’ ‘gfiflgf‘fb

A i i
2%". ’P ; : ' if :2: {swig
).’SI 1.: 1: M , . "f .. $.41. .~ ‘ 3’
q»; “5.39345 ‘ _ £35?! 3:?” 423?}: .. _,
’ . . 11 ¢
if:

2
w

3"" 2}?" a

. iii:
.‘11
:‘t ,

’29 3k:
W.4‘.
a: ,.

v
.—
s...“
.r'

”E

.1

~ $1
“3.
W ‘
b“.

1m:
‘ ‘ ‘ a.
1‘5.“ “'
we:

in
t -,
43:3

I 7 if”
if: 5‘ if 4 .
‘ bf?“ a:

m;
'4‘».
~. .
"a . .
J.
"u

_.
’u $9....
'9

gr‘

3?“
.-_«

\

 

 

u.
-..
q,
...

a.

1')

20r‘4
“/00” 5” é 4'? LIBRARY
Michigan State
University

This is to certify that the
dissertation entitled

Conversations about Composition: Investigating Writing
Conference and Faculty Feedback on Writing in German as a
Foreign Language

presented by

Mitchell D. Place

has been accepted towards fulfillment
of the requirements for the

Ph.D. degree in German Studies

 

 

Major Professor's Signature

 

063-141, /// 20033

 

Date

MSU is an Affirmative Action/Equal Opportunity Institution

PLACE IN RETURN BOX to remove this checkout from your record.
TO AVOID FINES return on or before date due.
MAY BE RECALLED with earlier due date if requested.

 

DATE DUE DATE DUE DATE DUE

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

6/01 c:/CIRC/DateDue.p65-p.15

CONVERSATIONS ABOUT COMPOSITION: INVESTIGATING WRITING
CONFERENCE AND FACULTY FEEDBACK ON WRITING IN GERMAN As A
FOREIGN LANGUAGE
By

Mitchell D. Place

A DISSERTATION

Submitted to
Michigan State University
in partial fulfillment of the requirements
for the degree of

DOCTOR OF PHILOSOPHY
Department of Linguistics and Germanic, Slavic, Asian and African Languages

2003

ABSTRACT
CONVERSATIONS ABOUT COMPOSITION: INVESTIGATING WRITING
CONFERENCE AND FACULTY FEEDBACK ON WRITING IN GERMAN AS A
FOREIGN LANGUAGE
By

Mitchell D. Place

Some attention has been paid in recent years to responses to student compositions,
whether in peer group review or in writing conferences. Much of this attention has
focused on compositions by students writing in English either as a first or a second
language. However, very few studies have been conducted regarding response to
compositions written in languages other than English. This dissertation investigates
response to third year German students’ compositions by comparing the feedback
received from the course instructor with the feedback received by trained peer-
consultants in a writing conference. The feedback from both sources on two different
compositions was collected for nine students. A quantitative analysis revealed that there
was a striking similarity between the quantity and type of feedback received from each
source; the majority of the comments relating to grammatical forms in German. This
analysis also revealed that comments regarding the content of the composition were
overwhelmingly made by the instructor.

In addition to this analysis, case studies are provided for three of the students,
paying attention to ways the students used the feedback from each source when revising
their compositions. In each case study I investigate the tendency of the student to attempt

to correct structures while reading the composition aloud, the actual comments and

suggestions received from each source and the final revision made. Based on these
analyses I attempt to determine which feedback students assimilated into the revised
version of their writing. This dissertation reveals valuable implications for
implementation of writing conferences by showing that the type and quality of feedback
elicited in a writing conference is quite similar in comparison with feedback from the
instructor, with the exception that conference feedback focused almost solely on forms,
while the instructor feedback dealt additionally with content. The results also speak to
the value of the writing conference dialog and reading aloud for self-evaluation of
interlanguage and thereby aid in acquisition. Finally, the results uncover implications for
future research studies in the area of writing response focusing on one type of feedback

or the other.

Copyright by
MITCHELL D. PLACE
2003

Dedicated to Earl J. Place

ACKNOWLEDGMENTS

I take this opportunity to thank the directors and staff of the Center for Language
Education and Research, the directors and staff of the MSU Writing Center, my
dissertation committee, and the students of GRM 312, all of whom played crucial roles in
the process of this dissertation. Very special thanks go also to my wife and children for

their support, encouragement and understanding throughout this project.

vi

TABLE OF CONTENTS

List of Tables
List of Figures
Chapter 1: Introduction
1.1 Positioning the study in foreign language writing discourse
1.2 Research questions
1.3 Limitations of the study
Chapter 2: Literature Review
2.1 Introduction

2.2 Literature on teacher feedback on writing in first and second
language composition instruction

2.3 Literature on writing conferences in English
2.4 Literature on Writing Conferences in ESL/FL
Chapter 3: Methodology
3.1 Qualitative methodology
3.2 Subjects
3.2.1 Student Authors
3.2.2 Student Consultants
3.3 Procedures and Instruments for Data Collection
3.4 Data Analysis
Chapter 4: Quantitative Analysis
4. 1 Introduction

4.2 Analysis of the feedback on the rough drafis

vii

xi

20

25

33

33

35

35

38

39

43

46

46

47

4.2.1 The instructor's suggestions 47

4.2.2 The writing conference suggestions 50

4.3 Comparing the two sets of feedback 52

4.4 Analysis of student expectations and perceived conference outcomes 55
Chapter 5: Herman's Case 61
5.1 Profile of Herman 61

5.2 Negotiated agenda for the conferences and perceived conference outcomes
61

5.3 Herman's Auto-Correction During the Read Aloud Protocol and its Impact on
Revision 64

5.4 Comparisons of Episodes of Conference Feedback, Instructor Feedback and

Actual Revisions 71
Chapter 6: Homer's Case 98
6.1 Profile of Homer 98

6.2 Negotiated Agenda for the Conferences and Perceived Conference Outcomes
98

6.3 Homer's Auto-Correction During the Read Aloud Protocol and its Impact on
Revision 103

6.4 Comparisons of Episodes of Conference Feedback, Instructor Feedback and

Actual Revisions 108
Chapter 7: Harold's Case 130
7.1 Profile of Harold 130

7.2 Negotiated Agenda for the Conferences and Perceived Conference Outcomes
1 3 1

7.3 Harold's Auto-Correction During the Read Aloud Protocol and its Impact on
Revision 1 3 8

viii

7.4 Comparisons of Episodes of Conference Feedback, Instructor Feedback and

Actual Revisions 144

Chapter 8: Implications 160
8.1 Implications for Teaching 161

8.2 Implications for Further Research 164
Appendix 167
Works Cited 201

ix

LIST OF TABLES

Table 3.1: Structure of a typical writing conference 41
Table 4.1: Instructor comments by category on 9 rough drafts for each assignment 50
Table 4.2: Consultant comments by category on 9 rough drafis for each assignment 52
Table 4.3: Rank order of categories for both feedback sources for assignment 1 53
Table 4.4: Rank order of categories for both feedback sources for assignment 2 54
Table 4.5: Expectations and Perceived Outcomes by Subject: Assignment 1 57
Table 4.6: Expectations and Perceived Outcomes by Subject: Assignment 2 58
Table 5.1: Herman’s self corrections while reading aloud in the first conference 65
Table 5.2: comments and revisions on Herman’s self-corrected elements (A1) 66
Table 5.3: Herman’s self corrections while reading aloud in the second conference 68
Table 5.4: comments and revisions on Herman’s self—corrected elements (A2) 68
Table 6.1: Homer’s self corrections while reading aloud in the first conference 104
Table 6.2: comments and revisions on Homer’s self-corrected elements (A1) 105
Table 6.3: Homer’s self corrections while reading aloud in the second conference 107
Table 6.4: comments and revisions on Homer’s self-corrected elements (A2) 107
Table 7.1: Harold’s self corrections while reading aloud in the first conference 138
Table 7.2: comments and revisions on Harold’s self-corrected elements (A1) 141
Table 7.3: Harold’s self corrections while reading aloud in the second conference 143

Table 7.4: comments and revisions on Harold’s self-corrected elements (A2) 144

Figure 3.1:
Figure 4.1:
Figure 5.1:
Figure 5.2:
Figure 6.1:
Figure 6.2:
Figure 7.1:

Figure 7.2:

LIST OF FIGURES

Sequence of Data Collection Events

Instructor’s Correction Key

Annotated text of Herman’s first writing assignment
Annotated text of Herman’s second writing assignment
Annotated text of Homer’s first writing assignment
Annotated text of Homer’s second writing assignment
Annotated text of Harold’s first writing assignment

Annotated text of Harold’s second writing assignment

xi

43

48

72

83

109

120

145

151

Chapter 1: Introduction

1.1 Positioning the study in foreign language writing discourse

Response to student writing takes many forms. In one paradigm the classroom
instructor is the student author’s sole source of feedback, while in others the feedback on
compositions comes from the author’s peers in the classroom, or from more experienced
writers who may give advice in the setting of a writing lab or writing center. All of these
forms of response are taking hold in courses at US. universities in which students are
expected to compose in English.

Several studies conducted in the 19808 characterize the feedback student authors
often receive from their instructors, some reporting a positive effect on subsequent
writing, others reporting it to have no effect. These include studies by Zamel (1985) as
well as Cohen (1987) and Fathman and Whalley (1985;1990) in English as a second
language (ESL), and Lalande (1982) in German. More recently, peer response groups
and writing conferences have also become the subject of study and one tool of pedagogy
in ESL courses. Studies like Nelson and Murphy (1993), Caulk (1994), Connor and
Asenavage (1994) and Tsui and Ng (2000) are among those which focus on peer response
groups, characterizing the feedback student authors receive from interaction with other

students enrolled in the same course and often comparing it with feedback received from

the course instructor. Some studies on peer response in foreign language writing
instruction have also been conducted, including Hedgecock and Lefkowitz (1992), and
one description of the implementation of peer editing in a high school and beginning
college German classroom comes from Byrd (1994). Very little research has been
conducted to date, however, which focuses on writing conferences for English Speaking
students writing in a language other than English. This dissertation will investigate the
implementation of writing conferences into the writing and revision process in a third
year German course.

Writing conferences are differentiated from peer response or peer editing in that
the feedback in writing conferences is received in a face—to-face, conversational setting
either from the course instructor or from a more experienced writer, often called a
consultant. Writing conferences often take place in writing centers, and it is in that venue
that a new call for research in second and foreign language writing has been issued. In
outlining the types of writing consulting available at Michigan State University’s writing
center, Stock (1997) Speaks of less experienced writers benefiting from the “greater
experience and expertise” of the consultants in the center (13). She goes on to
characterize the work of the writing center and its consultants as having been made “the
object of our inquiry in order to improve and refine it on a continuing basis.” (17) This

type of inquiry, of continually discovering ways to fine tune the procedures of writing

consultancy by asking questions about what gets done and why it gets done in certain
ways is also important to Severino (1994). In her article she claims that “the writing
center has the potential to become a truly multicultural, twenty-first century research site
where first language writing and second language writing research intersect.” (53) When
Severino writes about second language research, she is referring Specifically to ESL
research, but I would extend the breadth of this definition to include foreign language
writing as well. Garner and Young (2001) name the writing center as the venue and
writing consultants as the facilitators of group conferencing as a supplement to peer
editing in ESL classrooms, while Youngs and Green (2001) describe a successful model
for foreign language writing assistance in what they call an “out-of—class model,”
meaning that assistance took place in a writing center.

This dissertation is intended as an initial response to this call for more writing
center research in second and foreign language writing. It describes a study conducted at
Michigan State University analyzing the feedback given by trained consultants in foreign
language writing conferences where German is the language of composition, and
investigates the extent to which this feedback paralleled responses given by an instructor
of German as a foreign language. Nine subjects received the two layers of feedback on

two different compositions, and I analyzed the revisions made to the writing after the

suggestions in order to explore whether one type of feedback seems more generative of
revisions in subsequent drafts of a composition.
1.2 Research Questions
Since little research exists regarding writing conferences for American students
composing in a language other than English, my study is conceived as one that seeks
information and methods in order to inform not only the questions I pose at the outset of
the study, but also those which arise from the study itself. By doing so, the study
contributes to a future research agenda on writing conferences in German as a foreign
language. I initially set out to investigate the following three questions:
1) What similarities and differences exist between the verbal feedback students
receive in a writing conference and the written comments they receive from their
instructors?
2) Do students tend to prefer one type of feedback over the other when they make
revisions to their compositions? and
3) What implications do findings of this study hold for teaching and for future
research on writing conferences in foreign languages?
The first question is informed by tabulating the types and frequency of feedback given
both in the writing conference and in the instructor’s comments. The latter question is

informed by noting the extent to which the comments from either situation culminated in

a revision in the final draft of the Student composition. In addition to the analyses
mentioned above, case studies of three of the subjects give a comprehensive description
of the procedures and outcomes of the .writing conference and lead to more questions for
consideration.

1.3 Limitation of the study

This dissertation and the information provided through the case studies can not
answer every question about using writing conferences in the teaching of German as a
foreign language. Even the implications suggested by the three main research questions
of section 1.2 will only scratch the surface in beginning to provide answers. As Hillocks
(1994) points out, the categories and questions in this type of qualitative research “. . .are
the result of an interpretive act on the part of the researcher.” (194)

One major limitation of my study is the lack of generalizability of the findings to
any larger population of subjects. I will not be able to make claims based on the case
studies as strong as those which could be made using statistical measures and
experimental or quasi-experimental research designs. Beginning with case study
research, however, will allow future studies to be constructed using those types of
designs as is appropriately suggested by the data collected here. Thus, what may be seen

as a limitation of the study can provide potential for future studies in this line of inquiry.

Chapter 2: Literature Review

2.1 Introduction

Literature supporting the present study on writing conference feedback for writing
in foreign languages comes from three areas of inquiry including 1) a body of work
presenting theory and research on teacher feedback on writing in a general sense, 2) a set
of studies investigating writing conferences for native speakers of English, and 3)
investigations into writing conferences for students writing in English as a second
language.

The studies on general feedback document various types of feedback composition
teachers give, and report on which types of responses to their writing students prefer.
These studies inform the research question regarding the comparison of instructor
feedback and writing conference feedback mentioned in the previous chapter. One of the
purposes for consulting the literature on native English writing conferences and writing
center work is to help frame the concept of the writing conference for the present study.
Included here are articles suggesting and testing writing center strategies for conducting
conferences and how students respond to the application of those strategies in the
conference. The studies on writing conference feedback for students who write in
English as a second language help inform the questions this current research will raise
about the similarities and differences between the types of feedback given in ESL writing
conferences and the types given in foreign language conferences.

Currently, there is scant research on writing conferences in foreign language

composition instruction, and the implications of the present study contribute to this body

of research. As introduced in the previous chapter, the research questions guiding this
study arel) What similarities and differences exist between the verbal feedback students
receive in a writing conference and the written comments they receive from their
instructors? 2) Do students tend to prefer one type of feedback over the other when they
make revisions to their compositions? and 3) What implications do findings of this
study hold for teaching and for firture research on writing conferences in foreign
languages?
2.1.1 Literature on teacher feedback on writing in first and second language
composition instruction

Studies on teacher feedback on writing in first and second language composition
instruction have focused on different genres of instructor feedback, including studies on
traditional written corrections made in red ink by the teacher, studies of one-on-one
writing conferences, investigations of peer group discussion in the classroom or teachers
giving feedback on multiple drafts of papers based on special correction codes. The
research literature presented here investigate the preferences students have for particular
types of feedback and instructors’ reasons for offering students particular types of
feedback. This dissertation compares and contrasts feedback given by an instructor to
that given by writing center consultants, and by doing so will contribute to this particular
area of inquiry.

Hendrickson (1980) outlines various approaches to error correction utilized by
foreign language writing teachers. First, he justifies error correction in adult foreign
language learning by invoking Krashen’s “monitor,” arguing that monitor users who

receive corrective feedback will begin to better understand the boundaries of the second

language grammar and improve their use of it. Hendrickson then provides his view on
various techniques used by teachers to identify and correct errors in student writing. The
first technique he discusses is one in which the correct form is provided for the student in
writing, a situation he likens to editing and identifies as particularly time-intensive and
frustrating for the teacher. In contrast to the technique above, Hendrickson also describes
other techniques for responding in which errors are selectively corrected. He lists four
factors which should be considered when instructors use this type of correction: (1)
awareness of the student’s goals for writing, (2) the student’s proficiency in writing in
the target language, (3) awareness of the types of errors committed, and (4) student’s
attitudes toward errors and their correction. Based on these factors, teachers should
respond differently according to the individual situation of the student composing the
text. Hendrickson next discusses the differences between indirect and direct correction,
and gives examples of each. In his discussion, indirect correction entails merely
acknowledging the presence and location of errors in the student text without giving any
specific suggestions for improvement. In contrast to indirect correction, direct correction
both shows the errors and gives suggestions. He advocates a mixture of direct and
indirect correction in a “discovery approach”, in which students are “given as many
opportunities as possible to discover solutions to their written errors.” Finally,
Hendrickson gives some ideas for implementing these "discovery" techniques in the
classroom, including having students discuss their compositions with the teacher
individually, even suggesting that the discussion be recorded on audio cassettes. This
early endorsement of the writing conference as an individualized discussion of errors in

foreign language writing did not result in a revolution in either foreign language writing

research or foreign language teaching. Hendrickson merely suggests these techniques for
response to students' compositions, he does not give any data to support or detract from
any particular technique. His practical article brings several ideas about error correction
and response to writing into discussion. This dissertation, however, looks closely at data
collected from sources using at least two of the techniques Hendrickson suggests, and
discusses real implications for classroom instruction

While Hendrickson discusses the merits of response techniques without
presenting any data to support the choice of one in particular, Semke (1984) reports on
the results of a study in which four different techniques of responding to errors are
applied to student papers. Semke’s research agenda is based on the idea that written
errors must be corrected; that the errors students make will fossilize if not corrected and
this in turn impedes acquisition of the target language. She wanted to see whether
correction of errors helped improve student writing or whether the improvement came
with practice only. Therefore, she divided 141 students in a first year German course into
four groups and gave them weekly joumaling assignments. In one group no errors were
corrected, the instructor made comments only. For another group’s papers the instructor
corrected the errors by providing the right form. Students in the third group received
feedback in the form of both correction and comments, and the fourth group was required
to correct their own errors based on a symbolic key provided by the instructor. The
instructor provided the correct forms for any errors still occurring after the students in
this group rewrote their papers. Pre- and post-tests in the form of timed free writing
assignments and cloze exercises were given to students in all of the groups. These

functioned as measures of accuracy (the ratio of errors to words), fluency

(the number of words produced within ten minutes) and proficiency (score on the
multiple choice cloze exercise) in German. Results of the tests showed that there was no
significant difference among the groups regarding accuracy. For fluency however, the
group that received no correction along with comments had a significantly higher score
than the other groups, and the group that was required to rewrite had lower scores than
the groups receiving teacher correction. The group receiving no correction also became
more proficient than the groups with correction. Semke concludes that instructor
correction does not serve to enhance or improve student writing in areas of accuracy,
fluency or proficiency and that students also do not improve significantly when they are
forced to correct their own errors.

The considerations Semke's study raises are pertinent for this dissertation because
I compare the instructors’ written commentary with feedback from the writing conference
sessions on a text which will then be revised. Since my subjects receive correction key
type feedback from their instructor along with another layer of feedback from a writing
center consultant, I can observe whether any set of feedback was preferentially
implemented in the final drafts of compositions. Thus, the study will provide firrther
insight into the attention paid to each type of feedback, and its effect on later versions of
the composition.

Another article on teacher comments on writing and the subsequent development
of writing comes from Onore (1989). Onore presents the results of a case study involving
three undergraduate students in an expository writing course. She argues for a more
collaborative strategy for teachers to respond to student compositions, i.e. the writing

conference. This approach will, according to Onore, create an environment more

10

conducive to a process - oriented approach to writing, in which students are asked to
write multiple drafts of their papers. The students participating in the study completed
writing assignments and discussed the first draft of their papers with a peer group for
written and oral comments. They then composed a second draft which received written
commentary from the teacher, before they composed a final draft. Onore and two other
teachers gave comments on the second drafts, with the goal of giving feedback focusing
on meaning rather than on grammar. In addition to the compositions, students were
asked to “report in” on an audio tape whenever they made a pause in their writing
process. On these tapes students described their thoughts as they were writing and gave
reasons for the decisions being made about the text. At the end of the study each of the
three sets of papers were scored by three raters who evaluated the works holistically,
wrote reflective comments about their evaluation of the papers and also wrote (short
statements identifying the main ideas in the papers) about them. One student’s work was
evaluated as having improved from the first to the third draft, whereas the writing of the
another student in the study was thought to have improved between first and second
drafts, then declined between the second and third drafts, and yet another set of papers
was judged to have declined overall. Onore admits that the results of the study did not
bear out her initial assumption that the facilitative and meaning centered comments
would necessarily improve the students’ writing. She understood from the results that
even though the comments fiom the teachers remained consistent, the writer’s
interpretation of them did not necessarily do the same. She calls for a redefinition of
“improvement” in writing, and argues that focusing on the development of one artifact of

writing from one author over time may impede the development of abilities for that

11

author over many projects (possible detrimental effect of multiple draft writing). She
makes these claims, even though improvement is never defined clearly in the study.
Improvement is only measurable to the extent that all three of the raters agreed on
whether it occurred. In addition, Onore uses non-specific terms like "work was
consistently judged to have improved" or "work consistently declined in quality,
according to the raters" (p. 236). My project currently focuses on the similarities and
differences between written and conference feedback rather than on improvement, though
in terms of grammatical forms I am able to determine whether the correct form was
incorporated into the revision of essays and in some cases can clearly Show which set of
feedback likely inspired the revision. Some future research study on writing conferences
may, however, attend more to the question of improvement, and might also incorporate
Onore's use of audio tape for recall protocols, recording students' reasons for changing
their writing or revising processes.

The purpose of Wall and Hull’s study (1989) is to describe the way teachers
identified and evaluated errors in student writing. The researchers want to see how much
agreement there is amongst raters in the identification of the errors in a text. They create
a task for twenty elementary teachers, twenty-five secondary English teachers and ten
college professors who do not teach English. This task asks the teachers first to read a
student essay and identify punctuation, grammar, syntax and spelling errors. Secondly,
the teachers are to explain the three most serious errors, and third they are asked to
comment on the strengths and weaknesses of the student's writing. The instrument for
response is an actual student essay which had been composed as part of a college

entrance exam. For analyzing the data, six categories were established:

12

punctuation/spelling, grammar, logic/clarity, style/structure and unclassifiable. The
resulting analysis led to the discovery of errors which had a high rate of consensus among
the teachers, those which had a medium consensus, and those with low consensus ratings.
Errors with the highest consensus tended to be punctuation errors, medium consensus
errors were mainly in the areas of style/structure and logic/clarity, with these same areas
also prevailing in the low consensus group. Wall and Hull give many examples of errors
that were marked differently by different instructors. The results of the study indicate that
teachers respond in various ways to various errors and that labeling errors does not
always convey to the student author exactly how the error interferes with a reader’s
understanding of the text. This study is useful because it facilitated the development of
categories for coding the feedback data for the current project. It also serves as a
reminder that instructors do not necessarily respond consistently across compositions and
students, but also that students do not necessarily interpret feedback consistently. Both of
these issues are discussed in the case studies which follow and have implications for the
future of research on writing conferences in German language instruction.

Hedgcock and Lefltowitz (1994) investigate questions about writing instruction
and both ESL and Foreign Language learners. They wanted to know how writers react
when they receive feedback from the teacher, how those reactions might affect the
composing process, and whether there are differences in response to feedback between
ESL and FL learners. It is important to distinguish here between this type of research and
the type that I am endeavoring. Hedgecock and Leflcowitz (1994) propose to inform their
research questions solely through survey response, so indeed, what they find will be

student's perceptions and preferences, not the result of actual composition and revision.

13

However, there are issues addressed in their study which can also be important for this
dissertation. One such issue raised by Hedgcock and Leflcowitz (1994) and by my
research project is that extremely few studies on the effect of instructor's feedback on
student revision of writing have included foreign language learners as subjects.

In Hedgcock and Lefltowitz (1994) a total of 247 second language writers were
given a survey designed to gather information about the kinds of feedback they were
getting from their instructors. Among the subjects were 137 foreign language students,
including 79 in French, 28 in Spanish and 30 in German. These foreign language
learners were all in the second or third year of college language study. The 110 ESL
students also included in the study were all enrolled in first or second semester freshman
composition for non-native speakers. In one part of the survey, the students were asked
whether they enjoyed their writing classes, whether the skills they were learning were
useful and they were asked to give a self-assessment of their proficiency in writing. Both
the ESL writers and the foreign language writers felt the skills were useful, and students
in both groups assessed themselves as “average” writers. The ESL students did hold a
less positive attitude toward writing instruction, which led the researchers to believe this
indicated a lower motivation to learn on the part of the ESL students. That did not
surprise the researchers, however, since the ESL students were in required coursework
whereas the foreign language students were in electives. Further types of data collected
by means of the survey included which methods of feedback were preferred and beliefs
about the usefulness of various types of feedback in various categories (content,
organization, style, grammatical accuracy). Regarding the preferred type of feedback, the

foreign language writers preferred written comments over comments given verbally to a

14

much greater extent than did the ESL writers. Both groups most appreciated feedback
that combined written comments and writing conference discussions with the instructor,
whereas the writing conference alone was least preferred for both groups. ESL students
were more likely to say that the instructor should evaluate the ideas in the paper and the
way they are organized. In contrast, foreign language students preferred that the
instructor pay closer attention to grammatical errors and punctuation errors. This was true
for both first and final drafts. Hedgcock and Leflcowitz (1994) characterize the results of
this study as “good news” and “bad news.” Good news for instructors of ESL students
who are concerned with content, organization and style in their papers; perhaps bad news
for foreign language instructors, whose students seem to prefer form-focused feedback,
attributable, according to the researchers, to the view among many foreign language
teachers that writing is mainly an exercise in language practice. In light of the findings of
this study, it is necessary that a study of the actual revisions made by students based on
instructor feedback and writing conference feedback be conducted, rather than gathering
data only through surveys of perceptions and preferences. My research project seeks to
address this matter, while at the same time investigating the actual response foreign
language writers have to writing conferences.

Ferris (1997) provides a study on the effects of teacher commentary on the
revision of student’s written work. She feels her study is important because there is little
research conducted in the area of teacher response to ESL writing, while the number of
studies on peer response in that area is growing. The subjects of her study were 47
students in a college composition course for non-native English speakers. The students

were native speakers of various languages. Two hundred twenty of the students’ papers

15

were used in the study, including first drafts with teacher commentary and later revisions.
The teachers’ comments were counted and categorized as to their purpose or aim, as
described below. The comments were then evaluated for the extent to which they helped
the student effectively revise, and whether they had a positive or negative effect on the
revision. In analyzing the comments, Ferris looked at the length of the comments, their
type, the use of hedges and the apparent specificity of the comment to the text. A
comment was considered short if it consisted of l to 5 words, very long if it was made up
of 26 or more. The teacher comments were categorized according to their purpose as
follows: 1) to ask for information, 2) to make a request, 3) to give information, 4) to
make a positive comment, or 5) to make a comment on grammar or mechanics. The
revisions made by the students were rated as to how they related to the comments of the
teacher, as well as on the effect they had on the paper. The rating was done on a scale
from 0 to 6, a rating of 0 meaning no change was made by the student for a particular
comment, 6 meaning substantive changes were made with an overall positive effect. It
should be noted here that Ferris has created a rating system for revisions that is based on
negative, mixed or positive effect on the paper; three terms which are never specifically
defined in her article. Overall, the comments that teachers wrote in the margins of the
papers were average in length (6-15 words), asked for information, did not make use of
hedges and were specific to the text. The comments that teachers wrote at the ends of
student compositions were also average in length, yet tended to make a positive comment
or a request, while also avoiding hedges and remaining text specific. When the revisions
were rated it was seen that the highest percentage of both marginal and end comments

initiated no change in the paper. The category with the second highest percentage of

16

occurrence initiated substantive changes with a positive effect. Ferris’s study then
showed the relationships between the types of comments given and the rating of the
changes they initiated. For example, 97% of end comments which made a positive
statement affected no change on the paper, 60% of the marginal comments which made a
request seemed to cause a substantive change with a positive effect, and 36% of marginal
comments that gave information seemed to cause a minimal change with a mixed effect.
Ferris is careful to say that she cannot claim a direct causal relationship between the
teacher feedback and the student revisions, since the study did not control for other
factors that may have influenced the revision. The main claim Ferris makes at the end of
the study is that students pay attention to feedback, but that they also sometimes ignore or
avoid it. The student’s response seems to depend on the type of comment given by the
teacher. In the case studies that follow it is also noted that students sometimes ignore
comments. However, due to the similarities between instructor and writing conference
feedback, it is not always possible to determine the source of the ignored comment.
Future research into modes of responding to writing will provide further information
about that phenomenon.

Reichelt and Waltner (2001) provide a descriptive analysis of writing projects in a
second year German class, focusing on the overall context of the assignments, especially
seeking to name the purposes for assigned writing in the second year. In their study, a
professor of German and a professor of ESL conducted survey and interview research on
a subject pool of 12 students in the second year German course. Six of the twelve
students volunteered to be interviewed about their writing, and three were finally selected

to participate in the interviews. All twelve of the students, however, completed the

17

survey on their perceptions of the purposes of writing as well as on instructor feedback.
The first two writing assignments were assigned as homework. One of them was
designed around a specific grammatical form which students were expected to produce in
the composition. For the second assignment, the grammar requirements were eschewed,
but students were asked to write for a specific audience and adopt a certain style, in that
they were asked to compose a travel brochure.

The resulting compositions were found to be technically correct for the first
assignment in which the students included the required structure, yet for the second
assignment the compositions showed a decline in proficiency compared to previous
writing in which grammar or vocabulary was a focus. The authors hypothesize that the
students had written with a particular audience in mind and that, while attempting to
adjust the level of their language to fit that audience, they became overwhelmed with
unfamiliar structures. As a result, the next assignment was created within a more Specific
context. Students were asked to write their own children’s story after reading and
discussing several in class, identifying characteristics of the genre and learning lists of
new vocabulary related to the stories.

The students who participated in the interview were interviewed both after
completing a rough draft which had also received commentary from the instructor and
after completing a final draft with instructor comments. The authors’ admit that the
interviews did focus on the children’s stories, but information about the other
assignments was collected as well. The interviews were conducted by the ESL professor,
not by the course instructor. The interview and survey topics included assignment

preference, difficulty/ease of assignment, and difficulty/ease of class activities.

18

Responses were mixed, but most of the students said they liked the children’s story
assignment best, and that they thought grammar and vocabulary practice were most
valuable. The authors note that “several” students did express a desire for more content
based feedback, as opposed to the forms based feedback they received from the
instructor, but readers are not told how many students are “several”. This lack of
specificity in the study and the lack of clear delineation of the research design are points
of which I am critical. The authors conclude that both students and teachers view one of
the main purposes of writing in foreign language to be practice of grammar and
vocabulary, leaving other concerns in the background. In order to expand this focus to
include content and organization of writing, the authors urge foreign language teachers to
take advantage of or invent programs which will increase students’ awareness of
audience, such as having pen pals in Germany or creating a contextual unit like the
children’s story assignment.

The Reichelt and Waltner (2001) study highlights the dilemma in foreign
language writing instruction that both content and form must be addressed, but that
foreign language instructors often focus more on the latter when giving feedback. This
may very well occur because content must in some sense follow form. This study
highlighted the differences between writing instruction in ESL, which tends to focus
more on organization and argumentation, and Foreign Language writing instruction,
which tends to focus primarily on form. This dissertation will consider these differences
and investigate the foci of each set of feedback in the data. An interesting follow-up
study to this dissertation would look at compositions that receive form feedback from a

writing consultant, followed by content feedback from a faculty member.

19

2.1.2 Literature on writing conferences in English

The second set of studies pertaining to this dissertation consists of the literature
on writing center work and writing conferences in English for native speakers of English.
It is this body of literature that helps set the parameters for the type of writing
conferences to be introduced in the present study. By describing what other scholars
have done in the past, it becomes easier to clearly define the procedures of the present
study. It is fiom this set of studies, for example, that some of the support for the use of
the case study method comes. In addition, many of the procedural aspects of writing
conferences are described and analyzed in the following articles.

Freedman and Sperling (1985) conducted research focusing on the writing
conference as a method of response to writing. Specifically, they wished to test theories
that high achieving students receive different responses from teachers than low achieving
students do. The same is thought to hold true for students from minority groups versus
mainstream middle class students. With this in mind Freedman and Sperling seek to
inform the following question: Do high and low achieving students elicit different
responses fiom teachers in a conference? The researchers hoped that writing conferences
would provide better data even than classroom observations, because of the focus of the
conference, and its individual nature.

Eight students at a California university participated in the original data collection
and then the stories of four of them were reported as case studies. The four who were
selected were a high and a low achieving Caucasian and a high and a low achieving
Asian-American. For this study, high achievement is defined as having a verbal SAT

score greater than 500. Low achievers were characterized by a score of below 350. The

20

teacher was chosen from a pool of instructors who had completed specific training
courses for teachers of composition. All drafts and notes for all writing assignments from
the semester were collected, and all of the conferences were audiotaped.

In the analysis of the data, topics of conversation, backchanneling, and instances
of teacher talk were examined. Topics of conversation were placed into three categories:
intellectual, affective and other topics. The fiequency of backchannel cues was
determined, as well as whether they interrupted the discourse. The final analysis
measured and analyzed the talk initiated by the teacher and recorded occurrences of
“expository modeling,” which was the researchers’ term for mini compositions composed
orally and extemporaneously by the teacher. Another element of teacher initiated talk
that was coded was the invitation to return for another conference. The results of the
analyses showed that the teacher initiated more topics than the student in each
conference, suggesting that the teacher took the lead in each situation, regardless of
ethnicity or achievement of the student. In the analysis of the backchannel cues, the
lower achieving students, regardless of ethnicity, produced more, and the backchannel of
the low achievers seemed to be misplaced, interrupting the flow of the foreground talk.
For consequences to the student; the analysis of the teacher talk, tabulations showed that
the high achieving Caucasian student received more than four times the amount of
expository modeling from the teacher as the low achieving Asian-American. The teacher
is also much more willing to have the high achieving Caucasian come back for another
conference than the low achieving Asian-American. The authors note that the invitation

to return for the former takes up forty-four turns, while that of the latter takes only seven.

21

This article provides a precedent for case studies in writing conference research
for the present study, by showing how the case studies of individual students in writing
conferences can allow for certain generalizations regarding the comparison of feedback
students receive, and at the same time, can raise additional research questions. One
limitation of the Freedman and Sperling study, is the lack of analysis of the students’
post-conference revisions and whether and how the conference talk seems to have
influenced those revisions. This dissertation does analyze those revisions and the
influence of the discourse in the conference on them, however.

Using one of the students in the previous study as a subject of further analysis,
Freedman and Katz (1987) investigated the characteristics of writing conference
dialogues and their influence on developing the student’s independent use of effective
procedures for improving writing. Five conferences with the student were recorded, and
one of these was chosen for analysis in the article. The particular conference chosen was
one in which the student first talks about her key challenges in writing. Freedman and
Katz use the turn-taking analyses of Sacks, Schegloff and Jefferson (1974) and Mehan
(1979) as the basis for describing the elements of the teacher/student interaction. These
elements include the initiation of a topic by one party, response from the other and finally
a period of evaluation which comments on what has been said and leads into the
following turn. In the writing conference segment analyzed by F reedman and Katz, the
tum-initiating dialog was a broad question posed by the instructor that forces the student
to engage at once in the conference and to set the direction for development of the first
topic. The authors provided transcribed segments of the conference in the article to

illustrate this. The teacher had asked in this case whether there were any portions of the

22

student text that the student considered to be good, or that the student thought the teacher
would consider good. Then the teacher entered a less directive mode and the student
focused the direction of the conference through her response.

Freedman and Katz (1987) found that there seem to be two different types of
evaluations happening in the discourse of writing conferences. One occurs during the
student response and serves as reinforcement for the student writer and encouragement
for the student to continue her analysis of her writing. The other evaluation functions to
end the sequence and consists of a teacher controlled topic change that redirects the
conversation and opens another sequence. In analysis of the conference for transitions
between turns, it was found that many more long pauses were documented, even though
the researchers cite studies indicating that in normal adult conversations pauses are
precisely timed.

In this writing conference, especially during the response portion of the initiation,
response, evaluation sequence, longer pauses on the part of the student were permitted,
providing time for internalization of the procedures of writing. Freedman and Katz argue
that this is crucial to writing conferences, and that the discourse of a conference tends to
operate according to different criteria than normal conversations. The conclusion drawn
fi'om this analysis of conference data is that the writing conference is a speech event that
operates according to its own set of predictable discourse conventions that students must
learn. The present study does not use the technical terminology or categories for the
analysis of the discourse of the writing conferences in the case studies, since I do not
attempt to analyze the structure of the conversational turns as much as the content of the

feedback. A future study may well benefit fiom this type of analysis, however.

23

The opening moments of writing conferences with students in a freshman writing
course at the University of New Hampshire provide the data for an analysis by Newkirk
(1989.) The conferences were taped, transcribed and annotated. Newkirk analyzes the
ways the openings proceed, and how the first five minutes or so of a conference set the
“agenda” for what follows. When Newkirk writes about setting the agenda, he is
referring to the negotiation phase of the conference in which instructor or consultant and
the student agree on one or two major concerns that will be addressed in the conference.
This is necessary for the efficient use of the time allotted to the session, otherwise the
session might go on for too long and in the end not address some of the important issues
of the writing. It also allows the student to identify for him or herself those areas in the
essay that need to be discussed. Setting the agenda gives the student a better sense of
development as a writer at the end of the conference. This is preferable to leaving the
student with the sense that the teacher said what was wrong with the writing and now it is
up to the student to fix it. Newkirk analyzes the opening segments from three
conferences, and concludes that the most important part of the conference is the
negotiation that takes place between student and instructor, or conversely, that the lack of
negotiation in setting an agenda leads to the most confusion. He stresses the important
role played by talk in revision. The student should be allowed to talk through the
revision, thereby making the next draft of the composition one that has already been
spoken. The author lists five lessons to be learned from the analysis of the segments,
which he refers to as being “painfully obvious” but necessary to remember. They are as
follows: 1) Teachers tend to talk too much, a fact that stalls negotiation in writing

conferences. 2) The opening minutes give the conference direction. 3) The conference

24

should focus on one or two concerns. 4) A paper marked up by the teacher before the
conference leads the student to believe the agenda has been determined solely by the
teacher. 5) The teacher needs to be not only responsive to the student’s talk, but also to
be directive in a way that provides a model for the student.

These lessons provide guidelines for the present study in terms of defining what a
writing conference is. They provide ideas as to what to look for in the conferences
included in the data set, and questions that will expand the scope of the study now and in
the future like: Which party in the conference does the most talking? Do the student and
consultant agree on an agenda? Is the agenda followed through the course of the
conference? These questions are discussed in the case studies and the implications
chapters to follow.

2.1.3 Literature on writing conferences in ESL/FL

The fact that so little attention has been paid to the writing conference as a mode
of response to writing in foreign language teaching shows the need for the present
research study. The body of research cited here identifies the questions that have been
investigated, as well as those that still need to be investigated.

Patthey-Chavez and Ferris (1997) frame their research by investigating whether
changes in student writing could be an effect of writing conferences, and whether the
strength of the student in terms of grade, the native language of the student or the type of
writing course the student is involved in would change the process or outcome of the
conference. They framed these questions based on what they considered to be important
limitations of past studies in the area of writing conferences. They claim that the effects

of conferences have been difficult to trace due to the lack of attempts to connect the

25

analysis of the conferences with the student revisions of the compositions. In addition to
this, the authors also claim that little attention has been paid to the context in which the
students are writing. Examples they give of such contexts include differences in ability
and varying native languages among the students participating in the conferencing and
subsequent revision.

The two authors, and two other graduate students participated in writing
conferences with six students of differing native language backgrounds who were
enrolled in an advanced ESL course, as well as two native speakers of English
completing their second year of composition courses. The instructors each worked with
one student he or she had assessed to be academically stronger and one considered
weaker. They collected data from rough drafts of an essay written in class, tapes of a
conference with the student several days later, final drafts, and the first draft of the next
writing assignment.

It was found that the conferences were longer in total number of words for the
stronger students, and that the stronger students contributed a greater percentage of the
talk in the conference than did weaker students. However, no conference yielded a
greater amount of student talk than teacher talk. Weak students seemed to make different
types of utterances during the conference than strong students. For example they tended
to backchannel and take shorter turns. All of the students revised their compositions in
areas that had been discussed in the conference, parallel to the suggestions received from
the instructor. It was also noted that the weaker students tended to make revisions very
closely or exactly following the suggestions of the instructor, whereas the revisions of the

stronger students did include ideas addressed in the conferences, but there was more

26

evidence that the students had processed the instructor’s comments and not merely copied
them. This was seen as an affirmative answer to the question of whether student ability
had an effect on the revision.

No evidence was found to support the idea that native language or cultural
differences changed the process or outcome of implementation of the suggested revisions.
The authors do list factors that may account for this, including the small sample size (six
students) and the fact that all non-native speakers of English were enrolled in the most
demanding ESL course at the university.

This study points to the actual effects of writing conferencing as an area in need
of further investigation, moving beyond the documentation of student attitude toward this
form of response into discussion of the other reasons why conferences are successful in
writing pedagogy. It also raises questions as to what differences might be found between
ESL writing conferences and those conducted for American students of foreign language,
questions that will be addressed further in the course of the present study.

Cumming and So (1996) also investigate effects of certain circumstances on
writing conferences through the use of a quasi-experimental research design.
Specifically, they are interested in whether differences in the discourse of writing
conferences appeared when the conference was conducted in the student’s native
language as opposed to conferences conducted in a second language. Concurrently, they
investigate the effect on conference discourse of two different types of feedback in the
conference.

The tutors who led the conferences were seven graduate students and one

professor. They provided twenty ESL students with four writing conference sessions

27

each. Two of the sessions utilized English, and the other two were conducted in the
student’s native language. Likewise, two of the sessions provided feedback which was
straightforward error correction, whereas another two sessions utilized a prompting
technique designed to prompt the students into independent revision.

Each student brought a 300 to 400 word draft of writing to the conference, and
each conference was audio-taped. The tapes were analyzed and each utterance was
counted in which 1) a problem was identified in the writing, 2) revision was negotiated
and 3) the problem was resolved. This method of dividing up the discourse to make it
countable is similar to the way in which I will divide the conference talk in my study into
episodes. In that case, however, I will compare written feedback from the instructor with
oral feedback in the conference. Therefore my episodes are based on the interaction
between student and consultant and include instructor’s comments for the sake of
comparison, so that not all instructor comments are included in an episode.

Cumming and So (1996) performed a Wilcoxon matched pairs test which showed
that there was no significant difference in the discourse regarding the number of events of
identification, negotiation or resolution of problems between conferences using
prompting and those using error correction in English. They were not able to use the
same statistics to determine significance of differences across languages, however, due to
the variable of having different tutors for different languages. It was decided that they
would not be able to tell whether a difference in the discourse was due to the language of
the conference or due to the tutor. Therefore, they provided descriptions of the behavior
of the tutors and transcripts of segments of the writing conferences to Show that the

language of the conference did not tend to change the process of identification,

28

negotiation and resolution of problems in the discourse. They advise against exclusive
use of the native language in conferencing, since using the second language in this
functionality may positively impact acquisition of the second language. Exclusive use of
the second language in conferences, or encouraging the conference participants to switch
languages during the conferences could certainly be incorporated into the research
agenda for second language writing conferences.

Goldstein and Conrad (1990) provide another important study that included a
more thorough analysis of the actual procedure followed in a writing conference for ESL
speakers and the effect of the conference on their writing. The following questions
provided the framework for their research: 1. Do ESL writing conferences ensure
student talk? 2. How much meaning is negotiated in ESL writing conferences? and 3.
How does the conference talk relate to revision in the final draft? Three students in the
last ESL course leading to Freshman Composition were selected for the study. The
students came from three different cultural backgrounds, but had similar levels of
proficiency. Two of the students participated in three writing conferences with their
teacher, while one participated in four conferences. All of the conferences were taped,
and each draft of all the papers was collected.

First drafts were compared with revised drafts and a pattern of revisions surfaced
suggesting that revisions occurred when they had been negotiated in the conference.
Next, the researchers wanted to know whether the negotiation produced revisions that
were successful, unsuccessful or if there were instances where no revision was made after
one was negotiated. Goldstein and Conrad’s operationalization of a successful revision

was one they judged as having “solved or improved upon a rhetorical problem discussed

29

in the conference while being consistent with the writer’s purpose, main point, and
audience.” (p. 449)

The results regarding the relationship between negotiation and revision affirmed
the existence of a positive relationship between negotiation and successful revision. The
negotiated revisions for all three students were considered successful, and the students
engaged in successfiil revision for each item negotiated in the conference. The non-
negotiated revisions, however, were considerably less successful for all the students, and
completely unsuccessful for one of them.

According to Goldstein and Conrad (1990), the implications of their study are that
composition teachers need to be aware of the various contexts in which their students live
and write. Each student will come to the writing conference with a different point of
view, a different style and different expectations. The authors are also convinced that
more of this type of research needs to be done, that is, research focusing on the discourse
of the conference and its effect on subsequent revision instead of attitudes and
perceptions of students toward the conference. It is exactly into this niche that my
research fits, because I study the procedures and language of actual writing conferences
carried out with real students and real compositions, rather than merely asking students
whether they would like their instructors to use conferences as a way to respond to
writing. One addition to my research that makes it separate from the studies reviewed
here is the comparison of instructor feedback without a conference with conference
feedback that does not come from an instructor, but from advanced students who have

completed similar work, and that the conferences take place in a writing center.

30

The tutoring of ESL students in writing centers is the subject of Harris and Silva
(1993.) In their article they discuss the main issues a tutor (also known as consultant or
peer expert, depending on the writing center) needs to keep in mind when working with
ESL students in a writing center environment. The authors state that it takes time for new
tutors to understand the concept that the tutorial will focus on only one or two aspects of
the student’s work. They mention the importance of concentrating on global errors and
local errors; global errors being those that interfere with the communicative function of
the text (p. 526). Therefore, it makes the most sense to concentrate on those types of
errors if indeed language pedagogy is going to focus on communication and meaning. It
also makes sense to concentrate on global errors because as students correct them, other
more local concerns may be remedied as well, and because one duty of the tutor is to
impart strategies that will make the students they tutor into independent writers. One
must be able to identify whether a particular writer’s challenges are the result of low
proficiency in the target language, and to recognize that the student is probably capable
of quite a bit more when writing in the native language. Tutors must resist the urge,
according to the authors, to tell a student all of the answers. They must provide strategies
that will enable the student to locate answers and solutions independently. Harris and
Silva suggest that there is research bearing out the fact that verbs, nouns, articles and
prepositions are the four major grammatical areas of concern for ESL students at higher
levels of proficiency. At lower levels there are problems with basic sentence structure
and of course limited vocabulary. Since that is the case, it is important for tutors to be
able to prioritize the time spent talking about any given topic in grammar. Another

suggestion that Harris and Silva make is for students to read their papers aloud to listen

31

for errors. It is based on this source that my study has incorporated read-aloud protocols
into the writing conference, and the phenomenon of auto-correction is examined. Harris
and Silva conclude their article by claiming that ESL and writing center professionals

need to keep working with and learning from each other. For the purposes of the present
study, it is equally important that foreign language teachers join them and investigate the

commonalties that seem to exist between the three areas of scholarship.

