Harder 1984

CJL/RCL 29(2), 1084 115
Cultural Attitudes
in Discourse Analysis
BERNHARD D. HARDER
University of Windsor
Complex communication difficulties involving stylistics, logic

and clarity in the discourse structures of advanced English com-
positions by writers from another language and culture cannot be
explained as merely insufficient knowledge of English grammar,
diction or idiom. Such problems do not only involve linguistic
differences in the native (NL) and target language (TL) but en-
compass different stylistic habits, different ways of thinking, and
different cultural values. Robert Kaplan has frequently argued
that the rhetoric and logic in ESL English compositions vary ac-
cording to the native language and culture of the writer. In one
of his early essays he states:
I have tried to demonstrate on the basin of the Arabic language and on

the basis of my single example, that rhetoric, the method of organis-
ing syntactic units into larger patterns, is as much a culturally coded
phenomenon as the syntactic units themselves are (Kaplan 1967:15).
More specifically and in a later essay, Kaplan theorizes that:
The second-language learner not only lacks a knowledge of the inter-

nal (phenomenological) logic of the second-language system and of the
sociolinguistic constraints of the second-language culture, but he also
lacks awareness of the realisable range in the second language (though
he comes equipped with a knowledge of the realizable range in his na-
tive language). Thus, he superimposes on the rhetorical and stylistic
alternatives (both in terms of the choice and in terms of arrange-
ment) of the target language the realisable range and the sociolinguis-
tic constraints of his native language system. He is further inhibited in
Downloaded from https:/www.cambridge.org/core. IP address: 80.82.77.83, on 13 Jul 2017 at 03:51:06, subject to the Cambridge Core
terms of use, available at https:/www.cambridge.org/core/terms. https://doi.org/10.1017/S0008413100010409
116 HARDER, CULTURAL ATTITUDES
his ability to choose among realisable alternatives because, as a non-
participant in the culture-linguistic system of the target language, he
is unaware of the implications of the syntactic alternatives since those
alternatives as realisable in his language system in all probability carry
a quite different set of implications (Kaplan 1978:68-69).
This statement may apply without qualification to many be-

ginning learners of a TL, but advanced students will have en-
countered this culturo-linguistic system of the target language
in some form, especially if they are taught by native speakers
and have read literature and other materials from the target
culture. Since this encounter usually remains unclarified in the
mind of the student, the resulting discourse is likely to be a con-
fused mixture of the systems in the two cultures, so that the
rhetorical patterns in the target language do not truly represent
the system as used by native speakers of the target language
(Harder 1983). The attitudes of the NL culture towards lan-
guage, composing and communicating, and the linguistic system
of the NL will continue to have a significant influence on the
composing process even though its influence is obscured in the
composed product. The advanced student will not be totally
unaware but will have confused notions about the implications
of the discourse structures they use in TL writing.
In an often cited essay, Kaplan diagrams the different logical
structures of five cultures and states one aspect of the problem
clearly:
Logic (in the popular, rather than the logician's sense of the word)
which is the basis of rhetoric, is evolved out of a culture; it is not
universal. Rhetoric, then, is not universal either, but varies from cul-
ture to culture and even from time to time within a given culture. It
is affected by canons of taste within a given culture at a given time
(Kaplan 1966:2).
According to Kaplan, cultural and sociolinguistic differences con-

