discourse notions and
frameworks‖ (p. 353). Hinkel‘s assertion comprehensively covers most variables in written texts. To nonnative-English-speaking students, especially native-Chinese-speaking undergraduate students in this study, when they write in English, they tend to first be stuck in the use of words and then in the stylistic, cultural, religious, ethical, and social differences between Chinese and English.
In general, the participants in BEW classes are beginning writers. In addition, to the non-native-English writers, English writing has been a disconcerting subject. On the one hand they recognize the importance of learning how to write in good English. On the other hand, they have a hesitation in starting to write. Their hesitations mostly originate from two reasons. First, they have learned a limited number of English words. Second, they are used to thinking in Chinese when they write in a second language. In short, the first reason has a connection to the linguistic signs, while the second reason involves the translation from Chinese to English in writing. Their translation, however, results in semantic misinterpretation of English words that are chosen in the process of translating from Chinese to English. Research has shown that there are variables in written texts. In terms of vocabulary, seven studies found that L2 writers exhibited more anxiety and difficulty with vocabulary (Arndt, 1987; Dennett, 1985; Krapels 1990; Moragne e Silva, 1991; Silva, 1993; Skibniewski, 1988; Yau, 1989). As for the translation in writing, Bernardini (2003) in her study of translation and language teaching suggested the foreign culture in translation; for example, the perception English writers have of Italian culture as exhibited by the Italian expressions in English fiction. This feature belongs to professional translation. Besides, professional translation acts as a medium between a text and an expected reader and then explicates the meaning of the former to the latter (In, 2005). In the compositions of BEW students, on the contrary, the signs of unskilled translation are perceivable. Hinkel (1994) cited Matalene (1985) that ―her Chinese students‘ writing in English closely adhered to the classical Chinese writing tradition‖ (p. 354). In other words, the culture of source language (Newmark, 1988), i.e., Chinese, remains in the basic-level English writing by means of unskilled translation, which often results in semantic misinterpretation of target language, i.e., English. This is what I found in my Chinese student‘s English compositions, in which a shadow of Chinese writing tradition and their translation of thoughts in Chinese could be easily perceived in their midterm assignments during a semester. Matalene‘s study, asserting the unity between writer and reader promoted by brief images with the aid of Chinese writing tradition, might bring out a question. In terms of basic-level English texts written by Chinese undergraduate participants, the unity between the writer and reader was scarcely achieved because of unskilled writing (Raimes, 1985). Instead, Chinese writing tradition and the unskilled translation of Chinese thoughts barred the beginning writers from accustoming themselves to learning English writing skills.
This study, therefore, included some classroom activities for experiment. In addition to lectures, the experiments of conducting both individual and interactive learning activities, including dictionary-consulting activities, team discussion activities, sentence-making activities, and team writing activities in this study, may help non-English majors learn basic writing skills, such as creating the text‘s main idea (Arnaudet & Barrett, 1984; Leki, 1989; Raimes, 1983, 1992; Reid, 1988), including specific and explicit details or facts to support the main idea (Arnaudet & Barrett, 1984; Raimes, 1983, 1992; Reid, 1988) and at the end of the composition showing the writer‘s positions on the topic (Leki, 1989; Raimes, 1992; Reid, 1988; Zamel, 1982). In short, these basic writing skills can be summarized in three terms: topic sentence, supporting sentences, and concluding sentence (Blanchard & Root, 2003; Fellag, 2002; Watkins, Dillingham, & Hiers 2001).
With regard to the use of English dictionaries, a warning from Morton and Biber about a reader‘s common application of Oxford English Dictionary may be pragmatic for teachers to remind their students. Basically, the entries in the Oxford English Dictionary relied on the choice of the readers happened to notice; and dictionary makers found that readers generally paid more attention to unusual uses of words than common ones (Biber, 2000; Morton, 1994). This warning was included in the lectures and dictionary-consulting activities in this study. Moreover, learning lexical sets such as antonyms and synonyms may help students learn vocabulary (Channell, 1981; Neuner, 1992); however, learning related words is not a good method for initial learning (Nation 2000). This suggestion was made in the sentence-making activities and team writing activities. Skibniewski and Skibniewska (1986) found that L2 writers spent more time consulting a dictionary. Nation (2000, 2001) suggested that consulting a dictionary is a strategy that helps beginning writers tackle the difficulty with vocabulary and learn L2 vocabulary.
Beginning writers will have the opportunity to overcome their problem of the use of words if they choose to resort to such reliable dictionaries as Oxford English Dictionary and Collins Cobuild English Dictionary. In order to upgrade from beginning to intermediate level, beginning writers can resort to English dictionaries when producing written texts.
