JOURNAL

Fra■ lk Plalorsl,Center for English

as a Second hguage
Jonathan Seely,Center for Engllsh
as a Second Language■Or:ル C■ ■Charles Sabatene,center for Engllsh
as a Second Language

Buslness
Manager:

Pmela Goldsmith,Center forEngush as a second hnguage

Board of

H.Do Adamson,University of

EdltOrs:扇… OF

INTENSΠ ttD ENGHSH STUDIES

zona

Ralph Pat Barrett,WEchigan state
Un市 ersity
Jcan Engler,university of Colorado
Da宙dE.Eskey,University ofSouthem CanfOrnia
Robert Fox,St.MIchael's Couege
Donna M.John30n,University of轟

zona

Published by:

University of ttzona

Tucson,AZ
COPYRIGH■ 1993,by the UniveFSity Of A五 zona
US ISSN 0899‑885X
Vollune 7

Sprlng/Fan,1993

丁︲Scarcella,R.,&Oxford,R.L.(1992)。

響F t6pes的The Transfer of Ll Rhetoric in L2

guαge lk〕 arntr■ g:Thc indil,idllaこ in theroom.Boston:Hcinle&Heinle.
Skehan, P. (1989). Indiυ duα こdu13κ rlces ingltagc lcarnMり 。London:Edward Arnold.
Willing,K。 (1988). Lθ αrnirlg stυ lcs in αdlllt

TeЖ ts and its lmplications for

Second Language Teaching
OHOJI TAKANO

edllcatiOrl. Adelaide,Australia: National Curri
Research Council.

施

IJnわ e埓 句oJAな)na

Introduction
Contrastive rhetoric approaches have had significant
ilnpact On studies of secOnd language菰 ting and instruc―■ono Since Kaplan(1966)prttded the Flrst iIInpetus for thedevelopment Of cOntrastive rhetoric studies in SLA, it has
been agreed that the ciltural and linguistic cOnventions of■ e Ⅵriter's flrst language can be an influenual and indis―

pensable element fbr the analysis and evaluation Of the L2

肥 訛鳳 Ⅷ
略 器 胤 淵 L障 :鴇 Ⅷび
盤胤ぶ 』∬乳選t甜 留驚織r‐盤■轟∬Hl驚躙 ∫盟蹴 ,w路 肥ぶ ∬露諾 111
Onal system(Grabe&Kaplan,1989)。 lhc conccpt of wit―
:月

■

:糊 Ъ
臨導謂1鼈鮒常碁よⅧ暁1星
熙■』
̀̀,OCially supreme act"constrained by adequate applicatiOnsof̀̀gralnlnars of cultural n■ les." In a speeё h comlnunity theact relects the ways the community members use Ⅵ itten
codes which are particularly selected and deemcd flt fbr cul―

出:L晶詰f℃

d・

°
よ」
I脳 け
Ъ
:器 F霊∬T品 還蝿Second language teaching cOncerns the possibility that

culture〜 speciFlc rhetOric lnay cause difflculties ibr nonnative

rttTttI鷺42」IES

mSFER OFLl劇

鴨

器

∬

田 rORIC

響

棋

鵬 靴

翼

塩

革

43

Ll rhetorical strategies(、 zcn in Writing in a target language,

and that the strategies adOpted may connict witl■ expecね ―tions of native readcrs. Kaplan(1966,pp.3‑4)pointS Out:
Forcign students tvllo have mastcred syntactic snctures havc
still demonstratcd inability to compOse adcquate themes, tcrm
papcrs,tlleses,and dissertations.... The fOrcign student papcr

is out of focus bccause thc forcign studcnt is cmploying arhctoHc and a sequcncc of thought tvhich、 lolatc thc cxpecta―
tions ofthc native readcr.

Thc SLA classroom is inhcrcntly a conflicung discOursc
conllnunity"where diffcrent rhctoric and linguistic chOiccs
arc made bemecn lcarner and tcacher bascd upon an indi
宙dual's cultural heritagc(Kramsch,forthcominJ.

nativization"of L2 convcntions
based upon thc spcakr's Ll discourse patterns,strategies,
argues for thc transfer andand spccch acts. Rhetorical conventions of English havenativized"in thc lndian context,and havc turned out

bcen

to be unique discourse strategies the spcaker consclously or
unconsciously rccreatcs according to the patterns ofink〕 rac―tion in the native culture.

In TakanO(1991),I analyzcd thrcc ESL cxpository compo―
sitions written by nauvc」 apanese spcakcrs. I found that」apancse rhctorical patterns had been lransfclTed in onc of
thc threc tcxts, and that the one don■ inatcd by rhetoricalpatterns silnilar to」 apanese rhetoHc had been rated lower

by nativc English cvaluators than thc ones with hierarchi
cally structured organizauons Ofinformation which are typi―culcal of English cxpository writing. characteristics of thetural discrepancics in rhetoncal strategies cmcrging in theL2tcxt. I will investigate intcrirence of」 apancse― speciflc

lowcr ratcd composiuon includcd lack of explicit topic scn―

rhetoric in the witing Of English as a sccond lal■transた r inhibit native English readers'cv」 uation.

mation,and continuous and indircct reinforcement of thc
inexplicit topic by subordinate information throughOut theentire paragraph. Thc higher rated compositions, on theothcr hand,containcd hicrarchical sequcnces ofinformation
directly connectcd to tl■ e topic sentcnces presented at the
beginnings of the pal‐ agraphs. Furthermorc,thc use of spe―
ciflc discoursc markers such as Lわ r eχ αmple, αccording to,Transfer of Ll Rhetoric:Some Evidence
from Contrastive Rhetoric Studies

nativc rcaders. This pattern coincidcs宙 th thc standard
rhetOrical norln of English in wl■ ich the paragraph develops

has bccn much rcscarch into L2 rhetoric fron■ theby a scncs of spCCific illustrauons straightfowardly related
to the topic sentence(Kaplan,1966)。

This paper focuscs upon thc conflict causcd by cross―guagc.Thequestions addressed are:(al■ vl■ ether rhetorical pl‐ inciples of」apancse writing arc transferred;(b)what the characteris―tics of those texts arc; (c)what aspccts of Japancsc lan―
guage and culture contributc to such charactcl‐ istics; andmost importan彎 ,(d)tO What cxtent texts with Ll l‐Tl■ crel■cto壺call̲ly, etc., seemcd conducive to bettcr eraluation by
cspeciα ι

comparative pcrspective. It has been reported that therhctorical principles of thc価tcr's flrst languagc arc cxplic―
itly tral■ sた rred to thc L2 text and that such transfer somc

umes ncgat市 cly affccts tl■ c nat市c rcadcr's orduation of thc
text.

Clyne(1983, 1987a, 1987b)rcpOrts the transfer ofGerrllan rhetoric in English acadelllic texts writtcn by native

Gcrman speakers, for instance. Hc clailns that German¨
spccific rhetorical principlesI Inanifest themselves moremarkedly in ESL t∝ s than in Ll(c.g.,German)textS of tl■ csame authors bccause of thc autllors'linguistic prOblems in
sccond languagc rhetoric(Clyne, 1987a). Kachru (1986)

44

tcnces,nonlincar and nonhicrarchical structuring of infor―」IES

My pre宙 ous study,howorer,contains a fttv methodologi―
cal weaknesses. First,thc validity of the generalizations
attained in the research could be questioned because they
are drawn from only a small― scalc case study with little
datao Second,my mcthodology lnay obscure thc conclusionthat thc dolninancc of」 apanesc rhetoric in tllc organizationof the tcxt and thc nativc readcr's low raung are correlatcd

because granllnatical problcms and rhetonca1 0rganization
Ⅵrere not clearly diffcrcntiatcd. It also appeared that therhctorical pattcrns wcre relatcd to the vttitcr's lcvcl of profl一

cicncy in English. The present rcsearch attcmpts to ovcr―

TRANSFER OF Ll RHE「ORIC45

come thOse weaknesses and grasp mOre accurate relation―
ships bctten Ll rhetoHcal transfer and thc native rcadcr's■Ons in ESL arc considered transfers of typological featureser」 uation.

of thc lcarners'nativc languagcs. In topic―

pronlincnt''(c.g。 ,English)andprornincnt lan―

補淵靴菫減讐驚讐l撚』Transfer of Ll Rhetoric:
Implications of Language Typ010gy studies

Li and ThOmpsOn's language typ010gァ

Schachtcr and Rutherford conclude that thcse lnanifesta―

in scntencc― initial position as a topic before any ncw infor―(1976)― ―"suttect

topic― pronlinent"(e.g.,Chinesc and」 apanese2)̲haS becn Oftcn cited as a lncaning̲
ftll conccpt fOr accOunting fOr charactcnstics Of discourse inL2tcxts. The typolo3r defincs thc suttect aS a sentcncc―
ink〕 rnal notion,the center of attentiOn within the scntencc,

and the topic as a discourse notion,controlled by discoursal

considcratiOns frorn prcviOus information. Thus,it isassumed that the linguistic nature of topic― prOnlinence"
nlay be rcsponsible lbr charactcnang discOursal patterns in
topic― pronlincnt languages.
Schachtr and Rutherford's rescarch(1983)on ESL Ⅵ it―mation on the topic is providcd as comment. Therefore,
native speakcrs of topic― pronlinent languagcs may subcon―坤晏締撃r離椰官僻盤掛薄蒔
topic― commcnt

mallipulation secms eident in English scn―

掟nces writttn by」 apancse and Chinesc suttccts:
Itis a tcndcnqァ

tl■ at such fricndly rcstaurants bccOmc
lcss in the big city.

(COInlncnt or new information)

tOpiC)〔

ten discourse rlnds that」 apanese ESL learners tcnd t0 0ver―

In an〔 Ⅸamplc of suprascntential discourse,wc also flnd:

producc extraposition str■ lctures comparcd to tllose whO arenativc speakers of othcr la■ lguages,and that Chinesc ESL

Thcrc is a sIIlall resta■ lralllt near my housc in my coul■ ty.

learners regulⅢ prOducc e対 stntial consttuctions with thedummy sutteCt Flleで ,as seen,respcct市 ely,in sentences(1)and(2)bclow. Thw alsO report cOnll■ on typcs Of errors
which appear to stcln from the learners'inapprop五 ate con―trol of thcse cOnstructiOns:(tOpiC)
Follo、ved by:aurant are hke■ ose of Martyヽ

蹴鏑
記Iぷ 朧l L潔性
Schachtcr and Ruthcrford,1983).°

1.*It is a tendenqァ that such friendly restaurants bccome
lcss in the big city.

