proessors reactions to essays of non native speakers

7/30/2019 Proessors Reactions to Essays of non native speakers

1/23

Teachers of English to Speakers of Other Languages, Inc. (TESOL)

Professors' Reactions to the Academic Writing of Nonnative-Speaking StudentsAuthor(s): Terry SantosSource: TESOL Quarterly, Vol. 22, No. 1 (Mar., 1988), pp. 69-90Published 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 ofcontent 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 [email protected].

.

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 AMAll use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions
http://www.jstor.org/action/showPublisher?publisherCode=tesolhttp://www.jstor.org/stable/3587062?origin=JSTOR-pdfhttp://www.jstor.org/page/info/about/policies/terms.jsphttp://www.jstor.org/page/info/about/policies/terms.jsphttp://www.jstor.org/page/info/about/policies/terms.jsphttp://www.jstor.org/page/info/about/policies/terms.jsphttp://www.jstor.org/page/info/about/policies/terms.jsphttp://www.jstor.org/stable/3587062?origin=JSTOR-pdfhttp://www.jstor.org/action/showPublisher?publisherCode=tesol


2/23

TESOL QUARTERLY, ol.22, No.1,March 988

Professors'eactions otheAcademicWritingfNonnative-SpeakingtudentsTERRY SANTOSCaliforniatateUniversity,osAngeles

Thestudy eportedn this rticlenvestigatedhe eactionsf 178professorso two 400-word ompositions,ne written y aChinese studentand the otherby a Korean student.Theprofessors,6ofwhomwere nthehumanities/socialciences nd82 ofwhomwere nthephysicalciences, ere achasked orateone ofthe wocompositionsn six10-pointcales, hree fwhichfocused on content holistic mpression, evelopment, ndsophistication)and three of which focused on language(comprehensibility,cceptability,nd rritation).heresults ereas follows:a) Content eceived ower atingshan anguage; b)professors ound the errorshighly omprehensible,enerallyunirritating,utacademically nacceptable,with exicalerrorsrated s themost erious;c) professorsnthehumanities/socialsciencesweremore enientntheirudgmentshan rofessorsnthephysical ciences; d) olderprofessors ere ess rritatedyerrorshan ounger rofessors,ndnonnative-speakingrofessorsweremore evere ntheirudgmentshannative peakers. heresults uggest he need forgreater mphasis n vocabularyimprovementnd exical election.Within hepast severalyears, previously nexamined spect oferror valuationhas begunto generate nterest-that fprofessors'judgmentsof,and subjectivereactions o, errors n thewriting fnonnative-speakingNNS) students.As this egment fthe studentpopulationin theUnited Stateshas grown,the demands on ESL

writingprograms and instructors ave also increased. Conse-quently, here s a need to establishfirmernstructionalrioritiesntheteaching fcomposition.One waytodo this sto investigatehereactionsof theaudience towhom thewriting fNNS students sdirected: theirprofessors Santos, 1984; Secord, 1978; Sheorey&Ward,1984;Vann& Meyer,1984;Vann,Meyer,& Lorenz,1984).69

This content downloaded from 143.52.64.85 on Wed, 8 May 2013 07:49:21 AMAll use subject toJSTOR Terms and Conditions
http://www.jstor.org/page/info/about/policies/terms.jsphttp://www.jstor.org/page/info/about/policies/terms.jsphttp://www.jstor.org/page/info/about/policies/terms.jsphttp://www.jstor.org/page/info/about/policies/terms.jsp


3/23

The purposeof the studyreportedhere was to investigateprofessors'eactionsothe cademicwritingf NNS students.hefollowinguestions ereposed: a) What sthedifferenceetweenprofessors'atings f thecontent f an essaywritteny a NNSstudent nd their atings f thelanguage? b) What s therankordering f comprehensibility,cceptability,nd irritationorerrorsnthewritingfthose tudents,s udgedbyprofessorsnthephysicalsciences and the humanities/socialciences? (c) Doprofessorsn the physicalsciences and the humanities/socialsciencesexhibit imilarpatternsn their udgments?d) Whatfactorsresignificantnprofessors'atings?or example, rethejudgmentsfprofessorshoarethemselvesNSssimilar othosewho arenative peakers NSs)?Error valuation as beenbroadly efined s NSs' reactionsoNNSs' errors. arious ypesofreactionsre encompassed nderthis mbrella otion. omprehensibilitysthedegree o which heinterlocutornderstands hat ssaid orwritten.omprehensibilityhasbeentested oth hroughbjectivendsubjectivemeasures,orexample, epetition,estatement,ndLikert-scaleankingsBansal,1969;Dimitrijevic' Djordjevi6, 971;Guntermann,978;Olsson,1973).Irritation as been defined s "the result f the form f themessage intruding pon the interlocutor'serceptionof thecommunication.... The irritationontinuum angesfrom un-concerned, ndistractedwareness fa communicativerror o aconscious reoccupation ith orm"Ludwig,1982, . 275).SomeresearchersJohansson,978;Ludwig, 982) onsideromprehensi-bilitynd rritationnextricablyinked,quatingower omprehen-sibilitywithhigher rritation,nd vice versa,whereasothers(Santos, 984;Vann& Meyer, 984;Vannetal.,1984) eparate hetwo,regardingrritation ore s a functionfthe xpectationsndcharacteristicsf nterlocutors,homaybecome rritatedyerrorseven when hemessagescomprehensibleo them.Acceptabilitys thedegree o which he nterlocutoregardshespeechorwritingf theNNS as approximatinghe argetanguagenorms.Acceptabilityhus ppeals to judgmentsbout anguage,whereas irritationppeals to subjective eactions the "botherfactor"), hich, owever,may lso nclude otionsf cceptability.METHODOLOGYThisstudy mployed split-plotesignPedhazur, 982, . 562)to answertheresearch uestions. wo compositions ritteny70 TESOL QUARTERLY



