VOLUME 13 ISSUE 2.2 2018

Published by English Language Education Journals

488 Queen Street

Brisbane

Australia

A Division of SITE Ltd

English as an International Language Journal

A Division of SITE Ltd

Australia http://www.eilj.com

This book is in copyright.

No unauthorized photocopying

a retrieved system or transmitted in any form or by any means,

electronic, mechanical, photocopying or otherwise, without the prior

written permission of the English Language Education Journals

[email protected]

Publisher: Dr Paul Roberston

Chief Editor: Dr Sivakumar Sivasubramaniam

Production Associate Editor: Dr Su-Hie Ting

ISSN: 1718-2298

165

Indirectness Markers in Korean and Persian English Essays:

Implications for Teaching Writing to EFL Learners

Richard M. Rillo

Centro Escolar University, Philippines

De La Salle University, Philippines

Ericson O. Alieto

Western Mindanao State University, Philippines

De La Salle University, Philippines

Abstract

This study investigated and analyzed the prevalence and presence of indirectness

markers in Korean and Persian English Essays. The researchers analyzed the

prevalence of the indirectness markers as a set of politeness strategies employed

by the Korean and Persian university bound students in their English

compositions. Furthermore, the researchers espoused the Politeness Strategies

Theory proposed by Brown and Levinson as framework in the analysis of the

indirectness markers in the texts. In the analysis of the English essays, it was

found out that there were seven (7) categories of indirectness markers evident in

the essays. The Persian English writers displayed a noticeable evidence of

repetition and vagueness and ambiguity in their essays while the Korean

counterparts on point-of-view distancing. The presence of these indirectness

markers in their writing are attributed to socio-cultural factors, such as Persians

have the tendency to be literary in their writing while the Koreans, prose-oriented

resulting to lengthy descriptive accounts and indirectness. The results and

findings of the study could be beneficial to English writing pedagogy in an

English as Second Language (ESL) context.

Keywords: Indirectness markers, English composition, Politeness Strategies

Theory, ESL

1 Introduction

The ‘Sapir-Whorf Hypothesis’ or the Whorfian Hypothesis propagates the idea

that the logic evident in any written discourse is culture specific. This notion of

logic is where Contrastive Rhetoric (CR) was originally taken from. Moreover,

both the concepts of CR and Whorfian Hypothesis instigate the idea that peoples

from different cultures organize their thoughts in writing in the same reality, yet

varying in methods. Furthermore, Kaplan (1990) added that different cultural

166

communities have their set of writing practices that are not shared outside their

respective communities. Therefore, written compositions from different

communities exemplify their own sets of shared beliefs, cultural norms, and other

social practices.

Park (1990) attributed Korean writing styles to be prose-oriented, thus,

leading to long and descriptive accounts themed on an event or a person instead of

getting directly to the point. Furthermore, Hinds (1990) claimed that Oriental

writing (i.e. Thai, Chinese, Korean), follows a ‘quasi-inductive’ pattern, which

means that the thesis statement is implied. The implied thesis statement uses

indirect, inferential expressions (Hall, 1976 & Beamer, 1994). Furthermore,

Kaplan (1990) reiterated that most Asian languages are ‘reader-responsible’

languages; hence, the reader takes on the responsibility to understand the writer’s

implied message within a text. In the context of the Korean writers, Sohn (1986)

mentioned that this implicational or indirectness strategies in writing are based on

the interlocutors’ shared knowledge about the context presented in their writing.

On the other hand, Hong- Nam & Leavell (2006) claimed that Persian

writers of English find it difficult to write using the international language, thus, it

is important that they are given very clear instructions on how to carry on the task.

Contrarily, Nimehchisalem, et. al. (2015) emphasized that Persians have adequate

skills to develop content, organize ideas, and choose the right words in their

essays, only with minor difficulties in the English language’s syntactic

structuring.

Nowruzi, Khiabani & Pourghassemian (2009) analyzed Persians’ English

argumentative essays and found out that their subjects wrote inductively.

Alijanian (2012) justified that this indirectness style of writing among Persians is

a product of artistic writing and is aimed towards achieving harmony with the

readers. Also, he emphasized that the Persian readers are naturally patient in

reading and are noted of their reflective thinking geared towards meaning-

making.

It has been established that indirectness in writing is evident in all written

discourses of different speech communities. However, indirectness appears less in

the Western cultures, particularly among the Anglophone speakers. They are

noted for their straightforward style in writing across genres. This attribute in

Western writing is known as being writer-responsible in style, rather than reader-

responsible (Hinds, 1990). In written academic discourse, direct discussion of

main ideas related to the text’s thesis and the writer’s analyses are considered

requisite (Matalene, 1985; Swales, 1990; Swales & Feak, 1994); thus, must be

observed when advancing arguments and points in writing.

In the light of the use of these indirectness markers in writing, Tran (2007)

claimed that these markers are used as a strategic communicative style; thus,

167

circling around the thesis is intentionally done. Kaplan (1966) described this

circling around the thesis as gyres moving around the subject that makes the

composition appear longer, and the thesis implicit. To support these claims and

descriptions, Scollon (1997) added that this circling around is also a strategy that

delays sensitive points in the discussion.