32

Chapter 3: Methodology

3.1 Qualitative methodology

The current research project was conducted using qualitative research methods for
various reasons. First, the project is meant to be a preliminary investigation that will lead
to further research possibilities. There were no hypotheses developed prior to beginning
the study that would be proven or disproved by the resulting data. Instead, the research
was begun with broad questions, and data was collected to refine and focus these
questions, and to generate additional questions. Three major research questions were
framed, as follows: 1) What similarities and differences exist between the verbal
feedback students receive in a writing conference and the written comments they receive
from their instructors? 2) Do students tend to prefer one type of feedback over the other
when they make revisions to their compositions? and 3) What implications do findings
of this study hold for teaching and for future research on writing conferences in foreign
languages? The focus of the study iS therefore not on the success or failure of the writing
conferences, rather it is on the process and quality of student revision and sources of
effective revision. By reporting on the revisions made, and on the intervention that
apparently led to those revisions, I hope to gain a general picture of the influence writing
conferences can have on students' compositions as compared to the influence instructors'
written commentary can have on student compositions.

Second, due to the small size of the subject population, and since the project
makes use of case studies in order to discuss writing conference procedures in more

detail, the results of any quantitative analysis will necessarily not be statistically

33

significant. However, quantitative analysis can help identify patterns in the data that
point to the students’ attitudes toward writing conferences and the quantity and type of
feedback from conferences or from an instructor, as well as their implementation of
suggestions made either in the conferences or in the written commentary of the instructor.
Therefore Chapter Four of this dissertation will focus on some of the quantitative analysis
conducted as part of the study as a whole.

Another reason for using case study methods in this project arises from the
necessary ethical considerations of research conducted in a classroom setting. This is one
critical point at which use of other methodologies could not provide the same insights, at
least not in an acceptably ethical manner. An experimental research design, for example,
would entail the designation of a control group and an experimental group. Those
students comprising the control group would not receive the same information as the
students in the experimental group, a fact that can potentially put the students in the
experimental group at an unfair advantage, especially if better compositions, and
therefore higher scores in the course are the goal. I decided to proceed with a case study
method in which observation of the phenomenon of the writing conference was the major
objective. The students who participated in the conferences were put at ease by
reassuring them that they were receiving another set of feedback on their writing, and that
it would benefit everyone's composition. In that type of design, an advantage in the
course becomes a desirable side-effect of the conference meetings instead of a real or
perceived unfair practice. An experimental design is also very difficult to execute in

classroom—based research such as this, Since so many variables come into play.

34

Gathering observations through case study at this point in the iterative cycle of
action research on writing instruction will lead to a time of reflection on and critique of
the study later, and ultimately foster positive change and grth in the field of foreign
language writing instruction. Subjects of the study are also afforded the sense that they
are contributing to that positive change due to their participation in the data gathering
experiences

Finally, the present study falls into the same category as some precedent setting
studies in writing conference research in the recent past which relied primarily on
qualitative methods. For example, Freedman and Sperling (1985) and Freedman and
Katz (1987) use interviews and case studies to document the development of student
writing. These studies characterize a body of research that is in its early stages, still
seeking questions and seeking methodology. Indeed, Sperling (1994) claims "Discourse
analysis of teacher-student writing conferences is a relatively new methodology, with
disciplinary reference points dancing in the intersection where ethnomethodology meets
linguistics." (221) It is among these types of studies that this dissertation takes its place,
and case study has been chosen as a method for presenting the data here as well, since the
specifics of a given case might help provide direction for future research questions and
methodologies.

3.2 Subjects:
3.2.1 Student Authors

The subjects of the present study were nine students of German as a foreign
language who were enrolled in the second half of a third year two-semester sequence in

German for business at Michigan State University during Spring Semester 2001.

35

Students were not required to participate in the study, but they were encouraged to do so
and were paid $50.00 if they completed the study. All nine of the students who
participated in the writing conferences also completed a survey intended to gather
demographic data about the subject population. There were seven men and two women
who participated as subjects in the study. All were native speakers of English and none
reported that German was spoken as a preferred language in their homes, though one
student reported Chinese as the language preferred at home. Five of the nine reported
that they had studied abroad, three of those in Germany. All of the subjects reported
they had had German courses in high school, and all but two of them began their German
studies at the university at the second year level or above. One student completed high
school in Austria, and one attended school in Germany for four years.

Five of the students had a junior class standing at Michigan State University, two
were sophomores and one was a senior. The Business German course fulfills a
requirement for the major in German, however several students typically enroll in the
course not to fulfill a requirement, but to gain valuable knowledge that supplements other
areas of study. Therefore the students enrolled in the course are highly motivated to
improve their language skills and leam the content component of the course. Further
results of the survey data will be discussed in the following sections and in the case
studies themselves to identify possible links between this information and the
conferences or the revision of the essays.

In their course, the students were required to write three compositions responding
to assignments given in the textbook. The text used for the course was German for

Business and Economics, Band [1: Die Betriebswirtschaft by Paulsell, Gramberg and

36

Evans (2000). In the three writing assignments, students were asked to adopt the persona
of an employee of an American firm opening a branch in Germany. In the first
composition students were asked to argue the case for which business form should be
adopted. In the second, they must discuss whether German or American personnel
should be employed, and the topic of the third was which management style should be
used in the new German branch of the company. The compositions were to be written as
professional reports to the supervisor, and increase in length with each subsequent
assignment. The instructor has invested in revision with regard to writing in the course,
by requiring the students to turn in a rough draft of each of the compositions first, then
incorporate feedback from the instructor in a revised draft due at a later date. For this
study, the writing conferences provide another layer of feedback that students in the
course in other semesters have not had.

Since the students turned in rough drafts, revised, then turned in final drafts of the
compositions for the first two writing assignments, these drafts have became the focus of
the case studies. For the final writing assignment in the course, due to the course
schedule and the fact that papers were due in the final examination week of the semester,
students only turned in one draft. For the final assignment, some students met with
consultants before turning in the draft, but all nine subjects were not able to meet with
consultants, nor were all consultants able to carry out conferences. Therefore, writing
conferences for the third assigrunent were not included in this study, but may become the

focus of later research.

37

3.2.2 Student Consultants

In addition to the student authors, three advanced level students in German served
as the writing consultants with whom students met during the conferences. One of the
consultants was an undergraduate who had completed the same course as the subjects in
the Spring Semester of 2000 with the same instructor, and two were graduate students in
German. Of the two graduate student consultants, one had completed the business
German course as an undergraduate with a different instructor, and one had been
associated with the course as an assistant to the instructor, as well as teaching certain
topics in the course in a mentoring situation with two previous instructors. All the
consultants had English as a first language and various acquisition experiences leading to
their current skill level in German. The undergraduate consultant, to whom I will later
refer as Martin, had a double major in German and International Relations with a GPA of
4.0 in German coursework. He had participated in a six week summer study abroad
course in Germany through the university. He had taken some German in high school,
but began his studies of German at the university at the elementary level and had
completed ten courses in German language, literature and culture at the time of the study.
One of the graduate consultants, later referred to as Richard, earned the Master of Arts in
German in the same semester as the study was conducted. He reported four years of
German in high school, a German major as an undergraduate and a year in Germany as
an undergraduate. As a graduate student, this consultant taught German 101 and 102 at
the university and also spent two more years at the university in Germany, during which

time he taught English as a foreign language. He reported a GPA of 3.75 for graduate

38

coursework in German. I served as the third consultant in the study. I began studying
German at the elementary level in college, graduated with a German major and studied
for one year in Germany as an undergraduate. I earned the Master of Arts degree in
German and taught elementary and intermediate German while progressing toward both
that degree and the Doctor of Philosophy in German Studies. I also completed a four-
week summer course at a Goethe Institute in Germany during my doctoral program. My
GPA for coursework in the Ph.D. program is 4.0.

The consultants were all trained in methods of Writing Center consultancy
through reading of pertinent literature, observation of writing conferences on student
writing in English and practice sessions conferencing writing in German. The training of
consultants consisted of a weekly meeting in which assigned reading was presented and
discussed. The articles discussed in the meetings included Byrd (1994), Tsui and Ng
(2000), and Goldstein and Conrad(l990). Though some of these studies focus on peer
editing rather than on writing conferences with faculty or more advanced students, they
still provided valuable material for discussions about methodology and implementation of
our project, and about the concerns surrounding writing pedagogy and writing centers in
general.

3.3 Procedures and Instruments for Data Collection

The students who participated in the study drafted a response to the writing
assignments given in class according to the instructions in their textbook and the
instructor’s requirements. They turned in each rough draft to the instructor (known in
later chapters as Clyde) on the prescribed due date, then brought an exact copy of each

rough draft to the Writing Center to confer with one of the advanced student writing

39

consultants. The students were assigned by lottery to one of the three consultants. The
students met with the same consultants for consulting on the first two writing
assignments for the course. Due to scheduling in the final examination week when the
third assignment was due, however, some students met with a different consultant for that
session. The conferences for the first two assignments were video-taped and the writing
samples photocopied with the students’ consent.

The writing conference is a conversation about the drafted writing generally
lasting about fifty minutes. Typically, the consultant will begin the session by asking the
student to identify some areas in which he or she feels a need for improvement. Based on
experience of writing center consulting on writing in English, students will commonly
ask for help with organization of the composition, structure of arguments and support,
and making sure the product meets the instructor’s requirements. Students will often ask
for help with grammar and usage in their compositions as well. If this is the case, the
consultant helps the student identify specific areas of grammar where global errors are
occurring, so the conference does not become a process of changing every ending, verb
form and word placement issue. The consultant will also spot some areas in the paper,
which were not mentioned by the student, and will attempt to help the student clarify how
to improve these areas.

After identifying the areas needing particular attention, the consultant generally
asks the student to read her or his composition aloud, while the consultant takes notes.
When the composition has been read, the consultant may begin to ask questions regarding

certain areas of the composition, or the student may initiate discussion, having come to

the session with specific questions in mind or having discovered challenging sections in

40

the writing during the reading of the piece. A conversation thus ensues, in which the
student and consultant work together to improve or strengthen the writing. In these
conversations consultants frequently ask writers to clarify meaning and to explain
connections between various parts of the text. One of the observations that emerged is
that these conversations remained to a large extent in German, though it was not required
that German be the language of the conference. Typically the consultant simply began in
German and the student replied also in German, though one or both of the conference
participants sometimes switched over to English for particularly challenging moments in
the discussion. Many of these instances are discussed in the case studies in chapters five,
six and seven.

Table 3.1 shows the various parts of a typical writing conference as was set forth

in the training of the consultants for this study, including purposes and participants for

 

 

 

 

 

each part.
Table 3.1: Structure of a typical writing conference
Phase Participants Purpose
1. Setting the Agenda Consultant and Student Student is encouraged to
discuss. voice concerns.
Goals of conference identified.
2. Read Aloud Student reads. Student may auto-correct.
Protocol Consultant is silent. Consultant makes preliminary
assessment.
3. Discussion of Student and Consultant Agenda items addressed
Issues discuss. individually.

Specific text passages analyzed and
revisions negotiated.

 

 

4. Wrap Up Student Writes Student is encouraged to recall
Reflective Statement. issues discussed in conference.
Student is encouraged to think
about how they will revise.

 

 

 

 

41

In addition to the videotape of the conference, other instruments were used to
gather information from the students. One of these instruments was a post-conference
reflection- a survey in which students were asked to respond to questions about the
conference they just completed (see questions in Appendix). Another instrument of the
data collection was a demographic survey intended to gather information about the
students’ prior language experiences, coursework, study abroad, etc. Results from this
survey were used to characterize the subject population above in section 3.2.

While the students attended writing conferences with the advanced level
consultants, Clyde, the instructor, was also reading the students’ drafts and making
comments on them as he normally would. Clyde and the consultants were blind to each
other’s work at this time. Only after the conferencing was complete and the students had
turned in their final revisions did the instructor share his written commentary with the
writing consultants. After all of the students had attended a writing conference, and after
Clyde had written comments on all of the papers he photocopied them, keeping one copy
and returning the other to the students. Therefore, the students were able to refer to
feedback from both consultant and instructor while writing a revision. Figure 3.1
presents the sequence of events followed by each of the student writers participating in
the study, beginning with the composition of a rough draft and leading to the final revised

version. The entire procedure was followed for the first two composition assignments.

42

Figure 3.]: Sequence of Data Collection Events

 

Student writes

/ arough draft. \

Student hands
in a copy of the
draft in class.

 

 

 

 

 

Student brings copy
of draft to the Writing

Center.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

The writing conference, Instructor
a 50 minute drscussron .
of the rough draft writes
between consultant and comments,
student. on student 3
paper.
Student writes l
reflective Instructor
V statement and returns
Student makes note of completes corrected copy
conference suggestions. survey to student.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Student revises composition and
prepares a final draft using
comments from both sources.

 

 

 

3.4 Data Analysis
The available data sources for each student consist of the following: the first draft
of composition one and composition two with written instructor comments, first draft of

composition one and composition two with some written consultant comments,

43

videotapes of conferences for composition one and composition two, reflective
statements written after each consulting session, and a revised draft of each composition.
The copy of the first draft with Clyde’s comments was compared to the video of the
corresponding conference, with the investigator making note of the nature of each set of
comments and determining the similarities and differences between the two. When the
final draft of the paper was turned in, it was photocopied and compared to the first draft.
I compared the feedback from the taped consulting sessions with the written instructor
feedback appearing on the first draft. This analysis consisted of two parts. Part one is
intended to provide an overview of the types of comments made in each response
situation. I counted the number of comments on each first draft, both from the
conference and from the instructor and grouped them according to categories
corresponding with those on the instructor's correction key (see fig. 4.1). Similarities and
differences between the two sets of comments were noted. The results from this analysis
are reported in the following chapter.

In part two of the analysis I compared the final drafts of the compositions with the
rough drafts in order to determine what revisions the students had made. When a revision
was found in one part of the paper I referred to the same section of the rough drafts and
located the comments made by the instructor and consultant for that section. This helped
to determine the apparent source of the revision, which in the case of similar feedback, is
probably a blend of both instructor and consultant influence. In cases in which the
feedback coming from the instructor differs from the consultant feedback for a given area
of the paper, I determined which feedback apparently led to the revision. Results of this

analysis are discussed in the three case studies to follow in chapters five, six and seven.

44

Also discussed in the case studies are analyses of the extent to which the stated
agenda for each conference corresponds to the perceived outcome of the conference
based on the student's reflective statements as well as a discussion of the number and
types of elements of the composition which the students auto-corrected during the read-
aloud phase of the conference. In other words, the former analysis discusses whether the
students got what they expected out of the conference, and the latter investigates the
extent to which students are willing or able to contribute to the revision of writing on
their own. First, however, the focus of this dissertation will turn to a quantitative analysis
of the number and type of comments made on the rough drafts by both the consultant and

the instructor, before moving into the three case study reports.

45

Chapter 4: Quantitative Analysis

4.1 Introduction

This chapter provides a quantitative analysis of data collected over the course of
the study. It includes a tabulation of the total written comments made by the instructor
on the rough drafts of the first and second writing assignments, and compares the total
number of instructor comments with the number of comments made by the writing
consultants during the writing conferences for the first and second compositions.
Looking at the feedback from each source in this way helps inform the three research
questions guiding the study: 1) What similarities and differences exist between the verbal
feedback students receive in a writing conference and the written comments they receive
from their instructors? 2) Do students tend to prefer one type of feedback over the other
when they make revisions to their compositions? and 3) What implications do findings
of this study hold for teaching and for future research on writing conferences in foreign
languages? In addition, this perspective on the data leads to another series of questions
that will supplement the main research questions and may guide future research. For
example, it generates two basic questions: 1) Did one source provide more feedback than
the other and if so, what may be some reasons for this? and 2) What types of feedback
did the consultants give compared to what types the instructor gave?

In addition to the quantitative analysis of the feedback on the rough drafts, this
chapter also includes an evaluation of the extent to which the conferences met the
students' expectations. Negotiation of the topics to be covered in the conferences

compared to the subjects' responses in the post-conference reflective statements enables

46

the investigation of whether the conferences had the desired outcome for each student.
This analysis provides material for the discussion of the pedagogical implications of
writing conferences, as well as generating ideas for modification of future paradigms for
research on the topic of using writing conferences in foreign language teaching; both of
which will be discussed in the final chapter of this dissertation.
4.2 Analysis of the feedback on the rough drafts

To ascertain what types of feedback and just how much feedback came from each
source, I first counted all of the comments on each of the rough drafts. Comments
included in this tabulation were those comprising the written feedback from the instructor
and written feedback from the consultant's notes during the session. It must be noted
here that, only on very few occasions did a consultant make an oral comment in a
conference that diverted fiom comments the consultant wrote on a copy of the draft while
the student read the paper aloud in the beginning of the conference. In these cases, the
oral suggestion was included in the count, although it was seen in the videotape of the
conference and not in written form on the draft of the composition. The following
sections outline the suggestions from each of the sources, discussing the types and
amount of suggestions made.
4.2.1 The instructor's suggestions

Clyde employed a correction key for labeling passages in the compositions where
revisions for grammar and usage were suggested (see figure 4.1). This key was
distributed to the students with some explanation of the items. While Clyde evaluated the
drafts of the essays, he typically circled words or phrases in need of revision, and wrote

one of the abbreviations from the key above them. To tabulate the amount of comments

47

made pertaining to each error type in Clyde's key, I used this key as an aid for
categorizing his suggestions as I counted them.

Figure 4.1: Instructor’s Correction Key
sp: spelling

ww: wrong word. (the word you used does not make sense or is incorrect. Replace it with
a different word).

0: case mistake

e: ending mistake

g: gender mistake

pl: incorrect plural form

w.o.: word order mistake

sva: subject—verb agreement mistake (e.g., he take, or we goes, ich hat, er haben)

wvf: wrong verb form (either conjugated incorrectly, or you used a participle instead of
infinitive, subjunctive instead of indicative, etc.)

Clyde made other comments on the drafts, which did not fit clearly into the
categories listed in the key. I assigned these comments to categories of my own
invention, including addition, deletion and replacement of text, and requests for
clarification. The latter category included notes dealing mainly with content or
organization of the paper. These notes varied in length and were most frequently written
in English. They often urged the students to clarify, expand or explain some concept
mentioned in the text. This category also included instructor responses such as a question
mark written in the margin when the text passage was confusing. A large proportion of
the suggestions for replacing text in the essays diverged from the instructor's correction

key. In other words, the instructor often suggested a replacement for the text in question,

48

which provided a more acceptable word or form, rather than requiring the student to
make the correction on his or her own. A good example of this comes from the rough
draft of a student who had written the following sentence about German business forms.
"Jede Em 1&1 ander Ordnungen, die haben die individuelle F irma gegn‘indet." The
second and third words of this sentence both have Spelling errors, yet the instructor did
not respond to them in the same manner. For the second word, he drew a line through the
word and suggested replacing it with F arm by writing the latter word above the original.
For the third word, however, also a spelling error, the instructor circled the word and
employed the code "Sp" from his correction key to denote a spelling mistake. For the
purposes of this analysis, replacements such as the first example above with Form were
grouped in the category called "replacement". However, such diversion from the
correction key raises questions about how consistently foreign language instructors
adhere to their keys, and how appropriate the application of such keys to student
compositions may be. These questions may prove valuable for a future study on the use
of correction keys in foreign language writing instruction.

Table 4.1 below provides an overview of the number of instructor comments in
each category of the correction key as well as categories of comments I identified, and
the proportion of comments in each category to the total number of comments made by
the instructor. The categories above the dashed line appeared in the correction key. The
items below the dashed line were identified by me in the analysis. These include
suggestions for deletion, addition or replacement of elements of the student composition,
suggestions for solving punctuation problems, and a category which encompasses margin

notes requesting clarification of passages or referring to content. In addition, the

49

categories of subject-verb agreement and wrong verb form have been combined due to
ambiguity in the instructor's definition of these errors and the fact that subj ect-verb
agreement was far more readily used in responding to the students' verb errors.

Table 4.1: Instructor comments by category on 9 rough drafts for each assignment

 

 

A1 # % A2 # %
e 96 5-9% 6 232 10.1%
sp 126 7.7% sp 226 9.9%
sva,wvf 45 2.8% sva,wvf 52 2.3%
WO 71 4-3% WO 108 4.7%
W 35 2 .1 % W 97 4.2%
c 64 3-9% C 129 5.6%
9 117 72% 9 63 2.7%
9' 23 14% pl 85 3 7%
861616 """"" '2’0'1 """ 1 '2i35/Lm'déiét'é """ gg‘dmgga/g
add 101 6.2% add 107 4.7%
replace 437 26.7% replace 465 203%
request 207 12.7% request 251 10.9%
punct 113 6.9% punct 143 6.5%
total 1636 100.0%: total 2293 100.0%

 

4.2.2 The writing conference suggestions

The three writing consultants did not use a specific correction key, rather they
were introduced to aspects of writing conference responses through the literature they
read and the practice consulting they did during the course of their training as described
in the previous chapter. One particularly useful article proved to be Harris and Silva
(1993). This article suggests differentiating between errors that will disrupt the reader's
ability to understand, which they refer to as global concerns, and errors that will not,
which they refer to as local concerns. The consultants did agree that such global
concerns should be the focus of each session, also taking into account what the student
reported as his or her main concerns. Nonetheless, one sees that much of the sessions

revolved around the discussion of local concerns, which, when appearing in great

50

numbers in a student's essay, do tend to distract the reader from the meaning of the text.
In some of the sessions it can be argued that the grammar needed to be corrected before
any mention of the organization or content of the essay could be made. Therefore, the
discussion of grammar points could not be overlooked in the sessions, but useful
suggestions for dealing with grammatical errors also came from Harris and Silva (1993).
In discussing ESL writing conferences, they claim that "most of the errors made by ESL
writers..." constitute the four areas of verbs (including inflection and verb forms), nouns
(including inflection for plural forms), articles (whether misapplied or missing altogether)
and prepositions (mainly when they are linked with nouns and verbs in idiomatic
expressions).

Even though the consultants did not use a correction key and never saw the
instructor's key during the course of the study, there appears to be a common
understanding of what errors are important, in that the consultants' comments aligned
closely with Clyde's in proportion and type over both assignments. With only a few
exceptions the consultants made written comments on the rough drafts for those areas of
the text which they discussed with the student authors. The types of comments made
only orally were to point out spelling errors or to give some general comment on the way
the student's writing flows. Table 4.2 below provides an overview of the number of
writing conference comments in each category, and the proportion of comments in each
category to the total number of comments made in the conference. Again, the data for

both writing assignments are shown.

51

Table 4.2: Consultant comments by category for 9 rough drafts of each assignment

 

 

 

A1 # % A2 # %
e 3 0.6% e 35 3.9%
so 77 15.3% SD 105 11.8%
sva,wvf 9 1 .8°/o sva,wvf 13 1 5%
wo 45 8.9% wo 55 6.2%
w 10 2.0% w 75 8.4%
c 16 32% C 118 13.3%
9 7 1-4% 9 2 0.2%
pl 3 0 6% pl 5 o 6%
Hél'ét'é""°""5'é """ 1 '1ii%mab§ié’té """ ; 5"”"5‘3'90'
add 40 7.9% add 72 3.1 0/0
replace 1 78 35.3% replace 278 31 3%
request 19 3.8% request 20 2.3%
punct 38 7.5% punct 62 10%
total 504 100.0%) total 888 100.0%

 

4.3 Comparing the two sets of feedback

When comparing the data shown in Tables 4.1 and 4.2 in an attempt to
characterize the feedback flom each source, one observes that the total number of
comments written by the instructor is greater than the number of comments written or
verbalized by the consultants. There are two reasons why this fact is not surprising. First
of all, since the instructor was limited to using written commentary to get his points
across he needed to make more comments than the consultants who also had body
language and dialog at their disposal. Secondly, the time flame of the writing conference
may have played a role in limiting the number of comments made by the consultants in
comparison to the number of instructor comments.

I also studied the data in the tables 4.1 and 4.2 to determine whether one category
or type of feedback was more commonly used in one source, and why this might be the
case. The two most commonly used feedback categories for the instructor's feedback

were replacement and clarification requests. Replacement suggestions were also the most

52

commonly made suggestions in the writing conferences, probably since they allow for

alternative ways of expressing the meaning carried by the text, which is much of the point

behind response to writing in the first place. The next most common suggestions in the

writing conferences were those meant to draw attention to spelling errors, which included

misspelled words, missing umlauts and failure to capitalize a noun. Table 4.3 shows the

rank of categories flom most commonly used to least commonly used based on the

numbers and proportions seen in tables 4.1 and 4.2 for the first composition. It is

noteworthy that four of the categories received the same rank across both sources:

replacement, deletion, punctuation and plurals. Two other categories varied only slightly

in rank: agreement/wrong verb and case.

Table 4.3: Rank order of categories for both feedback sources for assignment 1

 

Writing Conference Instructor
Replacement 35.3% Replacement 26.7%
Spelling 15.3% Request 12.7%
Deletion 11.7% Deletion 12.3%

Word Order 8.9% Spelling 7.7%
Addition 7.9% Gender 7.2%
Punctuation 7.5% Punctuation 6.9%
Request 3.8% Addition 6.2%

Case 3.2% Ending 5.9%
Wrong Word 2.0% Word Order 4.3%
Agree/Wrong Verb 1.8% Case 3.9%
Gender 1.4% Agree/Wrong Verb 2.8%

Ending/Plurals 0.6%

 

Wrong Word 2.1%
Plurals 1.4%

Though the rank of the categories for the second composition varies in many ways flom

the rank of categories for the first composition, many similarities can also be seen in

Table 4.4. The replacement category is once again at the top, and punctuation also shares

the same rank in instructor and conference feedback. In addition, two other categories

come very close to sharing ranking positions, namely word order and verb agreement.

Table 4.4: Rank order of categories for both feedback sources for assignment 2

 

Writifl Conference Instructor
Replacement 31.3% Replacement 20.3%
Case 13.3% Deletion 14.4%
Spelling 11.8% Request 10.9%
Wrong Word 8.4% Ending 10.1%
Addition 8.1% Spelling 9.9%
Punctuation 7.0% Punctuation 6.5%
Word Order 6.2% Case 5.6%
Deletion 5.4% Word Order/Addition 4.7%
Ending 3.9% Wrong Word 4.2%
Request 2.3% Plural 3.7%
Agree/Wrong Verb 1.5% Gender 2.7%
Plural 0.6% Agree/Wrong Verb 2.3%

Gender 0.2%

 

Thus the analysis of the comments flom both sources as shown in the tables above

invites two interesting observations. First, even though the consultants did not have

access to or knowledge of the instructor’s key during the data collection, their comments

tended to follow the same categories as those used by the instructor to label items for

revision. That kind of parallelism suggests that both consultant and instructor were able

to pinpoint the features of the language in the compositions which, if left unrevised,

would hinder communication between the author of the text and its reader. It may also be

the case that the consultants, having previously participated in foreign language writing

as students and/or assistant teachers, had developed a schema for evaluating student

writing based on the ubiquitous use of similar correction keys in language courses.

Whether one or both of the above explanations is true, the consultants and instructor were

each targeting the same grammatical forms in the compositions, a fact that holds positive

implications for the use of writing conferences in teaching foreign language writing.
Secondly, looking at the data regarding the proportions of comments made in each
category to the total number of comments showed that there was overlap in the feedback
received flom both sources. Similarity exists not only in the type of feedback the
students received from both sources, but also in the quantity of feedback. The proportion
of comments in the categories of the writing conference is very similar to the proportion
of written comments in the same categories in the instructor’s feedback. In six of the
categories the difference constituted one percentage point or less, and in one other
category less than two percentage points. This result speaks to the first research question
by showing that the feedback student authors received flom the writing conferences was
very similar to the feedback they received flom the instructor of the course. Such a
finding holds implications for the implementation of writing conferences in foreign
language writing pedagogy which will be discussed in the final chapter of this
dissertation.
4.4 Analysis of student expectations and perceived conference outcomes
At the outset of each conference, in a process hereafter described as "setting the
agenda" (N ewkirk,1989), the consultant and the student discuss the student's desires for
the focus of the writing conference. Questions typically asked by the consultant to
initiate the conference include: What aspects of your writing or of your paper would you
like to focus on? What do you want to talk about? Are there some specific areas you
have challenges with? When the student responds to these questions by suggesting an
area to focus on, it is reasonable to assume that the student expects that area to be treated

in the dialog of the conference in some way. Therefore, the responses to the agenda

55

setting questions in the beginning of each conference will be referred to here as the
students' expectations.

The perceptions of conference outcomes were gathered flom the post-conference
reflective statements written by each student. Effort was always made on the part of the
consultants to offer help in the areas specifically mentioned by the students. However, in
all cases the consultants also found other aspects of the student compositions which the
student did not identify him- or herself, yet which needed attention because they
interfered with the comprehensibility of the text. Therefore, the perceived outcomes
listed in the reflective statements did not always exactly match the expectations of the
students, but they did represent areas in which the student felt that the conference had
been helpful.

Table 4.5 lists the expectations of each student for the conference (i.e. the areas
or aspects of the composition they wished to talk about in depth and for which they
wished to receive feedback), as well as students' perceived outcomes as taken flom the
reflective statements. Regarding expectations, whenever the student replied to the
consultant's agenda setting questions that he or she would like to discuss the grammar of
the paper, the consultant explained that grammar is a larger concern and perhaps one or
two aspects of grammar could be discussed in the session. In spite of this attempt on the
part of the consultant to pare down the students' expectations regarding grammar,
students sometimes replied that they wanted to cover all grammar concerns that happen
to arise out of their papers. Regarding perceived outcomes, the statements include
outcomes falling into two categories. Many of the statements outline what the students

felt they learned flom the session pertaining to their product; the composition under

56

scrutiny in the conference, while many other statements, sometimes flom the same
student, describe a motivation to change their writing process arising out of the present
conference. The latter are denoted in the table with the distinction M=. The notations in
the table are key words taken flom the conference or flom the reflective statements. For
the complete text of the reflective statements see Appendix A.

Table 4.5: Expectations and Perceived Outcomes by Subject: Assignment 1

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Subject Expectations Perceived Outcomes
Herman Arguments Complicated Structure
Genitive Case Precision/Clarity
Harley Unspecified Tense/ Case
"need help with everything" M= Prooflead
Homer Support and Length Clarity
Complicated Forms Simple Errors
Harris Expressions Organized Well
Sentence Structure Grammar
Organization Variety
Harold Sentence Structure Clarity
Main Ideas Flow of Ideas/Argumentation
Hazel Grammar Vocabulary
Content M= Support thesis
Helen Organization Organization of arguments
Word order
Case
Elmer Case M= Take more time
Argumentation M= Think through writing

 

 

 

 

 

57

 

Table 4.5 cont.

 

Howard Word order Word order
Endings Endings
Expression M= Read aloud

 

 

 

 

 

The results for student authors Harris, Harold, Helen and Howard Show a direct
correlation between the expectations they had at the beginning of the writing conference
and the perceived outcomes of the dialog. Even in cases for which there was not direct
correlation between the wording of the agenda and the reflective statement, however, the
perceived outcome certainly arose flom some aspect of the writing conference. It is quite
probable then, that a discussion of case and argumentation in Elmer's composition (to use
just one example) resulted in the student's motivation to take more time on the next
assignment and think through the process of writing and the structure of the essay.

Table 4.6 shows the expectations and perceived outcomes for the conferences in
the second writing assignment. In many cases these outcomes are more aligned with the
expectations student-authors had at the outset of the conferences. Lengthier discussion of
the agreement or disagreement of expectations and outcomes will appear in the three case
studies to follow this chapter.

Table 4.6 Expectations and Perceived Outcomes by Subject: Assignment 2

 

 

 

Subject Expectations Perceived Outcomes
Herman No Agenda Set Relative clauses
Capitalization
Verbs
Complexity
Harley Length Extended Modifiers
Word Order M=Read Aloud
M=Prooflead

 

 

 

 

 

58

 

Table 4.6 cont.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Homer Content Genitive
Complex Forms Passive
M=Simplify
Harris Style M=Avoid long sentences
Verbs M=Prooflead for Verbs
M=Read Aloud
Harold Grammar Clarity
Content Grammar
Main Arguments and Content
Support M=Read Aloud
Hazel Unspecified Extended Modifiers
"need help with everything" M=Read Aloud
Helen Adjective Endings Need for supporting
Grammar Arguments
Organization Endings
M=Prooflead
Elmer Unspecified M=Make Sentence Structure
"need help with everything" More Complex
M=Read Aloud
Howard Word Order Problems with Ambiguous
Spelling Subjects
Endings Subject/Verb Agreement
Subject/Verb Agreement M=Read Aloud

 

4.5 Looking ahead toward the case studies

Of the nine students participating in the study, the data regarding only three are

selected for incorporation in the following chapters of the dissertation. I wished to

describe the writing conferences of one student with each of the three consultants, and
began a process to eliminate the data sets of six of the student authors. The pool of nine
subjects was narrowed down to these three by eliminating the best student in the group,

the poorest student in the group, one student who had had extensive experience living and

59

 

attending school in Germany, one student for whom the first writing conference could not
be entirely recorded. By this point in the elimination there was only one student
remaining in the groups working with two of the three consultants, therefore it was
determined that Harold's conference with Martin and Homer's conference with me would
become the subjects of case studies. This left three sets of data for the remaining
consultant, Richard, two of which needed to be eliminated for the sake of consistency.
The elimination continued over the course of analyzing the data until I determined that
Herman's case provided the most informative dialog between student and consultant.

In order to more firlly inform the research questions guiding the study, as well as
the additional questions raised in this chapter, the cases of these three student authors are
investigated in the following three chapters of this dissertation. I will discuss the dialog
between the consultant and the student author during the writing conferences, the
comments made by the consultant, the comments made by the course instructor, and the
reflective statements written by the student immediately following the writing
conferences. This analysis will serve to inform the three research questions of the study
by (a) providing another look at the similarities and differences between writing
conference feedback and instructor feedback on the essays, (b) revealing whether
students use one set of feedback preferentially when revising their written work and (c)
allowing me to make some statements regarding the pedagogical implications of writing

conferences for German as a foreign language.

60

Chapter 5: Herman's Case

5.1 Profile of Herman
Herman is a Caucasian male who at the time of the study had sophomore standing
at Michigan State University with a major in Marketing. He has a self -reported grade
point average of 3.5 out of 4.0 in German. He reported English as his first language, had
not studied abroad and reported four years of German as a foreign language in secondary
school. Herman brought 6 full typed pages of text with him to both the first and second
writing conferences. In the first writing assignment Herman presented the advantages
and disadvantages of various business forms in Germany, concluding that
AmeriChemists should choose to create the subsidiary in Germany as a limited liability
corporation. His draft in response to the second assignment provided background
information on various management styles in the United States and Germany, listed
advantages and disadvantages of intercultural training for managers, and concluded that
the fictitious company should employ local German management rather than importing
management flom the US. due to concerns over cost and effectiveness of intercultural
training.
5.2 Negotiated agenda for the conferences (expectations) and perceived conference
outcomes
A clear agenda for the first conference is set before Herman begins reading his
paper aloud. In this phase of the session, he and Richard agree to focus on two aspects of
the essay. These include clarity and support of Herman's arguments throughout the paper

as well as the use of the Genitive Case. Both of these topics are only briefly treated in the

61

conference dialog, and in the reflective statement, Herman mentions that he is motivated
to attend more to clarity and specificity and avoid being redundant in his statement and
restatement of ideas. This motivation to avoid redundancy is influenced by the
discussion at the end of the conference, which is really the only time any mention is made
of support or organizational issues. The agenda was set at the beginning of the
conference as follows:

Richard: ...Bevor wir das machen, gibt es Bereiche, also spezifische Bereiche,
wo du dein Schreiben schwach findest oder gibt es-
Herman: uhhh Wir mfissen Nachteile und Vorteile fiir GmbH oder
Aktiengesellschaft finden und dann unterstiitzen, und vielleicht ist das wo ich
Probleme hatte.
Richard: Mit der Argumentation?
Herman: Mit der Untersttitzung vielleicht, mit AG und GmbH und die
Unterschiede zwischen die beide.
Richard: Was im Spezifischen? Ob die Argumente klar sind, oder ob sie gut
sind?
Herman: Beide, klar und gut, J a beide.
Richard: Gut. Andere Bereiche? Einige Personen kommen zu mir und sagen,
"J a meine Organisation ist. . .ich m6chte Organisation angucken oder Ubergange."
Oder gibt es andere Bereiche, die wir besprechen sollen? Manchmal haben sie
Probleme rrrit einem spezifischen grammatischen Konzept.
Herman: Vielleicht etwas mit Genitiv.

(Herman/Richard/ A1 )

AS the conference progresses, however, focus is shifted to word choice, word
order and sentence structure, where it remains through the entire session until Richard
returns to the agenda topics at the very end. The genitive case is only the focus of
discussion twice during the conference, and both times Richard only needs to remind
Herman that it was probably his intention to implement the genitive case, upon which
reminder Herman promptly provides the correct forms, as in the following example:

Richard: (reads flom text) "Die Fiihnmg. . ." ok Untemehmen?

Herman: das
Richard: das Untemehmen, und du willst Genitiv damit meinen.

62

Herman: die Fiihrung des?
(Herman/Richard/ A 1 )

In contrast to the opening moment of the first conference, in which possible topics
for discussion are mentioned, no specific agenda was set during the second writing
conference, rather Herman began to read aloud after a brief introduction to the topic.
Richard explained flom the beginning that he would be stopping the reading at various
points to determine whether Herman wished to discuss the content of a given paragraph
or section of the paper. Richard also used these opportunities to raise his own concerns
about the understandability of the text.

Richard: Was fiir ein Werk ist das?

Herman: Das ist ein Bericht fiber Americhemists. Die haben jetzt eine deutsche

Tochterfirrna und sie entscheiden, ob sie Fuhrungskrafte aus Deutschland

anstellen sollen, oder Leute aus Amerika nach Deutschland schicken sollen.

Richard: Und hier darin gibt es Argumente fiir und gegen?

Herman: J a, genau.

Richard: Uberall ein Argument dafiir aber es gibt Grtinde von beiden Seiten.’

Wunderbar—-—und nochmal wir machen, dass du liest das vor. Wir machen das ein

bisschen zwischendurch, dann am Ende besprechen wir das ganz durch.

Herman: OK

(Herman/Richard/AZ)

Based on Herman’s response in the post-conference reflection, he felt the
discussion had informed him on how to revise relative clauses, capitalization, verbs and
complexity. Since no agenda was set for the conference, it is difficult to ascertain what
the student author expected flom the session, and therefore also difficult to draw a
correlation between expectations and the perceived outcomes mentioned above as
responses to the survey.

Regarding the subject of complexity, it is unclear whether Herman is motivated to

make his sentences more complex or less complex, but in the following excerpt flom the

63

conference Richard advocates caution whenever Herman attempts more complex forms,
so that the intended meaning of the passage is still communicated.

Richard: “Wenn die Vorgesetzten aus dem Land die Tochterfirma kommen. . .”
Was meinst du damit? Ah! Du meinst von der Tochterfirma, ja?
Herman: I a, wenn sie in dem Land die Tochterfrrma wohnen.
Richard: Eigentlich, ich glaube du willst hier Genitiv benutzen. Genitiv, die
Firma?
Herman: der Firma.
Richard: J a, der F irrna. Das ist eine Mdglichkeit. “Wenn die Vorgesetzten aus
dem Land der Tochterfirma kommen.”
Herman: When the management comes flom the land of the new branch of the
company—“verstehen sie besser die Kunden und Mitarbeiter”—they understand
better the consumers and workers of the company.
Richard: Hier kommt das ein bisschen ungeschickt vor. Ein bisschen unbequem.
“aus dem Land der Tochterfirma.” Wir wissen die Tochterfirma ist in
Deutschland, j a? Also, “wenn die Vorgesetzten aus Deutschland kommen.”
Herman: OK OK
Richard: ES gibt nichts falsches danrit, aber es ist kompliziert, wo es nicht
kompliziert sein muss.

(Herman/Richard/A2)

5.3 Herman’s auto-correction during the read aloud protocol and its impact on
revrsron

Harris and Silva (1993) characterize asking the author to read aloud as a strategy
that can be successfully used to get students in native language writing conferences to
find and correct some of their own errors. At the same time they caution that reading
aloud is not as effective for error detection even for high proficiency writers in English as
a second language. Nevertheless, self-correction of errors during the writing conference
was quite common among the nine student authors in this study. Herman provides an
excellent example of this, since he found fifteen errors while reading his first essay aloud,
orally correcting all of them. The errors included wrong spelling, omitted umlauts, wrong

case markers, wrong relative pronoun and unnecessary words. Table 1 shows the original

64

text of the rough draft and Herman's utterances during his reading of the paper. He
successfully self-corrected errors numbered 7 and 8 with confidence, then reassessed his
corrections, however, and read just what was printed on the paper. Both of these errors
were later discussed in more detail in episodes 15 and 18 of the conference.

Table 5.1: Herman's self corrections while reading aloud in the first conference

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

No. Original Text of Rough Draft Herman's Utterance
1 Hochentwichelte hochentwickelte
In die Verfassung deS Die Verfassung des
Untemehmens erklart Untemehmens erklart
3 sind. . .Unterschiede. . .leicht sehen sind. . .Unterschiede. . .leicht zu
sehen
4 Beschrakt beschriinkt
5 Fromen Forrnen
6 ein einer Aktiengesellschaft In einer Aktiengesellschaft
7 Untemehmen, der wachsen wollen Untemehmen, die (pause) der
wachsen wollten (pause) wollen
8 Hier gibt es einer Vorstand Hier gibt es einen (pause) einer
Vorstand
9 Drei Giippe Drei Gruppe
10 J ede Giippe Jede Gruppe
ll Diese Giippe Diese Gruppe
12 Gehoren gehOren
l3 Auslandische ausl'andische
14 Wachst Wachst
15 Jgewohnlich gethnlich

 

 

 

 

 

Though these errors were discovered and corrections were attempted by the
student, not all of them were also noted by the instructor in the written commentary on
the rough draft, neither were all of them identified as topics for discussion in the writing
conference. Table 5.2 shows whether each of the fifteen self corrections was also
addressed by conference talk or by the instructor, and whether a revision was made on

each in the final version of the composition.

65

Table 5.2: comments and revisions on Herman's self-corrected elements (A1)

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Error No. Conference Instructor Revision made
comment comment

1 No No No
2 Yes Yes Yes
3 No No Yes
4 Yes Yes Yes
5 No No No
6 Yes Yes Yes
7 Yes Yes Yes
8 Yes Yes Yes
9 No Yes Yes
10 No No No
1 1 No No No
12 No Yes Yes
13 Yes Yes Yes
14 Yes Yes Yes
1 5 No Yes No

 

 

 

 

 

 

As the data show, the fact that the student notices the error in the read aloud does
not guarantee that a revision of the error will occur in the final draft. Of all the errors
noticed, in fact, the ones to spur revisions in the final draft were those which had been
commented on either in the conference or by the instructor, usually both. This leads one
to the conclusion that what gets marked on a paper gets corrected. Even grievous
spelling errors like Gr'ippe for Gruppe in 9,10 and 11 above, though noticed in a close
reading aloud session, are left in the paper if not included in the talk of the conference or
the written commentary of the instructor. This is a fact that is borne out by the
occurrence of the inverse Situation. For number 9 above, the instructor did label Gfippe

as an error, namely a false plural form. The revision made by Herman in the final draft of

66

the paper reflected his attention to the instructor's comment, yet belied his self-corrective
moment in the conference: he had changed Giippe to Gfippen.

Error number three provides one exception to the statement made above that the
self corrections leading to revisions in the final draft were those that were mentioned in
one source of feedback or the other. No mention of an error was made at that spot by the
consultant or by the instructor, yet an important revision was correctly made in the final
version. This exception among so many other counterexamples of self-correction
supports the claim made by Hanis and Silva (1993). They agreed that students could
self-correct while reading aloud, but they also argued that the method was not a very
effective one for students writing in a second language (535). The exception of error
number three Speaks to the former part of their claim, the majority of counterexamples
speaks to the latter. The student's attention to the error is often not enough to spur a
correction. Rather, some extended attention must be paid to the error by another party,
either by talking about it or making some notation about it, before the student
understands how to properly identify and correct it.

In the second conference between Herman and Richard, ten attempts at self-
correction were made during the read-aloud phase. All of the instances in which
corrections were made had to do with spelling and word choice. Table 5.3 outlines the
original text and the self-correction for each item, followed by Table 5.4, which considers
whether each self-correction was followed up by a comment flom either the consultant or
the instructor and whether the revision was then made in the final draft of the

composition.

67

Table 5.3: Herman's self corrections while reading aloud in the second conference

 

2
o

Original Text of Rough Draft

Herman's Utterance

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

1 Tocheterfirrna Tochterfirrna
2 Geography Geographic

3 moglich mOglich

4 erreichten erreichen

5 Erforg Erfolg

6 alle Die

7 Idtitifizieren Identifizieren
8 Die Erffl fiber die Erfolg
9 diese Fiihrungskr'afte Sie

10 verschieden verschiedene

 

 

Table 5.4: comments and revisions on Herman's self-corrected elements (A2).

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Error No. Conference Instructor Revision made
comment comment
1 No No No
2 No Yes Yes
3 Yes No Yes
4 Yes Yes Yes
5 Yes No No
6 No No No
7 Yes Yes Yes
8 Yes Yes Yes
9 Yes No Yes
10 No Yes Yes

 

 

 

 

 

 

Once again, with only two exceptions, the elements Herman self-corrected while
reading aloud were only subsequently incorporated in the final draft of his essay when
also mentioned by the instructor or in both the conference and the instructor feedback.
The exceptions can be seen in errors 3 and 9 in Table 5.4 above. The first instance of
note is the omission of the umlaut in “mdglich” which constitutes error 3 in Table 5.4.

This omission is not mentioned outright in the conference, though Richard did mark the

68

word on the rough draft copy which Herman later took with him flom the session. Clyde
did not make mention of the umlaut in his commentary, yet the revision is incorporated in
the final draft. Therefore, Herman must have made the correction based on either his
own correction, or the mark Richard made on the draft. Conversely, the auto-corrected
error 9 in Table 5.4 was explicitly mentioned in the conference talk. Herman read a long
passage flom the rough draft, after which Richard was inclined to stop the reading and
begin a discussion of the text. This episode of the conference focused on use of the
genitive case and word choice, including consulting a dictionary on two separate
occasions. Near the end of the episode, Richard tests out the passage with the
suggestions he had negotiated with Herman.

Richard: J a genau. Wie liest das jetzt? “Wenn ortsflemde Fiihrungskréifte zu

einer Tochterfirma reisen miissen. . .”

Herman: miissen sie

Richard: J a, OK. “mitssen sie” klingt besser-nicht so redundant- “mifssen Sie

fiber viele Aspekte des neuen Landes wissen.”

(Herman/Richard/AZ)

It is noteworthy that Herman reiterated his auto-correction in the conference talk,
and gained acceptance for his own suggestion flom Richard. Clyde made no suggestion
for revision of this element, however. Therefore it is clear that the auto-correction did in
this case precipitate attending to the error, which then led to the precise incorporation of
the revision in the final draft.

Items 8 and 10 in Table 5.4 are also noteworthy when discussing the precision of
final revisions. In the case of item 8, Herman had originally written the following

sentence: “Die Mitarbeiterlnnen mfissen eine Selbstverantwortlichkeit die Erfolg des

Betriebs fiihlen...” As he reads aloud, Herman notices that a preposition should precede

69

“die Erfolg.” In his auto-correction he chooses the preposition “fiber.” During the
conference, however, Richard makes another suggestion.

Richard: Also der letzte Satz. Das heiBt “Die MitarbeiterInnen miissen eine

Selbstverantwortlichkeit fiir den Erfolg. . .”

Herman: fitr?

Richard: The workers must feel a responsibility for the success of the company.

