Rita Kupetz The Reading-Writing Hypothesis in Learning English as a Foreign Language Abstract. This paper deals with work currently in progress on the reading-writing hypothesis for advanced learners of English at university level. Whereas the needs analysis and the proposed solution are related to the overall project and deal with 'reading', this paper describes the stateof-the art as far as writing is concerned, rather than developing the reading program. Needs Analysis: Writing courses can only offer a limited number of contact hours, thus causing difficulties in achieving competence in the written language. Increasing the amount of exposure to English is a prerequisite for effective writing. A well-organized program of extensive reading using authentic materials is needed to intensify the cognitive processes necessary to develop schemes and discourse strategies for both receptive and productive skills. Problem Description: A majority of learners at university entrance level, even though advanced, still write in English using spoken discourse strategies which are strongly influenced by their mother tongue. This is due to a lack of written English input. Proposed Solution: Apply the extensive reading hypothesis in the context of academic discourse and use not only academic papers, but also other sources representing similar discourse strategies. 1. lntroduction 1.1 The problem Tue University of Leipzig, where I taught till March 1994, and the University of Hanover, where I have been teaching since April 1994, offer writing courses in English for prospective teachers of English and for masters' candidates. At the beginning of their English studies, a large number of students write in English using spoken discourse strategies which are strongly influenced by their mother tongue. This is due to a lack of written English input. 1.2 Methodological procedure After first discussing discourse strategies found to be typical of academic writing in German and English due to cultural differences (Clyne 1987) by analysing one authentic text and a learner's text in particular, I will attempt to transfer the categories found there into a 'scoring scheme for term papers'. 20 term papers written in Summer 1994 by advanced German learners of English will be analysed and compared with the findings on authentic scholarly papers. In a few cases I will consider German texts written by the leamers of English to check Cummins' interdependence hypothesis (1981) about an 'underlying cognitive academic profi- FLuL 24 (1995) The Reading-Writing Hypothesis in Learning English as a Foreign Language 107 ciency'. I will also discuss the results of a questionnaire used with the 20 students mentioned above on dealing with reading and writing habits in the mother tongue (German) and in the foreign language (English). I shall attempt some tentative explanations of the interrelationship between reading and writing in the area of academic discourse. I assume that, in addition to reading, 'awareness raising' by analysing texts is considered to be helpful for the learner. ßence I will develop a scoring scale by using categories from discourse analysis, which helps both in analysing learners' texts in an efficient way (for the teacher) and re-writing by functioning as a guideline (for the learner). 2. Discourse analysis 2.1 Discourse strategies 2.1.1 Discourse strategies used in academic writing I am applying Clyne's (1987) categories, as his study is valid for our target group of German learners of English and their texts. According to Clyne, the main differences between German and English texts concem linearisation and digression. Clyne distinguishes four sub-categories: (1) Hierarchy of text: Which macropropositions are dependent on which others? ... (2) Dynamics of text: How is the text developed, in terms of a main argument and subsidiary arguments? ... (3) Symmetry: How long are the various sections of the text in comparison? ... (4) Uniformity: Are parallel text segments structured in the same order or according to the same conventions? (Clyne 1987: 218) In this paper discourse strategies used in Krashen's monograph Writing (= text 1) will be analysed. (1) Hierarchy of text: Tue text diagram in appendix © (page 118) illustrates the fact that a classical rhetorical argumentation has been used. Tue higher levels of the text hierarchy are characterized by 'explicative' relationships between paragraphs, i.e. general statements are frequently followed by specific information. (2) Dynamics of text: Tue relation at level 6 is 'comparative': the propositions 'writing in Ll' (Ll stands for first language) and 'writing in L2' (L2 for second