Contrastive rhetoric

Last updated

Contrastive rhetoric is the study of how a person's first language and his or her culture influence writing in a second language or how a common language is used among different cultures. The term was first coined by the American applied linguist Robert Kaplan in 1966 to denote eclecticism and subsequent growth of collective knowledge in certain languages. [1] It was widely expanded from 1996 to today by Finnish-born, US-based applied linguist Ulla Connor, [2] among others. Since its inception the area of study has had a significant impact on the exploration of intercultural discourse structures that extend beyond the target language's native forms of discourse organization. The field brought attention to cultural and associated linguistic habits in expression of English language. [3]

Contents

This acceptance of dialect geography was especially welcomed in the United States on ESL instruction, as an emphasis on particular style in spoken-language and writing skills was previously dominated in both English as a second language (ESL) and English as a foreign language (EFL) classes. [4]

Since 1966, when Kaplan's original work on contrastive rhetoric appeared, and 1996, when Ulla Connor's book on contrastive rhetoric reinvigorated interest in the area, new trends have appeared in research approaches and methods. [5] Mainly the works of Jacques Derrida in the 1970s illustrating the differences in a word's meanings in reference to other words around it is a significant contribution (e.g. Don't forget to turn right at the intersection, vs. He insisted he was right, although his argument made no sense, vs. I have a right to speak freely.).[ citation needed ] The change of accepting the linguistic depth of a language by negating negative social barriers has been affected by three major developments—the acknowledgment of more genres with specific textual requirements, increased awareness of the social contexts of writing, and the need for an alternative conceptual framework that takes a more critical perspective of contrastive rhetoric—have motivated scholars of contrastive rhetoric to adjust and supplement research approaches in their work.[ citation needed ]

EAP and other genres

First, there was a marked increase in the types of written texts considered the purview of second language writing around the world. [6] [7] English for Academic Purposes (EAP) classes teach other types of writing besides the student essay required in college classes. [8] [9] Other important genres are the academic research article, research report, and grant proposal. Writing for professional purposes, such as business, is also now considered a legitimate type of second language writing and worthy of research and teaching. [10]

Socially situated writing

Second, in addition to the expansion of the genre, textual analysis has moved contrastive rhetoric to emphasize the social situation of writing. [11] Today, writing is increasingly regarded as being socially situated; each situation may entail special consideration to audience, purposes, level of perfection, and correspondingly may require varying amounts of revision, collaboration, and attention to detail. [12] The expectations and norms of discourse communities or communities of practice (cultural and disciplinary) may shape these situational expectations and practices. This is where contrastive rhetoric overlaps with social constructionism, which sees approaches to textual meaning as dynamic, socio-cognitive activities. Instead of analyzing what texts "mean", the interest is to understand how they construct meaning. Bazerman and Prior (2004, p. 6) pose three questions to guide the analysis of writing:

Critical contrastive rhetoric

Third, in response to criticisms that challenge traditional contrastive rhetoric, an alternative conceptual framework known as critical contrastive rhetoric has been established that maintains a critical understanding of the politics of cultural difference. Critical contrastive rhetoric explores issues such as critical thinking [13] in teaching situations that challenge essentialism. It takes into consideration poststructuralist, postcolonial, and postmodern critiques of language and culture, in order to reconceptualize cultural difference in rhetoric. In practice, it "affirms multiplicity of languages, rhetorical forms, and students' identities, while problematizing the discursive construction of rhetoric and identities, and thus allowing writing teachers to recognize the complex web of rhetoric, culture, power, and discourse in responding to student writing." [14]

Questions of relevance

In the early 2000s, some postmodern and critical pedagogy writers in the second language writing field, began referring to contrastive rhetoric as if it had been frozen in space. [14] Over the years, the term contrastive rhetoric had started to gain a negative connotation, even negatively affecting writing in a second language. [2] Understood by many as Kaplan's original work, contrastive rhetoric was increasingly characterized as static, and linked to contrastive analysis, a movement associated with structural linguistics and behavioralism. Many of the contributions made to contrastive rhetoric from the late 1960s to the early 1990s have been ignored. In a 2002 article, Connor [15] attempted to address these criticisms and to offer new directions for a viable contrastive rhetoric. In addressing the critiques, she aimed to draw attention to the broad scope of contrastive rhetoric and determined that a new term would better encompass the essence of contrastive rhetoric in its current state. To distinguish between the often-quoted "static" model and the new advances that have been made, Connor suggests it may be useful to begin using the term intercultural rhetoric instead of contrastive rhetoric to refer to the current models of cross-cultural research. [10]

According to Connor, the term intercultural rhetoric better describes the broadening trends of expression across languages and cultures. It preserves the traditional approaches that use textual analysis, genre analysis, and corpus analysis, yet also introduces ethnographic approaches that examine language in interactions. Furthermore, it connotes the analysis of texts that allows for dynamic definitions of culture and the inclusion of smaller cultures (e.g., disciplinary, classroom) in the analysis.

