Community Writing Collaborative 

Introduction

​

You and a friend get caught cheating on an exam. It’s for your hardest class, and you know there’s no way you’d have managed to pull off a passing grade otherwise. One of you managed to get ahold of the answer guide ahead of time and generously passed it along. The professor interrogates you each separately. She wants answers—who got ahold of the guide and how? You’re faced with the difficult choice of a) turning in your friend, providing evidence, and receiving an alternative assignment that will boost your grade b) accepting full responsibility and risking suspension or c) taking partial blame and a zero on the exam. Your friend is in the same boat. If you both stay quiet, you’ll both fail the class. But if you each blame each other, you’ll be caught in the lie, and will likely both be suspended. The problem is, you don’t know what your friend will choose. 

​

You find yourself stuck with a classic case of the Prisoner’s Dilemma. This situation has been replicated and manipulated in psychology labs countless times for the purpose of better understanding the forces that drive cooperation and competition, and the situational factors that drive us to choose one over the other. Most studies are modeled around a game in which participants are pitted against each other with the chance of winning a cash prize. If both parties cooperate, they will each win a small sum of money. For example, if you and your friend both choose Option A, you will each win $3. However, if you choose Option B and your friend chooses Option A, you will receive $6 and your friend will lose $6. If you both choose Option B, however, you both lose $6. You are thus faced with the difficult choice of cooperating (choosing Option A), which is the safer option for both parties, or competing (Option B), in hopes of coming out ahead. Studies have shown time and time again that when faced with such a dilemma, individuals tend to act in their self-interest, which results negatively for all parties involved.

​

Like many topics in the field of psychology, however, these results are not universal. A study conducted at the Hong Kong University of Science and Technology revealed that culture impacted levels of cooperation in a Prisoner’s Dilemma simulation. More specifically, students who were shown Chinese cultural symbols prior to participating in the game with friends (ex. A Chinese dragon) were far more likely to cooperate than those who were shown symbols of American culture (ex. An American flag) (Hong and Kong, 2005). These findings align with much of what we know about differences in Eastern and Western cultures and priorities. In Western societies, where individualism holds high value, competition is often encouraged in pursuit of personal success. In contrast, East Asian societies place greater value on inter-group cooperation and cohesion at all levels (familial, institutional, societal). These cultural differences are rooted in ancient philosophical belief systems, and translate to observed differences in various aspects of daily life, from familial interactions to causal attribution to patterns in writing styles. 

​

In this paper, I will explore the psychology behind contrastive rhetorics. While all humans are innately equipped with the same cognitive “tools,” our cultures influence which ones we use when attempting to understand and make inferences about our social and physical worlds. Awareness of this differentiation is essential for understanding the patterns of difference in academic writing styles between the Eastern and Western hemispheres. Psychology is useful not only as a tool for understanding why these differences exist, but also for deciding how best to address them. After explaining the science and history behind contrastive rhetorics, I will use psychology in combination with writing center literature to make informed recommendations as to how tutors can most effectively aid multilingual writers. 

​

Philosophy 

​

To develop a clear understanding of the cultural differences between the East and West, we must look back at the schools of thought that have both informed and simultaneously been informed by these cultures. To begin, we will attempt to better understand the foundation of these differences by looking at these cultures through the lens of the philosophies that serve as informal laws and guidelines of being: “The ecologies of ancient Greece and China were drastically different— in ways that led to different economic, political, and social arrangements” (Nisbett 32).These philosophies are those of Aristotle and Confucius, whose seemingly different perspectives have helped to shape Eastern and Western cultures into what we know them to be today.

​

Today, the norms that typify Western life continue to replicate and exemplify the ideas first introduced in Ancient Greece centuries ago. Known as the father of Western philosophy, Aristotle’s teachings have spread far and wide, influencing societies throughout Western Europe and eventually ones in North America and Oceania. Aristotle’s work on formal logic, human perception, and reasoning has largely influenced how we view the physical world and our relationship to those in it. The Ancient Greeks were known to have, perhaps more than any other humans who have walked our Earth, an incredible sense of personal agency: “The sense that they were in charge of their own lives and free to act as they chose” (Nisbett 2). This sense of agency took the form of a pursuit of personal freedom and gave way to the development of a high regard for individual identity. Debate was highly encouraged by Ancient Greeks and is still a widely indulged in practice in classrooms, at meetings, and at dinner tables throughout the West. This culture of debate is fueled by the Western tendency to hold individualism and logic in high esteem, which has in turn encouraged a never-ending search for the truth. If one single truth exists, then two clashing hypotheses can not both be correct, hence the need for argument and discussion.

