Reverse Transfer: Exploring the Effects of Foreign Language Rhetorical Patterns on L1 Writing Performance of Iranian EFL Learners

Abstract

The relationship between language learners’ L1 and L2 writing productions has attracted the attention of researchers since Kaplan (1966). Along this research line, the present study aimed to explore the reverse transfer of rhetorical patterns from English (L2) to Persian (L1) in the argumentative essays of EFL students in Iran. Sixty MA university students (30 English-majors and 30 non-English-majors) participated in the study. Adopting the scheme developed by Kubota (1998a, 1998b), the study focused on the organization of the essays. The main findings of the study are (a) the non-significant difference between L1 and L2 essays of the same student in both English and non-English majors (b) the positive and significant correlation between the qualities of L1 and L2 essays in both English and non-English majors, (c) and the probable transfer of English-specific organization patterns from L2 to L1 especially among English majors.

Keywords

Contrastive rhetoric organizational patterns L1 and L2 writing reverse transfer location of main idea macro-level patterns

Introduction

The publication of a seminal article by Kaplan (1966) – also known as ‘doodles’, due to its suggestion of a scheme representing different cultural conventions in writing- introduced ‘contrastive rhetoric’ as a very important and influential discipline. His study according to Leki (1991) was the first work done on written discourse analysis of L2 learners.

Contrastive rhetoric, however, has been harshly criticized from different perspectives: for being too simplistic in its research methodology and conceptualization of the CR notion (Matsuda, 1997); for over-generalizing and stereotyping about rhetorical conventions (Leki, 1991,1995); and for considering transfer from first language as negative influence (Kubota,1998a) (see Uysal, 2008). Kaplan’s CR has highlighted cultural differences between English language and the students’ first language and has introduced L2 learners as culturally deficient (Kubota and Lehner, 2004). English language writing style is introduced as linear, logical, direct and deductive while other languages especially Asian languages are illustrated as non-linear, indirect, illogical and inductive (Yoon, 2010).

Connor (2005) is against such criticisms. She maintains that contrastive rhetoric looks at the dynamic inter-linguistic/cultural influences; it includes the point of view of World or International Englishes, dealing with English and EFL varieties in genre specific writing. This new and dynamic approach to contrastive rhetoric advocated by Connor, has taken a broader, communicative view of rhetoric across cultures and has continued to generate research in the area of contrastive/ intercultural rhetoric (see, Kobayashi, 2005).

In a well-documented and highly cited study, Mohan and Lo (1985) clearly stated that there are no striking differences between Chinese and English organizational patterns in both classical texts and modern works. They also rejected the idea of negative transfer or interference from the first language as the sole factor creating problems in L2 writing. They mentioned developmental factors as other important criteria for L2 writing quality and highlighted positive transfer of first language to the L2 writing rather than the negative transfer. In the other relevant study Kobayashi and Rinnert (2005), further, found evidence of positive transfer from the novice writers’ L1 (Japanese) high school writing training/experience in their L2 (English) writings (see Kobayashi and Rinnert, 2008).

The results of these studies revealed that transfer in its traditional sense is the effects of first language (L1) or previously learned language on the acquisition of the second language (L2). However, as Su (2001) puts it ‘in recent years, attention has started to be drawn to the possible impact of learner’s L2 knowledge on their use of L1’ (e.g. Kecskes and Papp, 2000; Pavlenko, 2000; Su, 2001; Cook, 2003).

This idea is well developed by Cook (2003): ‘The idea of transfer goes back to 1953 when Ultrich Weinreich first defined interference as the instances of deviation from the norms of either language which occur in the speech of bilinguals as the result of their familiarity with more than one language’ (Cook, 2003: 10). However, few people have paid much attention to the word ‘either’ in this definition. The focus has been on the influence of first language on the second language and Reverse or Backward Transfer which is the effect of second or foreign language on the first has not received enough attention.

Despite the aforementioned ideas and suggestions for research by famous scholars on the areas of contrastive rhetoric and language transfer, few studies have specifically concentrated on Persian rhetorical organizations and the idea of transfer through the exploration of different genres. Two contrastive rhetoric studies by Riazi and Assar (2000) and Ansary and Babaii (2009) investigated the global or macro-rhetorical organization of the genre ‘newspaper editorials’. In the ‘Suggestion for further research’ section, these researchers called for research on rhetorical patterns of argumentative writing within one culture or cross-culturally.

Against the backdrop of such theorizing about contrastive rhetoric and bidirectional transfer and also for addressing the gaps highlighted above by Iranian scholars in this area, this study sought to look more carefully into the bi-directionality of transfer of macro-level rhetorical patterns in the argumentative writing performance of Iranian English and non-English-major students at MA and MSc levels. In order to understand the possible links between rhetorical patterns or culture and the transfer of these patterns, the individual students’ argumentative essays were analysed through the following research questions and hypotheses.

