5.1.1 Contrastive Genre Analysis
Contrastive genre analysis,stemming from Contrastive Rhetoric,typically focuses on the generic differences of discourse produced in different cultures.There has been a considerable amount of effort devoted to contrastive genre analysis.Researchers have analysed the genre practices in a number of language communities,for example,Hungarian(Árvay &Tankó,2004),Persian(Mahzari &Maftoon,2007;Rashidi &Ghaffarpour,2010),Brazilian Portuguese(Hirano,2009),Chinese(Loi &Evans,2010)and Thai(Kanoksilapatham,2007).A wide range of disciplines have been examined(Health Sciences,Humanities and Social Sciences:Martín &León Pérez,2014;Business Management:Mur-Dueñas,2010;Medical Science:Zhao &Wu,2013;Agricultural Science:B.Zhang,Thuc,&Pramoolsook,2012).The studies have analysed nearly all common part-genres of research articles and Theses(Introduction:Duszak,1994;Sheldon,2011;Method &Result:Mozaheb,Saeidi,&Ahangari,2014;Discussion:Amirian &Tavakoli,2009).Based on the nature of the groups of comparison,contrastive genre studies can be put into three categories:
·a)Studies of the first category compare English texts written by native speakers of English(NSE)with non-native speakers(NNSE),identifying differences in genre practices between the two groups and using the differences as pedagogical suggestions for non-native speakers to improve their writing by learning from their native speaker peers.For example,Zhao and Wu(2013)analysed the move structure of 50 Medical Science RA Abstracts written by Chinese in English and 50 Abstracts written by native English speakers.They found that the move of Research Background is used by all native English speakers while only by 2% of the Chinese writers.The researchers made no further investigation as to why there is a difference.They suggest that it is one of the“weak points”of Chinese writers writing and indicate that Chinese writers should learn from their counterparts who are native speakers of English(p.62).The present study uses NSE vs.NNSE as shorthand for this approach.
·b)Studies of the second category explore genre differences between texts written in English(usually by native or near-native speakers)and texts composed in the learners’first language(by native speakers of the language).The underlying assumption of this approach is that genre conventions can be transferred from the first language to the second.Therefore,the variation between two languages can be used as pedagogical suggestions for non-native speakers of English to raise genre awareness of NNS.For example,Hu(2010)explored the move structure of RA Literature Reviews in the discipline of Applied Linguistics.Building on Kwan’s model(2006),Hu developed her own model and analysed 40 English RA Literature Reviews which she assumed to be written by native English speakers and 40 Chinese RA Literature Reviews written by native Chinese speakers.Hu found that Chinese and English writers generally use similar moves and steps but English writers employ a wider range of steps.For example,the step Indicating RA structure is only present in English articles.According to Hu,the study is conducted to help novice L2 writers raise genre awareness.The present study uses LA vs.LB as shorthand for this approach.
·c)Studies in the third category compare the rhetorical organization of RA in English published in international journals or“higher-level”journals(e.g.journals in International Scientific Indexing)with research articles published in local journals or“lower-level”journals(e.g.journals not a part of International Scientific Indexing)either in English or the local language.The differences are used as pedagogical suggestions to inform local writers of the genre conventions of international or“higher-level”journals and assisting them to publish internationally or in a“higher-level”journal.For example,Kanoksilapatham(2007)explored local genre conventions in the Thai biochemistry community by comparing 60 English RAs published in five“top”international biochemistry journals with 42 Thai research articles published locally.The authors’first languages are not mentioned in the article.Kanosilapatham analysed all sections,namely Introduction,Method,Result and Discussion and developed her own moves(14 in total).By comparing the frequency of the moves used by the two groups of writers,Kanoksilapatham noticed differences in three moves of the Result section,including Restating Procedural Issues,Providing Justifications for the Choice of Procedures and Commenting Results.She interpreted the differences in terms of the socio-cultural context:a)Thai writers less frequently restate procedural issues because the studies conducted by Thai researchers are not as complex as those by English writers and thus there is no need to remind readers at the beginning of the Result section;b)Thai writers less frequently provide justifications for the choice of studies because their studies often address local issues which are familiar to local readers and thus there is no need to provide rationales for their study;c)Thai writers less frequently comment on results because of the influence of Buddhism of being modest and humble,and the local culture of respecting seniors,as well as the fact that the local community is more close-knit,making the expression of negative comments more difficult.According to Kanoksilapatham,the findings of the study may benefit Thai biochemists in understanding the different expectations of local and international communities and writing accordingly.Although the second group of studies also collects texts from international and local journals,the focus is on differences between native and non-native speakers while the third group pays more attention to the place of publication and often does not mention writers’first language.The present study uses Journal Differences as shorthand for the third approach.