cretely affect the logic and rhetoric of TL compositions in En-
glish, but his view needs to be qualified because TL compo-
sitions do not simply reflect the rhetoric of'the native culture;
instead the actual compositions will incorporate a mixture of the
CJL/RCL 29(2), 1984 117
logic and rhetoric of the TL and NL cultures experienced by the
writer, either as the process of learning new methods of compo-
sition, or as the conflict between culturo-linguistic systems. In
order to understand the mixture of discourse structures, the cul-
turally specific attitudes and systems underlying the rhetorical
choices need to be clarified; these are not necessarily identifi-
able in the written product but may be apparent in the writer's
experience of conflicting norms, in the culture's communicative
methods and principles, and in the general cultural differences.
Although Kaplan's particular characterization of the different
logical structures of paragraphs in various cultures has been chal-
lenged (Hinds 1982), his hypothesis is supported in research both
specifically related to (Houghton and Hoey 1983) and indepen-
dent of his work (Saville-Troike 1976). A study by Michael Clyne
(1981) cogently contrasts the non-linear development in German
scientific writing with the linear development of ideas in English
in support of Kaplan's hypothesis. The hypothesis that the dif-
ferences in logic and coherence are due to cultural differences is
difficult to demonstrate conclusively beyond stating that there
are different tendencies in different cultures. Clyne, for example,
states: "There appear to be some disciplines (e.g. mathematics,
engineering) in which German scientists have adopted a basi-
cally linear discourse structure. This may be conditioned by the
discipline or by the leadership in the discipline of English speak-
ers" (p.64). Identifying differences in the sample essays is easier
than demonstrating how these are related to culture, unless we
restrict the discussion to formal methods of organization, devel-
opment and argument that exist in the traditions of one culture
but not another.
Shifting the focus from the written product to the cultural at-
titudes and values affecting rhetorical choices is consistent with
recent developments in composition theory that stress the pro-
cess of composition rather than the product. The attitudes a
writer has acquired, consciously or unconsciously, about rhetoric,
communication, written discourse, and even specific syntactic
structures are affected by the writer's experience and culture.
A major contribution towards understanding this complex cog-
nitive situation requires identifying both cultural differences in
attitudes related to written discourse, and also their specific ef-
fects on the discourse structures in the written product.
The product and the process of writing can be better under-
stood if we are clearly aware of the conflicts non-native writers of
English may experience between their cultural values and those
embodied in the rhetoric of English composition. In a compre-
hensive study of the relationship between culture and rhetoric in
ancient India and China, Robert T. Oliver demonstrates how
fundamentally different concepts of rhetoric in these cultures
have developed because of differences in values and language;
his summary identifies some of the basic differences:
Perhaps most basic of all is the cardinal devotion of the Asian mind
to the related concepts of unity and harmony. In this view all things
properly belong together and coexist. Consequently, the ancient East
has not been much interested in logic, which, from an Eastern point of
view, necessarily correlates unlike elements, nor has it favored either
definition or classification as aids to clear thought. Indeed, clarity of
thought itself has been far less favored in traditional literature of India
and China than it has been in the West. Whereas the West has favored
analysis and division of subject matter into identifiable and separate
entities, the East has believed that to see truth steadily one must see
it whole. If the outline and the distinctions are dimmed, this loss is
counterbalanced by the gain of viewing the object in its interrelated
entirety (Oliver 1071:10-11).
These inherent cultural values and traditions not only affect the
rhetoric in the NL but also influence attempts to communicate in
the language of any non-native culture. Jones (1982) and Jones
and Tetroe (1983) establish that syntactic, rhetorical and plan-
ning skills in NL composing transfer to TL composing. Their
findings support the hypothesis that both good and poor strate-
gies carry over, with little change, to the second language task.
A reasonable extension of their conclusion would be that atti-
tudes about language and rhetoric in NL composing also transfer
to TL composing. An understanding of how culturally different,
rhetorical attitudes affect the composition process can help both
non-native writers and native language readers in the difficult
CJL/RCL 29(2), 1984 119
task of communicating across cultures.
The obvious fact that the culturally related attitudinal con-
flicts cannot be observed directly, complicated by the writers'
mixed levels of awareness of the rhetorical values inherent in
their own culture as well as the target culture, necessitates a
methodology that depends on studying and comparing both the
writer's attitudes and actual practice. The reactions of writers
themselves as they attempt to master composition in English
in a bi-cultural context, the uniqueness of the different rhetori-
cal traditions, and the readers' disorientation, however, indicate
serious conflicts. Developing a methodology for demonstrating
how these conflicts operate in the actual process of composition
will require further research, but fruitful directions are being
suggested in protocol studies in spite of present controversial
evaluations (Cooper and Hoffman 1983) of the work by Flower
and Hayes (1977). Recent extension of verbal protocol analysis
to ESL composition by Jones and Tetroe, and attempts to study
a writer's methods under natural conditions (Berkenkotter 1983)
promise results that can not be obtained from studying only the
written product, as shown by Zamel's (1983) study of advanced
ESL students.
A protocol analysis of the cultural conflicts experienced by a
TL writer requires a prior formulation of what is being sought.
The writer's report about cultural conflicts experienced in com-
position, the apparent rhetorical traditions of a culture, and
the indications of problems in the written product all provide
a scheme for studying the protocol and formulating interview
questions in order to identify the difference between the possible
and actual conflicts of TL writers that stem from different cul-
turally related attitudes. The relationship between comments of
TL writers, cultural traditions and discourse choices is generally
observable and shows up sharply in Japanese-English discourse
where the differences are dramatic.
The comments of students from other cultures in advanced
composition courses are a trustworthy source of information a-
bout cross-cultural verbalization. Their responses to class dis-
cussions, writing assignments, and interviews about their pa-
pers, as reported in Harder and Kuts-Harder (1982) indicate
conflicting attitudes that affect their written discourse and pro-
vide explanations about the TL writer's stylistic features that
may otherwise look like inadequate language proficiency. After
a class discussion about the importance of focussing the topic,
a student from Hong Kong, for example, who had taught En-
glish and was now taking a theory of composition course, wrote
a paper examining how ESL students in the secondary schools
of Hong Kong fail to focus the ideas of their compositions. She
accounts for part of the problem as a cultural difference in the
logic of Chinese and English:
For a second language learner, his learning is always unfavorably af-