language) are compared. Tue proper argumentation structure becomes obvious at level 7, where 'consecutive' relations are expressed. (3) Symmetry: Levels 6 and 7 of the text diagram make the symmetry of the text obvious. (4) Uniformity: lt is not quite clear, however, why Krashen deals with second language learning in the appendix. This is a deviation from the convention. FLuL 24 (1995) 108 Rita Kupetz In addition to these four sub-categories of linearisation there is an analysis of 'paragraphing', which helps to pin down major differences between English and German writing conventions. (5) Paragraphing: Krashen's paragraph 'Conclusions' ends like this: "Our pedagogical efforts, it seems to me, should be directed towards finding ways of taking advantage of our innate ability to acquire language. There is no reason to try to accelerate or replace this natural process: lt is efficient, rapid enough when input is provided, less expensive than its substitutes, and by far less tedious" (Krashen 1987: 37). The classical design of a paragraph is used: the topic sentence gives the major message of the whole monograph: the natural approach. The other parts of this paragraph provide further details by repeating the input hypothesis. The properties of this authentic academic text can also be explained with the help of an English reader-writer perspective. In English the onus is said to fall "on writers to make their texts readable, whereas it is the readers who have to make the extra effort in German-speaking countries so that they can understand the texts, especially if the author is an acadernic". (Clyne 1987: 238) 2.1.2 (Interlanguage) Discourse strategies used in academic writing I will analyse one term paper [= text 66] in particular here, using the categories developed above. (1) Hierarchy: The text diagram in appendix © (page 118) illustrates the macropropositions and their relationships: The macroproposition 'input-output' is explained in the text as 'a balanced approach'. (2) Dynamics: The text is developed logically without major digressions. (3) Symmetry: The length of the text elements is adequate. (4) Uniformity: The introduction announces a 'comparison between Krashen and others in 3 parts'. lt is realized in only two sections. The reader feels rather at a lass. (5) Paragraphing: The learners' text has quite a number of one-sentence paragraphs. The explanation for this is more than tentative and varies from (a) 'the students want to gain space in order to write a 15-page assignment' to (b) insufficient competence. I will analyse the final section 'Conclusion' to describe the properties of this text in particular. This section consists of four paragraphs. The first reads In our essay we reviewed Krashen's theory about writing as a result of reading. Krashen states that only by reading writing can be acquired. Since we do not fully agree to Krashen's theory, we also considered some other authors who partly correspond to Krashen, but who also give their own opinions and ideas. FLuL 24 (1995) The Reading-Writing Hypothesis in Leaming Engljsh as a Foreign Language 109 This introductory paragraph is criticized as being too general. Tue topic sentence should already evaluate the theory discussed. Furthermore, the conclusive sentence is expected to be more specific about the other authors. Here the question arises as to whether this poor quality is due to 'underlying academic (non-) proficiency'. Tue problems in paragraphs 3 and 4 are concemed with cause and effect relations: We think that for second language students it ·might be impossible to wait for natural approach because (marked by Kupetz) teachers have to give marks for what students wrote. Additionally, the 'outside world' does not support the acquisition if in bis or her country the foreign language is not spoken. Finally, we would suggest that teachers do not only rely on Krashen, but consider several approaches. For this reason (marked by Kupetz), teachers also have to adapt to the class situation. In class, the knowledge level of students might not be very homogeneous. I doubt that marking is the cause of problems with the natural approach. On the contrary, the theory makes us reconsider our marking practice. In the second example cause and effect are mixed up, since the adaptation to the situation is not a direct consequence of considering several approaches. A key element of my analysis of paragraphs lies in topic sentences, since they are essential for developing a writer's perspective in the English mode. In text 66 the awareness of topic sentences is r.aised and the competence to write adequate topic sentences is being developed (see topic sentences underlined above). 