Herman: OK

(Herman/Richard/A2)

The use of the preposition “fiir” in this position is also suggested in Clyde’s
comments, though it is made in conjunction with other suggestions which ultimately
render the instructor’s comments unclear. The phrase “die Erfolg des Betriebs” has been
crossed out, the note “OK” written underneath the printed line, and “fiir den” written in
flont of the crossed out words. In addition, a box has been drawn around the entire
phrase and the verb “fiihlen” replaced with “spiiren.” Through these various layers of
corrections, it appears that Clyde is suggesting “Die MitarbeiterInnen miissen eine
Selbstverantwortlichkeit fiir sptiren. . .” and precisely that wording finds its way into the
final draft.

Clyde’s suggestion for the revision of item 10 was also followed precisely. While
reading aloud Herman changed “verschieden” to “verschiedene” to denote that the
adjective was modifying a pluralized noun. In this case the reader’s instinct was correct,
but when it came time to make the final revision he chose to incorporate the suggestion
made by the instructor, who had marked the word, yet not given any indication as to

which type of error it constituted. Clyde had only drawn a line through the letter “n” on

the end of the word, and Herman revised it precisely as “verschiede.”

70

5.4 Comparison of episodes of conference feedback, instructor feedback and
actual revisions

In the conference on the first writing assignment, Richard made 80 comments in
eleven episodes of talk, whereas Clyde’s written suggestions totaled 214. Figure 5.1
presents the full, original text of Herman's first writing assignment, annotated to show the
source of comments made for each episode of the conference. A similar figure will be
provided for each writing assignment discussed in the following case studies. The term
episode refers to an instance of feedback arising flom the discussion of the student's text
in the writing conference, as observed on the videotape of the conference. A numeral in
brackets in the text of the figure designates the episode number which corresponds to the
episode discussed in detail later in the chapter (note that for figure 5.1 the first episode is
at the end of the composition). Conference feedback for each episode is then compared
with written feedback flom the instructor. Bold text in Figure 5.1 signifies that a
suggestion for correction of the passage in question came only flom the conference,
underlined text signifies that a suggestion came flom both the conference and the
instructor. Since a criterion for definition of the episode is that feedback occurred in the
videotaped writing conference, there are no episodes in which feedback came only flom
the instructor. This is not to say that there were no points in the text in which the
instructor alone made comments. These passages are not the focus of my study,
however, rather it is the comparison between the conference and instructor feedback for

the episodes discussed.

71

Figure 5.1: Annotated text of Herman's first writing assignment

Nach viel F orschung hat Herr Klebstoff eine Entscheidung gemacht. AmeriChemist wird eine
Tochterfirma in Deutschland errichten. Jetzt wissen wir das AmeriChemists eine neue Produktionsstate in
Deutschland errichten wird, aber welche Untemehmensform soll AmeriChemists wiihlen? In Deutschland
gibt es viele Formen von Untemehmen der sehr hochgesetzt und specifisch [2] sind. Es gibt in
Deutschland Einzeluntemehmen, Personengesellschaften, (OHGs, und KGS) und Kapitalgesellschaften
(AG und GmbH). Beide Hauptformen von Gesellschaften haben hochentwichelte Organen dari'rnter, aber
was ist fiir AmeriChemists besser? AmeriChemists ist neu in Deutschland und es ist in seiner beste
interessen [2] eine Kapitalgesellschaft zu sein mit der Prinzipen [2] einer GmbH als Untemehemensform
zu benutzen.

In Deutschland gibt es wirklich zwei haupt Wahle wenn ein Untemehmen sich in Deutschland
gri'mden wollte. Diese Wahle sind die Personengelsellschaft oder die Kapitalgesellschaft. Beide Formen
haben ihre inncre Ordnung von den gesetzlichen Rahmenbedinbungen bestimrnt. Diese regeln handeln sich
haupsiichtlich rrrit Untemehmensformen und Mitbestimmungsrecht. Die regeln und Bedingungen von
diesen Rechtsformen sind in der Verfassung des Untemehmens geschrieben.

In die Verfassung des Untemehmens erkliirt die Haftung der Kapitaleingentiimerlnnen, die Regeln
fiir Gewinn und Verlustbeteiligung, und einen Plan fiir die Leitung des Untemehmens. Hier sind die grosse
unterschiede zwischen Personengesellschaften und Kapitalgesellschaften leicht sehen.

Allerdings ist die grOsste unterschied zwischen die zwei Formen die triiger von Verlusst [2].
Personengesellschaften haben fast alle unbeschrankte Haftung. Das heisst, der Besitzer oder die
Gesellschafter tragen alle Verlust des Untemehmens. W_e________________nn das Untemehmen mehr als die Wert des
U__n_ternehmens selbst verliert miissen der Besitzer oder die Gesellschafter aus ihrer eigenen Taschen
Bezahlen. Auf der anderen Seite, Kapitalgesellschaften haben meistens beschrankte Haftung. Das heisst,

wenn die Kapitaleigentumer oder aktienbesitzer ihre Anteil verloren, sie miissen nie mehr bezahlen [3]
Erst gibt es die Personengesellschafien die Offene Handelsgesellschaft (OHG) und

Kormnanditgesellschaft (KG) heissen. In Einer Offene Handelsgesellschaft gibt es mindestens zwei
Gesellschafter. D.H. cine OHG ist eine Partnerschaft wie andere Personengesellschaften. In so eine
Untemehmensform haben beide oder alle Gesellschafter gewiihnlich die gleiche Rechte und Pflichten.
Hier in diesem Form gibt es unbeschrfinkte Haftung und das Gewinn und Verlust sind zwischen die

Gesellschafter gleich beteiligt. Die Fiihrung der Untemehmen ist auch gleich beteiligt.
Die zweite Halbe von Personengesellschaftenfihandelt sich mit Kommanditgesellschaft (KG) [4].
Eine Kommanditgesellschaft hat zwei verschiedene teile die Kornplementiire und Kormnanditisten heissen.

Die Komplementare sind wirklich die Fiihrer des Untemehmens. Sie haften unbeschrankt wie in einer
OHG. Doch sind die Konrplementiire anders. Die Komplementiire sind beschriikt und nur fiir ihre Einlage
verantwortlich.

Wenn einen Betrieb grosser werden wollte, oft wahlen sie ein Form von einer Kapitalgesellschaft
[5]. In einer Kapitalgesellschaft gibt es zwei Fromen die Aktiengesellschaft (AG) und Gesellschaft mit
beschrttnkter Haftung (GmbH) heissen. Kapitalgesellschaften sind viel anders als Personengesellschaften
und die Unterschiede dafiir handeln sich mit dem Grundkapital, die beteiligung von Gewinn und Verlust,
und die Fi'rhrung des Betriebs.

Der Kapital einer Akteingesellschaft kornrnt von Kaptialeigentumer der Aktien kaufen. Diese
Aktienbesitzer einlagen ihr Geld in dem Untemehmen und bekommen Aktien dafur. Diese Aktien sind an
der BOse gehandelt. ein einer Aktiengesellschaft haften die aktienbesitzer beschrfinkt. Das Heisst die
Aktienbesitzer sind nur fiir ihre Aktien verantwortlich und wenn das Untemehmen mehr als das
Grundkapital verliert, miissen die Aktienbesitzer nie mehr bezahlen. Diese Untemehmensform ist
gethnlich fiir grosse Untemehmen und Untemehmen der wachsen wollen [6]. In eine Aktiengesellschaft
gibt es viel mehr verantwortungen als in cine Personengesellshaft. Und zwar, Eine AG muss rrrindestens
1000000 DM als Grundkapital haben um zu errichten.

Endlich gibt es die Leitungsform einer AG. Hier gibt es einer Vorstand, einen Aufsichtsrat, und
ein Hauptversammlung. Der Vorstand ist eine Samrnlung von die Topma_n§2er des Untemehmens. Die
Mitglieder des Vorstands diirfen h6chstens 5 iahre d_arin sein [7]. Diese Mitglieder sind verantwortlich

vierteljiihrlich einen Bericht uber die Untemehmensentwicklung zu erstatten. Auch miissen sie einen
Jahresabschluss vorbereiten und die Hauptversamrrrlung einmal irn Jahr einberufen. Der Aufsichtsrat ist
das iiberwachende Organ der AG. Die Mitglieder sind jede vier Jahre beratet. Ihrer Hauptpflicht ist den

72

Figure 5.1 cont.

Jahresabschluss zu priifcn und die Hauptversamrnlung zu informieren. Doch, wenn ein Untemehmen
weniger als 500 Bcschaftigtcn hat miisscn sic keiner Aufsichtsrat haben. Das letzte Teil dcr AG Organist
die Hauptvcrsammlung. Diese Gruppe ist aus den Aktienbesitzer gemacht und sic wihlcn dcr
Aufsichtsratrnitglicdcr. Sic diirfcn Satzungsandcrungcn machen abcr sic brauchen cine qualifrzicrtc
Mehrheit (75%) um dicse iindcrung zu machen. Insgesamt vertritt die Hauptvcrsarnmlung die Interessen
dcr Aktienbesitzer.

Obwohl cine GmbH cine Kapitalgcsellschaft wie cine AG ist, haben sic einer Form dcr cin
Bisschen andcrs ist. Bei einer GmbH gibt es auch drei Giippc in dcr Inner Ordnung, jede Giippc spiclt cine
verschiedene Rollc als in einer AG. Eine Gcschiifisfiihrcrlnncn gibt es in einer GmbH statt eines
Vorstandcs. Diese Leute sind die Leitcr dcs Untemehmens aber sic sind auch die Gesellschafterlnncn, das
heisst sic sind oft die Kapitaleigentumer aber sic mussen nicht Gesellschafter sein. Dirckt dariinter steht
dcr Aufsichtsrat. Wie in einer AG, iibcrwachen diesc Leute das Untemehmen. Endlich sind die von der
Gesellschaftcrvcrsamrnlung gewahlt. Das Letzte Teil des Untemehmens ist dicsc
Gesellschaftcrversammlung. Diese Giippc ist wie die Hauptversamrrrlung einer AG, abcr sic ist nicht aus
Aktienbesitzer gemacht. Dicsc Leute sind die Kapitaleigentumer insgcsammt und sic bcrufcn die
Gesellschaftsfiihrcrlnncn und Aufsichtsriiter und zur selben scit haben Sic cine stimme in die Lcitung dcs
Untemehmens [8].

Die cntscheidung der Herr chbstoffjetzt machen muss ist ziemlich schwcr. Er will cine
Kapitalgcscllschaft in Deutschland errichten, abet er muss jetzt zwischen einer AG und cine GmbH
wiihlen. Welchc ist besser fiir das AmeriChemists Untemehmen? Urn dicsc Frage zu antwortcn miissen
wir die Vorteile und Nachteile von beiden Formen besprechen.

In einer AG gibt es wirklich das Rczept fiir cin grosses Untemehmen mit beschrfinktc Haftung.
Beschrfinktc Haftung ist wirklich einen Vortcil der AG. Und zwar, wenn die Gesellschafter fiir nie mehr

als ihre Aktien verantwortlich siond sind sic oft beguccmcr in dem Untcmchrrrcn zu investieren. Noch
einen Vortcil dcr AG sind die mOglichkcit viel Grundkapital durch Einlager zu versammcln. Dass heisst,

wenn cin Untemehmen cine AG ist, kennen alle Leute den ganzen Welt dariibcr Kapitalgcscllschaftcr
gl_u_rch ihre Aktien sein [9]. Leute investieren ihr Geld irn Untemehmen wenn die Zukunft dcr Wirtschaft

und dcs Untemehmens sehr gut aussicht, aber wenn allcs an dcr Biisc schief ghet, scnkt die Produlction und
dcr Wert dcs Untemehmens sehr schncll. Endlich der Nachteilvon rrritbestimrnungsrccht irn Aufsichts rat
[10]. Wenn cine AG viclc Bcschaftigtcn hat, dann mussen fast halb die Mitglieder dcs Autsichtsrats
vertretcr dcr Arbeitnchmcr sein. Das ist zichmlich schlccht fur die Gcschiiftsfiihrcr einer AG weil sic die
Meinungen so viele Aktienbesitzer anhorcn und oft gchoren miissen.

Vicl mehr benutzt als Untemehmensforrncn in Deutschland ist die GmbH. Eine GmbH ist cine
Gesellschaft mit beschranktc Haftung. Eine GmbH ist wic cine AG. aber sic ist mflflexiblc als cine AG.
Auch cin Vortcil dcr GmbH die sehr wichtig fiir AmeriChemists ist [l l], ist dass die GmbH sehr leicht fiir
Auslandische Untemehmen in Deutschland zu errichten. Und zwar, die Gcsctzc und Reglungcn einer
GmbHs sind weniger und lcichtcr zu folgcn als in einer AG. Es braucht auch nur 50,000 DM cine GmbH
zu errichten statt 100,000 bei einer AG. Endlich, Die mcistcn Entscheidungcn einer GmbH's sind auch
personlichcr und oft lcichtcr zu machen wicl GmbH's keinc Aktienbesitzer haben, d.h. viel weniger
Meinungen urn zufricden.

Die Nachteile einer GmbH sind weniger als cine AG aber cs gibt cin Paar. Erst, cine GmbH
wachst viel langsamcr als cine AG und zweitens, dic Kapital um zu wachsen ist oft schwcr zu findcn.
Doch, anders als dicsc zwei Idccn gibt es nicht viel andere Nachteile einer GmbH.

Mcincr mcinung nach ist die GmbH die besscrc Wahl fiir AmeriChemists. AmeriChemists wird
cin neucs Untemehmen in Deutschland und sic brauchen einen Form dcs sehr leicht fiir cin ncucs
Un_tcrnchmcn sich zu Grundcn ist. In einer GmbH mussen die Gcscllschgftcrlnncn nur 50.000 DM h_a_b£r_r
sich zu errichten, sondcm auch 100,000 DM in einer AG. Auch sind die cntscheidungcn dcs Untemehmens
lcichtcr weil sic weniger Meinungen zuflicdcn mussen [l]. Wir wissen das GmbH's wachsen gewohnlich
oft langsamcr als AG's weil sic weniger Grundkapital haben und keinc Aktien vcrkaufen abcr
AmeriChemists muss sich so leicht wie moglich in Deutschland errichten. Die beste Wahl fiir
AmeriChemists ist cine GmbH.

73

Figure 5.1 cont.

In Deutschland gibt es viele Untemehmensforrncn die oft sehr hochentwickclt und Gesctzt sind.
Es gibt Pcrsonengesellschaftcn wo allcs personlich ist nrit nur ein Paar Gesellschafter. Auch gibt es
Kapitalgcscllschaftcn. Kapitalgcscllschaftcn haben mchrcrc Geschiiftsfiihrer als Pcrsoncngcsellschaftcn
und auch cine Gesctzlich Lcitungs Organ. Fiir AmeriChcmcsts, die Beste Untemehmensform ist die
GmbH. Eine auslandischc Firma wie AmeriChemists braucht den lcichstcn Form eines Untemehmens urn
sich zu errichten. Es gibt keinc besserc wahlc fiir AmeriChemists als cine GmbH.

Herman was able to read all but the last paragraph of his essay aloud before
Richard stopped the reading to begin discussing corrections. Thus, the discussion of the
first episode begins with Richard’s interruption of the reading in the penultimate
paragraph, which he characterizes as too wordy and complicated.

Herman: (reads) “In einer GmbH miisscn die Gesellschaftcrlnnen nur. . .”

Richard: Moment, Moment, Moment. Stoppen wir. Kannst du das wieder lcsen?

AmeriChemists wird?

Herman: (reads) “AmeriChemists wird. . .” I’m trying to say here that

AmeriChemists is going to become a German company, but they need a form

that’s easy to ahh, they need the easiest possible form to start with.

Richard: Sehr leicht zu gritnden ist, ja?

Herman: Schr leicht zu grilndcn ist—maybe too many words in there, huh?

Richard: J a. Zu viele WOIter.

(Herman/Richard/Al)

Richard suggests that the word Untemehmen appears too many times in the
paragraph and recommends deleting one instance. He also notices an incorrect relative
pronoun (des) , a capitalized verb (Griinden), and problems with word choice and word
order in a subordinate clause. Specifically regarding word choice, Richard recommends
using statt instead of sondcm and the verb befriedigen opposed to the adj ective zufrieden.
Clyde’s comments on the same passage are similar in many aspects. The instructor also
recommends the deletion of one occurrence of Untemehmen, and the replacement of the
words discussed above, giving the same suggestions as were provided in the conference.

Clyde also notes a necessary change for the incorrect relative pronoun and for the word

order in the subordinate clause. He recommends deletion of the capitalized verb, as it

74

appears in the clause with the instance of Untemehmen, which is to be deleted; and for
which Clyde has suggested a revised construction.

In the final draft Herman incorporates the word replacements suggested in both
sets of feedback. He also correctly revises the subordinate word order. He has deleted
the capitalized verb and rewritten the clause in which it appeared, as was suggested by
Clyde, but he has not corrected the relative pronoun, though it was mentioned by both the
consultant and the instructor.

What I characterize here as episode 2 consists of several brief suggestions Richard
made regarding spelling throughout the first page of Herman’s text. Richard sets up the
episode with a general statement regarding the amount of spelling errors he sees in the
text, which is then followed up by specific treatment of each error.

Richard: Wir haben einige Tippfehler, und ich glaube du wirst sie wahrscheinlich

auch sehen. Hier durch—durch das ganzc Papicr wieder gibt cs—nicht dasselbc

Wort—abcr gibt es bestimmte Nomcn, die du nicht gross schrcibst.

Herman: OK.

Richard: Du musst cinfach darauf achten, dass du alle Nomcn gross schrcibst.

(Herrnan/Richard/Al)

The suggestions Richard makes in the conference are to change specifisch to
spezifisch, interessen to Interessen, Prinzipen to Prinzipien and Verlusst to Verlust.
Turning to Clyde’s commentary; specifisch is part of a clause which Clyde recommends
be deleted altogether, the same revised spelling as in the conference is suggested for
interessen, Prinzipen is not noted as an error, and an alternative is suggested for the entire

clause to which Verlusst belongs. In the final draft, Herman has made the corrections

exactly as suggested by Clyde, leaving the resulting misspelling intact.

75

Episode 3 includes comments flom Richard regarding articles, dative plural
dcclcnsion, correcting a capitalized verb, adding a missing Umlaut, accusativc case
endings, and word order. The following excerpt flom the dialog includes discussion of
the missing dative plural forms, in which Richard suggests that Herman maintain the
plural form and change the ending on the possessive pronoun.

Richard: “. . .miisscn die Besitzer oder die Gesellschafter aus ihrer eigenen. . .”

Herman: die Tasche

Richard: J a, die Taschen, plural, was ist plural dativ?

Herman: Taschen oh!

Richard: plural dativ von diesem Artikel bier—ihrer.

Herman: ihren

Richard: ihren -- aus ihren eigenen Taschen bezahlen.

(Herrnan/Richard/A 1 )

It is interesting to note that in Clyde’s comments he took the opposite approach to
the problematic sentence. Instead of changing the pronoun to agree with the plural noun
that Herman intended, Clyde suggests leaving the ending on the possessive pronoun and
changing the noun to a singular form. In the final draft Herman has incorporated
elements of the feedback flom both sources resulting in a still incorrect form. He has
changed the ending of the pronoun to agree with the dative plural, yet used the singular
form of the noun. Additionally, Clyde commented on the capitalized verb, accusativc
case endings, addition of the umlaut, and the word order problem; all of which were
corrected in Herman’s final draft.

Episode four includes Richard’s suggestions for implementing the genitive case
and for correcting a problematic word choice. Richard quickly identifies that Herman
intends the genitive case for this passage, and draws the focus of the discussion towards

that topic, which is concisely revised.

Richard: Die Ffihrung—OK Untemehmen?

76

Herman: das.

Richard: das Untemehmen. Und du willst Genitiv darrrit meinen.

Herman: Die Fiihrung des

Richard: des Untemehmens.

(Herman/Richard/Al)

The lack of genitive case declension was also noted in Clyde’s commentary, but
in spite of the notation of the error in both feedback sources and the conference
discussion of the correct form, Herman only changed the definite article preceding the
word flom masculine to neuter without including any genitive markers on the article or
on the noun in the final draft.

This brief exchange regarding case was immediately followed in the conference
by a longer discussion of the appropriateness of a word choice. Here Richard suggests
that Herman’s word inaccurately describes the relationship between two types of
companies.

Richard: “Die zweite Halbe von Personengescllschaften handelt sich mit

Kommanditgesellschaft.” Was meinst du zweite Halbe?

Herman: weil unter Pcrsonengesellschaft gibt es zwei Teilc; die Offene

Handelsgesellschaft. . .

Richard: J a, aber sie sind nicht unbedingt Halb von dem selben Kuchen.

Herman: I a, zweitens gibt es. ..

Richard: J a, zweitens, gut, kennte man sagen. Oder man kOnnte das sagen, oder

mein Gedankc da war, man kenntc cinfach das Wort “Form” benutzen. Das ist

einc Form von einem Geschaft. Die zweite Form.
(Herman/Richard/Al)

Clyde takes a different view of the error in his commentary, suggesting that
Herman delete the entire sentence and blend the remainder of the newly begun paragraph
into the preceding one. In the final draft, Herman follows Clyde’s advice and deletes the
sentence, reorganizing the structure of the paragraphs at this point.

In the passage discussed during the fifth episode, both Richard and Clyde note a

missing umlaut, a tense error and problematic word order. In the original Herman had

77

written the following sentence: “Wenn einen Betrieb grosser werden wollte, oft wahlen
Sic ein Form von einer Kapitalgcscllschaft.” In the discussion Richard first makes
Herman aware of the missing umlaut on grosser, then he draws attention to the tense
error of wollte.

Richard: ...OK welche Zeitform willst du hier benutzen? Ist das Prisens,

Vergangenhcit oder Zukunft?

Herman: Zukunft. . .werden wollte

Richard: werden wollte—OK—wcrden ist Zukunft, wollte ist Vergangenhcit.

Herman: ah! Werden will, werden will. Wants to get bigger.

Richard: genau, will, oder cinfach mechte.

(HermanfRichard/Al )

Herman corrects both the umlaut and the tense problem in the final draft, just as
was suggested in both sources of feedback. Both Richard and Clyde also make
comments regarding the word order. Of course, the face-to-face nature of the conference
feedback yields concrete suggestions for correction, whereas Clyde has merely circled
errors and labeled them as "case," "Spelling" or "wrong verb form." Richard and Herman
discuss the rules for placement of verbs in main clauses, and the fact that in this sentence
the subordinate clause is occupying the position of the first sentence element and
therefore must be followed by the main clause verb. Richard’s suggestions take on a
different focus after this reiteration of word order guidelines, in that he opens a
discussion of word choice in the second clause.

Richard: “Wenn einen Betrieb grOsscr werden will, wahlen sic oft...” J a, Sic

bezicht sich auf was?

Herman: einen Betrieb.

Richard: und ist ein Betrieb?

Herman: er

Richard: J a, gut.

Herman: uhh wahlt er oft?

Richard: J a, der Satz ist ein bisschen umm “awkward” ein kleines bisschen, weil

ein Betrieb will nichts. Ein Betrieb hat keinc Willc.
(Herman/Richard/Al )

78

Herman explains the meaning he is trying to convey in this passage, first in
German, then in English, and the two discuss possible ways of restructuring the sentence
to avoid attributing such an active role to the company. First, Richard suggests changing
the subject flom the company itself to a person or group within the company, naming der
Leiter and die F I'ihrung as alternatives. But at the end of the episode, they mutually agree

on another circumlocuation.

Richard: I think my problem with that sentence is “wahlt er oft.” That’s awfully

active for a...

Herman: ja, ja.

Richard: I would rather say the owners, or...

Herman: Ist die beste Wahl cine Kapitalgcscllschaft.

Richard: J a, there you go uhh das ist gut.

(Herman/Richard/Al)

Clyde did not suggest any change in the words of the passage, only the
modification of the word order, and in the final draft, Herman makes the changes
suggested in the conference.

One final suggestion for revision in this part of the text was made only by Clyde.
This was the modification of the ending on the indefinite article ein, which in the first
draft indicated accusativc case declcnsion (einen Betrieb). In the final draft Herman does
make an attempt at correction of this element, but changes it to the also incorrect einer.

In the next episode Richard makes mention of the repetitive nature of the text, in
which Herman has used the word Untemehmen three times. Richard advises Herman to
replace Untemehmensform simply with Form, and to replace another instance of the
noun with a pronoun. Richard also suggests changing a relative pronoun (der) so that it

corresponds with the number and case of the noun to which it refers (Untemehmen, pl.)

Clyde also suggests the revision of the relative pronoun, but no deletion or replacement

79

of any other words in the passage. Herman changes the pronoun correctly in the final
draft, making no other modification to the sentence.

Episode seven consists of Richard drawing attention to four errors within two
sentences; two word choice problems, two incorrect case markers, and a capitalization
mistake. First of all, Richard suggests replacing a word with one that he feels is more
appropriate and better communicates Herman’s intended meaning. Clyde, on the other
hand, suggests deleting the entire sentence in which the word occurs. In another case of
problematic word choice, Richard again recommends that Herman replace the word.
Clyde also suggests replacement at this point, yet using a different word than was
recommended by Richard. Both sets of feedback make reference to the missing
accusativc case marker, as well as to the missing dative plural declension. Finally, both
sets of feedback also suggest the capitalization of the lower case noun.

In his final draft Herman incorporates the accusativc and dative case marker
corrections flawlessly. He also correctly capitalizes the noun. Herman exclusively
incorporates Clyde’s feedback regarding both of the word choice corrections. He deleted
the sentence, rather than replacing the word in question, and chose Clyde’s suggestion
over Richard’s for the second word choice issue.

Episode eight begins after Richard makes mention of how quickly time is passing
and consists of Richard suggesting that a long sentence be broken up into two separate
sentences. Richard also reminds Herman at this point to capitalize the first word of the
new second sentence, and points out a missing case marker.

Richard: OK. Ich glaube das ist ziemlich gut-nachste Seite, die Zeit vergcht

umm. . .ich wahlc die grOBten aus hier. Und und und Ich glaube dieser Satz ist zu

lang. Vielleicht kannst du zwei Siitzc daraus machen.
Herman: OK Vielleicht nach “insgcsamt” einen neuen Satz.

80

Richard: J a, und “Sic” muss groB geschrieben werden.
Herman: OK
Richard: in die Leitung—Dativ
Herman: in der Leitung.
Richard: OK Das klingt besser.
(Herman/Richard/Al)

Clyde does not, however, suggest breaking up the sentence, but makes several
other comments on errors in the text, including two word choice problems, a missing
comma, two spelling errors and the missing dative case marker. All of Clyde’s
suggestions were incorporated perfectly into the final draft, and the sentence remained
intact as it was in the draft.

The ninth episode of the conference talk yields two interesting points regarding
both the negotiation between student-author and consultant and the final revisions. First
of all, Richard points out a possible word choice problem in the text. He and Herman
discuss the intended meaning and possible alternatives to the word in question, and also
consult a dictionary to further inform their discussion. Of the possibilities they discuss,
Richard does not recommend the use of one word over another, rather he leaves the final

decision up to Herman.

Richard: Das ist ein Bisschen unbequcm oder wie kOnnte man das anders sagen?
Herman: Confident, umm they’re more confident

Richard: Comfortable, confident

Herman: Haben sie mehr “trust?”

Richard: Trust? Vertrauen? Confidence? (dictionary consulted) Wie ware es,
wenn man sagt, vielleicht “ist es ihncn bequemer beim Investieren.” Oder “haben
sic mehr Vertrauen beim Investieren?” Was willst du haben? Du kannst beide
hinschreibcn und dann selbst wiihlen.

Herman: I a.

(Herman/Richard/Al )

81

Clyde’s commentary, however, does not note this passage as a word choice error,
though he does suggest some restructuring of the sentence, and in the final draft Herman
makes no changes to the sentence at all.

Another noteworthy point in the conference episode revolves around the
restatement of a phrase. Herman writes the following in the rough draft: “. . .kOnnen alle
Leute den ganzen Welt dariiber Kapitalgcscllschafter durch ihre Aktien sein.” Richard
points out that there is a better idiom to convey the intended meaning, though he states it
incorrectly.

Richard: ...J a eS gibt einen besseren Ausdruck dafiir. Man sagt “rum um die

Welt,” all around the world. Man kann “um die Welt” sagen. That’s around the

world. “rum um die Welt” all around the world.

Herman: OK

(Herman/Richard/ A1 )
Clyde also notes this problematic idiom and suggests the correction “Leute fiberall in der
Welt,” but Herman chooses to incorporate Richard’s entirely incorrect suggestion into the
final draft.

In the tenth episode Richard notes that one “sentence” in the rough draft is
actually only a flagrncnt. Richard suggests a reworking of the passage to convert the
flagrnent into a complete sentence. Clyde also notes the flagrnent, but does not give a
concrete suggestion for fixing the problem, rather he circles the flagrnent and makes a
note in the margin “not a sentence.” In the final draft Herman utilizes Richard’s
suggestion.

The final episode of the conference entails Richard and Herman discussing a

spelling mistake and an incorrect relative pronoun.

Richard: Flexibel, wie schrcibt man flexibcl? Wie schrcibt man das? -el, und
was noch? “Auch ein Vortcil der GmbH, die sehr wichtig ist.” Das ist ein

82

Nebensatz, gel? Ist ein Relativsatz. Es muss noch ein Komma geben—“Auch ein

Vorteil der GmbH, (Komma) hier maskulin, feminine oder neutrum?

Herman: Vorteil, das, no, der

Richard: ...der sehr wichtig ist.

(Herman/Richard/Al)

Interestingly, though the spelling error is corrected, no attention is paid in the
conference to the fact that the error is caught up within another error regarding the
comparative adjective. Herman has written mehr flexible, which should actually be
flexibler. Clyde does notice this problem, and make suggestions for correction, which
Herman works into the final draft. On the other hand, it is only in the conference that the
incorrect relative pronoun is noted. Herman used the feminine pronoun (die) instead of
the masculine (der), as Richard pointed out, but Clyde overlooked this error, and the
incorrect feminine form was retained in the final draft of the paper.

In his second writing conference with Herman, Richard made 138 comments in
12 episodes of conference talk whereas Clyde's comments totaled 382. Figure 5.2
illustrates the text of the writing assignment discussed in the conference and shows the
episodes of discussion between Richard and Herman, noting the sources of feedback for

each passage.

Figure 5.2: Annotated text of Herman's second writing assignment

Fiihrungskr‘aftc

l.) Einfiihrung

Wenn cine Firma cine auslindische Tochctcrfirma erreichen will, muss die Firma starkc und
efficiente Fiihrungskriifte fmden. Es gibt wirklich zwei Wahle wenn cine Firma diese Entscheidung
machen muss. Die Firma muss entwcdcr cinhcimischc Fiihrungskraftc anstellen oder ortsflcmdc
Fiihrungskrafte nach dcr neuen Firma schicken. chzutage ist abcr der Trend, einheirnische
Fiihrungskriifte anzustellen. Wenn die Vorgeseztcn aus dem Land die Tochtcrfirma kommen [l], vcrstehcn
sic besser die Kundlnncn und MitarbeiterInnen. Die Auslandsmanager einer multinationalen Firma soll
wirklich mindestens ein Jahr irn Ausland studieren um die Kultur, Geography, und Wirtschaft besser zu
vcrstehcn. Diese Auslandsmanager soll auch mehrsprachig sein und auch spezifische Fachqualifikationen
und Auslandserfahrung haben. Es gibt cin Paar verschiedene Interkulturelles Training Programmen in den
USA um ortsflemde Vorgesetzten auszubildcn, aber dicsc Programmcn sind oft sehr tcuer. Mit so viele

83

Figure 5.2 cont.

Kulturclle, Wirtschaftliche, und Fiihrungs Unterschiede zwischen die Amerikaner und Dcutscher ist das
beste Wahl fiir AmeriChemists einheinrische Fiihrungskrafte anzustellen.

Hintergumdinforrnationen:

Es gibt cin Paar allgemeine Hauptzicle fiir cine F irma um Erfolgreich zu sein. Um Erfolgreich zu
sein muss cine Firma wachsen, konkurrcnzfahig sein, und Gewinn crziclcn. Urn dicsc Zielc zu erreichen
muss cine Firma so eflizicnt wie moglich sein und auch fiir cine konfliktflcicrc Zusammcnarbeit arbeitcn.
Diese Zielc sind oft schwcr zu erreichten. Urn dicse ziele zu erreichten muss cine Firma cine
funktionicrcnde und effiziente Fiihrung haben.

In der Vergangenhcit war die totalle Unterordnfl des Betriebs der steilste Weg zurn Erforg
Diese Stil ist wirklich dcr steilste Weg ietzt in den USA. Lie Mittle Mangger haben oft cine Stimmc in die
Entscheidungsprozcss aber diesc Stimmc ist nicht gesetzlich. Es gab ein Paar Topmanagcr in Deutschllng
die alle Entscheidungcn machten und die MitarbeiterInnen hatten wirklich keinc Stimmc [2]. chzutage
abcr ist die Untemehmensfiihrung hauptsachlich auf Partnerschaft gebaut. Es gibt jezt in steigende
gegenseitige Abhiingigkcit zwischen den Vorgesetzten und die MitarbeiterInnen. Das Heisst, die
Arbcitcrlnncn haben oft cine Mitbestimmungsrecht in dem sic gesctzlich cine Stimmc in die
Einschcidungsprozcss des Untemehmens haben. Mit einer Mitbestimmungsrecht diirfen den Vorgesetzten
keinc Entscheidungcn ohnc die Zustimmung die MitarbeiterInnen machen.

Auch cine ggtisser werdendc Prozess in meiste Firmen sind Spezialistlnnen zu benutzen [3].
Durch die Benutzung von Spezialistlnnen, sind Entscheidungcn lcichtcr zu machen und oft erfolgrcichcr
weil diesc Spezialistlnncn viel iiber specifische Aspekte des Betreibs wissen. Durch die iibcrtragung von
Entscheidungsbcdurfnissc sind die F iihrungskriifte und MitarbeiterInnen fiir specifische Jobs und
Entscheidungcn des Betriebs verantwortlich.

Jetzt ist der Trend mehr demokratische Fiihrungssilc zu benutzen staat autoritatische
Fiihrungsstile. Durch die fibcrtragung von spezifische Verantwortungcn, spielen die rrrittlern und unteren
Management cine grtissere rollc in die Entscheidungs und Fiihrungs Prozesscn. Durch dieser
dcmokratischcn Trend haben die Dcutscher drei neue bestimmtc F iihrungsstilc etablicrt.

Fiirungsstilc:

Die erstc von diesc Fiihrungsstile ist Fiihrung durch Ziclvercinbaarung oder (MbO). In dieser Stil
sind die Untemehmenszielc von die MitarbeiterInnen und den Vorgesetzten zusammcn gemacht. Hier sind
die MitarbeiterInnen fiir die crrichtung die Zielc dcs Untemehmens verantwortlich. Das Heisst, die
MitarbeiterInnen arbeiten auf bestimmtc Arbeit und die Vorgesetzten greifcn ein, nur wenn die
Zielcrfitllung nicht erfolgt.

chitens gibt es einen Stil dcr Fiihrung (lurch Bedurfnisbefriedigung oder (MbM) heisst. Diescr
Fiihrungsstil ist andcrs als MbO weil bestimmtc Verantwortungcn auf die MitarbeiterInnen fibertragcn sind.
Durch dieser Stil wachst die Selbstverantwortlichkeit die MitarbeiterInnen abet alle
Fithrungsvcrantwortungcn licgcn mit dem Vorgesetzten. Hier haben die MitarbeiterInnen spezifischc
Handlungsverantwortungcn die aus bestimmtc Sachaufgaben bestchcn.

Letzlich gibt es Fiihrung durch Bedurfirisbcfriedigung oder (MbM). In dieser Stil sind die
MitarbeiterInnen durch motivation gcfiihrt. Die Individuelle Leistung die MitarbeiterInnen steigt dutch
Motivation. Durch Motivation kOnncn die Arbcitcrlnncn besser mit dem Arbeit Idtitifiziercn und dadurch
steigt die Produktivitiit die Arbcitcrlnncn. In allgemein miisscn die MitarbeiterInnen ein "wir-gefiihl"
haben um produktiv zu sein. Das Heisst, die MitarbeiterInnen mussen cine Selbstverantwortlichkeit die
Erfolg dcs Betriebs fiihlen und cine Stimmc in die cntscheidungcn des Betriebs hgben um die beste
Leistung wie mtiglich zu m_a_chen l4].

2). Interkulturelles Training:

2.1: Die Notwcndigkeit fiir Interkulturelles Training:

84

Figure 5.2 cont.

Wenn Ortsfremdc Fiihrungskriifte nach cine Tochtgrfw zu arbeficn reisen mussen. miis_s_c_n
dicse Fiihrungskriifte iiber viele Aspekte das neue Land wissen. Diese Fiihrungs_kraftc miissen iibcr
Geschiiftsiibcn. Sitten, ungesprochene Geste. und andere Zollcn wissen um Kulturclle Unterschiede zu
ygr;s_t_ehcn und KulturstoB zu vcrrneiden [5]. Ob die Fiihrungslcriifte dicse Kulturclle Unterschiede nicht
vcrstehcn, werden sic nicht crfolgreich in dcm neuen Land bei dcr Tochterfirma.

Es kostet zwischen 2 und 2.5 milliarde Dollar pro Jahr fiir nicht crfolgt Fiihrungslcrafte irn

Ausland. Die Zahl von uncrfolgreichen Aluminium macher Fiihrungskrafte ist jetzt in der niihe von null
weil Sig ictzt Interkulturelles Training benutzen [6]. Es ist aber nicht billig Ortsfremdc Fiihrungskrfifte

nach Training-Programmen zu schicken. GM gibt $500,000 pro Jahr fiir Training Programmcn aus, aber
GM h_aj nur cine 1% Ziffer von uncrfolgrcichc Ortsfleme F iihrungskriiftc. Auf dcr anderen Hand haben
Firmen die keinc Training fur Ortsfrcmde Fiihrungskraftcmachcn cine 25% Ziffer von uncrfolgrciche

Manager [7].

2.2 Die Zunahmc an interkulturcllen Training:

Heuzutage ist interkulturcllen Training von mehr und mehr Firmen die Tochtcrfirmen haben
benutzt. In dcr Nahe von den halben alle grosse amerikanische Betriebs benutzen jetzt interkulturcllen
Training irn vcrgleich zu nur 10% von vor zehn Jahren [8]. Die Zahl von training Programmen steigt auch
Heute. Mit die steigende Zahl von Globale Firmen ist die Nachflage fiir interkulturcllen Training
Prograrnmcn jeden Tag griisser. chihundert Mitrnachcr in cine interkulturclle Training Program waren
gcflagt ob kulturelle Training wichtigcr als Sprachc Training war. Dcr allgemeine Gedankc war das

Kulturclle Training mehr wichtig als Sprachc Training war [9].

2.3 Die Verschiedcncn Artcn von Programrncn und angcbotcn fi'rr

interkulturclles Training:

Wenn cine Manager einer Firma nach Ausland zu arbeiten reisen muss, rcist er oft nicht allcin.
Diese Manager haben oft F amilic die mitkommen miissen. Diese Manager haben oft Frauen und Kinder
und deswegcn gibt es vcrschicdcn Artcn von interkulturclle Training Programrncn. Oft gibt es
verschiedene Progranrrncn fiir Kinder die Uuber Ihre Bediirfnisse zu tun haben und zur selben Zeit gibt es
Prograrnrnen fiir die Frauen. Die Kinder probieren oft Auslandische cssen das Popular in Ausland ist und
sic lcmcn fiber staatlich Bcf‘drdcrung und Busse. Auch lcmcn die Kinder fiber Tcile die Frcmdsprache das
neue Land. Letzlich lcrncn sic Uuber die licblings Tatigkeitcn und Sport von die Kinder irn Ausland. Die
Eltem lcmcn fiber die Gefahrlichc Aspektiven und auch die Geography, Klirna, Kulturcn, und sitten das
neue Land.

2.4 Die Kritik an interkulturcllen Training:

Obwohl fast alles das vorgesprochcn war ist zichnrlich Positiv, gibt es ein Paar Probleme rrrit
interkulturcllen Training [10]. Einer Nachteil diese Training sind die hohc Kosten. Es kostet $6000 fiir nur
drei Tagc von Training. Auch cine Problem ist, das es keinc Bcwicse gibt das diese Prograrrrrnen
crfolgreich sind. Doch, GM sagtc das man braucht kcin Vorschung um diese F rage zu antwoch weil so

viel Geld schon an ubcrscc Aufgaben anbcbaut ist [10].

 

3.) AbschluB: Stellungnahme:

Wenn cine F irma wie AmeriChemists Ffihrungslcrtiftc fiir cine tochterfirma in Deutschland fmden
muss, gibt es wirklich zwei Wahle. Die firma muss entwcdcr amerikanische Fiihrungskra'fte nach
deutschland schicken oder Einhcirnischc Leitcr in Deutschland fmdcn. Das beste Wahl ist ziehmlich
schwcr zu machen weil cs so viele F aktoren in dieser Wahl gibt. Allgcmcin gibt es viele grOsse
Unterschiede zwischen die Dcutscher und Amerikaner. Diese Unjterschicdc sind hauptsachlich Kulturclle
abcr cs gibt auch Geographische und Wirtschaftliche unterschiede. Ob cine Firma Ortsflemde

85

Figure 5.2 cont.

 

Ffihrungskréffte nach Deutschland schicken will, muss die FirmgL die Leitcr in nicht nur Kultur
Geography, und wirtschgftlichc unterschiede tranieren sondcm auch in die F remdsprache undJspccifische
Fachs irn Ausland [l 1]. Diese Ffihrungskraftc sollcn auch Auslandscrfahrungen haben. Diese
Qualifikationcn sind oft schwcr zu findcn und schwcr zu lehmcn. Doch gibt es vile Formen von
interkulturclles Training die rrrit diese Probleme helfen kann. Es gibt Programmen die fiber die Kulturclle

unterschiede und Sittcn von Deutschland untcrrichteg, aber diesc Programmen sind oft Teuer und Kritiker
sagen das dicse Programmcn arbeitcn nicht. Diese Kritiker sagen das es wirklich keinc Vorschung gibt,

abcr GM und andere Firmen fiihlcn anders. Meisten firrncn fiihlcn das diese Proggammen haltcn die zahl
von schlcchte Arbcitserlaubnisse in Deutschland nicdrigllZ].

Mcincr Meinung nach ist das beste Wahl fiir AmeriChemists Einheirnische Ffihrungskriifte
anzustellen. Wenn cine Firma Einheirnische Ffihrungslcriifte anstellt, sind die Kosten die Firma oft nidriger
und die Leistung den Vorgesetzten oft besser. Das Heisst, die frrma muss fiir keinc interkulturclle Training
Prograrrrrnen bezahlen und cinfach die neue Leitcr einbisschen fiber die Zielc dcs Untemehmens lcmcn.
Diese neue Einheirnische Leitcr werden wahrscheinlich auch mehr cffizientscin weil sic viel fiber die
bedfirfnissc die Dcutschc wissen. Obwohl Ortsfrcmdc Ffihrungskrfifte wahrscheinlich viel fiber die Zielc
von AmeriChemists wissen, ist es billiger und mehr effrzient Einheirnische Ffihrungskrafte anzustellen.

 

As mentioned earlier, Herman did not read his entire composition aloud before
the discussion of specific points in the text ensued. Rather, he typically read a paragraph
or two at a time, and Richard stopped the reading when he wished to discuss some aspect
of the composition. In the first episode of the discussion Richard stops the reading to ask
Herman whether there is some element of the paragraph which might need to be attended
to. First, Richard points out that the text would be clearer if the genitive case were used.
However, both he and Herman later decide that the best option is to replace the genitive
case circumlocution Land der T ochterfirma with the more specific Deutschland. This
episode is also excerpted above in section 5.2. In his written comments, Clyde also noted
an error in case usage, but in the final draft Herman chose to incorporate the suggestion
from the conference.

The second episode focuses first on a question of word choice, then leads into a
discussion of organization of sentences in the paragraph based on the use of tense. As
Herman was reading aloud, Richard noticed a word that interfered with his understanding

of the text.

86

Richard: Was meinst du damit “dcr steilste Weg zum Erfolg?”

Herman: Die umm most popular or traditional.

Richard: Was ist das auf Englisch steil?

Herman: the most common?

Richard: Steil ist “steep” na?

Herman: steep, steil, ich weiB nicht.

Richard: wir tun cinfach cin F ragezcichen darfiber.

Herman: Was ich meinc hier ist traditionell oder popular.
(Herman/Richard/AZ)

Herman and Richard agree to continue discussing the passage while keeping the possible
intended meanings of the word in mind. Herman reads another paragraph flom the draft
and Richard intervenes again, asking whether Herman has noticed anything problematic
with the passage. Richard makes it clear that he wishes to talk about Herman’s tendency
in this passage to switch flom present tense to past tense, and makes a final
recommendation that the sentences be reordered in the paragraph to better facilitate the
meaning carried by the switches in tense.

Richard: “ES gab ein paar Topmanager. . .” Also, jetzt sind wir in der

Vergangenhcit. Das ist hier alles im Prasens, j a?

Herman: umm Vergangenhcit.

Richard: Dieses hier jetzt. “Diese Stil ist jetzt”—Préiscns, “Die mittlerc Manager

haben oft cine Stimme”——Prascns.

Herman: ja, ja.

Richard: “Es gab cin paar Topmanager und die MitarbeiterInnen hatten keinc

Stimmc.” Diese hin- und her von Prasens in die Vergangenhcit ist ein Bisschen

konfus. . .Ich wfirdc dis gleich nach dem ersten Satz tun.

Herman: hatten , OK

Richard: weil das bezicht sich auf den Weg in Deutschland und auch auf die

Vergangenhcit. Wenn sie zusammcn sind ist das mir klarer.
Herman: J a.

(Herman/Richard/AZ)
In the instructor comments the same questions are asked. Clyde has underlined
the word steil and written a note in the margin, “what do you mean?” He has also

marked the past tense verb in the sentence discussed above and indicated that it is in the

87

wrong tense. In the final draft Herman changes steil to populc'ir, as he suggested himself
in the session and he rearranges the sentences in the paragraph, as Richard recommended,
in order to accentuate the relationship between the past tense sentences. He also has
added time expressions in the sentences to make it even clearer whether he is talking
about the present or the past.

In the third episode of the session Richard makes suggestions for changing a
gender marking, replacing the phrase in meiste F irmen with in vielen F irmen and a
subject verb agreement problem between the singular subject Prozess and the plural verb
sind. He also discusses a word choice with Herman, using a dictionary to find the
appropriate word with which to replace the one used in the draft. Instead of Prozess,
Richard suggests Trend oder T endenz. Clyde also notes the gender error, and the
agreement problem, yet does not make a suggestion for changing Prozess, nor does he
advocate a replacement of the phrase with the indefinite pronoun, only noting that it
requires a case marker. In the final draft Herman opts to use the word Trend for Prozess
as suggested only by Richard. He makes the gender and agreement corrections as well,
as suggested by both sources. He also makes the change flom meiste to viele, but does
not add the case marker there, even though it was suggested in both sets of feedback.

The majority of the fourth episode of the conference appears as part of the
discussion of the auto-corrected prepositional phrase in item number 8 of section 5.3
above. Two further suggestions are made in this episode, however, and they will be the
focus of discussion here. First, Richard suggests an addition to the text of some kind of

example, which will further explain the concept Herman is describing in this paragraph,

88

namely a particular style of management. After Herman reads the passage aloud, Richard
intervenes with the following.

Richard: Das ist ziemlich klar—diescs Erstes ist ziemlich klar, aber hier ich

wfirdc sagen, es ware gut, wenn du ein kleines Abschnitt schrciben kOnntest, wo

es cine eigentliche Situation beschrieben wird. Zum Bcispiel wenn der Chef so
und so macht. ..