Felix-Brasdefer (2004) argued that indirectness is relative to politeness. while

Myers (2004) defended that indirectness in writing is used to soften the argument,

especially when advancing ideas to maintain politeness as a tone in writing .

Sew (1997) further claimed that any audience who is unaware of these styles

in writing of the different cultural communities may have difficulties in

understanding the ideas and points being advanced in the composition.

In this age of globalization, the ability to effectively communicate

interculturally has become more demanding and important than ever before.

Language and culture are said to be two inclusive entities that cannot be separated

from one another; thus, in understanding language, especially when used as a tool

in writing, issues like the use of indirectness markers, must be understood not just

on how words appear in compositions, but more importantly, on how culture is

embedded in them. In fact, Halliday & Hasan (1978) clarified that language

situates culture, and not otherwise. In effect, it is important that readers must be

able to decode culturally significant contexts in written discourses (Rivers, 1988).

Therefore, to communicate in wriiten form in this highly globalized world,

different peoples coming form different cultural backgrounds, possessing unique

patterns of writing development across genres, must be able to adjust to the

demand and context of writing in an international sense.

Mogridge (1988) forwarded that culture is medicated by language., This

implies that teaching language as a tool in writing means directly teaching the

culture that abounds it. Teaching the culture could be consciously or

unconsciuosly done. Woolever (2011) claimed that there is a need for a study like

this present study to promote cultural understanding when it comes to language

used in written form. She further added that if sufficicient descriptions of these

langauge features are assessed in studies, culture education in the context of

writing could easily be carried out..

Swales (1990) argued that students must be able to learn the value systems

present in a particular language when writing in that language. Accroding to him,

it is essential when addressing an international audience. This, however, is not

possible since these value systems could compromise the inherent cultural

168

characteristics present in particular speech communities trying to write using

another language. As a mitigating solution, Herrington (1985) and McCarthy

(1987) suggested that students must be able to recognize and learn different

discourse paradigms and the appropriate degrees of indirectness when writing in

the target language. Since indirectness is an inevitable style in writing, only

varying in degrees of usage, it has to be present in the context of writing using the

English language in moderation to avoid vagueness, and achieve explicitness,

accuracy, and precision.

The Philippines is one of the largest English-speaking countries in the world

today, and one of the Asian countries that offer quality education, especially in

ESL instruction. In fact, there were about 2,655 South Korean Nationals who

were studying in the country according to the 2013 statistics, and most of them

are enrolled in the leading universities of the country (inquirer.net, 2013). On the

other hand, in the City of Manila alone, the capital city, there are about 4,000 to

4,500 Iranians and a good percentage of them are studying medical allied

programs in the University belt (Rappler, 2016). These statistics clearly show that

foreign students come to the Philippines to obtain their higher education degrees

with the aim of also improving their English language competencies.

Most of the communication done internationally is through writing, thus, it is

imperative that the universities and institutions in the Philippines and the world,

which cater to foreign students, adopt pedagogical practices that would

specifically address writing conventions of their learners toward successful

communication in the international arena. In the light of this study, the

indirectness markers that are used sparingly, which cause explicitness and

inaccuracy in writing, must be addressed to achieve a written discourse in English

that is usually straightforward, with clear ideas that are interrelated and are aiming

at a common thesis statement.

1.1 Significance of the study

This study is inspired by the increasing number of Korean and Persian nationals

flocking in the Philippines to pursue their higher education degrees with premium

on improving their communicative competence using the English language, as an

international language. From this inspiration, a prompt of improving English

language instruction to these foreign students is highly sought. Furthermore, the

results and findings of this study shall benefit the academic communities in all

parts of the world who cater to Korean and Persian learners as international

students.

169

1.2 Research Questions

Therefore, in this study three (3) research questions were developed as

follows:

1. What are the prevalent indirectness markers evident in the Korean and

Persian English essays?

2. What is the extent of occurrence of these indirectness markers in their

English essays?

3. What are the implications of the findings of the study in English writing

pedagogy for EFL learners?

2 Methodology

2.1 Research Design

This study made use of the descriptive research method because it dealt with the

analysis of indirectness markers in the written discourse of the subjects under

study.

Calderon (2006), defined descriptive research as a purposive process of

gathering, analyzing, classifying, and tabulating data about prevailing conditions,

practices, processes, trends, and cause-effect relationships and then making

adequate and accurate interpretation about such data with or without or sometimes

minimal aid of statistical methods. Also, this method ascertains prevailing

conditions of facts in a group under study that gives either qualitative or

quantitative, or both, descriptions of the general characteristics of the group as

results.

2.2 Corpus

The corpus used in this study were the essays composed by entering Korean and

Persian university students at the Centro Escolar University (CEU) in Manila,

Philippines. The essays were part of their initial requirements for entry to the

university. The University has been screening foreign applicants in terms of their

writing using the English language as a medium since 2012. Thus, the researchers

decided to choose randomly from the essays composed by the Korean and Persian

entrants from 2012 to 2016. There were 30 randomly selected essays, which were

subjected for analysis of the use of prevalent indirectness markers. Also, the 30

essays were chosen based on the number of minimum paragraphs that should

comprise an essay, which is three (3). The three paragraphs should represent the

components of an essay, which are— introduction, body, and conclusion.