2.PTherc is a tire hanging J=Onl the r00f served as tllcir play

grOund.(schacter&Ru■ erford,1983,p.305)

that a 10t Of pcople live inthe city.

*It is required huge energy and water in great city.

*It is idcal that thcre are small urban centcrs throughOut
the country and they lnakc rural areas to bc activc.

46

Such ttal■ sfer of thc topic― commcnt discourse in English

1ぎ糠 鮮 よt胤
Ⅷ
蹴 器 雰庶謙'sa,both sentence― initially and lnedially,inquent use of■her unplanned ESL oral producuon is an effort to rllaintain

Similar tΠpes of negative transfcr arc fOund in my data3:*It has bccOnling senous problcn■(adapted fl‐ o■

3棚:∬FF糧 ̲:増胤狙 s島 :cツ器L響 話息晶::・

objcct,5 functions as a topic clarification dcvicc.''
Furthermore,Smith shows that her same suttcct'S COmmon
discoursc stratcgy of a left― dislocation of information lnatch―es the」 apanese topic marker I〃 α in its discourse function.

」IES

TRANSFER OF Ll RHETORC

47

beating about thc
bush",whcreby tlle listcner is cxpectcd to make g00d guesscs

Her suttect'S tendency to front otteCtS is a device to desig̲Thc art of persuasion takes the norrll ofnate new,important,and scmal■ tically relevant informationand to arrive on his clwll at thc conclusion intendcd by the pcr―
suader.It is the pcrson's ability to alTivc at an intended conclu―

as a topic and to orient the listcner to subsequcnt new infor―

mation,onc of the cOre discourse functions of the」 apanesc

sion rathcr than the pcrsuadcr's logical presentation that iswα .6 ̀ソ i strong pOssibility is that thc positOn and function∝ aluatcd.(1991,p.390)of the themc,markcd by wa in」 apanese,are being trans―
ferrcd tO thc left― dislocation of OttectS in English"(smith,

In writing,」 apancse tcxts in which merc hints are given

1983,p.14).
A ne■r interpretation of language蜘 010gy has been pro―and moderate ambiguitics are delibcrately inserted by thc

posed by Hinds(1987),accollllllnOdating influcnccs of sociO―

cultural valucs of languagc in its discOursc.Spccificallyrefcrnng tO English and Japanese,English is deFlncd as aspeakcr/wTiter rcsponsible"languagc(swRl, in which the
pcrson primarily responsible for effectivc communication is
the speaker or the writer. 」apanese,on the other hand,isdcrlncd as à̀listencr/readcr responsible"language(LRRl,in
which tlle listener or the reader bears the lllllttor responsibil―

English verbal culture,on tlle other hand,is straightfOr―
ward. Tl■ e spcaker and writer arc charged with the prilnaryrcsponsibility to make statcments clear and well organized.
A breakdclwl■ in conllnunication is thought to be due to an
irlal)iliち r

tO prOducc understandable passages or lack of suill(li(〕 nt cl‐

folt to gct thc lneaning acrOss.Assertivencss train―,k)r examplc,aims to teach pcople not to rely too muchllpon indirect or nonverbal lnessages but to cxprcss thcir
1:1パ

ity for interprcung mcssages.

From a sociocultural point of vittr,this typolos appears
to hold lruc. 」apancsc conllnunicativc style stcms fI・ om thesocial dogma Of grOup harmony. It is typical that thc grOup
bencrlt is taken as a conll■ on virtue rathcr than thc indi、 id―
ual's needs or wants. 」apancsc verbal bchaviors are oftcn
characte五 zcd as consisting Of the dual stmcture― ―tata…
,

renecting sOcially accepted norms,and llorl

author can obtain the highest praisc from native readers(HindS,1987).

,which are thc

unexpressed real feelings Of thc speakcr/writcr(see Loy,
1988). In order for such implicit individual intcntion 172orllle'

feelings and idcas explicitly.(Clallり ,1986).An aphorism
fbr public speaking says: Tell̀em what you're going to tell・em,tell̀em,then tcll̀em what you told̀em"(Hinds, 1987,

p.144).

―SWR vs.
Froln a linguistic point of viow,Hinds'typology
‑111そ
RIt―
ly bc、 itlStirlcd by the discourse concept of unity"
ill l】 l長 lパ 11)1lirlg.7 HindS(1987)claimS that English prose is
1ノ

rそ

(｀

Xl)(:(11(1(1 lo l)roVi(lC appropriatc transition statements so

lll,11 111(,list(lllclブ rCadCr(〕 anbind thc information into uni‐
SC. Irl Japanesc,on thc other hand,transition

to be taken appropriately,the」 apancse protOtypc of humanll(、 (1(lis(lo l‖relationships called α(Incaning tO be dependent uponanothcr's bencvolcnce,''Doi, 1974), must be involvcd in(lcvi(Ics inay bc absent or subtlc,sincc it is tl■ e listener's or
rcadcr's rcsponsibility to dcterlllinc the appropriate rclauon̲

」apancsc interpcrsonal conll■ unication. Arnac allo■ rs a per―son's hon「 で (real feelingl tO co― c対 st witl■ the taた FllaC(social

ships among discret〕 scgments in thc discourse. For exam―
ple, in Japancsc writtcn texts therc is drastic violation inle― gOvernedncss of lnanifestations of givcn vs.new infor―

norms),which is at least supcrncially prcseⅣ ed.」 apanese

speakers and ⅥTitcrs requirc thc cooperauon and cmpathyof the listener/reader(Clancy, 1986)。
Mind―reading takes
place withOut serious lnisunderstanding of the real inten―
uOns Of the spcaker/writCr.Thc ideal conllnunication for」apanese is one in which the listener/rcader can adequatcly

anticipate thc needs, wants, and rcactions of thc
spcaker/writer, irrespective of whethcr they are explicitlyl‐ l■mauOn. whcther a noun phrase should be treated as given
or new largely dcpends upon the writer's assumption thatthc particular noun phrase alrcady c対 sts in the rcadcr's
schema. Frequcnt ellipscs of noun phrases in」 apancse dis―course arc anothcr example.Particularly in writtcn dis―course,knowlcdge ofthc world"or of the situation is crucial

for thc lneaning tO bc undcrstood appropriately(HindS,

statcd. Shibatani claims:

48

」IES

TRANSFER OF Ll RHETORC

49

1980b). The apparent vagueness Of」 apancse is duc to thc
absence of understood linguistic elements lnanipulated、 rith〜tl■ e high degree Of cOntextual dcpcndency(Shibatani, 1991).
」apancse readcrs are to a grcat extent required to build
transiuons thell■ sclves,which then allows thc text to bc uni

fled. ouestiOns to ask here arc wllethcr tl■ e ttT010gical fca―tures of topic― pronlincnce and listcncr/readcr rcsponsibilityin」 apancse are transferred to English interlanguagc tcxts
Ⅵritten by native」 apanese spcakers,and what arc the char―acteristics of tcxts which exhibit such transir.

4.The subordinatc information is hicrarchicany str.lctured
undcr the topic cntity,and contributcs to thc readcr's estabhsh―
ing a topic.

(adapted from Hinds,1980a,pp.131‑132)

On the other hand,it is an established norlll among」apancse wnters tl■ at their wrlting should carry a particularlearncd construction called kislloο ‑lcrl―
Ict
shOο

len
Rhetorlcal Differences Between Japanese and English

linear in its developmcnt"(1966,p.4)。 An El■ glish exposito―
ry paragraph usually bcgins witll a tOpic statement and thcn
develops that statcment by a series of spcciflc illustrations

What Kaplan calls

c topic.

oricntal thought patterns,"9 on thc

other hand,are lnarked by indircction. All oHcntal―― First,begin One's argumcnt.
一 Next,develop that.
―― At the point whcre this dⅣ clopmentis finished,turn thc idca to subthcmc whcrc thcrc is a

Kaplan(1966)idcntifles paragraphing"as the l■ ost rcle―
vant reflection of thought pattcrns8。 f a given targct lan―
guage. He characterizes the English pattern as donlinandy

which are straightfOwardly relatcd to tl■

FsLt:
'G〕

connection,but not directly connccted association(tO tlle n■ 可Or thcme).
Last,bringal1 0f this togethcr and rcach a conclusion.
Icetsu 一

lTakemata,citcd by Hinds,1980a,p.132)

In following this Organization,thc writcr first selects abascline thcme, and thcn returns overtly to this thcme
bcfore progressing tO a diffcrcnt pcrspectivc thcme:

rhctoric

paragraph tends to devclop without directly supporting the
topic; thc topic appears to be devcloped in tcrms of whatthqr are nOt rather than in tcrms Of what they arc''(1966,p.
10). Speciflcally reた rring tO」 apanese rhctoric, Shibatani(1991, p. 390)acknOwledgcs indirect transnlission of thc
intcndcd meaning"as tl■ c̀̀favorcd pattern''of」 apancsc dis―courseo Wllilc the Europcan rhctorical tradition emphasizes
clanty''as its cssencc,the」 apanese rhctoncal expectationis that the tcxt is left witll

vagucness,"so that readers areallowed or required to釘五ve at interpretations of their Owll.
‐ e charactenstics Of the standard rhctorical organizatiOnof Erlglish parttraph havc becn idcntificd as follc3ws:
1,Paragraphs arc stnlcturcd tl■ rough a unifbrm participant―orientauon,fOcusing On the spccinc entertaincr― ―topic cntiけ・
1°

2.The topic entity is cstablishcd early in thc paragraph; inmost cascs,it is established in the flrst scntcnce.

3. Pttagraphs begin with tl■ e topic statemcnt, then dcvclop
with thc presentation of irlformation from a variety of perspcc―
tives,all of which arc directly rclated to that statemcnt.