Herman: OK

(Herman/Richard/AZ)

Clyde did not make a similar suggestion in his commentary, yet the final draft
does contain another sentence at this point giving clarification through a more concrete
example. The second suggestion Richard makes here is to replace die beste with
optimale. Richard argues that the use of this term will add to the quality and
appropriateness of the language in the paper. He does this cautiously, however, so as not
to appear eager to take over Herman’s authorship.

Richard: ...und das klingt rrrir ein Bisschen. .. “die beste Leistung wie mOglich”

OK also die Bedeutung ist da, aber noch komplexcr oder fach-spezifisch wfirdc

ich sagen “optimal” das heiBt so gut wie mOglich—optimal, das ist ein sch'o'nes

Wort. Ich wfirde sagen “um die optimale Leistung zu haben,” but that’s just my

personal taste.

(Herman/Richard/A2)
Clyde’s feedback does not give any suggestion for replacing “die beste,” rather it
suggests the deletion of the word and the clause to which it belongs. In his final draft,
Herman incorporates Richard’s suggestion, modifying the word, rather than deleting a
portion of the sentence.

The fifth episode is also partly discussed in section 5.3 above. However, further
suggestions made by Richard as well as by Clyde are also noteworthy. These suggestions

include the necessity to use the genitive case as well as suggestions for the revision of

word choice on three occasions. Richard and Herman struggle through the appropriate

89

use of the genitive in this passage, yet their struggle provides a useful explanation not
only of genitive case, but also of adjective endings.

Richard: Du willst Genitiv hier benutzen, na?

Herman: das Land

Richard: Genitiv von “das Land?”

Herman: dcr das des

Richard: des, gut.

Herman: des neue

Richard: des neuen

Herman: des neuen?

Richard: J a, des neuen. Always when you have your adj ective endings, when
you have

Herman: Genitive?

Richard: Genitive, Dative and Accusative, all of them. You’ve already shown
the reflection of the Genitive, Dative or Accusative, every ending after that is

6‘ ,9

going to be an n.
(Herman/Richard/AZ)

After this discussion the episode continues with Richard suggesting replacement
of the word Geschc'zflsz‘iben with Verfahrensweisen, and with the help of a dictionary it is
determined that Herman has used the word Zoll incorrectly to refer to the customs or
traditions of a culture, which Richard recommends be changed to Brc'iuche. Richard also
suggests replacing Kultursto/J’ with Kulturschock. Clyde notes the misused words in his
commentary by placing question marks over them, yet he does not make any suggestions
for their replacement, except in the case of Kulturstofl, where he also suggests
Kulturschock. In his final draft Herman makes the substitutions exactly as have been
prescribed in the conference.

Episode six provides a clear example of the benefits of the writing conference for
the student author. As the discussion of this passage begins Richard poses the question
“Verstehst du, was du geschrieben hast?” It is clear that Richard notices segments of the

passage which require correction, or perhaps need to be completely rewritten. Since the

90

author and consultant are already discussing the paper, it is natural that Richard offer
some suggestions for reworking this section, and that he and Herman negotiate the
corrections to be made. Clyde, on the other hand, does not give any concrete suggestion
for the improvement of this passage. He merely circles the unclear elements, makes
question marks over them and writes in the margin: “reword.” The feedback flom the
conference is in this case much more useful to the student for later revision, and the
consultant's comments are readily incorporated into the final draft.

The seventh episode of the conference begins again with the request that Herman
read aloud. After a paragraph has been read, Richard begins again to ask questions
clarifying the meaning of what he has heard. He mainly makes suggestions for changing
words Herman has misused in the text. Two examples of word choice errors are
discussed in the following excerpt:

Richard: J a. General Motors pays five hundred thousand dollars. . .hier ist ein

Bisschen redundant. GM und GM. Ich wfirde GM ausnchmen und ich wfirde

sagen das ist das erstc Element in dem Satz und dann kommt das Verb als zweite

Element. . .pro Jahr?? Das kann man sagen aber nicht schrciben. Only has a one

percent digit? Ziffer is digit.

Herman: amount or count? Boy I don’t know. You know what I’m saying here?

Richard: (looks in dictionary) I really don’t know. “Rate” is a rate, but that

sounds funny. Wie kann man das anders sagen?

Herman: Nur ein prozent die ortsflemde Ffihrungskrafte GMs sind unerfolgreich.

(Herman/Richard/AZ)

Richard makes the suggestion to leave out the word Zifler and to change pro Jahr
to I'm Jahr. Clyde also makes the suggestion to leave out Zifier, but does not label pro
Jahr as an error. He does, however, suggest changing aufder anderen Hand in the next

sentence to aufder anderen Seite. Herman blends the two sources of feedback in the

final version by including im Jahr as well as aufder anderen Seite.

91

After Herman reads another sentence or two flom the draft, Richard interj ects
again, and in one turn makes a positive comment, suggests several corrections regarding
word choice, spelling and plural form, which constitute what I characterize as episode
eight. There is no real dialog at this point between Richard and Herman, rather a list of
corrections and agreement flom the student, followed by a request to continue reading the
draft.

Richard: sehr schdner Satz. OK es gibt ein paar Sachen hier. “In der Nahe

von”. . .Ich wfirde sagen es ist viel einfacher “fast Halb.”

Herman: fast Halb, ja.

Richard: “fast Halb von allen grossen amerikanischen”——mit kleinem “a”, weil

das ein Adj cktiv ist, ja? Betriebs? Betricbe. “irn Verglcich” Verglcich wird gross

geschrieben, von ist extra, das brauchst du nicht. Weitcr.
(Herman/Richard/A2)

In this passage Clyde also comments on in der Na'he van, suggesting the phrase be
replaced with fast die Ha'lfte. He also notes the spelling mistakes for Amerikanisch and
Vergleich, the incorrect plural form, and also suggests the deletion of van. In addition to
these suggestions, Clyde further suggests the use of the passive voice in one sentence, the
addition of the words im Ausland to more closely define the companies to which Herman
is referring. In the final draft Herman has once again blended the suggestions flom the
two sources of feedback. He incorporates all of the suggestions common to both sources,
with the exception of changing the spelling of Verglcich, he prefers Richard’s suggestion
of fast Halb over Clyde’s, and he does add im Ausland to the sentence.

The ninth episode begins with Richard’s suggestion of changing the noun
Gedankc to Meinung, and also includes a recommendation of the correct comparative

form of an adjective (wichtig). Clyde also suggests the correction to the adjective, but

does not request a change for the previously discussed noun. In addition he makes one

92

suggestion which had not been made in the conference, namely to change the spelling of
another adjective, (kulturelle) which Herman had capitalized. Herman makes corrections
in the final draft based on both sets of feedback. He corrects the comparative form of one
adjective, as was suggested in both responses, changes the spelling of the other, as Clyde
suggested, and replaces the noun with Richard’s more precise wording.

The beginning of the next episode is focused on the restructuring of an argument
that Herman was not able to express successfully in German. Richard suggests the use of
the passive voice to correct the problem. The remainder of the episode deals with some
other problematic points in the text, revolving around word order, verb-subj ect agreement
and endings. The discussion of the paragraph commences after Herman has read it aloud.

Richard: Das finde ich ein bisschen problematisch. The aforementioned is what

you mean, right? I would say it a little differently. Ich wfirde sagen “Obwohl

Interkulturelles Training bis jetzt ziemlich positiv scheint,” seems oder we’re

discussing it “. . .diskutiert wird.” Because that puts you back in the perspective of

“alles, was vorgesprochen war.” You’re referring to your discussion.

Herman: Diskutiert wird is future, right?

Richard: its passive—Es wird diskutiert.

Herman: Oh, right. It is being discussed.

Richard: So you’re saying although this has been discussed up til now fairly

positively, there are a couple of problems. -Gibt cs doch, because doch enforces

the opposite opinion.

Herman: OK

Herman/Richard/A2

Clyde’s comments Show agreement with the assessment that the first sentence
needs to be reworded. He does not, however, suggest the use of the passive voice here,
rather a less complicated revision through the deletion of some words. In the remainder
of the episode, Clyde’s comments mirror those of the conference regarding word order

and endings. In his final draft, Herman successfirlly incorporates the passive voice as

suggested in the conference.

93

One other noteworthy correction suggested in the conference regards word
choice. Herman has used a word that does not convey the meaning he wishes in German,
and judging by the fact that he initiates the discussion of it, he is aware that it is not quite
the word he is searching for. Richard attempts to help Herman decide which word would
provide the intended meaning:

Herman: anbcbaut—wasted.

Richard: “. . .so viel Geld an fibersee Aufgaben angebaut ist.”

Herman: anbcbaut.

Richard: anbcbaut?

Herman: wasted.

Richard: anbcbaut.

Herman: ein anderes Wort fiir ‘anste”——verschwinden.

Richard: OK. Was ist das Wort? Verspielen, ver- ver-

verschwenden. . .verschwendet ist. Anbcbaut, das kann auch sein, aber ich kenne

das Wort nicht.

Herman/Richard/AZ

Clyde’s comments also Show confusion about the word in question, yet he does
not give any suggestions for replacement, probably because the lack of face-to-face
dialog with Herman denies him any further insight into the intended meaning of the
word. Therefore, he underlines the word and places a question mark in the margin. In
the final draft of the essay, Herman changes anbcbaut to verschwendet, just as Richard
had suggested.

In the eleventh episode Richard suggests the modification of several adjectives,
which Herman has capitalized, and of nouns, which have not been capitalized. Richard
also suggests replacing the word Letter with Manager, using wenn instead of ob in a
subordinate clause and replacing the preposition in with fiber, to be used in conjunction

with the verb trainieren. Clyde’s commentary also calls for changing the capitalization

and replacing the subordinating conjunction, however he does not suggest changing

94

Leiter or replacing the preposition. In the final draft Herman makes the corrections as
Clyde suggested.

The final episode is similar in that once again capitalization of nouns, not of
adj cctivcs is one focus. Other problematic topics include adjective endings and subj ect-
verb agreement. Clyde notes these errors in his commentary as well, and the corrections
are made in the final draft. Another set of errors attended to in this episode is
characterized by problematic word choice. In the following excerpt the use of the word
arbeitcn is discussed.

Richard: ...und arbeitcn, das macht man kOrperlich.

Herman: ja.

Richard: Arbcitet ein Prograrnm so kOrperlich?

Herman: Arbciten nicht—They don’t prepare them well.

Richard: “dass diese Programme nicht funktionicren?”

Herman: ja.

Herman/Richard/AZ

Herman thus has the suggestion to change the verb, as well as a potential
replacement. Clyde also makes the suggestion to change the verb, but does not suggest a
substitute for arbeitcn. Herman uses Richard’s suggestion in the final draft.
Interestingly, the next suggestion for replacement based on a word choice error comes not
flom Richard, but flom Clyde. Richard is satisfied with Herman’s use of the verb fiihlen,
but Clyde suggests a change. This time, the instructor does provide a replacement verb;

meinen, and that is the verb appearing in Herman’s final draft. Herman discovers his

own replacement for the third word choice error in this passage:

Richard: J a. Arbcitserlaubnisse?
Herman: experiences

95

Richard: Ah. Erlaubnisse, das ist “allowances.” Arbcits-

Herman: Erfahrung

Richard: gut.

Herman/Richard/A2

The dialog of the writing conferences involving Herman and Richard can be
summarized as follows regarding adherence to the agenda, trends in self-corrective
moments and actual revisions made. In the first conference, a specific agenda was set but
not closely followed. Herman had indicated his preference to discuss issues of clarity
and support of the argumentation in his composition. Only once in the conference did
Richard steer the conversation toward these issues, however, when he suggested caution
in implementing complicated grammatical structures. The use of the genitive case, also a
point Herman requested in the conference, was only brought to the forcflont of the
conversation twice. In the second conference no agenda was set, so it is not possible to
discuss the dialog in these terms.

Regarding self-corrective moments in the conferences, Herman was consistent in
following the instructor’s suggestions, even when it meant ignoring his own correct
intuitions. One exception is provided flom the read-aloud phase in the first conference in
which he provided a correct revision based solely on his own intuition since neither the
instructor nor the consultant suggested a change.

Herman’s revisions to the first composition show that he consistently applied the
suggestions flom the instructor, even in cases leading to a faulty revision. For the final
draft of the second composition, however, Herman has made revisions based on a

combination of consultant and instructor feedback. The feedback he received is so similar

flom both sources that it is very difficult to tell which suggestions are being

96

implemented. Implications of the trends for auto-correction and implementation of

suggested revisions observed in Herman's case are discussed in more detail in chapter

eight.

97

Chapter 6: Homer's Case

6.1 Profile of Homer

Homer is a Caucasian male who at the time of the study had sophomore standing
at Michigan State University with a major in Economics. He had a self-reported grade
point average of 3.0 out of 4.0 in German. He reported English as his first language, had
not studied abroad and reported three years of German as a foreign language in secondary
school. Homer brought just over four full typed pages of text with him to the first writing
conference, and six typed pages to the second conference. His response to the first
assignment included a discussion of the advantages and disadvantages of each of two
business forms; the stock corporation and the limited liability corporation, as well as a
concluding statement recommending the choice of the latter for the fictitious company.
The second essay weighed the advantages and disadvantages of training American
managers for employment in the German subsidiary, and concluded that American
managers should indeed be trained and employed by the company.
6.2 Negotiated agenda for the conferences (expectations) and perceived
conference outcomes

During the agenda setting phase of the first conference the student and consultant
mutually decide on two aspects of the text which will be discussed in the session, though
deciding on these areas does require some prompting by the consultant. The two areas to
be discussed are supporting information for the arguments the author makes and the
complexity of the language in the paper. Homer's perceived conference outcomes, as

documented in the reflective statement included a perceived improvement in his ability to

98

 

 

write with clarity as well as to find and correct Simple mistakes by reading aloud and
talking them through with the consultant. Though the expectations and outcomes for this
conference do not exactly match, it is clear flom the reflective statement that the author
felt as though his product benefited flom the conference. It is also clear flom the
conference talk itself that attention was indeed paid to at least the concern about
incorporating more complex forms. In this section I will provide excerpts flom the
agenda setting phase of the conference and excerpts flom the conference corresponding
to them.

First, I remind Homer that before the start of the videotaping he had mentioned
experiencing some difficulty in finding appropriate sources for support of the paper.
Further discussion of this aspect leads Homer to identify his concern as relating to the
length of the essay. However, in Spite of my second statement in this excerpt, no concrete
ideas for lengthening the essay were actually suggested in the conference. Thus, those
expectations were not met.

Mitchell: Zum Bcispiel du hast schon erwahnt, dass es nicht immer so leicht war,

Informationen zu finden oder Informationen aus dem Buch oder aus anderen

Quellen in den Bericht zu bringen.

Homer: J a ich habe viele wichtige Information aber nicht so viel Information das

ist leicht fiir fiinf Seiten. Ich habe viel fiir zwei oder drei vielleicht vier Seiten,

aber das fiinfte Seitc war sehr schwcr, weil ich muss so wenige Information fiir
diese lange Bericht.

Mitchell: So etwas mit der Lange des Berichts. Vielleicht kOnnen wir dann ein

Paar Ideen besprechen, wie du das dann liinger machen kenntest oder so.

Homer/Mitchell/Al

The conference talk does, however, provide some examples of Homer and myself

working out the incorporation of some more complex forms. Suggestions for using the

passive voice , the genitive case and subordinate clauses all fall into this category,

although they were not all specifically mentioned as part of the agenda for this

99

conference. First I will look at the moment when this aspect was raised as an expectation
for the session, then I will Show some examples of how I attempted to fulfill the Homer's
request. We had just settled on the first aspect of the agenda when I suggested another.
As earlier, the student was not forthcoming with ideas, therefore a bit of prompting was
necessary.

Mitchell: OK gut. Also, die Lange. Wie fiihlst du dich, wenn es urn Grammatik
geht? Um die Sprachc. .. so Grammatik oder Stilistik. F fihlst du dich gut da in
diesem Bereich?
Homer: Es war OK umm. .. der Grammatik. . .Ich will nicht nur leichte Sprachc
aber so immer habe ich mehr schwcrere Sprachc in mein Bericht.
Mitchell: So, du versuchst kompliziertere Stitze zu schrciben, mit Nebensatzen
und so. ..
Homer: J 3
Mitchell: OK
Homer: Ich will kompliziertere Formen aber es geht nicht aber
Mitchell: J a das ist nicht immer so leicht zu machen aber wir kdnnen das
besprechen, wenn wir den Bericht dann durchlesen.
Homer: OK

Homer/Mitchell/Al

The incorporation of sentences with subordinate clauses was suggested on
occasion during the conference, in keeping with the Homer's stated expectations. One
particular example of such a discussion follows the discovery in the text of a
subordinating conjunction followed by normal word order. This example is fortuitous for
the conference not only because it provides an occasion for the teaching of the
appropriate use of the form in question, but also because it provides the student with an
example of a mistake that he noticed during the read aloud protocol. The discussion of
this mistake therefore has the potential of impacting the student's writing process on

various levels.

Mitchell: und dann hier. Hier hast du "weil" benutzt, und "weil" ist was fiir ein
Wort? Was fiir ein Wort ist "weil" oder wie fimktioniert das Verb mit "weil?"
Homer: J a, es geht dann am Ende.

100

Mitchell: Das Verb muss dann ans Ende gehen.

Homer: Ich habe das gesehen, wenn ich es lese.

Mitchell: J a. Siehst du? Wenn du das vorliest, dann Siehst du etwas. OK.
Homer/Mitchell/Al

While setting the agenda for the conference on the second writing assignment
Homer again expressed his need for advice in the areas of content and complexity of
syntactic forms. Based on his response to the conference in the reflective statement,
Homer made no mention of a perceived outcome for the former issue, but perceived a
positive outcome for the latter, specifically mentioning help he received with passive
voice and genitive case. Apparantly contradicting himself, though it was agreed in the
conference that he would like help with composing more complex sentences, he
mentioned in the reflective statement a motivation to simplify his writing. The agenda
for this conference was set in the following excerpt. Here Homer responds to my
questions as to what areas of the composition he needs help with and I restate what
Homer is telling me in order to clarify the exact request.

Mitchell: OK, gut. Welchc Stellcn hier irn Text oder welche Sachen gibt es, die
du sehr gem besprechen mOchtest? Gibt es so ingendwelchc Probleme, die du
gehabt hast oder. . .Fragen, die du gehabt hast?

Homer: Ich habe viele Probleme, aber meistens fiber die Information nicht fiber
die schrciben, fiber die—die was?

Mitchell: So fiber den Inhalt, also was cigentlich da steht oder welche
Informationen du dann reinbringst und nicht so viel fiber das Dcutschc oder das
Schreiben von dem Ding.

Homer: J a.

Mitchell: Also die Grammatik nicht viele Probleme? Oder irgendwelche
vielleicht?

Homer: Wenn ich mache die Grammatik zu schwcr dann hat ich cin paar
Probleme aber nicht so. ..

Mitchell: Also, wenn du versuchst so schwierigere Satze oder kompliziertere
Stitze zu schrciben, dann kann das ein Problem sein.

Homer: J a.

Homer/Mitchell/A2

101

The middle part of the conference is dominated by the discussion of how to add
information for support of an argument favoring intercultural training for managers sent
to foreign subsidiaries. This provides an example of the conference talk adhering to the
agenda set at the beginning of the session. In this example, Homer and I have just
finished correcting some stylistic elements of a previous sentence when I express my
inability to understand the next sentence. In the course of the following discussion
excerpt it becomes clear that Homer has attempted to support his claims using examples
flom another source, namely an article on intercultural training flom the Wall Street
Journal. I suggest he make his argument even more specific than it is in the first draft of
his essay by citing the article. The discussion of how to do this continues for several
minutes and switches mainly into English, with attempts to formulate a paragraph
explaining the article in English and then translate the paragraph into German.

Mitchell: ...diesen Satz habe ich nicht verstanden.
Homer: OK. umm Es ist zwei Beispiele, nicht nur ein . Die erstc Bcispiel ist von
das Programm fiber Sprachc mit Kunden—es ist fiber Arbcitskultur. Und das
Programm lehrt fiber Versammlungen in ahh. ..
Mitchell: Irn F amilicnhaus?
Homer: Irn Familienhaus. . .umm. . .fiir beide andere Kunden und andere familien
in ihr Platz oder etwas so.
Mitchell: Und ich glaube hier das Versammlungen in Familienhaus—ich glaube
ich erkenne das Bcispiel aus dem Artikel.
Homer: yeah.
Mitchell:. . .Ich glaube du beschreibst hier, was fiir Training es im Programm
gibt—also das beschreibst du hier und dann hier versuchst du, konkrete Beispiele
zu geben, aber das sind eigentlich keinc konkrete Beispiele.
Homer: OK
Mitchell: Vielleicht wenn du sagen wfirdcst, zum Bcispiel im Artikel, also
vielleicht kannst du diesen Artikel ziticren. ..

Homer/Mitchell/A2

Other parts of the session provide examples of talk surrounding the second item

on the conference agenda; namely, the use of more complex grammatical forms. The

102

passive voice became a topic of discussion in no less than four instances during the
conference, and the genitive case dominated the discussion twice. In the following
excerpt, for example, I am guiding Homer in an attempt to use the passive voice
correctly. We had previously gone through another example of the passive in which we
discussed the idea of the agent in a passive voice sentence. In this excerpt Homer even
refers back to the agenda setting phase of the conference, reiterating his desire to work
together with me on this type of grammatical question.

Mitchell: and then is it "bei AmeriChemists?" This is an agent now.

Homer: it's an agent, it would be "von."

Mitchell: von, kann von AmeriChemists. ..

Homer: verstanden

Mitchell: Verstanden, gut verstanden. .. and then at the very end of a passive

sentence...

Homer: werden

Mitchell: werden, ja. I think that's right. Boy, that's a rough sentence there.

Homer: Yeah, that's kind of what I was talking about when I was talking about

the more complex sentences.

Homer/Mitchell/A2

It is clear flom the examples above that the writing conferences did indeed
address issues raised by the student in the initial agenda setting phase of each session.
The issue of correctly implementing more complicated grammatical forms was
specifically addressed in each session, and, though no concrete suggestions were given
regarding the length of the first assignment, much time was devoted to the discussion of
content and the appropriate use of supporting information for the arguments in the second

assignment.

6.3 Homer's auto-correction during the read aloud protocol and its impact on
revision

As in the conferences of the previous student author, Homer made several self-

corrections while he read his paper aloud at the beginning of the conference. These

103

corrections consisted mainly of revisions to the spelling of various words, or were
revisions of word choice which Homer perceived to be more appropriate to the meaning
he was attempting to impart in the essay. The following table outlines the corrections
which were made during the first conference and compares them with the text as
originally conceived by the student.

Table 6.1: Homer's self corrections while reading aloud in the first conference

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

No. Original Text of Rough Draft Homer's Utterance
1 From Form
2 kliene kleine
3 Aufsichtsratrnitgleider Aufsichtsratmitglied
4 eind is ein ist
5 Aufsichtsratmitgleider Aufsichtsratrnitglieder
6 den die
7 cine die
8 Ordunung Ordnung
9 hoher hOher
10 die viele
1 1 schrieben schrciben
12 einen cine

 

 

 

 

 

An item orally corrected by the student while he read aloud does not necessarily
result in the incorporation of the correction in the final draft of the paper. In fact, as was
also seen in the previous chapter, nearly all corrections of this type which later did appear
in the final draft were also suggested by the instructor or in both instructor and
conference feedback. As is evident in table 6.2 below, revisions were made on these
items only when the instructor also made a comment, or only in the case of item 1, if both
consultant and instructor commented. An exception to this statement is found in the case
of item 8, for which a comment was made by the instructor, yet no adj ustrnent was made
to the word in the final draft. A discussion of this exception and of one other item of

particular interest follows.

104

Table 6.2: Homer's comments and revisions on self-corrected elements (A1).

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Error No. Conference Instructor Revision made
comment comment
1 Yes Yes Yes
2 No Yes Yes
3 No No No
4 No Yes Yes
5 No No No
6 No Yes Yes
7 No No No
8 No Yes No
9 No Yes Yes
10 No No No
l 1 No No No
12 No Yes Yes

 

 

 

 

 

 

Of the twelve auto-corrected items, only the first is also mentioned in the
conference discussion. I pointed out this misspelling briefly near the end of the
conference.

Mitchell: ...Also hier kleine Sachen hier-- cine falsche Buchstabierung.

Homer: J a, das ist Form.

Mitchell: Form.

Homer: Form, nicht From

(Homer/Mitchell/Al )
This spelling error was also noted by the instructor, who suggested the appropriate
spelling in his feedback, and the revision was correctly made by Homer in the final draft.

In the case of item 8, the only auto-corrected item for which an instructor
comment was made and then not implemented in the subsequent draft, Homer noticed
and auto-corrected the misspelling Ordunung while reading aloud. In the instructor's

feedback, attention was brought to the same section of the text, yet not to the misspelling

specifically. The instructor had circled the phrase lange gesetzliche Ordunung and

105

written question marks underneath the text. Thus, in the final draft of the essay, Homer
dropped one word out of the phrase so that the text read simply gesetzliche Ordunung.

The feedback received and the revisions made for item 2 are also of particular
interest. A situation similar to that described above for item 8 occurred, in that the
instructor did draw attention to the text in question, this time to the specific word, yet
suggested a revision other than that provided by the student in the final draft. The student
auto-corrected the misspelled word kliene to kleine in the read aloud. The instructor
notated the same word in his feedback, indicated via the correction key that this
constituted an ending error, since the adjective preceded a masculine noun and was itself
preceded by an indefinite article. Therefore, the correct form would be ein kleiner
Bericht. The student had actually used the incorrect word here, (he meant Betrieb) a fact
which was noted both in the conference and in the instructor's comments and will be
discussed in section 6.4 below. At any rate the text of the final draft was corrected to
read einen klienen Betrieb revealing an effort on the part of the student to correct the
adjective ending, though still choosing an incorrect ending and leaving the spelling error
intact.

The following table shows the nine auto-corrections Homer made while reading
aloud during the second writing conference, and table 6.4 shows whether in-conferencc
or instructor comments were also made for these errors, as well as whether a revision was
implemented for the item in the final draft. The information in table 6.4 once again
yields a situation in which the instructor drew attention to a misspelled word, suggesting

a correction differing slightly flom the auto-correction.

106

Table 6.3: Homer's self corrections while reading aloud in the second conference

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

N o. Og’ginal Text of Rough Draft Homer's Utterance
1 einen Dcutschc ein Dcutscher
2 einen Amerikaner cin Amerikaner
3 Dcutscher Dcutschc
4 groBten gOBten
5 die sic
6 den der
7 Probehnen Probleme
8 daB die (pause) daB
9 das die

 

 

 

 

 

Looking further into the situation surrounding item 7 on tables 6.3 and 6.4, I
found that Homer corrected both the inversion of characters and the wrong plural form in
the word Probelmen while reading aloud. However, he did not pay enough attention to
his own correction to appropriately produce the word on the final draft of the essay. He
did pay attention to the instructor's intervening comment, though, in which Clyde had
only suggested a change to the plural form. In the final draft, then, Homer produced the
word Probelme as suggested, oblivious to the spelling problem to which he had
previously attended.

Table 6.4: Homer's comments and revisions on self-corrected elements (A2).

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Error No. Conference Instructor Revision made
comment comment
1 No Yes No
2 No Yes No
3 No Yes Yes
4 No Yes Yes
5 No No No
6 No Yes Yes
7 No Yes Yes
8 No No Yes
9 No No Yes

 

 

 

 

 

107

Three other revealing results are apparent flom table 6.4. In item 1 as well as
item 2, Homer made a self-correction which was also mentioned in the instructor's
feedback. Yet, contrary to the most flcquent pattern noticed in the study of auto-
correction, the revision suggested by the instructor was not made in the final draft. There
is no clear evidence to suggest why Homer did not incorporate the feedback for the two
items, but they stand out as exceptions to the pattern of making revisions based on self-
corrected elements.

Another way in which Homer's self-corrections contradict the patterns seen in the
other case studies and the patterns suggested in the literature becomes evident in elements
8 and 9. Homer corrected both items while reading aloud, but no suggestion was made
for either item in the conference, and the instructor did not suggest a correction for either
item. Even so, Homer made the revision in the final draft, just as he had made it verbally
during the conference.

6.4 Comparison of episodes of conference feedback, instructor feedback and
actual revisions

In the first conference I made 31 suggestions in the course of 11 episodes of
consultant-student talk, while the instructor made 210 suggestions in his written
feedback. Again, I will be discussing features of these episodes in order to ascertain the
type of suggestions given by the consultant in comparison with the type of suggestions
given by the instructor. This will be followed in each case by a discussion of which
revisions were made in the final draft. As in the previous case study, I provide the
complete texts of the writing assignments discussed in the conferences, annotated as to

episode number and sources of feedback for each episode. Again, the discussion

108

presented here is focusing on a comparison between writing conference feedback and
instructor feedback for the same passages in the text, therefore passages which generated
feedback only flom the instructor are not included in this discussion.

Figure 6.1: Annotated text of Homer's first writing assignment

Soll Americhemist fiir seine deutsche Tochtcrfirma die Untemehmensform einer AG oder GmbH
wiihlcn?

In Deutschland gibt es viele verschiedene Untemehmensformcn. Die wichtigste
Untemehmensforrnen sind Einzeluntemehmen, Offene Handelsgesellschaft (OHG),
Komrnanditgescllschaft (KG), Aktiengesellschaft (AG), und Gescllschaft mit beschrankter Haftung
(GmbH). Jede Egg [6] had ander Ordnungen, die haben die individuelle Firma gegrfindct. Zum Bcispiel,
einer kliene Bericht [6] rrrit nur 5 ArbciterInnen und einem Eigentfimcr ist eine Einzeluntemehmcn. Aber
gibt es viele Bedingungen fiir cine Untemehmen, wenn es will cin Form finden. Regeln fiber Profit- und
Verlustbeteiligung ist auich sehr wichtig, so ist Leitfmg dcs Betriebs und auch Pflicht fiir inforrnieren, zum
Bcispiel einen JahresabschluB. Wie cine intemationale Firma AmeriChemists kann diese Formen zu zwei
mtiglichcn Untemghmcnsformen [ 1]. Die zwei sind Akticngescllschaft (AAG) und Gescllschaft rrrit
beschriinktcr Haftung (GmbH).

 

Rahmenbedingungen und Gesctzlichc Organe dcr AG und dcr GmbH

Beide AG und GmbH sind Kapitalgcscllschaftcn; cine Kapitalgcscllschatt ist cine Firma, die ihre
Gnmdkapital in viele teilen [2] ist, das heiBt die Aktcin sind nrit vile Eigentfimcrlnnen. Es ist sehr wichtig,
weil die Kapitaleigncrlnncn investieren nur ihre Akticngeld; ihre Haftung ist beschriinkt. Die AG und die
GmbH haben viele Regeln fiir cine F irma cine AG oder GmbH werden [2].

Eine AG muB fast irnrner 100 000 DM das Grimdkapital zu betragcn. Die gesetzlichen Organe dcr
AG sind der Vorstand, der Aufsichtsrat, und die Hauptversamrnlung, weil jede Gesellschafterlnncn kann
nicht die AG kontrollicren. Der Vorstand ist das lcitende Organ dcr AG, und kann mit ein oder mcj;
Personen bestchen [7]. Sic kennen Aktionarlnnen sein, aber sie dfirfen nicht Mitglieder dcs Aufsichtsrats
sein, wenn sic einen Mitglider des Vorstands ist. Der Aufsichtsratrnitgliedcr dfirfen auch Aktioniirlnncn
sein. Der Aufsichtsrat ist das beratcnde Organ des Betriebs. Sic fiberwacht die Geschifftsfiihrung des
Vorstandcs. Der Aufsichtsrat kann auch den Vorstand absetzcn, wenn es die besten Interessen der
Gesellschaft ist. Wenn cine AG mehr als 500 Beschaftigtcn haben, muB dcr Bericht [6] Arbcitnchmerlnnen
das Recht geben, Aufsichtsratrrritgleidcr zu wilhlen. Zum Bcispiel, fiir cine AG nrit fiber 20 000
Beschiiftigtcn mull der Aufsichtsrat 20 Mitgliedem. 10 Vertretcr dcs Aufsichtsrat sind Eigentfimcr, oder
Aktioniir, 9 sind Arbcitnehmcr, und eind is dcr "leitender Angcstellter." Dabei ist 50% der Aufsichtsrat
Arbcitnchrnerlnncn, oder Mcnschcn, die Arbciter wahlcn. Die drittcn Gruppe ist die Hauptversamrnlung,
die vertritt die Interessen dcr Aktioniirlnnen. Sic haben cine Mitbestimmung in der Firma durch ihr
Stimmrccht. Sic kennen die Aufsichtratsrrritgleider wahlen, und auch fcucm. Alle
Hauptversamrnlungerlnncn sind Aktienbesitzer, und haben cine Aktienanteilen der Gesellschaft.

Der Grundkapital einer GmbH ist weniger als der Grundkapital einer AG; 50 000 DM. Die
Leitfmg der GmbH ist die GeschaftsfiihrcrInncn, wie der Vorstand die Leitung einer AG ist. Eine GmbH
hat auch die Gescllschaftcrversamnrlung, die entspricht der Hauptversamrnlung dcr AG. Meistens hat cine
GmbH weniger Gesellschaftcrlnncn als cine AG Aktioniirlnncn hat, so jede Gesellschafter hat cine groBer
Teil dcr Firma. Eine GmbH kann einen Aufsichtsat auch haben, aber cs is nur cine gesetzliche Regeln fiir
groBcre Firmen. Ein Betrieb muB ein Aufsichtrat wahlen, wenn dcr Betrieb mehr als 500 Beschiiftigtcn

anstellen. Meistens ist die GmbH in der Regel kleincr als cine AG aucl_r, weil es gibt weniger
Eigentfimcrlnnen [8].

 

109

Figure 6.1 cont.
Vor- und Nachteile dcr Untemehmensformcn AG und GmbH

Eine AG hat viele Vor- und Nachteile. Es gibt meistens viele Aktienbesitzer in einer AG, weil
cine AG sehr groB ist. Diese Aktien dcr AG k6n_ncn die Offcntlichkeittauschen, wo es macht cin Markt fiir
die AGs Aktien werden [3]. Es kann cine gutc Idee cine F irma einer AG wifhlen, wenn es groB ist. Aber es
ist nicht so cine gutc Idee, wenn cine intemationale Firma, wie AmeriChemists, wifhlt cine AG fiir den
Untemehmensform Der Untemehmensform einer AG ist sehr konrplcx, und die gesetzliche regeln sind
Lang und hindcrlich. Es gibt auch viele Kosten, wenn dicse Regeln wahlen muB. Der Aufsichtsrat muB
fast irnmcr zwischen ein Drittel und cin Halb von dcr Arbcitnehmerlnnen wiihlen. Wenn fast 50% dcr
Aufsichtsrat Arbcitnehmcr sind, Gewinn bckomrnt cine kleinerc Prioritfit. Oft hgt zu viele Gruppcn cine
Mitbestimmungsrecht, und cs wfirde viele Konflikte zwischen dicsc game. z.B. Arbcitnch_rgcrlnncn vom
Aufsichtsrat und den Vorstand [4]. Es gibt nur mehr Kosten zum Betrieb, wenn die Firma in Konflickt ist.
Der Grundkapital ist auch sehr hoch fiir cine AG; 100 000 DM. Es ist zweirnal die Kosten einer GmbH.
Am lctztens, die wirtschaftlichc Vorteile einer AG fiir AmeriChemists ist nicht so groB. Ohnc dicsc Regeln
und lange gesetzliche Ordunung, AmeriChemists AGS Gewinn wfirdcn nicht so viel hoher als
AmeriChemists GmbH.

Obwohl dcr Untemehmensform GmbH hat viele kleinerc Kosten, hat cine GmbH viele gesetzliche
Regeln auch. Es hat die Geschiiftsfiihrerlnnen und die Gcsellschaftcrvcrsannnlung. AmeriChemists ist
cine groBe intemationale F irma, dabei muB unsercn Betrieb auch einen Aufsichtsrat wahlcn. Manchc
Vertrctcr des Aufsichtsrats mussen auch von Arbcitnehmerlnnen wahlcn, wie cine AG. Aber cine GmbH
ist sehr flexibcl, und Obwohl cine GmbH viele Regeln haben, haben viel weniger als cine AG. Es gibt
keinc Vorstand in einer GmbH, nur Geschiiftsfiihrcr. Es gibt auch keinc Aktien, und dabei cs keinc
Aktienbesitzer gibt. In einer AG ist Aktienprcis sehr wichtig; rrrit keinen Aktien, gibt es keinen
Aktienprcis. So Entscheidungcn kann in den besten Inflssen AmeriChemists mchcn. nicht in den besten
Interessen dem Aktienpreis [9]. Gesetzlichc Organe cine GmbH kann cine klarc und einfachc Erldiirung
schrciben, wo cine AG muB cine lange und kurzc Erkliirung schrieben.

AbschluB

AmeriChemists soll cine Untemehmensform GmbH fiir seine Tochtcrfirrna wfihlen. Die Kosten
fiir gesetzlichen Regeln ist weniger, und sehr lcichtcr als einen AG Untern ehmcnsforrn. Auch kann
AmeriChemists keinc Aktien verkaufen, wie es hat schon in den USA getan. Auch kann AmeriChemists
fast trotzdcme Organe in seine Tochterfirmg als AmeriChemists [5]. Mit fiber 500 Beschiiftigtcn muB
AmeriChemists cine Aufsichtsrat forrncn, abcr wird einen Aufsichtsrat wfihlen, wenn cs cine GmbH oder
cine AG wird. Eine GmbH ist auch sehr Flexibcl; sehr wichtig fiir cine modemc Chemickalicnfirma, wenn
die Industry sehr Flexibcl auch ist. Am wichtigstcns kann AmeriChemists, mit einer GmbH
Untemehmensform, mehr Gewinn als bevor und auch als cine AG Untemehmensform vcrdienen.

Episode 1 begins when I request clarification of the meaning of one portion of the
composition. The flagrnent to which the focus of the conference is drawn is as follows:
"Wie cine intemationale F irma, AmeriChemists kann diese Formen zu zwei mOglichcn
Untemehmensformcn." I offer to help Homer formulate his thoughts in English and then
bring them into an appropriate German form. This never actually happens in this
episode, however, and won't until episode 5. Rather, we stay in German and negotiate

the meaning of Homer's paper through our dialog with one another.

110

 

'1‘ a;~~.?‘t~4.~ - LL: ‘

Mitchell: Ich habe nur cin Paar Stellcn, wo ich cin bisschen Erklarung brauche,
weil ich nicht genau verstanden habe, was du versucht hast zu schrciben. Also
vielleicht kennen wir das dann auf cngliseh feststellen, was du damit meinst und
dann so cine besserc Form in deutsch. ..
Homer: In deutsch.
Mitchell: Also, zum Bcispiel hier am Ende des erstcn Paragraphcn. "Wie cine
intemationale F irrna, AmeriChemists kann diese Formen zu zwei m'o‘glichen
Untemehmensformcn." (umm) Das habe ich nicht genau verstanden.
Homer: OK
Mitchell: Ich verstehe hier du sprichst von den verschiedenen
Untemehmensfonnen in Deutschland: AG, GmbH, KG, OHG und so weiter aber
hier ich glaube du versuchst zu sagen, daB eigentlich nur zwei Typcn, nur zwei. ..
Homer: Formen.
Mitchell: Formen fiir AmeriChemists mOglich sind, und das sind AG und GmbH.
Hier hast du das nicht so gut ausgedruckt. Ist das richtig? Ist das, was du gemeint
hast?
Homer: J a, weil es cine intemationale Firma und cine ganz groBe F irma. Wenn
es seine Tochterfirma wahlen die Form will es und diese Formen OHG und KG
sind nicht fiir Americhemists.
Mitchell: Kommen nicht in Frage?
Homer: J a, nur AG und GmbH
Mitchell: Gut. Dann meinst du vielleicht nicht "wie" sondcm "als". Aber ist es
der Fall, daB in Deutschland, daB intemationale F irmen in Deutschland nur AG
oder GmbH sein kenncn? Oder kOnnen auch intemationale Firmen auch KG
sein?
Homer: J a
Mitchell: J a sic kenncn auch?
Homer: Aber weil es cine groBe Firma ist. ..
Mitchell: OK. Also, es ist nicht nur, daB cs cine intemationale Firma ist, sondcm
auch daB cs so groB ist. .. Dann vielleicht "Als cine sehr groBe intemationale
F irma"
Homer: J a, mit vielen Bcschaftigten und Arbcitnehmer/innen
Mitchell: (mm hmm) "kann AmeriChemists nur"
Homer: J a. OK.
Mitchell: "nur zwei m6glichc Untemehmensforrnen". . .und dann brauchst du
noch ein Verb hier. KOnnen ist ein Modalverb.
Homer: J a, natfirlich.
Mitchell: "kann AmeriChemists nur zwei mOgliche
Untemehmensforrncn". . .(umm)
Homer: wahlcn.

(Homer/Mitchell/Al )

I was concerned with the meaning Homer was attempting to convey and

negotiated modifications to the forms used to convey that meaning. The suggested

111

modifications arising out of the dialog included replacing wie with als, adding adjectives
to denote the size of the company, inverting the word order in the main clause, replacing
diese Formen zu with nur and adding the infinitive form wc'ihlen at the end of the clause.
For the same flagrnent the instructor suggested deletion of the subordinate clause at the
beginning, addition of the preposition von, addition of a dative case marker on the
pronoun following, deletion of zu, and addition of the infinitive form wc'ihlen at the end of
the clause.

Homer chooses to incorporate a combination of the conference and the instructor
feedback in his final version. In addition to my comments, some of the revised material
came flom Homer’s own utterances in the conference, revealing his attention to the
dialog and strong motivation on his part to revise acceptably. The first part of the revised
sentence clearly comes flom the conference dialog. Homer writes: “Als cine
intemationale und sehr groBc Firma mit vielen Beschaftiger kann AmeriChemists”. The
remainder of the sentence is motivated by the instructor’s comments, or more precisely, a
blend of the two sets of feedback, particularly regarding the final infinitive, which is
suggested in both sources. Homer wrote: “von diesen forrncn zwei mOgliche
Untemehmensforrncn wahlen”.

The second episode in the writing conference also arises flom the desire of the
consultant to understand the meaning Homer wanted to convey. I point out another area
in the text and talk about its lack of understandability. Homer had written the following
sentence: “Die AG und die GmbH haben viele Regeln fiir cine Firma cine AG oder
GmbH werden.” I invite Homer to explain in more detail what he means with this

sentence. Homer’s response indicates that he wishes to stress the fact that both forms

112

have legal guidelines, which he would treat more thoroughly in the following paragraph.
I suggest that Homer use the form beide in his revision, a form the student had
successfully used in a previous sentence. It was also suggested that the preposition fiir be
replaced with a subordinating conjunction wenn and the word order of the clause be
modified, also with inclusion of a modal verb. In contrast Clyde's feedback suggests that
Homer begin a new paragraph with the new sentence, add a fill stop before the
preposition and delete the remainder of the sentence.

Homer’s revision again blends feedback flom both sources. He does begin a new
paragraph, as the instructor had suggested, but he also attempts to implement the
suggestions flom the consulting session, replacing fiir with wenn and adding the modal
verb. However, in doing so, he leaves out the main verb of the sentence resulting in this
final draft revision: “Die AG und die GmbH haben viele Regeln, wenn cine Firma cine
AG oder GmbH mechte.”

In the first two episodes of this conference Homer receives feedback which he
then creatively blends with the feedback received flom the instructor to produce the
revisions discussed above. In the third episode, Homer disregards the instructor’s
feedback and relies completely on the suggestions made in the conference. This fact
makes the examination of the conference talk surrounding this portion of the composition
particularly interesting and provides data for further discussion of the implications of
providing writing conference feedback.

The following excerpt flom Homer's rough draft becomes the focus of the third
episode: "Diese Aktien der AG kenncn die Offentlichkeit tauschen, wo cs macht ein

Markt fiir die AG 3 Aktien werden." I ask for some further explanation of Homer's

113

meaning and understanding is achieved through Homer's use of English in the ensuing
dialog.

Homer: OK. (umm) Die Aktien fiir die Firma, die (umm) Eigentfimcr teilen

(um) die Aktien kann tauschen mit (umm) in dcr Markt in (umm) der "Stock

Exchange".

Mitchell: an der BOrse _

Homer: BOrse, ja. (um) die tauschen an der BOrse so Sic k'o'nnen an der BOrse

in cine Offcntliche Berse

Mitchell: getauscht werden. "Diese Aktien der AG kennen Offentlich getauscht

werden" oder vielleicht "an der Bc‘irse getauscht werden" Das ist dann Passiv.

(Homer/Mitchell/Al)
Homer incorporates this suggestion in the final draft of the essay, along with other
suggestions for the sentence including deletion of macht, addition of an accusativc case
marker on the indefinite pronoun ein and replacement of werden with gibt at the end of
the sentence. These suggestions are incorporated, even though the instructor had
advocated deleting the entire sentence.

Further along in the passage under scrutiny, I make the comment that Homer
should think about expanding the paragraph a little to specifically state whether the facts
he is writing about indeed constitute advantages or disadvantages for the company. I
argue that this is a necessary step, since the section bore the heading "Advantages and
Disadvantages". I attempt to help Homer improve the flow of his paragraph by proposing
transitions to link the sentences together and give an example why the statements he was
making are important. The following dialog occurs as a result of my recommendation.

Mitchell: So das kenntcst du vielleicht ein bisschen weiter crklarennob du das

fiir einen Vorteil oder fiir einen Nachteil haltst. J a? Und hier dann sprichst du

von. .. also indirekt von Vorteilcn und Nachteilcn.

Homer: So vielleicht (umm) "Es kann cine gute Idee sein, cine deutsche

Firma. . .eine nur deutsche Firma cine AG wahlen, wenn es groB ist abcr es ist

vielleicht ganz mehr schwcr, wenn cine groBe intemationale F irma cine AG
wiihlt.

114

Mitchell: J a, das ist besser. Also, es geht hier nur um so cin paar kleine WOrtcr
zwischen den Siftzen, so cine Ubergang von einem Satz zum anderen. "Es ist
nicht so cine gute Idee, weil. . ." oder "Es ist nicht so cine gute Idee. Das ist dcr

Fall, denn. . ." Also, cs geht um ein paar kleine WOrtcr, verstehst du?

(Homer/Mitchell/Al )
These suggestions required Homer to provide more language than was already in the
paper. The instructor's suggestions focused more on the existing language and included
word order corrections in the subordinating clause and corrections of gender errors. In
the final draft Homer incorporated the conference suggestions, adding transitional
language to the paragraph.

It has become clear through the discussion of episode three that the suggestions
flom the conference feedback played a larger role in the revision than did the suggestions
flom the instructor. Why this is the case here remains an open question. Why did the
student find it important to reconstruct the first sentence based on the consultant's
feedback rather than delete it as the instructor had suggested? Why did the student go out
of his way to add transitional elements between the sentences, rather than correct the
language that already existed? One might speculate that the student's interest was so
piqued by learning the new phrase an der Bdrse that he then wished to incorporate it in
the revision, thus demonstrating his acquisition of business vocabulary and perhaps
making a better impression on the instructor. Questions like this will be discussed further
in the implications for future research in the final chapter of this dissertation.