While Connor continues to use the term intercultural rhetoric, scholars outside the United States looking at specific language differences (e.g. English and Japanese [13] and English and Spanish [16] [17] ) consider this to be a loaded label and continue to use the term contrastive rhetoric for the distinctiveness the theory shows and for the freedom of using tools to assess and understand the field in a non-restrictive manner.

See also

Related Research Articles

Genre is any form or type of communication in any mode with socially-agreed-upon conventions developed over time. In popular usage, it normally describes a category of literature, music, or other forms of art or entertainment, based on some set of stylistic criteria Often, works fit into multiple genres by way of borrowing and recombining these conventions. Stand-alone texts, works, or pieces of communication may have individual styles, but genres are amalgams of these texts based on agreed-upon or socially inferred conventions. Some genres may have rigid, strictly adhered-to guidelines, while others may show great flexibility.

Critical discourse analysis (CDA) is an interdisciplinary approach to the study of discourse that views language as a form of social practice. CDA combines critique of discourse and explanation of how it figures within and contributes to the existing social reality, as a basis for action to change that existing reality in particular respects. Scholars working in the tradition of CDA generally argue that (non-linguistic) social practice and linguistic practice constitute one another and focus on investigating how societal power relations are established and reinforced through language use. In this sense, it differs from discourse analysis in that it highlights issues of power asymmetries, manipulation, exploitation, and structural inequities in domains such as education, media, and politics.

Intertextuality is the shaping of a text's meaning by another text, either through deliberate compositional strategies such as quotation, allusion, calque, plagiarism, translation, pastiche or parody, or by interconnections between similar or related works perceived by an audience or reader of the text. These references are sometimes made deliberately and depend on a reader's prior knowledge and understanding of the referent, but the effect of intertextuality is not always intentional and is sometimes inadvertent. Often associated with strategies employed by writers working in imaginative registers, intertextuality may now be understood as intrinsic to any text.

<span class="mw-page-title-main">Genre studies</span> Branch of general critical theory

Genre studies is an academic subject which studies genre theory as a branch of general critical theory in several different fields, including art, literature, linguistics, rhetoric and composition studies.

Norman Fairclough is an emeritus Professor of Linguistics at Department of Linguistics and English Language at Lancaster University. He is one of the founders of critical discourse analysis (CDA) as applied to sociolinguistics. CDA is concerned with how power is exercised through language. CDA studies discourse; in CDA this includes texts, talk, video and practices.

<span class="mw-page-title-main">Academic writing</span> Writing resulting from academic work

Academic writing or scholarly writing is nonfiction writing produced as part of academic work in accordance with the standards and disciplines of each academic subject, including:

A discourse community is a group of people who share a set of discourses, understood as basic values and assumptions, and ways of communicating about those goals. Linguist John Swales defined discourse communities as "groups that have goals or purposes, and use communication to achieve these goals."

<span class="mw-page-title-main">Rhetoric of science</span>

Rhetoric of science is a body of scholarly literature exploring the notion that the practice of science is a rhetorical activity. It emerged after a number of similarly oriented topics of research and discussion during the late 20th century, including the sociology of scientific knowledge, history of science, and philosophy of science, but it is practiced most typically by rhetoricians in academic departments of English, speech, and communication.

<span class="mw-page-title-main">Composition studies</span>

Composition studies is the professional field of writing, research, and instruction, focusing especially on writing at the college level in the United States.

<span class="mw-page-title-main">First-year composition</span> Introductory core curriculum writing course in US colleges and universities

First-year composition is an introductory core curriculum writing course in US colleges and universities. This course focuses on improving students' abilities to write in a university setting and introduces students to writing practices in the disciplines and professions. These courses are traditionally required of incoming students, thus the previous name, "Freshman Composition." Scholars working within the field of composition studies often have teaching first-year composition (FYC) courses as the practical focus of their scholarly work.