Research Questions and Hypotheses

Is there any difference in rhetorical structures within English-major participants in their L2 (English) and L1 (Persian) argumentative essays?

Is there any difference in rhetorical structures within non-English-major participants in their L2 (English) and L1 (Persian) argumentative essays?

Are there significant differences in organizational patterns between L1 and L2 argumentative essays produced by both English and non-English-Major students?

Is there any significant relationship between the quality of L1 and L2 essays written by both English-major and non-English-major students?

Methodology

Participants

A total of 60 Iranian university students participated in this study. They were 30 MA English major students (TEFL and Translation) and 30 MA non-English majors of both genders (male and female). All of them were students of Kharazmi University of Tehran and their first language was Persian (Farsi). The English-major students had passed different courses of writing and were at least familiar with basic concepts of formal writing such as topic sentences, thesis statement and three-part structure of introduction, body and conclusion. However, the non-English-major group lacked such an experience since there are no formal writing courses of English during both high-school and university periods for non-English majors in Iran. Even though English is taught at schools and universities, this instruction mostly consists of learning grammar rules and translation into Persian.

Instrumentation

The following instruments were used to collect the required data for this study.

Quick Oxford Placement Test (2004): The QOPT (2004) was used in order to measure the English proficiency of two groups of the students before assigning them to the writing task. This test consists of 60 items which participants have 30 minutes to answer. The scoring criteria for QOPT is presented in Table 1. Based on the results of the test, the English-majors’ proficiency level corresponded to upper intermediate and lower advanced and non-English majors’ proficiency level corresponded to elementary level.

Table 1.

Scoring Criteria for Quick Oxford Placement Test.

Proficiency Level	Cut-off Points
Breakthrough	1–18
Elementary	19–25
Lower-intermediate	26–35
Upper-intermediate	36–45
Lower-advanced	46–55
Upper- advanced	56–60

Meyer’s (1975, 1985a, 1985b) Basic Logical Relationships: This is a framework used for the evaluation of Macro-level rhetorical structures of written texts. The original scheme known as ‘basic logical relationships’ was developed by Meyer (1975, 1985a, 1985b). Kubota (1998) reduced Meyer’s categories to five basic types so that deduction versus induction could be easily identified. Based on Kubota’s framework the current study used the following five basic categories for presenting Macro-level rhetorical patterns.

Collection

Comparison

Explanation

Specification

Induction

Kubota’s (1998a, 1998b) Scoring Scheme for Organization: This is a widely used framework for scoring the overall organization of the writing text with criteria from 5 (Excellent) to 1 (Poor). The scheme was developed based on some scoring schemes for L1 English (descriptors for global coherence in Bamberg, 1984), ESL (the section for organization in Jacobs et al., 1981) and L1 Japanese (descriptors for organization in Hirai, 1971 and Minato, 1976).

Procedure

Writing Tasks: A total of 120 argumentative essays in English and Persian were produced by both English and Non-English-major students. The participants in this study wrote on two different topics. Both topics were selected among the essay prompts for TOEFL and EILTS tests. English and Persian experts’ opinions were asked and also an attempt was made to best match the interest of participants. Both groups were asked to write in Persian first and two weeks later to write in English. The participants were required to produce essays with at least 250 words, no time limitation was forced upon them and dictionaries were allowed.

Data Analysis

The Focus of Analysis: The analysis of essays focused on macro-level features. This focus was chosen because according to Kubota (1989a, 1989b) the characteristics of texts which are assumed to be culture-specific and also the overall meaning of texts lie at the macro-level of discourse. Also it is claimed that connecting ideas in a deductive and linear way or vice versa (Burtoff, 1983; Oi, 1984; Ostler, 1987, 1990; cited in Uysal, 2008) may be culture specific. Further, this is the area where cross-rhetorical differences and evidence of transfer across languages can be anticipated (Kobayashi and Rinnert, 2010).

The data were analysed as follows. First, the texts were scrutinized for the location of main ideas. Following Kubota (1998), there were five categories for location of main ideas: initial, middle, final, collection, and obscure. Second, the macro level rhetorical structures were investigated using Kubota’s (1998) pattern categorization: Collection (Col), Comparison (Comp), Explanation (Exp), Specification (Spec), Induction following Comparison (Comp → Ind) and Induction (Ind).

Coding: The coding of the essays was done by researchers. There was 96% agreement between the two raters for the location of main idea, 90% for macro-level rhetorical patterns and 88% for organization score of the essays. In the case of discrepancy we arrived at agreement after discussion.