Moreover, the English essays revolve around the topics— ‘Describe yourself as a

student’; ‘Tell something about yourself; ‘One thing I like about the Philippines’;

‘The advantages and disadvantages of computer technology’; and ‘How I see

170

myself ten (10) years from now’. There were 15 randomly selected essays from

the Korean group. Eight (8) were written by females and seven (7) were written

by males. The numbers of words in the essays were ranging from 119 to 257 with

a mean of 185.33 words. The ages of the writers were ranging from 16 to 30. The

mean age of the group was 19.07. On the other hand, there were also 15 randomly

selected essays from the Persian group. Seven (7) were written by females, and

eight (8) were written by males. The numbers of words in the essays were ranging

from 70 to 256 with a mean of 109.47 words. The ages of the writers in this group

were ranging from 18 to 29 while the mean age was 22.80.

2.3 Framework for Analysis

The framework that the researcher espoused in this study is the Politeness

Strategies Theory proposed by Brown and Levinson (1987) (B & L). B & L

provided a comprehensive definition of indirectness markers as a set of politeness

strategies used by the speaker to reduce imposition towards the hearer.

Furthermore, the speaker employs politeness strategies to achieve solidarity and

sound relationship with his hearer. B&L proposed three major categories of

indirectness markers namely: (1) rhetorical strategies/markers; (2) lexical and

referential markers; and (3) syntactic markers and structures. These major

categories are further identified into subcategories. First, rhetorical

strategies/markers include rhetorical questions, tag questions, disclaimers and

denials, vagueness and ambiguity markers, repetition and irony. Second, lexical

and referential markers include hedges and hedging devices, point of view

distancing, downtoners, diminutives, point-of-view distancing, demonstratives,

indefinite pronouns and determiners, and other understatement markers. Finally,

syntactic markers and structures include the use of passive voice, nominalization,

and conditional tenses in the sentence structures.

Hinkel (1997) claimed that the use of these indirectness markers are used

in the written discourse of different languages. However, the gravity of the use of

these markers vary from one culture to another. Alijainan (2012) mentioned that

despite the presence of the use of indirectness markers in interpersonal

communication, particularly in writing, they still appear less in Western

composition.

In this study, the analysis of the presence of indirectness markers in non-

Western writing has been anchored, particularly the Koreans and the Persians

through identifying the categories presented by B & L in their essays.

2.4 Procedure

A letter requesting for the acquisition of the essays of the Korean and Persian

entrants was sent via email to the head of the CEU- Languages Department, Dr.

Arlene S. Opina. After her approval, the essays were sorted out and only the ones

171

written by the Koreans and the Persians were chosen. Attached in each essay is a

profile sheet that includes the entrant’s full name, age, date of exam, gender, and

nationality. Furthermore, a separate sheet that contains the entrant’s reading

comprehension test and interview results were also attached. Due to

confidentiality issues, the entrant’s age, gender, and nationality were recorded on

a separate sheet since this information is not written on the essay’s heading and is

not a part of the ‘confidential’ results of their other tests. The essays that contain

at least three (3) paragraphs regardless of the length were selected. Eventually, 15

essays for each group with a mixture of both genders were carefully selected.

The essays were analyzed of the presence of indirectness markers through

hand-tagging. They were organized for analysis by labelling each with a code;

hence, K for Korean, and P for Persian. Each letter code is accompanied by a

corresponding number (e.g. K1 for Korean essay number one, K2 for the second,

and so on). A separate sheet of one-eighth (1/8) in size was stapled with the essay.

Written on the one-eighth sheets are the evident indirectness markers; their

corresponding occurrences; and the percentage computation. The categories of

indirectness markers were also coded for a more convenient analysis both on the

actual essays and the stapled sheets of paper.

2.7 Statistical Treatment

Since this study is descriptive in nature, a descriptive statistics method was

employed for getting the frequency, mean, and percentage of occurrences of

indirectness markers in the essays of the two groups. Moreover, a specialized

accounting of occurrences of each indirectness marker in the essays was

employed. To ascertain whether the Korean and Persian essays similarly used the

indirectness markers, the percentages of these occurrences were derived and

compared.

2.8 Method of Analysis

Brown and Levinson (1987) Politeness Strategies Theory linked to the use of

indirectness markers in written discourse was employed to analyze the essays.

Additionally, the works of Hinkel (1997) and Alijanian (2012), which are similar

studies, were also utilized to provide directions in analyzing the essays.

To address the first research question on the evidence of indirectness

markers in the English essays of Korean and Persian entering university students,

the essays were read and analyzed for the evident occurrences of these

indirectness markers three (3) times. The essays were read thrice to establish the

credibility of the analysis. There were seven (7) sub-categories of the three (3)

categories of indirectness markers that were found evident in the essays of the two

(2) groups. Under the first category, rhetorical strategies/markers, there were two

(2) evident indirectness markers: (a) repetition, coded as RR; and (b) vagueness

172

and ambiguity, coded as RV. The second category, lexical and referential markers

were (a) hedges and hedging devices, coded as LH; (b) diminutives, coded as LD;

determiners, coded as LI. Finally, the third category, syntactic markers and

structures, where only one was found evident— the use of conditional tenses,

coded as SC.