<span class="mw-page-title-main">Genre criticism</span>

Genre criticism is a method within rhetorical criticism that analyzes texts in terms of their genre: the set of generic expectations, conventions, and constraints that guide their production and interpretation. In rhetoric, the theory of genre provides a means to classify and compare artifacts in terms of their formal, substantive and contextual features. By grouping artifacts with others which have similar formal features or rhetorical exigencies, rhetorical critics can shed light on how authors use or flout conventions for their own purposes. Genre criticism has thus become one of the main methodologies within rhetorical criticism.

Recontextualisation is a process that extracts text, signs or meaning from its original context (decontextualisation) and reuses it in another context. Since the meaning of texts, signs and content is dependent on its context, recontextualisation implies a change of meaning and redefinition. The linguist Per Linell defines recontextualisation as:

the dynamic transfer-and-transformation of something from one discourse/text-in-context ... to another.

English studies is an academic discipline taught in primary, secondary, and post-secondary education in English-speaking countries. This is not to be confused with English taught as a foreign language, which is a distinct discipline. An Anglicist is someone who works in the field of English studies. The English studies discipline involves the study, analysis, and exploration of texts created in English literature.

<span class="mw-page-title-main">Charles Bazerman</span> American educator and scholar

Charles Bazerman is an American educator and scholar. He was born and raised in New York. He has contributed significantly to the establishment of writing as a research field, as evidenced by the collection of essays written by international scholars in Writing as A Human Activity: Implications and Applications of the Work of Charles Bazerman. Best known for his work on genre studies and the rhetoric of science, he is a Professor of Education at the University of California, Santa Barbara, where he also served as Chair of the Program in Education for eight years. He served as Chair of the Conference on College Composition and Communication, delivering the 2009 CCCC Chair's Address, "The Wonders of Writing," in San Francisco, California. He is the author of over 18 books, including Shaping Written Knowledge, Constructing Experiences, The Languages of Edison’s Light, A Theory of Literate Action, and a Rhetoric of Literate Action. He also edited over 20 volumes, including Textual Dynamics of the Profession, Writing Selves/Writing Societies, What Writing Does and How it Does It, as well as the Handbook of Research on Writing and the two series Rhetoric, Knowledge and Society and Reference Guides to Rhetoric and Composition. He also wrote textbooks supporting the integration of reading and writing that have appeared in over 30 editions and versions including The informed writer: Using sources in the disciplines, The Informed Reader, and the English Skills Handbook.

<span class="mw-page-title-main">Theories of rhetoric and composition pedagogy</span>

Theories of rhetoric and composition pedagogy encompass a wide range of interdisciplinary fields centered on the instruction of writing. Noteworthy to the discipline is the influence of classical Ancient Greece and its treatment of rhetoric as a persuasive tool. Derived from the Greek work for public speaking, rhetoric's original concern dealt primarily with the spoken word. In the treatise Rhetoric, Aristotle identifies five Canons of the field of rhetoric: invention, arrangement, style, memory, and delivery. Since its inception in the spoken word, theories of rhetoric and composition have focused primarily on writing

<span class="mw-page-title-main">J. R. Martin</span> Canadian linguist

James Robert Martin is a Canadian linguist. He is Professor of Linguistics at The University of Sydney. He is the leading figure in the 'Sydney School' of systemic functional linguistics. Martin is well known for his work on discourse analysis, genre, appraisal, multimodality and educational linguistics.

<span class="mw-page-title-main">Multimodality</span> Phenomenon of human communication having different forms that combine

Multimodality is the application of multiple literacies within one medium. Multiple literacies or "modes" contribute to an audience's understanding of a composition. Everything from the placement of images to the organization of the content to the method of delivery creates meaning. This is the result of a shift from isolated text being relied on as the primary source of communication, to the image being utilized more frequently in the digital age. Multimodality describes communication practices in terms of the textual, aural, linguistic, spatial, and visual resources used to compose messages.

Ronald L. Jackson II is an American academic and author. He is Past President of the National Communication Association and a professor of communication, culture, and media, and a former dean of the McMicken College of Arts and Sciences at the University of Cincinnati.

Martin Nystrand is an American composition and education theorist. He is Louise Durham Mead Professor Emeritus in the Department of English at the University of Wisconsin–Madison and Professor Emeritus of Education at the Wisconsin Center for Education Research.