Results and Discussion

Data Analysis and Results Related to the First and Second Research Questions

In order to obtain sufficient information on whether a pair of essays exhibit ‘Similar’ or ‘Dissimilar’ rhetorical features, it was necessary to consider the similarity of both location of main ideas and macro-level rhetorical patterns. If both of these dimensions or one of them were different in the two essays produced by the same student, it was considered ‘Dissimilar’. As it is shown in Table 2 below, 19 out of 30 (63.3%) English-major students wrote their essays similarly regarding the main idea and macro-level patterns. The remaining 11 participants (36.7%) produce different essays.

Table 2.

Analysis of Main Idea and Macro-Level Patterns for English-Majors.

Participants	Main Idea		Macro-Level Patterns
	English	Persian	English	Persian
EW1	Initial	Initial	Explanation (Col)	Explanation (Col)
EW2	Initial	Obscure	Explanation (Comp)	Neither
EW3	Middle	Initial	Explanation (Col)	Explanation (Col)
EW4	Initial	Initial	Explanation (Col)	Explanation (Col)
EW5	Initial	Initial	Explanation (Col)	Explanation (Col)
EW6	Initial	Initial	Explanation (Col)	Explanation (Col)
EW7	Initial	Initial	Explanation (Comp)	Explanation (Comp)
EW8	Initial	Initial	Explanation (Comp)	Explanation (Col)
EW9	Initial	Initial	Explanation (Col)	Explanation (Col)
EW10	Initial	Initial	Explanation (Comp)	Explanation (Col)
EW11	Initial	Initial	Explanation (Col)	Explanation (Col)
EW12	Initial	Initial	Explanation (Col)	Explanation (Col)
EW13	Final	Obscure	Induction (Col)	Collection
EW14	Final	Obscure	Induction (Col)	Neither
EW15	Obscure	Middle	Explanation (Col)	Explanation (Comp)
EW16	Initial	Final	Specification (Col)	Induction (Col)
EW17	Initial	Final	Explanation (Col)	Induction (Col)
EW18	Initial	Final	Explanation (Col)	Induction (Comp)
EW19	Final	Final	Induction (Col)	Induction (Comp)
EW20	Initial	Final	Explanation (Col)	Induction (Col)
EW21	Initial	Final	Explanation (Col)	Induction (Col)
EW22	Final	Initial	Induction (Comp)	Explanation (Col)
EW23	Final	Final	Induction (Comp)	Induction (Comp)
EW24	Final	Final	Induction (Col)	Induction (Comp)
EW25	Final	Final	Induction (Col)	Induction (Comp)
EW26	Initial	Initial	Explanation (Col)	Explanation (Col)
EW27	Initial	Initial	Explanation (Col)	Explanation (Col)
EW28	Initial	Initial	Explanation (Col)	Explanation (Col)
EW29	Initial	Initial	Explanation (Col)	Explanation (Col)
EW30	Initial	Initial	Explanation (Col)	Explanation (Col)

EW stands for English-major Writer.

Among the participants who wrote their essays similarly, 15 out of 19 followed the ‘Explanation’ macro-level rhetorical pattern and ‘Initial’ position of main idea. These two categories of organizational patterns are identified as recommended English rhetoric in the previous research: Kubota (1992, 1998a, 1998b), Hirose (2003) and Yoon (2010). The remaining four students in the similar group produced their essays with the main idea in the ‘Final’ position and ‘Induction (collection)’ macro-level pattern. The students who wrote their essays differently didn’t show much variety regarding both aspects of organization. Most of them produced their English and Persian essays using Final or Initial main idea and Explanation or Induction patterns.

The written production of non-English-major students was almost different from that of English-majors. As shown in Table 3 the diversity of patterns in this group is more than the English-major students. Regarding the similarity and dissimilarity between the essays of this group, 16 out of the 30 (53.3%) essays are similar and the remaining 14 (46.6%) are dissimilar. Although the percentages of similar essays in the non-English group (53.3%) are almost the same as those of the English group (63.3%), only seven out of 16 students have used the ‘initial’ position of main idea and Explanation (Col or Comp) rhetorical pattern which is specified as an English rhetorical organization pattern despite 15 out of 19 students in the English-major group. The other pairs of similar essays of the non-English-major students are ‘Final’ main idea and Induction (Col) rhetorical pattern (five students), ‘Middle’ main idea and Explanation (Col) or ‘Neither’ rhetorical patterns (three students) and ‘Obscure’ main idea and ‘Neither’ rhetorical pattern (one student).

Table 3.

Analysis of Main Idea and Macro-Level Patterns for Non English-Majors.

