Cultural differences in writing

Abstract

V ariation in the organisation of writing across cultures has been studied from a cross-linguistic perspective, particularly over the last two decades. Some key work in this area includes the work of Givon (1983), who developed a quantitative model for cross-language discourse analysis to measure topic continuity (thematic, action and topics/participants continuity) in discourse; and the pioneering work of Kaplan (1972; see also Kaplan 1988; Connor & Kaplan 1987) in the area known as contrastive discourse analysis (also known as contrastive rhetoric). In this chapter, we will examine some of the research based on Kaplan's approach, including Hinds (1980) on Japanese, Eggington (1987) on Korean, and some of Clyne's work on academic texts with specific reference to English and German (Clyne 1980, 1987; Clyne & Kreutz 1987). LINEARITY: A KEY PRINCIPLE OF ENGLISH WRITTEN DISCOURSE Kaplan (1972) contrasted various discourse types with the linear structure of English writing, most typically exemplified in English expository prose. Clyne (1987) reports on a small study he conducted on the expectations of expository discourse patterns in English and German based on (a) English and German essay-writing manuals, and (b) one set of upper secondary school assignments, each (in three subjects) from different Australian and West German schools, together with marks and teachers' comments. He reports that the following expectations of discourse could be deduced for English but not for German: Essay form is essential for most upper secondary school assignments. (This does not apply to the United States, where the big composition thrust is in the first year of tertiary education.) […]