To address the question on the extent of occurrence of the evident

indirectness markers in the English essays of the two (2) groups, the frequencies

of occurrence of the seven (7) identified markers were tabulated in individual

essays. The specialized accounting of the indirectness marker occurrences in the

individual essays was statistically treated by counting the occurrence of a

particular marker divided by the number of words of the essay multiplied by 100.

For example; there is only one (1) occurrence of rhetorical repetition (RR) in an

essay of 166 words (i.e. 1/166*100= 0.06%). This treatment in the data was

carried out to obtain the percentage rate of each indirectness marker in each essay

of the subjects. The mean percentage of the occurrences of the different evident

indirectness markers was also obtained to compare the extent of the occurrences

of the identified indirectness markers between the Korean and the Persian English

essays.

Lastly, in citing the possible implications of the result of the study in the

teaching of English writing to the two (2) groups, the researchers wrote possible

pedagogical implications on how these indirectness markers could be neutralized

in terms of usage in the context of writing an English essay.

3 Results and Discussion

The analyses of the 30 English essays of the Korean and Persian entering

university students were found to be evident of seven (7) indirectness markers

proposed by B & L (1987).

The first indirectness marker evident in the English essays of the subjects

is repetition (RR). Repetition is a politeness strategy employed by a speaker of

any culture to maintain an agreement (Brown and Levinson, 1987). However,

Tarone & Yule, (1987) claimed that repetition is not tolerable in English writing

because it is synonymous to redundancy. Examples of repetition from the essays

are—

K1: ‘…I came here (Philippines) to study. When I came here

(Philippines), I was so nervous because I am afraid to study’.

P14: ‘The Philippines has very big buildings. The buildings are huge

they have malls inside.’

173

In the exemplars given, repetition was used by the two (2) groups as a

means to delineate the theme from the rheme by re-establishing the same theme

and adding another rheme. Mc Carthy (1991) instigated the idea that the tolerance

of repetition in writing is largely dependent on culture. In fact, he also found out

in his study that both the Japanese and the Chinese cultures use repetition as a

means to avoid theme-rheme relationship of ideas in the text. Moreover,

repetition in the analyzed essays also signifies persuasion; thus, convincing the

reader of what is emphasized. In the exemplar above, K1 tries to convince the

reader that coming to the Philippines to study is difficult for him; while P14

establishes the idea that the buildings are huge that even malls (referring to stalls)

could be found inside them. Mc Carthy and Carter (1994) claimed that repetition

as an indirectness marker is employed by the writer as a persuasion strategy that

could enable the reader to help the writer construct the argument.

The second evident indirectness marker is vagueness and ambiguity (RV).

B & L (1987) defined vagueness and ambiguity as an indirectness strategy which

communicative intention of the speaker (in the case of the study— the writer) is to

lessen the threat on the ‘face’ of his hearer (reader). There are words and

expressions that signal vagueness and ambiguity in any utterance which come in

both numerical and non-numerical quantifiers; scalar qualifiers; and classifiers.

Examples of these words and expressions are a lot, lot(s) of, around, always,

between, aspects of, kinds of, good, bad, high, low, and so on, etcetera. To

illustrate vagueness and ambiguity used by the groups in this study, the following

exemplars were lifted—

K9: ‘I depend on (to) You (God) everything such as my dream, my future,

my studies, and so on.’

P4: ‘I had a lot of experience(s) here in the Philippines.’

Both the exemplars are vague and ambiguous statements because they

failed to make their examples concrete and precise for the readers to understand

the main point of the proposition. Both statements clearly depend on how the

reader would define the idea(s) presented or supply specific examples. Since the

K9 writer in the above exemplar wishes to think that there are other domains in

his life that largely depend on God, he ended his statement by writing- and so on.

Also, the same interpretation can be drawn from the statement of P4 when he

stated that he had a lot of experiences, which may be good or bad; memorable, or

not. Channel (1994) defined vagueness in writing as a result of using vague

words. Furthermore, in her study, she was able to find out that vague claims in

writing are products of the writer’s desire to accomplish two simultaneous

174

goals—to eradicate the writer’s responsibility on the proposition; and to reduce

the imposition that the writer has towards his reader.

The third evident indirectness marker is hedges and hedging devices (LH).

Hedges and hedging devices can be numerous and complex (Hinkel, 1997).

However, in this study, the outline of hedges and hedging devices proposed by B

& L was used as basis for the analysis of the presence of hedges and hedging

devices.

There are five (5) evidential markers for locating hedges in a written

discourse namely: lexical, possibility, quality, performative, and hedged

performative verbs. Examples of words and expressions that signal hedging are

(at/for) about, in a way, maybe, more or less, by any chance, possibly, in case, as

is, people say, they say, apparently, basically, perhaps, seemingly, want to/would

want to + discuss/tell/ explain/note mention. To illustrate how hedges and

hedging devices was evident in the essays of the two groups, the following

exemplars were lifted—

K5: ‘I just want to tell someone to correct his or her mistake.’