Participants	Main Idea		Macro-Level Patterns
	English	Persian	English	Persian
NW1	Initial	Initial	Explanation (Col)	Explanation (Col)
NW2	Initial	Initial	Explanation (Comp)	Explanation (Col)
NW3	Obscure	Final	Neither	Induction (Col)
NW4	Initial	Initial	Explanation (Col)	Explanation (Col)
NW5	Initial	Initial	Explanation (Col)	Explanation (Col)
NW6	Final	Initial	Induction (Comp)	Explanation (Col)
NW7	Initial	Initial	Explanation (Com)	Explanation (Col)
NW8	Initial	Final	Explanation (Col)	Induction (Col)
NW9	Initial	Initial	Explanation (Col)	Explanation (Col)
NW10	Initial	Final	Neither	Induction (Col)
NW11	Initial	Final	Explanation (Comp)	Induction (Col)
NW12	Final	Final	Neither	Induction (Col)
NW13	Final	Final	Induction (Comp)	Induction (Col)
NW14	Initial	Middle	Explanation (Col)	Explanation (Col)
NW15	Initial	Obscure	Explanation (Comp)	Neither
NW16	Middle	Obscure	Explanation (Col)	Explanation (Col)
NW17	Initial	Obscure	Explanation (Comp)	Neither
NW18	Initial	Final	Explanation (Col)	Induction (Com)
NW19	Final	Final	Induction (Col)	Induction (Col)
NW20	Initial	Obscure	Explanation (Comp)	Neither
NW21	Middle	Middle	Explanation (Col)	Explanation (Col)
NW22	Middle	Middle	Neither	Neither
NW23	Middle	Middle	Explanation (Col)	Neither
NW24	Final	Initial	Induction (Col)	Explanation (Col)
NW25	Final	Final	Induction (Col)	Induction (Col)
NW26	Obscure	Obscure	Neither	Neither
NW27	Initial	Initial	Explanation (Col)	Explanation (Col)
NW28	Initial	Final	Explanation (Col)	Induction (Col)
NW29	Final	Final	Induction (Col)	Induction (Col)
NW30	Initial	Final	Explanation (Col)	Induction (Col)

NW refers to non-English-major Writer.

Unlike what we saw among the English-major students, the position of main idea among the essays of this group is more scattered and the number of similar and dissimilar essays regarding the aspects of organizational pattern is almost the same. Table 4 shows the location of main idea and the percentages of categories which better represent this position.

Table 4.

Analysis of Position of Main Idea in Non-English Majors.

Location of Main Idea	Persian		English
	Participant	Percentage	Participant	Percentage
Initial	9	30	17	56
Middle	4	14	4	14
Final	12	40	7	24
Collection	0	0	0	0
Obscure	5	16	2	6

As shown in Table 4, 17 (56%) participants stated their position to be Initial in L2 (English) essays, 4 (14%) said it was Middle, 7 (24%) said Final, 2 (6%) said Obscure, and no cases of collection were found. The students in this group used more deductive pattern in their L2 than inductive. However, in their Persian essays most of them put their positions in the Final (40%) followed by Initial (30%), Obscure (16%), Middle (14%) and no Collection positions. This means that they wrote their essays more inductively which is not the pattern favoured in English writing.

The types of rhetorical patterns used by the participants in this group are mostly the same as those produced by English-major students. Explanation (Collection) was the most frequent rhetorical pattern produced in both English (46%) and Persian (40%) essays. Other rhetorical structures which are used by the participants of this group are Explanation (Comp) (16%), Induction (Col) (14%), Induction (Comp) (6%) and neither (18%) for English essays and Induction (Col) (36%), Induction (Comp) (4%) and Neither (20%) for Persian essays.

Considering the above mentioned ideas and the data provided in the tables and also based on Kubota’s framework (1988a, 1988b, 1992) used in this study, the majority of English-major students (70%) applied the characteristics of deductive type of writing (Initial position of main idea and Explanation rhetorical pattern) in the production of their English essays. The probable explanation for such a condition is the idea of ‘Threshold Level’ of English proficiency which is mentioned in Cook (2003). He believes that the reverse transfer of L2 rhetorical patterns to L1 is possible when a student’s proficiency of L2 is equal to or goes higher than a threshold level. That threshold level according to Kobayashi and Rinnert (2005) is obtained by ‘the amount of writing practice and experience that helps writers to convert the knowledge to the acquisition level which makes the learned knowledge transferable across languages’ (2005: 104). Thus several writers in the English-major group who had reached that level mostly through L2 writing training transferred their knowledge of rhetorical patterns consciously between two languages while the non-English major students’ conscious knowledge of rhetorical patterns was not enough and they could not transfer this knowledge between two languages. There were also some English-major students (21%) who used Inductive pattern [Final position of main idea and Induction (Col or Comp) type of rhetorical pattern] which is considered a non-English writing pattern and about 13% of them used this pattern in their Persian productions.