50

」IES

(adaptCd from Hinds,1980a,p.33〕

In」 apanesc paragraphing no definite topic statemcnt isovertly cxpresscd,and the baseline theme is the kり to con―necting each perspectivc and maintaining coherency. The
number of pcrspectives pcrlnittcd in a paragraph is not
restricted to four. Sometilncs,therc are lnore than onc ten;somctilnes, kで tslt is not cxpresscd. Thc concluding lcctsll

docs not have to sound decisive. It is possiblc to end theparagraph with an expression of doubt or a question(IIinds,

TRANSFER OF Ll RHETORC

51

1984).The developmentセ n is particularly problematic for1(うSCarCh has investigatcd thc nativc readcr's pcrcepuon andlluauOn Of L2 texts,questionillg lnisma

hes in rhetoricalnative English readers in interprcting the text. Fron■ the(:V〔vicwpoint of thcir native norm of paragraph developmcnt,

1lorrlls of thc ⅥTitcr's Ll and a targetlanguage.

た■pro宙 des totally irrelevant information.

The common propertics of the shndard rhetOrical organi―Suコ ■孤二重zation of」 apanese paragraph can be identifled as follcDws:
1.さ籠 agraphs are Organized by returning tO a baselinc theme
which is continuall̲v and implicitly reinforced.

2.Information mγ be Structtlred paratacucally,ncithcr lin―
early nor hierarchically.

3. Paragraphs develop Mパ th the prescntation of information
froln a varicサ of perspcct市 cs,tvllich arc indircctly relatcd to theparagraph topic entity.

4.Itis not always the casc that a Japancsc paraぎ aph bCgins、v■ th a topic scntcnce.

Tcn」 apancse sutteCtS participated in this rcscarch: 2
aduate,4 undcrgraduate and 3 nondegree ESL students

lll the University of Arizona,and l nonstudent housc、 ■fe in
1lcson,Arizona. All arc nativc speakers of」 apanese Ⅵatll′
1｀(111lbrent lcvels of English proflciency.

Responding tO nly quesuonnairc,all thc suttcctS indicat―
cd thcir basic knowledgc Of thc construction lci sllο οtert―
睦 IsII and its f■ lnction in」 apanese compositions. All had
bcen formally taught thc construction in」 apan at cithcr
itHliOr Or scnlor high schools.

(adaptcd from Hinds,1980a,p. 150)

Procedure

The Present Research

Purposes
The present rcsearch has柿 oo切 eCtiVes.Thc Arst is tO
rcassess on a morc extensivc scalc Takano's(1991)Claim
that」 apanese― spccific rhctoric is transferrcd in a native」apanesc ESL learner's composition. Thc sccond ottecuVC
is to invcstigate tO what cxtent thc transfcrred rhctorical

Organization is discordant with native English rcaders'
expectations,and how that lnay inhibit their evaluation of
texts. My analysis of ESL compositions、 Mntten by 10 nauve」apanese spcakers will lbcus upon the interactions of b″ olinguistic phenomena in paragraphing:(a)rhctorical organi―zation of paragraph influenced by Japancse rhetorical prin¨

ciplcs(l to 4 above), and (b)rhCtOrical organizatiOn ofparagraph in■ uenced by the typological charactcristics of」apanesc(1.C.,topic― collllnent structurcs and listener/rcad―
er responsibilityl.

In order to achieve the sccond ottectiVe,I will exalninc thc
correlation beb″ een nauvc readers'(】 Zduations of paragraphdcvclopment and the dcgrcc Of transfer of the」 apancsc

rhetorical strategies.whilc Hinds(1984)providcs anintriguing analysis which indicatcs that thc content of texts

donlinated by」 apanese rhetoric is rccalled less well by
native English readers than by native」 apanese readers,no

52

gl‐

」IES

The suljectS Were asked to write two paragraphs in
English,the first a sunllnary of a brief ncwspaper articlc

entitled Harassment Earns Fine For」 apanese Firms"(sccAppcnd破 Al and thC Second a discussion of thc Content of

thc articlc. Aftcr thw had finished writing, thc suttcctS
wcrcそ 1ls()asked to respond to a qucstionnaire(see Append破13).Thc purpOsc of tlle qucstionnarc was tO obtain informa―tion about thcir understanding Of thc mttOr theme vs.thetopic sentcnccs frolrl their paragraphs,thcir concept of para―crl― Jcctsu,thcir learn―graphing and fan■ iliarity、 ntl■ たI sl■ oo― ιinパ
lじeXpericnces of composition skills in both」

apanese andnパ liSh,and their proflciency in English.

Thcねrget of my analysis was thc second paragraph,in
which thc suttcctS'thOughts on the content of thc arucle
arc presentcd. This decision was lnadc on the basis ofConnor and McCagg's(1987)fmding that no lransた r of cul―ture― speciflc rhctorical patterns is obscⅣ ed in ESL studcnts'
paraphrasing Of Enghsh cxpository prosc. Thげ cOncludcd
tllat in thc task of paraphrasing the studcnts appearcd to beconstraincd by thc structures of the onginal passagcs rather
tllan by l■ anipulating thcir Ll patterns of text organizauon.

I assumed that a silnilar sorl of phcnomcnon nlight appear
in thc task of sunllnarizing as urell.

TRANSFER OF Ll RHETORC

53

The ten samples of paragraph wriung werc grammaticallycorrccted by a nauve speaker of English whO had had ESL
teaching expericnce. Thc corrcctions wcre conccrned onlyl)():(〕

with apparent wOrd― lcvcl errors(e.g.,use of articles,prcposi―

lllosc two mcans is statistically signincant,with a t value of︱tions,noun plurality,etc.). Sequences of information(theordc亘 ng Of wcDrds,phrases,and sentcnccs)、 lrcrc untouched.
I assurned that the cOrrections of basic grammatical crrors

パ 11(lCd the paragraphs as signiflcantly bcttcr than did thc
1‐

Next,thc scorcs of thc AIncrican gradcrs and thosc Of theOrganization宙 thout being distracted by grammaical errors︱
・

Gradlng＝rcsearch.T"enty― cight nauve English̲speaking underぎ ad―
uatcs fron■ thc univcrsity of Arizona graded cach paragraph()ach paragraph between the American graders and thetJa pancsc gradcrs achievcd significancc for the following'sC,E,and G. AIIlcrican grading for¶ c wasi)al‐ agraphs:¶

in respcct to organization. I also asked a control group of 10
native」 apanese speakrs(6 graduate studcnts, 3 postdoc―

Siパ llincantly

higher tllan that of the」 apancse. Thc para―

だraph Was evaluatcd as the third bcst paragraph by the

torate rcsearchcrs, and l language instructor at thc
Univcrsity of Arizona)to pcrfOrm thc same task.BOth

Arnericans whcrcas it was placcd fifth by the」 apancse.
13oth¶ E and¶ G werc ranked low:¶ E as 7th by thc
Alnerican, 10th by thc」 apanese, and¶ G as 9th by bothだrOtlps,although tllc diffbrcnces bcttecn thc Alnerican and
thc Japancse ra、 v scorcs arc statistically sigl■ iFlcant. Bothだr()1lps ranked qIF as thc best. An intresting crossovcr isshown in qIB,which thc Amcricans rankcd as the worst,
whercas thc」 apancsc rankcd it as third best. This is the()11ly casc in wl■ ich the Amencan readcrs graded a pal‐ agraph
Siだ nifiCanJy lower than thc Japancse.

grOups scOred each parttraph aCCOrding tO a 5‑point scalc
in which 5 indicatedtJapanesc gradcrs for cach paragraph wcre comparcd. The
lllaxilnum number of points assigncd to cach paragraphwas 15(clarity 5;cohcrency 5:and unity 5). Thc OVerallllleans lor cach paragraph arc prescnted in Tables l and 2.
A Ns― tailcd卜 tcst for differences in the overall means for

Native English spcakers'cvaluauons Of thcsc pal‐ agraphs
wcrc neccssary to f■ ll■1l thc second general o可 eCtiVc of tl■ is

2.98(p=.008). ThiS Incans that the American(】 raluators
tJ:11)anesc cvaluators.

nlight a1low readcrs to pay exclusive attcntion to paragraphin thc tは s.

Cntilc. Thc mcan score of the American graders was

70.9(%),whereas that of thc」 apanese gradcrs was 58.5%.
All indepcndent t― test shoⅥ rcd that the differcnce bctwecn

cxcellent"and l̀̀falling.'' Tllc rading

was based on the lbllowing critena:(al clarity(5 pts.): howeasy it was to understand the paragraph;(b)COhCrency(5ptS.): hOw wcll the paragraph was uniflcd;and(C)transition(5 pts): how cffectivcly transitions aided thc reader or
the progrcss Ofthc argumcnt(see Appendix C). Thc
criteria were adapted from A Stllderlt's GIItt to Firstン υarComposition lApplen,」 ensen,&McNenny, 1992),a booklct
from the Un市 crsity of Arizona Departmcnt of English。 lhera″ ealed

Discussion
lv減 1l discuss rlvc paragraphs: ¶F,which was regarded ashaving the bcst quality of organization by both groups of

It was assumcd that compansons betvecn tlle readcrs'inttr―

readers;¶ B,which rcceived the strongcst lercl of disagrce―︱

graders werc also askcd to idcntiヶ tllC mttOr theIIle and tl■ e
topic sentencc of the paragraph bascd on their owll reading.
prctations of the paragraph thcme and thc topic scntencc vs.

rncnt by b″ o groups witl■ respect to tl■ c quality of organiza―

thc witers'intendcd ones、 ″ould provide uscful information
about the readers'perception and(Ⅳ aluation oft() s.

Lon;qn,which was g市 en markedly low scores for clarity andapanescgraders fOr the tcn paragraphs wcre compared in tcrms of

54

」IES

︱︱ ︱ ︱ ︱ １ １ １ １ １ 個 綱 胆 週 ロ ロ

Results of the Statistical Analyses
First, the overall scores of thc American and」

Lansition by AmcHcan grdcrs in spite ofits eloquent stylc;
and ql's C and G,for wllich the dinbrcnce in grading is also
statistic」 ly signiflCant bctwecn the two groups of readcrs.

