Do Language Structure or Language Proficiency Affect Critical Evaluation?

Do Language Structure or Language Proficiency Affect Critical Evaluation? Emmanuel Manalo (emmanuel.manalo@gmail.com) Kyoko Watanabe (watanabekyoko@aoni.waseda.jp) Chris Sheppard (chris@waseda.jp) Faculty of Science and Engineering, Waseda University 3-4-1 Ohkubo, Shinjuku-ku, Tokyo 169-8555, JAPAN Abstract be carried out or expressed. This explanation is sometimes referred to as the “Sapir-Whorf hypothesis” (see Au, 1983; Hockett, 1954), which suggests that languages differ in the relative ease with which they can be used to convey certain ideas. An example of a claim of this kind is Bloom’s (1981) proposal that counterfactual thinking (i.e., thinking about what might have been, contrary to facts) may be more difficult in Chinese compared to English. More recent observations of linguistic differences, such as “indirectness” being a feature more prevalent in some languages, particularly Asian languages (e.g., Kong, 2005), would appear to support the notion that language structure could affect the ease with which certain modes of thinking could be undertaken or expressed. In a study by Itakura and Tsui (2011), for example, evidence was found that book reviewers use different strategies to convey critical evaluation when writing in Japanese compared to English. For example, in Japanese, criticism is usually indirectly conveyed and is frequently preceded by an apology. This study examined whether language structure or language proficiency might influence students’ use of evaluative language in written reports, and whether instruction might improve students’ use of evaluative language. Reports in Japanese and in English written by second year Japanese university students, who had received instruction in academic discourse pertaining to critical evaluation, were analyzed for use of evaluative statements. This revealed no disadvantage for use of the Japanese language, which is considered as having a more indirect structure that may make critical evaluation more difficult. English proficiency test scores, however, were found to correlate with production of evaluative statements in English, but not in Japanese, suggesting that inadequate second language proficiency could limit critical evaluation use. The second year students’ use of evaluative statements was also found higher than their first year counterparts’ (who had not yet received instruction), suggesting that such instruction is beneficial for skills development in both languages. Keywords: critical evaluation; critical thinking; language structure; second language proficiency; cognitive cost Language Structure or Language Proficiency? Introduction The cultivation of students’ abilities to critically evaluate the soundness of knowledge claims and arguments is considered as one of the most important objectives of education (e.g., Glassner, Weinstock, & Neuman, 2005) and, with the proliferation of unvetted available information through the Internet and other forms of media in modern societies, the ability to determine credibility has become crucial (e.g., Thomm & Bromme, 2011). Developing students’ critical thinking skills (the broader set of skills to which critical evaluation belongs) is, however, not without its challenges (e.g., Halpern, 1998). There are various factors that have been claimed to affect people’s use of critical thinking, including some culture-related factors. Asian students, in particular, have often been portrayed as lacking in critical thinking skills compared to Western students (e.g., Atkinson, 1997; Fox, 1994), and many tertiary instructors have been found to subscribe to such a view (e.g., Lee & Carrasquillo, 2006; Robertson, Line, Jones, & Thomas, 2000). One explanation that has been put forward for the apparent differences in critical thinking skills manifested by students from different cultural groups concerns the structure of their native language. This explanation posits that, due to their structure, some languages may present constraints in the ease with which certain thinking skills can Previous studies, however, had not clarified whether language structures could actually impose constraints in what users of the language can do. Although the earlier- mentioned study by Bloom (1981) claimed to have found evidence for this where counterfactual thinking in the Chinese language is concerned, subsequent investigations failed to replicate or support Bloom’s results (Au, 1983). Thus it remains unclear whether, for example, the structure of a language like Japanese would make it relatively more difficult to undertake tasks like critical evaluation (cf. Itakura and Tsui’s, 2011, findings), and hence make a person appear less competent in his or her critical thinking skills. Concerning international students who have been reported as appearing less competent in critical thinking skills (cf. Lee & Carrasquillo, 2006; Robertson et al., 2000), there is another possible explanation that other authors have previously suggested (e.g., Floyd, 2011; Lun, Fischer, & Ward, 2010; Paton, 2005) but which had not been adequately tested. This explanation hinges on the fact that many international students have to use a second language (L2), like English, in their host environment. It suggests that, if a person is not so proficient in a language, he or she would generally manifest lower competence in carrying out tasks when using that language. Tasks that are likely to get affected include cognitive tasks like critical thinking.