2.1.3 Scoring scheme for term papers Based on Clyne (1987) and my experience in scoring learners' texts, I have developed a scoring scheme which considers the learning process and translates the categories used above into a scoring scheme by adapting a general scoring scheme designed by Tamara Makarowa and Chris Abbey at Leipzig University (unpublished). Scoring Term Papers name(s): sources: selection processing quotations originality: thesis statemeri.t ideas presentation organisation: basic structure paragraphing clear structure type consistency FLuL 24 (1995) level: Englishness breadth of language style correctness: effectiveness (overall impression): further comments: 110 Rita Kupetz Whereas the entry 'sources' has to do with an academic way of processing sources and its form, 'originality' already deals with the thesis statement as a typical English phenomenon and its position in English texts. Linearisation, however, is more directly analysed under 'organisation', i.e. basic structure, clear structure, paragraphing. These three subcategories are feasible in terms of scoring hierarchy, dynamics, symmetry and uniformity, as they already denote problem areas of leamers' texts. 'Type consistency' helps us to analyse genre-specific realisation forms. 'Level' has to do with the proficiency level gained. Under 'Englishness' it summarises the stage of the interlanguage between mother tongue and foreign language in terms of a general impression, varying from German English to English English. 'Breadth of language' covers task-specific and topic-specific vocabulary and 'style' deals with stylistic variation due to the written or spoken medium. Tue category 'correctness' makes leamers aware of certain types of mistakes. Tue entry 'effectiveness' deals with the assignment, whether it was processed successfully, and how well English is used to achieve the aim. 'Further comments' provides space for an academic discussion. This scoring scale turned out to be rather helpful in the phase of re-writing. I will provide a survey of the 20 texts analysed in appendix @ (page 120). Its major purpose is to determine where the leamers' texts studied above (text 66) and below (text 17) fit in, i.e. text 66 is written by a weaker and 17 by a more advanced student. 2.2 Discourse strategies in English and in German 2.2.1 Hypotheses I would like to check Clyne's hypothesis about German academic interaction which is perceived as 'content digressions in English speaking countries' (1987: 239) and its influence on German leamers' texts written in English against Cummins' interdependence hypothesis. 2.2.2 Impressions from a few papers written in English and in German This comparison is not part of the design of the pilot study, but it helps to contextualise one particular study outlined below. In addition, it is expected to support an assumption about problems caused by linguistic, or rather non-linguistic, (academic) proficiency. Although all of these papers are scholarly, the basis of the comparability of a few German texts is relatively vague due to two major problems: (i) the leamers' German texts I received were not necessarily written during the same term as the English texts and (ii) the subject matter varies. Despite these limitations, I have considered 'linearisation' versus 'content digression' in these texts, as it is the issue which helps us to analyse a German or an English writer's perspective. For this I have analysed the ways thesis statements are FLuL 24 (1995) The Reading-Writing Hypothesis in Leaming English as a Foreign Language 111 given and terms defined and developed. I have selected three of eight German texts considering whether the learners' English texts are representative. Texts 8 and 60 are typical of the properties mentioned in the abstract. They use spoken discourse strategies which are strongly influenced by the mother tongue. Text 17, however, is firstly representative of the more advanced target group (see Table 1 on page 112) and, secondly, the comparison between the English and the German text is more justified, as the two texts were written approximately at the same time (Summer term) in the same subject area (theories of language learning). Student 8 wrote a term paper on 'youth delinquency' in German and a 'text book analysis dealing with Krashens's impact on the book's draft outline' in English. Both texts consist of 15 pages, thus justifying a formal comparison. In the English text the thesis statement is presented in the Introduction (p. 3), in the German text it is introduced slightly later (p. 4). The term 'youth delinquency' is only defined at the end of the German