A systematic search was conducted to identify contrastive genre analysis studies on academic writing.The key words used in the search include“contrastive”,“genre”,“academic”,“schematic structure”,“rhetorical structure”and“move”.Studies examining disciplinary differences in genre or on the move structure of a particular genre were excluded.Studies focusing on differences in lexical bundles were also excluded.As a result of this search,31 studies examining the differences in the use of moves were identified.As shown in Table 7,the majority of studies follow the first two approaches in which the writers’first language was used as the main grouping criterion in contrastive studies(NSE vs.NNSE:9;LA vs.LB:20;Journal Difference:2).However,assuming that native speakers know genre conventions better than non-native speakers in the same disciplinary or professional community and making native speakers and non-native speakers as contrast groups can be problematic.Since genre is formed,developed and learnt in community practices(Swales,1990),it is not necessarily a part of one’s ethnic cultural experience but a typical social experience that both native and non-native speakers in a community have equal chance to gain.Therefore,contrastive genre analysis,like Contrastive Rhetoric,is open to the criticism of racism,ethnocentrism and colonialism(Kubota &Lehner,2004).In studies of contrastive genre analysis,the genre differences in the writings of non-native speakers from native English speakers are seen as defects that L2 learners should overcome(e.g.Zhao &Wu,2013;Dong &Xue,2010;Sayfouri,2010;Kafes,2012;Zhang,Thuc &Pramoolsook,2012).The underlying assumption of these studies is that the genre practices of native speakers of English are better than that of non-native speakers in the same disciplinary or professional community.The idea resembles racism in that both believe that the practice of one group is superior to another(Sanjek,2009).Secondly,using the genre conventions of English as the benchmark to evaluate those in other languages places English conventions at the centre.The practice suggests ethnocentrism which refers to“the cultural or ethnic bias - whether conscious or unconscious - in which an individual views the world from the perspective of his or her own group,establishing the in-group as archetypal and rating all other groups with reference to this ideal”(Cooper,2012).Thirdly,teaching English genre conventions to other speakers resembles the process of colonizing in that is like colonizing them not in territory but in the way of writing,converting other speakers to adopt the genre conventions of disciplinary or professional communities located in inner-circle English-speaking countries.The idea of teaching standard Englishes in language classroom has been challenged by many,especially researchers in the field of World Englishes(Kachru,1997;Kirkpatrick,2007;Pennycook,2010;Tupas,2010).Based on the history of expansion of English,Kachru(1992)put English-using communities into three circles,namely the inner circle,which includes Britain and countries using English after the first major expansion of the language such as America,Australia and New Zealand,the outer circle,which comprises countries using English as an official language after the imperial expansion of the Great Britain in Africa and Asia,and the expanding circle,which includes nearly all of the rest of the world.Although the inner-circle users are vastly outnumbered by users in the outer and expanding circles,the inner-circle Englishes remain the standard Englishes(Tupas,2010).Pennycook(2010)proposes that the use of English will change globally along with economic and political changes,shifting away from formerly influential models of inner-circle countries to that of outer- and expanding-circle countries.Whereas the main concern of World Englishes research is on linguistic features,genre conventions are also an important aspect of the use of English.Teaching genre conventions of inner-circle countries as standard conventions is also problematic.The present study proposes that the differences in genre conventions between English-medium and non-English-medium communities identified in contrastive genre analysis should not necessarily be treated as shortcomings of L2 writing.It is necessary to further examine the social context within which the writing takes place in order to understand the factors involved.
Since the majority of previous contrastive genre analysis studies were driven by the aim of teaching genre conventions of inner-circle English-speaking communities to L2 writers,researchers typically focus on differences in form and content(e.g.Busch-Lauer,1995;Zhao &Wu,2013).They seldom examine why the differences exist in the first place.However,to develop academic literacy,both the“thought”and“behaviour”of academic performance are important for learners(Parkinson,2000,p.371).The differences in form and the underlying reasons for the differences are both explored in this study.