In language acquisition1 (Biber, Conrad, & Reppen, 2000), in particular a second language (L2) acquisition by university students, this study employed the idea suggested by Biber, Conrad and Reppen that was to investigate the compositions of native-Chinese-speaking writers. Instead of investigating the frequency of errors in the writing of L2 students, this study analyzed the frequency of occurrence of designated lexico-grammar features, such as the uses of intransitive verb phrases, or phrasal verbs as defined by Garderner & Davies (2007), wh-relative clauses (Biber, Conrad, & Reppen, 2000), and text connectives (Blanchard & Root, 2003; Connor, 1994; In, 2006; Watkins, Dillingham, & Hiers, 2001) in basic-level writing. The intransitive verb phrases, wh-relative clauses, and text connectives were taught and practiced in lectures, dictionary-consulting activities, team discussion activities, sentence-making activities, and team writing activities.
The study employed a pretest-and-posttest design in order to evaluate the progress of the participants‘ learning during the first half of this study. The participants were given a pretest, which was a pre-class questionnaire composed of background questions (Cohen, 1993) and lexico-grammar questions (see Appendix A). The pre-class questionnaire helped the participants demonstrate how they learn English. For example, had they got into the habit of consulting English dictionaries? To be precise, most students are familiar with such words as which, in, or at, but they do not know how to use them or they partly know how to use them. In that case, those words are hence seen incomplete to them because they lack the habit of looking up words in a dictionary when they choose them to write. The result of using a word without knowing how to use it is often a grammatically incorrect or badly constructed sentence. In the Saussurean structure the negative phenomenon can be explicated in this way that the signifier is entirely or partly detached from the signified. To further discuss the negative-positive phenomenon in language, Saussure (1992) had made clear that ―the statement that everything in language is negative is true only if the signified and the signifier are considered separately; when we consider the sign (composed of the signified and the signifier) in its totality, we have something that is positive in its own class‖ (p. 723).
The above research has found and elucidated the barriers that beginning writers may confront when they write in English. This study explored these barriers from a linguistic angle and also found the relationship between writing and language acquisition. Besides, there was an attempt in this study to further describe the participants‘ semantic misinterpretation by means of Saussure‘s, Lacan‘s, Derrida‘s, and Eagleton‘s theories. Saussure (1992) noted that ―The bond between the signifier and the signified is arbitrary‖ (p. 719). Arbitrariness means that the signifier has no natural connection with the signified. In the movement of signification, the signified is attached to the signifier in an arbitrary way. In Eagleton‘s (1996) interpretation of Saussure‘s view of sign, he affirmed that ―there is no fixed distinction between signifiers and signifieds‖ (p. 111). Derrida (1992) in his ―Structure, Sign and Play in the Discourse of the Human Sciences‖ explicated the floating2 relation between signifier and signified in light of center versus supplement3 as well as presence and absence. To continue Saussure‘s linguistic science, Lacan (2001) introduced an algorithm: S/s, ―which is read as: the signifier over the signified, ‗over‘ corresponding to the bar separating the two stages‖ (p. 1292). Instead of placing emphasis simply on the distinction or difference4
1
Biber, Conrad, and Reppen (2000) divide the research in language acquisition into three major areas: ―1. the first-language acquisition of very young children; 2. latter language development, such as the acquisition of literacy skills, by students at various stages; 3. second language acquisition, by children and adults (p. 172).
2
Jacques Derrida writes on the floating relation that ―The movement of signification adds something, which results in the fact that there is always more, but this addition is a floating one because it comes to perform a vicarious function, to supplement a lack on the part of the signified‖ (p. 1123).
3
According to Jacques Derrida, ―One cannot determine the center and exhaust totalization because the sign which replaces the center, which supplements it, taking the center‘s place in its absence—the sign is added, occurs as surplus, as a supplement‖ (p. 1123).
4
REFERENCES
1. Arnaudet, M., & Barrett, M. E. (1984). Approaches to academic reading and writing. Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice Hall.
2. Arndt, V. (1987). Six writers in search of texts: A protocol-based study of L1 and L2 writing. ELT Journal,
41(4), 257-266.
3. Bernardini, S. (2003). Designing a corpus for translation and language teaching: The CEXI experience.
TESOL Quarterly, 37(3), 528-537.
4. Biber, D., Conrad, S., & Reppen, R. (2000). Corpus linguistics: Investigating language structure and use. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
5. Blanchard, K., & Root, C. (2003). Ready to write: A first composition text. New York: Longman. 6. Bloom, A. (1981). The linguistic shaping of thought. Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum.