 

In contrast, East Asian societies are largely rooted in the beliefs of the Ancient Chinese philosopher Confucious, whose teachings emphasized the importance of social relationships, respect, charity, and humanity. In emphasizing these virtues, Confucious promoted the importance of solidarity and kinship. “The Chinese counterpart to Greek agency was harmony. Every Chinese was first and foremost a member of a collective, or rather of several collectives— the clan, the village, and especially the family” (Nisbett 5). These ideals are still highly valued in East Asian societies, as evidenced by the results of the Prisoner’s Dilemma experiment previously described.

​

For East Asians, uncovering the “truth” through debate is rarely the mission. Rather, their goal is and has always been to protect inter-group unity. As a result, confrontation and debate are largely discouraged in Chinese society and other cultures that follow the Confucian model “The Chinese were concerned less with issues of control of others or the environment than with self-control, so as to minimize friction with others in the family and village and to make it easier to obey the requirements of the state” (Nisbett 5). The Confucian values of group-harmony and interconnectedness had large social and political implications in the East, making way for the emersion of a collectivist culture based on valuing the family or group’s needs above the individual’s. Meanwhile, on the other side of the world where the seeds of Greek philosophy were being planted, individualism was gaining traction, giving rise to a culture in which prioritizing one’s own needs over the group mentality was deemed honorable. 

​

Styles of Thinking

​

The varying philosophical traditions of the East and West give way to differences in social cognition. Social psychologists have used the terms “holistic” and “analytical” thinking to describe the contrasting thinking styles prevalent in Eastern and Western cultures respectively. 

​

“Eastern thought has been shaped by the ideas of Confucianism, Taoism, and Buddhism, which emphasize the connectedness and relativity of all things” (Aronson et al. 71). This pattern of thought has been termed a holistic thinking style, a style of thinking that focuses on relationships between items, and tends to see the physical world as one consisting of continuous substances rather than concrete and distinct objects. “For the Chinese, the background scheme for the nature of the world was that it was a mass of substances rather than a collection of discrete objects. Looking at a piece of wood, the Chinese philosopher saw a seamless whole composed of a single substance, or perhaps of interpenetrating substances of several kinds” (Nisbett 18). Alternatively, Aristotle’s emphasis on formal logic and the laws governing objects independent of their context led to a Western view of the physical world as one that is composed of separate atoms, or discrete objects. This style of thought, termed the analytic thinking style, is one in which people focus on the properties of objects themselves without giving much consideration to surrounding context. 

​

Not only do holistic and analytic thinking styles determine whether we view things in our physical worlds as objects with distinct characteristics or properties of a continuous substance, they also govern how we interpret our social worlds. East Asians have a greater tendency to pay close attention to their environment, while Westerners are generally more concerned with the people and things that make up their social worlds. This makes sense, as the Western sense of personal agency is associated with production of tangible results, encouraging Westerners to “focus primarily on objects that they can manipulate to serve their own goals” (Nisbett 79). These differences have been observed in various studies, and have far reaching impacts. For example, studies have shown that East Asians are more likely to notice background differences in pictures than members of Western cultures (Masuda and Nisbett, 2006). These cultural differences also impact how we perceive others’ emotions. When attempting to read their peers’ emotions, Westerners tend to focus only on the peer in question’s face (the object of their attention), in order to make a judgement about that person’s emotional state. In contrast, East Asians are far more likely to take context into consideration, perhaps scanning the faces of all the people present in order to draw a conclusion about the subject’s emotions (Ito et al., 2013). 

​

This same logic is useful in describing cultural differences in causal attribution. East Asians are far more likely than their Western counterparts to give thought to environmental and situational factors when interpreting the cause of one’s behavior. Alternatively, Westerners have a higher tendency to fall prey to the “False Attribution Error,” in which they overestimate the impact of one’s personality and disposition on their behavior, and underestimate the role of situational factors at play. In a well-known cross-cultural study of causal attribution, middle-aged, middle-class participants from East India and America were asked to describe a time in which an acquaintance had behaved poorly, and one in which an acquaintance behaved prosocially, acting in a way to benefit someone else. Afterward, when asked to explain why their acquaintances behaved the way they did, the American participants made twice as many personality attributions as the Indian participants, with the Indian participants giving twice as many contextual ones (Miller, 1984). When asked to explain why someone cut them off in traffic, for example, an American participant might respond “he did it because he’s an inconsiderate jerk,” attributing the person’s behavior to their personality. Alternatively, an Indian participant might say “He was in a rush to pick up his kids from school,” considering external factors when making the behavioral attribution. 