text (p. 14), which appears tobe adequate and completely in line with the respective language. The student still has obvious problems in the foreign language from the point of view of correctness, the style is rather informal (more spoken than written) and personal. The basic structure, however, has been learnt. One phenomenon which I criticised when I evaluated the English text was the formal marking of the end of a paragraph. The learner used three versions: a line between paragraphs, no line, or sentences beginning with a new line or indentation. At first sight I thought it was due to a norm he bad not yet acquired in English. The German text made me reconsider this assumption as he used the same variations there, hence my hypothesis is: due to an unsatisfactory underlying academic proficiency, paragraphs are not marked adequately by the learner in his written code. Text 60 is about 'Effects of Personality and Age in Second Language Acquisition in English'. A rather personal style and a great degree of redundancy is typical of this learner's text. I considered the German text about 'Great Britain in 1945' to check whether this strategy is due to her interlanguage proficiency or due to a more underlying cognitive proficiency. The German text was completely different in these respects, i.e. neutral and to the point, which indicates that typical features of academic writing have not yet been learnt in English. As 'linearisation' versus 'content digression' is the issue being discussed, I analysed the way terms are defined. In text '17/ German' the term 'critical period' (Kritische Periode) is mentioned in the introduction (p. 4), repeated in the title of chapter 2.2 (pp. 13-20) and defined on p. 16 after the discussion of Lenneberg's argumentation. This is not considered to be digressive in German, but by English standards the definition seems to be given relatively late. In text '17/ English', however, the terms 'acquisition' and 'learning' are mentioned in the title and the introduction, they are defined in the first chapter (p. 3), i.e. the learner's text meets the linguistic conventions typical of this type of text. FLuL 24 (1995) 112 Rita Kupetz SCORING TERM PAPER 17 name: Inga sources: selection great variety processing o.k. quotations o.k. originality: thesis statement o.k. ideas stimulating presentation well done organisation: basic structure fine paragraphing Topic-Development o.k. clear structure unmotivated change in list of contents ( 1. l...2b); logical argumentation type consistency o.k. level: Englishness o.k. breadth of language improve idiomaticity; check separation/ distinction style written; check 'he throws in the term .. .' correctness: avoid short forms in written academic writing effectiveness (overall impression): comprehensive, efficient no further comments Table 1: Paper 17 The English text is satisfactory in terms of organisation, i.e. a clear structure in general and paragraphing in particular. In terms of realisation forms a couple of mistakes occur. According to the learner the German text, however, has been revised more thoroughly than the English one. The analysis shows that the German text is carefully organised and well designed. The symmetry of the text is carefully monitored. The author explains this difference between the two papers with the different purposes of the papers (English term paper, German final paper), hence the efforts taken to revise the texts vary considerably. FLuL 24 (1995) The Reading-Writing Hypothesis in Leaming English as a Foreign Language 113 2.2.3 Contrastive textlinguistic study This part of the study is to evaluate the texts analysed in 2.1.1 and 2.1.2 by comparing authentic texts, text 1 in particular, and learners' texts, texts 17 and 66 in particular, and to identify deviations. The major problem areas found in the learners' texts are sources: originality: organisation: level: problem area quotation thesis statement one-sentence paragraph partly German English how to quote; how and where to form a thesis statement; one-sentence paragraphs; partly German English, i.e. Englishness varies out of 20 learners' texts there were text 66 x percentage with problems 35 % problems 25 % no problem 25 % problems 40% problems Table 2: Contrastive textlinguistic study The properties of text 66 vary considerably: text 17 no problem no problem no problem no problem the contents is an imitation of Krashen's contents without acknowledgment; quotations are poorly marked; paragraphing is characterised by too many one-sentence paragraphs and an unclear presentation of cause-and-effect relations. My hypothesis is that the wrong expressions 'because' and 'for this