Par鯉 ユph二 . (1)SCXual harassmcnt or

seku― hara,"thescdays, is a kind of trendy word in Japan. (2)Japanese news

TRANSFER OF Ll RHETORIC

55

Table lMcan Scores

Mcan Scoresbyby
Americans

11.3」apanese

6
3
2
7
1
9
5
7

8.7
9.4
8.7
9.3
6.7
12.1
6.8
8.6
8.3

4

10.4

10

ProbabilityOrder
５ ３ ５ ４ Ю ｌ ９ ７ ８ ２

Ａ Ｂ Ｃ Ｄ Ｅ Ｆ Ｇ Ｈ Ｉ Ｊ

10.3
8.5
11.5
11.7
10.0
12.8
9.2
10.8
10.0

Order

t

d.1

lho― tailed)

1.585
1.155

13.5
18.0

.137
.264

3.035 17.1
2.316 13.7
3.397 18.6

.007中

.691

14.9

3.068

20.8

1.914 11.6
1.707 13.9.665 14.1

that true? (5)Then,it COuld bc quitc controversi〔 遭 bccausc it
would bc hard to prove if each case is sexual harassment.(6)Il師:vywl』
11

.501
.006*
.082
.112
.517

*signincant at p<.01

電 も￡ 警轟 ど 1:i鵬 計 日 喘

il::批know what is sexual harassment beforc we take this issue se」 ―ously.(8)OtherWiSe the problem could be lnistreated and detri―

.038
.003■

T群

mental to our society.
袖 e writer's topic scntence:(7): the価 ter's thcme: ̀̀thc
necessity of studying the truc meaning Of sexual harassment

b写

犠{蝋

elLgrtth ranked as bestwbo■

grOups of
FCaders. Their agreement can be explained in large part by

Table 2
15

parttaph themc,̀̀what the llleaning Of sexual harassment
is,"which is expressed in the writer's intended topic sen―tence(7). Thirteen AΠ lerican readers identified the samesentence(7)as the Writer's topic sentence, although 15
eHcans selected sentence(1)or(2). The」 apanese read―Al■ ■ers also succecded in interpreting the writer's intended
eme to a great extent. S破 rcaders out of 10 1dentifled theSconllg

A
10

J

il■

thcme as5

the lncaning Of sexual harassment for thepanese''; three readers also agreed with the witer's iden―ュtincatlon of the topic sentcnce. Based on these facts,it can

J〔ParagraphG輌

encan Gradcrs

bc clailned that thc organization of the paragraph con―tributes to both the American and Japanese readers'percep―
tlon of what the writer intended to express,and because of
hat,the paragraph was given a high evaluation.
Based on tlle observation lnentioned abovc,I hypothesレ e

J‐ Japanese gradersthat the rhetOrical organization of the paragraph ibllowS thc
凛 ぎ訛

casc.

Ψ 胤
鯛
驚 器
器
■群
露 :'∬ 譜 官
The rhetorical organization can be schematicallydescribed as follows:

56

JIES

TRANSFER OF Ll RHETORIC

57

釉 eme:What is scxtlal harasslllllent fbr the」

hl rcsponsc to the questionnaire,thc、 vnter of qlF,a scnior
ill:JOring in architecture,indicatcd 518 as his best scorc on

apanese?

６¨︿５lll()′ 1lЭ

IIntroductionI)‐ IDevcloplllcntlHDcvelopment]ぃ ‐︿﹈alllbiguity Of
tllc rneanlng

illustrationof tl■ cambiguiサ∧
3

4

EFL.He had stayed in thc U.S.for ovcr four ycars,〔lll(l had bcen formally taught hOw to orgallizc English com―[

nccessity of1)OSitiOns as an ESL studcnt.He indicated his fanliharity
wi11l the standard segmcnts of English paragraph dcvelop―lll(:llt Such as introduction,thesis statemcnt, supportivef‖

通med tllat
ιsll
たI sllooイ erl,ま 〕

Lll H llent,廿 ansition,and conclusion. Hc also cl〔il(l was farniliar with thc fLInCtions of the(,OliStruCtion but usually did not consciously follow it inwl‐ iling cOmpositions in」 apanese. He did not entcr a scorc
it)「 the■ WE ITcst OfWrittcn English).

signiflcant characteristics shcDwn here are that the thcme(1)I am wondcring why scxutt harassmcnt(li(ln't bccomc a seHous problcnl until reccntly.(2)I think tl■ at…
S(lXllal hcarassment should havc been a serious problcm.(3)Tllat

of each development in thc progress Of the argumcnt
straightfOrwardly supports thc paragraph thcmc, and thatthe scquencc of the devclopmcnts is clearly linear(i.e.,
immediattly preccding clauscs or sentences feed immediate

S(ヽ
I,「

(lciltサly succeeding Ones),nlaintaining the cOhcrencc of thc para―graph. Thc frequcnt usc of transition devices(e.g。 ,then,howevcr,otherwisc)also efた ct市 cly maintains thc unity of

Xtlal harassment was considered by the court as a scriousol)lcm is proper,I guess.(4)Scxual harassmentis a crimc ev■ ―.

′I｀

he writer's topic sentencc:(4); thc Writer's thcme:

Scxual harassmcntis a crime."
hc crossover in AIllcrican and」 apanesc readers'cvalua―tllc paragraph, and thw are successflll in aiding tl■ e rcad―

1｀

er's recognitiOn of the f10w Of the argument. Tlle rcader―

tioll ol｀

depcndent transition in paragraphing,wllich is typicallyseen in」 apanese wI■ ting,is nOt lnanipulated by thc lⅣ nterherc. In addition,the transた r of topic― conllncnt stn■ ctunngC.g.,ovcrproductiOn of cxtraposition structures)is not〔
obscrved in any ofthe scntenccs.

llllllSiltll Silllati()n.As mcntioned carlier,this is the only

Thc sccond pHnciplc of rhetoric fOr dcvc10ping the English
paragraph (1.c., the topic cntity is established in thc first
sentcnce)iS identifled here with the topic entity scた ■―llaraestablished in sentcnce(1). Thc third and fOuJttl principles(i.e.,a paragraph begins Ⅵ嗜th the topic statement and devel―ops、 錢th thc presentation of information directly relatcd tO〜

that statement the subordinate informauOn is hierarchicdly

lllis paragraph,as rcportcd in Tablc 2,rcprescnts an(:asc ill wllich Amcrican rcaders scorcd a writing samplc
lowcr than the」 apancse, although the difference bcbrecnlll(i n■ cans of their scoring is not statistically significant.
.1llis paragraph is rankcd as worst by thc Amcricans,wherc―
11ド th(、
'ド

it(■
1)1‐

Japanese rank it as the tllird best.

li(:dissatisfaction of the American gradcrs can be■)1lnted for by tlle fact that most of tllem fttlcd to inter―()(bOth thc topic sentcnce and thc thcme intcndcd by thc

wl‐

itcr. Nincteen An■ erican rcaders out of 28 identifled cithcr{1)or(2)as thC tOpic sentcnce, and five clailncd that thel)aragraph lacks a topic sentcnce, a thcme, and opinions.

N(lithcr the topic scntence nor tl■ e tlleme idcntificd by thestnlctured under the topic enutyl are also applicablc except
for the fact that the writer's intended topic scntencc is not
located at the beginning of the paragraph.It is also impor―ll1 21:iOrity of thc Amcrican readcrs coincided with thOsetant to noticc that thc rhetoHcal strtlcturc of this paragraph,(lrs considcred the thcme to bc

which violates thc」 apanesc norⅡ l of paragraphing,did notinhibit the nativc」 apancse rcaders'cvaluation.

()blelll." ]臓 lis intcrprctation was II■ ■ucnced by thcir idcnti―
l)1‐

58

TRANSFER OF Ll RHETORIC」IES

irlLcndcd by tl■e writer. The mttority of the Allrlerican rcad―

11(〕

Sexual harassment is aation of the topic sentencc. In both the rlrst and thc sec―59

ond sentence,wllich tended to be interpreted as the topic

problem"appears.One

sentence by the inttority,the wcprd

of llle Anlcrican gradcrs in lny informal intcrvie■ r about thisparagraph pointed out that the w亘 ter's lack of conviction
and certainty in(1),(2),and(3)is confusing because thescntences arc uncxpectedly opposed tO his decisivencss
cxprcssed in the rlnal scntcnce.
In spitc of such apparent ambiguity in the organization oftlle paragraph for the Al■ leHcan rcaders,the」 apancse rcad―
crs interprct both the ⅥTiter's intcnded topic and the thcme
fairly wcll.Fivc readcrs out of 10 selccttd the inal sen
ncc

as the topic sentence,which is also thc writcr's intendcd

topic sentence. Fivc indicatedSexual harassment is a

1蠅

‖
1(ヽ

lttl曇

欄

1(lvant tl‐ ansitions

1暑

椰

軋

施

thCmselvcs,which arc not cxplicitly pro―vi(lc(l by thc writcnl)rinciplcs(1)and(3)are alSO illustratcd in thiS para―

1畔(・よ鸞窮要li,I薫署塑窮IW(ltc that the writer is assessing the issuc in an indircct

lllanner.In my view,this developmcnt corrcsponds to thc
things put in front of some―so(〕 allcd「 口にοに,which lneans

crilnc''as the thclllle,Wl■ ich is thc writcr's intendcd theme aswell.The Clarity scores given tO tllis paragraph are wOrth―mentioning. A two― tailed ι
test for thc diffcrencc in themeans bctween thc Amcrican and」 apanesc gradersachieved signiflcancc,at卜 2.06, p<.05.