4/23


5/23

(b) does not correctand does downgrade them, c) correctsbutdoes notdowngrade, d) corrects nd downgrades.The two compositionswere selectedfrom mongmorethan100writtenby NNSs referredto the ESL section of the EnglishDepartmentat UCLA. To fulfill heircompositionrequirement,such students must successfully complete either English 36,IntermediateComposition for ESL Students, or English 106J,Advanced Compositionfor ESL Students.Students re placed ineither English 36 or 106J on the basis of a 350- to 500-wordcompositiontheywrite on a set topic in a 75-minute eriod. Thecompositionsare read and rated by two ESL writingnstructorsand, in cases in which there s a difference f opinion,by a tie-breaking third reader. (Instructionsto the students and thecomposition opicare given nAppendixA.)The selectionof thetwocompositions o be used inthe tudywasmade on the basis of a numberof criteria.First,since the vastmajorityof ESL studentsfulfill he compositionrequirementbypassing English 36 (IntermediateComposition), representativecompositions t that evel were chosen.Second, essayswere soughtthatcontained a varietyof representative rrors,both local andglobal, made by ESL students.A composite of the findingsofTomiyama (1980),Vann and Meyer 1984), and Sheoreyand Ward(1984),who consulted he iterature ferror nalysis nd conductedsurveysof ESL instructors o determinewhichtypesof errors remost common among ESL students,was used to compile thefollowing ist (no ranking mplied), which served as a referenceguide: articles, lexical choice, logical connectors (e.g., relativepronouns, onjunctions), ossessives,prepositions, ingular/plural,subject-verb greement, ense, nd word form.A thirdconsiderationwas thatthe compositionsrepresent wolinguisticand culturalbackgrounds found in large number atUCLA. Finally, twas thought hatforgreatergeneralizabilityheessays should be equal in lengthand employ the standardfive-paragraph system of organization and development, namely,introduction,ody (threeparagraphs), nd conclusion. ndeed, theinstructionso the students egarding hecomposition opicclearly,though mplicitly,uggest uch a structuresee AppendixA).Given the criteria for selection, the two compositions (seeAppendixesB and C) thatwere chosen werenotradicallydifferentfrom ne another, lthough t the sametimetheydidexhibit ertainidiosyncraticharacteristics. othconformed o thefive-paragraphstructure nd containedalmostthesame numberofwords (392 forthe Chinese student, 88 for the Korean). The Chinese student's

72 TESOL QUARTERLY



6/23

compositiononsisted f 19 sentencesincludingnefragment),6T-units a singleindependent lause togetherwithall of itsmodifyingubordinatelauses), nd 12 instances f embedding.The Korean tudent'sompositiononsisted f 23 sentences,7T-units,nd13 nstancesfembedding.Table1showshowthe rrorsn the ompositionsere lassified.Following elce-Murciand Larsen-Freeman1983), llgrammat-ical errorswereclassifieds being heresult fomission, wrongform,ra superfluousordor form. hegeneralategoryfverbswasfurtherivided nto he ubcategoriesfagreement,uxiliary,and so on.

TABLEClassificationfErrorsntheTwoUncorrectedompositionsInstancesf rror

Errorategory Chinese tudent KoreantudentAgreement 1Articles 15 15Discourse ohesion 1 -Doublenegative 1Equative:emonstrativepossessive 1 -Fragment 1 -Lexical hoice 13 9Logicalonnectors 2 1Mechanics 21 18Nonreferentialt - 1Nonreferentialhere 1 -Objects 1 1Possessives 3 -Prepositions 3 1Pronouns - 7Quantifiers - 3Redundancy 4 5Register 2Relativelauses 1 -Singular/plural 7 7Verbs 23 9Agreement 6 3Auxiliary 2Omission 1Passive 1 2Phrasal - 2Tense/aspect 13 2Word orms 4 3Word rder 2 1PROFESSORS' REACTIONS TO WRITING 73