reason' are not due to weak language competence, but rather based on defidencies in the underlying academic proficiency. This weakness might also be partly caused by a German-based perception of the reader-writer perspective. These variations are typical of interlanguage. Text 17 is not yet like a native speaker's text with regard to idiomaticity. In terms of originality and organisation it is weil done, and even the level of Englishness is no major problem. The deviations from authentic English academic texts in text 17 are more subtle than in text 66 and have less to do with discourse strategies. As for paragraphing, in two cases there were one-sentence paragraphs, which were rather conclusive elements of the paragraphs given before than paragraphs in their own right. In terms of terminology, 'separation' was wrongly selected instead of 'distinction'. As far as the register is concemed, I would criticize 'he throws in the term' as being too colloquial for academic writing. These samples help to illustrate the varying influence of Ll. lt can be assumed that in the genre 'academic text' Ll-dominated discourse strategies are especially FLuL 24 (1995) 114 Rita Kupetz strong in the field of Topic-Development, Thesis Statement and Writer's Perspective. Presumably, even in a 'natural sequence' these properties of texts are acquired later than basic organisational pattems, such as lntroduction, Body, Conclusion. Tue latter appear to be leamt more easily in the foreign language in terms of general organisation, see text diagram of text 66, levels 5- 7. Tue more sophisticated parameters Topic-Development, Thesis Statement and Writer's Perspective in the English mode are put into practice in text 17. In her self-evaluation Inga (text 17) states: Writing in English and German is quite similar to me. Even though when I write papers or essays it is easier in English as I learnt [underlined by Kupetz] that thoroughly (linking paragraphs, starting sentences, etc.). These are the points I have problems with when I write in German. [Inga (9th term of English)] 3. Leamers' reading and writing habits Tue study about leamers' reading and writing habits both in their mother tongue and in English was carried out to support the explanations concerning the level of proficiency and the impact of input. A questionnaire was designed to interview students from the advanced course. 20 students volunteered and all of them found it difficult to measure the average time spent on reading or writing per week, hence the conclusions to be drawn are rather tentative. Let us correlate the time spent on reading in English with the quality of the texts of those leamers who have problems in at least two problem areas (texts 9, 12, 60, 66). For this purpose a fictitious, but plausible amount of time was considered to represent 100 so that the members of the group could be related to each other, see appendix@ (page 120), column 'Relation to reading and writing': Reading in English: 14 h/ week = 100 Writing in English: 7 h/ week = 100. Diagram 1 below illustrates the varying proportions between these activities for the whole group, while the two circular charts (diagram 2 and 3) show the two leamers analysed in 2.2.3 in detail. FLuL 24 (1995) The Reading-Writing Hypothesis in Leaming English as a Foreign Language 115 Diagram 1 • 24~------------------------------- 22 20 ~ 18 ; 16 _ 14 ~12 "'10 - : : , 8 ~ 6 4 2 0 -1..l-'1'3',<L_L.Jll~CL.I.._L..ll"! --J=-_L_l"'! =! <Ll...-'"'1"..___--'- 8 9 10 12 13 15 17 Nu.mber of learn.ers' texts 18 22 24 36~------------------------------- 34 32 30 ~28 o>26 ""24 ~22 -20 „ 18 =16 "'14 ; ; ; 12 o 10 ..c= 8 6 4 2 0 -1..l-""'1--",a__c_a"F"CLJ_-'-----"""1=-=---'- 26 36 42 56 60 61 62 Number of learners' texts 66 67 For individual learners (66 and 17) the proportion looks like this: 0 GR II ER [TI GW ~ EW Diagram 2: Text 66 0 GR II ER D] GW ~ EW Diagram 3: Text 17 GR ER. GW EW" 69 * Abbreviations used: GR = German Reading, ER= English Reading, GW = German Writing, EW = English Writing. FLuL 24 (1995) 116 Rita Kupetz With Inga (text 17) the activities are well balanced. As mentioned above, composition courses were the place where she learnt how to write in English, thus Krashen's input hypothesis is too strict, not allowing for individual variation here. With learner 66, however, the proportions are quite different and very little time is spent on reading in English. Within the group the proportions are like this: learners's text reading in English writing in English 09 up to 100 up to 300 12 21.4 50 60 16,7 500 66 up to 35,7 100 Table 3: Reading and writing habits Interestingly enough, most of the weaker group spent