P11: ‘Maybe computer technology has some disadvantages for us.’

From the exemplars, both statements express uncertainty of the possibility

of the occurrence of a particular action (Biber, 1988). However, in the case of K5,

hedging is used as a confirmatory possibility since it seeks approval from the

reader whether the action could be done or not. B & L defined hedging as a way

to delimit or define the extent of a particular claim, the truth in a proposition or

the completeness of it. On the other hand, P11 simply shows complete uncertainty

that agrees with Biber (1988) who described hedging as a plain expression of

uncertainty or possibility.

The fourth indirectness marker that was found evident in the two (2) of the

essays from the two (2) groups is diminutives (LD). According to B & L,

diminutives are a general class of hedging. It has a goal of delimiting the

speaker’s/writer’s responsibility over a claim that leads to its imposition on the

hearer/ reader. Expressions that are evident of diminutives are a little, a little bit,

little by little, a few. The statements that follow are the only examples from both

groups that contain diminutives as an indirectness marker. Quirk, et.al. (1985) &

Hubler (1983) claimed that diminutives often appear in speaking, but rare in

writing.

K6: ‘I studied little by little’

P12: ‘I will be a little older’

175

K6’s statement is evident of a diminutive that coincides with the claim of

B & L because the goal of the writer delimited his responsibility over a past

action, and implications of such. Alternatively, P12’s diminutive use expresses a

‘smaller risk of negotiability’ (Hubler, 1983) by implicitly writing that he may not

be totally old when the day comes that he must be old.

The fifth indirectness marker is point-of-view distancing (LP). B & L

described point-of view distancing as an indirectness construction that distances

the speaker from a claim or proposition. Ergo, the removal of the claim distances

him in time and space. Expressions such as I/we feel, hope, wonder, worry, think,

believe, understand mark this indirectness. Both groups manifested point-of-view

distancing as an indirectness marker. Another set of exemplars illustrate this

indirectness marker—

K4: ‘I hope to be a dentist because I want to help my father.’

P1: ‘I believe that I came here from my country to study before anything

else’

K4 expresses a particular desire, but does not totally agree to the

fulfilment of the desire. Likewise, P1 isolates himself from the claim by not being

totally responsible for it. This point of view distancing used in the context of both

statements save the face from direct fault through decentralization (B & L).

The sixth indirectness marker is indefinite pronouns/determiners (LI). B &

L maintained that choosing a point of reference (pronoun) that is higher or lower

than the actual state of affairs is significant of indirectness. Pronouns/references

such as nobody, none, no one, nothing, some, somebody, someone, something are

prompts of this indirectness. The exemplars that follow illustrate this indirectness

marker—

K10: ‘Nowadays, most machine(s) make everything.’

P8: ‘I went to Malaysia (to study), but because (through) some

problem(s), I came (went) back to Iran.

K10 used the indefinite pronouns as indirectness markers twice in his

statement. Essentially, he failed to specify ‘which’ machines and ‘which’

everything he actually means. Likewise, P8 also failed to specify ‘which’

particular problem(s) he means in his statement. The two sample statements are

both overstated and exaggerated. Cherry (1988) found out that in certain contexts,

overstating adds power to the stand of the rhetoric. Additionally, Channel (1994)

176

cited that exaggerations allow the speaker/writer to create a point without being

precise.

Finally, the seventh indirectness marker that was found occurring in the

essays is conditional tenses (SC). The use of conditional tenses is an ambiguous

indirectness strategy that can prevent a threat to the writer’s or the reader’s face

(Myers, 1989). Additionally, Myers proposed that conditional tenses are used by

the writer to solicit the reader’s agreement of the proposition or claim. The use of

the words If plus a conditional tense or Unless plus a conditional tense signifies

this indirectness marker. In this study, the essays of both groups were evident of

the use of this indirectness marker. The following exemplars are evident of this

indirectness:

K8: ‘If I could (can) have the chance to study in America, I would (will)!’

P1: ‘If I have more free (extra) time, I would (usually try to go) go to the

library.

The conditional tenses in these statements both express ‘willingness’ to do

the actions, but have certain ‘boundaries’ or may have ‘restrictions’ to do so.

Myers (1989) characterized the use of conditionals as an indirectness marker to

achieve an indirect solidarity between the writer and the reader, wherein the latter

may or may not agree.

The table below contains the English essays of the Korean subjects’

indirectness markers; their frequency of occurrences; and mean percentages.

Table 1

Occurrence of indirectness markers in Korean English Essays

Indirectness marker

mean %

I. Rhetorical strategies/markers

1. Repetition (RR)

0.60

2. Vagueness and ambiguity (RV)

0.88

II. Lexical and referential markers

1. Hedges and hedging devices (LH)

0.49

2. Diminutives (LD)

0.03

3. Point-of-view distancing (LP)

0.73

4. Indefinite pronouns and determiners (LI)

0.42

III. Syntactic markers and structures

Conditional tenses (SC)

0.20

177

In Table 1, it could be seen that the indirectness marker with the highest

number of frequency and mean percentage of occurrence is the evidence of

vagueness and ambiguity in the Korean English essays with 24 occurrences and a

mean percentage of 0.88%. Carlson (1988) and Bickner & Peyasantiwong (1988)

found out in their studies that non-native speakers’ (NNSs) English essays were

dominated by vague and ambiguous statements, phrases, and words. Furthermore,

Hinkel (1997) also found out that vagueness and ambiguity is the dominant

indirectness marker that characterized the English essays of his Chinese,

Japanese, Indonesian, and Korean subjects.