fected by interference caused by the different language functions ac-
quired from his first language. This is especially true when a person
is communicating about a situation with a second language of which
the logic is different from his native one.
In a subsequent discussion the student explained that the prob-

lem comes from the difficulty of trying to preserve the imagined
Chinese focus and not finding a parallel English one. The TL
students cannot rely on their native sense of focus when writing
in English. Their insecurity with the English language compli-
cates this problem but remains subordinate:
It is difficult or even impossible for an ESL student to do away com-

pletely with the form and logic of hisfirstlanguage, which has already
become so fundamental in his life, so implanted in his mind, innately
used for his thinking and expression. Yet the English teachers should
try to reduce the students' conflicts in using a second language by
introducing them to a broader symbolic system such as the native ex-
pressions, the connotative meanings of certain utterances, and a more
integral perspective of how the language functions, rather than just ex-
plaining to them the grammatical point, the structure of the language
and the principle of introduction-body-conclusion of essay writing.
The wisdom of this advice is obvious but not easy to follow in our
TL classrooms although recent literature about TL composition
is formulating some valuable suggestions. 1 •
* Whatever the solution, teaching grammar and correcting errors alone
CJL/RCL 29(2), 1084 121
Student comments about cultural differences related to com-
position focus on different aspects of discourse such as style,
syntax, classification, and the value of originality. An entry in a
Japanese composition student's journal responded to my objec-
tion to frequent uses of apparently redundant phrases: I think,
it can be said, it is thought to be, it is so. The entry explains
that a reader or listener participates actively in constructing the
message and does not just receive it passively nor critically:
This, I think, is because Japanese people think that each and every
one in this world has his own ideas, and so it must be respected. Since
any value can be interpreted both as good as well as bad, and nobody
can say that something is right or maybe wrong, we must write or
express ideas, always keeping others in mind and respecting them.
That, I think, is the reason why Japanese is said to be indirect, giving
a very soft impression compared to the direct expression of English.
These expressions are an indication of Japanese people's modesty in
expressing their own idea. (Quoted in Harder 1881:18)
I have already described similar Japanese responses to the use