W輔

i般

舗

網

瀾

撚

the rhetorical organizatiOn of this paragraph matches thc

￨』
lttF稚
]撫 菫
‖
:畔稚
雙蔓IX暉奄」apanesc nativc schcma Of paragraph dwc10pmcnt. As a,continua■ y but
S(llltcnccs(1),(2),and(3),as a r口 βοた二A llypotl■ esis drawll fI・ om the fact that tl■ e Japancse read―ers graspcd the tcxt bctter and graded it highcr is,then,thatmatter of fact,all the standard rhetorical principles of」apanese paragraph(see the four principles cited above)
seem to bc applicable to the organizatiOn.
釉 e、硯nter's topic scntence is not establishcd at the bcgin―ning Of the paragraph(pHnciple 4),but at the end. Half ofthe」 apanese readers succeedcd in identifving it.The
Alncrican readcrs'inclinauon tO idenuヶ the tOpic scntence
as thc rlrst or thc second sentencc of thc paragraph is,Onthc other hand,a dccisive factor in tl■ cir failing tO interprct―

ing thc wnter's intnded theme cOrrectly.Tl■ e cxpectation ofie native rhetorical pattern tllc nativc English readcrs have
halnpered their perception ofthe t斌
The paragraph cOntains no lransition lnarkers;thc natureof lincarity is lacking(principle 2). Hinds(1980a)clailns.

that scrambling Of thc Ordcr of the clauses is pernlissiblc ina typical」 apanese paragraph withOut serious transforma―uOn Oftl.e mcaning.Intcrestingly enOugh,scrambling thesefour scntenccs in¶ B dOcs not seem to n■ in tlle interpreta―tion of thc tl■ emc at all. This provides cvidencc for the sec―

60

」IES

violatcs thc native norn■ of rhetoHc.

l:1悧

(Hi‖
∬

l懺 :[籍 m∬ :略焦 猟 ￨よ l諜嶽

cr富(:Xl)rcsscs the writcr's surprise at thc fact that scxual
ll:11‐

lssmCnt has not become a serious problem in Japanescそso(licty so far,1lnplying tllat it should have bceno Scnttncc
I‖ 1‖

I轟

‰

兄

鷺

棚

鞣

l甘 裾

塁 t出 :肌ξ塊 種

writcl‐ 's prcfacc are supposed tO indirectly support his
thcinc, sexual harassmcnt is a crilne,'' prcsentcd in thc

llal sentence(principlc 3). The Anlerican rcadcrs'rhetori―
1l cxpectations did not contnbute to thcir undcrstanding ofthc funcuon Ofthe dcvelopIIlent,rrlacο たこ

lヽ

(■

.

Bascd upon thc facts IIlcntioncd SO far,thc rhetorical

1■

:F'l品
‖
:驚鶴 輿翼s:XT:lln』 I]∬ ‰ 盤轟‖us rcceivcd rcla―:f

thc Japancse― rhctoric point of vio″

and tl■lively high rating fl‐ om thc native rcaders. It should also bcl)OintCd Out, howcver, that the transfcr of topic― conllncnt
stl「′

ucturcs is not obscl■ red in this paragraph writing.

IIRANSFER OF Ll RHETORIC

61

の口

The writer of¶ B was an upper― interlnediate ESL student

ヾｏ
Ｓ Ｒ．

Ｓ ｏ．
Ｏｎ

Ｏ．
〇卜

〇．
００

卜．
００

∞Ю
〇．

ヾｎ
０．

っ

ngure of Japanese women who are supposed to bc silent abOut

０ ．ａ トPaF… hA (1)ThiS is a very cpOch― making Occurrence ina lnale― dominated」 apanese society,judging frOm the traditional

Ｈ．
トト

composl■ ons ln」 apanese. His score on the lWE was 4.

︵
ざＬ ．
∞Ｏ

﹄０＞ ０ ︶

ways of organizing compOsitions in both」 apanese andEnglish,but he had only been in the UoS.for h」 f a year.Hc
clailned that he tried to follow the constrl■ ction in価 ting

Ｓ ｏ．
●卜

０口 ︻ 口宙 tll a TOEFL score of 437. Hc had been taught the spccirlc

sexual mttters like sexual harassment.(2)They usually tcnd to
Ｈ

Ｏ．
∞ｎ

Ｏ．
∞卜

Ｏ．
００

〇．
ＯЮ

ｏ．
∞Ю

ョ 戻︶ ﹁

夕い う

８ ｏ
ｍ
∫８ｏ
胞 ８ヨ ど ︼
︻
あｏ
﹁

Ｏ．
Ｏｏ

0

ｏ︼ ︻
ョ∞０ ︻︶
口りｑ ＝ コ
ｑ

〇．
∞Ю

守

く88

日︻
のｏ︼ｏｏのス一■ ︻
０
０ ＝Ｌ

Ｏ．
∞Ｏ

tion, as compared with those for the other paragraphs(eXCept for the worst,¶ B,and the second worst,qIG). The
scores are also lower than the overall lneans in theAmerican evaluation(cla五 ty: 72.6:lransition: 68.1)and in

Oト

m88

の﹂ｏＯ

〇 ．Ｏ ｎ〇．
〇守咀 are remarkably low,especially in the American walua―の口 ﹄い ＝ 口 ﹄い００︼００の 口０●︼

０．
∞卜

ト．
Юト

R

As one can see,both the clarity and lFanSiuOn scOres for

︐

Ｏ．
〇∞

卜．
Юリ

∩

卜．
０∞

0に

ｏ﹁ ０００ＣＲＸり∞﹁ ＝ り

∞Ю
〇．

Ｏ．
００

ヾ ．Ｈ∞

０

︻ ．卜 ０content,this paragraph was gradcd so low.The low sconng
is especially salicnt in the clarity and transition scores inTable 3.

∽︼００

ヾＯ
Ｏ．

Ｏ．
ＯЮ

ヾ．
００

〇 〇

﹄

belmreen the twり Ineans of scoring is nOt statistically signifl̲
cant. It is rather surprising,hOweve■ that despite the wit―
er's Hch vocabulary,eloquent style,and ottectiVe tone of theゝゴち理 ０This paragraph was ranked 6th best by the Americans
and 5th best by the」 apanese readers. Thc differenceＯ．
∞∞」apanese soclety.'０

釉 e wnter's topic sentence:(5);the Wnter's theme: Legalaction is a g00d ibothold ibr protecting wOmen's rights in

０ ０︻●コいwould be a g00d ibOthold for women in the futurc.

Ｈ．
卜Ｏ

order to gain wOman's equal rights with a man and to give
women more opport■ miサ tO prOtect■ ett rights,this occurrence

りＨｗ
﹁い ０口
のＯ︼ＯＯの 口０コ︻troversial,which is partly the mnuence ofWestern society.(5)In

０．
０卜

目

sexud harassment in the filture,thinking of the appreciation of

women's nghts in」 apan,which is getting mOre and more con―〇．
Ю卜

talking about it in public.(3)This is believed to be partly
bccause of the conflrmed accusation of sexual harassment in
the U.S.,and we could predict more women might report about

ヾ ．︻ 卜ねlk about this sort of mattcr ill psミ e for fcar of losIIlg facc byie overalllnean in the」 apanese(ヵ raluation of clanty(64.2).

readcrs chose the Flrst scntence as thc topic senttnce whcre―

62

」IES

コ● く

me general tendency recognized sO far.Eighteen American

日Ｊいく

The identiflcauon Of the reader's topic sentence again shows

TRANSFER OF Ll RHETORC

63

as sD【 」apanese chosc thc last sentence,which matched ic
前 ter's intent.

The paragraph()dlibits a few intcrcsting linguistic charac―」:11↓ll]甘 :LSIIPi:11:trl∬ 群‖‖‖置1111)￨∬ ‖:ギl)10!):():11,1(loll't think it's so casy Lo sPcak OllL.

tenstics. First,there arc no discoursc markers(cxcept tl■ eparalleling arla to aid the reader on、 ■siblc transitions in the

prOgrcss Of the argument. MOst of the sentences arc rcla^
tively long,and arc strl■ cturcd in quite complex ways usinglh(, writ(〕 r'S tOpiC SCntence:(2); the Writer's theme:…
て,:l:x‖ 1(:S(:W01nen and seXual harassmCnt."

a number of gerundive and rclativc clauscs. It is rather
hard ibr readcrs to follow the arglllnent because of complcx
sentence structures、 nth too many postclausal modiflcauons(e.g.,Sentences l and 4). Thc lack Oflincarity in thc organi

xl‖

111揚 1事

選曇踊 ぎ鰭ltti盗∬罷]『]‖zation of information without transition markers is also acharacteHstic of¶ B,mentioncd abovc.
The otl■ er characte五 stic disfavoring clanty and transition

evaluations of this paragraph is probably the writer's
ambiguous usage of prononlinalization (C.g., Trlι s in sen̲
tcncc 3;wc in sentence 4)and suttect ellipses(e.g。 ,the sub―ject of tllinttng and the anaphora witl■ ωllた llin sentence 4).

These kinds of phenomena may provide justiflcations for

Hinds'(1987)typo10gy claims.Lack of宙 siblc transitions,and thc writcr's hcavily contcxt― and rcader― dependentusage Of pronouns and nonlinal cllipsis in Japancsc dis―course lllay be considercd to bc lransた rrcd in this writing.
of signiflcancc is thc fact that the transfer negatively affects
thc(、 とaluation of the nattt」 apanese readers as、 ″ell as thenativc English readcrs. Again,the transfer of topic〜

coln―ment structuring is nOt observed.

Thc nTiter of Paragraph A was a graduatc studcnt of highEnglish prOflcicnり ,with a TOEFL score of clver 600.She
had bccn living in Amcnca 10r lnore than two years,but had
never been taught the standard ways of English paragraph―is ll()t trallsfcrrcd herc,citller.

ing. Thc writcr also clailncd that shc was awarc of the con―struction in writing」 apanese compositions, and that shc
usually tHcd to adapt it. Shc had norcrtakcn the 7WE.

