Contrastive rhetoric

Classroom-based Contrastive Studies. 
Research on writing as a social 
construction of meaning has shown the value of examining perceptions and beliefs 
about literacy and learning in writing classrooms. Cultural mismatches in 
classrooms manifest themselves in a number of situations such as classroom 
conversation, collaborative groups, and teacher-student conferences. 
Kachru have shown that competence in writing classrooms means 
―interactional competence as well as competence with written language: 
knowledge when and how and with whom to speak and act in order to create and 

---

71 
display knowledge‖
99
. Classroom talk is deeply embedded in culture. In Western 
culture, Kachru et al. continue classroom conversations consist of a tripartite series 
of turns in which a teacher initiate, a student replies, and the teacher evaluates the 
response. Other minority groups from linguistically diverse backgrounds may not 
function well in this type of conversation. Furthermore, research by sociolinguists 
on the style and patterns of oral interaction also show interethnic and cross-cultural 
differences that often impede communication. He studied cross-cultural interaction 
between Athabascan Native Americans and native English-speaking North 
Americans, noting frequent conflicts in communication. 
However, cross-cultural influences are beginning to be addressed in 
collaborative writing groups in ESL and other writing classes. Allaei and Connor 
offer suggestions for classroom practice in handling some of the problems of 
international student collaboration and peer response
100
. 
Another related area of research is teacher-student conferencing, where 
cultural differences may also hinder smooth and productive communication. 
Conrad conducted a study that examined the degree to which active participation 
and negotiation were present in teacher-student conferences and what the effect 
was on revision and final written products. Large differences were found in the 
students‘ participation and negotiation of meaning in the conferences
101
. 
Emphasizing Anglo-American patterns of writing, contrastive rhetoric may 
encourage students to look down upon their first language writing styles. Kubota‘s 
work addresses the issue of Japanese native speakers‘ preference for the linear 
pattern of English after their introduction to it, and Eggington writes
102
about 
Korean academics transporting the American way of writing to their native 
country. 
99
Kachru, Y., 1995. Contrastive rhetoric in World Englishes. 
English Today 
11, pp. 21–31. 
100
Allaei, S., & Connor, U. (1990). Exploring the Dynamics of Cross-Cultural Collaboration in Writing Classrooms. 
The Writing Instructor, 
10(1), 19-28 
101
Connor, U. (2002).New Directions in Contrastive Rhetoric. 
TESOL Quarterly,
4(36), 493-510. 
102
Eggington, W. G. (1987). Written academic discourse in Korean: Implications for effective communication. In 
Conor and Kaplan. (eds). 
Writing across 
Languages: 
Analysis of L2 Text. 
Reading, MA: Addison-Wesley, 153-168 

---

72 
Advocates of the theory of the social construction of meaning through writing 
insist on the importance of helping writers see themselves in reference to their 
audience and social context. In addition to emphasizing the personal growth and 
integration inherent in such self-evaluation, social constructionist theory in L1 
composition has allied itself with an anti-authoritarian ideology. In a similar vein, 
Trimbur recommends a pedagogy that encourages the development of 
individualism in students while lessening the authority of teachers. 
Such a critical pedagogy, prevalent in many composition classes in L1 instruction 
in the United States, has not been embraced by ESL teachers and researchers, 
despite the many studies on writing as a social construction of meaning discussed 
above. Santos provides an excellent discussion of the lack of a desirable ideology 
in ESL writing classes, a trend she laments. According to her, there are several 
reasons for this missing ideology. First, ESL teachers have been trained in 
linguistic-a supposedly objective science that discourages speculation. The 
thinking is that teachers teach the language; they do not dwell on feelings. Second, 
ESL teachers in the United States have been pragmatics; they want to help students 
write according to the expectations of member of their chosen academic discourse 

---

73 
communities. Third, a great deal of EFL teaching is conducted outside the United 
States where the power structures do not follow U.S. pattern. In other words, 
teaching at the international level makes the critical pedagogy of L1 composition 
in the United States somewhat meaningless when extended beyond the United 
States. 
In the end, theory of newly defined contrastive rhetoric can be showed as 
Figure 2.