more time on writing than on reading. Hence writing per se obviously did not help enough to improve their writing. The amount of time the students with major problems spent on reading is below the group's average, which might suggest that reading helped the other students to acquire properties like Englishness through a certain amount of input. Evidence for this hypothesis is given in text 10, which achieved an excellent score. I learnt only from the questionnaire, after scoring the term papers, that the author is bilingual and English used to be her L1 . lt is not suprising that organisation, paragraphing etc. were so well done. In addition, the student still continues to read in English, and thus the input hypothesis is backed up. Not only is the quantity of reading of interest here, but also the quality of the reading materials in terms of genre-specific text forms, such as fictitious or nonfictitious texts, scholarly papers or journals. The survey presented in appendix @ (page 122) includes what the leamers read. A comparison of 66 and 17 does not help to explain the differences in the levels of proficiency. Further investigations will thus have to be more specific here. 4. Conclusions Tue variations found in the learners' texts are typical of interlanguage. Some are due to deficiencies in the underlying academic proficiency (proving Cummin's interdependence hypothesis); others might be caused by a still rather German perception of the reader-writer perspective (proving Clyne's hypothesis). FLuL 24 (1995) The Reading-Writing Hypothesis in Learning English as a Foreign Language 117 lt has become clear that one interesting area to be investigated was a 'natural sequence hypothesis' for discourse strategies in written academic discourse. Our analysis suggests that basic pattems such as Introduction, Body and Conclusion are leamt earlier or more easily than Topic-Development, Thesis Statement and Writer's Perspective. This hypothesis has to be tested with native speakers of English. A correlation between the properties of students' texts and the amount of time spent on reading supports Krashen's input hypothesis, however, in a weak version of it, which allows for more writing instructions than Krashen suggested. lt is too early to draw conclusions about the interrelation between genre-specific reading and genre-specific writing. However, this study has helped to formulate a sub-hypothesis to the reading-writing hypothesis: Good writing entails extensive open in terms of topic and genre as well as intensive genre-specific and/ or topicspecific reading. Thus, writing courses at university must be accompanied by reading. Tue design of the course of study has to aim at a good balance between reading and writing. References BöRNER, Wolfgang/ VOGEL, Klaus (eds.) (1992): Schreiben in der Fremdsprache. Prozeß und Text, Lehren und Lernen. Bochum: AKS-Verlag. CLYNE, Michael (1987): "Cultural differences in academic discourse". In: Journal of Pragmatics 11, 211-247. CUMMINS, Jim (1981): ''The Role of Primary Language Development in Promoting Educational Success for Language Minority Students". In: Educational Office of Bilingual Bicultural Education. California State Department of Education: Schooling and Language Minority Students: A Theoretical Framework. Sacramento, 3--49. KRASHEN, Stephen D. (1985): The Input Hypothesis: lssues and Implications. London: Longman. KRASHEN, Stephen D. (1987): Writing: Research, Theory and Applications. Oxford: Pergamon Press. ZIMMERMANN, Rüdiger: "A Model of the L2 Writing Process". [to appear in: ZFF] FLuL 24 (1995) 118 Level 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 Appendix©: Text diagrams title announce monograph about writing contents text proper (particular) introduction writing in L 1 what competence conseis perfonnance known cutive theory Writing explicative explicative explicative appliconsecations cutive Krashens text (text 1) Rita Kupetz text present monograph text proper (general) bibliography text Appendix: writing in L 2 what is conseknown cutive the composing process FLuL 24 (1995) The Reading-Writing Hypothesis in Leaming English as a Foreign Language 119 Level 1 Tue Development of Writing 2 3 4 5 6 7 title announce input-output contents text proper (particular) preface + introduction announce comparison between Krashen and others in three parts what is known explicative explicative explicative consecutive Krashen versus Raimesi-------------1 and Byme Learners' text (text 66) FLuL 24 (1995) text present a balanced approach text proper (general) (see above) bibliography text Krashen and other authors on writing conclusion authors' position Krashen versus