7/23

Itshould e noted hat ttimes he lassifyingferrors ecomesa matter findividualnterpretationnd judgment.or example,how toclassifyhe nappropriatenessfthe oncludingentence ftheChinese tudent'sompositionI should ayexample ffirstwopoints mentioneds commonly ound) is problematic. heprimaryroblem ere s notatthegrammaticalevelbutrathertthediscourseevel.Therefore,he entire entencewas classifiedunder heerror ategoryfdiscourseohesion,nd the ndividualgrammaticalrrors ere alsocounted ndclassified,or xample,articles nd singular/plural.urthermore,n cases whenit wasdifficulto determine hich f twoerrorategories asinvolved,theerrorwas enteredwice.Forexample, he United tatemighthave been a spelling rror r an errorwith ingular/plural.incetherewas no way to be certain,t was classified nderbothcategories.ProceduresThe studyconsistedof two phases. In the first hase, 20professors10for achcomposition) erepresented ith typedcopyof one of thetwocompositionsn itsoriginal,ncorrectedform nd were sked oreadandrateton six10-pointcales.Threeof the scales wereforcontentholisticmpression,evelopment,and sophistication)nd three forlanguage (comprehensibility,acceptability,nd rritation).heprofessorsere hen nstructedogobackoverthecompositionnd correctverythinghat eemedincorrecto them.Finally, heywereaskedto list t the end theproblemshey egardeds themost eriousnthe omposition.otime imitwassetfor he ompletionfthese asks.The purposeof thisfirst hasewas to determine hichof themany rrorsnthetwocompositionsppearedmost alient o theprofessors ho read and correctedhem.Of the studies f errorgravitynd error valuationncomposition,nlyMcGirt's1984)startedwithnatural, naltered amples.The other tudiesusedeither extbook assageswith nserted rrorsTomiyama, 980;Vann& Meyer, 984;Vann etal.,1984)orpartiallyoextensivelycorrected, evised, nd manipulated aragraphs r compositionswritten y NNSs (Johansson,978; Santos,1984). Artificiallyprepared assages llowformaximumontrol fthevariables ythe researcher, ut theyalso sacrifice he naturalqualityofunalteredonnected iscourse. urthermore,hey o not llowtheNS judgesto decide for themselves hich errors re themostglaring. inally, electivelynserted rrors iveequal weight oeacherrortype by representing hem only once each, an unrealistic74 TESOL QUARTERLY



8/23

conditionhatgnoreshefrequentecurrencefcertain rrorypesand the relativelynfrequentccurrence f others.For thesereasons, uthentic,nalteredompositions ereused in thisfirstphase.InPhase2,the ompositionserecorrectedor ll butthemostsalienterrors see Appendixes and E), as identified y theprofessorsn Phase 1. The mostsalient rrorswereregarded sthose hat ither ll 10professorsr9 of the10 corrected. or theChinese student'somposition,hese numbered 7, and for theKoreanstudent's,2. Table 2 presents list of theerror ypesrepresentednthis hase.TABLEClassificationfErrorsntheTwoPartiallyorrectedompositions

Instancesf rrorErrorategory Chinesetudent Koreantudent

Articles 1 3Discourseohesion 1Doublenegative 1Lexical hoice 4 4Logicalonnectors 1NonreferentialThere 1Possessives 1Pronouns 1Verbs 7 3Agreement 2 1Auxiliary 2 -Passive 1 2Tense/aspect 2 -Word orms 1

Copiesof thepartiallyorrectedompositions eretyped, ndthe ame10-pointcalesfor ontentndlanguage ivennPhase1wereused nPhase2. Inaddition,he entencesontaininghemostsalient rrorswere typed separatelynd the errors nderlined.Following ach sentencewerethree 0-pointcales for atingsfcomprehensibility,cceptability,nd rritation.All of theprofessors ho participatedn thestudywere seenpersonally y thisresearchernd were told thattheyshouldconsiderhe ompositionheywerebeing skedtoread ndrate sa piece of academic writing roducedunderthe conditionsdescribednthe nstructionso thestudents.heywere also toldPROFESSORS' REACTIONS TO WRITING 75



9/23

how the ermsomprehensibility,cceptability,nd rritationeremeant o be interpreted.The results eportedn thefollowingection re based on theresponsesfthe158professorsGroups and4) whoparticipatedinPhase2.RESULTSRatingsfContent ersus anguageThefirstesearchuestionskedwhetherherewas a significantdifferencen a 10-pointcale betweenprofessors'atingsf theoverall ontentnd the anguage f anessaywrittenya NNS.Themeans and standarddeviations f the ratings f content ndlanguage iven ythe158professorsnPhase2were omputedndDuncan'sMultiple angeTestrun, sing hegeneralinearmodel fthe ASprogram. heresults ere he amefor oth ompositions:The contentwas ratedsignificantlyowerthanthe anguage. notherwords, the professorsmade a statistically ignificantdistinctionetween he ontentfthe ompositionhey eadand tslanguage; hey udgedthe ontentmore everelyhan he anguage(seeTables3 and4).Order fLanguage ariablesThe second research question asked about the order ofcomprehensibility,cceptability,nd irritationor he rrorsnthecompositions.hemeans nd standard eviations or heratingsfeacherrornthetwocompositions erecomputed ndDuncan'sTestrun odetermineftherewas a significantifferencemongthe hreeanguage ariables. he same tatisticallyignificantrderwas found nbothcompositions.omprehensibilityeceived hehighestating7.5for heChinese tudent'somposition,.9for heKorean tudent's),rritationhe econdhighest5.8for heChinesestudent,.6for heKorean), ndacceptabilityhe owest3.7for heChinese tudent,.9 for heKorean).That s,theprofessorsoundthe sentenceswith errorshighlycomprehensible,easonablyunirritating,utlinguisticallynacceptable. his sameorder lsoobtained or heratingsftheoverallanguage f the omposition.