​

Contrastive Rhetorics

​

 In the context of writing and tutoring, being aware of these cultural variances is crucial for understanding differences in both the structure and content of multilingual students’ writing. In much the same way that Western cultures are preoccupied with main objects as opposed to context, many Western languages, including English, share the same sort of priorities. For example, English is a subject-prominent language. The basic sentence structure taught in English grade schools is (subject + verb + [object, noun, adjective, adverb]). This pattern is less common in Eastern rhetorical styles. Japanese idiomatic phrases, for example, tend to start with context rather than immediately introducing the subject, as is frequent in English (Nisbett 158). For example, a Japanese writer may say “They were in a patch behind a spiky bush” and “They were planted in dry, crumbly soil” before revealing that the subject in question are roses. This Eastern tendency to provide detailed context in writing makes sense through the lens of Social Psychology. The holistic thinking style common in East Asian cultures promotes heightened awareness of overall context. In other words, a Japanese writer may be more likely to notice and deem important an object’s location in time and space. Alternatively, an American or Western European writer describing the same roses might say “They had a sweet and potent smell,” or “They were a reddish-orange tint,” focusing more on the properties of the object’s themselves. 

​

Differences in writing styles and practices extend far beyond sentence structure, however. The same cultural differences transfer to paragraph composition and essay structure. We take for granted the rules of how ideas are to be presented, seeing them as self-evident. In English composition, this means typically outlining one’s ideas with a clear thesis statement, and further using topic sentences to keep the reader on track throughout the reading experience. In this way, the English paragraph is often depicted as a straight line in writing center rhetoric and thus equated with a view of English as logical. In line with a philosophical-based Western emphasis on the importance of logic, this in turn creates a Western view that sees English writing as superior, and other culture’s rhetorics as somewhat backwards or distorted. In reality, this format is far from universal, and composition styles are not entirely interchangeable across cultures. “English essays are typically expected to be linear (stating claims explicitly and then supporting those claims with evidence), but essays written by Asian students may be much less directed and even withhold the thesis statement until the very end” (Minett 67). Western readers are accustomed to writing that is straightforward and self-explanatory. In contrast, Eastern writers tend to assume that the reader possesses a baseline knowledge on the subject of their writing. Having assumed this knowledge, it would be considered inappropriate, offensive, and unnecessary to clearly state their main ideas. This, rather, is something the reader is expected to contruct for themselves.

​

This can serve as a major challenge for multilingual writers who are expected not only to convey knowledge in a different language when writing at an American university, but to abandon all knowledge of what is rhetorically correct. For readers and professors who are not aware of these culturally informed differences, the students’ argument may be blurred or challenging to follow. Being accustomed to a conventional rhetorical pattern and the styles preferred in academic English impacts one’s understanding of a text, meaning that one’s takeaway from multilingual texts can often be crowded or plagued by misunderstanding. As a result, “It is not uncommon for American science professors to be impressed by their hard-working, highly selected Asian students and then to be disappointed by their first major paper-not because of their incomplete command of English, but because of their lack of mastery of the rhetoric common in the professor’s field” (Nisbett 75).  Worse even, this disappointment can further lead to grade penalties or the passing up of these disadvantaged students for research or grant opportunities. 

​

Culture shapes not only the structure of our papers, but the content as well. In individualistic societies, such as the United States, “That a writer has something new to say or has a particular case to make is taken for granted. It is also, of course, taken for granted that a person’s ideas and language are, in effect, that writer’s private property” (Leki 94). As a result, societies like this one deem plagiarism as a major offense in nearly all settings, academic and otherwise. Thoughts expressed in writing are expected to be one’s own, or cited in proper format in order to assure that the author is granted ownership and credit for their ideas. Alternatively, in collectivist societies, including China, there is virtually no concept of intellectual property. Ideas are shared by the masses and using other writers’ ideas is encouraged:“the difference between Western rhetoric’s emphasis on individuality and originality and an emphasis on the communality of wisdom and knowledge may account for the great concern in the English tradition about plagiarism, a concern not at all shared in cultures whose rhetorical tradition specifically de-emphasizes individuality” (Leki 95).