Norrish 120 Rita Kupetz Appendix @: Survey about properties of leamer's texts Num- Sources Originality Organisation Level Correct- Relation to reading ber ness and writing 08o.k. H =o.k. fine, acadernic E = varies, punctua- GR = 33.3 P = varies style personal tion ER= 14.3 style GW = up to 33.3 EW=upto25 09- S = few, o.k. H=no, S = not clear at E = varies GR = 33.3 I = TPR transfer, times, S = ade- ER= up to 100 P =o.k. C = o.k. quate GW =9.5 10o.k. fine o.k. adequate pronun- GR = 14.3 Ll=E ciation ER= up to 85.7 EW = 42.9 12- S = o.k., H = fine, P = one sen- E = varies, only a GR=50 P and Q not P = source withtence paragraphs B = o.k., few rnis- ER= 21.4 clear out marking it S = he/ she takes GW = 66.7 EW=50 13 - H=not very clear line between he/ she, GR=? paragraphs capital let. ER= 7.1 GW = 33.3 EW = 2.4 15 o.k. (pages? ) o.k. fine GR=38 ER= 21.4 GW =47.6 ER= 42.9 17 compreheno.k. fine, o.k. S = change short GR = 16.7 sive, in numberforms ER= 25 problems ing GW = 33.3 EW=50 18 fine, scholarly E = varies, punctua- GR = up to 71.4 spoken tion ER = up to 71.4 language GW = up to 28.6 EW = up to 14.3 22- Q = form? fine one sent. par.; Germaninshe/ he ... GR = up to 95.2 S = some unfluence ER= 35.7 clear GW = up to 76.2 EW = up to 57.1 24- Q = problems o.k. one sentence fine GR = up to 66.7 paragraphs, o.k. ER = up to 28.6 GW = 66.7 EW=50 26o.k. H= very demand- E = varies GR = 38 ing ER= 57.1 I = interesting, GW = up to 66.7 P = fine EW = up to 42.9 FLuL 24 (1995) The Reading-Writing Hypothesis in Leaming English as a Foreign Language Num- Sources Originality Organisation Level Correcther ness 36o.k. (pages? ) o.k. fine 42o.k. I = combine pro- P = topic sen S = approcess-orientation tence-developpriate and „aufgeklärte ment Einsprachigkeit" S = logical 56- Q = problems o.k. one sentence fine paragraphs, o.k. 60- Q = style H = where? o.k. S = not clear at E = varies word times S = per sonal? 61 o.k. (pages? ) o.k. fine 62o.k., fine H = specific? o.k. adequate I = stimulating, P = adequate 66- S = o.k., H = fine, P = one sen E = varies, only a P and Q not P = source withtence paragraphs B =o.k., few misclear out marking it S = he/ she takes 67o.k., style H = where? P = short? S = clear? C = o.k. 69o.k. H = fine o.k. adequate bis/ her P = adequate I = interesting Key for understanding tbe abbreviations: Under "Sources" : Under "Originality": Under "Organization": Under "Level": S = selection, P = processing, Q = quotations H = hypothesis, I = ideas, P = presentation P = paragraphing, S = structure, C = consistency E = Englishness, B = breath of language, S = style 121 Relation to reading and writing GR = 54.8 ER=25 GW = 104.8 EW = up to 214.3 GR = 33.3 ER= 7.1 GW= 19 EW = 7.1 GR = 33.3 ER=upto25 GW = up to 33.3 EW = up to 28.6 GR=38 ER= 16.7 GW = 16.7 EW = up to 500 GR = 66.7 ER=25 GW = 133.3 EW =42.9 GR = 33.3 ER= 50 GW =4.8 EW = 7.1 GR = 66.7 ER = up to 35.7 GW = 133.3 EW = 100 GR = 5.6 ER= 12.5 GW =9.5 EW=? GR = 19 ER= 7.1 GW=? EW=? Tue figures given in the last column help to relate the amount of time spent on the activities within the group: Reading in English: 14h/ week = 100 % Writing in English: 7h/ week = 100 % FLuL 24 (1995) 122 Rita Kupetz Appendix @: Survey about leamers' reading and writing habits 1 Number I English reading I English writing I Differences in writing h/ w newsjournals books books hours/ week papers (fiction) (science) @C][IJCJCJ~~ 1 ~[IIJ~~~CJ ~~CJCJ~~ 1 1 1~~-E~ 1 12 [IJCJ~~[~] BEEBBEBEII B~BBEBBI 22 II 5 II (x) II II X II X II 24 II 4 II II X II X II X II ~I 3) BEEBBEBEBI @=JI 10.8311 ~~~[~JI ~ffiEBBEBBI ~QTICJ~~CJI @=JITJCJ~~~I 1 1 BtdBBEBEB 1 7 1.75 14 - 21 2-3 3.5 0.17 3 3.5 0 - 1 -4 3.5 2-3 15 0.5 2 3.33 2 28 - 37.33 3 0.5 3.5 - 7 2 different thinking, grammar, sty Je and vocabulary syntax, thinking, style (more colloquial in E) no difference in writing if you think in the writing language attitude + thinking less fluent and spontaneous in E; vocabulary + spelling difficult to express oneself in English similar writing more focus on the language itself in E. thinking + fluency + coming to conclusions more time for correct writing in English 1 vocabulary + idioms different style, more time to express + control in E.; more disturbing thoughts in German 1 thinking E: more concentration on vocabulary, grammar, style 1vocabulary, correctness, structure takes more time in English 1 vocabulary style: easier to produce sarcasm and irony in German vocabulary (phrases), best expression vocabulary, less spontaneous and more academic in English vocabulary, easier syntax in E.; easier writing in the language of the source 1 vocabulary and style : correct, fluent expressing FLuL 24 (1995)