The individualrrorswere alsorank rdered ymeans nfourways:for ach anguage ariablecomprehensibility,cceptability,irritation)ndfor verallmeans fthe hreeobtained yaveragingtheratingsfthethree ariables). able 5 gives herank rder ferrors n the Chinese student's omposition.The errorsarepresented in order of seriousness,from most serious to least,76 TESOL QUARTERLY



10/23

0'dT03ct

HzH0z

0i

TABLEMeans ndStandardeviationsor verall ontentndLanguageContent

HolisticComposition impression Development Sophistication CompChinesen = 80)M 4.90 5.29 4.89SD 1.78 1.91 1.95Koreann = 78)M 5.94 6.38 4.99SD 2.01 2.05 2.20Note:Theratingsepresentedythemeans re ona scale of1to10.The scale lwaysmovesthemorenegativeherating,nd viceversa.

TABLEDuncan'sMultiple ange est or omparisonfRatingsorOver

Composition Constant Overall2 RootMSEa MChinese 5.63 .70 1.25 1Korean 6.28 .73 1.27 1a MSE = mean tandardrror.* a = .05.



11/23

-4O

0CHp

TABLERank rder fErrorsnChinese tudent'somp

Error Errorype... when someoneappreciate Chineseperson'soutlook Lexical 4.belongingrthoughtfulness... (... it s theChineseway fbeing olite-bydenyinghat heir Lexical 4.belongsregood .. (However, ven these Chinese still have that the cultural Article 6.

backgroundoa certainegree. (... bydenyinghatheir elongsregoodorappredable. Lexical 6.(Finally,heChinese revery losely elated o therelativend Lexical 6.surroundingeople omparedo other aces. (... when omeoneppreciate.. Verb-agreement 7.(... hemay ot ccept y he ociety. Verb-passive 8.(1ThemodemChinese renot as stronglyound otraditionn Logical onnector 7.respectothe ncient hinese. (This sespeciallyrue f hosewhodidnotbornnChina. Verb-auxiliary 8.(1



12/23

0

rtT0HzH0z

--4

... one ofmyAmerican riendsnce ask me why he main Verb-tense/aspect 8.characterna Chinese tory ouldnot ranaway rom ome (1when isfamilyryoforce im omarrygirl edoesnot ikeornevermeet.When Chineseerson indshathere resomethingrong ith Verb-agreement 8.hisfriend.. (1I should aythe xamplesfthe irstwo oints mentionedre Discourse ohesion 7.commonlyound. (He has osthis ootndrootssomethingheChinese ouldnever Word orm 8.change. (... theChineseopulationntheUnited tatess nareased.. Verb-auxiliary 8.(1... theCbinese'standards.. Possessive 9.(1Hehas ost is oot ndrootssomethingheChinese ouldnever Verb--tense/aspect 8.change. (1There asa large umberfChinese ho mmigratedotheWest Nonreferential 9.Coast... There (1Note:C = comprehensibility;= acceptability;= irritation;verall the ombinedmeanparentheseselowthemeans epresenthe rror's ank-orderedlacement.he ower



13/23

accordingto the overallmeans. The rankorderof each errorforeach language variable is also indicatedin parenthesesbelow themeanratings. he pattern hat mergedshowsthat exicalerrorsnthecompositionwere judged to be themost seriouserror ype.Ofthe fivemost erious rrors, ourwere exical errors nd one was thesinglearticle error.No otherdiscerniblepatternof orderby errortypewas found.Of the seven verb errors, orexample,two wereratedtowardthenegative nd of the cale,three owardthemiddle,and two toward thepositiveend.Table 6 shows the rankorder of errors n theKorean student'scomposition.Again, the lexical errorswere considered the mostserious, followed by one of the three article errors. t is alsointerestingonotethat hedouble negative rrorTheywouldn'tgetnowhere unless theyused a translator) anked as the leastacceptable and mostirritatingrror, ven thoughhighly ompre-hensible 8.77 on the10-point cale).Comparison fRatings yProfessorialieldThe thirdresearchquestionasked whetheror not professorsnthephysicalsciences and humanities/socialciences exhibitedthesame or similarpatterns n their udgmentsof the compositions.Thisquestionwas answeredbymeans of severalmultiple egressionanalyses performedwith the SAS program. The firstanalysisexamined the overall ratings of content (holistic impression,development, sophistication) and language (comprehensibility,acceptability, rritation) y professorsn thephysicalsciencesandhumanities/social ciences. The one significant ifference mongthe six variables was language acceptability.Professors n thephysical sciences rated the acceptabilityof the language of thecompositions ignificantlyower than did those n thehumanities/social sciences.The second and third analyses examined the ratingsof theindividualerrorsnthetwocompositions or ignificantifferencesbetween the two groups of professors. n the Chinese student'scomposition,a clearly delineated pattern appeared. Of the 51variables (17 sentenceswith errors nd three10-point cales foreach), 12 showed a significant ifference,ll in the same direction:Professorsn thephysicalsciences rated the12 significantlyowerthandid those n thehumanities/socialciences.Of the12,10 werefor rritationnd 2 forcomprehensibility.The resultsfor the ratingsof errors n the Korean student'scompositionwere less clear-cut.Of the36 variables (12 sentenceswith errorsand three 10-point scales for each), 11 showed a80 TESOL QUARTERLY