of the passive (Harder and Kutz-Harder 1982), the omission of
subject, expectations about the report and the essay, and classi-
fication (Harder 1983). These culturally different attitudes sur-
face in the essays but cannot be observed directly in the written
product; they are, however, an important aspect of the writing
process which, affects the discourse choices that appear problem-
atic to a Western reader.
The study of the rhetorical attitudes in ancient India and
China by Oliver (1962) demonstrates how these can be extracted
from a culture that has not specifically articulated its rhetorical
concepts and also shows how these can be utilized in clarify-
ing the rationale behind ways of thinking and presenting ideas
that tend to mystify Western readers. Since I have had experi-
ence teaching composition in Japan for four years I will concen-
will not help the student overcome the cultural barrier, as pointed out by
Harder (1081), an undue emphasis on grammar and correctness will fur-
ther impede significant progress towards rhetorical competence in English,
as demonstrated in the studies by Jones and Jones and Tetroe mentioned
above.
trate on its culture because both experience in the culture and a
knowledge about the language are necessary for understanding
how the attitudes are integrated in practice. As Ramsey (1983)
argues in her paper on non-verbal behavior in Japan, articulated
principles and research about a culture are helpful but not suf-
ficient for understanding the integrative processes; experience is
also necessary. Oliver's study is helpful in showing how differ-
ent Eastern rhetoric can be from our Western tradition, but he
does not include Japan in his study nor does he focus on mod-
ern China although some of his insights apply to modern Japan.
In a number of pertinent studies of Japanese communication,
Masao Kunihiro, a Japanese authority on the theory and practice
of Japanese-English simultaneous interpretation, argues for the
uniqueness of the Japanese traditions about language (Kunihiro
1976) and also characterizes many of the significant attitudes.
Studies such as these give an indication of the difficulty a writer
must overcome when composing in a TL with a significantly dif-
ferent culture. Many of the differences in Kunihiro's essays show
why Japanese writers have difficulty with the rhetorical assump-
tions behind English composition and demonstrate that what we
tend to take for granted is not at all universal.
Japanese writers frequently resist the advice that they should
argue their ideas and support them more forcefully instead of
just suggesting various possibilities. This problem is not merely
a result of their inability to argue but also a difference in cultural
assumptions about what is rhetorically agreeable:
Rather than an expression of one's will or thoughts, language has been

a way of casually throwing the other guy a ball in order to get a reaction
from him on which to base one's next action. It has been considered
poor policy to use words as a tool to express one's views, to persuade
the other fellow or to establish any depth of understanding. Language
as an instrument of debate or argument is even more disagreeable and
is accordingly avoided. (Kunihiro 1073:97)
This process has to be experienced repeatedly in order to com-

prehend it as a systematically different style and behavior. It
is as difficult for a Westerner to follow this code as it is for
CJL/RCL 20(2), 1984 123
a Japanese person to understand in what conceivable way our
style of argument is good. I once corrected a student's sentence
by making a minimal grammatical change and asked if it made
a difference to the meaning. The student objected to the cor-
rection: now the assertion in the sentence was absolute, while
in the former, though incorrect, sentence it suggested only one
possibility.
A difference in attitudes about rhetorical styles cannot just
be solved by teaching students how to argue since the differ-
ence has many cultural implications and is not just a matter of
rhetoric. 2 Kunihiro (1973), for example, shows how it involves
the whole question of self-image and identity in the society. Na-
tive speakers of English, of course, like to argue, and this often
creates difficulties in Japan, but Kunihiro also states that the
Japanese attitude is different from both the Chinese, "who are
also given to exhaustive expression and endless argument," and
also "the precision of ancient Indian logic" (1976:271). Even
when Japanese argue they will be vague about the point at is-
sue and preferably focus on trivial points to establish a sense
of agreement about the issues before mentioning major topics.
The rhetorical style used in confronting authority, arguing about
opinions, and polarization over an issue in Japan take forms so
different from those in the European tradition that a Western
observer might mistakenly conclude as did Morrison (1972) that
it does not exist at all in the Japanese culture, or argue with
even greater error that the style which allows opposing views is
the result of recent Japanese propaganda (Miller 1982).
This example of the attitude about argument in Japan illus-
trates how different the rhetorical values are and how deeply
2
"Highly sensitive to the feelings of others, reactive to the opinion of peers
and relatives, deferent to status and age, the Japanese individual becomes
hesitant to express himself verbally: once the words have been said, they
cannot be retracted. The shame, the confrontation, the highly emotional
charge have already been released. The individual learns the advantage of
"keeping the mouth shut" when necessary, demurely acquiescing in unpleasant
situations and Kuehigotae *uru na 'don't answer back' in the face of authority."
(Ogawa 1979:334)
rooted they are in the cultural and individual awareness. Other
attitudes discussed by Kunihiro are part of similar identifiable
gestalts. These attitudes include a basic distrust of language and
a low esteem for the articulation of thoughts. The feelings of oth-
ers are at least as important as the content, and listeners and
readers are expected to fill in gaps in the message. This last char-
acteristic, I noticed, allows the listeners to assume the content
most congenial for them and avoids conflict and confrontation.
Conclusions, as a result, are seldom articulated, and verbal ex-
pression tends to be fragmentary and unsystematic. Kunihiro
characterizes numerous differences in logic that make it appear
to be a non-logic from a Western point of view: it tends to be
anecdotal, non-dualistic, disconnected, and dependent on feel-
ings rather than concrete evidence. The Japanese resist Western
methods of classification and do not make distinctions according
to our logic. Instead of dividing topics into discrete categories
and treating them sequentially, they value the skill of assimi-
lating intrinsically dissimilar entities. Besides these differences
in the value of articulation, logic, concrete evidence, classifica-
tion, and agreement, the Japanese have a different attitude about
style, and place value on a complete lack of eloquence. Distrust
and contempt increase with greater eloquence. Western visitors
experiencing Japan often conclude that the best way to commu-
nicate is in silence, as in the Tea Ceremony, when everything
is understood, and the feelings are deep and clear. The best
way to settle a disagreement is to be found in the manner of
serving green powdered tea in a bowl in relative silence. Words
become an inseparable part of the ritual whose ultimate aim is
total communication.
Kunihiro's characterizations provide authority, objectivity,