Contrarily, the use of lexical diminutives was only evident in one Korean

English essay, and only appeared once, thus, obtaining a mean percentage of

0.03%. This result of the occurrence of diminutives in the English essays of the

Korean subjects agree with the claim of Quirk, et.al. (1985) & Hubler (1983) that

diminutives often appear in speaking, but rare in writing among NNSs.

The following Table illustrates the occurrence of indirectness markers in

the Persian English essays:

Table 2

Occurrence of indirectness markers in Persian English Essays

Indirectness marker

mean %

I. Rhetorical strategies/markers

1. Repetition (RR)

1.30

2. Vagueness and ambiguity (RV)

1.48

II. Lexical and referential markers

1. Hedges and hedging devices (LH)

0.61

2. Diminutives (LD)

0.06

3. Point-of-view distancing (LP)

0.63

4. Indefinite pronouns and determiners (LI)

0.40

III. Syntactic markers and structures

Conditional tenses (SC)

0.16

Table 2 shows that both repetitive and vague and ambiguous statements

were prevalent in the Persian English essays. Both rhetorical strategies/markers

receive a frequency of 23 occurrences. However, the mean percentage of vague

and ambiguous statements is slightly higher than the repetitive ones with 1.30%

and 1.48% respectively. Alijainan (2012) justified that the indirectness in Persian

English writing is a product of their goals to achieve artistry and harmony in

178

human communication and their belief that stating the points clearly is relative to

disrespecting the readers. Thus, repetition of statements, phrases, and words, are

associated with their artistic characteristics while their vagueness and ambiguity

in writing with their show of respect towards the readers.

Least in terms of indirectness marker occurrence in the Persian English

essays is similar to the result of the Korean English essays is the use of

diminutives with one (1) occurrence at 0.06%. Diminutives are believed to occur

most of the time in oral communication and are very rare in written

communication.

The figure below shows the extent of occurrence of the indirectness

markers in both the Korean and Persian English essays.

Legend: RR repetition; RV vagueness and ambiguity; LH hedges and hedging

devices; LD dimunitives; LP point-of-view distancing; LI indefinite

pronouns/referencing; SC conditional tenses

Figure 1

The extent of occurrence in mean percentages (mean %) of the indirectness

markers in both the Korean and the Persian English essays

179

In Figure 1, it could be gleaned that both the Korean and the Persian

English essays have the same extent of occurrence in the use of the seven (7)

indirectness markers respective of their groups. However, what is significantly

evident in the figure is the difference in terms of their use of repetition and vague

and ambiguous statements in their essays. The Persian English essays were

shorter compared to their Korean counterparts in terms of their mean average in

the number of words of essays; however, the Persian English essays have more

repetitions and vague and ambiguous use of words, phrases, statements in their

essays. Kachru (1992) proposed that discourse in different languages and cultural

communities are often contextualized and these conventions are not necessarily

shared paradigms outside a particular culture.

The difference of the rest of the indirectness markers in both groups is not

significant, but still do occur in their English essays. Myers (2004) claimed that

indirectness in writing is vital in the sense that it is a strategy for the writer to

maintain politeness in written academic discourse especially when the writer has

to advance his ideas.

4 Pedagogical implications of the findings of the study in teaching writing to

Korean and Persian EFL learners

This study has explained thoroughly that writing conventions vary from one

language and culture to another. Purves (1988) emphasized that the understanding

of these rhetorical deviations among languages could bridge the gap between

cultural encoding and decoding. Simply put, this statement of Purves explains that

university professors/instructors of writing to foreign students should be aware

that differences in rhetorical patterns are not relative to the differences in terms of

the cognitive ability of their learners. In the case of the Persians, which English

essays were shorter and more evident of their use of repetition and vague and

ambiguous statements do not necessarily mean that the Korean counterparts are

better writers. For example; Nimehchisalem, et. al. (2015) found out among that

his Persian students learning English writing have adequate skills to develop

content, organize ideas, and choose the right words despite their weakness on

English syntactic structures.

Therefore, it is essential that both Korean and Persian students, most

especially the latter, to have more writing exercises that avoid repetition (RR) and

vagueness and ambiguities (RV). In doing so, writing professors/instructors

should be more aware of this occurrence in the writing of the students, and must

return ‘corrected’ written outputs to students emphasizing that statements,

phrases, or words are repeated; thus, must be avoided or statements are vague and

ambiguous because they lack clarity, unity, and coherence. On the other hand, for

the point-view-distancing (LP), both the Korean and the Persian students, most

180

especially the former, must be instructed to be factual in what they write, so that

they can take responsibility of their written statements.

