Contrastive rhetoric

particularly so for intercultural communication, where we should not expect the 
conventions of any one particular group to be dominant and where hybridity and 
emergent, negotiated understanding is the norm. Nevertheless, it must be 
acknowledged that in English the NES Anglo-American academic traditions are 
held as the dominant model to which others must conform. This should be 
challenged and ELF studies offer an alternative paradigm which recognises that as 
English is primarily used as a language of intercultural communication there 
should be no one group that is arbiter of the language and any 'norms' are 
contingent and mutually negotiated in context. However, it should be stressed that 
ELF studies do not propose replacing the norms of one dominant group (i.e. NES) 
with many other discrete groups. Instead ELF research views communicative 
practices, understanding and meaning making as always in process, negotiated and 
contingent. 
An example of research from within the field of IR that adopts many of 
these more critical approaches to culture and written communication is Bloch's 
study
74
of plagiarism. Bloch takes a dynamic approach to understanding plagiarism 
in Chinese and US settings which draws on both historical and current perspectives 
and a wide range of sources in understanding the relationship between a writer's L1 
and L2 rhetoric. He demonstrates that "this relationship can be used to develop a 
rich and complex view of how plagiarism can be used. The result is an ambiguity 
that shows us that in the study of comparative cultures, nothing is what it appears 
to be and everything is in flux". This results in an understanding of plagiarism that 
breaks down the dichotomy between stereotypical views of opposing Western and 
Chinese traditions. Instead, Bloch recommends
75
introducing L2 writers to the 
contested nature of definitions of plagiarism and challenging monolithic 
74
Bloch, J. (2008). Plagiarism in an intercultural rhetoric context: what we can learn from one another. In U. 
Connor, Nagelhout, E., Rozycki, W. (Ed.), 
Contrastive Rhetoric.p-268
75
Bloch, J. (2008). Plagiarism in an intercultural rhetoric context: what we can learn from one another. In U. 
Connor, Nagelhout, E., Rozycki, W. (Ed.), 
Contrastive Rhetoric.

---

46 
institutional control. However, he also recognises that given the penalties for 
transgression from the institutional norms such a process is "extremely 
complicated and fraught with potential pitfalls". Other research in IR that similarly 
seeks to break down stereotypical views of culture include study of the changing 
and dynamic nature of theme in the organisation of Chinese writing and Kubota's 
critical contrastive rhetoric which "problematizes and politicizes a common 
understanding of language, culture, teaching", uncovering the constructed, rather 
than a priori, nature of discourse and power and viewing writers as human agents 
who negotiate the rhetorical norms of their writing. 
Implications for intercultural rhetoric and writing pedagogy
 
The influence of this paradigm shift in our understanding of intercultural 
communication, language and culture on teaching L2 writers is perhaps the issue 
of most significance for CR/IR. As Canagarajah has written, CR is "a rare research 
and pedagogic tradition indigenous to ESL"
76
and this is echoed by Li, who views 
CR/IR as "a rare, comfortable place to hang out our shingles', where 'non-native' 
English speakers' knowledge and experiences are valued, authoritative, and seen as 
an asset. Thus, critical and ELF approaches must prove their worth to L2 writing 
pedagogy in order to be taken up by IR, and there are a number of important 
implications these perspectives have for pedagogy. 
Firstly, the approach proposed here can be seen as valuable in empowering 
L2 writers of English. Clearly, it goes beyond a deficit view of L2 writers, but it 
goes further than that. It does not just suggest that the rhetorical conventions of L2 
writers, whichever cultures they may be related to, are of equal value to the 
dominant native writer conventions. L1 cultures and conventions are not just seen 
as a valuable in making a bridge toward native writer norms. In contrast the place 
of NES norms in intercultural communication are called into question. If all