The comparison between English and non-English essays through the framework used in this study helps us come to some conclusions, though not definitive, about the nature of patterns used by both groups of students. First, regarding the use of deductive rhetorical pattern (Initial main idea and Explanation macro-level pattern) in English essays especially by English-major students we can say these students have applied their learned rhetorical patterns to the writing of essays and have tried to transfer this knowledge to their Persian productions. Second, since to the best of our knowledge no specific organizational pattern is identified in Persian writing considering the categories demonstrated in Kubota’s (1998) framework, the students have tried to adopt the English-specific pattern to both writing productions. However, the low English proficiency level of students in the non-English-major group has caused more variations in the organization patterns by this group especially among their Persian essays.

Data Analysis and Results Related to The Third Research Question

English-Major Students: The organization of the essays in this study was measured using the scheme developed by Kubota (1998). The essays were divided into ‘inductive’, ‘deductive’ or ‘neither’ based on the location of main idea and the type of macro-level rhetorical patterns. The coding was done by the two researchers after reaching agreement over the scheme. The inter-coder reliability estimated through Cronbach’s Alpha was .96 and .90 for location of main idea and macro-level rhetorical patterns respectively.

The result of the analysis of English-major students’ essays for organizational pattern is demonstrated in Table 5.

Table 5.

The Organization Patterns of English-major Students.

Count		Pattern			Total
		inductive	deductive	Neither	Total
Essays	English	7	22	1	30
Essays	Persian	8	18	4	30
Total		15	40	5	60

English-major students have produced most of their essays deductively. This pattern is somehow predictable regarding the proficiency level of students and also the high frequency of deductive patterns in English writing. However, some students in this group have written their essays, especially their Persian ones, using ‘inductive’ pattern or ‘neither’ of these two patterns.

In order to see whether the differences between the organization of the students’ English and Persian essays is significant or not the Pearson Chi-Square test of difference was run. Table 6 shows the analysis of the English-major students’ writings using Chi-Square test.

Table 6.

Chi-Square Test of Difference for English Major Students’ L1 and L2 Essays.

	Value	df	Asymp. Sig.(2-sided)	Exact Sig. (2-sided)	Exact Sig. (1-sided)	Point Prob-ability
Pearson Chi-Square	2.26^a	2	.322	.429
Likelihood Ratio	2.395	2	.302	.371
Fisher’s Exact Test	2.142			.429
Linear-by-Linear Association	.215^b	1	.643	.818	.409	.165
N of Valid Cases	60

Two cells (33.3%) have expected count less than 5. The minimum expected count is 2.50.

The standardized statistic is .463.

Since the analysis showed that two cells had expected count less than 5, an exact significance test was selected for Pearson Chi-Square. The Chi-Square analysis revealed that the difference between English and Persian essays in this group is not significant: X² (2, N=60) = 2.26, exact p=.429. Therefore, the null-hypothesis is supported. This means that the organizations of both English and Persian essays produced by the same student are more similar than different. Although there is some discrepancy between the organizational patterns of students in their English and Persian essays, there are clear clues of transferring rhetorical patterns from English to Persian.

Non-English-major Students: The result of analysing both English and Persian essays for organizational pattern in this group is provided in Table 7.

Table 7.

Non-English-major Students Organizational Pattern of Essays.

Count		Pattern			Total
		inductive	Deductive	neither	Total
Essays	English	7	16	7	30
	Persian	7	17	6	30
Total	14	33	13	60

Like the English-major group, the ‘Deductive’ pattern is more frequent in both English and Persian essays of the non-English group. However, the number of students who are identified as ‘neither’ meaning none of Inductive or Deductive patterns are more than the English-major group.

For estimating the significance of the difference between English and Persian essays of the same student in this group on the organization dimension, the Chi-Square test was performed. The result of analysis is provided in Table 8. As the table shows the value of Pearson Chi-Square is cχ² (2, N=60), p=.984 which shows that the difference between English and Persian essays is not significant at P = .05.

Table 8.

Chi-Square Test of Difference for Non- English Major Students’ L1 and L2 Essays.

	Value	Df	Asymp. Sig.(2-sided)
Pearson Chi-Square	.107^a	2	.948
Likelihood Ratio Linear-by-Linear	.107	2	.948
Association	.306	1	.849
N of Valid Cases	60

0 cells (.0%) have expected count less than 5. The minimum expected count is 6.50.

The result of Pearson Chi-Square shows that there is no significant difference in organization patterns between L1 and L2 of the same student in both English and non-English groups. Most of the students especially in the English-major group preferred deductive organization patterns in both their English and Persian essays. This similarity of organization patterns becomes more noticeable considering the English and Persian different essay-topics and the time.