and clarity to my own conclusions and intuitions about Japanese
attitudes regarding language and rhetoric. How much of his
discussion applies strictly to written language and how the val-
ues he identifies manifest themselves in composition in English
must still be determined since he does not distinguish writing
from speech. His essays are primarily concerned with solving
CJL/RCL 29(2), 1884 125
the communication difficulties between Japanese and Americans
in political and economic relations, but he also explains some of
the problems of rhetorical solutions. The assumption commonly
accepted in ESL programs that the solution basically involves
teaching the students to communicate according to our methods
is not sufficient. The Japanese can communicate according to
our norms, and we may falsely assume that a problem is solved,
when, in fact, they are experiencing a psychological separation
of what is stated from what is felt. When a Japanese speaks his
language "in a so-called logical fashion, as he would a Western
language, the impression is one of lack of warmth and an uneasi-
ness as if he were not at home with his manner of speech. Thus
there is a divergence between his principles (conscious norms)
and his real feelings (subconscious norms)" (Kunihiro 1972:163).
In making the adjustment the Japanese "have developed a dual
structure of communication", and Americans mistakenly assume
that what the message means to themselves is also what it means
to the Japanese (Kunihiro 1973:100-101). No programme that
concentrates on imitating American discourse structures as a so-
lution can possibly solve this dilemma even though the result is
what we would consider a clearer and better written essay.
Japanese writers cannot easily shift from their values about
language, as we may wish them to, because these are further
dominated by other inherent values in the culture such as wo,
or harmony (O-Young 1983), general ideas about imitation and
originality (Schinzinger 1983), and "the emptiness principle":
what is indicated but not there is more important and acceptable
than what is too bluntly present. These essays demonstrate how
general attitudes relate to specific language attitudes.
The consequence of this unavoidable dilemma of different pat-
terns of meaning is that the adjustment must take place in both
directions. Kunihiro argues that the Japanese must recognize
their own patterns while making adjustments towards Western
ones, and Westerners must appreciate Japanese patterns of com-
munication. The model of inter-language in ESL and TESOL
theory could possibly be extended to the development of a theory
of inter-rhetoric, an adjustment to rhetorical values and methods
of the target culture without compromising native ones. Other-
wise we force TL writers to wear a mask (the image is Kunihiro's)
and assume that it is reality because it happens to be ours.
Rhetorical values specify the cultural context of the writer
but relate deeply to the cognitive structure in the writer's com-
posing process and show up as various problems for the reader
caused by the discourse structures of the essay. I have summa-
rized the problems in syntax and other discourse structures in
two earlier essays and have argued how these relate to Japanese
cultural attitudes; these include syntactic problems such as un-
grammatical use of the passive, lack of parallelism, overly com-
plex phrasing, omission or unclear statement of the subject, and
the over-use of phrases such as "I think, it seems to me, and it
appears", and more comprehensive discourse problems with fo-
cus, logic, statement of the thesis, classification and coherence.
Other research in ESL composition is providing further support
for the fact that the discourse structures of writers from different
cultures vary according to observable patterns; Ichikawa (1983)
identifies concrete patterned differences in sample essays writ-
ten by English, Spanish, and Japanese essays although she does
not attempt to generalize about their relationship to culture.
These results are supported by a comprehensive semiotic theory
(Winner and Umiker-Sebeok 1979) and by studies of linguists
and anthropologists demonstrating how the use of discourse in
spoken communication varies according to ethnic and cultural
factors (Gumperz and Hymes 1964).
Studies of TL essays and identification of cultural attitudes