​

 In cultures where collectivism is the norm, writing in the first-person is an uncommon practice. “In China, "I" is always subordinated to "We"—be it the working class, the Party, the country, or some other collective body. Both political pressure and literary tradition require that "I" be somewhat hidden or buried in writings and speeches” (Shen 460). Writing in the first person can be seen as disrespectful or even deviant: “the word ‘I’ has often been identified with another ‘bad’ word, ‘individualism,’ which has become a synonym for selfishness in China” (Shen 460). This often results in a major, sometimes inhibitory culture shock when Chinese students are thrown into U.S. academic institutions. Students who are used to burying their own thoughts in their writing or attributing their ideas to authoritative figures will likely have trouble answering a prompt that requires them to analyze or offer their opinion on a matter. 

​

Tutoring Multilingual Writers

​

For tutors, understanding these psychologically and culturally internalized differences in writing styles is crucial for developing strategies and approaches to working with multilingual writers that best suit their needs, “A familiarity with contrastive rhetoric studies will help writing teachers understand the difficulties ESL students may have with writing and perhaps the origin of those difficulties” (Leki 92). In order to accommodate these culturally based differences in rhetorical styles, it is essential that we amend our teaching and tutoring styles to better serve these writers. Our job as tutors is not and should not be as copy editors or grammatical experts. Our focus and goal should not be to make our students’ writing read as if they are native speakers, or to restructure their work to fit what we believe to be an acceptable mold. As science and history have shown time and time again, our rhetorical style and identity as writers are largely shaped by our culture, with cultural differences naturally giving way to differences in the way our writing sounds, looks, and reads. “It is important to realize that differences are not necessarily signs of deficiency. In fact, some of the differences may reflect the writer’s advanced knowledge of conventions in other languages or in specific English discourse communities including disciplines with which the tutor may not be familiar” (Cox and Matsuda 43). 

​

Using this framework and knowledge, “we recognize that our job as writing center practitioners is not about eliminating any “slips” where differences arise, but instead helping multilingual writers draw from their different discourses and make active decisions about utilizing various features from them” (Olson 6). Holding a limited view of what classifies as correct and effective academic writing hurts not only multilingual writers, but the discipline of writing as a whole. Multilingual writers present unique, new ideas in varying styles that have the power to greatly enrich Western writing if accepted and embraced.I implore tutors and educators to abandon preconceptions about what does and doesn’t qualify as proper English or academic writing, and to work to create an atmosphere that celebrates all sectors of a writers’ identity. Various experts in the field of writing center studies have explored this necessity in depth, developing tutoring strategies and practices targeted at multilingual students. Before delving into several of these strategies, it is important to remember that each student is unique, and no single strategy will effectively meet every student’s needs. It is crucial thus to allot time to get to know the student and their goals prior to setting an agenda for the meeting. 

​

After familiarizing themselves with the theory of contrastive rhetoric, it is essential that tutors take it upon themselves to introduce this concept to their students. “In the teaching of paragraph structure to foreign students, whether in terms of reading or in terms of composition, the teacher must be himself aware of these differences, and he must make these differences overtly apparent to his students” (Kaplan 14). These culturally based structural differences should be taught in the same way grammatical differences are taught in language classes. In this sense, structural differences will be presented as facts, absent of attached expectations or assumptions of which is “better.” Rather, the introduction of the methods and patterns prevalent in English rhetoric is done solely with the purpose of aiding the writer in their goal of effective communication. “The necessities of art impose structures on any language, while the requirements of communication can often be best solved by relatively close adhesion to established patterns” (Kaplan 14). 

​

Discussing variances in cultural thought patterns and their effects on writing will likely provide the writer with increased confidence about their own abilities and a better understanding of what is expected of them in a U.S. academic setting. Once a basic understanding and analysis of contrastive rhetoric has been discussed and internalized by the writer, the tutoring session can move forward. When working with multilingual writers, tutors should expect to act not only as informants of best practice, but as informants of American cultural and societal norms, “Acting as a rhetorical informant is part of the role of cultural informant, as international students may not be as familiar as American students with U.S. academic genres and conventions” (Severino 46). Without the cultural knowledge required to understand an assignment prompt, a multilingual student can not tackle the assignment effectively, meeting the standards and expectations put in place by their professor. A tutor’s second task, thus, will be to attempt to fill in obvious gaps in the writers’ knowledge that may hinder his/ or her potential. This may involve anything from defining a pop culture term to clarifying what classifies as plagiarism. 

​

Once having established a platform from which to build off and structure the tutoring session around, the tutor may wish to implement additional methods in order to best accomplish the session’s goals. Among the popular strategies discussed in writing center literature is that of “tutoring reading.” In this practice, the tutor begins the session by reading the writers’ work aloud for both to hear. This approach, in contrast to having the student read their work aloud, allows the student to focus on how the paper reads rather than on their own pronunciation. This will additionally aid the writer in finding their own mistakes, and give the tutor leeway into asking questions that will check both party’s understanding. This approach additionally allows for meaningful and relationship enhancing cross-cultural discussion: “The most rewarding way to cross cultures is to converse over time with international students about perceptions of cultural differences and build toward a mutual understanding” (Severino 45).