In summary, the English-major students organized their essays better either deductively or inductively in comparison with Non-English-majors who had more ‘neither’ organization patterns in both English and Persian essays. Regarding the similar Persian writing background of these two groups of students, the role of intensive English education and writing experience in organizing the English argumentative essays and using this knowledge in writing Persian essays becomes more evident.

Data Analysis and Results Related to the Fourth Research Question

The quality of essays was evaluated through the scoring of organization dimension. Kubota (1998a, 1998b) developed a workable framework for scoring the organization. The scores ranged from 5 (Excellent) to 1 (Poor) in this scheme. After holding a debriefing session and discussion over the reliability of the scheme, the two raters scored both English and Persian essays on the essay organization. The inter-rater reliability estimated using Cronbach’s Alpha was .88. In order to find whether there is any relationship between the quality of English and Persian essays produced by the same student in both English and non-English-major groups, the Pearson Product Moment Correlation test was run. The result of the Correlation test for English-major students is provided in Table 9.

Table 9.

English-major Students Test of Correlation between English and Persian Essays.

		Persian	English
Persian	Pearson correlation	1	.444^*
	Sig. (2-tailed)		.016
	N	30	29
English	Pearson Correlation	.444	.1
	Sig. (2-tailed)	.016
	N	29	29

Correlation is significant at the 0.05 level (2-tailed).

Table 9 shows there is a significant positive correlation between the English and Persian essays of this group (r= .444, N=30, p= .016). This means that those who have done well in organizing their English essays have also organized their Persian essays well. Most of the students in this group have used the deductive type of organization in both of their essays and have received higher scores for the quality of these essays; however, there are those who have produced inductive essays in both languages or one of them (mostly Persian) and they have also recieved high scores for the quality of these inductive essays.

The high score of those students in this group who have organized their essays inductively in both their Persian and English essays shows that inductivity or deductively is not the sole factor resulting in better quality essays. Other factors like the linearity of organization, lexical diversity and well-formed sentences and clauses are among the other significant descriptors for scoring the organization of essays.

Furthermore, for the non-English group the condition is like the English-major group and there is a positive, significant correlation between the quality of English and Persian essays produced by the same student in this group. However, the students of this group (non-English-majors) received very low scores in both their English and Persian essays in comparison with the English-major students. Table 10 better represents the Correlation of English and Persian essays written by the same student in the Non-English–major group.

Table 10.

Non-English-major Correlation Test.

		Persian	English
Persian	Pearson correlation	1	.493^**
	Sig. (2-tailed)		.006
	N	30	30
English	Pearson Correlation	.493^*	1
	Sig. (2-tailed)	^*.006
	N	30	30

Correlation is significant at the 0.01 level (2-tailed).

There is significant positive correlation between Persian and English essays (r= .493, N=30, p=.006, two-tailed) regarding their quality of organization.

The total number of 13 students (43%) who have used ‘neither’ pattern in the non-English group reported in Table 7 above in comparison with 5 students (17%) using this pattern in the English group shown in Table 5 is a good indication of lower quality scores in non-English–majors.

The higher number of students who have shown better quality in organizing their English and Persian essays in the English-major group can be explained as follows. First, the higher proficiency level of English among the students in this group in comparison with the non-English-major group has helped the better organization of the English essays and transferring this knowledge to the Persian ones. Second, the familiarity of students in this group with the rules of essay-writing, the argumentative type of writing and also the three-fold structure of introduction-body-conclusion has provided them with good background knowledge. The effects of previous writing experience on L2 writing have been found to be significant (e.g. Sasaki and Hirose, 1996), and cannot be ignored (cited in Hirose, 2003). This knowledge of good essay writing is however absent in the Iranian context even in English language education courses in both high school and university periods where writing is somehow a neglected skill.

Summary of Main Findings and Concluding Remarks

The major findings of the study are summarized as follows:

The number of ‘similar’ essays (English and Persian essays produced by the same student) was significantly more than the ‘dissimilar’ ones especially among the English-major group. Most of these similar essays and even dissimilar ones were produced with the ‘Initial’ main ideas and ‘Explanation’ macro-level rhetorical patterns which are said to be English-specific rhetorical patterns. This shows the possibility of transfer of rhetorical patterns from L2 (English) to L1 (Persian) which is consistent with findings of the studies done on Turkish language by Enginarlar’s (1990) and Oktar (1991) (mentioned in Uysal, 2008).

There were not significant differences between the students L1 and L2 regarding main idea and macro-level rhetorical patterns showing that most of the students in both English and non-English groups organized their essays similarly.

There was significant and positive correlation between the quality of organization patterns of English and Persian essays produced by both English and non-English major groups. Those with high scores of organization patterns in English also received high scores for organizing their Persian essays. This is also a justification of transfer of organization patterns from L2 to L1 considering the frequency of English-specific organization patterns in both English and Persian essays of the English-major group.