must, however, be supplemented by research in the composing
process of TL writers since the product will be a result of the
influence of the target culture and language, the writer's own at-
titudes, and other factors. This method may indicate the dual or
multi- structure of communication, and demonstrate the differ-
ences between what TL writers would express according to their
own cultural patterns and what they do express as a result of
attempted adjustments to the target culture. Future research fo-
CJL/RCL 29(2), 1984 127
cussing on these issues using the methods developed in studying
the composing processes of writers will elucidate these relation-
ships more concretely.
The problems of communicating across cultures, though com-
plex, are obviously surmountable as demonstrated by many writ-
ers who have done so in various fields ranging from literature to
science. Understanding the writing processes of both successful
and weak writers as they encounter conflicting cultural attitudes
consciously or intuitively may help clarify their intention. At the
same time communication demands sensitivity to the diversity
of rhetorical techniques as distinct products of culture.
REFERENCES
Berkenkotter, Carol
1983 Decisions and Revisions: The Planning Strategies of a Publishing
Writer. College Compoiition and Communication 34: 156-172.
Clyne, Michael
1981 Culture and Discourse Structure. Journal of Pra$matie$ 5:61-66.
Cooper, Marilyn and Michael Hoffman

1983 Talking About Protocols. College Compoiition and Communication
34:284-293.
Flower, Linda S. and John R. Hayes

1977 Problem-solving Strategies and the Writing Process. College EnglUh
39:449-461.
Gumpen, John J. and Dell Hymes, eds.

1964 The Ethnography of Communication. American Anthropologic: Spe-
cial Publication. 66(6): part 2.
Harder, Bernhard D.
1981 Discourse Structures and Grammatical Competence: An Experi-
mental Composition Course in Japan. Language Sciencei 3:27-50.
1983 Inherent Cultural Values and Discourse Structures in English Es-

says by Japanese Students. Descriptive and Applied Linguietice 16:25-
31.
Harder, Bernhard D. and Helga Kutz-Harder

1982 Cultural Interface and Teaching English Composition in Japan.
The English Teacher'i Magazine 31:10-23.
Hinds, J.
1982 Contrastive Rhetoric — Japanese and English. Paper presented at
TESOL, Hawaii.
Houghton, Dianne and Michael Hoey.

1983 Linguistics and Written Discourse: Contrastive Rhetorics. Pp. 2-
22 in Annual Review of Applied Linguistic*: 1088. R. Kaplan et al,
eds. Rowley, Mass.: Newbury House.
Ichikawa, Yuko
1983 Contrastive Analysis of Discourse Structure in the Writing of Three
Freshmen. Ms.
Jones, Stan
1982 Attention to Rhetorical Information While Composing in a Second
Language. To appear in the Proceeding* of the 4th Lot Angelet Second
Language Research Forum.
1983 Problems with Monitor Use in Second Language Composing. Un-
published ma.
Jones, Stan and Jacqueline Tetroe