The talk in the fourth episode of the conference focused on a missing verb in one
of Homer's sentences. I point out that a verb is missing and Homer rather quickly

provides the form geben to complete the clause "es wfirde Konflikt zwischen den

Gruppen [geben]." This is the only change I suggest, although Homer's sentence contains

115

other structure errors, which had been found by the instructor. For example, Clyde draws
attention to a subj ect-verb agreement error, a gender error, two case errors and a missed
plural ending. Clyde also advocates replacing wfirde with ka'nnte as well as adding the
missing verb geben. I did not consider these structural problems to be as great a
hindrance to the meaning of the sentence as the missing verb. In his final revision,
Homer incorporates all of the suggestions successfully, with the exception of the gender
mistake. He changes the gender of "Mitbestimmungsrecht" flom feminine to masculine
instead of neuter.

Once again the impetus for the discussion in the next episode was the
incomprehensibility of Homer's sentence. The discussion begins when I read the
sentence aloud and request clarification of its meaning.

Mitchell: "Auch kann AmeriChemists fast trotzdcme Organe in seine

Tochterfirma als AmeriChemists." Was heiBt das?

Homer: OK (funm)

Mitchell: Vielleicht hier ist die beste Idee, dass wir das halt auf Englisch

ausdrficken und dann versuchen das Deutsch zu finden.

(Homer/Mitchell/Al)
I was perplexed by what the possible meaning of the flagrnent could be, yet saw that it
was a potentially important statement in support of the argument that the fictitious
company should choose a certain form over another. Therefore, I made the decision to
attempt to get at the meaning in English first, then find the German forms to match the
meaning. At this point the language of the conference switched to English.

Mitchell: What did you try to say with that?

Homer: (umm) Let's see. That way or also AmeriChemists can keep or have

or. . .that's the verb I'm missing right there, that I'm not sure on (umm) almost all

the same (umm) company organization in its partner firm, its subsidiary as

AmeriChemists itself.

Mitchell: Ah. So say that again. Let's get it in English first. Say that again.
(Homer/Mitchell/Al)

116

From this point we worked together to write out Homer's thoughts in English and decide
which verb seemed most appropriate to add. The language of the conference then
switches abruptly back to German as I make some suggestions, including restructuring
the idea into a subordinate clause, replacing the wrong word choice "trotzdcme", and
adding the verb Homer had not been able to find.

Mitchell: Ich wfirde vorschlagen, wir sagen nicht "auch kann" sondcm wir sagen

(umm). Die ganze Argumentation ist, daB AmeriChemists GmbH wifhlen soll,

nicht?

Homer: J a.

Mitchell: GmbH 3011 sic wifhlen, also etwas mit wenn. "Wenn AmeriChemists

GmbH als Untemehmensform wifhlt" -- und welches Modalverb wfirdcst du

benutzen?

Homer: kann oder 8011.

Mitchell: OK. Kann. ". . .kann die Firma fast alle". .. das ist nicht so schlccht, nun

daB ich das verstehe, aber dieses Wort kann nicht bleibcn-das bcdeutct etwas

anderes. "fast allc-- fast diesselben Organe in ihrer Tochtcrfirma. . ." und das

Zauberverb to keep or maintain.

(Homer/Mitchell/Al)

As in episode 3 above, Clyde suggests the deletion of the sentence without giving
any suggestions for improving it. As a result of the conference talk, however, Homer
decided to revise the sentence instead, producing a result still with some errors, yet vastly
easier to comprehend than the original flagrnent. He wrote in the final version: "Wenn
wilhlt AmeriChemists GmbH als Untemehmensform, kann die F irma fast die selben
Organe in ihren Tochterfirma als AmeriChemists Mutterfinna behalten." The use of the
term Mutterfirma was also a topic of discussion in the conference. Neither party was sure
of the word's viability, and I suggested that it sounded right as an extension of the
metaphor in the term T ochterfirma, but that Homer should consult a dictionary to be sure.

Either Homer did consult the dictionary, or he was willing to take the risk of including

the questioned term in his revision. After the conference I did consult a dictionary and

117

found the term Muttergesellschaft, reinforcing my thinking that Mutterfirma was also a
possibility. This is just one example of the writing conference as a learning experience
for both parties involved.

Episode 6 consisted of correcting a word choice error in two separate areas of the
essay. Although Homer had used the appropriate term in other contexts within the
composition, he twice mistakenly wrote Bericht when he meant Betrieb. Clyde also
noted these errors, and both were corrected in the revised draft.

Though brief, episode 7 provides an example of a case in which the conference
feedback precisely paralleled the instructor's feedback. Homer had written "Der
Vorstand ist das lcitende Organ der AG, und kann mit ein oder mehr Personen bestchen."
In the conference, I explain that the verb bestehen in this sense is part of an idiomatic
expression in German requiring use of the preposition aus, instead of mit. I also explain
that the indefinite articles that follow this preposition must reflect the dative case.
Clyde's feedback on this passage consisted of notes meant to draw Homer's attention to
the word choice error involving the preposition and an error designated as an ending error
on the indefmitc article ein. In his final draft Homer completed the revisions exactly as
had been suggested in the conference. The preposition was changed to aus, the dative
case marker was added to ein, resulting in einer, and the word mehr was changed to
mehreren, a word choice suggested in the conference, but not by the instructor.

Clyde's feedback regarding the ending error on ein is noteworthy since the
instructor's correction key included a code used to designate case errors, which more
closely identifies the mistake here, yet that particular code was not used in this passage.

The question of what type of feedback instructor's give when using a correction key as an

118

impetus for student revision will be discussed among the implications for future research
in a later chapter.

A word order problem was the focus of episode 8. I remind Homer that the main
verb of a subordinate clause should go to the end of the clause. The instructor also made
this suggestion in his feedback, and Homer moved the verb in the revision.

In episode 9 the suggestions flom both sources were quite similar to one another.
I suggest replacing the conjunction so with deshalb or deswegcn, in order to better
convey the effect described in the sentence as attributable to the cause in the previous
sentence. I also suggest changing the conjugation of the verb and using the passive
voice. All of these suggestions were also made by Clyde, the only difference being the
suggestion of replacing so with also. In the final draft Homer chose the conjunction
deshalb to begin the sentence, changed the conjugation of the verb to agree with the
subject, an d employed a passive voice construction.

Episodes 10 and 11 were both brief, discussing a spelling error and an adjective
ending, respectively. Clyde also commented on each of these errors, suggesting
correction of the spelling error, just as I had. Regarding the adjective ending, the
instructor advocated deletion of the adjective, whereas I propose a change in the ending.
In the final revision Homer correctly changed the spelling error and deleted the adjective,
following both my suggestion and Clyde's for the former, and Clyde's suggestion for the
latter.

For the second writing assignment I made 51 suggestions for correction in the
nine episodes of the conference, more than I suggested in more episodes in the first

conference. The instructor, by contrast, made fewer comments on this paper than on the

119

first, with a total of 199 comments and corrections. 1 will present those suggestions
discussed in the conference here and also provide details flom the instructor's feedback in
regard to the same points in the text and the actual final revisions in the post-conference
draft of Homer's essay. Figure 6.2 provides the text and sources of feedback for this
writing assignment.

Figure 6.2: Annotated text of Homer's second writing assignment

Soll AmeriChemists amerikanische Ffihrungskriittc nach Deutschland schicken?
1. Einfiihrung: Hintcrgrundinforrrrationcn

In dcr Tochtcrfirma AmeriChemists GmbH muB ein Managementtcam wifhlcn werden [4]. Wir
ktinncn entwcdcr cin deutsche Team oder cin amerikanische team wiihlen. Beide deutsche und
amerikanische ManagerInncn haben viele Vorteilcn, und auch haben cine gute Kcnntnis fiber
AmeriChemistss. Die beiden Gruppen sind sehr gualifizicrt, und beiden Gruppen werden ggt fiir
AmeriChemists, ob einer Team die Muttcrfirmg gcwiihlt wird [5]. Obwohl beide deutsche und
amerikanische ManagerIrmcn qualifizicrt sind, der Managementstil einen Dcutschc als einen Amerikaner
sind ganz anders. Dcshalb muB Americhemists sich entscheiden, welchcr Managementstil ist besser fiir
AmeriChemists; beide die Muttcrfrrrna und die Tochterfirrna.

Ein dcutschcr Managementstil ist ganz andcrs als cin amerikanischer Managementsil, der
Managementstil AmeriChemists, weil die Kultur so anders zwischen Deutschland als den USA ist. Daher
muB AmeriChemists dcutschcn Kultur vcrstehcn. bevor den dcutschcn Manggmentstil wird bei
AmeriChemists vcrstehcn kOnncn [6]. Erstcns ist Zeit sehr wichtig fiir Dcutscher, imd auch dcutschcn
ManagerInncn. Dcutschc sind pfinktlich, und sic erwarten jeden Mann auch pfinktlich sein. Ein deutsche
Manager hat cine Aufstcllung, die sehr wichtig zum Manager ist. Ein deutsche Manager ist auch ganz
Privat. Er braucht scincn Platz, wo anderen Menschcn sollcn nicht stOrcn. Dcutschc ManagerInncn
machen sehr grfindlichc Entscheidungcn auch, ob cs cine kleine Wirtschaftscntscheidung oder die groBten
cntscheidung der Firma ist. Plannung ist sehr wichtig fiir einen dcutschcn Manager, und die Plannung
schein_t in ihren Entscheidungc_n [7]. Es gibt cine "Entscheidungshicrarchic," wo die Entscheidungcn muB
an vielen Managementebcnen billigen. Obwohl wenn Entscheidungcn gemacht sind, vcriindert die
Entscheidungcn fast nie. Der Fahrplan viele Entscheidungsprozcsse sind sehr Lang, so sind ManagerInncn
sehr inflexibel, wenn Mann die Entscheidung verifndern mechtc.

Der amerikanischer Managementstil ist ganz andcrs als den dcutschcn Managementstil. Erstcns
sind amerikanischcn ManagerInncn nicht so Formal als ihren dcutschcn Gcgcnstfick. Amerikanischc
ManagerInncn sind flexiblcr, und auch mehr kreativ mit ihrer Managementsstratcgie. In amerikanischcn
Firmen gibt es cine Entscheidungshicrarchic, die wcder so groB noch so stark als die Hierarchie eines
deutschcs Betriebs [8]. Kommunikation zwischen ManagerInncn ist sehr wichtig innerhalb eines
amerikanischcs Managementtcam [8]. Deshalb sind amerikanischcn ManagerInncn inforrnalcr und
auch ziemlich flcundlicher als dcutschcn ManagerInncn. Zum Bcispiel kcnnen amerikanischen
Ma_nagcrlnnen miteinflicr oft mit "Bob" oder "Mgrv," wahr_e_nd in Deutshland mull einen Manager fast
irnmcr mit "Herr" oder "Frau" nriteinandcr kenncn [9]. Wiclcn amerikanischcn ManagerInncn dcnkcn, daB
Krcativitat und Schnclligkcit ist wichtigcr als Plannung in Managementstratcgic, bcsonders in die neue
Globalle- und Technologic- Wirtschaftswclt.

2. Interkulturelles Training

120

Figure 6.2 cont.
2.1 Die Notwcndigkeit fiir interkulturclles Training

Ein dcutschcr Managementstil ist fast irnmer cine gute Strategic fiir cine deutsche Firma, so wie
cin amerikanischer Managementstil ist fast irnmer cine gute Strategic fiir cine amerikanische Firm. Aber
in intemationalcn Firmen gebt cs vielen Konflickten zwischen die Strategic dcs Managers und die Strategic
dcs Betriebs. Natfirlich will cine firma ihren ManagerInncn die gleiche Interessen der Firma haben, so
bringt die firma ManagerInncn von ihrer Muttcrfirrna zu ihrer Tochtcrfirma mit. Zum beispicl will
AmeriChemists vielleicht amerikanische ManagerInncn zu dcr dcutschcn tochterfirma mitbringcn.

Obwohl die ManagerInncn sind Qualifizicrt, und sic werden fiir AmeriChemists' Top-Zielcn
arbeitcn, hat die amerikanischen ManagerInncn fast irmner keinc Kcnntnis fiber deutsche Kultur. Die
amerikanische ManagerInncn wissen wcdcr die Arbcitsstil den ArbcitnehmerInncn noch die Strategicn und
Stilcn den anderen dcutschcn ManagerInncn. Wenn ein intemationale Manager kcnnt die Kultur nicht,
kennen vielen Probelmen sehr schnell entwickcln. Ein Man_agcr kamehr offensiv zu seincn
Arbcitcrlnncn sein. wen_n nur dcr Manager mit den Arbcitcrlnncn cin Kulturmissvcrstandnis hat [1]. Aber
die Missverstandnisscn werden oft sehr schlccht fiir die frrma. Produktivitiit scnkt, Zielc dcr Firma sind
nicht erreichen, and am wichtigstcn, Gewinn scnkt auch.

Dcshalb ist interkulturclles Training so wichtig fur intemationalcn Firmen, so die ausliindischcn
ManagerInncn haben ein Kcnntnis fiber die andere Kultur, wo die Tochtcrfirma ist. Wenn der

ausliindischen Manager cine Kcnntnis fiber die Kultur und den Arbcitsstil seincn Arbcitnehmerlnncg, gibt
es weniger Problcmcn fiir den Mangger. Meisten_s sind die Probl_cmcn dam fiber Arbcit, nicht die Sprachc,

oder Religion oder anderen Missvcrstandnisscn [2].

2.2 Die Zunahmc an interkulturclles Training

Der globalle Wirtschaftsmarkt in den 21cn Jahrhundcrts macht mehr internationalcn Firmen. Die
kleine Firmen, die nur sich in ein Region bcfindcn, oder cin Land, sind jetzt abnchmcn. Die Zunahmc
internationalcn Firmen, mit vielen Tochtcrfrrmcn in vielen Lfindcrn, ist sehr wichtig fiir den globalle
Wirtschaftsmarkt. Die Tochtcrfirmcn brauchen vielen ManagerInncn von dem einheirnischcn Land dcr
Muttcrfirma. Dcshalb arbeitcn vielen amerikanischen ManagerInncn chrscc, manchc ManagerInncn nrit
keiner Kcnntnis fiber die Kultur, die ManagerInncn brauchen fiir Arbcit. Dcshalb rrrit der Zunahmc
intemationalcn Firmen kommt die Zunahmc interkulturcllen Training. Das Training gibt den
ManagerInncn die kulturellcn Gcschicklichkeiten, daB sic fiir wirksamc Arbcit brauchen. Natfirlich
wollenb internationalcn F irmcn ihren ManagerInncn am besten Arbcitcn, und jetzt wissen diesen Firmen,
daB interkulturclles Training ist am bestcns fiir wirksamc Arbcit in anderen Lifndcm, wo die tochtcrfirmen
sind.

2.3 Die verschiedenen Artcn von Prograrnrnen und Angeboten fiir interkulturclles Training

Die Artcn von diesen Progranrrncn sind sehr wichtig fiir die ManagerInncn. Das Programm ist

nicht n_ur fiir die ManagerInncn, aber auch fiir ihren Familien. Das Programm lchrcn beiden Kultur und
Sprachc zum Fgmilie. Es lehrt auch beide Arbcitskultur. und auch Persrmlkultur. Zum beispicl lehrt das

Proggamm fiber Sprachc mit kundcg, abcr auch fiber Versammlungen irn F amilicns Haus [3]. Das Angebot
fiir interkulturclles Training ist jetzt so hoch, weil Kultur den wichtigstcn Aspkekt fiir cine familic in einen
anderen Land ist.

 

2.4 Die Kritik an interkulturcllcm Training

Interkulturelles Training ist eine sehr gutc Idee, fiir cine F irma, die will amerikanische Manager
fiir ihren ausliindischcn Tochterfumen wahlcn. Die Kosten des Programms sind sehr hoch, bcsonders wann
dcr Managers Farnilic auch trainieren. Aber die Kosten des trainingprogramrns sind nicdrigcr als die
Kosten von Versagcncn in der Tochterfirma, weil die Topmanagcrlnncn der Tochterfirma keinc Kcnntnis
fiber Kultur haben. Auch wenn die ManagerInncn wissen die Kultur und Sprachc dcr Tochterfirma, und

121

Figure 6.2 cont.

auch die Zielc und Gewinnstratcgic der Mutterfirma, ist es am besten fiir AmeriChemists, weil
AmeriChemists die besten Topmanagcrlnncn fi'rr die Firma beschiiftigcn.

3. AbschluB: Stcllungnahme

Wie cine groBc intemationale F irma, AmeriChemists braucht die besten ManagerInncn fiir beide die
Mutterfirrna und die Tochtcrfirma. Die firmcn wollen die ManagerInncn, daB die gleiche Zielc und
Pcrspektivcn als AmeriChemists haben. Dcshalb soll Americhcrrrists amerikanische ManagerInncn sollen
auch cin interkulturclles Training Programm, befor sic nach Deutschland zu arbeitcn fahrcn werden. Durch
diescs Programm kOnncn die ManagerInncn cine Kcnntnis fiber deutsche Kultur und auch Sprachc, scit
beiden dcutschcr Kultur und Sprachc sind so andcrs als amerikanische Kultur und Sprachc. Mit diesen
ManagerInncn kt’mnen AmeriChemists die beste mOgliche Tochtcrfrrma in Deutschland.

Episode 1 begins shortly after Homer finishes reading the essay aloud. First, I
outline some of the globally problematic areas of his writing, including passive voice,
genitive case, word order and word choice. After mentioning these I begin discussion of
a particular area in the text, noting that I had difficulty understanding the meaning Homer
was trying to convey.

Mitchell: ...abcr zuerst besprechen wir die Stellcn irn Aufsatz, wo ich nicht so
gut verstanden habe oder wo es -ich glaubc- Probleme mit dcm Stil gab. Umm
Hier zum Bcispiel auf Seitc drei.
Homer: mmm hmmm.
Mitchell: (reads flom draft) "Ein Manager kann sehr offensiv zu seine
ArbcitcrInnen sein, wenn nur der Manager mit den ArbcitcrInnen cin Kultur
Mtierstandnis hat." Und ich glaube du willst dann bctonen, dass es nur ein
Mticrstandnis ist.
Homer: J a.
Mitchell: Und dass es nicht irgendwie von dem Manager eigentlich gemeint ist,
ja? Aber ich glaube vielleicht ist das ein bisschen zu viel hier.
Homer: OK mmm hmmm.
Mitchell: Vielleicht kennen wir das ein bisschen verkfirzen.
Homer: OK

(I-Iomer/Mitchell/AZ)

The episode continues on in this way, taking longer turns myself and Homer
responding with extremely short utterances. Only when I switch to English docs Homer
offer more for our dialog. Our switch to English, however, leads to a lengthy discussion

of how to incorporate language which is not gender specific, and the remainder of the

122

episode is carried out mainly in English, interspersed with individual words or phrases in
German.

Mitchell: ...And basically what you're doing here is just repeating nouns:

"Manager, Arbcitcrlnncn, Manager, Arbcitcrlnncn, Kulturmticrstiindnis. . ." You

know, it's almost like you're repeating the exact same thing that you said up in

flont.

Homer: Yeah. I wasn't sure how to refer back without making it ambiguous, and

that's how it got so-

Mitchell: Right, because if you try to put pronouns in you know "er, sic" and then

it could be a woman or a man.

Homer: exactly.

Mitchell: The whole bit, so you Open that whole can of worms.

Homer: Yeah. That's why I did it that way.

(Homer/Mitchell/AZ)

Once we work through this digression, the actual suggestions I make for revising
the passage include changing the word oflensiv to belcidigend; which was the word
Homer chose to use flom several potential synonyms for oflensiv listed in a dictionary
entry, changing the pronoun flom zu to gegenfiber, and rephrasing the second part of the
sentence to a more concise "wenn der Manager so etwas nicht mcint." I also give several
suggestions for implementing gender inclusive language, then leave it up to Homer to
make a final decision about how to approach that issue in his final draft.

In his feedback, Clyde suggests only deleting the word sehr and replacing oflensiv
with belcidigend, and it is clear flom the final draft that Homer used both sets of
suggestions in his revision of the passage. He wrote: "Ein Manager kann belcidigend
gegenfiber seinen ArbcitcrInnen sein, wenn er so cine Beleidigung nicht mcint."

The second episode of conference talk is not as lengthy, and consists of two
suggestions for revision for each of two sentences. The suggestions I make for the first

are that Homer correct an adjective ending and that he add a verb missing flom the end of

his subordinate clause; those for the second sentence include changing an incorrect plural

123

form and finding a way to shorten the sentence by consolidating the words Sprache,
Religion and andere Miflverstdndnisse under a heading like Kulturelle Sachen, to provide
a parallelism between them and the heading Arbeit which he had used in the opening
clause of the sentence.

Clyde also makes mention of the adjective ending in the first sentence, and
advocates changing the wording of the subordinate clause from "Kcnntnis fiber die Kultur
und den Arbeitstil (missing verb)" to "die Zielkultur und den Arbcitstil besser versteht."
He also notes a spelling error, an incorrect case marker and an incorrect plural form in the
first sentence. In the second, he only notes an incorrect plural form; not the one I noticed,
but another which would have been replaced by my suggestion for revision of the final
clause of the sentence. Again Homer blended elements from both sets of feedback into
his final revision. In the first sentence he changed the adjective ending, the case marker
and revised the subordinate clause using Clyde's suggestions. For the second sentence he
changed the incorrect plural form I had noted and revised the end of the sentence
according to my suggestion, writing kulturelle Eigenschaften.

In the third episode I make many suggestions for revision, and give advice on
inserting specific examples from a secondary source for Homer's discussion of the
various types of intercultural training. The discussion of this passage is lengthy and is
conducted mainly in English. It begins in German, again arising from my inability to
fully understand what meaning Homer is attempting to express with his text, and focuses
first on correcting an agreement error, then on changing the verb altogether. As seen in

the following excerpt, I choose English in the middle of this discussion. After three turns

124

we switch back into German, yet Homer continues to answer some of my queries in
English.

Mitchell: Und noch eine Stelle, wo es zu viele Worter gibt wahrscheinlich,
oder. . .ah. Hier nicht zu viele Worter aber ich habe das gar nicht verstanden. Ich
verstehe "diese interkulturclle Trainingsprogramme sind sehr wichtig fur die
ManagerInncn. Das Programm ist nicht nur fiir die ManagerInnen aber auch fiir
ihre Familien. Das Programm," und was ist hier am Verb falsch?
Homer: urnrnm. . .oh. . .lehrt.
Mitchell: lehrt, gut. "Das Programm lehrt beide Kultur und Sprachc" Hier
brauchst du nicht "zu Familie." Du kannst auch sagen, "Das Programm bringt der
F amilie beides Kultur und Sprachc bei." Beibringen, hast du das gehort?
Homer: beibringen.
Mitchell: ein anderes Wort fiir lehren-- Es bedeutet dasselbe aber das ist dann
trennbar. Also, dann wfirde man sagen "Das Programm bringt der Familie beides
Kultur und Sprachc bei." Ein bisschen komplizierter.
Homer: OK
Mitchell: Ein bisschen deutscher. Hier das ist ein bisschen Englisch glaube ich.
Homer: J a.
Mitchell: The program teaches both culture and language to the family.
Homer: To the family. It was screaming English to me, but I wasn't sure of
anything.

(Homer/Mitchell/AZ)

From this initial discussion of verbs and style, we move on to discuss the general
examples Homer gives and advise him to use more specific examples and cite the source
from which they come, which was indeed part of the assignment for this essay. As is
seen in the following excerpt, we switch into English, again at my suggestion, to
thoroughly discuss the points made in the article and their potential impact on the text.

Mitchell: ...ich erkenne das Beispiel aus dem Artikel.

Homer: Yeah.

Mitchell: Im Artikel gab es so ein Beispiel und ich glaube das war sehr spezifisch
fiir den Artikel. Vielleicht ist das nicht das beste Beispiel fiir deinen Aufsatz, ja?
Also vielleicht, ja, ich wollte halt sagen--vielleicht kannst du den Satz weglassen.
Ich glaube du beschreibst hier, was fiir Training es im Programm gibt. Also das
beschreibst du hier und dann hier versuchst du, konkrete Beispiele zu geben, aber
das sind eigentlich keine konkrete Beispiele.

Homer: OK

Mitchell: Vielleicht wenn du sagen wfirdest, "zum Bcispiel im Artikel" also
vielleicht kannst du dann diesen Artikel zitieren und dann sagen ja "Zum Bcispiel

125

im Artikel aus dem Wall Street Journal 1992 blah blah blah. Irn Artikel aus dem

Wall Street Journal wird ein Programm beschrieben. . ." Let's get this in English

before we try it in German.

(Homer/Mitchell/AZ)

Clyde's suggestions for this passage parallel my own in two areas. First, he also
suggests replacing the verb lehren with beibringen, then further suggests replacing lehren
with betonen in another occurence of the verb, arguing in a margin note that "a program
is not animate, therefore cannot teach." Second, the idea behind his suggestion for
replacing beide...und with a sowohl...als auch construction matches mine, although I
incorrectly suggest sowie...als auch. Beyond those two items, Clyde's suggestions also
include modifying three incorrect case markers which I had overlooked. He does not
make as sweeping a suggestion for revising the examples Homer gives, or for
appropriately citing the article, but he does underline much of the passage under scrutiny
and place many question marks in the margins and between the lines of text, signifying
his wish for Homer to clarify this section.

In his final draft, Homer again blends elements of the feedback from each source.
He changes all of the incorrect case markers, as Clyde suggests, includes the verb
replacements suggested by both myself and the instructor, and replaces beide... and with
sowie...als aueh, as I suggest. He does not, however, include any of the citation we had
so thoroughly discussed.

Episodes 4, 5 and 6 all deal with the appropriate use of the passive voice, which
was one of the assigned elements for the essay. These episodes include brief discussions
regarding the use of the participle and the concept of the agent (see the example in

section 6.2 above). Clyde's comments corresponding to episode 4 of the conference talk

also include recommending the use of the past participle to complete the passive voice

126

construction. For episode 5, however, Clyde suggests deletion of a subordinate clause in
which the passive construction appears, whereas I suggest only the addition of the
preposition von and the addition of a dative case marker to change the noun into a passive
agent. In his comments corresponding to episode 6 of the discussion Clyde suggests
changing the word order, replacing an infinitive with a participle and replacing bei with
van in order to tweak Homer's attempt at a passive construction. In the final draft, Homer
successfully incorporates the suggestions made by both myself and Clyde for episodes 4
and 6, and for episode 5, Homer chooses to make the corrections I suggest for the passive
voice (which he does successfully), instead of deleting the clause and making the
adjustments the instructor suggests.

The focus of the brief seventh episode is on word choice. I suggest the
replacement of the phrase "die Planung scheint in ihren Entscheidungcn" with "die
Planung erkennt man an ihre Entscheidungcn," which adds a passive voice alternative,
yet another required element of the assignment.

Mitchell: OK. A verb. This can't be the right verb here. "Die Planung scheint in

ihren Entscheidungen." I understand what you mean

Homer: but...

Mitchell: it shines through. It's kind of poetic. Bist du ein Poet?

Homer: No.

Mitchell: Bist du ein Dichter? (laughter) "Die Planung erkennt man..." and

there's a passive voice alternative if I ever saw one. "Die Planung erkennt man an

ihre Entscheidungen." Yeah, that's good.
(Homer/Mitchell/AZ)
In Clyde's written feedback he does not make any suggestions for changing the text, he
merely underlines the phrase and writes in the margin "what do you mean?" Homer

incorporates my suggestion with some success, this time misspelling the verb, but it is

apparent that he attended to the error in some way.

127

Another of the more complex forms Homer had asked for help with was the
genitive case, which finally makes its way into our discussion in episode 8, very near the
end of the conference. I draw his attention to two consecutive sentences in which he
correctly uses the genitive case with the exception of the adjective ending. He has
inappropriately written "eines deutsches Betriebs" and "eines amerikanisches
Managementtearns" and I, of course, remind Homer of the correct adjective ending for all
preceded adjectives in the genitive case. Clyde overlooks both instances of incorrect
endings in his feedback, yet in the final draft Homer perfectly incorporates my suggestion
both times, leading to the correct use of the genitive.

The final episode of this conference was also brief and focused on word choice.
The only difference apparent between my suggestions and Clyde's for this passage is that
I give a suggestion for replacing the words kennen and miteinander with graflen und
einander, respectively, whereas Clyde only notes the errors with the appropriate symbol
from his correction key; "ww." (See Figure 4.1 for key.) Homer incorporates my
suggested word changes in the final draft.

Again, I provide here a three part summary regarding adherance to the agenda,
self-corrective moments in the read aloud phase and general trend in revisions. In the
first conference between Homer and me, the agenda items, again of clarity and support
were not precisely followed, but the dialog did result in some worthwhile discussions of
Homer’s attempts at complicated grammatical forms. Practically the same agenda was
set for the second writing conference, and Homer reported positively on the outcome of

the conference regarding these issues, particularly passive voice and genitive case.

128

Regarding the self-corrective moments of the read aloud phase of the first
conference, Homer’s behaviors followed the trend in that he only incorporated those self-
attended items which had also been mentioned by the instructor. In the second
conference, however, two exceptional examples appear in which Homer incorporated his
own changes even though no comment was made on those items by either the instructor
or myself.

As in the previous case study, Homer made revisions generally incorporating
feedback from both sources. The feedback from each source was so similar that it is
difficult or impossible in some episodes to ascertain whether Homer preferred the
instructor's or the consultant's suggestions. In some cases, however, it becomes very
clear that Homer preferred the consultant's feedback; mainly in the two cases in which it
was chosen over the instructor's suggestion to delete a sentence fragment. In those cases
Homer produced more language in a more precise manner in his final draft. Implications
of the trends for auto-correction and implementation of suggested revisions observed in

Homer's case are discussed in chapter eight.

129

 

Chapter 7: Harold's Case

7.1 Profile of Harold

Harold is a Caucasian male with English as a first language who reported senior
standing in the university with a double major in marketing and German. He
approximated his grade point average in German as 3.4 out of 4.0 and reported four years
of German in secondary school and six weeks of study abroad experience in Germany.

His response to the first writing assignment was five typed pages in length,
including an introductory section, a discussion of the advantages and disadvantages of the
various German business forms, and a concluding statement advocating the choice of a
limited liability corporation for the fictitious company's German subsidiary. His response
to the second assignment was six typed pages in length and included the elements of the
assignment as outlined in the course textbook. These included an introduction giving
background information about management policies in Germany and the United States, as
well as a section on intercultural training with subtopics regarding 1) the need for
intercultural training, 2) the increase in intercultural training for management personnel,
3) the various types of programs offered and 4) the critical arguments against
intercultural training. In addition to these, the student provided a conclusion in which he
argued against the employment of foreign managers in the fictitious company's German

subsidiary.

130

7.2 Negotiated agenda between Harold and Martin (expectations) and perceived

conference outcomes

During the agenda-setting phase of the conference on the first writing assignment
Harold responds to Martin's questions regarding the focus of the conference. Harold is
mainly concerned with sentence structure and the main ideas in his essay, especially with
providing enough support for the claims he was making in each section of the
composition. The following excerpts from the conference delineate Harold's wish to
ensure that his topics and subtopics are supported.

Martin: Normalerweise wir bitten die Studenten alle Studenten zu vorlesen ihr

Bericht so man kann horen, wo es Probleme gibt oder sowas und ..uh.. weiBt du,

gibt es drei Orte in diesem Bericht oder Ziele, daB du Probleme hast mit diesem

Bericht das du mochtest wiederholen. ..

Harold: ...nicht viel fiber die Grammatik mehr fiir Satzstruktur.

Martin: J a OK Satzstruktur word order, stuff like that.

Harold: J a und, also Hauptthemen und Subthemen oder Unterthemen.

Martin: We'll use that kind of as a guide.

Harold: J a jede Hauptthema hat auch ein Hauptsatz oder Hauptidee und dann

Unteridees, wo ich die besprechen und dann..uh..you know, a concrete detail for

each one of them.

Martin: Unterstfitzung

Harold: J a, Unterstt'itzung that's it. 8011 ich mein Bericht vorlesen?

Harold/Martin/Al

After reading the entire composition aloud, Martin begins to give feedback on
various elements in the essay. Although Harold has requested that the conference focus
on argumentation and support, Martin chooses to first give feedback on other concerns he
has identified in the essay. His first utterance steers the focus away from grammar,

which corresponds with Harold's expectations, and a discussion ensues about spelling

errors in the paper and word order. These had also been mentioned in the opening

131

sequence, and it is therefore not a total deviation from the agenda to discuss them. In the
following excerpt Harold and Martin speak generally about the spelling and word order
errors before discussing each specific error in further detail. Examples from the longer
discussion of the details of each error will be given in section 7.4 below, where a
comparison between Martin's feedback and the instructor's feedback will be made.

Martin: OK

Harold: Das war's

Martin: Ausgezeichnet. Ich denke, daB deine Grammatik ist nicht so schlccht.

Harold: Nicht so schlccht.

Martin: Es gibt nur ein Paar Probleme, und die meisten sind nur. . .uh. . .word

order.

Harold: Ich habe auch ein Paar Typos gesehen.

Martin: J a. Falsch buchstabieren. Ich habe bis ein Paar bemerkt, so wir konnen

jetzt wiederholen und ich kann dir zeigen, was ich bemerkt habe hier.

Harold/Martin/Al

After several minutes of attending to the specific errors not directly related to
argumentation, Martin steers the conference talk back onto the track set in the agenda.
Harold is eager to revisit the composition at this point and talk about the arguments and
support in each section. This part of the writing conference is characterized by Harold or
Martin (sometimes both) reading paragraphs from the essay quickly and quietly (though
not silently) and discussing the way the sentences relate to each other and any problems
this flow of ideas might pose for the reader. Both conference participants agree that the
first section of the composition does not need much further support, since Harold has
used this section to provide the reader with information about various business forms in
Germany and has not yet made an argument for or against a specific form.

Martin: ...um und als ein Ziel du hast gesagt, dass du mochtest wissen, ob ihre
Hauptideen sind unterstiitzt, so der erste Teil. ..

132

Harold: J a. Vielleicht sollen wir nicht durchlesen, we konnen, ja we konnen.
Let's just go through it real quick and make sure that I've got one or two sentences
for each.
Martin: OK. Ich habe bemerkt, dass die erste Teil von ihrem..um..Bericht ist am
meisten..um..informative (English). Es gibt die Grundfakten die
Hintergrundfakten so.
Harold: OK.
Martin: (reads from text). . .Der erste Absatz ist ziemlich gut.
(both read fi'om text)
Martin: Was ist die Hauptidee von diesem zweiten Absatz?
Harold: Ich habe nur die Rahmenbedingungen beschrieben von den
verschiedenen Rechtsformen.
Martin: Ich denke es ist nicht so wichtig hier, daB du hast eine sehr klare
Hauptidee als am Ende, weil in diesen Absatze ich denke die Hauptidee oder was
ich verstehe als Zuleser ist, daB es nur fiir informing the reader about the
background stuff so ..uh..you're not really making an argument so to speak that
you need to be concerned that you're supporting as such. But I mean it's
important what you're saying.
Harold: Well I kind of broke it down like OK they're organized by rules and
there's two forms and then each form's got, you know, however many and then
inside of these there's however many different conditions so I kind of went on a
"Hierarchie" so to speak.
Martin: Flowchart
Harold: J a. There you go. There's really no point for argument in the first
Martin: Right, right.
Harold: "Teil" I guess you would call it, the first section...

Harold/Martin/Al

In the previous exchange Martin and Harold are addressing the issues they had
negotiated while setting the agenda. This discussion of argumentation and support in the
paragraphs of the essay continues in the following example, but is thereafter abandoned
again when Martin draws the attention to word order, word choice and spelling problems
for the balance of the conference. The discussion is focused on the second section in the
paper in which Harold delineates the advantages and disadvantages of each form in order
to come to an informed conclusion about the form that will be adopted by the fictitious

company. In this excerpt both participants agree that support is necessary, but no

133

concrete suggestion is given regarding how the student should revise his text to provide
the support.

Martin: So es ist betont, dass du hast die Kapitalgcscllschaft entscheidet als die

richtige..uh.. Form.

Harold: Rechtsformen oder Untemehmensformcn. Vielleicht soll ich ein

bisschen unterstr’itzen also ich habe diese Hauptidee sehr betont aber nicht so viele

meat, I guess, on the bone.

Martin: J a.

Harold: ein bisschen nachschlagen und fiberlegen.

Martin: Vielleicht ein paar Séitze schrciben,

Harold: ein paar Satze schreiben.

Martin: die unterstfitzen diese Idee.

Harold: (writes on draft) Unterstfitzung? Unterstiitzung.

Harold/Martin/Al

The areas to which Harold referred in the reflective statement he wrote
immediately following the first conference correspond with those that were mentioned
when the agenda was set at the beginning of the interaction. He originally asked for
assistance with support of the main ideas in the essay, and according to the reflective
statement, left the conference knowing that there was much room for improvement on
that aspect of his writing. However, no clear detail on how to proceed with revisions to
his arguments came out of the conference. Much more discussion was devoted to
spelling and word order problems in the composition.

A portion of the agenda-setting negotiation for the second writing conference is
missing from the videotape, but based on the portion that was recorded, as well as the
consultant's notes on the draft of the essay, it is apparent that the student had requested
help with grammar, content and support for the main arguments in the paper. This
agenda was set in the following excerpt from the conference:

Harold: ...ziemlich gut ist, die Topic ist ziemlich eng also man kann nicht so viel

schrciben.
Martin: Du mochtest wissen dann, ob alle Inhalt gehc'irt zu dem Thema.

134

Harold: J a.

Martin: OK ganz klar.

Harold: So jeder Absatz oder Teil hat ein Hauptthema so zuerst

Grundinformation des Managements in Deutschland und der USA. Ich glaube

das ziemlich gut ist.

Martin: Du mochtest wissen, ob deine Hauptthemen unterstfitzt sind.

Harold: J a. 8011 ich vorlesen und. ..

Martin: J a, bitte, bitte.

Harold/Martin/AZ

The aspects of this second writing assignment that Harold hopes to discuss are the
same as those named in the agenda of the first conference. We will see, however, as we
look at excerpts fiom the conference, that more discussion is actually devoted to these
topics in this session, and more concrete details and suggestions for revising the paper are
given for this paper than for the first. As soon as Harold has finished reading his paper
aloud, Martin begins by talking about some grammar problems he has noticed. Since
grammar is also one of the areas mentioned while setting the agenda, this is not a
derailment of the conference goals for this session. Shortly after bringing the
grammatical issues to Harold's attention, Martin switches the focus to the argumentation
in one paragraph of the essay. The following excerpts show Martin referring to the initial
paragraphs of the composition and praising Harold for the way he has supported his
arguments.

Martin: Also ich denke, dass deine Hauptidee ist hier sehr stark unterstfitzt. Also,
es geht, es paBt.

[short intervening discussion of a grammar point]

Martin: So diese Absatze sind fiber die Unterschiede in Deutschland.
Harold: J a, so die ersten zwei Absiitze sind gut.
Martin: J a.
Harold: Ich wundere. . .nicht wundere aber ich denke manchrnal, ob diese
Unterthemen oder Subthemen sind genug unterstfitzt.
Harold/Martin/A2

135

It is at this point in the discussion that Martin moves from praising the supports
Harold has given for his arguments to posing questions to spur Harold to think critically
about his work and offering suggestions for clarifying arguments and strengthening his
support. In the ensuing discussion Harold is convinced of the need for further support in
the areas of the text under scrutiny. The length of his utterances also increases as he
explains and defends his main points.

Martin: So du sagst hier, dass weil diese Firmen Tochtergesellschaften irn
Ausland haben, ist es wichtig, dass sie diese interkulturclles Training fiir ihre
Personen, ihre Mitarbeiter, die nach diesem Ausland geschickt OK dann du hast
in diesem Absatz und im zweiten und dritten diese Idee unterstfitzt, dass es
wichtig ist fiir diese Manager und andere Leute Training zu haben. So was ist
deine Hauptidee hier, nur die Notwcndigkeit, warum es so notwendig ist?
Harold: J a. (reads from draft) "Diese sogenannte Multinationalfirrnen mfissen
ihre Positionen anstellen aber kfinnen alle Stellungen nicht irnmer besetzen." Das
ist die Hauptidee.
Martin: OK. So eine Frage, die ich stellen wfirde ist: Sprichst du fiber die
Probleme, die es gibt, wenn man schickt oder eine Firma schickt ein Manager
nach Ausland ohne dieses Training?
Harold: Nein, noch nicht. Das 5011 vielleicht am Ende sein.
Martin: OK
Harold: Das ist nicht wirklich (unintelligible) mein Hauptthema. Meine
Hauptidee ist, daB sie konnen alle Stellcn nicht nur besetzen, das konnte Probleme
sein, aber sie mfissen Training haben, um diese Probleme mit den unbesetzten
Stellen zu vermeiden. . .I think.

Harold/Martin/AZ

Harold also gives some indication of his general opinion of the assignment during
this discussion when he responds to Martin's question regarding the necessity and
importance of a paragraph.

Martin: Was bedeutet dann Zunahme?

Harold: increase.

Martin: Du sprichst hier fiber ein Trend?

Harold: J a.

Martin: Denkst du, daB dieser Absatz wichtig ist fiir die...

Harold: J a, wir mfissen diese vier Subthemen haben.

Martin: So du muBt fiber das sprechen, es ist nicht deine Wahl. (laughs)
Harold: Nein, es ist keine Demokratie.

136

Martin: Es ist eine Diktatur?
Harold/Martin/AZ

At this point in the writing conference the consultant really has done his job in
eliciting comments from the student that reflect on the text he has written, and cause him
to think critically about the text and the assignment. Though Harold did not mention
argumentation in the post-conference reflection as an area benefiting from the
conference, it is clear that issues of argumentation did make up a major portion of the
talk. After intervening discussions mostly focusing on word choice and word order,
Martin once again steers the discussion toward content and argumentation near the end of
Harold's essay. In the section outlining the critical arguments against intercultural
training, Martin states what he believes to be the main point of Harold's argument and
brings up a critical question which Harold admits he had been trying to avoid. Any effect
this discussion may have on the revision of the draft will be discussed in a later section in
this chapter.

Martin: Deine Hauptidee hier ist, daB es gibt kein Grund daftir, amerikanische

Manager in dieser Tochterfirma zu haben. Es ist sinnlos. Es gibt fiberhaupt

' keinen Grund. OK. Noch eine Frage; denkst du, daB es wird ein Problem geben,
wenn diese Tochterfirma muB den Hauptsitz in den USA haben?

Harold: J a, sie mfissen es haben.

Martin: OK. Aber denkst du, wenn die Firma hat deutsche Management oder

Manager, daB wie zum Beispiel DaimlerChrysler es gibt ein Kampf zwischen der

Tochterfirma in Deutschland und Hauptsitz in den USA? Vielleicht ist das nicht

ein Problem oder das kommt gar nicht in die Tfite. (laughs)

Harold: Ich habe versucht, diese Idee also mit amerikanische Topmanager und

deutsche Topmanager eine karnpfen. .. Ich habe versucht, das zu vermeiden.
Vielleicht kann ich etwas erklaren.

Harold/Martin/A2

137

7.3 Harold's auto-correction during the read aloud protocol and its impact on
revision

As was the case with Herman and Homer, Harold also engaged in auto-correction
during the read aloud protocol at the beginning of each writing conference. The
adjustments he made while reading were mainly corrections of misspellings or
adjustments to word order and verb endings, suggesting that reading a composition aloud
can make one aware of these particular areas. As noted in the discussion of the analysis
of student's expectations and perceived conference outcomes in chapter four, Harold also
shared in his post conference reflective statement that he felt convinced that reading a
composition aloud before turning it in would be a good way to note mistakes in the text,
and was motivated to use the strategy for future writing assignments. Table 7.1 compares
the original text of the first composition with the utterances made by Harold while

reading aloud.

Table 7 . 1: Harold's self corrections while reading aloud in the first conference

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

No. Original Text of Rough Draft Harold's Utterance
l verschieden verschiedenen
2 erschiene erscheinen
3 tragen tragen (pause) tragen
4 tragen tragen
5 Deutscland Deutschland
6 gibt es kein Problem gibt es Probleme
7 gehandelt gehandelt
8 GmbH AG
9 Das bedeutet, daB falls Das bedeutet falls
10 viel weil
11 entweder sie Aufsichtsrat entweder sie Aufsichtsrat
sind oder nicht. oder nicht sind.
12 scwere schwere
13 Zweifel Zwiefel
14 amerkanische amerikanische
15 and und
16 werdem werden

 

 

 

 

 

138

The majority of the corrections made in this manner would benefit the
composition by improving the language of the final draft. Examples such as 6,8 and 10
above would also prove crucial to the message of the text. Table 7.2 below will provide
information as to whether these auto-corrections were actually implemented in the final
draft.

The conference talk yields clues to the motivation of some of the corrections, but
not all. For example in item 6 it is not clear whether Harold meant to make this utterance
as a correction. He mentions again in the conclusion of his essay that there would be no
problem kein Problem, and no further mention of the previous adjustment of these words
is made in the conference. Corrections 3 and 4 point to an interesting case in which
Harold talks himself into an incorrect form. Unfortunately, there is no firrther discussion
of this utterance in the conference discussion, but it seems as though the student is
engaged in an inner dialog, unsure of the correct revision. He at first says tragen,
correctly revising the printed tra'gen, then pauses briefly and changes his revision back to
tragen which he then utters again as an incorrect revision of the same verb in the
following sentence. A similar phenomenon occurs in the case of item 13; Harold wants
to use the word Zweifel, but it appears incorrectly as Zwiefel in an early paragraph. When
Harold comes across this error he does not attend to it, and later in the essay, when he
sees the correct form, he modifies it incorrectly by applying the incorrect form from the
earlier occurence of the word. This is one correction which is later brought up by the

student in the conference, and, as will be described below, he ultimately corrects the

mistake.

139

Attention will now turn to the conference discussion of items 9,11 and 13 from
table 7.1 which provides clues to Harold's reasons for modification. In the case of item 9
the student initiates the topic, indicating that he indeed means to attend to that section
with a revision. With the help of his own suggestion for correction, another suggestion
made by the consultant, and a dictionary to verify the gender of a noun, the matter is
discussed and the revision decided upon in the span of only a few lines of dialog.

Harold: Should there be a "daB" in there?
Martin: "Das bedeutet, daB" is that what you have a question about?
Harold: When I was reading I skipped over it because I wasn't sure whether it
should be "das bedeutet, daB falls" or just "das bedeutet, falls."
Martin: Ich denke es $011 "in der Fall" sein.
Harold: Oh. In dem Fall oder in der Fall?
Martin: Ich denke es ist "in der Fall," weil ich denke, daB "Fall" feminin ist, aber
ich schlage nach. (Martin consults dictionary) Es ist maskulin.
Harold: So "in dem F all" oder "falls" I don't like that daB in there anyways, I'm
gonna cross it off.
Harold/Martin/Al

In the conference discussion surrounding item 11, Martin initiates the dialog,
recalling that Harold had made a correction while reading aloud, and both parties
consider the various options for revision, focusing on the use of the conjunction entweder
and whether the verb should then be placed at the end of the clause. The main problem
with this exchange is that neither party realizes at this point that the meaning the student
is trying to convey in the text is best carried by another conjunction altogether, namely
ob.

Martin: und dann ich habe bemerkt, daB als du diesen Satz gelesen hast du hast
gesagt "entweder sie Aufsichtsrat oder nicht sind." Was hast du lieber?

Harold: Keine Ahnung. Vielleicht habe ich nur miBgelesen oder ein
Mtierstandnis gehabt.

Martin: Ich denke (reads to self) Ich denke, daB vielleicht es soll mit "sind"
Harold: am Ende?

Martin: am Ende sein. "entweder sie Aufsichtsrat oder nicht sind."

140

Harold: vielleicht kann ich "entweder sie Aufsichtsrat sind" und kein "oder nicht"
haben.
Martin: J a. . .
Harold/Martin/Al
The matter is thus considered settled. Harold has decided on his revision, and
Martin moves on to ask questions about the concluding remarks of the composition.
Shortly after beginning this dialog, Harold breaks in with a single line in which he attends

to the matter of item 13; the correctness of Zweifel vs. Zwiefel as described above.

