A More Individualized Approach to Working with ELL Writers

In his article, “Influence of Cultural and Linguistic Backgrounds on the Writing of Arabic and Japanese Students of English,” Bouchra Moujtahid discusses a different way of working with ESL writers.  He criticizes the common notion that all ESL writers are the same and should be treated as such.  This misconception greatly inhibits the success of writing programs, as each native language requires special attention and consideration.  He explains, “the students from each national group share a set of writing difficulties which are closely related to the linguistic and cultural backgrounds of that particular group,” (1).  As consultants, it is important that we pay attention to these specific linguistic differences and avoid classifying all ESL writers the same way.  Moujtahid chooses to focus on two particular types of foreign writers, Arabic and Japanese, as a way of examining the importance cultural differences play in ESL writing. 

The unique culture that exists within the Arabic language is vastly different than that of the English language.  Arabic speakers tend highlight “form” rather than “content.” They believe in elaborating each sentiment in order to demonstrate sincerity.  However, this embellishment seems redundant to English speakers.  As a result, Arabic writers tend to have difficulty understanding the brevity of English writing.  This important cultural variation is crucial to fully understanding the trouble Arabic writers face. 

The Japanese language is also greatly influenced by the country’s extremely distinctive culture.  Much of Japan’s culture is a reflection of Zen Buddhism, which emphasizes silent communication and subtlety.  Moujtahid states, “There is a deep distrust of language in the Japanese culture,” (4).  This “distrust” causes Japanese writing to sometimes seem ambiguous and indirect, as these writers do not believe such directness is necessary. Without knowledge of this important cultural difference, a writing consultant would not be able to adequately assist Japanese writers.  

Prior to reading his article, I had extremely limited knowledge about the Arabic and Japanese writing styles.  I found Moujtahid’s research particularly helpful, as I now feel more equipped to work with Arabic and Japanese writers.  However, I would love to extend this knowledge to other commonly spoken native languages here at Richmond.  I think that it might be helpful for future 383 classes to examine more of these variations during their training.  For example, students could each be assigned a different language and research its cultural variations.  Students could then present their findings to the rest of the class.  Even this brief exposure to other languages would improve our understanding and better prepare us to work with Richmond’s ESL students. 

Dorothy Jacobs