14/23

significantdifference for the two groups of professors.Fivevariables,all for anguage acceptability,were rated lower by thehumanities/social cience professors,despite the fact that thesewere thesameprofessorswho had ratedthe overall anguageofthecompositions significantly igherfor acceptabilitythanhad thephysicalscience professors.On the otherhand, 6 variables,5 forcomprehensibilitynd 1 for irritation,were rated significantlylowerby thephysical cienceprofessors.Based on theseresults, wogeneralizationsmight e made. First,only professors n the physicalsciences were irritated y certainerrors. econd, thehumanities/socialcienceprofessorsxhibitedremarkabledegreeoftolerance ntheir atings.Of the93variables(6 foroverall content nd language,51 forthe errorsntheChinesestudent's omposition, nd 36 in the Korean student's), heyratedonly5 errors ignificantlyower-less acceptable-than did theircolleagues inthephysical ciences.SignificantactorsnProfessors' atingsThe fourth esearchquestionasked what factorsmight ccountfor the professors' ratings. This question was answered byperforming stepwisemultipleregression nalysis;theratingsforoverall content nd languageofthecompositionswereregressed nthe tems on thequestionnaire hattheprofessors ompleted.Twoitemsprovedto be significant:ge andnative anguage.The age oftheprofessorswas a significantactorntheratings fonevariable:the degree of irritationroused by the language of thecomposi-tions.The olderprofessors isplayeda lowerdegreeof rritationntheir atings han did theyoungerprofessors. or native anguage,the32 NNS professors atedtheacceptability fthe anguageofthecompositions ignificantlyower thandid the 126NS professors.DISCUSSION

In brief, his tudyyieldedthefollowing esults: he languageoftheessayswritten y the two NNS studentswas ratedhigher hanthecontent; herankorderoferrorsnthecompositions, ccordingto theprofessors' atings,was (fromhighest o lowest)comprehen-sibility,rritation,nd acceptability; he error ypeconsideredmostseriouswas the lexical error;humanities/socialcience professorstended to be more lenient n their udgmentsthan did physicalscience professors; nd two variables-age and native anguage-were significantn the professors' atingsof some aspect of thelanguage, but not of the content. The older professorsratedPROFESSORS' REACTIONS TO WRITING 81



15/23

Goto

H0-iriH

TABLERank rder fErrorsnKoreantudent'somp

Error ErrorypeThey ill eethat he ame onewhichflownn theanguagelso Lexical 6.flows hroughhe ulture. (... religiouseliefsnKorea revarious,ut rebelief hichmost Lexical 6.Koreans tillbelieve n is a pledgethatthey iveto their (ancestors.... a hot ndchillyaste f egetables. Lexical 6.(Foreigners ayfind nothingut a hot and chilly asteof Article 7.vegetables. (Theywouldn'tetnowherenless hey sed translator. Doublenegative 8.

(



16/23

0tnC)

cinzWC>

00I

Today,many oreans oesnot ollow uddhismnymore.. Verb-agreement 8.(1First,heKoreananguage ae beenoriginated ore han ive Verb-passive 8.thousandears. (There re hree nique hingsntheKoreanulturehat stranger Lexical 6.fromn outer egion... may otunderstand.. (2These hreespects fKoreanulture.. arethe nique ndvery Article 8.importantomost oreans. (8These houghtsanded ownmore han ivehousandears. Verb-passive 8.(Astrangerouldnotbefrustrated.. ifbel/hernderstoodhese Pronoun 9.thingsromhebeginning. (1There re hree nique hingsntheKoreanulturehat stranger Article 9.fromnouter egion.. may otunderstandndmayeadhim (1or her oa frustration.Note:C = comprehensibility;= acceptability;= irritation;verall the ombinedmean

parentheseselowthemeans epresenthe rror'sank-orderedlacement.he ower



17/23

the anguage ess irritatinghandid theyounger rofessors,ndthose who were themselvesNNSs gave lower ratings o theacceptabilityfthe anguage.Thefindingsor everal f theresearchuestionseem o ead tothe conclusion hatprofessorsre willingto look beyondthedeficienciesf anguage othe ontentnthewritingf theseNNSstudents. his conclusionwould account forthe fact that thecontentof the essayswas rated significantlyower than thelanguage.That theprofessorsonsidered heerrorsntheessayslinguisticallynacceptableutnonethelessave significantlyigherratingsothe anguage han othecontent lsosuggestsheywerebothwillingnd abletomake distinctionetween he ontentndlanguage fthewritingf theseNNS students.utanother ay, tis a mark ftheir olerance hat lthoughhey egarded rrors slinguisticallynacceptable,heprofessorstilludgedcontentndlanguage independently,o the extent hatthis was possible.However, his eemsnot ohavebeenpossiblewith he rrorypeconsidered hemost erious: he exical rror.t sprecisely ith histype ferror hatanguagempinges irectlyncontent; hen hewrongword sused, hemeaningsveryikelyo be obscured.It is also worthnotingthat although he physicalscienceprofessorsatedthe overall anguageof theessayssignificantlylowerthandid thehumanities/socialcienceprofessorsndweremore rritatedycertainrrors,hey id notrate he ontentf theessaysower han id thehumanities/socialcience rofessors.his,too, eems osupporthepositionhat rofessors ake distinctionbetween ontentndlanguage, egardlessf their ttitudeowarderrorsnthe anguage.The fact hat hese rofessorsried oseparate heirudgmentsfcontent nd language may be a measureof theirtolerance;however, nothernterpretations also possible.Professors rerealistsnd havecometoaccept, fnot ppreciate,hefact hat hewriting f NNS students-and, ll too often,NS students-willcontainnumerous rrors f language nd that t would onlybepunitive,ndprobably utile,odowngrade eavily or hem.The fact that thedouble negative rror They wouldn'tgetnowhereunlesstheyused a translator)anked s boththe eastacceptable and most irritatingrror n the Korean student'scomposition, despite its being completelycomprehensible,deserves pecialmention.t seemsclearthat hereaction ere s asocial rather hana strictlyinguisticne and is undoubtedlytransferrom ttitudesowardesseducatednativepeakersswellas attitudesngrained fteryearsofprescriptiveducation.84 TESOL QUARTERLY