Martin remains silent at this point as Harold seems to rectify the problem on his own.

Harold: Zweifel. . .Zwiefe1?. . .Zwiebeln is onion. . .Zwiefel. . .I don't think that's a
word.
Homer/Martin/Al

As noted in previous chapters, the occurrence of an auto-correction during the
read aloud protocol does not necessarily guarantee the adoption of the revision in the
final draft. Table 7.2 shows whether the auto-corrections listed in table 7.1 were further
discussed in the conference, also suggested in the instructor's feedback, and whether they
were ultimately accepted by the student in the essay's final version.

Table 7.2: comments and revisions on Harold's self-corrected elements (Al).

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Error No. Conference Instructor Revision made
cement comment
1 Yes Yes Yes
2 Yes Yes Yes
3 No No No
4 No No No
5 Yes No No
6 No No No
7 No Yes Yes
8 No No No
9 Yes Yes Yes

 

 

 

 

 

141

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Table 7.2 cont.
10 No Yes Yes
1 1 Yes Yes Yes
12 Yes No No
13 Yes No No
14 Yes Yes Yes
15 No No Yes
16 Yes No No

 

 

 

 

 

 

It is again apparent that auto-corrections were only accepted into the final draft
when they had also been suggested by the consultant or the instructor's feedback. More
specifically for the case of Harold, they were only accepted when also suggested in the
instructor's feedback, as seen in corrections 5, 12 and 16 in which the consultant
discussed the correction, but the instructor did not. These particular corrections were
spelling problems which the consultant and student had noted together, yet the instructor
overlooked when giving feedback. Correction 13 also follows this pattern, but is a
special case because the problem (Zweifel/Zwiefel) was worked out by Harold in the
conference, and no correction was actually required at that point in the text. Strikingly,
an earlier occurrence of Zwiefel in the text, which may have been the impetus raising
Harold's initial doubts about the correctness of the word, was not noted by any of the
parties involved and remained in the text, even in the final draft. One other exception to
the statement that revisions were only made when suggested by the instructor is
embodied by correction 15. Correction 15 involved the use of English and in the place of

German and, and was indeed modified by the student, though not noted in either set of

feedback.

142

While reading aloud during the second writing conference Harold made only half
as many auto-corrections. Table 7.3 shows the original text and the actual utterance for

each.

Table 7.3: Harold self corrections while reading aloud in the second conference

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

No. Original Text of Rogh Draft Harold's Utterance
1 stark stark
2 erzielen Erzielung
3 hoher hoher
4 Tochtergesellscaften Tochtergesellschaften
5 fremde fremden
6 machen macht
7 jeder 15 Monaten jeder 15 Monaten nachher
8 mehrspachi g mehrsprachi g

 

These corrections are all related to spelling, endings or verb forms, with the
exception of number 7 showing the addition of a word for clarification of the sentence.
In this case the conference talk yields virtually no clues to the motivation for the self-
corrections in that only item 5 was mentioned by the consultant. Nevertheless, the
instructor did give feedback on these mistakes, and as Table 7.4 below shows, that
feedback did have an effect on the revisions the student made in the final draft. The
instructor's feedback differed in some cases from the student's self-correction. For
example, instead of suggesting a correct spelling for item 1 the instructor raised a
question about the relevance of the sentence in which the word appeared and suggested
that Harold delete the entire sentence, which he did. Deletion was also the suggestion
made by the instructor for the word in item 2. Harold made all the revisions the
instructor had suggested except for item 5, the only mistake for which both consultant
and instructor had offered an adjustment.

Table 7.4: Harold's comments and revisions on self-corrected elements (A2).

143

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Error No. Conference Instructor Revision made
comment comment
1 No Yes Yes
2 No Yes Yes
3 No Yes Yes
4 No No No
5 Yes Yes No
6 No No No
7 No Yes Yes
8 No Yes Yes

 

 

 

 

 

 

7.4 Comparison of conference feedback, instructor feedback and actual revisions

Regarding Harold's first writing assignment, the difference between the amounts
of consultant feedback and instructor feedback is striking. For the first assignment the
consultant makes a total of 17 suggestions for revision, while the instructor makes 130.
The focus of the suggestions from the sources is also disparate. Less than a dozen of the
suggestions in the instructor's feedback on the first assignment are comments asking for
clarification or expansion of an argument, while the rest serve to illuminate grammar
mistakes. In the conference, some grammar points are briefly discussed and corrected,
but then Martin offers to switch the focus to content and argument. Two facts suggest
reasons for these differences; 1) the conference takes place within a limited time frame,
while the instructor can spend more time on each comment, and 2) the conference
participants set an agenda concentrating less on grammatical issues and more on
argumentation and support as outlined in section 7.2.

Figure 7.1 illustrates the suggestions made on the rough draft of Harold's first

writing assignment, which are specifically discussed in the text following the

representation of the text.

144

Figure 7.1 Annotated text of Harold's first writing assignment

Americhemists: AG oder GmbH?
I. Einleitung:

Die Untemehmensforrnen in Deutschland sind gesetzlich organisiert. Es gibt niimlich zwei
Hauptformen von Untemehmensfonnen, die Personengesellschaft und die Kapitalgcscllschaft, deren
Subformen sind offene Handelsgesellschaft, Einzeluntemehmen, Kormnanditistengesellschaft (oder KG),
Aktiengesellschaft und Gesellschaft mit beschrankter Haftung. Die erstc drei gehfiren zu den
Personengesellschaften und die andere zwei zu den Kapitalgcscllschaftcn. Die verschiedene Formen haben
auch vcrschicdcn Eigenschaften [1], zum Bcispiel grfiBe, Haftungs- und Leitungsfonnen.

Die offene Handelsgesellschaft muB mindestens zwei Gesellschafierlnnen aufweisen, das heiBt,
daB sie eine Partnerschaft ist. Die Gesellschafterlnnen haften unbeschriinkt und mfissen den Gewinn und
Verlust selbst teilen. Dieser Rechtsform soll nur erschiene [2], wenn die Firma nicht allzu groB oder
differenziert ist. Alle oHGs mfissen fiber der Zusatz oHG, oder und Co., und Tochter und beziehungsweise
und Sohn verfiigen. Zum Bcispiel, wenn ich eine offene Handelsgesellschaft errichten will, nenne ich sie
dann Firma Harold und Sohn. Zuniichst gibt es ein Einzeluntemehmen, eine Firma die nur aus einer Person
steht. Dieser Person haftet unbeschrfinkt und muB sowohl das Gewinn als auch das Verlust selber tragen.
Einzeluntemehmen tragen irmner einen Personennamen, und dieser Person muB nicht nur das
Untemehmenskapital sondcm auch ihre Privatvermfigen selbst fiir die Ffihrung ihrer Geschfift grfinden.

Die letzte Personengesellschaftsform ist die Kommandistengesellschaft, oder KG. Bei der KG gibt es zwei
Typen von Gesellschafterlnnen, die Komplementfire und die Kommanditisten. Die Komplementiire haften
mit '_rhr_ [3] Privatvermfigen und haben bei diesem Rechtsform die Geschiiftsfiihrung. Die Kormnanditisten
haften nur mit ihrer Einlage, das heiBt daB sie beschriinkt in der Firma verantwortlich sind. Die Firma tragt
innner einen Personennamen und auch der Zusatz und Co. KG.
Der zweite Form von Gesellschaften in Deutscland [4] ist die Kapitalgcscllschaft, wem die AG

und GmbH [5] gehfiren. Das Grundkapital einer Ag werden in Aktien zerlegt. Die Kapitaleigncrlnncn

einer AG haften nur mit ihrer Aktien, d.h. sie haften [6] beschrankt, weil sie nur den Verlust ihre Aktien
riskieren. Die Aktien werden an der Borse gehandelt und irgendein Person kfinnen aktien von
verschiedenen Firmen besitzen. Eine Gesellschafl mit beschrankter Haftung ist auch cine
Kapitalgcscllschft, aber in einer GmbH gibt es fast irmner weniger Gesellschafterlnnen, die mehr Anteile
der Firma besitzen. Eine GmbH ist allerdings in der Regel kleiner als eine AG.

Aller Welt weiBt schon, daB Americhemists cine groBe F irma ist. Weil die Firma jetzt in
Deutschland errichten will, muB die Eigentfimerlnnen eventuell eine groBe Entscheidung treffen, das heiBt,
was fiir eine Firma sie errichten wollen.

II. Vor- und Nachteile der Untemehmensforrnen

Americhemists wissen schon, daB ihre Firma ziemlich groB ist, und daB sie verschiedene
Gesellschafterlnnen haben. Meiner Meinung nach gibt es kein Problem, auf ein Rechtsform eine
Entscheidung zu treffen. Eine Kapitalgcscllschafl ist ohnc Zwiefel der Rechtsform, aber GmbH oder AG
steht jeztz in der F rage.

Eine AG ist grfiBer als eine GmbH, eine Idee die nicht irnrner pracktisch ist. Die AG muB ihre
Rahmenbedingungen genau gesetztlich schaffen, das heiBt mit bestimmtc Worter und Organen. Die Aktien
einer AG muB mindestens DM 50 wert besitzenAas heiBt. sie h_zgren ein "par value" vqn DM 50 habe_n
mfissen [7]. Die Verfassung einer AG steht aus wahnsinning viel Regeln, die die management und andere
Bedingungen beschreiben. Eine AG muB mit DM 100 000 Grundkapital gegrun" det und mt ein
Aufsichtsrat, der aus mindestens ein drittel der Arbcitnehmemrlnnen besteht. Wegen des
Mitbestirnmungsgesetzes mfis_§en Aktiengesellschaften bestimmtc Teilflg im Aufsichtsrat haben. Die AG
ist in Deutschland unter mehrere gesetztliche Nachteile geprtlgt. und zwar, h_at keinc besondere Vorteile
einer GmbH gegenfiber [l3].

Andererseits ist die GmbH die berfihmteste, bzw., beliebteste Rechtsform einer dcutschcn Firmen.
Bei einer GmbH gibt es nicht so viele Gesetze. Es ist lcichtcr, die Artikeln zu bauen, und der Staat hat
veniger Kontrolle fiber die Geschiiftsfiihrung [14]. Die GmbH muB nur DM 50 000 Grundkapital schaffen,

145

Figure 7.1 cont.

und die Gesellschaflerlnnen haben bestimmtc Einlagc. Die Anteile sind grfiBer als cine AG und die
Gesellschaftcrlnnen and Managers haften mit ihren Einlagen beschrankt. Die Anteile werden nicht an der
Borse gehandelt, sondcm sic kriegen Geld [8]wenn der Gewinn und Bilanzrest sind stark und die F irma
rentabel bleibt. Es ist auch lcichtcr, neue Geschiifte, das hciBt "franchises" bei die rechtsformen einer
GmbH zu errichten. Die gesetztliche Rahmenbedingungen sind fiir cine GmbH wie gesagt ziemlich
lockerer als die der AG. Jedes Untemehmen mfissen ihre eigene Verfassung haben. Das beduetet [9], gag
falls cine AG neue Prod_u_ktionstattc in einmderen Bundesl_and errichten will, mfissen iede PM
neue Verfa_s_sung hgben 115].

Ffir Americhemists gibt es viele Moglichkeiten, AG oder GmbH zu errichten, und cine
Zusammenfassung brauchen sic vielleicht am Besten. Die GmbH ist ganz berfihmt fiir Fremde, die
Geschafi in deutschland trciben wollen. Es gibt weniger Rahmenbedingungen in dcr Verfassung und sic
mfisscn nicht so viele Gesetzte wie die AG folgcn. Aktiengesellschafien sind teurer, nicht nur weil sic DM
100 000 als Grundlagc haben mfissen, sondcm auch viel sic mchrcrc ArbcitnehmerInncn gebrauchen
werden und mehr Steuem bezahlen mfissen. Die Topmanagers einer AG mfissen auch die Wfinsche den
Akteinbesitzer hfiren, entwcdcr sic Aufsichtsrat sind oder nicht [10].

 

III. AbschluB

Mcincr Meinung nach gibt es keinc scwere [l 1] Entscheidung zu trefi'en. Americhemists soll ohnc Zweifel
GmbH sein. Die Vorteile sind herrschend und die Nfihtcile sind los [16]. Die amerkanische F irma kann
ihr Geschaft irn ausland von den USA fiihren. Sic mfissen nicht mindestens einen drittel ihre Arbcitskréift
auf dem Aufsichtsrat haben, und die anfangliche Einlage cine GmbH ist ein halb von dcr einer AG. Es gibt
weniger Eigentfimcr in einer GmbH, was sehr gut fiir die Ffihrung dic Firma ist. Wenn, zum Bcispiel, wir

cine AG haben, dann mfissen wir viele Stimmc hfiren, die von der Hauptversammlung and dem
Aufsichtsrat und Vorstand kommen [l7]. Bei der GmbH gibt es nicht so viele fiihrende Tcilen. Die GmbH

hat nur zwei fiihrende Tcilen, und mfisscn auf nicht so viele Stimmcn aufpasscn. Es wird kein groBes
Problem geben, wenn cine wichtige Entscheidung gctroffen werdem [12] mfisscn, weil es nur cin paar
Managers in einer GmbH gibt. Irn groBen und ganzen empfehle ich Ihncn cine GmbH in Deutschland als
Tochtergesellschaft zu errichten. Ich habe frfiher gesagt, daB die F irma cine groBe Entscheidung treffcn
muB. Nach diesen Grundc soll Americhemists so schncll wie moglich die GmbH in Deutschland errichten.

The first five episodes of conference talk involving suggestions for revision are
short and entail Martin pointing out the following mistakes: 1) a missing adjective
ending, 2) an incorrect verb form, 3) lack of a case marker on a possessive pronoun, 4) a
misspelled word, and 5) a missing definite article. In each of these cases Harold agrees
that the item in question needs to be revised. The instructor also notes only three out of
the five mistakes and suggests revision according to his key, as described in Chapter Four
above. He suggests adding an ending for the adjective, changing the verb form, and
adding the case marker. The misspelling is overlooked by Clyde, and the missing article
(which is actually only optional) is not noted. Harold does incorporate the first three

suggested revisions in the final draft. An adjective ending is added, although it is not the

146

correct ending in the context, the verb form is corrected and the proper case marker is
added to the pronoun. The misspelling remains in the final draft, and the optional
definite article is left out. These facts again support the claim that Harold only makes
revisions when the same suggestions are made by both consultant and instructor, or if the
revision is suggested by the instructor alone.

Episodes six and seven are more interesting in that they elicit lengthier discussion
between Harold and Martin. The focus of episode six is Martin's question as to the nature
of d.h. He questions whether it is a subordinating conjunction that will move the finite
verb to the end of the clause. No definitive answer to this question is given in the
conference, yet this discussion engages the participants, who abandon German for several
lines, returning to it again on the next suggestion:

Martin: Ich weiB nicht genau abcr, wenn man "das heiBt" schrcibt, soll cs

Subj ekt, Verb, blah blah blah sein oder macht das. . .Does this conjunction put the

verb at the end? I don't know for sure I can't remember.

Harold: I don't know. I think if you want to put the verb on the end it has to be
"das heiBt, daB. . ."

Martin: So "das heiBt" by itself is not a subordinating conjunction?

Harold: I don't know. I‘m not the person to ask about that kind of stuff. (laughs)

Martin: I was curious about that 'cause I was thinking back to papers I had done

and wondering whether it is or not.

Harold/Martin/Al

Clyde does not note this portion of the text in his written commentary, and no revision is
made by Harold in the final draft.

Episode seven begins with Martin's request for clarification of one sentence in the
text. Harold responds to this request in a longer explanation, for the most part in

German. Once Harold switches into English briefly, Martin picks up on it for his

response as well, but the message is clearly stated in both German and English; namely,

147

the verb haben appears twice when it should only appear once, and the word order needs
to be modified.

Martin: Hier ist problematisch ein bisschen. "Sic haben ein 'par value' von DM

50 haben mfissen." So was meinst du da?

Harold: Ich muss mich cin bisschen fiberlegen. . .uh. . .(reads from text) "das heiBt

sic mfisscn cin 'par value' von 50 Mark haben." Also sic mfisscn. . .die 'par value'

in Amerika die Aktien mfisscn wenigstens 50 Mark Wert besitzen oder behalten.

So ich glaube, daB es ein bisschen besser aushfirte. . .zuhfirt. . .It sounds better

when I say "sic mfissen ein 'par value' von 50 Mark haben."

Martin: OK. I just wanted to clear up the fact that there was

Harold: too many verbs.

Martin: mass verbage in there. (laughs)

Harold/Martin/Al

Clyde suggests the same revision, and Harold carried these out in the final draft.

Episodes 8 through 12 are once again brief notations of incorrect word order or
spelling. In episode 8, there is some question in the conference as to the impact of the
conjunction sondern on the word order of the clause. Martin suggests there may be a
problem there and Harold says he will double check his usage of the word. The
instructor does not find the word order problematic in this particular case. He does note
the ambiguity of a pronoun in the sentence, however, and it is that suggestion that is
implemented in Harold's revision. Episode 9 consists of Martin mentioning the incorrect
spelling of a word and Harold asking for clarification of the correct spelling.
Interestingly, although Harold notes that there is an error, and invests time in negotiating
a correction for the error, the error remains in the final draft, presumably because it was
overlooked in the instructors feedback. The focus of the tenth episode in the conference
has been described in section 7.3 above and appears as item 11 in Table 7.1. It is a word

order question originally auto-corrected as the student read aloud. As mentioned in the

previous section, the real problem with this portion of the text is that the wrong

148

conjunction is used. Clyde suggests the change from entwcdcr to ob in his comments,
and it is that suggestion which Harold finally incorporates in his essay. Episodes 11 and
12 follow the same pattern as episode 9 above. They are spelling errors, brought to the
attention of Harold in the conference talk, at which point he agreed that the spelling for
each item needed to be corrected. However, as in episode 9, Clyde overlooked these
errors, and they remain in the final draft.

Episodes 13 through 17 occur as Martin and Harold go over the essay a second
time, attempting to place more focus on organization and argumentation than on
grammar. Episode 13 was discussed above in section 7.2, with Martin suggesting that
extra support was needed, yet not giving any concrete suggestions. Harold agreed that he
should write a few more sentences supporting his claims, and did indeed make changes in
the final draft for this point in the text. The revisions he made, however, correspond to
Clyde's suggestions that the content of this paragraph needed to be revised. Clyde asks
for clarification here with marginalia stating "explain," "give examples," and "logic!" In
response to these cues, Harold composed nearly 150 words of new text.

The original focus of episode 14 is a misspelled word, more specifically, a
missing umlaut. Martin draws this to Harold's attention in the following brief dialog.

Martin: Braucht "Gcschaftsfiihrung" ein Umlaut fiber dem "a"?.

Harold: J a, nicht "Geschafts-" "Geschéifis-." Gut bemerkt!

Harold/Martin/Al
Clyde also suggests revision of this item in his feedback, along with marginalia
requesting further explanation. Harold responds to both of the instructor's suggestions,

adding the umlaut as well as forty words of new text further explaining Harold's point.

Episode 15 is explained in detail in section 7 .3 above. The text in question appears as the

149

ninth auto-correction in Table 7.1. At the end of the conference discussion Harold was
determined to delete dafi from the text. That is also the suggestion Clyde made, and the
revision appeared in the final draft.

Episode 16 focuses on Harold's sentence regarding the advantages and
disadvantages of the type of corporation he argues would be best for the fictional
company. He writes "Die Vorteile sind herrschend und die Nachteile sind los." During
the conference Harold questions the correctness of this sentence and initiates a short
dialog with Martin, in which Harold actually produces his own viable alternative.

Harold: (reads) ...die Nachteile sind. . .Is "los" the right word there? Die Vorteile

sind herrschend, they're prevalent. Die Nachteile sind los, wrong, not there. . .I'11

just put a big question mark there.

Martin: You want to say that they're not there?

Harold: I could just say they "existieren nich ."

Martin: J a- cinfach so.

Harold/Martin/Al
When it comes time to revise the passage, however, Harold chooses to abandon this
solution and follow Clyde's suggestion of replacing herrschend and [as with fiberwiegend
and wenig.

The 17th and final episode of this conference contains a lengthy suggestion made
by Martin, with which Harold vehemently agrees, yet only minimal changes are made in
the final draft of the passage. The student's argument is that the limited liability
corporation is the most appropriate form for the company, one reason being that in that
form, fewer voices must be heard. Martin asks for clarification and suggests that Harold
add another sentence to the paragraph further explaining this line of argument.

Martin: Ich denke, daB es wird ein bisschen klarer sein, wenn du einen Satz

schrcibst oder tippst, in dem steht dass "wir mfissen viele Stimmcn horen" und na

und, so "es ist schwerer, cine Enscheidung zu machen." So cine kleine
Beschreibung oder Erzahlung, warum es so schrecklich ist oder so schlirnm ist

150

mehr Stimmcn zu haben, weil mcistcn Personen oder Menschcn oder Leute
wfirden sagen, "Oh, es gibt viele Stimmcn. Das ist besser, weil wir konnen
mchrcrc Ideen haben."
Harold: Genau!
Martin: Aber du meinst, dass mehr Stimmcn nicht gut ist, fibcrhaupt nicht. So ja
I think it would be a little bit of a stronger point if you did that. I mean it's
implied, but it could be easily argued against.
Harold: Oh Bingo! Bingo Bango!

Harold/Martin/Al

Echoing Martin's idea, the instructor includes the directive "explain why this is important
and gives advantage to GmbH" in his commentary. Clyde also suggests adding the
appropriate plural ending to the noun Stimmen, which Harold has rendered Stimme, and
changing the term fiihrende T eile to lcitende Organe. In the final revision Harold does
make the latter two changes, but does not respond to the previously mentioned directives
of either the instructor or the consultant. Now the discussion will turn to the suggestions
in Harold's second writing conference session.

The suggestions for revision of the second writing assignment included 19 fiom
the consultant and 251 from the instructor. Many of the comments from the consultant in
the nine episodes of the conference were more closely related to organization and support
than to grammar, as Harold had requested. Figure 7.2 illustrates the episodes of the

conference and the comments made by both Martin and Clyde.

Figure 7.2: Annotated text of Harold's second writing assignment
1. Einfiihrung: Hintergrundinforrnationen

Die Management Methodcn in Deutschland und den USA sind ganz andcrs. Natfirlich kampfen
beide Gruppen von ahnliche Sachen wie Gewinn, aber die Stilcn eines dcutschcn Toprnanagers und eines
amerikanischen Toprnanagers haben viele Unterschiede gegenfiber. Die amerikanische Manager
konzentn'eren sich auf cine "Hire/F ire" Mentalita't, das hciBt sic haben nicht viel Geduld wenn cine
Mitarbeitende ein Fehler macht. Die amerikanische Manager sind mehr Gcwinnorientiert. Sic wollen
Gewinn aufjeden Fall erziclen, dann auf die Arbcitcrlnncn und Aktienbesitzer achten. Die Amerikaner
planncn kurzfristiger als die Dcutschcn und haben sich irnmcr vorbereiten, schncll zu cntschicden und
Richttmgcn zu wenden. Amerikanische Manager sind auich lockerer in der Bfiro. siesind nichfio formil

151

Figure 7.2 cont.

und nenncn jeder mit der "Einhcits- You." [1] Amerikanische Manager betonen cin lockere Vcrhfiltnis und
mochtcn daB jeder die gleiche Meinungen bin. Amerikanische Manager haben nichts dagegen, wenn cine
Mitarbeitende ingendeinc Frage bestellt. Die Unterscheide zwischen dcutschcn und amerikanische
Manager sind sowohl ganz stark als auch entgegengesctzt.

In Deutschland konzentn'eren sich die Manager zuerst auf das Wohlergchen den Mitarbeitenden
und zweitens auf den Gewinn und Profit crziclen dcr Firma und den Aktienbesitzer [2]. Die dcutschcn
Manager planncn mehr langfn'stig, und kfinncn weder ihre Meinungen noch die Richtung dcs
Untemehmens schncll indem. Das Gefiihl in den dcutschcn Arbcitspliitze ist mehr streng und die Manager
sind mehr autoritarischer. Die Mitarbeitende mfisscn die Manager irnrncr sictzcn und dfirfen gar nicht fiber
die Leitung dcr Firma dirckt an den Leitcm sagen. Manchc Firma crlauben, die Mitarbeitende ein paar
Male pro J ahr "cin Brief an den Leitcr" schrciben, indem die Mitarbeitende dfirfen ihre Gedankcn nch die
Leitung des Untemehmens erwahncn. Obwohl die deutsche Mitarbeitende haben cin Betriebsra und cine
Mitbestimrnung, die Manager den dcutschcn Firma sind mehr streng den Amerkancr gegenfiber.

2. Interkulturelles Training.

Falls cine firma ihre Manager irn Ausland schickt, muB diescs Pcrspon fast imrncr cine Form von
Training haben. Interkulturelles Training wird heutzutage mehr herrschend weil alles so globalisicrt ist.
Viclc Firmen haben Tochtergesellschaften fiberall in dcr Welt und mfisscn irgendeine F fihrungskraft finden,
die das Untemehmen lcitcn kfinnen.

2.1 Die Notwcndigkeit fiir interkulturclles Training

Je groBer cine Firma, desto hoher liegt in der Regel die Mfiglichkeit daB die firma cine
Tochtergesellschaft irn Ausland hat. Diese sogenannte Multinationalfrrmcn muB ihre Positionen anstellen
abcr kfinncn alle Stellungen nicht imrncr bestzcn. Dieses Problem filhrt zu mchrcrc Probleme,
hauptsachlich, ob die Firma ihre eigene Manager filr die Arbcit irn Ausland geignet sind, oder muB die
Firma einheimischc Ffihrungskrafte anstclen. Es ist wichtig, wenn cine Firma ihre eigene Manager
nach Tochtergesellscaften im Ausland schicken, daB sic Training haben. [3] Es gibt fiberall in dcr
Welt unterschicdlichc Kulture, Sittcn und Gesetzc, die crkannt von den ortsfremdcn Auslandcrn mfisscn.
Das Training wird auch benutzt, um die "Turnover" von Arbcitcr zu nicdrigcn. Es ist teucr fiir cine Firma,
wenn sic irnrner wieder Arbcitcr anstellen mfisscn. Es gibt viclc verschiedene Kosten, die die Firma
verrnciden kann, wenn sic dicscs Training macht. Irgendcinc Firma gibt viel Geld aus, wenn sic cine
Stellung besctzen will.

2.2 Die Zunahmc an interkulturcllem Training [4]

Wie gesagt sind viele Firmen schon irn Ausland. Alles wird globalisicrt und die Multinationale
Firmen haben dic Gclegcnhcit, viel mehr geld zu kriegcn. Sic mfisscn sowieso cine Arbcitskraft finden, die
in frcmcde Umgcbungcn jobben [5] kann. Interlkulturclles training ist vor kurzem von manchen groBen
Untemehmen sehr stark benutzt, wicl dicse F irmcn ihre eigene Arbcitcr am Arbcitsplatz haben will, statt
die Leute die in den selben Landcm wohnen. Mehrcrc Firmen haben ihr eigene Program entwickelt, je
nach dcrn Land, dcr Firma oder den Sittcn irn Ausland. Notwcndig ist es, nicht um die Untcrrichtung
sondcm auch das Verstandnis des Trainings. Viclc F inncn wissen schon das ihre Manager auf dcm erstcn
Rang in dcr Gcschaftswclt sind, deshalb mfisscn sic diesc Leute nach anderen Landem schicken, wenn sic
die Moglichkcit haben. Das Training hat sovicl zugenomrnen, daB ein paar frrmcn diescs Training am
Anfang jedes Job machen, nicht nur wenn sic Leute irn Ausland haben.

2.3 Dic verschiedenen Artcn von Programmcn und Angeboten fiir interkulturclles Training.

Das Training von Arbcitcnch die bald irn Ausland arbeitcn werden, ist heutzutage ganz belicbt
von den LeiterInnen die in Amerika bleiben werden geworden [5]. Es gibt verschiedene Grfinde fiirs
Training, zwar gibt es auch verschiedene F orrnen von dem Training. Die altcst Form [6] ist die "Crash-

Coursc" indem cine Familie oder nur ein Person meistens dcr dcr bald ins Ausl_and fahrt [7]. In dieser

 

152

Figure 7.2 cont.

Kursc gibt es cin bischcn von dcm Sprachc, immer was fiber die regelmassigc Sitten und Religion, und
Handgeste. Man kann sagen, daB dicscs Kurs ein "dos and don'ts" Kurs ist. Man lcmt viel, in kurzer Zeit,
und cs ist schwcr fiir die "Studentlnnen" alles zu vcrstehcn und akchticrcn. Diese Form von Training
findct immcr irn Land dcr Hcimatstaat der Arbcitcr statt und vcrbraucht ein Klasscnzimmer Form von
Training. Es gibt auch cine Form, dast die selbc als die letzte, aber es findet sich irn Ausland statt, und ist
mehr "hands-on.". Diese Form von Training beginnt, als die Arbcitcndc irn Ausland ankomrnt, abcr
verkfirpert die selbc Ideen. Die Leute mfisscn alles schncll lcmcn, und es ist schwcr fiir sic, alles so bald
nicht nuyr zu vcrstehcn sondcm auch zu fiben. Ein paar Formen sind modemcr als die andere zwei, zum
Bcispiel das "vorhcr und nachher" Training Programm. Leute haben cin schncllcs Kurs in Amerika, wir
nach Ausland geschickt, haben noch ein paar Kursen und dann vielleicht cin J ahr oder jeder 15 Monaten
gibt es noch mehr Training Kursen.

2.4 Die Kritik an interkulturcllem Training

Der amerikanische Professor Robert Bontempo aus Columbia Universitat sagt daB manchc
Training Mfill ist. Seine Argument ist es, daB dicsc Firmen die so viel fiirs Training ausgebcn, haben keinc
bewcisen, daB ihr Programm etwas wertvoll fiir die "Kunden" schaftt. Diese Prograrmnen kostcn die
F irrncn wahnsinnig viel Geld abcr haben keinc bestimmtc Resultatcn. Das Training hat auch kein Platz in
den Herzcn dcn Kunden. Natfirlich kfinnen sic etwas dovon lcmcn, abcr obésic etwas davon nehmen und
vcrstehcn wissen nicmaid wie das gemcsscn kann [8]. Eine den grfiBten Agumenten gegcn das Training
ist, daB cine schlcchte Umzog flit die Familie fiihrt zu mehr "Turnover" als die Arbcitsfahigkcit dcs
Managers. Das Training Program kfinnte auch nie vorhcrsagen, ob die Familie cs glat irn Ausland findcn
werden, und ob sic da von den Mcnschen akchtiert werden. 1m groBcn und ganzen, gibt es riesig Druck
auf die F amilic, die ins Ausland fahrt. Die Firma glaubt, daB diesc Familie alles gut geben kann, und wenn
es nicht passicrt, hat die Familie die Erwartungcn der Firma enttauscht. Obwohl das Training keinc
bestimmtc positive eigenschaftcn die crhiirtcn kfinncn hat, gibt es cin paar positive Ideen, fiir die Leute die
nur kurze Besuchcn irn Aulsand crfahren werden. Die Bcratung einer Firma kfinnte ganz stfirk von dem
Training bceinfluBt. Die Beratcr, wenn sic aus Amerika kommen, haben nur kurze Zeit irn Ausland, und cs
wird wahrscheinlich hilfrcich, wenn sic irgendeine Form von Training haben bevor sic nach Ausland
rciscn., Deswcgen kfinnen diesc Beratcr sehr schncll arbeitcn ohnc fiber die Probleme den Kulturcllcn
Unterschiedcn Sorgcn zu machen. Es gibt die Beratcr auch die Gclegcnhcit, Mchrspachig zu werden.
Wenn cine Firma cin Manager ins Ausland schickt, dauert cs fiir langcrc Zeitcn, und sic mfissen die
Sprachc und Sitten dcr Kultur lcmcn, aber wenn cine Firma ein Beratcr ins Ausland schickt, dauertc den
Bcsuch nur ein oder zwei Wochcn. Er muB nicht alles vcrstehcn, abcr cs wird ihrn hilfrcich, wenn dieser
Beratcr etwas fiber die Sprachc kcnnt. Uberall gibt es cine Funktion fiirs Training, abcr es gibt keinc
MaBstabcn, um die Wirkung dcs Trainings zu messen.

 

3. AbschluB: Stellungnahme

Mcincr Meinung nach gibt es keinc Grfinde, daB Americhemists amerikanische
Ffihrungskrfiftc in Deutschland braucht [9]. Sic haben so weit ohnc die Hilfc den Amerikaner in
Deutschland gekommen und es wfirde sinnlos, neue Manager nach Deutschland zu schicken. Die
Dcutschcn sind sehr gut ausgebildct und haben die Kcnntnisse, die man braucht, um cine Firma zu lciten.
Die Dcutschcn wissen die Formen einer GmbH und konnte die Firma ganz fcin ohnc die Leitung den
Amerikancm fiihrcn. Americhemists kfinntc Amerikaner als Bcratung nach Deutschland ein paar Male pro
Jahr schicken, abcr sic brauchen das nicht, fiber cine amerikanische Ffihrungskraftc irnrncr in Deutschland
zu verfiigcn. Diese Training kfinntc gut fiir manchc sein, abcr wie gesagt gibt es kein System, mitdcm das
Training geschatzt kann. Bis es cin Programm gibt, daB garanticrtc Resultatcn hat, ist es Unsinn, daB
Americhemists so vicl fur das Programm ausgcben will, wenn die Firma schon cine ausgebildctc
Arbcitskraft in Deutschland hat.

153

Episode one begins with Martin suggesting the addition of a transitional element.
He suggests adding “das heisst” to his clarification of the manner in which American
managers are more informal in the office than their German counterparts:

Martin: OK Ich habe nur geschrieben, dass du sollst vielleicht nur ‘das heisst’
hier schrciben.
Harold: das heisst

Martin: So es ist fur mich dann ist es klarer, was du meinst.
Harold: J a
Martin: Das ist nur ein sogenannte ‘stylistic’ Sache.

Harold: Ich benutze ein bisschen Umgangssprachc.

Harold/Martin/A2
On the other hand, Clyde does not suggest the use of the connector, but does question the
validity of the example Harold provides in his attempt to get his meaning across. In the
final draft Harold changes the argument in response to the instructor’s feedback.

In episode 2 Martin suggests the repetition of a preposition in a phrase and the
movement of the verb to the sentence final position. Harold remarks that he will be able
to consult another resource to find the appropriate grammar to use in this passage. Clyde
suggests deletion of the verb, and no addition of preposition, and it is that set of
suggestions which is implemented in the final draft of the essay.

Martin: so ich weiss es nicht genau abcr vielleicht soll cs “auf den Gewinn und

Profit und auf den Aktienbesitzer” sein. Vielleicht ist das nicht wichtig.

Harold: Ich kann das nachschlagen.

Martin: J a, sowas (unintelligible)

Harold: nach dem “und?”

Martin: J a. “auf den Gewinn und Profit dcr Firma und auf dem Aktienbesitzer.”

Vielleicht brauchst du das nicht, aber fur mich, als ich das gelesen habe. ..

Harold: Ich kann das nachschlagen
Martin: J a, J a.

Harold/Martin/A2

154

The third and fourth episodes of the writing conference focused on organization,
and have been previously discussed near the end section 7.2. Episode five however,
centers the discussion first around a question of word choice, and secondly around the
clarification of a sentence which Martin does not understand due to its construction. At
the beginning of episode 5 Martin calls a word into question and makes the remark that
he has never heard the word. No alternate word is overtly suggested, though Martin does
ask about the meaning of the word by way of naming a synonym, and the episode
continues. Clyde also calls the word into question in his commentary by circling the
word and identifying it as a word choice error, since the use of the colloquialism Harold
chose does not fit well within the context of the assignment as a business report, nor with
the situation being described in the essay. In the final draft Harold replaces jobben with
arbeitcn, a better choice, and the synonym named by Martin.

Martin: Oh, hier habe ich "die in fremdcn jobben?"
Harold: J a.

Martin: sowas wie arbeitcn?

Harold: ja.

Martin: (laughs) Ich habe das nie gehfirt, jobben. OK das ist klar.

Harold/Martin/AZ

The remainder of the episode focuses on the clarification of the passage
mentioned above. Martin attempts to ascertain the meaning of the sentence, Harold
agrees there is some problem with the sentence, and attempts to explain, yet never fully
articulates his intended meaning, and the discussion breaks down. From the point of
view of the instructor, the sentence is certainly problematic. He circles the many verbs at

the end and indicates confusion by writing several question marks above the text. He

also makes a note in the margin that the sentence introduces a new topic which does not

155

correspond with the discussion in the rest of the paper. Harold deletes the entire sentence
from the final draft. The following excerpt from the conference portrays Harold's
inability to explain the meaning of his sentence and Martin's inability to support Harold's
attempt well enough to satisfactorily resolve the issue.

Martin: J a, wir haben beide bemerkt, dass es gibt ein Problem hier mit diesem

Satz "Das Training von Arbcitcnden, die bald irn Ausland arbeitcn werden, ist

heutzutage ganz beliebt von den LeiterInnen, die in Amerika bleiben werden

geworden."

Harold: Yeah, I don't know why that "geworden" is there. Es ist klar, also

ziemlich klar, wenn ich kein "geworden" habe.

Martin: OK. So du meinst sic haben cs gemer heutc, weil sic

Harold: Die LeiterInnen lieben es oder. ..

Martin: Sic vcrstehcn, warum es so wichtig ist.

Harold: J a, ja.

Martin: Die LeiterInnen, die in Amerika bleiben finden es so das gefallt ihncn

oder whatever.

Harold: J a.

Harold/Martin/AZ

In episode 6, Martin points out a missing umlaut and suggests replacing the word
bischcn with bisschen. Clyde also mentions the missing umlaut in his commentary, as
well as several case marker errors. He also suggests a modification of the sentence in this
passage which would delete the word bisschen altogether. In the final draft Harold adds
the umlaut, following the suggestion of both Martin and Clyde, yet regarding the other
correction, he opts to incorporate the instructor's feedback. Episode 7 is longer, again
focusing on a point for which Martin has requested clarification. In the ensuing dialog
both Martin and Harold concur that they do not firlly understand the passage, and Harold
excuses himself for having written the paper hurriedly. Though the conference

participants discuss the passage, neither one is able to concisely state the problem with

the prose at this point. Clyde, however, notes on his copy of the draft that the verb is

156

missing fiom the attempted relative clause, and Harold does add a verb in the clause for
the final draft.

Martin: Was meinst du da? Ich verstehe das nicht (reads from text) "indem cine
Familie oder nur cin Person, meistens der, der bald ins Ausland f ' ."

Harold: Also diese Person, wenn es nur cine Person gibt, wird schncll ins
Ausland gehen, nach, nach Ausland gehen. I don't know why there's all this
mumbo jumbo.

Martin: OK. Das ist was ich habe nicht verstanden. . .all diese Plus Worter.
Harold: J a. Wie ich frfiher gesagt habe, habe ich diesen Bericht sehr schncll

geschrieben, so...
Martin: J a, am Morgen.
Harold/Martin/A2

The eighth episode of conference talk includes a content clarification request on
the part of Martin, to which Harold responds, to Harold's satisfaction. The episode then
continues with a question of verb forms and their place in the structure of a specific
sentence. Martin suggests changing the verb form to agree with the singular subject, and
using a passive voice form to complete the second clause of the sentence. The instructor
also notices the agreement error, and suggests that Harold end the first sentence and
transform the dependent clause into a second sentence which would employ the passive
voice. Harold did not follow the advice of either Martin or the instructor, however; he
chose to delete the sentence altogether from the final draft.

Martin: OK. Ich denke das ist klar. Ich habe das gefragt. . .(reads fi'om text) "ob

sie etwas davon nehmen und vcrstehcn, wissen niemand wie das gemessen kann."

Harold: J a, vielleicht wiBt niemand.

Martin: J a, weiB niemand. Vielleicht du sollst noch ein Verb hier haben. "Aber

ob sic etwas davon nehmen und vcrstehcn, weiB niemand, wie das gemessen
wird."

Harold: J a, I need a huge Aufldarung.
Harold/Martin/A2

The ninth episode of the conference focused on organization of the essay and

elements of the argumentation which have been previously discussed in section 7.2. The

157

conference discussion dealt with organization and argumentation, and really only served
to draw Harold's attention to the passage. Clyde's comments on this passage included
many dealing with syntax and one content question written in the margin requesting
elaboration on the point Harold was making about intercultural training. In the final
revision, Harold incorporated all of Clyde's suggestions and responded to the comment
question with 70 words of new text.

To summarize the adherance to the agenda set in the first conference I will first
mention that Harold had suggested discussion of sentence structure and support of
arguments. In that word order may be considered as relating to sentence structure, the
first expectation in the agenda was met fairly well through the conference dialog. The
second expectation was also met, although only later in the conference, and with Harold
taking over more control in the situation. In the second conference, the agenda included
very broad, general issues of grammar, content and support. In spite of this very general
request, though, the second conference yielded many more concrete suggestions for
revision, showing a much stronger correlation between the expectations and outcomes of
the session.

Harold’s self-correction behaviors were typical in that he only made revisions in
the first composition for those self-attended items also mentioned by the instructor. He
did basically the same in the second composition, with one exception only in which he
failed to make a revision that had been suggested in a self-corrective moment as well as
by both Martin and Clyde.

Generally characterizing Harold's writing conferences and revisions, he, like

Herman and Homer, also responded to feedback that was at times very similar from each

158

source. He did, however, also show more indication of an ability to incorporate revisions
suggested on his own. In addition, he responded in great quantity to many of the content
and organization related comments Clyde wrote in the margins of his compositions.
Implications of the trends for auto-correction and revision observed in Harold's case will

be discussed in chapter eight.

159

Chapter 8: Implications

8.1 Introduction

The preceding quantitative and qualitative analyses of writing conference and
instructor response to student writing have informed the research questions formulated in
the earlier chapters of this dissertation. These research questions included the following:
1) What similarities and differences exist between the verbal feedback students receive in
a writing conference and the written comments they receive fi'om their instructors? 2) Do
students tend to prefer one type of feedback over the other when they make revisions to
their compositions? and 3) What implications do findings of this study hold for teaching
and for firture research on writing conferences in foreign languages?

Through presentation and discussion of the writing conferences it has been shown
that there are striking similarities between writing conference feedback and instructor
feedback on the essays, with minimal, yet sometimes noteworthy differences. It has also
been revealed that these students are generally more likely to use the feedback given by
the instructor when they revise their work, though there are also cases in which the
feedback from the consultant is clearly preferred. Indeed, there are also instances in
which the student is able to make corrections on his or her own during the read—aloud
phase, yet seems hesitant to use those corrections in a final draft of the essay unless the
particular change is also supported in the instructor's feedback. These observations allow
for the presentation in this chapter of various implications writing conferences have for
the teaching of composition in German as a foreign language, as well as the implications

for further inquiry into writing conferences in German.

160

8.2 Implications for Teaching

There are two main implications of the data presented in this dissertation which
provide a positive outlook for the use of writing conferences in German composition
courses. First, the similarities, both in number and in type, of the comments made by
both sources give the impression that the feedback students receive from the writing
conferences is just as appropriate as the feedback from the instructor. The fact that the
consultants focus in on many of the same details of the writing, even without having
conferred with the instructor in the beginning of the study, suggests that writing
consultants who have been previously involved in the types of writing the subjects are
expected to do in the classroom are able to pick out many of the key features of writing
appropriate to the course. This claim is limited by the likelihood that the instructor still
may have a broader vocabulary in the target language, or more experience in the content
area in which the students are writing. Nonetheless, evidence from the quantitative
analysis in chapter four and from all three case studies shows that a large amount of the
feedback given in the conferences is also given by the instructor.

This makes it difficult to determine which source of feedback the students prefer
in the revision stage, especially in the cases of Herman and Harold. Most often, Herman
revises using feedback which is the same from both sources. On some exceptional
occasions, however, he chooses one source's suggestion over the other, usually with
unfortunate results. One demonstrative example in Herman's case is the second episode

of the first conference, in which he chooses the instructor's feedback and the misspelling

161

 

Prinzipen is retained. Another is the ninth episode of the same conference in which
Herman uses the inappropriate idiom "rum um die Welt," as suggested by the consultant.

It is also difficult to dctcnninc from which source Harold's revisions come, since
there is much overlap in the comments. When the sources differ, however, he most often
chooses to use Clyde's suggestion, as markedly seen in the first five episodes of Harold's
first writing assignment, again an example of the student choosing to make the revisions
suggested by both sources, yet leave out revisions suggested by the consultant only.
Homer, on the other hand, makes several revisions based on the suggestions of the
consultant. He is more willing to take a risk and incorporate revisions I suggest, even
when Clyde makes a differing comment. The third episode of the first assignment
provides an example of Homer's use of comments generated through the discussion of the
conference rather than the instructor's suggestion that he delete the sentence.

In spite of the above examples it must be said that most of the revisions are made
based on feedback which is very similar or identical across sources, so that it is not
possible for me to detennine whether one source or another was likely to have been the
impetus for change. Thus, I argue here in favor of using writing conferences in teaching
foreign language writing, because this study suggests that the feedback students receive
by participating in them is appropriate and very similar to that which they receive fiom
the course instructor; at least regarding forms of the language used.

Regarding content and organization, however, Clyde makes many more
comments than any of the three consultants. In addition, many of the expectations for the
conferences do not match the perceived outcomes on this level. Many of the students

want to talk about argumentation and support in the papers, yet all of the consultants tend

162

to focus mainly on grammar issues. Herman's conferences, for example, provide
examples of disagreement between expectation and outcome. His request to talk about
organization is included seemingly as an afterthought for the first conference, and in the
second, Richard does not help him set an agenda at all. Homer's expectations are only
partially met as well. He is concerned about the content of both writing assignments, yet
I give very few suggestions regarding content, rather focusing on another request he
makes for help with complex grammatical forms. Also Harold's conferences with Martin
are characterized by dialog that addresses language issues in the writing, and also makes
mention of support for the arguments as Harold requested in the agenda. It is merely
mentioned, however, and no concrete suggestions for revision of the organization or
argumentation of the essay are made. These data speak in favor of a partial incorporation
of writing conferences into the writing curriculum in German. An instructor could
potentially rely on writing consultants to do much of the initial work in evaluating and
responding to language issues in student writing. In a course invested in revision the
instructor could enter the response situation much later, to add suggestions arising fiom
his or her content expertise and to help students strengthen arguments in their papers.

A second implication is that using writing conferences in teaching can foster
closer readings of compositions, which can inspire them to think more critically about
their writing, to compose more carefully, and to revise more successfully. This is
evidenced by the phase of the writing conference in which students read their
compositions aloud. This phase was very popular with the students, and many
characterize it as very helpful in encouraging them to consider their process of writing

and revision, yet it is only moderately successful in eliciting meaningful revision in the

163

 

final drafts. Time and time again students self-correct during the read aloud, but as a rule
they only incorporate revisions noticed also by the instructor. Harold and Homer both
consistently incorporate in their revisions only those initially self-corrected items which
are also mentioned by the instructor. Herman, however, does incorporate certain items he
notices while reading aloud when they are also noted by the consultant. I believe that this
lack of attention to auto-corrected items may just as often occur as a result of speed in
producing the final draft as it does as a result of lack of faith in one's own interlanguage.
Perhaps the students compose and revise their work electronically, not really rereading
and thinking about their essay, rather merely scrolling from point to point in the
document, adding, deleting or changing text. In doing so, and not having marked the
self-corrections on paper, they would see no apparent reason to move the cursor to a
particular point in the text during the revision process. Thus, I am convinced that the fact
that students did self-correct ultimately has a positive implication for reading aloud in the
writing conference, when it is used in conjunction with noting the correction in the text
passage, and discussing the correction with the consultant.
8.3 Implications for Future Research

There are many implications for future research into the area of writing
conferences arising from this study. As stated early on in the dissertation, I have
positioned this study among the question seeking investigations in the early stages of
defining a focus area for research. Therefore, as a result of seeking to inform the main
research questions noted above, many other questions have developed regarding data in

the case studies and the quantitative analysis of the feedback. These new questions guide

164

the following ideas for a research agenda in writing conferences for foreign language
teaching.