7. Channell, J. (1981). Applying semantic theory to vocabulary teaching. ELT Journal, 35, 115-122. 8. Cohen, D. (1993). The Production of Speech Acts by EFL Learners. TESOL Quarterly, 27, 33-56.
9. Connor, U. (1990). Linguistic/rhetorical measures for international student persuasive writing. Research in
the Teaching of English, 24, 67-87.
10. Connor, U. (1994). Text analysis. TESOL Quarterly, 28(4), 682-684.
11. Dennett, J. (1985). Writing technical English: A comparison of the process of native English and native Japanese speakers. Dissertation Abstracts International, 46(11), 3257A.
12. Derrida, J. (1992). Structure, sign and play in the discourse of the human sciences. In H. Adams (Ed.),
Critical theory since Plato (pp. 1117-1126). Orlando, FL: University of Washington.
13. Eagleton, T. (1996). Literary theory: An introduction. Oxford: Blackwell.
14. Fellag, R. (2002). Write ahead: skills for academic success. New York: Longman.
15. Ferris, D. (1994). Lexical and Syntactic Features of ESL Writing by Students at Different Levels of L2 Proficiency. TESOL Quarterly, 28(2), 414-420.
16. Flower, L. (1984). Writer-based prose: A cognitive basis for problems in writing. In S. Mckay (Ed.),
Composing in a second language (pp. 16-42). Rowley, MA: Newbury House.
17. Gardner, D., & Davies, M. (2007). Pointing out frequent phrasal verbs: A corpus-based analysis. TESOL
Quarterly, 41(2), 339-359.
18. Halliday, M. A. K., & Hasan, R. (1976). Cohesion in English. London: Longman.
19. Hinkel, E. (1994). Native and nonnative speakers‘ pragmatic interpretations of English texts. TESOL
Quarterly, 28(2), 353-376.
20. Hintikka, J., & Sandu, G. (1991). On the methodology of linguistics: A case study. Oxford: Basil Blackwell. 21. In, Fan-yu. (2005). Various translation skills. Taipei, Taiwan: Princeton.
22. In, Fan-yu. (2006). Various writing skills. Taipei, Taiwan: Princeton.
23. Krapels, A. (1990). The interaction of first and second language composing: Process and rhetorics.
Dissertation Abstracts International, 51(12), 4045A.
24. Lacan, J. (2001). The agency of the letter in the unconscious. In V. B. Leitch (Ed.), The Norton anthology
of theory and criticism (pp. 1290-1302). New York: Norton.
25. Leki, I. (1989). Academic writing: Techniques and tasks. New York: St. Martin‘s Press.
26. Matalene, C. (1985). Contrastive rhetoric: An American writing teacher in China. College English, 47, 789-807.
27. Memering, D., & O‘Hare, F. (1983). The writer’s work. Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice Hall.
28. Moon, R. (1987). Vocabulary connections: Multi-word items in English. In N. Schmitt & M. McCarthy (Eds.), Vocabulary: Description, acquisition and pedagogy (pp. 40-63). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
29. Moragne e Silva, M. (1991). Cognitive, affective, social, and cultural aspects of composing in a first and second language: A case study of one adult writer. Dissertation Abstracts International, 52(12), 4249A. 30. Morton, C. (1994). The Story of Webster’s Third: Philip Gove’s Controversial Dictionary and its critics.
31. Nation, P. (1989) Dictionaries and language learning. In Learners’ Dictionaries: State of the Art M.L.Tickoo (ed.), RELC Anthology Series 23: 65-71.
32. Nation, P. (2000). Learning vocabulary in lexical sets: Dangers and guidelines. TESOL Journal, 9(2), 6-10. 33. Nation, P. (2001). Learning vocabulary in another language. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. 34. Neuner, G. (1992). The role of experience in a content- and comprehension-oriented approach to learning a
foreign language. In P. J. L. Arnaud & H. Béjoint (Eds.), Vocabulary and applied linguistics (pp. 156-166). London: Macmillan.
35. Newmark, P. (1988). A textbook of translation. New York: Prentice Hall.
36. Raimes, A. (1983). Techniques in teaching writing. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
37. Raimes, A. (1985). What unskilled ESL students do as they write: A classroom study of composing. TESOL
Quarterly, 19, 229-258.
38. Raimes, A. (1992). Exploring through writing (2nd ed.). New York: St. Martin‘s Press. 39. Reid, J. (1988). The process of composition. Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice Hall. 40. Reinhart, T. (1983). Anaphora and Semantic Interpretation. London: Croom Helm.