18/23

When onsideringhe mplicationsfthe wofactorshat rovedto be significantn theprofessors'atings f two of the threelanguage ariables,he nethat eems ess menable oexplanationis age. It seems ounterintuitivehat heolderprofessorsere essirritatedy the languageof theessaysthanwere theyoungerprofessors.et similar esult asfound yVann ndMeyer1984)intheirecond tudy fprofessors'atingsferrorsnverbform,articles,nd spelling. he olderprofessorsavehigher atingsothose errorsthan did the youngerprofessors.One can onlyspeculatewhy hismight e so;for xample, erhaps rofessors,sthey ecomeolder, ecomemorerealisticntheirxpectationsfstudents'erformancend thusmore olerant.There eemstobe a readily vailable xplanation,owever, orwhytheNNS professorsatedthe anguage f theessays s lessacceptable thandid the NS professors: NS professors aveattained n extremely igh evel of proficiencyn English nd,becauseof theirnvestmentf effortn the anguage,udgetheerrors fotherNNSsmore everelyhan o NS professors.PEDAGOGICALMPLICATIONSTwo findingsn particular-that rofessorseem to make adistinctionetween ontentnd anguagendthatexical rrorsreconsidered he most erious-havepedagogicalmplications.hefirstupportshe urrentpproach oteaching ritings a processofplanning,omposing,evising,ndediting. NS students eedto mproveheir killsnthe reasthatmost irectlyffectontent,such as organizing, eveloping, nd supportingheirdeas andarguments,ndthese re the reasthat regiven hemost ttentionbytheprocess pproach.

In addition, owever, nits n vocabulary uilding nd lexicalselection houldbe incorporatednto an ESL writing ourse.Vocabulary as tended obe theneglectedomponentnacademicESL courses, ut theresults f this tudy ndicate hat his readeservescloser attention. his could be done in severalways:throughheuse ofvocabularyxercises,uch as clozeand word-form xercises; hroughequiringtudents o keep a vocabularynotebookbased on theirreadingsand lectures; nd throughemphasisnthemportancef exical electionndthe licitationrpresentation f synonymous ormsof expression.Moreover,textbookshat eal with ocabularyor cademicpurposeswouldbe valuable upplementsotexts nacademicwriting.This studyhas attemptedo incorporatehemajoraspectsoferrorvaluationngeneral-thats,thenotionsfcomprehensibil-ity,acceptability, nd irritation,nd ratingsof errors t sentencePROFESSORS' REACTIONS TO WRITING 85



19/23

and discourse level-while at the same time examiningissuesspecific to the academic setting-that is, the content/languagedistinction and significantfactors in professors' ratings. Suchresearchoffersmanybenefitsto both applied linguists nd ESLinstructorsy addingto ourunderstandingfthetypesof errorsnwriting hat re consideredthe most eriousby professorswho readthewriting fNNS students.

ACKNOWLEDGMENTSThis is an expandedversion f a paper presentedt the 20thAnnual ESOLConventionnAnaheim, arch 986. would ike o thankMarianne elce-Murcia, aryMcGroarty,ndLeigh ursteinfUCLAforheirommentsn heoriginalmanuscript.THE AUTHORTerry antoss anassistantrofessorntheEnglish epartmentt CaliforniatateUniversity,osAngeles.REFERENCESBansal,R.K. (1969). The intelligibilityf IndianEnglish.Hyderabad,India:CentralnstitutefEnglishndForeign anguages.Celce-Murcia,M., & Larsen-Freeman,. (1983). The grammar ook.Rowley,MA:Newbury ouse.Dimitrijevi6, .R., & Djordjevi5,D. (1971). The reliability f thesubjectivessessmentfthepupils' ronunciationfEFL. InternationalReviewofAppliedLinguistics,,245-265.Guntermann,. (1978).A study f thefrequencynd communicativeeffectsferrorsnSpanish.Modern anguageJournal,2,249-253.Johansson,. (1978). Nativereactions o errors roducedby Swedishlearners f English Gothenburgtudies n English44). Goteborg,Sweden:ActaUniversitatisothoburgensis.Ludwig,J. 1982).Native-speakerudgmentsfsecond-languageearners'effortst communication:review.Modern anguageJournal,6,274-283.McGirt, . (1984).Theeffect fmorphologicalndsyntacticrrorsntheholistic coresof nativeand non-nativeompositions. npublishedmaster'shesis, niversityfCalifornia,osAngeles.86 TESOL QUARTERLY