However, Kaplan (1988) instigated that writing for a particular audience

does not come instantly especially when an individual is coming from a

completely different context. He also added that the teaching of writing would not

be effective if students are asked to imitate the style in writing of a particular

target audience just to fit in. In the case of the Korean and Persian university

students, having their respective languages and cultures, and as evident in their

writing, the presence of indirectness markers that cause problematic results to

writing professors/instructors, it is important to understand that total eradication

of these rhetorical conventions is impossible. Hence, what is more important is

not the total eradication of these conventions in writing, but an ideological

process through which one could arrive at the form. This underpins the idea that

organization and presentation of the sequences of information in writing are most

crucial in the writing classroom. It is therefore advisable that writing instruction

should begin with modelling on how to write a specific written genre. In short, for

EFL students to be effective writers in English, it is vital that writing

professors/instructors should anchor their teaching of writing on the process and

the product. Conversely, it is crucial that foreign students’ written compositions

are well-checked and corrected, and must be instructed to rewrite their outputs for

gradual practice of effective writing. Through this, the presence of these prevalent

indirectness markers could be minimized. After all, students need to recognize

and learn different discourse paradigms and the appropriate degrees of

indirectness in writing (Herington, 1985 and McCarthy, 1987).

In summary, there is no concrete set of pedagogical strategies and

approaches that could be utilized in teaching writing to foreign students (Li,

2017), but through the writing professor’s/instructor’s deeper understanding of the

students’ complex cultures and rhetoric that the teaching of writing to the foreign

students could be realized.

5 Insights

5.1 Conclusion

The rhetorical conventions on the use of indirectness markers were found evident

in both the Korean and Persian English essays. The occurrences of these

indirectness markers in the English essays vary in terms of their extents especially

in the case of repetition of ideas and words and vagueness and ambiguity of

words, phrases and statements that favor the Korean English writers. However,

because of the inherent culture in language, the writing professor/instructor must

consider the fact that total eradication of these indirectness markers when writing

in English is impossible, but could be minimized and appropriated. Scollon

181

(1997) mentioned that it is through schooling and education that the learners are

made familiar to the social norms and discourse traditions of different languages

with different cultural backgrounds.

The English essays of the Koreans and the Persians are reader-

responsible texts. The essays allowed the reader to interpret the meaning behind

the essays due to the use of indirectness markers.

5.2 Recommendations

In the light of the conclusions made, the researchers recommend that instead of

asking foreign students to imitate a particular model when writing in English, it is

more important to teach the form and process of writing a particular essay. What

is more crucial is that students understand how to organize their thoughts and

ideas properly. Linguistic accuracy is secondary to form and process. Moreover,

designing classroom activities and instructional materials that would immerse

foreign students in the context of the target audience would also be effective.

These activities and materials could not only help them understand their target

audience, but most importantly could make them realize that excessive use of

indirectness markers could impede the understanding of their writing among their

readers. After all, peoples today do not live on separate worlds anymore. The idea

of a ‘global village’ has immersed that is multilingual and multicultural.

References

Alijanian, E. (2012). The use of indirectness devices in Persian and English

argumentative written discourse: A cross-cultural perspective. International

Journal of Linguistics, 4, (3), pp. 60-70.

Beamer, L. (1994). Teaching English business writing to Chinese-speaking

business students. The Bulletin of the Association for Business

Communication, 11(1), pp. 12-18.

Biber, D. (1988). Variation across speech and writing. Cambridge: Cambridge

University Press.

Bickner, R. & Peyasantiwong, P. (1988). Cultural variation in reflective writing.

In A. Purves (Ed.). Writing across languages and cultures: Issues in

contrastive rhetoric, pp. 160-176. Newberry Park, CA: SAGE.

Brown, P., & Levinson, S. (1987). Politeness (2nd ed.). Cambridge: Cambridge

University Press.

Calderon, J. (2006). Methods of research and thesis writing (2

Ed.).

Mandaluyong City: National Bookstore.

Carlson, S. (1988). Cultural differences in writing and reasoning skills. In A.

Purves (Ed.). Writing across languages and cultures: Issues in contrastive

rhetoric, pp. 109-137. Newberry Park, CA: SAGE.

Channel, J. (1994). Vague language. Oxford: Oxford University Press.

182

Cherry, R. (1988). Politeness in written persuasion. Journal of Pragmatics, 12,

pp. 63-81.

Flix-Brasdefer, J. (2004). Interlanguage refusals: linguistic politeness and length

of residence in the target community. Language Learning, 54(4), pp. 587-

653.

Hall, E. (1976). Beyond culture. Garden City New York: Anchor & Doubleday.

Halliday, M. and Hasan, R. (1978). Language as social semiotic: The

interpretation of language and meaning. London: Arnold Ltd.

Herrington, A. (1985). Writing in academic settings. Research in the teaching of

English. (19) 4, 331-359.

Hinds, J. (1990). Inductive, deductive, quasi-inductive; expository writing in

Japanese, Korean, Chinese, and Thai. In U. Connor., & A. M. Johns (Eds.),

Coherence in writing: research and pedagogical perspectives (pp. 87-109).

Alexandria, VA: TESOL.