41. Saussure, F. de. (1992). Course in general linguistics. In H. Adams (Ed.), Critical theory since Plato (pp. 718-726). Orlando, FL: University of Washington.
42. Schmitt, N. (2004). Formulaic sequences: Acquisition, processing and use. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. 43. Silva, T. (1993). Toward an understanding of the distinct nature of L2 writing: The ESL research and its
implications. TESOL Quarterly, 27(4), 657-675.
44. Skibniewski, L. (1988). The writing processes of advanced foreign language learners in their native and foreign languages: Evidence from thinking aloud protocols. Studia Anglica Posnaniensia, 21(3), 177-186. 45. Skibniewski, L., & Skibniewska, M. (1986). Experimental study: The writing process of
intermediate/advanced foreign language learners in their foreign and native languages. Studia Anglica
Posnaniensia, 19(3), 142-163.
46. Strevens, P. (1987). Cultural barriers to language learning. In L. Smith (Ed.), Discourse across cultures (pp. 169-178). Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice Hall.
47. Watkins, F. C., Dillingham, W. B., & Hiers, J. (2001). Practical English handbook. New York: Houghton Mifflin.
48. Wray, A. (2000). Formulaic sequences in second language teaching: Principle and Practice. Applied
Linguistics, 21, 463-489.
49. Wray, A. (2002). Formulaic language and the lexicon. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. 50. Yau, M. (1989, March). A quantitative comparison of L1 and L2 writing processes. Paper presented at the
23rd Annual TESOL Convention, San Antonio, Texas.
APPENDIX A:
Pre-Class Questionnaire
Background
1. Field of study 2. You are a __ freshman (FR), __ sophomore (SO), __ junior (JU), or __ senior (SE). 3. Writing in English in the past and currently:
In the past: frequently sometimes rarely Currently: frequently sometimes rarely
4. Consulting an English dictionary before and after the attendance at BEW classes: Before: frequently sometimes rarely never After: frequently sometimes rarely never
Lexico-grammar
1. Use this relative pronoun, ―which,‖ to make a sentence.
2. Workers who received the wages can survive without worrying about money. Which word(s) below is what the relative pronoun, ―who,‖ in the above sentence signifies?
a. wages b. money c. workers d. survivors
3. Which sentence below is obviously wrong?
a. The teacher is willing to teach a class composed of 20 students. b. The teacher is willing to apply a new position.
c. The teacher is willing to talk with his students.
d. The teacher is willing to remind his students of the exam. 4. Use this adverb, ―recently,‖ to make a sentence.
5. Choose a word from below to complete this conjunctional phrase: for .
e. relevant f. including g. first time h. anything
6. Choose a word from below to complete this phrase: the center. i. between
j. on k. at l. in
APPENDIX B:
Common Signal Words
(Extracts from Various Writing Skills by Fan-yu In) a moment ago
a short time ago about above above all according to accordingly across after after all afterward against all in all all of a sudden also and then another reason anyhow anyway as as a consequence as a consequence of as a matter of course as a matter of fact as a result as a result of as a rule as compared with as for as of as opposed to as per as soon as as to at at any rate at first at last at least at length at most at one time at that rate at the beginning of at the center of at the end of at the moment at the moment of at this rate because before before long behind below beneath beside besides between but by all means by and by by and large by the way concerning consequently conversely during especially even so eventually ever since finally first first of all for for a start for all for example for instance for the most part for the rest from the beginning from the start furthermore generally hence however in in a general sense in a manner in a sense in a way in a word in addition in addition to in all event in all respects in any case in any event in back of in between in brief in comparison with in conclusion in consequence in contrast in contrast to in effect in either event in every sense in every way in fact in front of in general in opposition to in particular in practice in regard to in relation to in reply to in respect of in response to in short in spite of in sum in summary in terms of in the back in the beginning in the case of in the center in the end in the front in the left center in the lower left in the lower right in the matter of in the meantime in the middle of in the right center in the upper left
in the upper right in theory in this regard in view of instead of last but not least last of all lately later later on meanwhile moreover most importantly most of all mostly near nevertheless next next to nonetheless on on account of on average on balance on both sides on the contrary on the end on the grounds of on the left on the left side on the left side of on the one hand on the other hand on the right on the right side on the right side of on the whole on top of one reason one way or another over
over and above overall recently regarding second since
so specifically still subsequently such as thanks to
the most important then third thus to start with to sum up to the left to the left of to the right to the right of under versus whereas while with all with reference to with regard to with respect to yet