20/23

Olsson,M. (1973). The effects f differentypesof errors n thecommunicationituation.n J.SvartvikEd.), Errata:Papers n erroranalysispp. 153-160). und, weden:Gleerup.Pedhazur, . (1982).Multipleegressionnbehavioralesearch. ew York:Holt,RinehartndWinston.Santos, T. (1984). Markednesstheoryand errorevaluation: Anexperimentaltudy.Unpublishedmanuscript,niversityfCalifornia,LosAngeles.Secord,M. (1978).A categorizationftransitionalxpressionsnEnglish.Unpublishedmaster'shesis, niversityfCalifornia,osAngeles.Sheorey,R., & Ward,M.A. (1984,March). Usingnon-ESLteachers'perceptionsf error ravityn correctingSL compositions.aperpresentedt the18thAnnual ESOL Convention,ouston.Tomiyama,M. (1980).Grammaticalrrors nd communicationreak-

down.TESOL Quarterly,4,71-79.Vann,R.J., Meyer, .E. (1984,March). rror ravity: study ffacultyopinion fESL errors,hase2. Paperpresentedt the18thAnnualTESOL Convention,ouston.Vann,R.J.,Meyer, .E., & Lorenz, .O. (1984).Error ravity: study ffacultypinion fESL errors. ESOL Quarterly,8,427-440.APPENDIXA

Instructionso the Students ndComposition opicWrite 350- o500-wordompositionnthe opicbelow.You willhave75minutesnwhich oplan nd write he ssay.Youshould ayparticularattention o thecontent, rganization,nd grammar. ocabulary ndpunctuationhould lsobe taken nto ccount.CompositionopicThere are thingswhich are uniqueto each culture nd which an"outsider"inds ifficultounderstand.his ack ofunderstandingaylead tofrustration,onflict,r a lack ofappreciationf thevaluesof theculture.indthreehingsboutyour ulture hich oubelievemost therpeoplemight otunderstandnd which ause them o geta distortedimpression.Write unified ssay nwhichyouexplain hese spects fyour ulture ooutsiders,o that heywillnotmisinterprethat hey eeandmay void conflicts.

APPENDIXBCompositionWrittenyChineseStudentPhase 1)Generally hinese ultures notwellunderstoodyWesterneople;they hinkhatChinese's tandard fvalue andrelationwith eoplearerelativelyardtounderstandndstrange. herewas a largenumber fPROFESSORS' REACTIONS TO WRITING 87



21/23

Chinesemigratedothe oast rea of America hree ecades go.Today,in Los Angeles, hineseform small ommunityndowntown, alledChinaTown.Althought,hinesentheUnited tate s ncreased;tillmostAmericano notunderstoodhinesewell.Personallyfound heChinese's ttitudeowards therss not he ameas mostWestern eople.WhenChinesefinds hat here re somethingwrongwith heir riendrthey onot ike he ttitudeftheirriend,heywouldnotmentionrcompliantbout tunlesst sdisgusting.ometimes,even fthey eally annot ake t, heywouldrathervoid that riendhanmake compliant.Besides he bovepoint,here omeother ulturalracticeshats hardto understandy outsiders. or example,whensomeone ppreciateperson's utlook elongingrthoughtfulnessndtell hepersonwhathefeels,hepersonmay eply it s notgoodatall"or"No,not eally,t s ustfine",f hepersons Chinese. hismayberude o somepeopleby deningother'spinion; utthissChinese'swayofbeingpolite ydenyingheirbelongssgoodorappreciable,nd tdoesnotmean oreject thers.Finally, hinese svery losely elated otherelativendsurroundingpeoplecomparingo other aces.For nstance,nceoneofmyAmericanfriendskmewhywouldnotthemain haracterna Chinese tory anawayfrom omewhenhisfamilyringoforce im omarry girl edoesnot ikeornevermeet.This s because nChinese ociety lder shighlyrespected,ndonemust bey he lder.And fhe runsway ndmarryhegirlhe loves,hemaynotacceptbythe ociety. e has osthisroot, ndroot ssomethingcient hinesewouldchange heirife or.Modern hinesesnot o stronglyelated o theothersnrespectotheacientChinese.Especially hoseChinesewho did not born n China.HoweverChinese till avethat he ulturalackgroundoa certainevel.I should ayexample ffirstwopoints mentionedscommonlyound.

APPENDIX CCompositionWrittenyKoreanStudentPhase 1)There rethree nique hingsntheKorean ulturehat strangerromouter egion rotherountry aynotunderstandndmay eadthem oafrustration.hesethree hingsrethe anguage, ood, ndthebeliefs rreligions hich reunique otheKorean ulture.First fall,theKoreananguage avebeenoriginated ore han ,000years.Language tselfmayrepresenthewhole culture.Outsiders rforeignersho revisitingoreamayfind im/her-selfnfrustrationr nconflictecauseof anguagehat hey an't nderstand.heywouldn't etnowhere nless hey all the translator.s theyhear more nd moreofKorean anguage heymaythink oreans re speakingnall sametonewhichstrue. oonafter stranger ayfind hat heKorean ultures ikethe anguagetself. e/shewill ee that he ametonewhich lownnthelanguage low hruhe ulture.