One commonly occurring and interesting phenomenon in the study is that of
students receiving feedback from each source that is similar in type, yet the suggestions
given by each source are actually opposed. Students often receive this opposing feedback
regarding agreement errors between nouns possessive adjective, since these take endings
in German. For example, the consultant might suggest using plural noun and adjective,
whereas the instructor suggests employing the singular forms. Both sets of feedback are
valid, and would lead to a successful revision, but the student confuses the two and ends
up with a revised sentence just as incorrect as the first. An excellent example of this
comes from Herman's first writing assignment. He uses an ending on a possessive
adjective in the dative case (ihrer) to denote the singular, but renders the noun plural
(Taschen). Richard suggests that Herman change the pronoun to agree with the noun,
and Clyde suggests the pronoun be left and the noun be changed to agree with it. Herman
actually makes both changes, and still has problematic sentence in the end. To avoid
situations such as this, a future study might only investigate one mode of response to the
student writing, or consist of more than one group of subjects, utilizing various modes.

One limitation of this study is that it is impossible at times for me to determine
which source of feedback serves as the impetus for any given revision. This is due to the
fact that the feedback is so similar across sources. I have previously discussed this fact in
a positive light, since it points to the equality of feedback from consultants compared to

feedback from faculty. A future study could potentially produce a better set of data

165

regarding the ability to determine impetus for revision if it incorporates a recall phase in
which students are interviewed as to their motivations for each revision.

Another revealing study implied by the data collected for this project would be
one investigating the current practices of foreign language teachers regarding their use of
correction keys for responding to writing. Over the course of this study I noticed that the
instructor's key is sometimes applied inconsistently. For example he uses the code for an
ending mistake in one passage in the text, but merely corrects the error in another. In a
future study I would survey foreign language teachers to investigate trends in their use of
correction keys. Another manner of collecting relevant data on this topic is to provide
teachers with a key I have made and ask them to use it when responding to student
writing, then collect the writing samples they have assessed. Data collected in such a
study would allow for discussion of the implications and usefirlness of correction keys for
foreign language writing response.

Research on writing conferences in foreign language teaching is only beginning.
More and more studies will be conducted as more courses and more writing centers
implement this type of response. This study has successfully informed some questions
and equally successfully raised others. It has suggested possible advantages as well as
drawbacks of implementing writing conferences in language teaching. It has also
provided a large body of data suitable for analysis in many ways in future discussions.
As a result, the scholarly discourse on writing conferences can benefit from future
research, and foreign language educators might choose to add writing conferences to their
curricula as another way to help their students think and talk about the process of

response and revision.

166

 

APPENDIX

167

 

Following each writing conference, each of the nine students authors were
encouraged to complete the following form reflecting on the feedback experience they
had just received.

Writer’s Post Conference Reflection

Please spend a few minutes reflecting on any or all of the following questions on what
you just did during your session with your Writing Consultant...

What did you learn or discover about your topic that you didn’t know before?
What did you learn about writing in your foreign language that you didn’t know
before?
What did you learn about your writing process?
What will you carry away fiom the session that you might use when you write
another paper?

0 What else do you want researchers to know about this session?

The following are the full text reproductions of what the students wrote in
response to the above questions for assignments 1 (A1) and 2 (A2).

Herman (A1): I learned about the construction of German sentences as it gets more
complicated. I learned how to say what I wanted to in a more concise and professional
manner. I will pay more attention to stopping redundant ideas and becoming more clear
and specific with my thoughts.

Herman (A2): I need to watch my relative clauses. I also need to watch for capitalized
adjectives. Some of the verbs I used needed refining. German sentences can be made
more complex. Be more specific and concise with thoughts. Make sure the writer knows
everything he is talking about before the session.

Harley (Al): I learned that I make a lot of careless grammar mistakes, such as present
and firture tenses and mistakes dealing with Dative and Accusative and Genitive forms. I
think I need to proof-read more and read out loud. I tend to catch a lot of mistakes by
hearing my writing.

Harley (A2): I have no clue what Management by Exception means. I learned more
about extended adj ective modifiers. I still need to read aloud prior to handing in my
paper. Proof Read! Thank You!

Homer (Al): I learned a great deal about my writing style, and more specifically, how to
make certain sentences more clear, and how to try to make these problem areas better by
talking and writing it out into what I want to say. By knowing this, and also by being
able to read the essay aloud, I noticed a lot of simple errors that can’t be caught just by
reading to myself, which will be sure to help me improve my writing after the first time
of writing.

168

 

 

 

Homer (A2): Better ways to express example, verb and grammar forms (genitive and
passive). Better passive and alternative passive constructions and forms and uses for
these constructions. At times a bit too much, can simplify down to much more
understandable phrases. Proper grammar forms, better endings and just how to write
more concisely. It was extremely helpful to find the basic concepts within the writing
and how to build up based on the suggestions.

Harris (A1): I learned that I followed the required organization scheme fairly well and
that doing so led to a clear, well organized product. I learned also that there were a few
places in my paper that were clear to me, but didn’t necessarily come off the page well
and accordingly must be revised. Going over grammar was very helpful. Hopefully I’ll
be able to get my first drafts into better shape in the future as I write more carefully
considering organization, variety and grammar.

Harris (A2): Everything was pretty much as it appeared in the given text and the
assignment. We didn’t really discuss the content of my paper so much as the writing
itself. I learned how important it is to pay attention to sentence length, long sentences
which are comprised of numerous small clauses and ideas can occasionally confuse the
purpose of the sentence. I learned that it wouldn’t hurt to proofi'cad a little more closely
to make sure all the verbs are close to the proper positions. Again, the importance of
reading out loud to ascertain that what appears on the page makes sense and flows well. I
was pleased with how Mitch worked with me to find alternate expressions to those I used
that were faulty. A different approach to my ideas helped with clarity and expression.
Harold (A1): The biggest problem I have is clearly stating and separating ideas. Being
concise yet descriptive is something I have tried to and will continue to strive to do. The
session allowed me to reflect not necessarily on the relevance of the content but rather on
the flow of the ideas and the way they tie into and lead into each other. I think the most
helpful thing will be to create an outline and list not what I want to talk about but how I
want to justify my assertions.

Harold (A2): Clarity is key-some parts can be misconstrued so it has to be very specific.
Grammar needs to make sense in order to understand the message of the sentence.
Content is pretty good- writing an outline prior to the paper works well. Read it once out
loud to see how it sounds and to make grammatical corrections before the final copy is
turned in. Go through before and figure out what to look for before you do the correction
instead of going through one mistake a time, you can always find simple mistakes, but if
you know what to look for you’ll be better off.

Hazel (Al): That my paper is at least well organized and professional. Sometimes I have
sentences that are too long and need to be shortened and my standpoint in the essay
should be made clearer and reinforced. Some course material were explained to me
thoroughly and effectively in the course of this consultation process. Business
nomenclature such as “fiscal year”, “shelf companies” etc. To ask for help when I come
across confusing terminology instead of speculating.

169

 

Hazel (A2): DaimlerChrysler example. Too complicated. To think out extended
modifiers more. It’s a good idea to make students read their papers out loud, especially
foreign language ones.

Helen (Al): I learned to go back and make sure that I’ve answered all the questions I
brought up in my thesis. I learned that I tend to wait to the end to state my positions, but
that’s OK as long as it is well supported. I will read my papers out loud to catch errors
and start referring back to my thesis more during my writing. I would like to learn to
increase the complexity of my sentence structure by the end of the semester.

Helen (A2): I realized that this topic takes a lot of support-~you can’t use a filler sentence
or BS in any of it. Everything needs to be supported. The way Americans refer to all
people or employees as “he” doesn’t quite work in German. You can’t say “Each
employee has his” and it doesn’t automatically entail all genders in German. I am
sloppy with grammar and should reread over my paper for relevance to the topic. Check
my endings and grammar and typos. It definitely helped me to learn how to read over my
own work and where I have problems.

Elmer (Al): I learned that my writing process should be better thought out. When I
write my next paper I will rethink and take some more time in the writing process.

Ehner (A2): That I need to work on my complex sentence structure. I know now that I
should read over my paper a couple more times to listen how it sounds. Concentrate
more on sentence structure. I want them to know that it is beneficial for students to have
this resource.

Howard (A1): I found the consultation helpful. Reading out loud helps me hear my own
mistakes. I find that as I read papers to myself, I skip over big problems over and over.
In addition, there are simply some things I can not find myself. For example, some word
endings and order.

Howard (A2): I have some problems with ambiguous subjects and Richard helped me
clear it up. I just developed my understanding of subject/verb agreement more. I need to
read the papers out loud more often. When I write another paper I will read it out loud.

Following are the transcriptions of the writing conference dialogs for Assignment 1 (A1)
and Assignment 2 (A2) for Herman, Homer and Harold.

Herman (Al)
Richard: OK Herman, what class is this for?
Herman: German 312
Richard: Which is?
Herman: Basically economics and German, like a general overview.
Richard: What type of work do you have here, what did you write about?

170

 

 

Herman: Well it’s a theoretical company called AmeriChemists and their
decision to move to Germany whether they want to become an Akteingesellschaft,
which is a stockholder company or a Kapitalgcscllschaft, which is basically like
more of a partnership. Oh, excuse me, Kapitalgcscllschaft; the overall idea of a
stockholder company or more of a limited liability company.

Richard: OK the first thing we usually have you do—Kfinnen wir das auf deutsch
machen?

Herman: J a.

Richard: OK, gut. Zucrst, was ich am besten finde, ist das du das vorliest, laut
vorliest und wir kfinnen das zusammcn angucken und dann meistens hfirt man
seine eigene Fehler auch.

Herman: Alles zusammcn oder hier dann stoppcn?

Richard: Ich werde zwischendurch ein Bisschen stoppen.

Herman: OK.

Richard: Aber meistens werden wir einefach durchlesen und dann nachher die
Fehler besprechen. Bevor wir das machen, gibt es Bereiche, also spezifische
Bereiche, wo du dein Schreiben schwach findest? Oder gibt es-

Herrnan: uhhh Wir mfissen Nachteile und Vorteile ffir GmbH oder
Aktiengcsellschaft finden und dann unterstfitzen, und vielleicht ist das wo ich
Probleme hatte.

Richard: Mit der Argumentation?

Herman: Mit der Unterstfitzung vielleicht, mit AG und GmbH und die
Unterschiede zwischen die beide.

Richard: Was im Spezifischen? Ob die Argumente klar sind, oder ob sie gut
sind?

Herman: Beide, klar und gut, J a beide.

Richard: Gut. Andere Bereiche? Einige Personen kommen zu mir und sagen,

"J a meinc Organisation ist. . .ich mfichte Organisation angucken oder Ubergange."
Oder gibt es andere Bereiche, die wir besprechen sollen? Manchmal haben sie
Probleme mit einem spezifischen grammatischen Konzept.

Herman: Vielleicht etwas mit Genitiv.

Richard: Genitiv?

Herman: J a ich habe viel Genitiv darin geschrieben

Richard: OK, gut. . .diese zwei Punkte kfinncn wir cin Bisschen angucken. OK,
bitte lies mal vor!

Herman: (reads) “In einer GmbH mfissen die GesellschaftcrInnen nur. . .”
Richard: Moment, Moment, Moment. Stoppen wir. Kannst du das wieder lcsen?
AmeriChemists wird?

Herman: (reads) “AmeriChemists wird. . .” I’m trying to say here that
AmeriChemists is going to become a German company, but they need a form
that’s easy to ahh, they need the easiest possible form to start with.

Richard: Sehr leicht zu grfinden ist, ja?

Herman: Sehr leicht zu grfinden ist—maybe too many words in there, huh?
Richard: J a. Zu viele Wfirter. Du hast hier, du hast hier AmeriChemists wird ein
neues Untemehmen und dann wieder ein neues Untemehmen

Herman: OK

171

 

Richard:

Vielleicht klingt das ein Bisschen klarer wenn man cinfach ein neues

Untemehmen ausnimmt. “AmeriChcmsts wird ein neues Untemehmen in
Deutschland und sic brauchen einen Form”. . .Also, der, die oder das Form?

Herman:
Richard:
Herman:
Richard:
Herman:
Richard:
Herman:
Richard:
Herman:
Richard:

der

die

die

die Form. Sic braucht cine Form, die

die sehr leicht zu grfinden ist

J a, die sehr leicht zu grfinden ist. Grfindcn?
to found

wird klein geschrieben.

OK

OK, OK weiter

(Herman reads remainder of draft)

Richard:

gab?

Herman:

OK Hast du ...hast du vielleicht Bereiche gesehen, wo es Probleme

Nochmal die uhh Unterstfitzung von meiner Meinung fiir GmbHs ist

vielleicht ein Bisschen schwach.

Richard:

Also meiner Meinung nach, zuerst muss ich sagen, ich glaube du hast

einige sehr schfine Ubergiinge in deinem Werk.

Herman:
Richard:
Herman:
Richard:

sehr gute Uber-?

Ubergange—transitions?

OK

und uhh zweitens ich glaube zu erst fangen wir am Ende hier an, weil

das das fin an hier cin Bisschen donfus und lang zu werden. Die Stitze sind sehr
lang. (begins reading from text) ...und sic brauchen cine Form komma —ja wir
haben jetzt einen Nebensatz, Relativsatz—die sehr leicht zu grfinden ist. “In einer
GmbH mfissen die Geselschaftcr nur 50.000 DM haben sich zu errichten” hier
wieder sich zu errichten.

Herman:
Richard: um sich zu errichten, gut “sondcm auch 100,000 DM in einer AG” was

um sich zu errichten

willst du damit sagen?

Herman:

Das ist eine Vorteil. Sie mfissen weniger, you know, fast Halb die

Grundkapital einer AG haben.

Richard:

Ah. . .ich glaube du willst hier nicht sondcm auch, weil sondcm

eigentlich “rather” ist.

Herman:
Richard:

OK I wanna say “instead of” statt.
Statt mm hmm statt statt 100,000 und ich wfirde sagen statt 100,000

DM wie in einer AG. Komma wie in einer AG. Klingt das dir besser?

Herman:
Richard:
Herman:
Richard:
Herman:
Richard:

J a.

um zufrieden mfisscn--zufi'ieden mfissen?

to satisfy?

Das klingt mir komisch. . .befiicdigen, befriedigen? (consults dictionary)
zufrieden is satisfied.

I a, zufiieden das ist ein Adjektiv, aber befriedigen ist das Verb das ist

was man macht.

172

 

Herman: OK

Richard: (reads farther) OK “wir wissen, dass GmbHs gewfihnlich oft--usually
often?

Herman: (laughs)

Richard: sometimes maybe (laughs) gewfihnlich oder oft?

Herman: gcwfihnlich.

Richard: oft ausstreichcn, OK. . .bist du damit zufiieden?

Herman: J a.

Richard: Und wir machen das spiiterngchen wir hier durch. Wir haben einige
Tippfehler, und ich glaube du wirst sic wahrscheinlich auch sehen. Hier durch—
durch das ganze Papicr wieder gibt es—nicht dasselbc Wort—aber gibt es
bestimmtc Nomen, die du nicht gross schrcibst.

Herman: OK.

Richard: Du musst cinfach darauf achten, dass du alle Nomen gross

schrcibst. . .spezifisch, ich habe spezifisch hier gesehen, falsch geschrieben.
Herman: Falsch getippt, abet spezifisch ist kein Nomen.

Richard: nein, nein, aber wie schrcibt man das? Spezifisch (exaggerates) Zinsen,
thtel, zet, zet.

Herman: Oh, ja ja ja.

Richard: Aber du hast hier ein Problem--beide Besitzer und Gesellschafter
mfissen mit mfissen gehen. Also ich wfirde sagen man sagt cinfach die
Herman: OK

Richard: Dann ist das mehr als ein Besitzer und theoretisch also der Leser soll
einschcn kfinnen, cs kann mchrcrc Besitzer geben, es kann ein Besitzer geben
“. . .mfissen die Besitzer oder die Gesellschafter aus ihrer eigenen. . .”

Herman: die Tasche

Richard: J a, die Taschen, plural, was ist plural dativ?

Herman: Taschen oh!

Richard: plural dativ von diesem Artikel hier—ihrer.

Herman: ihren

Richard: ihren —- aus ihren eigenen Taschen bezahlen. Und ich glaube du hast
das schon gesehen, ja ohnc hciBen? Lies den Satz vor.

Herman: Erst gibt es. . .ja.

Richard: Die Ffihrung—OK Untemehmen?

Herman: das.

Richard: das Untemehmen. Und du willst Genitiv damit meinen.

Herman: Die Ffihrung des

Richard: dcs Untemehmens.

Richard: “Die zweite Halbe von Personengesellschaften handelt sich mit
Kommanditgesellschaft.” Was meinst du zweite Halbe?

Herman: weil unter Personengesellschaft gibt es zwei Teilc; die offene
Handelsgesellschaft. . .

Richard: J a, aber sic sind nicht unbedingt Halb von dem selben Kuchen.
Herman: J a, zweitens gibt es. ..

Richard: J a, zweitens, gut, konnte man sagen. Oder man konnte das sagen, oder
mein Gedankc da war, man konnte cinfach das Wort “Form” benutzen. Das ist

173

 

cine Form von einem Geschéifi. Die zweite Form. Beschrankt, wie schrcibt man

das?
Herman
Richard

Herman:

Richard

Oh, mit n.

GrfiBer, wie schrcibt man das?

esszet und umlaut.

gut. (reads) “Wenn ein Betrieb grfiBer werden wollte, oft wiihlen sie. . .”

OK welche Zeitform willst du hier benutzen? Ist das Prisens, Vergangenhcit oder

Zukunft?
Herman:
Richard:
Herman:
Richard:
Richard:

Zukunft. . .werden wollte

werden wollte—OK—werden ist Zukunft, wollte ist Vergangenhcit.
ah! Werden will, werden will. Wants to get bigger.

genau, will, oder cinfach mfichte.

“Wenn einen Betrieb grfisscr werden will, wahlcn sie oft...” J a, sie

bezicht sich auf was?

Herman:
Richard:
Herman:

Richard
Herman
Richard

einen Betrieb.

und ist ein Betrieb?

er

J a, gut.

uhh wahlt er oft?

J a, der Satz ist ein bisschen umm “awkwar

’9

ein kleines bisschen, weil

ein Betrieb will nichts. Ein Betrieb hat keinc Wille.

Richard:

I think my problem with that sentence is “wfihlt er oft.” That’s awfully

active for a...

Herman:
Richard:
Herman:
Richard:
Herman:
Richard:
Herman:
Richard:
Herman:
Richard:
Herman:
Richard:

ja, ja-

I would rather say the owners, or...

Ist die beste Wahl cine Kapitalgcscllschaft.

J a, there you go uhh das ist gut. Oder Form. . .ist die beste Form.
J a, Form ist gut.

Das klingt dir besser? Bist du damit zufrieden?

J a.

OK, was denkst du fiber diesen Satz?

umm

untemchmen, untemchmen, untemchmen, untemchmcn.

J a.

“. . .und diesc Form ist gewfihnlich fiir groBe Untemehmen und

Untemehmen. . .

Herman:
Richard:
Herman:
Richard:

der wachsen wollen.

J a, Untemehmen, ist das hier plural oder singular?

plural, die?

die, die wachsen wollen. Das ist ein Relativsatz das muss mit einem

komma abgesetzt werden.

Herman:
Richard:

J a.
OK. Ich glaube das ist ziemlich gut-nachste Seite, die Zeit vergeht

umm. . .ich wahlc die grfiBtcn aus hier. Und und und Ich glaube dieser Satz ist zu
lang. Vielleicht kannst du zwei Stitze daraus machen.

Herman:

OK Vielleicht nach “insgcsamt” einen neuen Satz.

174

 

Richard: J a, und “Sic” muss groB geschrieben werden.

Herman: OK

Richard: in die Leitung—Dativ

Herman: in dcr Leittmg.

Richard: OK Das klingt besser. Das ist ein Bisschen unbequem oder wie kfinnte
man das andcrs sagen?

Herman: Confident, umm they’re more confident

Richard: Comfortable, confident

Herman: Haben sic mehr “trust?”

Richard: Trust? Vertrauen? Confidence? (dictionary consulted) Wie ware cs,
wenn man sagt, vielleicht “ist es ihncn bequemer beim Investieren.” Oder “haben
sic mehr Vertrauen beim Investieren?” Was willst du haben? Du kannst beide
hinschreibcn und dann selbst wahlen.

Herman: I a.

Richard: ...J a es gibt einen besseren Ausdruck dafiir. Man sagt “rum um die
Welt,” all around the world. Man kann “um die Welt” sagen. That’s around the
world. “rum um die Welt” all around the world.

Herman: OK

Richard: “wenn” automatically implies “dann.” “Mfissen fast Halb die
Mitglieder--OK das ist cine genitive Form willst du machen. Ich wfirde sagen
Halb, das ist auch cin Nomen.

Herman: J a.

Richard: die Mitglieder-- Was ist das? plural? singular?

Herman: plural

Richard: genitiv plural

Herman: uhh der?

Richard: der. “. . .mfissen fast Halb dcr Mitglieder des Aufsichtsrats sein. . .” So
50% of the Board of Trustees basically have to be representatives of the
employees.

Herman: Wir mfissen dcr hier.

Richard: J a. Half of the members of the

Herman: Sic sind beide

Richard: genitiv, ja. Zwei Gcnitivformen aufeinandcr. Flexibel, wie schrcibt
man flexibel? Wie schrcibt man das? -el, und was noch? “Auch ein Vorteil der
GmbH, die sehr wichtig ist.” Das ist ein Nebensatz, gel? Ist ein Relativsatz. Es
muss noch ein Komma geben—“Auch ein Vorteil dcr GmbH, (Komma) hier
maskulin, feminine oder neutrum?

Herman: Vorteil, das, no, der

Richard: ...der sehr wichtig ist. Wir haben schon die Sachen auf der letzten Seitc
besprochen. Gibt es Bereiche, wo du ...oder siehst du noch etwas?

Herman: Das ist fast alles. Unterstfitzung war meinc grfiBte Frage.

Richard: Ich glaube die Unter--also meiner Meinung nach ist die Argumentation
gut. Das Einzige, was ich cin bisschen problematisch fined, und mir ist das
irnmcr problematisch-- Einleitungen und Abschlfissc sind mir immer
problematisch, abcr dein Abschluss hier ist -- du sagst genau das und in Detail

175

 

 

auch am Ende, was du schon gesagt hast und mir kommt das ein bisschen
redundant vor.

Herman: kommt ein bisschen?

Richard: redundant, redundant

Herman: oh, OK

Richard: Vielleicht wenn du das ein bisschen

Herman: spezifisch?

Richard: Nein. Blcib ein bisschen allgemeincr oder etwas mehr in Richtung
Thema.

(end of video tape)

Herman (A2)
Richard: Was fiir ein Werk ist das?
Herman: Das ist ein Bericht fiber Americhemists. Die haben jetzt cine deutsche
Tochterfirma und sic entscheiden, ob sie F fihrungskrfiftc aus Deutschland
anstellen sollen, oder Leute aus Amerika nach Deutschland schicken sollen.
Richard: Und hier darin gibt es Argumente fiir und gegen?
Herman: J a, genau.
Richard: Uberall ein Argument dafilr aber es gibt Grfinde von beiden Seiten.
Wundcrbar—und nochmal wir machen, dass du liest das vor. Wir machen das ein
bisschen zwischendurch, dann am Ende besprechen wir das ganz durch.
Herman: OK (Herman reads first paragraph only)
Richard: Stop. Gibt es Sachen hier darin, hast du etwas gcsehcn?
Herman: uhh
Richard: ein Fehler oder etwas, wo du dir denkst vielleicht ist das nicht
so. . .vielleicht kann ich etwas indem?
Herman: Vielleicht ist es nicht genug allgemein cine Vorbercitung ffir den
Kfirpcr des Berichts nicht genug allgemein, oder ich weiB nicht.
Richard: Ich weiB auch nicht, weil ich nicht genau weiB, was du irn Kfirper des
Werks hast... “Wenn die Vorgesetzten aus dcm Land die Tochtcrfirma
kommen. . .” Was meinst du damit? Ah! Du meinst von der Tochterfirma, ja?
Herman: J a, wenn sic in dem Land die Tochtcrfirma wohnen.
Richard: Eigentlich, ich glaube du willst hier Genitiv benutzen. Genitiv, die
Firma?
Herman: der Firma.
Richard: J a, der F irma. Das ist eine Mfiglichkcit. “Wenn die Vorgesetzten aus
dcm Land der Tochterfirma kommen.”
Herman: When the management comes from the land of the new branch of the
company—“vcrstehcn sic besser die Kunden und Mitarbeiter”—they understand
better the consumers and workers of the company.
Richard: Hier kommt das ein bisschen ungeschickt vor. Ein bisschen unbequem.
“aus dem Land der Tochtcrfirma.” Wir wissen die Tochterfirma ist in
Deutschland, ja? Also, “wenn die Vorgesetzten aus Deutschland kommen.”
Herman: OK OK

 

176

 

Richard: Es gibt nichts falsches damit, abcr es ist kompliziert, wo es nicht
kompliziert sein muss. OK ich glaube das reicht irn Moment. Noch ein bisschen
weiter.

(Herman reads)

Richard: Was meinst du damit “der steilste Weg zum Erfolg?”

Herman: Die umm most popular or traditional.

Richard: Was ist das auf Englisch steil?

Herman: the most common?

Richard: Steil ist “steep” na?

Herman: steep, steil, ich weiB nicht.

Richard: wir tun cinfach cin Fragezcichen darfibcr.

Herman: Was ich meine hier ist traditionell oder popular.

Richard: J a, OK

(Herman reads)

Richard: Stop. Stop. Hast du etwas gesehen? Gibt es etwas, was dir aufgefallen
ist?

Herman: uhh ich weiB nicht, was ich mit steilste meinc nochmal glaube ich
traditionell.

Richard: OK. Mir ist es aufgefallen, also ich lcse das auch mal vor. “In der
Vergangenhcit war die totale Unterordnung des Betriebs der steilste (oder
traditionellstc) Weg zum Erfolg. Disc Stil ist wirklich der steilste Weg jetzt in
den USA.” Das heiBt jetzt ist dieser Stil auch popular hier.

Herman: total Unterordnung.

Richard: mm hmm. “Die mittlerc Manager haben oft cine Stimmc in die
Entscheidungsprozcss, abver diese Stimmc ist nicht gesetzlich.” Also das ist halt--
just throwing the dog a bone more or less.

Herman: repeating myself?

Richard: Nein, nein Ich sprechc fiber das Stoff j ctzt.

Herman: OK, OK

Richard: They have a voice. So what you’re saying is these middle managers
have a say in things, too, but really when it comes right down to it...

Herman: It doesn’t mean anything.

Richard: yeah right. Dann sagst du weiter “Es gab ein paar Topmanager. . .”
Also, jetzt sind wir in der Vergangenhcit. Das ist hier alles irn Prfiscns, ja?
Herman: umm Vergangenhcit.

Richard: Dieses hier jetzt. “Diese Stil ist jetzt”———-Prasens, “Die mittlerc Manager
haben oft cine Stimme”—Préisens.

Herman: ja, ja.

Richard: “Es gab ein paar Topmanager und die MitarbeiterInnen hattcn keinc
Stimmc.” Diese hin- und her von Prisens in die Vergangenhcit ist ein Bisschen
konfus. . .Ich wfirde gig gleich nach dcm erstcn Satz tun.

Herman: hattcn , OK

Richard: weil das bezicht sich auf den Weg in Deutschland und auch auf die
Vergangenhcit. Wenn sic zusammcn sind ist das mir klarer.

Herman: I a.

177

 

Richard: OK und diesen Satz finde ich auch problematisch. In mcistcn

Firmen. . .das sagt man cinfach nicht. Man sagt “in den mcistcn Firmen: oder ich
wfirde eher sagen “in vielen Firmen.”

Herman: J a. Ein grfiBcr werdendc Prozess.

Richard: grfiBcr werdendc ist grammatisch korrckt

Herman: OK cin Prozess ist?

Richard: J a, ist, genau. Gucken wir das genauer an. Spezialisten zu benutzen ist
cin Prozess?

Herman: ahhh Spezialisten anzustellen oder

Richard: Ich wfirde chcr auf Prozess konzentriercn. Gibt es cin anderes Wort fiir
Prozess?

Herman: Trend?

Richard: grfiBer werdendc Trend--Trcnd wfirde da gut passen.

Herman: I a alles klar

Richard: Machcn wir weiter. .. “Ffihrungstile”

(Herman reads)

Richard: Das ist ziemlich klar—dieses Erstes ist ziemlich klar, abcr hier ich
wfirde sagen, es ware gut, wenn du cin kleines Abschnitt schrciben kfinntest, wo
es cine eigentliche Situation beschrieben wird. Zum Bcispiel wenn der Chef so
und so macht. . .

Herman: OK

Richard: Also der letzte Satz. Das heiBt “Die MitarbeiterInnen mfissen cine
Selbstverantwortlichkeit ffir den Erfolg. . .”

Herman: fur?

Richard: The workers must feel a responsibility for the success of the company.
Herman: OK

Richard: ...und das klingt mir ein Bisschen. .. “die beste Leistung wie mfiglich”
OK also die Bedeutung ist da, aber noch komplexcr oder fach-spczifisch wfirde
ich sagen “optimal” das hciBt so gut wie mfiglich—optimal, das ist cin schfines
Wort. Ich wfirde sagen “um die optimale Leistung zu haben,” but that’s just my
personal taste.

(Herman reads)

(Richard sighs)

Herman: zu lang.

Richard: OK Das ist vielleicht ein komplcxerer Satz in sich selbst. Also, man
geht nach einem Land, aber man geht nicht

Herman: zu

Richard: J a, man geht zu

Herman: zu einer Tochtcrfinna reisen.

Richard: “um zu arbeitcn” das kannst du nicht, das muss hier.

Herman: ahhh, Vielleicht brauchen wir “um zu arbeitcn” nicht, weil
Ffihrungskréifte arbeitcn natfirlich.

Richard: Natfirlich--kannst du cinfach ausnchmen. Du willst Genitiv hier
benutzen, na?

Herman: das Land

Richard: Genitiv von “das Land?”

178

 

Herman: der das dcs

Richard: des, gut.

Herman: des neue

Richard: des neuen

Herman: des neuen?

Richard: J a, dcs neuen. Always when you have your adjective endings, when
you have

Herman: Genitive?

Richard: Genitive, Dative and Accusative, all of them. You’ve already shown
the reflection of the Genitive, Dative or Accusative, every ending after that is
going to be an “n.”

Herman: dcs neuen Landes.

Richard: J a genau. Wie liest das j etzt? “Wenn ortsfrcmdc Ffihrungskrafte zu
einer Tochtcrfirma reisen mfisscn. . .”

Herman: mfissen sic

Richard: J a, OK. “mfissen sic” klingt besser-nicht so redundant- “mfisscn sic
fiber viele Aspekte dcs neuen Landes wissen.”Was ist Geschiiftsfiben?

Herman: business practices.

Richard: oh, fiben, practice (uses dictionary) Gewohnheit, Sitten, Gebrauch in
business Verfahrcnswcise und das is spezifisch fi'rr Business.

Herman: Verfahrcnswcise?

Richard: OK fiber Gcsten und fiber andere -- was sind Zollcn?

Herman: Geste sind gestures und Zollcn

Richard: Zoll das ist wo man bezahlen muss, wenn man in ein andcrs Land geht.
Was willst du damit sagen? (dictionary) ahhh, Sitten, Gewohnheit

Herman: Sitten

Richard: ...OK machen wir weiter

(Herman reads)

Richard: J a. General Motors pays five hundred thousand dollars. . .hier ist ein
Bisschen redundant. GM und GM. Ich wfirde GM ausnchmen und ich wfirde
sagen das ist das erstc Element in dem Satz und dann kommt das Verb als zweite
Element. . .pro J ahr?? Das kann man sagen abcr nicht schrciben. Only has a one
percent digit? Ziffer is digit.

Herman: amount or count? Boy I don’t know. You know what I’m saying here?
Richard: (looks in dictionary) I really don’t know. “Rate” is a rate, but that
sounds frmny. Wie kann man das anders sagen?

Herman: Nur ein prozent die ortsfremdc Ffihrungskriifte GMs sind unerfolgreich.
Richard: Machen wir weiter, ich glaube wir haben das zum Tode verprfigelt.
(laughter. Herman reads.)

Richard: sehr schfincr Satz. OK es gibt ein paar Sachen hier. “In der Nfihc
von”. . .Ich wfirde sagen es ist viel einfacher “fast Halb.”

Herman: fast Halb, ja.

Richard: “fast Halb von allcn grossen amerikanischen”—mit kleinem “a”, weil
das cin Adjektiv ist, ja? Betriebs? Betriebe. “im Verglcich” Verglcich wird gross
geschrieben, von ist extra, das brauchst du nicht. Weitcr.

(Herman reads.)

179

 

 

Richard:

Das finde ich ein bisschen problematisch. The aforementioned is what

you mean, right? I would say it a little differently. Ich wfirde sagen “Obwohl
Interkulturelles Training bis jetzt ziemlich positiv scheint,” seems oder we’re
discussing it “. . .diskutiert wird.” Because that puts you back in the perspective of
“alles, was vorgesprochen war.” You’re referring to your discussion.

Herman:
Richard:
Herman:
Richard:

Diskutiert wird is future, right?
its passive—Es wird diskutiert.
Oh, right. It is being discussed.
So you’re saying although this has been discussed up til now fairly

positively, there are a couple of problems. —Gibt es doch, because doch enforces
the opposite opinion.

Herman:
Richard:
Herman:
Richard:
Herman:
Richard:
Herman:
Richard:
Herman:
Richard:
Herman:
Richard:
Herman:
Richard:
Herman:
Richard:

OK

. . .OK Eine Nachteil, der Teil should be ein. Ein Nachteil sind?
Single. Nachteil ist

der, die oder das Problem?

das--nicht geprfift sind?

ja und sind ist am Ende, warum?

a clause a dass clause.

ja, genau.

anbcbaut—wasted.

“. . .so viel Geld an fibersce Aufgaben angebaut ist.”
anbcbaut.

anbcbaut?

wasted.

anbcbaut.

ein anderes Wort fitr “waste”—verschwindcn.

OK. Was ist das Wort? Verspielen, ver- ver-

vcrschwendcn. . .verschwendet ist. Anbcbaut, das kann auch sein, aber ich kenne
das Wort nicht.

Herman:
Richard:

OK. Abschluss
Abschluss, wir machen bis zum Ende, ja?

(Herman reads)

Herman:

OK, now I know you’re not a big fan of the Abschluss--that you like it

to be real simple. But he said he wanted it to be like a page and a half.

Richard:
Herman:
Richard:

it’s not that I’m a big fan of it, it’s just. ..
You like it to be pretty condensed.
I’ll tell you what I think about it. I think that most of this stuff is just

facts and you’re plain old stating things. And that it’s just a lot easier to take
information from what you already know and just state it. And it happens in
cverybody’s paper, not just yours.

Herman

Richard:

Herman

Richard:
Herman:
Richard:

I see.
...und arbeitcn, das macht man kfirperlich.
ja.
Arbcitet ein Programm so kfirperlich?
Arbcitcn nicht—They don’t prepare them well.
“dass dicsc Programme nicht funktionieren?”

180

 

 

Herman: ja.

Richard: J a das klingt viel besser.

Herman: ...Zahl gross geschrieben?

Richard: Ja. Arbcitserlaubnisse?

Herman: experiences

Richard: Ah. Erlaubnisse, das ist “allowances.” Arbcits-
Hcrrnan: Erfahrung

Richard: gut.

Homer (Al)

Mitchell: So gibt es dann besondere Aspekte von diesem Bericht, die du
besprechen mfichtcst?

Homer: umm

Mitchell: So nenncn wir zum Bcispiel drei Aspekte

Homer: In diesem Bericht?

Mitchell: J a global.

Homer: OK

Mitchell: Allgcmcine Aspekte zum Bcispiel Organisation oder Grammatik oder
etwas.

Homer: oder

Mitchell: was?

Homer: Ich weiB nicht abcr umm die viele Aspekte muss ich mfichtc dieser
Bericht fibergeben so...

Mitchell: Zum Bcispiel du hast schon erwahnt, dass es nicht immer so leicht war,
Informationen zu finden oder Informationen aus dcm Buch oder aus anderen
Quellen in den Bericht zu bringen.

Homer: J a ich habe viele wichtige Information aber nicht so viel Information das
ist leicht fiir fiinf Seiten. Ich habe viel fiir zwei oder drei vielleicht vier Seiten,
abcr das filnftc Seitc war sehr schwcr, weil ich muss so wenige Information fiir
dicsc lange Bericht.

Mitchell: So etwas mit dcr Lange dcs Berichts. Vielleicht kfinnen wir dann cin
Paar Ideen besprechen, wie du das dann linger machen kfinntcst oder so.
Homer: J a wenn es dcr Bericht zehn oder zwfilf Seiten oder so. . .und dies kann
ich umm die langcre Bericht benutzen die Information.

Mitchell: OK gut. Also, die Langc. Wie fiihlst du dich, wenn cs um Grammatik
geht? Um die Sprachc. .. so Grammatik oder Stilistik. Ffihlst du dich gut da in
diesem Bereich?

Homer: Es war OK umm. .. der Grammatik. . .Ich will nicht nur leichte Sprachc
aber so immer habe ich mehr schwcrere Sprachc in mein Bericht.

Mitchell: So, du versuchst kompliziertere Séitze zu schrciben, mit Nebensfitzen
und so...

Homer: J 3

Mitchell: OK

Homer: Ich will kompliziertere Formen abcr es geht nicht abcr

Mitchell: J a das ist nicht immcr so leicht zu machen aber wir kfinncn das
besprechen, wenn wir den Bericht dann durchlesen.

181

 

l'

 

 

Homer: OK

Mitchell: Gut, also ich frage dann zuerst, ob du diesen Bericht ganz durchleses
wfirdest, so laut lescn. Ich glaube, dass wenn man so etwas laut liest, merkt man
Stellcn, wo etwas vcrbessert werden kfinnte so ich mcinc das ist cine gut

Ubung. . .bittc.

(Homer reads)

Mitchell: Gut geschrieben. Auch gut argurncntiert, glaube ich.

Homer: Danke.

Mitchell: Ich habe nur ein Paar Stellcn, wo ich ein bisschen Erklfirung brauche,
weil ich nicht genau verstanden habe, was du versucht hast zu schrciben. Also
vielleicht kfinnen wir das dann auf cngliseh feststellen, was du damit meinst und
dann so cine besserc Form in deutsch. ..

Homer: In deutsch.

Mitchell: Also, zum Bcispiel hier am Ende des erstcn Paragraphcn. "Wie cine
intemationale Firma, AmeriChemists kann diese Formen zu zwei mfiglichcn
Untemehmensformcn." (umm) Das habe ich nicht genau verstanden.

Homer: OK

Mitchell: Ich verstehe hier du sprichst von den verschiedenen
Untemehmensformcn in Deutschland: AG, GmbH, KG, OHG und so weiter aber
hier ich glaube du versuchst zu sagen, daB eigentlich nur zwei Typen, nur zwei. ..
Homer: F ormcn.

Mitchell: Formen fiir AmeriChemists mfiglich sind, und das sind AG und GmbH.
Hier hast du das nicht so gut ausgedruckt. Ist das richtig? Ist das, was du gemeint
hast?

Homer: J a, weil es cine intemationale Firma und cine ganz groBe Firma. Wenn
es seine Tochtcrfirma wahlen die Form will cs und diesc Formen OHG und KG
sind nicht fiir Americhemists.

Mitchell: Kommen nicht in Frage?

Homer: J a, nur AG und GmbH

Mitchell: Gut. Dann meinst du vielleicht nicht "wie" sondcm "als". Aber ist es
der Fall, daB in Deutschland, daB intemationale Firmen in Deutschland nur AG
oder GmbH sein kfinnen? Oder kfinncn auch intemationale Firmen auch KG
sein?

Homer: J a

Mitchell: J a sic kfinncn auch?

Homer: Aber weil es cine groBc Firma ist. ..

Mitchell: OK. Also, es ist nicht nur, daB cs cine intemationale Firma ist, sondcm
auch daB cs so groB ist. .. Dann vielleicht "Als cine sehr groBc intemationale
Firma"

Homer: J a, mit vielen Beschaftigten und Arbcitnehmer/inncn

Mitchell: (mm hmm) "kann AmeriChemists nur"

Homer: J 3. OK.

Mitchell: "nur zwei mfiglichc Untemehmensfonnen". . .und dann brauchst du
noch cin Verb hier. Kfinnen ist ein Modalverb.

Homer: J a, natfirlich.

182

 

 

Mitchell: "kann AmeriChemists nur zwei mfigliche

Untemehmensformen". . .(umm)

Homer: wahlcn.

Mitchell: J a. Und das hier das ist sehr gut als Einleitung mcine ich--es gibt cin
paar Sachen, die wir spiter besprechen kfinnen also Sachen mit Wortwahl und so.
OK und das ist hier nicht so verstéindlich. . .Was meinst du damit?

Homer: OK umm let’s see. Ob cine Firma cine AG oder GmbH wahlen dann
muss diesc Firma als cine AG oder GmbH die Firma hat viele Regeln-~gesctzliche
Regeln und auch GmbHs haben viele Regeln.

Mitchell: OK so AG und GmbH haben viele Regeln.

Homer: J a.

Mitchell: Hier oben hast du schon cine Form benutzt, die sehr gut is, glaube ich.
Hier sagst du “Beide AG und GmbH sind Kapitalgcscllschaftcn.” Vielleicht
kfinntest du das dann weiter benutzen hier “beide AG und GmbH haben viele
Regeln.

Homer: OK

Mitchell: weil hier machst du einen Verglcich zwischen AG und GmbH. Und
hier ist fiir ich glaube das ist hier aus dcm cnglischcn. J a, du hast ein anderes
Wort benutzt, als du gerade gesprochen hast.

Homer: umm

Mitchell: wenn.

Homer: OK

Mitchell: Wenn cine Firma AG oder GmbH werden Modalverb hier.

Homer: Modalverb. . .8011?

Mitchell: 8011 oder will oder mfichte.

Homer: m'o‘chtc.

Mitchell: Ich glaube das ist gut.

Homer: OK

Mitchell: Und die andere Stelle hier auf Seitc drei. Nochmal habe ich das nicht
verstanden.

Homer: OK. (umm) Die Aktien fiir die Firma, die (umm) Eigentfimcr teilen
(umm) die Aktien kann tauschen mit (umm) in der Markt in (umm) der "Stock
Exchange".

Mitchell: an dcr Bfirsc

Homer: Borse, ja. (umm) die tauschen an dcr Bfirse so sic kfinnen an dcr Borsc
in cine 6ffentliche Bfirse

Mitchell: getauscht werden. "Diese Aktien der AG kfinncn fiffentlich getauscht
werden" oder vielleicht "an der Bfirsc getauscht werden" Das ist dann Passiv.
Homer: OK ja

Mitchell: Klingt das vielleicht besser?

Homer: J a ganz besser.

Mitchell: Aber hier wfirde ich sagen irn Allgcmcincn sprichst du in diesem
Paragraphen von Vor- und Nachteilen dcr Untcrhcnmensformen, abcr du schrcibst
nicht, ob das Dings mit den Aktien ein Vorteil

Homer: oder Nachteil

Mitchell: oder ein Nachteil ist. OK

183

 

Homer: OK

Mitchell: So das kfinntest du vielleicht ein bisschen weiter crklarennob du das
fur einen Vorteil oder fiir einen Nachteil haltst. J a? Und hier dann sprichst du
von. .. also indirekt von Vorteilen und Nachteilen.

Homer: mm hmm

Mitchell: Slso warum ist das nicht so cine gutc Idee, wenn cine grosse
intemationale Firma AG wéihlt?

Homer: OK

Mitchell: Erklarst du das hier? Die Untemehmensform ist komplcx?

Homer: So vielleicht (umm) "Es kann cine gutc Idee sein, cine deutsche
Firma. . .eine nur deutsche Firma cine AG wahlcn, wenn cs groB ist aber cs ist
vielleicht ganz mehr schwcr, wenn cine groBe intemationale Firma cine AG
wahlt.

Mitchell: J a, das ist besser. Also, cs geht hier nur um so ein paar kleine Wfirter
zwischen den Stitzen, so cine Ubergang von einem Satz zum anderen. "Es ist
nicht so cine gutc Idee, weil. . ." oder "Es ist nicht so cine gute Idee. Das ist der
Fall, denn. . ." Also, es geht um ein paar kleine Worter, verstehst du?

Homer: J a.

Mitchell: “Es gibt auch viele Kosten, wenn diesc Regeln wahlen muss.” Also Es
gibt viele Kosten, wenn. ..

Homer: Die Regeln. . .die. . .That’s not what I wanted to say. Nicht wahlen.
Mitchell: Und viele Kosten sind auch ein Nachteil, ja?

Homer: J a.

Mitchell: So. “es gibt auch viclc Kosten, die mit dieser Untemehmensform
verbundcn sind, vielleicht? Aber du willst dann die Idee geben zum Leser, dass
viele Kosten ein Nachteil sind und kein Vorteil.

Homer: OK.

Mitchell: Hier felhlt ein Verb in dciscm Satz.

Homer: J a (laughs)

Mitchell: Alles ist da, auBer dcm Verb.

Homer: J a.

Mitchell: Und welches Verb passt da sehr gut?

Homer: gehaben, oder?

Mitchell: OK das kfinntcst du sagen, oder “Es wfirde viele Konfliktc zwischen
diesen Gruppen geben. ..

Homer: Nach Vorstand dann und nicht nach Gruppen?

Mitchell: "Auch kann AmeriChemists fast trotzdcme Organe in seine
Tochtcrfirma als AmeriChemists." Was hciBt das?

Homer: OK (umm)

Mitchell: Vielleicht hier ist die beste Idee, dass wir das halt auf Englisch
ausdrficken und dann versuchen das Deutsch zu findcn.

Mitchell: What did you try to say with that?

Homer: (umm) Let's see. That way or also AmeriChemists can keep or have
or. . .that's the verb I'm missing right there, that I'm not sure on (umm) almost all
the same (umm) company organization in its partner firm, its subsidiary as
AmeriChemists itself.

 

 

 

184

 

Mitchell: Ah. So say that again. Let's get it in English first. Say that again.
Mitchell: Ich wfirde vorschlagen, wir sagen nicht "auch kann" sondcm wir sagen
(umm). Die ganze Argumentation ist, daB AmeriChemists GmbH wahlen soll,
nicht?

Homer: J a.

Mitchell: GmbH soll sic wahlen, also etwas mit wenn. "Wenn AmeriChemists
GmbH als Untemehmensform wahlt" -- und welches Modalverb wfirdest du
benutzen?

Homer: kann oder soll.

Mitchell: OK. Kann. ". . .kann die Firma fast alle". .. das ist nicht so schlccht, nun
daB ich das verstehe, aber dicses Wort kann nicht bleibcn-das bedeutet etwas
anderes. "fast alle-- fast diesselben Organe in ihrer Tochterfirma. . ." und das
Zauberverb to keep or maintain. . .Also, es gibt viele Verbcn, die du benutzen
kfinntcst aber ich denke an behalten.