Hinkel, E. (1997). Indirectness in L1 and L2 acdemic writing. Journal of

Pragmatics, 27, pp. 361-386.

Hong-Nam, K., & Leavell, A. G. (2006). Language learning strategy use of ESL

students in an intensive English learning context System, 34, pp. 399-415.

Hubler, A. (1983). Understatements and hedges in English. Amsterdam:

Benjamins.

Inquirer.net (2011). Philippines has 26k Foreign Students. Retrieved from:

https://globalnation.inquirer.net/9781/philippines-has-26k-foreign-students

Kachru, Y. (1992). World Englishes: approaches, issues and resources. Language

Teaching, 25(1), pp. 1-14.

Kaplan, R. (1966). Cultural thought patterns in intercultural education. Language

Learning, 16, 1–20.

Kaplan, R. (1988). Contrastive rhetoric and second language learning: Notes

toward a theory of contrastive rhetoric. In A. Purves (Ed.). Writing across

languages and cultures: Issues in contrastive rhetoric, pp. 275-304.

Newberry Park, CA: SAGE.

Kaplan, R. (1990). Writing in a multilingual/multicultural context: what’s

contrastive about contrastive rhetoric? The Writing Instructor, 10, 7–18.

Li, Xuemei (2017). Genre and rhetoric awareness in academic writing instruction:

Personal narrative and comparative analysis. Asian EFL Journal Quarterly,

(19), 3, pp. 122-142.

Matalene, C. (1985). Contrastive rhetoric: An American writing teacher in China.

College English, 47, 789-807.

McCarthy, L. (1987). A stranger in strange lands: A college student writing across

curriculum. Research in the teaching of English, 47, 233-265.

McCarthy, M. (1991). Discourse analysis for language teachers. Cambridge:

Cambridge University Press.

183

Mogridge, A. (1988). Communication versus culture? Babel, 23(1), pp. 45·48.

Myers, G. (1989). The pragmatics of politeness in scientific articles. Applied

Linguistics, 10 (1),

pp. 1-35.

Myers, G. (2004). Matters of opinion: talking about public issues. Public Opinion

Quarterly, 70(3), 409-412.

Nimehchisalem, V., et.al. (2015). Iranian English as a foreign language (EFL)

learners’ argumentative writing performance in private language institutes.

Canadian Center of Science and Education, (11), 15, pp. 96-103.

Nowruzi, K. & Pourghassemian, H. (2009). Transfer of L1 organizational patterns

in argumentative of Iranian EFL students: Implications for contrastive

rhetoric. Iranian Journal of TEFFL, 1 (4), pp. 23-28.

Park, M. (1990). Communication styles in two cultures: Korean and American.

Seoul: Han Shin Publishing Co.

Purves, A. (1988). Writing across languages and cultures: Issues in contrastive

rhetoric. Newberry Park, CA: University of California Press.

Quirk, R., et. al. (1985). A comprehensive grammar of the English language.

London: Longman.

Rappler.com (2014). Iran National Day. Retrieved from

http://www.rappler.com/life- and-style/50623-iran-national-day-

2014

Rivers, W. M. (1988). Curriculum, student objectives, and the training of foreign

language teachers. Babel, 23(2), pp. 4-10

Scollon, R. (1997). Contrastive rhetoric, contrastive poetics, or perhaps something

else? TESOL Quarterly, 31(2), pp. 352-357.

Sew, J. W. (1997). Power pragmatics in Asian languages. Language Sciences,

19(4), 357-367.

Sohn, H. (1986). Theme-promience in Korea. Seoul, Korea: Linguistic

Expeditions Hanshin Publishing Company.

Swales, J. (1990). Genre analysis. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

Swales, J. & Feak, C. (1994). Academic writing for graduate students. MI: The

University of Michigan Press.

Tarone, E. & Yule, G. (1987). Communication strategies in East-West

interactions. In L. Smith (Ed.). Discourse across cultures. New York:

Prentice Hall.

Tran, T. (2007). Indirectness in Vietnamese newspaper commentaries: A pilot

study. Bowling Green State University.

Woolever, K. (2011). Doing global business in the information age: Rhetorical

contrasts in the business and the technical professions. In C.G. Panetta

(Ed.), Contrastive rhetoric revisited and redefined (pp. 47-64). Mahwah,

NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates, Inc.

184

Note on Contributors

Mr. Richard Medina Rillo is an Assistant Professor III of the School of

Education and the Graduate School of the Centro Escolar University-Manila. He

holds a Master of Arts in Applied Linguistics degree and is currently pursuing his

Doctor of Philosophy in Applied Linguistics at the De La Salle University-

Manila. His research interests include: Sociolinguistics, Psycholinguistics,

Discourse Analysis, and World Englishes. He could be reached through his e-mail

address at [email protected].

Mr. Ericson Olario Alieto is an Assistant Professor III of the College of

Education of the Western Mindanao State University in Zamboanga City. He

holds a master’s degree major in English Language Teaching. Currently, he is

finishing a doctorate degree in Applied Linguistics at the De La Salle University-

Manila. His research interests are: Sociolinguistics, World Englishes, Language

and Gender, and Language Planning. He is reacheable through his e-mail address,

[email protected].