88 TESOL QUARTERLY



22/23

The Korean oods remostlymadeupofthevegetables. foreignerrvisitormayfind nothingut hot ndchillyaste fvegetables.tdoesn'tmeanthat ll of theKorean revegetarians.t isa history hich xplainshow come eating meat become our least need. The Koreansuse tobelieve hebuddhism hichwasthenationaleligion.nBuddhismillingoreatingnanimalwasa crime. hesethoughtsandeddownmore hana 5,000years.n these aysmanyKoreans oesnotfollowt nymoreutstill forignerillnot eeanymeat n thediningable xcept egetables.The thirdndlastofall,religionr beliefn Koreaare various utarebeliefwhichmost ftheKoreanstill elieves s a pledge hathey ivetotheir ncestors. hey (Koreans)pick one day from year-and theyprepare ery arefullyor hat ay. Theybelieve hatwhen hey repareallfoods nd drinksndpray, lloftheir ncestor hodiedwill omeeatand drinkndenjoy.These beliefmaybe strangendunpleasanto anoutsidersut t sa verymportantomostKoreans.Thesethree inds fculture,anguage, oods,ndbeliefsre theuniqueand very mportanto manyKoreans.A strangerr an outsiderwouldunderstandery asilyfhe/herried o understandtfrom eginning.

APPENDIX DPartially orrectedVersion f

ChineseStudent's ompositionPhase 2)Generally,he Chineseculture s notwell understood y Westernpeople;they hinkhat heChinese's tandards,alues, ndrelations ithpeoplearestrangendrelativelyardtounderstand.herewas a largenumber fChinesewho mmigratedo theWestCoastofAmericahreedecadesago.Today nLosAngeles heChinese orm small ommunityinthedowntownreacalledChinatown. lthoughheChinese opulationintheUnited tates s increased,mostAmericanstill o notunderstandtheChinesewell.Personally,havefound hat heChinese ttitudeowards therssnotthe ame sthat fmostWesterneople.When Chinese erson indshatthere resomethingrongwith isfriend,rhedoes not ike he ttitudeof hisfriend,ewouldnotmentiont orcomplain bout tunless twasdisgusting.ometimes,fhereally annot ake t,hewouldrathervoidthat riend han omplain.Besides he bovepoint,here resomeotherulturalracticeshat rehardfor utsidersounderstand.orexample,when omeone ppreciatea Chinese erson'sutlook elongingrthoughtfulnessndtells hepersonhowhe feels, hepersonmayreply, It is notgood at all,"or"No,notreally,t s justfine." hismayseemrudeto somepeople,but t s theChinesewayofbeingpolite-bydenyinghat heir elongs regoodorappreciable.t snotmeant oreject thers.Finally,the Chineseare verycloselyrelatedto the relative ndsurrounding eople compared to otherraces. For instance,one of myPROFESSORS' REACTIONS TO WRITING 89



23/23

American riends nceask mewhy hemain haracterna Chinese torywouldnotran wayfrom omewhenhisfamily ry oforce im omarrya girl e does not ikeornevermeet. his sbecause nChinese ocietyheelders rehighly espected,nd one must beythem.fheran wayandmarried hegirl e oved,hemaynot cceptbythe ociety. e has osthisroot nd root ssomethingheChinesewouldnever hange.The modemChinese renot s stronglyound o traditionnrespectotheancient hinese.This s especially rue f thosewhodidnotborn nChina. However, even these Chinese still have that the culturalbackgroundo a certain egree. should aythe xamples fthefirstwopoints mentionedrecommonlyound.

APPENDIXEPartially orrectedVersion fKorean tudent'sompositionPhase )There rethree nique hingsntheKorean ulture hat strangerroman outer egion ranotherountry aynotunderstandndmay eadhimor her o a frustration.hesethree hingsre the anguage,hefood, ndthereligiouseliefs, hich re allunique o theKorean ulture.First,the Korean languagehave been originatedmore than fivethousandyears.The language tselfmay representhe whole culture.Visitorso Koreamayfind hemselvesrustratedr confusedecause hey

can'tunderstandhe anguage.Theywouldn't etnowhere nless heyuseda translator.sthey earmore nd more f the anguage, heymaythink ll Koreans re speakingn the same tone,which s true.Soon,strangers ayfind hat heKorean ultures ike he anguagetself. heywill eethat he ame onewhich lownnthe anguage lsoflows hroughthe ulture.Second,Korean ood smostlymadeupofvegetables. oreigners ayfind nothingut hot ndchillyaste fvegetables. hisdoes notmeanthat ll Koreans revegetarians.urhistoryxplainswhy atingmeat sunnecessaryor s. Koreans sedto believe nBuddhism, hichwas oncethenationaleligion.nBuddhism,illingreatingn animalwasa crime.Thesethoughtsanded ownmore han ive housandears. oday,manyKoreans oesnotfollowBuddhismnymore,utforeignerstillwillnotseeanymeaton the able, nly egetables.Third nd ast, eligiouseliefsnKorea revarious,ut rebeliefwhichmostKoreans till elieve n s a pledgethat hey iveto theirncestors.TheKoreans ickonedayeachyear o honor heirncestorsndpreparevery arefullyor hat ay.Theybelieve hatwhen hey repare ood nddrinks,nd thenpray, ll of their ncestors ill cometo eat,drink,ndenjoy hemselves.hisbeliefmay ound trangeooutsiders,ut t sveryimportanto mostKoreans.These three spectsofKorean ulture-language,ood,andreligiousbeliefs-aretheunique ndvery mportanto mostKoreans.A strangerwouldnotbe frustratedr confusedfhe/her nderstoodhese hingsfromhebeginning.90 TESOL QUARTERLY

proessors reactions to essays of non native speakers

Documents