1083 Composing in a Second Language. To appear in Writing in Real
Time. Ann Matsuhashi, ed.
Kaplan, Robert B.
1066 Cultural Thought Patterns in Inter-cultural Education. Language
Learning 16:1-20.
1967 Contrastive Rhetoric and the Teaching of Composition. TESOL
Quarterly 1:10-16.
1978 Contrastive Rhetoric: Some Hypotheses. Inttituut vor tergepaite Lin-

guittiek: Review of Applied Linguistic* 39-40, 61-72.
Kunihiro, Masao
1972 U.S.-Japan Communications. Pp. 155-172 in Discord in the Pacific:
Challenge* to the Japanese-American Alliance. Henry Rosovsky, ed.
Washington: Columbia Books.
CJL/RCL 29(2), 1984 129
1973 Indigenous Barriers to Communication. The Japan Interpreter 8:96-
108.
1976 Japanese Language and Intercultural Communication. The Japan

Interpreter 10:267-283.
Miller, R.A.
1982 Japan'i Modern Myth: The Language and Beyond. Tokyo: Weatherhill.
Morrison, J.L.
1972 The Absence of a Rhetorical Tradition in Japanese Culture. Wett-
ern Speech 36:89-102.
Ogawa, Dennis M.
1979 Communication Characteristics of Asian Americans in Urban Set-
tings: The Case of Honolulu Japanese. Pp. 321-337 in Handbook
of International Communication. Molefi Asante et al, eds. London:
Sage.
Oliver, Robert T.
1962 Culture and Communication: The Problem of Penetrating National and
Cultural Boundarie: Springfield, Illinois: Chas. C. Thomas.
1971 Communication and Culture in Ancient India and China. Syracuse:

Syracuse University Press.
O-Young, Lee
1983 The Culture of "wa*. Japan Quarterly 30:54-56.
Ramsey, Sheila
1983 Double Vision: Nonverbal Behavior East and West. Unpublished
paper. Presented at the 2nd International Conference on Nonverbal
Behavior, Toronto, May 1983.
Saville-Troike, Muriel
1976 Culture, Language, and Education. In Bilingual Multicultural Educa-
tion and the Profeuional: From Theory to Practice. Henry T. Trueba
and Carol Barnett-Misrahi, eds. Rowley, Mass.: Newbury House.
Schinsinger, Robert
1983 Imitation and Originality in Japanese Culture. Japan Quarterly
30:281-288.
Stokes, Henry Scot
1983 The Emptiness Principle. Japan Quarterly 30:160-162.
Winner, Irene Portis and Jean Umiker-Sebeok, eds.

1979 Semiotiet of Culture. New York: Mouton.
Zamel, Vivian
1983 The Composing Processes of Advanced ESL Students: Six Case
Studies. TESOL Quarterly 17:165-187.

Harder 1984

Uploaded by

Document Information

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

Harder 1984

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

CJL/RCL 29(2), 1084 115

Complex communication difficulties involving stylistics, logic

I have tried to demonstrate on the basin of the Arabic language and on

More specifically and in a later essay, Kaplan theorizes that:

The second-language learner not only lacks a knowledge of the inter-

This statement may apply without qualification to many be-

According to Kaplan, cultural and sociolinguistic differences con-

For a second language learner, his learning is always unfavorably af-

In a subsequent discussion the student explained that the prob-

It is difficult or even impossible for an ESL student to do away com-

I have already described similar Japanese responses to the use

Rather than an expression of one's will or thoughts, language has been

This process has to be experienced repeatedly in order to com-

Kunihiro's characterizations provide authority, objectivity,

Studies of TL essays and identification of cultural attitudes

Cooper, Marilyn and Michael Hoffman

Flower, Linda S. and John R. Hayes

Gumpen, John J. and Dell Hymes, eds.

1983 Inherent Cultural Values and Discourse Structures in English Es-

Harder, Bernhard D. and Helga Kutz-Harder

Houghton, Dianne and Michael Hoey.

Jones, Stan and Jacqueline Tetroe

1978 Contrastive Rhetoric: Some Hypotheses. Inttituut vor tergepaite Lin-

1976 Japanese Language and Intercultural Communication. The Japan

1971 Communication and Culture in Ancient India and China. Syracuse:

Winner, Irene Portis and Jean Umiker-Sebeok, eds.

You might also like