​

Another useful and important tool is that of taking an accommodationist stance towards tutoring. As described by Paul Kei Matsuda and Michelle Cox in their guide titled “Reading an ESL Writer’s Text,” “The accommodationist reader’s goal is to help the writer learn new discourse patterns without completely losing the old” (Matsuda and Cox 45). This tutoring style takes a middle ground approach, in contrast to an assimilationist one (in which the writer is encouraged to assimilate into the dominant culture) or a separist one (in which the writer is encouraged to maintain entirely separate linguistic and cultural identities). While it is common for multilingual writers to request an assimilationist approach, eager to improve their grade or sound more “American,” I would urge tutors to resist the temptation to oblige. By explaining differences rather than attempting to “correct” them or, equally as ineffective, overlook them entirely, the accommodationist approach seeks to strengthen writers rather than their writing. It aims to give students the skills they need to produce high quality writing in the future, rather than simply send them home with a polished-up-paper that they could not possibly recreate on their own. As tutors, this should ultimately be our goal. Sending a C+ student home with a B- paper won’t do them any good. Teaching them writing strategies that draw from and embrace their unique array of identities and discourse communities will. 

​

Works Cited 

​

Aronson, Elliot, et al. Social Psychology, 10/e. Pearson, https://platform.virdocs.com/r/s/0/doc/392232/sp/17574783/mi/58588380? cfi=%2F4%2F2%5BP7001014597000000000000000000D1E%5D%2F12%5BP7001014597000000000000000000D2D%5D%2F6%5BP7001014597000000000000000000D33%5D&menu=search&q=holistic%20thinking%20style.

​

“Chapter Eight: Contrastive Rhetoric .” Understanding ESL Writers: a Guide for Teachers byIlona Leki, Boynton/Cook Publishers, 2008, pp. 88–104.

​

Ito, Kenichi, et al. “Agency and Facial Emotion Judgment in Context.” Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, vol. 39, no. 6, June 2013, pp. 763–776, doi:10.1177/0146167213481387.

​

Kaplan, R. (1966). Cultural thought patterns in intercultural education. Language Learning, 16, 1-20. doi:10.1111/j.1467-1770.1966.tb00804.x

​

Matsuda, P. K., & Cox, M. (2009). Reading an ESL Writer's Text. In Shanti Bruce & Ben Rafoth (Eds.), ESL writers: A guide for writing center tutors. 2nd ed. Portsmouth, NH: Boynton/Cook.

​

Miller, J. G. (1984). Culture and the development of everyday social explanation. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 46(5), 961–978. https://doi.org/10.1037/0022-3514.46.5.961

​

Minett, Amy J. “‘Earth Aches by Midnight’: Helping ESL Writers Clarify their Intended Meaning.” ESL Writers: A Guide for Writing Center Tutors. Eds. Shanti Bruce and Ben A. Rafoth. Portsmouth, NH: Boynton/Cook Publishers, 2009. 60-70. Print.

​

Nisbett, R. E., & Masuda, T. (2006). Culture and Point of View. In R. Viale, D. Andler, & L. Hirschfeld (Eds.), Biological and cultural bases of human inference(p. 49–70). Lawrence Erlbaum Associates Publishers.

​

Nisbett, Richard E. The Geography of Thought : How Asians and Westerners Think Differently-- and Why. New York :theFree Press, 2003.

​

Olson, Bobbi. “Rethinking Our Work With Multilingual Writers: The Ethics and Responsibility of Language Teaching In The Writing Center.” Praxis: A Writing Center Journal, vol. 10, no. 2, 2013, doi:December 5, 2019.

​

Severino, Carol. “Crossing Cultures with International ESL Writers: The Tutor as Contact Zone Contact Person.” A Tutor's Guide: Helping Writers One To One, by Ben Rafoth, 2nd ed., Boynton/ Cook Publishers, pp. 41–51.

​

Shen, Fan. “The Classroom and the Wider Culture: Identity as a Key to Learning English Composition.” College Composition and Communication, vol. 40, no. 4, 1989, pp. 459–466. JSTOR, www.jstor.org/stable/358245.

​

Wong, R. Y., & Hong, Y. (2005) Dynamic Influences of culture on cooperation in a Prisoner’s Dilemma game. Psychological Science, 16, 429-434. 

​​