Most of the students in the English-major group used a ‘Deductive’ rhetorical pattern which is considered to be an English-specific pattern; also the presence of this pattern in their Persian essays can give us a clue that reverse transfer is happening.

Those few students in the English-major group who produced the essays with an ‘Inductive’ pattern received high quality scores for organization according to the framework used in this study. Therefore, it was assumed that macro-level rhetorical patterns such as deductive and inductive reasoning are not the only factors in developing and organizing a good argumentative essay and some variables other than the choice of organization patterns such as the student’s proficiency level in L2, the experience of composing in English and lexical and structural control can also be influential in the quality of organizational scores. This finding is consistent with the results obtained in Kubota (1998), Cumming (1998), Hirose and Sasaki (1994) and Sasaki and Hirose (1996).

The high number of students who used ‘similar’ organizational patterns even among the non-English-major group shows the possibility of transfer of these patterns especially from L2 (English) to L1 (Persian) since the common preferences and commonalities among the participants regarding overall organizations, macro-level rhetorical patterns were similar to the English writing pattern reported in the previous research.

In line with Kobayashi and Rinnert (2010), the findings of this study suggest that as the repertoire of writing knowledge expands and evolves, the writer is able to exert more control over writing text through exploiting the most important features from his/her writing repertoire to meet the expectations of writing context and audience they perceive as appropriate. This result is also consistent with Hashemian (2011) who found a positive relationship between lexical and structural complexity in L1 writing and the participants’ proficiency level in L2.

Implications

Teachers and students should consider the importance of useful instruction in L2 and the positive effects of this instruction on the students’ native language. As the students become more experienced in their L2 writing or acquire more control of L2 writing skills, they can also gain more control over the organization patterns of L2. With such control of L2 organization patterns, the student has greater autonomy in voicing his/her position and this, in turn, helps them to transfer this autonomous knowledge to the writing of L1. Furthermore, the results of this study hopefully give insight into currently available knowledge on the cultural characteristics of Persian and English.

Limitations and Suggestions for Further Research

This research may have provided important insights into the cultural and rhetorical aspects of Persian and English languages and have highlighted the significance of these macro-level patterns in writing as an important skill in language learning and teaching; however, the findings and implications of this small-scale study should be treated in its own right and should be generalized with caution. The small and selected number of subjects and the subjective nature of text analysis, the interaction of factors such as participants’ majors, topic of the essays, and genre of the essays in the construction of the essays, lack of the existence of a specific rhetorical patterns for writing in Persian and finally the various understanding of the nature of macro-level rhetorical patterns, are among the major limitations of this study.

Despite such limitations, this study suggests some directions for further research. It would be desirable in future studies to consider having more enriched qualitative data such as think-aloud and stimulated recall interviews so that the process students go through when writing and their reasons for their rhetorical behaviours are elaborated on.

Although Meyer and Kubota’s schemes used in this study have been frequently adopted for the study of macro-level rhetorical patterns in different languages, other schemes and frameworks might provide better conditions for comparing Persian and English rhetorical patterns and also the identification of these patterns in Persian writing. Learning a second language definitely exerts important effects on the learning and development of the native language in many areas. The reverse transfer of the skills such as reading strategy and pragmatic knowledge are unexplored areas which could be significant subjects for further research. And finally, exploring the possible effect(s) of reverse transfer on linguistics/rhetorical diversity from a critical contrastive view is highly recommended.

Footnotes

Funding

The author(s) received no financial support for the research, authorship, and/or publication of this article.

References

Ansary

Babaii

(2009) A cross-cultural analysis of English newspaper editorials. RELC Journal 40(2) 211–49.

Connor

(1996) Contrastive Rhetoric: Cross-cultural Aspects of Second-language Writing. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

Connor

(1999) Contrastive Rhetoric: Cross-cultural Aspects of Second Language Writing. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

Connor

(2002) New directions in contrastive rhetoric. TESOL Quarterly 36(4): 493–510.

Connor

(2004) Intercultural rhetorical research: beyond texts. Journal of English for Academic Purposes 3(4): 291–304.

Connor

Nagelhout

Rozycki

(eds) (2008) Contrastive Rhetoric: Reaching to Intercultural Rhetoric. Philadelphia, PA: John Benjamins Publishing Co.

Cook

(2003) Introduction: the changing L1 in the L2 user’s mind. In Cook

(ed.) Effects of the Second Language on the First. Clevedon: Multilingual Matters, 1–6. Available at: https://dx-doi-org.web.bisu.edu.cn/10.1017/cbo9780511806766.003

Cumming

(1998) Theoretical perspectives on writing. Annual Review of Applied Linguistics 18(1): 61–78.

Hashemian

(2011) The effects of L2 writing ability on L1 writing ability. Journal of Language Teaching and Research 2(6): 1306–11.