<span class="mw-page-title-main">Feminist rhetoric</span> Practice of rhetoric

Feminist rhetoric emphasizes the narratives of all demographics, including women and other marginalized groups, into the consideration or practice of rhetoric. Feminist rhetoric does not focus exclusively on the rhetoric of women or feminists, but instead prioritizes the feminist principles of inclusivity, community, and equality over the classic, patriarchal model of persuasion that ultimately separates people from their own experience. Seen as the act of producing or the study of feminist discourses, feminist rhetoric emphasizes and supports the lived experiences and histories of all human beings in all manner of experiences. It also redefines traditional delivery sites to include non-traditional locations such as demonstrations, letter writing, and digital processes, and alternative practices such as rhetorical listening and productive silence. According to author and rhetorical feminist Cheryl Glenn in her book Rhetorical Feminism and This Thing Called Hope (2018), "rhetorical feminism is a set of tactics that multiplies rhetorical opportunities in terms of who counts as a rhetor, who can inhabit an audience, and what those audiences can do." Rhetorical feminism is a strategy that counters traditional forms of rhetoric, favoring dialogue over monologue and seeking to redefine the way audiences view rhetorical appeals.

References

  1. ↑ Kaplan, Robert. (1966). Cultural thought patterns in intercultural education. Language Learning 16(1): 1-20.
  2. 1 2 Connor, Ulla. (1996). Contrastive rhetoric: Cross-cultural aspects of second-language writing. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press
  3. ↑ Nordquist, Robert. "Contrastive Rhetoric on About.com". About.com. Archived from the original on 2015-04-06. Retrieved 2015-01-14.
  4. ↑ Cai, Guanjun. (1998). "Contrastive Rhetoric." Theorizing Composition: A Critical Sourcebook of Theory and Scholarship in Contemporary Composition Studies, ed. by Mary Lynch Kennedy. Greenwood.
  5. ↑ Connor, Ulla., Nagelhout, E., & Rozycki, W. (Eds.) (2008). "Introduction" Contrastive Rhetoric: Reaching to Intercultural Rhetoric, John Benjamins.
  6. ↑ ETIC (1975). English for academic study: Problems and perspectives. ETIC Occasional Paper. London: The British Council.
  7. ↑ Connor, Ulla. (2004). Introduction. Journal of English for Academic Purposes 3: 271-276.
  8. ↑ Jordan, R.R. (1997). English for academic purposes: A guide and resource book for teachers. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press.
  9. ↑ Connor, Ulla. (2004). Intercultural rhetoric research: Beyond texts. Journal of English for Academic Purposes 3: 291-304
  10. 1 2 Connor, Ulla (2013). "Intercultural Rhetoric and EAP/ESP" (PDF). National University of Singapore.
  11. ↑ Bazerman, Charles, & Prior, Paul. (Eds.). (2004). What writing does and how it does it: An introduction to analyzing texts and textual practices. Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.
  12. ↑ McCool, Matthew. (2009). Writing around the world: a guide to writing across cultures. London: Continuum.
  13. 1 2 McKinley, Jim (2013). "Displaying critical thinking in EFL academic writing: A discussion of Japanese to English contrastive rhetoric" (PDF). RELC Journal. 44 (2): 195–208. doi:10.1177/0033688213488386. S2CID   143706450. Archived from the original (PDF) on 2018-01-14. Retrieved 2018-01-14.
  14. 1 2 Kubota, Ryuko & Lehner, Al. (2004). Toward critical contrastive rhetoric. Journal of Second Language Writing, 13, 7–27.
  15. ↑ Connor, Ulla. (2002). New directions in contrastive rhetoric. TESOL Quarterly 36: 493-510.
  16. ↑ Jiménez Ramirez, Jorge. (2010). "Cómo aumentar la calidad de la escritura en la enseñanza de español" (How to improve texts in Spanish as a Second Language)". Actas XXI Congreso Internacional ASELE. Cáceres (Spain): Ediciones de la Universidad de Extremadura. Retrieved 2015-01-15.
  17. ↑ Sanchez-Escobar, Ángel F. (2012). A Contrastive Analysis of the Rhetorical Patterns of English and Spanish Expository Journal Writing. CreateSpace Independent Publishing Platform.
This page is based on this Wikipedia article
Text is available under the CC BY-SA 4.0 license; additional terms may apply.
Images, videos and audio are available under their respective licenses.