1887
Volume 156, Issue 1
  • ISSN 0019-0829
  • E-ISSN: 1783-1490
USD
Buy:$35.00 + Taxes

Abstract

Abstract

This study examines the quality of the writing of Jewish (L1) and Arab (L2) first-year student teachers at Hebrew-speaking colleges. The study seeks to understand the quality of argumentative writing of the student teachers at the beginning of their studies and to expose the discourse patterns that emerge from those argumentative texts. A code book serving as a coding analysis device was developed in order to reveal the following rhetorical text features: content, structure, syntax and style. Each global feature contained a number of specific measures. The findings indicate that the writing quality of first-year L1 students is significantly higher than that of first-year L2 students on all the specific writing measures examined. The texts of the Arab students were less coherent and lacked rhetorical structure and accepted grammatical forms, whereas those of the Jewish students were more coherent and self-explanatory. The study concludes that when Arab students write in Hebrew as a second language, the linguistic and rhetorical conventions of Arabic interfere with their Hebrew writing. The results demonstrate significant and interesting differences between Jewish native speakers (L1 students) and Arab non-native speakers (L2 students). While the texts of L1 students tend to display 'explicit coherence,' those of L2 students show 'implicit coherence.'

Loading

Article metrics loading...

/content/journals/10.2143/ITL.156.0.2034429
2008-01-01
2019-10-20
Loading full text...

Full text loading...

References

  1. Atkinson, D.
    (2004) Contrasting rhetorics/contrasting cultures: Why contrastive rhetoric needs a better conceptualization of culture. Journal of English for Academic Purposes, 3, 277–289.
    [Google Scholar]
  2. Berman, R. A. & Ravid, D. D.
    (2000) Acquisition of Israeli Hebrew and Palestinian Arabic: A review of current research. Hebrew Studies, 41, 83–98.
    [Google Scholar]
  3. Blau, J.
    (1976) Techiyat haivrit utechiyat haaravit hasifrutit [The renaissance of Hebrew and standard Arabic]. Jerusalem: The Academy of the Hebrew Language Press.
    [Google Scholar]
  4. Brown, G., & Yule, G.
    (1983) Discourse Analysis. Cambridge University Press.
    [Google Scholar]
  5. Connor, U.
    (1996) Contrastive rhetoric: Cross-cultural aspects of second language writing. New York: Cambridge University Press.
    [Google Scholar]
  6. (2002) New directions in contrastive rhetoric. TESOL Quarterly, 36, 493–510.
    [Google Scholar]
  7. (2003) Changing currents in contrastive rhetoric: Implications for teaching and research. InB. Kroll (Ed.), Exploring the dynamics of second language writing (pp.218–242). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
    [Google Scholar]
  8. Ezer, H., Shalom, T., & Katzir, Y.
    (2007) Saffa zehut vetarbut bekerev studentim arvim veyehudim bemossad lehachsharat morim dover ivrit [Academic literacy in Hebrew in the written discourse of various groups of Israeli Arab and Jewish pre-service teachers]. (Research Report). Tel-Aviv, Israel: Levinsky College of Education and Moffet Institute, Research Committees.
    [Google Scholar]
  9. Ezer, H., & Sivan, T.
    (2005) “Good” academic writing in Hebrew: The perceptions of pre-service teachers and their instructors. Assessing Writing, 10, 117–133.
    [Google Scholar]
  10. Ezer, H., & Margolin, B.
    (2007) Eichut haktiva shel studentim le’hora’a bikvutzot shonot -mechkar hitpatchuti [Writing quality in various groups of student teachers, a developmental study] (Research Report). Tel-Aviv, Israel:, Levinsky College of Education, Authority for Research & Development.
    [Google Scholar]
  11. Grabe, W., & Kaplan, R. B.
    (1989) Writing in a second language: Contrastive rhetoric. InD. M. Johnson & D. H. Roen (Eds.), Richness in writing: Empowering ESL students (pp.263–283). New York, London: Longman.
    [Google Scholar]
  12. Kaplan, R.B.
    (1966) Cultural thought patterns in inter-cultural education. Language Learning, 16, 1–20.
    [Google Scholar]
  13. (1987) Cultural thought patterns revisited. InU. Connor & R.B. Kaplan (Eds.) Writing across languages: Analysis of L2 text (pp.9–21). Massachusetts: Addison-Wesley.
    [Google Scholar]
  14. (1988) Contrastive rhetoric and second language learning: Notes towards a theory of contrastive rhetoric. InA. C. Purves (Ed.), Writing across languages and cultures (pp.275–304). Newbury Park, CA: Sage Publications.
    [Google Scholar]
  15. Kubota, R., & Lehner, A.
    (2004) Toward critical contrastive rhetoric. Journal of Second Language Writing, 13, 7–24.
    [Google Scholar]
  16. Margolin, B.
    (1996) Hamikud hatachbiri basiporet haivrit uvasiporet hafalestinit bnot zmanenu [Syntactical focus as a stylistic touchstone in contemporary Hebrew and Palestinian literature] (Doctoral dissertation, Bar Man University, Ramat-Gan„ Israel 1996).
    [Google Scholar]
  17. (2002) Al defusey lechidut bein tarbutiim [On intercultural coherence patterns], Script-Journal of the Israel Association for Literacy, 5–6, 81–89.
    [Google Scholar]
  18. Reinhart, T.
    (1980) Conditions for text coherence. Poetics Today, 1(A), 180–161.
    [Google Scholar]
  19. Sabar Ben-Yehoshua, N.
    (1990) Hamechkar ha’echuti be’hora’a wuvilmida [Qualitative research in teaching and learning]. Givataim: Massada LTD.
  20. Severino, C., Guerra J.C., & Butler J.E.
    (Eds.) (1997) Writing in multicultural settings. New York: The Modern Language Association of America.
    [Google Scholar]
  21. Spolsky, B., & Shohamy, E.
    (1999) The Languages of Israel: Policy, ideology and practice. Clevedon: Multilingual Matters & Channel View Publications.
    [Google Scholar]
  22. The New London Group
    The New London Group (2005) A pedagogy of multilitracies: Designing social futures. InB. Cope & M. Kalantzis (Eds.), Multilitracies, literacy learning and the design of social futures (pp.9–38). New York: Routledge.
    [Google Scholar]
  23. Tochnit halimudim leveit hassefer ha’al yessodi [Curriculum design for high school] (2003) Jerusalem: Ministry of Education.
    [Google Scholar]
http://instance.metastore.ingenta.com/content/journals/10.2143/ITL.156.0.2034429
Loading
  • Article Type: Research Article
This is a required field
Please enter a valid email address
Approval was successful
Invalid data
An Error Occurred
Approval was partially successful, following selected items could not be processed due to error