Summary of Anna Mauranen’s
article: Culture writes in us – whether we like it or not
Researcher Anna Mauranen from
the Language Center for Finnish Universities (University of Jyväskylä) has written an
article about cultural differences in academic writing. The article was published in 1993.
In her article Mrs. Mauranen concentrates in the differences between Finnish and Ango-American academic writing styles. She compares for example their argumentation strategies and how do they use the metatext.
When Mrs. Mauranen started her research she noticed that there was one very common view about the subject: even many older professors taught that there is no such a thing as cultural differences in academic papers. But Mrs. Mauranen enhances that “our culture writes in us, or through us, whether we like it or not”. She says that it can be seen for instance in text structure and that is one subject Anna Mauranen is handling in her article.
Anna Mauranen tells in her article that most Finnish scientists like to begin their article by leading the reader little by little to the subject. On the other hand the Ango-American
writers like to point out the main points already in the beginning of the text.
When handling the main point of the text, the both, Finnish and Anglo-american writers continue their own line. Native English speakers tend to keep their clear path as telling the main point. The reader can clearly separate the main point from the text as the writer keeps repeating it and pointing it out. The Finnish writers like to give the reader chances to interpret the text as not pointing the main point out so clearly. They like to hide the main point in the conversations and in many small chapters.
Mrs. Mauranen expresses in her article that Finnish writers approaching to research problems can give an indistinct impression for English speakers. According to Anna Mauranen the Anglo-American writers, who are used to keep the clear line also in research problem writing, claim that they don’t understand the target of Finnish writers.
One thing that the writer discusses in her article is the argumentation strategies. She says that Finnish an Anglo-American has basically the same pattern how they defend or justify their points. But there are also differences between them two. Anna Mauranen talks about “initial focus” and “final focus” strategies. The final focus means there is argumentations and discusses that leads the reader to the main point. The main point is a conclusion of all this, the end-point. The Finnish writers prefer this strategy. This is also a demanding strategy for writer because it needs for good planning. Thus Anna Mauranen wonder why Finns are accused of not being very good in arguing.
According to Mrs. Mauranen a final focusing text needs a patient reader who can follow the writers’ train of thought and doesn’t hurry ahead of the writer. On the other hand Anglo-American writers who like to announce the main point early and repeat it, prefer a busy reader. A busy reader is one who remembers the main point of the text and compares the argumentations to the claim.
Anna Mauranen also talks about metatext in her article and points out that Finns and Anglo-Americans use it different amounts. Anglo-Americans who like to express the main point clearly are also willing to give guidance to the reader. Finns on the other hand aren’t so eager in using. It is commonly seen as a sign of unclear and too bad writer. Finns also think that readers should understand the text without metatext while Anglo-Americans tend to consider the reader more.
The author expresses in her article that Anglo-Americans tend to leave less space for readers interpreting. Their writing is more marketing-type while Finns have more poetic way. Finns like to give the readers something to think about and lots of interpreting. This can be considered as politeness: the writer appreciates the intelligence of the reader anddoesn’t want to state the obvious. On the other hand the writer can also be seen as an arrogant person who doesn’t care about the reader and just wants to show that he/she is smarter than the reader. The Anglo-Americans marketing-type writing is maybe more reader-friendly but doesn’t give much room for reader’s own thoughts and interpretations.
Anna Mauranen reminds us that the writing strategies and styles have not only rhetorical meaning but they are also important in didactic and pedagogic ways.
Mrs. Mauranen is also interested in shared knowledge. She talks about consumptions that people might have about the subject. She tells about homogeneous and heterogeneous societies and wonders if implicit writing fits better for homogeneous group and explicit for heterogeneous one.