Par… hC。 (1)ThiS is a very eye― catching article.(2)Tl■ crc
has been a lot of controversy about so― called scた 凛―
rtara rcccndy,
but it's not collllrl10n yct to take legal actiOn in」 apan。 (3)Therefore,I do admire the won■ an's couragc.(4)I would say tl■ at
it nlight be hard for hcr to lct peoplc know about such an inci
dcnt.(5)BccauSe from tlle Japanese point of宙64

ew,especiJly an

」IES

′
1｀

RANSFER OF Ll RHttORIC

65

lT墳

』壇

:邸 2W翼 1猟F滉 驚 眺』黒器 胤:

wl ilillパargument is quite straightfopward and consistcnt with the

It is problematic,however,to account lor the」 apanesegraders'10w evaluation of this paragraph bccause this pre―scnts counter(、 ■dence to mc rlnding in¶F above(1.c.,theEnglish like rhetoric aidcd both AnleHcans and」 apanesc).
釉 e solc diffcrcncc in the」 apancsc'rcading Of the paragraphfrom that of¶ F is concerncd with the paragraph̲initia1 loca―

tion of thc writer's intended topic scntcncc(2)and theJapanesc rcadcrs'failure to intcrprct it as thc topic sentencc.
With rcspect to the location of thc writer's intended topic scn―

tence,the pattrn is totally dimerent from thosc in¶ 's F and
B. In those b″ o paragraphs, the nl〔 導Ority of the」 apancse
rcadcrs succeeded in interprcting the wTiter's topic sentcnce
becausc thc location matches thcir nativc rhctoHcal expecta―■on. In qlc,hclwever,tlle writcr prcscnts the kw sentCncc at
ic beginning of the parttaph,f0110wing tlle English p五 nci
ple;no explicit conclusive statement is pro■ dcd at thc end of
thc paragraph fOr the」 apancsc rcadcrs,followillg tlle witer's
preface. It seems that thc text comprehension of thc nonna―
tivc readers who are lnorc inclined to identitt tlle key conccpt
coⅡling at the end of a paragraph was inhibitcd by the
English specinc rlletorical stratcy.

I spcculate that the topic sentcncc, cspecially in such alincarly structured progressiOn of the arg■

lllncnt,plays a slg̲niflcant role as the head of thc argument. The Japancse
rcaders'interpretation of thc writcr's argument in this caseis headless''; in othcr words, the readers'failure to rccog̲
nizc thc lbrcc of the rlrst two introductory scntcnccs,which

are the starting pOint Of thc argument,nlight have affected

the succeeding prOgrcssiOn of the argument negatively.
With thc interpretation of the introduction lnissed,the tran―

sition,thcrcfore,is not so effective as in the Americans'
rcading.

The writer of¶ C was a houscwifc who had stayed inEngland ibr a ycar as a college student,and had spcnt aboutfour months in AIIleHcao Shc was quite fanliliar with rhetori―

cal charactcristics of both English and Japancsc writing.

」IES.ShC had taken neither the TOEFL norrlwE.

s鷺 冨1第l計 ][滞 留
hK際器織恭nユlcF#∫ :露Ⅷ

singlc theme.

66

日SllaHy tics to adapt the const‐ lction to hcr」 apancsel｀ 11(｀‖
淵暮鮮轟鞭
l hti、

Japancsc man's filllc waS t00 1ow.

′
神
1
′

Fhc writcr's topic sentencc: none; the writcr's theme:

S()xual harassmentis the worst thing。
1｀

''

[

1lis paragraph was ranked as the sccond worst by both

1

源紺鮮1憾:講l鸞輔鸞鸞鮮Connor and McCagg(1987),conducting cross― culturall葛:留::l糧認跳
Ⅲ 忠LFf漁 話鮒∬翼簡五
l篤[RttЪ ll盤 ,鴫
1計 認￡‖
出絆∬:詐 ∬
ittltttW』

潔‖
IttlittC」 蹴亀∬¶∵:幣scnt casc, such a conclusion may be cvcn morc strongly
applied to thc」 apanesc readcrs'rating,partly becauSe of
their culture― specinc"cctatiOn of formality in witing.
Tl■ erhctoHcal organization of this parttraph iS Structured

ore according to Enghsh principles. The paragraphappcars to appcal to the readcr as a cohercnt chunk ofn■information cxpressing the writer's personal feeling On thisissue.The flrst scntence informs the readcr of the writer's

unawarencss of the recent upheaval of the issuc in the′lⅧ SFER OF Ll RHETORC

67

」apanese society. The succeeding sentences then present

Concluslon and PedagOglcal lmplications

the writer's personal opiniOns on the information prov■ dedby the articleo While the輌 ter himself claimed that thcre is

The results of the present rcsearch suggcst that the tralls―

no topic sentence in this paragraph,the Americans again
tended to interpret sentences at the beginning Of the para―graph as the topic sentence. Sixteen readers out of 28
clailned that the rlrst sentence is the topic sentence. Asぬ r
as the paragraph theme is concerned,the American inter―
pretation was affcctcd by their identiFlcation of the topic sen―tence. Elcven Amcrican readers claimed that the theme issomething like sexual harassment is a new issue,''or
unawareness of sexual harassment in」 apanese societv."
me identiflcation of the theme by the」 apanese readers,on
ie other hand,appears to be more vaguc and abstract. It
does not seen■ to be constrained by any particular state―ment. Six」 apanese readers claimed the theme to be sexual
harassmentis no g00d":hⅥ ЭrefelTed to the lttnter's emotion…
al state,the Ⅵriter's̀̀surprise,"or angen"
It appears evldent from evaluations of¶ 's G and B thathe Americarl readers are more hkely to interpret what is lit―

erally or explicitly meant by particular statements(usually
topic sentences),Whereas the」 apanese readers are morehkely to focus upon what underlies J■ e statements,in otherwords,what is implied by the writen The American identifl―
cation of the theme was characterized as literally con―strained;in contrast,that of the Japanese readers wascharacterized as impressionisucally defined,der市 ed fromoverall impresslons they had received fronl their reading.
me way the」 apanese raters read the texts inustrates theconcept of thè̀baseline theme"in」 apanese rhetOnc lnen̲tioned earlier.

The w五 ter of qIG was a senior mttoring in physics,who
had stayed in America for 5 years. His best scorc on the
TOEFL was 513,al■ d thaton the7WE was 4.Hc was famil―
iar with the standard rhetorical norlns of English. He
remembered that the rct̲sh。 。―
terl― たctsLt COnStruction had
been taught in his school days,but did nOt relnember exact―
け Wh試 ■ Was.

鮒鷺 蠅 鷲聯鱗朧Lransfer show the fbllowing characteristics:

1. The uriter's intended topic sentence(1.e.,IInttOr point

fFeS麗°盟:楓緊野乱肝窮癬 識ndcaung廿n,祖 d:冊堀Tl鯖 器胤∬翼猫ふ。
Tdttns用 輩
ea thSお pけ
ttL留 搬mll漁 ∬常L調『織ξ

自 絹 蓋 属 聯 淵 難 l曇 理讐 Il[:i爵J鰹驚]郡轟舗 鮮 野撚彙l鮮鸞糧鮮稲惑l盛鮒鮮 灘
i聯 恥
1驀j凛驚樅 電薦
戚墨}椰 #]硝菫ざ灘:欄盟爾轡椰蒻備瑚 鮮l琳蝋ei轟
絲 Iì∬打襟露柵[垂:The lack oflinearity with no lransition devices in the pro―:discourse is responsible for the achievement of paragraph

68

TRANSFER OF Ll RH∬ ORIC

69

unity by supplementing IIlissing transitions. Thc」 apanesefavored norm of readcr― responsible rhetoHc was transfelTedby the」 apanesc readers and worked positively in their pcr―
ccption and(】 raluation of the texts.

Apparcnt ambiguity and indirectness in the paragraph

111、 11‐uction in English rhetoHc werc capable of mallipulating

ill(: rhetorical norm of the target language. In support of
Sl:llker and Stalkcr(1989),thC prescnt research shows tl■

atillc rhetorical norrn of a target languagc is clcarly learnabledcvclopment arc clements to be avoided for native EI■ glish̲

l)y nonnat市 e spcakers who are at fairly high level of pro「 l―(licncy. I would likc to furthcr clail■ that L2 rhetoric is

spcaking rcadcrs. This stratcgy cOrresponds to」 apanesel(■rllacolct,which presents hints of thc climax of thc argument

tiol■

in advance,but was negativcly evaluated by thc Amcrican

O「 rhctoncal

rcadcrs as indicating thc lMntcr's lack of ccrtainty and clari―

11l thc present study,thcre is somc indication that eventy. This observation also appears to be rclatcd to Hinds'
clailn(1983)that lVntten statements with an assertive tonel(:arncrs at lower level of proflciency are capablc of produc―

lrnablc only if thc learncr is pr(〕 rided with Ⅸ plicit instruc―on rhctorical stratcgies and bccorl■ cs cOnSCiously aware

differcnces bcbrecn Ll and thc targct languagc.

speakcrs than nativc」 apancsc spcakcrs. In thcir reading,good''paragraphs for the native audience with aware―llCSS Of differences bcttecn Ll and L2 rhetorical norms andthe conscious lnanipulauon of thc targct languagc rhetoric.

the Al■ ericans did not lncct thc」 apancsc― spcciflc"ccta―

Thc ttTitrs'level of proficienw in English and their ability totion that the reader would takc certain responsibility inlllanipulatc the English rhetorical norms are not automati―(lally related.Even writers with high prOflcicnc/y in English
illanipulate thcir Ll rhetoncal patterns Ⅵ■thout bcing aware

tcndcd to bc rctaincd better in the lnemory of native English

interpreting the writer's undcrlying thclllcS,that is,what is
ilnplied by thc writcr rathcr than what is litcrally cxpressed.

11lg

In sum, the readers'evaluation of the texts was signifl―
cantly affected by their native expectations of rhctoric.
FuHhcr(】 idcncc is also found in the present research iat
rcadcrs bring their native rhetorical schema of paragraphdevelopmcnt in thc rcading task(HindS, 1984). Thc COnflictbcbrecn thc readers'rhetorical expectations and tlle輌 ters'
rhctorical stratcgics is a mttor faCtOr hampering readers'or the nOrms of English paragraph devclopmcnt. On the()ther hand,writers with less proficicncy in English areapable of organizing a g00d paragraph Ⅵ■th awarcness of

pcrccption and(】 raluation of the texts.A match in rhetoric』

I thereforc belicvc it is vital that thc teaching of contrastive

norms,on the other hand,aids thcm.

rhetoric be systematically includcd in the sccond/fOrcign
lnguagc cur五 culum.

