There are some similarities between Fan Shen's and David Bartholomae's articles, although they are different. But before talking about similarities and differences I will summarize both texts including my own thoughts.
             Fan Shen in his text talks about how language shapes an identity. He tells us about his own experience as a new immigrant from China, presenting the problems he encountered while he was learning how to write compositions in English language. Using the word "I" in his essays was difficult for him and this problem was more serious then we can imagine. As Shen explains, "I" in Chinese has a meaning of "self" or "individualism". These words have negative connotations in a country where individualism is considered to be bad and contradicts the collectivism and Marxist philosophy. So, instead of using "I" and expressing his own opinion, he used the word "we", telling what other people think (he saw himself as one of them). It seemed weird to his teachers, of course, and they encouraged him to change his way of writing. In order to do this he had to create a new identity, an English self.
             Fan Shen does not agree with the accepted American structure of writing essays. It differs from Chinese structure by presenting the topic in the very beginning. A Chinese writer would develop his topic step by step so that the reader will gradually gain interest. He also talks about English "logic of language" vs. Chinese "pictorial logic". In Chinese "pictorial logic", the logic he was used to, the reader feels what he reads with all his senses. With teachers pushing him, Shen had to abandon his "pictorial logic" because it seemed weird in English language. But composition can never be weird. It can be unusual and therefore interesting.
             I've said before that Fan Shen's article is abou...