Homer: behalten.

Mitchell: J a “dieselben Organe behalten als Americhemists in den USA oder als
die Mutterfirrna oder so. Ich weiB nicht, ob es Muttcrfirma gibt. Has du ein
Wfirtcrbuch dabei?

Homer: Ich weiB. nicht. Ich suche fiir ein bessercs Wort.

Mitchell: J a, du kannst ein bessercs Wort suchcn und dann das reinstecken, aber
sonst ist das kein Problem--Ich meinc cs gab nur ein paar Stellcn, wo ich Fragen
gehabt habe, weil ich nicht verstanden habe, genau was du meintest. J ctzt ein
paar globale Sachen zum Wortwahl oder dcr Bcnutzung von Wfirtern, zum
Bcispiel. . .zwei oder drcimal hast du dicses Wort benutzt, Bericht. “Wenn cine
AG mehr als 500 Bcschtiftigtcn hat, muss dcr Bericht. ..

Homer: Nein, nein. Betrieb.

Mitchell: Ahh, Betrieb.

Homer: J a, ich bin doof.

Mitchell: Nein

Homer: Ein durnmes dcnkcn, weil. ..

Mitchell: Du schrcibst einen Bericht und du denkst an Bericht.

Homer: Ich denke, dass ich cin oder zweimal, aber ich schc das nicht, wenn ich
es lcse.

Mitchell: nicht so schlimm.

Mitchell: und dann hier. Hier hast du "weil" benutzt, und "weil" ist was fiir cin
Wort? Was fiir cin Wort ist "weil" oder wie funktioniert das Verb mit "weil?"
Homer: J a, cs geht dann am Ende.

Mitchell: Das Verb muss dann ans Ende gehen.

Homer: Ich habe das gesehen, wenn ich cs lcse.

Mitchell: J a. Siehst du? Wenn du das vorliest, dann siehst du etwas. OK.
...Also hier kleine Sachen hier-- cine falsche Buchstabierung.

Homer: Ja, das ist Form.

Mitchell: Form.

Homer: Form, nicht From

Mitchell: und “ cine KG ist cine Firma, die ihr Grundkapital in vielen Teilcn ist.”
Was ware ein bessercs Verb?

185

Homer: Ein bessercs Verb?

Mitchell: J a. Klingt das richtig?

Homer: in vielen Teilcn haben? Oder?

Mitchell: J a, hat. Es heiBt, dass viele Eigentfimcr die Aktien besitzen. Kein
Passivsatz hier, aktiv. Vcrstchst du?

Homer: J a.

Mitchell: Hast du andere F ragen?

Homer: Nein ich schc nicht mehr aber vielen Dank.

Mitchell: Bittc schfin.

Homer: Und ja das Bericht ist ganz besser jetzt.

Homer (A2)

Mitchell: Was fiir cin Bericht soll das sein? Was sind die Aufgaben?

Homer: Die Aufgaben ist soll AmeriChemists cin Dcutschc oder Amerikanische
Top Management Team ffir ihre deutsche Tochterfirma.

Mitchell: OK und du sollst ffir oder gegcn argumentieren?

Homer: mm hmm

Mitchell: OK, gut. Welchc Stellcn hier im Text oder welche Sachen gibt es, die
du sehr gem besprechen mfichtest? Gibt cs so ingendwelchc Probleme, die du
gehabt hast oder. . .Fragen, die du gehabt hast?

Homer: Ich habe viele Probleme, aber meistens fiber die Information nicht fiber
die schrciben, fiber die—die was?

Mitchell: So fiber den Inhalt, also was eigentlich da steht oder welche
Informationen du dann reinbringst und nicht so viel fiber das Dcutschc oder das
Schreiben von dem Ding.

Homer: J a.

Mitchell: Also die Grammatik nicht viele Probleme? Oder irgendwelche
vielleicht?

Homer: Wenn ich mache die Grammatik zu schwcr dann hat ich ein paar
Probleme aber nicht so...

Mitchell: Also, wenn du versuchst so schwierigere Sfitze oder kompliziertere
Stitze zu schrciben, dann kann das cin Problem sein.

Homer: J a.

Mitchell: OK. Komplizicrtheit sozusagcn. Gut und vielleicht dann, wahrend du
das vorliest findcst du andere Stellcn worfibcr wir bestimmt sprechcn sollen oder
sprechcn kfinnen.

Homer: mm hmm

Mitchell: OK Bittc lies das mal vor.

Olomer reads)

Mitchell: Es scheint hier das alle Argumente da sind. Also nicht alle sind sehr
gut crwcitert, aber wir kfinnen diesc besprechen. Ich habe drei oder vier Sachen
mit der Grammatik gefirnden. Das cine ist Passiv.

Homer: OK

Mitchell: Noch etwas ist Genitiv.

Homer: OK

Mitchell: Oh, und dann gab es auch cin paar Sachen mit Vcrben.

186

Homer: Natfirlich.

Mitchell: Oder mit Wortstcllung nach Vcrben und “ist das das richtige Ver ” and
so weiter. Aber zuerst besprechen wir die Stellcn irn Aufsatz, wo ich nicht so gut
verstanden habe oder wo es -ich glaubc- Probleme mit dcm Stil gab. Umm Hier
zum Bcispiel auf Seitc drei.

Homer: mmm hnnnm.

Mitchell: (reads from draft) "Ein Manager kann sehr offensiv zu seine
Arbcitcrlnncn sein, wenn nur dcr Manager mit den Arbcitcrlnncn ein Kultur
Mticrstandnis ha ." Und ich glaube du willst dann betonen, dass es nur ein
Mtierstandnis ist.

Homer: J a.

Mitchell: Und dass es nicht irgendwie von dem Manager eigentlich gemeint ist,
ja? Aber ich glaube vielleicht ist das cin bisschen zu viel hier.

Homer: OK mmm hmmm.

Mitchell: Vielleicht kfinnen wir das cin bisschen verkfirzen.

Homer: OK

Mitchell: Fangcn wir mit offensiv an. Ich weiB nicht, ob das das beste Wort ist.
(consults dictionary) Vielleicht gibt es cin anderes deutsches Wort. J a, OK hier
steht offensiv, anstfiBend, belcidigend. ..

Homer: belcidigend.

Mitchell: Natfirlich das ist cin gutcs Wort. Da hast du dann cin paar Beispiele,
Vorschlagc fiir Wfirtcr, die da vielleicht besser waren. Und dicses “zu seincn” ist
ziemlich Englisch.

Homer: OK

Mitchell: gegenfiber ware gut.

Homer: gegenfiber?

Mitchell: Hast du das gchfirt?

Homer: cine oder zwei Zeitcn.

Mitchell: So das ware genug dann, ja? So das auf cngliseh zu sagen without
going into so much detail and such a long-- And basically what you're doing here
is just repeating nouns: "Manager, Arbcitcrlnncn, Manager, ArbcitcrInnen,
Kulturmtierstandnis. . ." You know, it's almost like you're repeating the exact
same thing that you said up in front.

Homer: Yeah. I wasn't sure how to refer back without making it ambiguous, and
that's how it got so-

Mitchcll: Right, because if you try to put pronouns in you know "er, sic" and then
it could be a woman or a man.

Homer: exactly.

Mitchell: The whole bit, so you open that whole can of worms.

Homer: Yeah. That's why I did it that way.

Mitchell: And you do need to be sensitive to that but I think it’s enough if you
just cut this down and say something like “a manager can be offensive to his or
her workers

Homer: workers

Mitchell: without meaning to. You know, something simple and short as that.
Homer: yeah.

187

 

 

Mitchell: So now we just need to get that into the German. So maybe we’ll just
leave it at “Ein Manager kann sehr belcidigend gegenfiber scinen. . .I guess you
have to, you can’t really avoid it because it’s a masculine word.

Homer: yeah.

Mitchell: You know. And without putting all those extra little firings in your
paper like ein(e) Manager/in kann sehr belcidigend sein, wenn nur cr/sie” That is
so difficult!

Homer: If I can somehow find a miraculous way

Mitchell: If you can find a way to get the inclusive language, that’d be good. But
that’s a digression, because we weren’t originally talking about that, we were
talking about how we’re going to pare down this lengthy subordinate clause to get
at the real heart of the matter. “Ein Manager kann sehr belcidigend gegenfiber
den Arbciterinncn sein, wenn er. ..

Homer: denkt, denkcn oder meint?

Mitchell: Wenn er denkt, dass. . .but that’s setting it up to be even longer.
Homer: yeah That’s setting it up to be longer.

Mitchell: ...wenn er das nicht meint, oder wenn er sowas nicht meint. . .wenn er
so cine Beleidigung nicht meint, ja?

Homer: OK

Mitchell: Und noch cine Stelle, wo cs zu viele Wfirter gibt wahrscheinlich,

oder. . .ah. Hier nicht zu viele Wfirter abcr ich habe das gar nicht verstanden. Ich
verstehe "diesc interkulturclle Trainingsprogramme sind sehr wichtig fiir die
ManagerInncn. Das Programm ist nicht nur fiir die ManagerInncn aber auch fiir
ihre Familien. Das Programm," und was ist hier am Verb falsch?

Homer: ummm. . .oh. . .lchrt.

Mitchell: lehrt, gut. "Das Programm lehrt beide Kultur und Sprachc" Hier
brauchst du nicht "zu Familie." Du kannst auch sagen, "Das Programm bringt dcr
Familie beides Kultur und Sprachc bei." Beibringen, hast du das gehfirt?

Homer: beibringen.

Mitchell: cin anderes Wort fiir lchrcn-- Es bedeutet dasselbc aber das ist dann
trennbar. Also, dann wfirde man sagen "Das Programm bringt dcr Familie beides
Kultur und Sprachc bei." Ein bisschen komplizierter.

Homer: OK

Mitchell: Ein bisschen dcutschcr. Hier das ist ein bisschen Englisch glaube ich.
Homer: J a.

Mitchell: The program teaches both culture and language to the family.

Homer: To the family. It was screaming English to me, but I wasn't sure of
anything.

Mitchell: ...diesen Satz habe ich nicht verstanden.

Homer: OK. umm Es ist zwei Beispiele, nicht nur cin . Die erstc Bcispiel ist von
das Programm fiber Sprachc mit Kunden—cs ist fiber Arbcitskultur. Und das
Programm lehrt fiber Versammlungen in ahh. ..

Mitchell: Irn Familienhaus?

Homer: Irn Familienhaus. . .umm. . .fiir beide andere Kunden und andere familien
in ihr Platz oder etwas so.

188

 

 

 

Mitchell: Und ich glaube hier das Versammlungen in Familienhaus—ich glaube
ich erkenne das Bcispiel aus dem Artikel.

Homer: yeah.

Mitchell: Irn Artikel gab es so ein Bcispiel und ich glaube das war sehr spezifisch
fiir den Artikel. Vielleicht ist das nicht das beste Bcispiel fiir deinen Aufsatz, ja?
Also vielleicht, ja, ich wollte halt sagen--vielleicht karmst du den Satz weglassen.
Ich glaube du beschreibst hier, was filr Training es irn Programm gibt. Also das
beschreibst du hier und dann hier versuchst du, konkrete Beispiele zu geben, aber
das sind eigentlich keinc konkrete Beispiele.

Homer: OK

Mitchell: Vielleicht wenn du sagen wfirdcst, "zum Bcispiel irn Artikel" also
vielleicht kannst du dann diesen Artikel zitieren und dann sagen ja "Zum Bcispiel
im Artikel aus dcm Wall Street Journal 1992 blah blah blah. Irn Artikel aus dem
Wall Street Journal wird cin Programm beschrieben. . ." Let's get this in English
before we try it in German. I think what you’re doing is drawing comparisons out
of this article, but I think you want to give credit and draw the specific examples.
Homer: 80 specific.

Mitchell: and feed that in here to support your argument about what the program
offers.

Homer: So I’d be better off directly quoting it?

Mitchell: Yeah. In the article a program is described, and in the program the
family is going to Kenya and they have to get some language training and some
cultural training so they’ll know that it’s not always safe to let the kids ride the
bus by themselves, and that it’s not good to have a business meeting in a
restaurant.

Homer: yeah.

Mitchell: A family is trained in social, social what

Homer: social aspects, social skills

Mitchell: How about trained in acceptable social behaviors, I don’t know.
Homer: Well, it will probably sound better in German.

Mitchell: Yeah, so let’s try and get this. We’re running out of time here and we
still have to talk about the passive.

Homer: Well, I can go back and find something for that.

Mitchell: Yeah.

Homer: Adjust a little bit. As long as I get the gist.

Mitchell: Well, you understand that you have to move around the word order a
little bit.

Homer: exactly

Mitchell: ...in dcm cine F arnilie traniert wird. . .that’s another passive, and that
will bring us to our discussion of the passive. Hier hast du cin paar Probleme,
zum Bcispiel im erstcn Satz versuchst du Passiv zu benutzen. Du hast Recht,
Passiv ist mit werden, abcr dann muss man Partizip haben.

Homer: mit gewiihlt?

Mitchell: J a.

Homer: gewahlt werden.

189

 

 

 

Mitchell: J a, gewahlt werden, gut. Herc you’ve got the passive part right, but in a
passive sentence this right here is not a subject, but it’s something called the
agent. In front of the agent comes a certain preposition. . .and that is?

Homer: I don’t remember

Mitchell: von

Homer: Whenever the subject ist turned into an agent then it always has to be
preceded by von.

Mitchell: There are some cases where it’s durch, but here it’s better to use von.
The only time I’ve ever heard durch used really in real German is when somebody
is talking about the bombing of Dresden or something.

Homer: OK

Mitchell: Clyde might tell you something different on that, but put von and he’ll
be proud of you for doing the passive. OK “bevor den dcutschcn
Managementstil. . .” hier ist ein Problem mit Wortstcllung. “Daher muss
AmeriChemists deutsche

Homer: deutsche

Mitchell: J a die deutsche Kultur vcrstehcn, bevor den dcutschcn Managementstil-
-this verb has to go up here kann

Homer: kann OK.

Mitchell: and then is it "bei AmeriChemists?" This is an agent now.

Homer: it's an agent, it would be "von."

Mitchell: von, kann von AmeriChemists. ..

Homer: verstanden

Mitchell: Verstanden, gut verstanden. .. and then at the very end of a passive
sentence...

Homer: werden

Mitchell: werden, ja. I think that's right. Boy, that's a rough sentence there.
Homer: Yeah, that's kind of what I was talking about when I was talking about
the more complex sentences.

Mitchell: Yeah, complex sentences. OK two more things real fast ‘cause we’re
running out of time. OK. A verb. This can't be the right verb here. "Die Planung
scheint in ihren Entscheidungcn." I understand what you mean

Homer: but...

Mitchell: it shines through. It's kind of poetic. Bist du cin Poet?

I-Iomcr: No.

Mitchell: Bist du cin Dichter? (laughter) "Die Planung erkennt man..." and
there's a passive voice alternative if I ever saw one. "Die Planung erkennt man an
ihre Entscheidungcn." Yeah, that's good.

I-Iomcr: Auch nrit Genitiv.

Mitchell: J a . eines dcutschcn

Homer: Is it dcutschcn?

Mitchell: J a. All adjective endings in Genitive are -en. It’s these other endings
that will get you, because it has to be eines Betriebs so you think everything has
to get an s, but the adjective gets an n.

Homer: Oh. So I can go through that.

190

 

Mitchell: There were a couple of places where you were trying to use a feminine
genitive. . ..what’s the ending for feminine Genitive, the der word ending?
Homer: Wait a minute feminine. . .I thought it was der.

Mitchell: J a richtig, dcr.

Homer: der Stadt.

Mitchell: Yeah and I’ll give you a photocopy of this where I’ve circled some of
the endings so you can get an idea of what I’m getting at. One thing--this one
here really pushed my ability to understand. Kennen doesn’t belong in there and
miteinander doesn’t because you’ve already got mit. Zum Beipiel nenncn oder
grfiBcn, that would work.

Homer: For some reason I remember going back because I missed the second mit
and I thought cinandcr that doesn’t sound right and I put in miteinander and just
ignored the second mit.

Mitchell: So let’s real quickly just review here--Wc talked about passive voice
and went through a couple of those and I think

Homer: I can go back and check that out.

Mitchell: You can go back and get that. Genitivcs we went through, that’s real
easy here’s one of those

Homer: feminine ones

Mitchell: yeah. Right here it’s a feminine or a plural it has to be der.

Homer: OK That’s where I got screwed up.

Mitchell: Here I had “sich entwickcln” and then we fixed that sentence basically
we fixed that one and then we talked about this one--basically you’ve just got to
get that big thing in German.

Homer: Yeah, gotta fix it up.

Mitchell: Git es noch Fragen? Deincrseits?

Homer: Nein, das ist alles toll, danke.

Mitchell: Bittc schfin.

Harold (Al)

Martin: Wir versuchen Deutsch zu sprechen, aber wenn cs gibt cin Problem oder
cin Problem gibt, dann wir kfinnen Englisch sprechcn.

Harold: OK

Martin: Nonnalerweise wir bitten die Studenten alle Studenten zu vorlesen ihr
Bericht so man kann hfircn, wo cs Probleme gibt oder sowas und ....uh weiBt du,
gibt es drei Orte in diesem Bericht oder Zielc, daB du Probleme hast mit diesem
Bericht das du mfichtest wiederholen.

Harold: cin bisschen. Ich mfichte mit diesem Bericht nicht nur die Formen einer
AG oder GmbH uhh besprechen, sondcm

Martin: oder Inhalt

Harold: J a, ja.

Martin: Sachen fiber die AG oder GmbH

Harold: nicht viel fiber die Grammatik mehr ffir Satzstruktur.

Martin: J a OK Satzstruktur word order, stuff like that.

Harold: J a und, also Hauptthemen und Subthemen oder Unterthemen.

Martin: We'll use that kind of as a guide.

191

Harold: J a jede Hauptthema hat auch cin Hauptsatz oder Hauptidee und dann
Unteridees, wo ich die besprechen und dann..uh..you know, a concrete detail for
each one of them.

Martin: Unterstfitzung

Harold: J a, Unterstfitzung that's it. $011 ich mein Bericht vorlesen?

Martin: OK

(Harold reads)

Harold: Das war's

Martin: Ausgezeichnet. Ich denke, daB deine Grammatik ist nicht so schlccht.
Harold: Nicht so schlccht.

Martin: Es gibt nur ein Paar Probleme, und die mcistcn sind nur. . .uh. . .word
order.

Harold: Ich habe auch ein Paar Typos gesehen.

Martin: J a. F alsch buchstabieren. Ich habe bis cin Paar bemerkt, so wir kfinnen
jetzt wiederholen und ich kann dir zeigen, was ich bemerkt habe hier. So irn
erstcn Absatz cs soll verschiedene haben auch verschiedene Eigenschaften. So
die Adj cktivendungen. . .der erstc Absatz sicht ziemlich gut aus in meiner
Meinung.

Harold: J a, ich stimme das zu.

Martin: umm und dann Ist das ein Verb, soll das crschiencn sein?

Harold: J a

Martin: OK Ich habe zuerst gcdacht, dass das ein Adj cktiv war und dann zum
grfiBten Teil ist dieser Absatz auch OK. Und dam in diesem nachsten

Absatz. . .Dcutschland ist falsch buchstabiert. (laughs)

Harold: J a, das weiB ich. (laughs)

Martin: Und dann ich denke es soll ein Artikel filr GmbH geben wie “die AG und
die GmbH”

Harold: OK

Martin: Das ist etwas, was sehr spezifisch fiir Deutsch ist. Man muss immer
einen Artikel vor den nachstcn Subj ckt geben. That’s just particular to German.
Harold: J a.

Martin: Ein bisschen anders als Englisch. Ich habe cine Frage. Ich weiB nicht
genau abcr, wenn man "das hciBt" schrcibt, soll es Subjckt, Verb, blah blah blah
sein oder macht das. . .Docs this conjunction put the verb at the end? I don't know
for sure I can't remember.

Harold: I don't know. I think if you want to put the verb on the end it has to be
"das heiBt, daB. . ."

Martin: So "das heiBt" by itself is not a subordinating conjunction?

Harold: I don't know. I'm not the person to ask about that kind of stuff. (laughs)
Martin: I was curious about that 'cause I was thinking back to papers I had done
and wondering whether it is or not. umm Seitc drei--Wcrt. Ich denke das muss
ein grosses W sein. Und dann dicse

Harold: J a

Martin: Hier ist problematisch cin bisschen. "Sic haben cin 'par value' von DM
50 haben mfissen." So was meinst du da?

192

 

 

 

Harold:

Ich muss mich ein bisschen fiberlegen. . .uh. . .(reads fiom text) "das heiBt

sic mfissen cin 'par value' von 50 Mark haben." Also sic mfisscn. . .die 'par value'
in Amerika die Aktien mfissen wenigstens 50 Mark Wert besitzen oder behalten.
So ich glaube, daB cs cin bisschen besser aushfirtc. . .zuhfirt. . .It sounds better
when I say "sic mfissen ein 'par value' von 50 Mark haben."

Martin:
Harold:
Martin:
Harold:
Martin:
Harold:
Martin:

OK. I just wanted to clear up the fact that there was

too many verbs.

mass verbage in there. (laughs)

I love using the word wahnsinnig

Yeah, it’s a good word.

wahnsinnig viele Regeln.

Und dann ich denke alles in Ordnung steht abcr hier am Ende dieses

Absatzes soll es “sondcm kriegcn sic Geld wenn der Gewinn und Bilanzrestc. ..

Harold:

Die Anteile werden nicht an der Bfirse gehandelt, sondcm sic kriegcn. . . I

think sondcm funktioniert wie abcr so I don’t think it has any impact on the word
order--I’ll check that with my andcrcr Bericht.

Martin:

J a, und dann es gibt nichts, was ich habe falsch gefunden und dann hier

das bedeutet ist falsch buchstabiert.

Harold:
Martin:

cu right cut?
J a. Und dann ich habe bemerkt, daB als du diesen Satz gelesen hast du

hast gesagt "entwcdcr sic Aufsichtsrat oder nicht sind." Was hast du lieber?

Harold:

Keine Ahnung. Vielleicht habe ich nur miBgclesen oder cin

Mticrstiindnis gehabt.

Martin:
Harold:
Martin:
Harold:

haben.

Martin:
Harold:
Martin:

Ich denke (reads to self) Ich denke, daB vielleicht es soll mit "sind"

am Ende?

arn Ende sein. "entwcdcr sic Aufsichtsrat oder nicht sind."

vielleicht kann ich "entwcdcr sic Aufsichtsrat sind" und kein "oder nicht"

J a, und dann Abschluss. “Mcincr Meinung nach gibt es keinc schwere
schwere, ja.
Und dann das ist ihre Entscheidung hier: AmeriChemists soll ohnc

Zweifel GmbH sein.

Harold:
Martin:

J a.
OK Das ist sehr klar. Es ist gut. Es ist betont hier am Anfang des

Abschlusscs.

Harold:
Martin:

Keine Unsicherheit.
J a, genau. (laughs) Und dann ich habe keinc Probleme gefirnden da und

dann werden ist falsch buchstabicrt “getroffen werder mfisscn.”

Harold:
Martin:

J a.
Und dann die mcistcn grammatischen Sachen sind korrckt und ganz in

Ordnung.

Harold:
Martin:

Ich habe drei Verbforrnen benutzt. That’s pretty cool!
That is pretty sweet. umm Und als cin Zicl du hast gesagt, dass du

mfichtcst wissen, ob ihre Hauptideen sind unterstfitzt, so dcr erstc Teil. ..

193

Harold: J a. Vielleicht sollen wir nicht durchlesen, we kfinncn, j a we kfinnen.
Let's just go through it real quick and make sure that I've got one or two sentences
for each.

Martin: OK. Ich habe bemerkt, dass die erstc Teil von ihrem..um..Bericht ist am
meisten..um..informative (English). Es gibt die Grundfakten die
Hintcrgrundfakten so.

Harold: OK.

Martin: (reads from text). . .Der erstc Absatz ist ziemlich gut.

(both read from text)

Martin: Was ist die Hauptidee von diesem zweiten Absatz?

Harold: Ich habe nur die Rahmenbedingungen beschrieben von den
verschiedenen Rechtsformen.

Martin: Ich denke es ist nicht so wichtig hier, daB du hast cine sehr klarc
Hauptidee als am Ende, weil in diesen Absatzc ich denke dic Hauptidee oder was
ich verstehe als Zuleser ist, daB es nur fiir informing the reader about the
background stuff so ..uh..you're not really making an argument so to speak that
you need to be concerned that you're supporting as such. But I mean it's
important what you're saying.

Harold: Well I kind of broke it down like OK they're organized by rules and
there's two forms and then each form's got, you know, however many and then
inside of these there's however many different conditions so I kind of went on a
"Hierarchic" so to speak.

Martin: Flowchart

Harold: J a. There you go. There's really no point for argument in the first
Martin: Right, right.

Harold: "Teil" I guess you would call it, the first section. I could go through and
fix it, too- all the dribble drabblc.

(both read from text)

Martin: Du beschreibst was ein Kapitalgcscllschaft ist, und was es bedeutet und
was cs macht. Und das ist ein. . .diescr kurze Absatz hier ist ein gutcr sogcnnantc
segue into the rest of it.

Harold: sogcnnant ist ein gutcs deutsches Wort.

Martin: J a, ich habe es gem.

(Martin reads fi'om text)

Martin: So es ist betont, dass du hast die Kapitalgcscllschaft entscheidet als die
richtige..uh.. Form.

Harold: Rechtsformen oder Untemehmensformcn. Vielleicht soll ich cin
bisschen unterstfitzcn also ich habe diese Hauptidee sehr betont aber nicht so viele
meat, I guess, on the bone.

Martin: J a.

Harold: cin bisschen nachschlagen und fiberlcgen.

Martin: Vielleicht cin paar Satze schrciben,

Harold: cin paar Sfitze schrciben.

Martin: die unterstfitzen dicse Idee.

Harold: (writes on draft) Unterstfitzung? Unterstfitzung.

(both read fi'om text)

194

Harold: Genitive in there.

Martin: Der letzte Satz da ist ein gutcr Ubergang da.

(Harold reads)

Harold: OK Vielleicht I should put “cingreifen” in there somewhere, that’s a
good verb.

Martin: Braucht "Gcschéiftsfiihrung" ein Umlaut fiber dem "a"?.

Harold: J a, nicht "Geschafts-" "Geschéifts-J' Gut bemerkt!

(Harold reads)

Harold: Should it be bleibt or blicbt?

Martin: bleibt.

Harold: bleiben blieb--sie bleiben rentabel, sic mfissen rentabel bleiben. J a that
sounds right I think. . .Should there be a "daB" in there?

Martin: "Das bedeutet, daB" is that what you have a question about?

Harold: When I was reading I skipped over it because I wasn't sure whether it
should be "das bedeutet, daB falls" or just "das bedeutet, falls."

Martin: Ich denke es soll "in der Fall" sein.

Harold: Oh. In dem Fall oder in der Fall?

Martin: Ich denke cs ist "in dcr Fall," weil ich denke, daB "Fall" feminin ist, aber
ich schlage nach. (Martin consults dictionary) Es ist maskulin.

Harold: So "in dem Fall" oder "falls" I don't like that daB in there anyways, I‘m
gonna cross it off.

Harold: Zweifel. . .Zwicfel?. . .Zwicbcln is onion. . .Zwicfel. . .I don't think that's a
word. (reads) ...die Nachteile sind. . .Is "los" the right word there? Die Vorteile
sind herrschend, they're prevalent. Die Nachteile sind los, wrong, not there. . .I'll
just put a big question mark there.

Martin: You want to say that they're not there?

Harold: I could just say they "existieren nich ."

Martin: J a- cinfach so. Es gibt cine falschc Buchstabierung hier. Amerikanische.
Martin: Ich denke, daB cs wird ein bisschen klarer sein, wenn du einen Satz
schrcibst oder tippst, in dem steht dass "wir mfissen viele Stimmcn hfiren" und na
und, so "es ist schwerer, cine Enscheidung zu machen." So cine kleine
Beschreibung oder Erzahlung, warum es so schrecklich ist oder so schlimm ist
mehr Stimmcn zu haben, weil mcistcn Personen oder Mcnschcn oder Ieutc
wfirden sagen, "Oh, cs gibt viele Stimmcn. Das ist besser, weil wir kfinnen
mchrcrc Ideen haben."

Harold: Genau!

Martin: Aber du meinst, dass mehr Stimmcn nicht gut ist, fiberhaupt nicht. So ja
I think it would be a little bit of a stronger point if you did that. I mean it's
implied, but it could be easily argued against.

Harold: Oh Bingo! Bingo Bango!

(Harold reads)

Harold: Managers. . .Manager we learned today has no plural, it’s Manager and
Manager.

Martin: OK. Pretty good to me.

Harold: J a. There’s room for improvement. I think if I tie this together with
Clyde’s comments which will probably focus on the grammar, I should be all set.

195

 

 

Martin: I’m not in any way shape or form exact on the grammar.

Harold: Oh, that’s alright--I can always use my dictionary.

Martin: Right but Alles in Allem ich denke, dass dein Bericht ist gut.
Harold: Immer Raum fiir Verbcsserungcn abcr so weit so gut. . .odcr etwas.
Martin: J a, OK, sonst noch etwas?

Harold: Mittagessen.

Martin: Mittagessen.

Harold (A2)

Harold: ...ziemlich gut ist, die Topic ist ziemlich eng also man kann nicht so viel
schrciben.

Martin: Du mfichtcst wissen dann, ob alle Inhalt gchfirt zu dem Thema.

Harold: J a.

Martin: OK ganz klar.

Harold: So jeder Absatz oder Teil hat ein Hauptthema so zuerst
Grundinformation des Managements in Deutschland und dcr USA. Ich glaube
das ziemlich gut ist.

Martin: Du mfichtest wissen, ob deine Hauptthemen unterstfitzt sind.

Harold: Ja. Soll ich vorlesen und...

Martin: J a, bitte, bitte.

(Harold reads)

Harold: The end.

Martin: zum Schluss und das war cs. Gut gemacht. Ich habe cin paar
grammatische Fehler bemerkt und ein paar grammatische Notizcn gemacht, abcr
ich denke es ist wichtig

Harold: Unterschiede--ich habe Unterscheide ein paar Mal gesagt.

Martin: Oh, das habe ich nicht bemerkt. Steht das im Text? Hast du das falsch
gelesen oder geschrieben?

Harold: J a falsch geschrieben, so. Ich kann das nicht finden.

Martin: Aber du hast das bemerkt. Umm OK. Deine Hauptidee ist hier “ Die
Management Methodcn in Deutschland und den USA sind ganz anders.” Und ich
denke das ist betont hier in diesem Absatz. Du hast viele Grfindc gegeben, diesc
Idee zu unterstfitzcn. So ich denke das ist kein Problem abcr, was ich hier
gefunden habe. So cs gib keinc Pluralform fur Manager?

Harold: Nein es ist Manager Manager.

Martin: OK Ich habe nur geschrieben, class du sollst vielleicht nur ‘das heisst’
hier schrciben.

Harold: das heisst

Martin: So es ist fiir mich dann ist es klarer, was du meinst.

Harold: J a

Martin: Das ist nur ein sogenannte ‘stylistic’ Sache.

Harold: Ich benutze ein bisschen Umgangssprachc.

Martin: Also ich denke, dass deine Hauptidee ist hier sehr stark unterstfitzt. Also,
es geht, cs paBt. So ich denke hier, dass alle diese Sachen sind, was in
Deutschland anders ist. (Martin reads) So ich weiB cs nicht genau, aber vielleicht

196

soll es “auf den Gewinn und Profit und auf den Aktienbesitzer” sein. Vielleicht
ist das nicht wichtig.

Harold: Ich kann das nachschlagen.

Martin: Ja, sowas [unintelligible]

Harold: nach dem und?

Martin: J a “auf den Gewinn und Profit der F irma und auf den Aktienbesitzer”
vielleicht brauchst du das nicht, aber fiir mich, als ich das gelesen habe. ..
Harold: Ich kann das nachschlagen.

Martin: J a, ja. So dicse Absatzc sind fiber die Unterschiede in Deutschland.
Harold: J a, so die erstcn zwei Absatze sind gut.

Martin: J a.

Harold: Ich wundere. . .nicht wundere abcr ich denke manchmal, ob diese
Unterthemen oder Subthemen sind genug unterstfitzt.

Martin: Oh, noch etwas hier.

Harold: Das habe ich schon bemerkt.

Martin: So, Interkulturelles Training. So das ist cin. ..

Harold: Introduction

Martin: Einfiihrung, cine kurze Einfiihrung. So dann die Notwcndigkeit fiir IT.
So du sagst hier, dass weil diesc Firmen Tochtergesellschaften im Ausland haben,
ist es wichtig, dass sic dicse interkulturclles Training ffir ihre Personen, ihre
Mitarbeiter, die nach diesem Ausland geschickt OK dann du hast in diesem
Absatz und irn zweiten und dritten diese Idee unterstfitzt, dass es wichtig ist fur
dicse Manager und andere Leute Training zu haben. So was ist deine Hauptidee
hier, nur die Notwcndigkeit, warum es so notwendig ist?

Harold: J a. (reads from draft) "Diese sogenannte Multinationalfirmen mfisscn
ihre Positionen anstellen aber kfinnen alle Stellungen nicht irnmer besetzen." Das
ist die Hauptidee.

Martin: OK. So cine Frage, die ich stellen wfirde ist: Sprichst du fiber die
Probleme, die es gibt, wenn man schickt oder cine Firma schickt cin Manager
nach Ausland ohnc diescs Training?

Harold: Nein, noch nicht. Das soll vielleicht am Ende sein.

Martin: OK

Harold: Das ist nicht wirklich (unintelligible) mein Hauptthema. Mcine
Hauptidee ist, daB sic kfinnen alle Stellcn nicht nur besetzen, das kfinnte Probleme
sein, aber sic mfissen Training haben, um diesc Probleme mit den unbesetzten
Stellcn zu vermeiden. . .I think.

Martin: OK. Du sprichst fiber Kosten und hast gesagt dann warum oder was
diesc Kosten sind.

Harold: J a.

Martin: OK. Das ist klar, und du sprichst fiber turnover das ist OK. Ich denke
dieser Absatz ist OK cs ist ganz klar, was du meinst und das ist unterstfitzt.
Harold: OK.

Martin: Aber was denkst du da?

Harold: J a

Martin: OK

Harold: Das ist ziemlich klar.

197

Martin:
Harold:
Martin:
Harold:
Martin:
Harold:
Martin:
Harold:
Martin:
Martin:
Harold:
Martin:
Harold:
Martin:
Martin:

Was bedeutet dann Zunahmc?

increase.

Du sprichst hier fiber ein Trend?

J a.

Denkst du, daB dieser Absatz wichtig ist fiir die. ..

J a, wir mfissen dicsc vier Subthemen haben.

So du muBt fiber das sprechen, es ist nicht deine Wahl. (laughs)
Nein, cs ist keinc Demokratie.

Es ist cine Diktatur?

Oh, hier habe ich "die in fremdcn jobben?"

J a.

sowas wie arbeitcn?

ja.

(laughs) Ich habe das nie gehfirt, jobben. OK das ist klar.

J a, wir haben beide bemerkt, dass es gibt ein Problem hier mit diesem

Satz "Das Training von Arbcitcnden, die bald im Ausland arbeitcn werden, ist
heutzutage ganz beliebt von den LciterInnen, die in Amerika bleiben werden
geworden."

Harold:

Yeah, I don't know why that "geworden" is there. Es ist klar, also

ziemlich klar, wenn ich kein "geworden" habe.

Martin:
Harold:
Martin:
Harold:
Martin:

OK. So du meinst sic haben es gemer heutc, weil sic

Die LciterInnen lieben es oder. ..

Sic vcrstehcn, warum es so wichtig ist.

J a, ja.

Die LciterInnen, die in Amerika bleiben findcn es so das gefallt ihncn

oder whatever.

Harold:
Martin:
Harold:
Martin:
Harold:
Martin:

Ja. [unintelligible]

yeah, I know.

klar machen.

Eine Aufltlarung soll es sein.

Es gibt also alteste Form, first form, crash course.

Ich glaube cs soll ein Umlaut auf das a hier sein, ob das ist superlativ.

Ich denke das ist richtig, abcr vielleicht sollst du nachschlagen.
(Harold reads)

Harold:
Martin:

Es soll cin B hier sein.
13?

(both read)

Martin:

Was meinst du da? Ich verstehe das nicht (reads from text) "indem cine

F amilie oder nur cin Person, meistens dcr, der bald ins Ausland ftihrt."

Harold:

Also diese Person, wenn cs nur cine Person gibt, wird schncll ins

Ausland gehen, nach, nach Ausland gehen. I don't know why there's all this
mumbo jumbo.

Martin:
Harold:

OK. Das ist was ich habe nicht verstanden. . .all diesc Plus Wfirter.
Ja Wie ich frfihcr gesagt habe, habe ich diesen Bericht sehr schncll

geschrieben, so...

Martin:

J a, am Morgen.

198

Harold: Ich glaube dass 2.3 ist meinc beste Sub-Absatz, subtopic. Ist das alles
ziemlich gut?

Martin: J a, ich fragc nur um diesen Satz hier: “Diese Form von Training findet
immcr irn Land dcr Hcimatstaat der Arbcitcr statt und verbraucht” vielleicht soll
es cin komma hier geben.

Harold: J a.

Martin: OK Es ist klar zu mich jetzt aber wenn ich habe gchfirt. ..

Harold: J a, ich habe Staat und statt. Das habe ich nicht gesprochen. (aside) Hi,
Bob!

Martin: Das hier ist nicht m sondcm n. “dass manchc Training Mfill ist” Mfill.
Harold: J a. It’s garbage.

Martin: Es ist Mfill, dumm, sinnlos.

Harold: Seine Argument ist es ...ist es. . .His argument is that

Martin: I don’t know if that’s necessary or not. It might just be a little
[unintelligible] Es ist komma. J a das ist nicht wichtig.

Harold: Also sein Argument ist, dass es Mfill ist. Es gibt keinc Bcweisc, keinc
MaBstab, die Kosten sind sehr sehr teucr.

Martin: Und cs gibt keinc bestimmtc Resultatcn. Was meinst du damit?
Harold: Also es hat etwas im Buch gesagt, dass die Kunden nicht immer das
Training gem hatten, dass sic finden keinc Bedeutung darin, cs klingt. Can’t
measure it.

Martin: OK. Ich denke das ist klar/ Ocj jabe das gefragt “. . .wisscn niemand
wie das gemessen kann.”

Harold: J a vielleicht wiBt niemand.

Martin: J a, weiB niemand. Vielleicht du sollst noch ein Verb hier haben. “Aber
ob sic etwas davon nehmen und vcrstehcn kann, weiB niemand

Harold: wie das gemessen wird.

Martin: J a.

Harold: I need a huge Auflclarung.

Martin: (reads) Oh das ist cin grosser Absatz. Kannst du das in zwei Tcile
bringen?

Harold: I would probably start at about“ die Bcratung” Ich solltc spéitcr zuerst
vorlesen also selber vorlesen vor dem Spiegcl oder etwas.

Martin: J a wie es hort zu dir dann. J a, oder du kannst ein neues Absatz
schrciben. Ich habe diesen Satzbau gefragt “Er muss nicht alles vcrstehcn, aber cs
wird ihm hilfi'eich, wenn. . .”

Harold: Vielleicht soll ich nur “es wird hilfreich sein.”

Martin: J a, weil diese Pronoun hier es ist verwirrend. Ich denke das ist cine
wichtige Idee. Du kfinntest ein neues Absatz, ob du mfichtest mit dieser Idee
haben, weil du hast das zweirnal oder mehr crwahnt. Ich denke da ist die
Hauptidee.

Harold: Keine Grfinde, ja, that’s the Hauptidee.

Martin: Du sagst nee.

Harold: OK We’ve gotten this far without American workers (reads) OK, that’ll
make sense.

199

 

Martin: Und die Produktc, dic AmeriChemists in Deutschland produzicrt werden
in Deutschland verkauft?

Harold: J a.

Martin: So sic wissen, sic kcnnen sehr gut ihren eigenen Markt?

Harold: J a.

Martin: Ich denke das ist vielleicht auch wichtig. Deine Hauptidee hier ist, daB
cs gibt kein Grund dafiir, amerikanische Manager in dieser Tochtcrfirma zu
haben. Es ist sinnlos. Es gibt fiberhaupt keinen Grund. OK. Noch cine Frage;
denkst du, daB cs wird ein Problem geben, wenn diese Tochtcrfirma muB den
Hauptsitz in den USA haben?

Harold: J a, sic mfisscn cs haben.

Martin: OK. Aber denkst du, wenn die F irma hat deutsche Management oder
Manager, daB wie zum Bcispiel DaimlerChrysler cs gibt ein Karnpf zwischen der
Tochtcrfirma in Deutschland und Hauptsitz in den USA? Vielleicht ist das nicht
cin Problem oder das kommt gar nicht in die Tfitc. (laughs)

Harold: Ich habe versucht, dicsc Idee also mit amerikanische Topmanager und
deutsche Topmanager cine kampfcn. .. Ich habe versucht, das zu vermeiden.
Vielleicht kann ich etwas erklarcn.

Martin: Vielleicht ist das nicht wichtig, weil sic keinc Kontakt haben, oder
weniger Kontakt . So OK. Das ist alles, was ich habe. Hast du andere Fragen?
Probleme?

Harold: Nein, nein.

Martin: Ich denke cs ist ganz klar, was du meinst und es ist unterstfitzt, dieser
mettelcr Teil du musst darm dieser Teil haben, weil cs ist ein Teil der Aufgabc.
Harold: Es ist demanded.

Martin: Nach

Harold: Nachgcfragt.

Martin: Angeboten und nachgcfragt.

Harold: Das nachste Mal werde ich zuerst vorlesen, also vor dcm Spiegcl.
Martin: J a, das ist gut. Ich mache das irnmcr, wenn ich ein jbericht schrciben
muss. Du kannst das Flow besser messen und

[end of videotape]

200

Works Cited

Byrd, DR. (1994). Peer Editing: Common Concerns and Applications in the Foreign
Language Classroom. Die Unterrichtspraxis. 27,1. 119-123.

Caulk, N. (1994). Comparing Teacher and Student Responses to Written Work TESOL
Quarterly 28,1. 181-188

Cohen, AD. (1987). "Student Processing of F ccdback on their Compositions" in A.
Wenden and J. Rubin, cds., Learner Strategies in Language Learning. Prentice
Hall.

Connor, U. and Asenavage, K. (1994). Peer response groups in ESL writing classes: how
much impact on revision? Journal of Second Language Writing. 3,3. 257-276.

Cumming, A. and So, S. (1996). Tutoring Second Language Text Revision: Does the
Approach to Instruction or the Language of Communication Make a Difference?
Journal of Second Language Writing. 5. 197-226.

Fathman, AK. and Whalley, E. (1985). "Teacher Treatment of Error and Student Writing
Accuracy". Paper presented at the 19th Annual TESOL Convention, New York,
March, 1985.

Fathman, AK. and Whalley, E. (1990). "Teacher Response to Student Writing: Focus on
Form versus Content." In B. Kroll, ed., Second Language Writing: Research
Insights for the Classroom. Cambridge University Press.

Fenis, DR. (1997). The Influence on Teacher Commentary on Student Revision. TESOL
Quarterly. 31,2. 315-337.

Freedman, S. and Sperling, M. (1985). Written Language Acquisition: The Role of
Response and the Writing Conference. In S. Freedman, ed. The Acquisition of
Language. Response and Revision. Norwood, NJ: Ablex Publishing.

Freedman, S. and Katz, AM. (1987). Pedagogical Interaction During the Composing
Process: The Writing Conference. In A. Matsuhashi, ed. Writing in Real Time.
Norwood, NJ: Ablex Publishing.

Garner, M. and Young, C. (2001) Group Conferencing: A Collaboration between ESL
Students, their Instructors and Writing Center Consultants. The Writing Lab
Newsletter. 25,8.1-5.

201

 

Goldstein, L.M. and Conrad, SM. (1990). Student Input and Negotiation of Meaning in
ESL Writing Conferences. TESOL Quarterly. 24,3. 443-460.

Harris, M. and Silva, T. (1993). Tutoring ESL Students: Issues and Options. College
Composition and Communication. 44,4.525-537.

Hedgcock, J. and Leflrowitz, N. (1992). Collaborative Oral/Aural Revision in Foreign
Language Writing Instruction. Journal of Second Language Writing. 1,3. 255-
276.

Hedgcock, J. and Leflcowitz, N. (1994). Feedback on Feedback: Assessing Learner
Receptivity to Teacher Response in L2 Composing. Journal of Second Language
Writing. 3,2. 141-163.

Hedgcock, J. and Lcfl<owitz, N. (1996). Some Input on Input: Two Analyses of Student
Response to Expert Feedback in L2 Writing. Modern Language Journal. 80, 3.
287-308.

Hendrickson, J. M. (1980). The Treatment of Error in Written Work. Modern Language
Journal. 64,2. 216-221.

Hillocks, G. (1994). "Interpreting and Counting: Objectivity in Discourse Analysis." In P.
Smagorinsky, ed. Speaking about Writing. Sage Press.

Lalande, J. (1982). Reducing Composition Errors: an Experiment. Modern Language
Journal. 66. 140-149.

Mehan, H. (1979). Learning lessons. Cambridge, MA. Harvard University Press.

Nelson, G.L. and Murphy, J .M. Peer Response Groups: Do L2 Writers Use Peer
Comments in Revising their Drafts? TESOL Quarterly

Newkirk, T. (1989). The First Five Minutes: Setting the Agenda in a Writing
Conference. In C. Anson, ed. Writing and Response. NCTE.

Onore, C. (1989). The Student, the Teacher, and the Text: Negotiating Meanings through
Response and Revision. In C. Anson, ed. Writing and Response. NCTE.

Patthcy-Chavez, G.G. and Ferris, DR. (1997). Writing Conferences and the Weaving of

Multi-Voiced Texts in College Composition. Research in the Teaching of English.
37. 51-90.

Paulsell, Patricia R., Gramberg, A. and Evans, K.U.H. (2000) German for Business and
Economics . East Lansing, MI. Michigan State University Press.

202

Reichelt, Melinda and Waltner, Keri Bryant (2001). Writing in a Second-Year German
Class. Foreign Language Annals. 34,3. 235-243.

Sacks, H., Schegloff, E. and Jefferson, G. (1974). A simplest systematics for the
organization of turn-taking for conversation. Language. 50, 696-735.

Semke, H. D. (1984). Effects of the Red Pen. Foreign Language Annals. 17,3. 195-202.

Severino, C. (1994). The Writing Center as Site for Cross-Language Research. The
Writing Center Journal. 15,1. 51-61.

Sperling, M. (1994). "Discourse Analysis of Teacher-Student Writing Conferences:
Finding the Message in the Medium." In P. Smagorinsky, ed. Speaking about
Writing. Sage Press.

Stock, PL. (1997). Reforming Education in the Land-Grant University: Contributions
from a Writing Center. The Writing Center Journal. 18, 1. 7-28.

Tsui, A.B.M, and Ng, M. (2000) Do Secondary L2 Writers Benefit from Peer
Comments? Journal of Second Language Writing. 9,2. 147-170.

Wall, S. V. and Hull, G. (1989). The Semantics of Error: What do Teachers Know? In C.
Anson, ed. Writing and Response. NCTE.

Youngs, BL. and Green, A. (2001). A Successful Peer Writing Assistant Program.
Foreign Language Annals. 34,6. 550-558.

Zamel, V. (1985). Responding to Student Writing. TESOL Quarterly. 19. 79-101.

203

it. ill; ‘

 

 

 

       
  

1‘ “l
3

G

 

1i“ j'fi'f ”m
‘;l “ 1‘ "
,glllllllrlll
1293 02‘