As far as n■ y analysis is conccrned,no transfcr of topic―(〕

lcnglish rhetoncal patterns.

I conclude that thc manipulation of L2 rhctorical sLa敏 〕
ieS
iS quitc a conscious process. For studcnts learningパ
lcnglish ibr acadenlic purposes,including expOsitory writing,lを

commcnt structures such as that claimed by Schachter andRutherford(1983)was obSeⅣ ed,probably because of differ―
cnt lcvcls in writcrs'English prOflciency. My sutteCtS,a1l ofwhom were at least upper― intermediate lcarners of English,

IrOOTNOTES

did not inanipulatc thc nativc discoursal pattcrns for lnain―
taining thc tOpic― conllnent relauOnship.

l According tO cly■ le,GerIIlan rhetOric has less五 gid rcquirc―

The results of the present research also suggest a few
pedagOgical implications for the teaching and learning Of
ESL writing skills. The paragraphs evaluatcd high by theAn■ crican rcadcrs commonly exhibit the standard rhetoricalprinciples of English paragraph development. Some of the」apanesc writcrs who have been formally exposed to

70

」IES

incnt for lincarity of argullncnt,toleratcs lnorc digrcssivcncss
を
ind rCcapitulation,and a1loⅥ rs grcatcr dcgree ofinclusion of

ilTclcvance in the argument than English.
2tJapancse is both sutteCt― promincnt and topic― prominent,a(1(lording to thcir typology.
'′ 1｀

(て

hc folloⅥ ing sentences arc extracted fron■ the data collect―

1lbr Takano(1991).

1｀ 1く

ANSFER OF Ll RHETORIC

71

4For cxample,

It'sα /SOuthern California Kendo Fedcration/.

‐ at's a lllり ,a/thq″ /蓼tmOney to him"(Smith,1982,p.12).
5 For cxamplc, I, I can tcll 二
t'sα /elcmCntary schoo1/. My

口I(lo not necessarily takc culture― spccific rhctoric as thethought pattcrns'';I rathcrl(‖ (:(ltion of the native speakcr'sヽ!)く li(lvc that thc concept should bc interprctcd at thc morc

sOn,gOing tO/elementary schoo1/, frOm herc to a schOol''(Snlith,1982,p.12).
6 The functiOn of thc」 apanese topic lnarker―
wa can bc

1)(lakcr's convqttng information through language.
Ч・Hlis labcling by Kaplan has bccn cHucized as overgencral―described syntacucally as f0110wsI

i/そ

Stil‐

lhCC lwel as thc rcflection of cultural v」 ues in the nativel｀ltion:moreovcr,it is unclcar whetl■cr」 apancsc is included

ill thc o五 ental grOup in Kaplan's sensc. The validity of the

ハ 01lping is not bcing considcrcd in the prcsent study.
‖γ
ドhc spcaker's/Writer's lnain charactcr(BrOWn&Yule,:‐

1983,p.137).

::I cxcluded¶ E from my analysis bccause a numbcr of
AlrlcHcan and」 apanese readcrs claimcd that tl■ is paragraphis too illogical to bc cvaluatcd in terlns of clarity and cohcrcn―(:y,狙 d did not select either topic sentenccs or tl■ cmes.

12This does not coincide with the writcr's intcndcd thcme,t,apanese women and sexual harassment." The writer's
lhcmc scems broadcr. In any case,thc theme of the para―
だraph has been quitc stl‐ aightfon″ ard for thc Ame五 can read―crs because ofthc linear progress ofthc argumcnt.

kono

nlinnaga―
M everyone subieCt¨ M

Thisnis b。 。k is such tllat cveryonc is reading￠ yondcirtl￠ is reading②.

(adapted froll■ Shibatani,1991,pp.273‑275)

Hcre thc noun phrasc donlinatcd by S'is cOnsidered to bc
the topic and the S to be the conllncnt. The scntential
OtteCt has been raised to the topic Position, lcaving an
empty catcgOry at its Original 10catiOn. This categOly isunderstood as rcた rring tO thc topic, tllis book,"marked by―
wα . This syntactic pattcrn is cvidenccd in thc native」apanese spcaker's English interlanguagc. sIIlith(1982,
1983)rcports:
Ladies club,club,ladies group. we gOt o."(1982,p.15).
̀獅d,ah,Hakone,Nikko,is always、 Lc〔 Ⅱ℃ gOing havc,havc

1洗

穐 ξ柵

柵

撃 槻

鶴

路

。・
も 1よ :∫ li=lふ buト

ACKNOmEDGMENTS
I am very gratcf■ ll to the 20 anorymous」 apallcse suttcctS
and gradcrs,and 28 University of Arizona students in myJapancsc 201 and 101 classcs for tl■ eir understanding andcontribuuons.I would also likc to thallk Kimberly」 ones forher encouragement and ll■ any hclpful conllncnts on an earli―
cr version of this papcr;Muriel Sa■ 7ille― Troil《 〕and Rcnate A.
Schulz lbr their critical conllncnts and suggestiOns;Phillip

Elllott for his hclp with the statistical analysis, andToshiyuki Suzuki for e可 Oyablc discussions. All relllaining
crrors are my owl■.

AtyTHORS ADDttSSSLAT Program

427 N Main

Un市 erslty of Arizonaed'躍to writing which has all its necessary and sufficientparts''(IIinds,1987,p.146).

Tucson,AZ 85721

72

TRANSFER OF Ll RHETORIC

」IES

73

REFERENCES

1linds,」 .(1980b)。 Noun phrase ellipsis in written JapaneseApplen,」 .D。 ,Jensen,B.,&McNenny,G。 (Eds.).(1992)。 A
student's gude to∫ rst― りθαr cOn叩 osition(13th edition).
Edina,MN:Burgess lnternational Group.

texts. Papers in」 apanesc Li口 りlllSms,7,21‑33.
Hinds,」 。 (1982). Contrastive rhctoric:Japanesc andEnglish.ミ熱 、3,183‑195.
Hinds,」 。 (1984)。 Retcntion of information using a

Basso,K.H.(1974). The ethnOgraphy Of writing. In R.

Baumarl&」 .Sherzcr(Eds.),Ettploratiorls irL the CthrlQgra
phy O」 Spθ αた1■ g(pp.425‑432).New York:Cambridge
Un市 erslty Press.

Browll,G.,&Yule,G。 (1983).Discο ltrsc anαlysお .New
York:Cambridge University Press.

Clancy,P.(1986). The acquisition of communicative stylein」 apanese.In B.B.Shieffelin&E.Ochs(Eds.),
Langltagc and sο cた■ization across cltこ ι
l″でs(pp. 213〜 250).
New York:Carnbridge University Press.
Clyne,M.(1983). Culture and discourse stucture. In L.E.

Smith(Ed.),セ adirlgs trl E「1̀7こおh as an int(3rruabnal lan―gllagc(pp.163‑167)。 New York:PcrgalnOn Press.
Clyne,M.(1987al.Cultural differences in the organttationof acadenlic texts.」 ournal Q√ Pragmatics,11,211‑247.

Clyne,M.(1987b). Discourse structures and discourse
expectations: ImplicatiOns for Ang10̲German acadellllic

communication in English.In L.E.Smith(Ed。 ),Discoltrsc across cIIこ tuκ〕
sr Strategた s in world Erlgこ ishes(pp.73‑83).New York:Prentice Hall.
(1987)。 A contrastive study ofEnglish expository prose paraphrasing. In u.cOnnor&

Connott U.,&McC理 ,P・
R.Kaplan(Eds.), 11碗
tcχ ts(pp.

arlg acrOss larlgLlageSf Anaし Sお OJL2

73‑86). Reading,MA: Addison― Wesley

Pubhshing cOmpany.

Doi, T。 (1974). Some psychological themes in Japanesehuman relationships.In」 .C.Condon&M.Saito(Eds,),
Inセ rcultural encounた rs with Japan― ontact αrld∞ nJliCt(pp.17‑261.TokyO:Simul.
Grabe,￢1,&Kaplarl,R.(1989)。 Writing in a second lan―gutte:cOntrastive rhetoric.In Do M.」 ohnson&D.H.
Roen(Eds。 ), Richrless in wだ ι
ing:Ettο wcだ ng Ett stu―
dbnts(pp.263‑283)。 New York:Longman.

Japanese style of presentauon. studies in Langllagθ ,8,45‑69.
Hinds,」 .(1987). Reader versus Ⅵriter responsibility:A new
麗

乳

flf肥

機

]・ 段

男 」:き lbyw欄:

Rcading,MA:Addison― Wcsley Publishing cOmpany.
KacIIu,B.B.(1986).Tr■ e αlche町 o」 Erlg慶Ol■:う 臓F Oρ ■3ad,
ル rlC節 ,αd rnodcL oJnon― na x EngIお hes.Urbana,IL
University of 11linois Press.

Kaplan,R.(1966).Cultural thought patterns in intercul―
tural education. ■anguagcレ arrLirlg,16,1‑20.

Kramsch,C.(fOttComing.]he dialogic emergence of cul―
ture in the language classroom. In」 .Alatis(Ed.),
Gを Orgetown ROllnd Tablθ o■ Langttages arLd Lingllistた s.

WashingtOn,DC:GeorgetO― University Press.
Li,C.,&]趾 10mpson,S.(1976)。 Suttect and tOpic:A new
ち,010gァ oflanguage.In C.Li(Ed.),Suり ect and tOpic(pp.
457‑489).New York:A3ademic Press.
Loy,K.H.(1988)。 Culture in the language class:A」 apanese
宙 ew.」oltrnal oJInterLSiυ θ Er■ gこおれ Siょ 力むs,53‑68.
Schachtcr,J.,&Rutherford,」 .(1983). Discourse function
alld language transfen ln B.W.Robinett&」 .Schachter(Eds.), SCCOrld langltage lCarnirLg(pp. 303‑315). Ann

Arbor:Un市 crsity of Michigan Press.
・ New York:
Shibatani,M。 (1991).Tl■ e larlgttesげ 」apα■
Cambridge University Prcss.