10.

Hirose

(2003) Comparing L1 and L2 organizational patterns in the argumentative writing of Japanese EFL students. Journal of Second Language Writing 12(2): 181–209.

11.

Hirose

Sasaki

(1994) Explanatory variables for Japanese students’ expository writing in English: An exploratory study. Journal of Second Language Writing 3(3): 203–229.

12.

Kaplan

(1966) Cultural thought patterns in inter-cultural education. In: Silva

Matsuda

(eds) Landmark Essays on ESL Writing. Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates, Inc., 11–25.

13.

Kecskes

Papp

(2000) Foreign Language and Mother Tongue. Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates Inc.

14.

Kecskes

Papp

(2003) How to demonstrate the conceptual effect of L2 on L1? Methods and techniques. In Cook

(ed.) Effects of the Second Language on the First. Clevedon: Multilingual Matters, 247–65.

15.

Kobayashi

Rinnet

(2005) Transferability of argumentative writing competence from L2 to L1: effects of overseas experience. In: Conrick

Howard

(eds) From Applied Linguistics to Linguistics Applied: Issues, Practices, Trends. British Studies in Applied Linguistics 22.

16.

Kobayash

Rinnert

(2008) Task response and text construction across L1 and L2 writing. Journal of Second Language Writing 17(1): 7–29.

17.

Kobayashi

Rinnert

(2010) Understanding L2 writing development from the perspective of multicompetent literacy development. In: Manchon (Chair), Focusing on L2 writing development: Multiple perspectives. Invited colloquia at Association of American Applied Linguistics (AAAL) 2010 Conference, Atlanta, GA.

18.

Kubota

(1992) Contrastive rhetoric of Japanese and English:A critical approach. A thesis submitted in conformity with the requirements for the Degree of PhD in the University of Toronto.

19.

Kubota

(1998a) An investigation of Japanese and English L1 essay organization: differences and similarities. The Canadian Modern Language Review 54(4). DOI: 10.3138/cmlr.54.4.475

20.

Kubota

(1998b) An investigation of L1–L2transfer in writing among Japanese university students: implications for contrastive rhetoric. Journal of Second Language Writing 7(1): 69–100.

21.

Kubota

Lehner

(2004) Toward critical contrastive rhetoric [Electronic version]. Journal of Second Language Writing 13(1): 7–27. Available at: https://dx-doi-org.web.bisu.edu.cn/10.1016/j.jslw.2004.04.003

22.

Leki

(1991) Twenty-five years of contrastive rhetoric: Text analysis and writing pedagogies. TESOL Quarterly 25(1): 123–143. Available at: https://dx-doi-org.web.bisu.edu.cn/10.2307/3587031

23.

Leki

(1995) Coping strategies of ESL students in writing across the curriculum. TESOL Quarterly 29(2): 235–60.

24.

Matsuda

(1997) Contrastive rhetoric in context: a dynamic model of L2 writing. Journal of Second Language Writing (6(1): 45–60. https://dx-doi-org.web.bisu.edu.cn/10.1016/S1060-3743(97)90005-9

25.

Meyer

BJF

(1975) Identification of the structure of prose and its implications for the study of reading and memory. Journal of Reading Behavior 2(1): 7–47. DOI:10.1.1.948.5141&rep=rep1

26.

Mohan

(1985) Academic writing and Chinese students: transfer and developmental factors. TESOL Quarterly 19(3): 515–34.

27.

Pavlenko

(2000) L2 influence on L1 in late bilingualism. Issues in Applied Linguistics 11(2): 175–205.

28.

Rashidi

Dastkhezr

(2009) A comparison of English and Persian organizational patterns in the argumentative writing of Iranian EFL learners. Journal of Language International English 2(1): 131–52.

29.

Riazi

Assar

(2000) A text analysis of Persian newspaper editorials at macro and micro levels. Journal of Social Sciences and Humanities 15(1): 30–31.

30.

Sasaki

Hirose

(1996) Explanatory variables for EFL students’ expository writing. A Journal of Research in Language Studies 64(1): 137–168.

31.

(2001) Transfer of sentence processing strategies: A comparison of L2 learners of Chinese and English. Applied Psycholinguistics 22(1): 83–112.

32.

Uysal

H H

(2008) Tracing the culture behind writing: rhetorical patterns and bidirectional transfer in L1 and L2essays of Turkish writers in relation to educational background. Journal of Second Language Writing 17(3): 183–207.

33.

Weinreich

(1953) Languages in Contact: Findings and Problems. New York: Linguistic Circle of New York.

34.

Yoon

(2010) Bi-directional rhetorical transfer in the writing of Korean learners of English: a case study of three groups. Second Language Studies 28(2): 49–95.