Smith, W。

s』(1982). It'S α fLcFt― Disこ ocatedJ TOPIC.

｀,arld
Q朋‰畢棚腎りぉ等。
∬WSl::￡計馘sI The
robり'transJer in αJaparlesc

discoltrse pragrnalたspθ αたcr's Erlgこ ish irlterこ αngLLage.

Unpublishedmanusc五pt,UCLA,Los Angeles.

Hinds,」 . (1980a). Japanese expository prose. Papers irl
LingllisticsI Interttα ι
こ 」οurnα こ of HttmarL̀onα
COrWILtrlた aわrl,13,117‑158.

74

TRANSFER OF Ll RIIrORIC

75

￨ロ

Stalker,」 .W.,&StalkeL J.C.(1989). The acquisiuon Of

rhetoHcal sttategies in introductory paragraphs in wntten

acadelnic English:A comparison of NNSs and NSs. In S.

Gass,C.Madden,D.Preston,&L.Schnker(Eds.),

Variα tiο 71S irL SeC071dこ angltage αcquisitionf Vol. 1.
Dおcoursc αnd pragrrLatiCS(pp. 144‑152). Philadelphia:
Multilingual Matters.

Takarlo,S.(1991) A contrasiυ c sndy oJ w雄た■dお COurscin」 apα nesc αrld Englishf Li trα rL亀た r irL ESL ω rittng.
Unpublished Paper,Un市 ersity ofWisconsin― Madison.

APPENDIX A
Instructions:lTranslationl

Most」 aparlese women until recently have remained silent
llbout sexual harasslnent. But complaints are increasing.

This comcs partly as a result of news media reports on
露 置

T糀

撚

場 盤 :脚

肥

T濫

現 焉 轟

腫

Supremc Court nonlinee of harasslnent. Hc was conflrlned

I配辮 滋 鶯i3革 肌 聞‖:軋 I留 観よ:譜 漏縫t誡1■ 組柵踏枇,18罵 l淵蹴膜税
wornan was havlng illicit affairs,deprlvlng her of dignity and

drⅧ

hな
mpany ttd Hmお u b pay L65。
∫ ミ ユ鷺亀mllllon yen,about S13,000,in dalnages.

The company and Hirotsu denied any sexual harassment.

ホ****Thank you very much for yollr time and cooperation*****

APPENDIX B
Plcase follow the proccdures below.

1. Please read the newspaper article on the next page,andthen■嗣dte a one¨ parttraph sulnlnary ofit.

2. As the second paragraph, please state your opinions,thOughts,etc.on the contnt of the articleo Please makesure that you conclude your oplrlion in one paragraph.
Notes:
ao Please do not spend lnore than 30 minutes in l嗣 dting.

b. Plcase do not ask a native English speaker to checkyour wrlting with yOur gralnlnar or other things.
c.Please feel free to consult dictionaries if necessary.

3. After Flnishing the cOmposition,please respond to thequestionnaire enclosed in the envelope.(Please Open theenvelopc after fl」 shing thc cOmposition.)

Newspaper Article:

Harassment Earns Fine for Japanese FiFm
■ XYO IAPl一 ―A court yesterday for the nrst time penal―

OueStiOnnalrc:

CranSlauonl
SEX: IⅥ

F

AGE:

1.Please circle: ESL student Undergraduate(Mttor:

Other(PleaSe specify:))

2.Please state your lnain idea in the second paragraph in a
few words.

緊1:ξ T;:誤 富rbttagraph?Il■ T:鯛 認さξyes,which sentence?

:潜

Hf
鋼
誤
撚藩亜鐵畔i撫鵠卵

untriep
秘識翠乱∞
霞認ぶ∬」
&罵 電
為ド

dominated」 apan.

Countly:
Years:
9,Have you ever been taught English composition skills?
Iryes,where and what?
10,What do you think the funcuOn Of par〔I「 aphing is?

76

TRANSFER OF Ll RHETORIC

ized a」 apanese company fOr on― ieづ ob Sexual harassment

by one of its employees,a relatively new concept in male―77

11.Have you ever heard the wOrd lcι

when and where?

sh00̲ten― 」
【〕
tsα ?

Ifyes,

What is lci̲sh00̲ten― たetsa?

亀基肌猟 鑑 螺蹴∬鶴摺 盤
器PS
DO yOu f0110w the cOnstruci翼
漠」apanese?
APPENDⅨ!榊蝋 淵 脚 l輻∬graph.

Paragraphs:

鷲難clnstructiOns:

Se軍 :撃番ζ
跳ぶ腱蕊:I:墨翼fttTt
轟話1掩嗜理露
ProcedttSef°

L睡

110w the prOcedures described be10w*****■罵盤
ザ稀榊黎Ⅶ 爾start evaluating the cOm
article On which the ⅥTiters based their cOmpositiOns.
The nriters were t01d to express their thOughts On the

４

５

４

５

４

５

４

５

３

４

５

３

４

５

鮒 職 椰 瀑 鷲 l珊

３essiOns,Or Other kinds Of cOIn̲

CLARITY:
1 2
COHERENCY:1 2
TRANSITION: 1 2

３

accuracy Or naturalness Of

３graph in terms Ofits Organiza―

鵬 :肌 譜 櫨盤柱駆Iren∝
３

paragraph.

凛跳i輛∬ be路聴
T静
i漁
喜
鮮磯
鷺∬
軍翼』
皿磐
お
THE MAIN THEME:

paragraph.

IInportant:

3.鼈

each paragraph based On heお 1̲ilade(1̲助(1)Clarity̲̲̲How clear Or ObviOus is the paragraph tO

undcrstand?

8縄闘器三辮 緊鵠ぉ″1認露躙1鑑
Grad∬]糧 Si:Tl13夏規:u電 紫鋭:留
譜。
.
1=FaihngetЪ

CLARITY:
1 2
COHERENCY:1 2
msITION: 1 2

=P。

78

」IES

TRANSFER OF Ll RHI「 ORIC

79

３

４

５

３

４

５

２

３

４

５

THE TOPIc sENTENCE:

２

CLARIqY:

COHERENCY:1
TRANSITION: 1

２

THE MAIN THEME:THE MAIN THEME:THE TOPIC SEWNCE:
Fo Sexual harassment or sclcu― hara,these days,is a kind oftrendy word in」 apan. Japanese news lnediums and people
casily use this word,but it is quite doubぜul that they under―

stand its lneaning correcdy. I have heard that even just to
touch person's shoulder could be sexual harassment if the

one is in some inferior position to yours. Is that truc?
Then, it could be quite controversial becausc it would be

CLARIqY: 12345
COHERENCY:1 2 3 4 5
mSITION: 1 2 3 4 5

hard to prove if each case is scxual harassmcnt. I agree
mat we,」 apanese,must be sensitive about this issue,how―ever,we dennitely need to study it more.We need to knowwhat is sexual harassment before we take this issue senous―

THE MAIN THEME:

ly.Othen純 se the problem could be mistreated and detri―mental to our society.
４

５

３

４

５

３

４

５

THE MAIN THEME:THE TOPIC SENTENCE:
G. I hadn't known that sexual harassment had bcen
increasing lately in」 apan until l rcad this report.I am real―

５

４
４

５

４

５

CLARIn:
1 2 3
COHERENCY:1 2 3
mSITION: 1 2 3

３

women Or thett rights.

２

ety and encOurage 10ts Of wOmen tO break the silence. I
think that」 apanese lnen have been shOcked tO hear thenews. They need tO be more careful about their attitude
toward wOmen.The ume is already over fOr men tO abuse

CLARIqY:
1
COHERENCY:1
TRANSITION: 1

２

D. This sexual harasslnent is JuSt One Out Of hundreds Or
thousands Of cases. But,this shOuld affect」
apanese sOci̲

２

THE TOPIc sENTENCE:

ly interested in this news,because my girlfhend works inJapan. I think people who do sexual harassment are theworst people of any creatllres. I don't understand why they
do that.I really don't.And in this rcport,the amount ofthe

THE MAIN THEME:」apanese rnan's flne was too low.
３

４

５

３

４

５

２

３

４

５

CLAR17Y:
1
COHERENCY:1
TRANSITION: 1

２

E. I think that this sexual harassment is ttue because totalk abOut he sexual harassment Of Oneself is very cOura―
geOus. s。 ,f this is lruc,the cOmpany and her boss shOuld

２

THE TOPIc SENTENCE:

apologize tO her and pay s13,000.

80

」IES

TRANSFER OF Ll RHD「 ORIC

81

THE MAIN THEME:

situation. Therefore,I think that the court ruling in

THE TOPIC SENTENCE:

Fukuoka shoWs tO the public a further step towards judicial
equilibnum in」 apan.

H. This εビtcle is、Fitten about sexual harassment. sexual
harassment lnust disappear in」 apanese society. For mat
purpOse,ifwomen are harassed by men,d■ ey have tO accuse
them. Harassment前 1l be a big prOblem in」 apan and peO―
ple who have harassed have to have a consciousness Of
guilto l think the nlale― dOnlinated society М ll Change andthe consciOusness of sexual harassment Ⅵ江1l increase more
２

３

４

５

２

３

４

５

２

３

４

５

man now.
C…
:
1
COHERENCY:1
mSITION: 1

CLARIqY: 12345
COHERENCY:1 2 3 4 5TRANSITION: 1 2 3 4 5THE MAIN THEME:THE TOPIC SEWNCE:

THE MAIN THEME:THE TOPIC SEい

CE:

醐

灘聯
Wmil譜

乳聞
l∫ 蹴
ぶ皿選脚 :靴鷺]ぷ 鶏

ment,we dOn't dO aming aboutit. For the women,it'seaSy(as we■ as c0011 tO complain about men fOr sch― hara.

C…
: 12345COHERENCY:1 2 3 4 5TRANSITION: 1 2 3 4 5THE MAIN THEME:THE TOPIC SENTENCE:

J. It seems to lne that it is impossible to prOve me credibill―鮮 苺 戯驚懺 燃慰[
82

」IES

TRANSFER OF Ll RHD「 ORIC

83