Contrastive rhetoric

 
 
132
Aertselaer, J. (2006). A Rhetorical Analysis Approach to English for Academic Purposes, 
Revista de Lingustica 
Y Lenguas
 
Aplicadas, 
Vol. 1:63-72.

---

89 
GENERAL CONCLUSIONS 
This master dissertation work has presented a general review of contrastive 
rhetoric as a field of study. It has also outlined previous contrastive studies on 
different languages and English writings and newspaper opinion discourses in 
relation to the present study. It has demonstrated the restrictions of research scope 
and methodological flaws of previous studies in the field and indicated the gaps 
that the present study attempts to fill. It has revealed that most previous contrastive 
studies of different languages and English writing have focused on a 
linearity/circularity argument and few studies have attempted or been able to in 
any rigorous way construct and account for any comparative genres across these 
two languages and cultures. The following chapter will describe some of the latest 
developments in discourse and genre analysis that contribute to the theoretical 
framework for the present study. 
Culture has become a contested area of inquiry in post-foundational critical 
thought which has been influencing other areas of applied linguistics. It is a 
concept that needs to be complicated, particularly in contemporary society where 
cultural views of the Self and the other play increasingly significant roles in global 
politics. A fixed view of cultural difference that legitimates an invisible norm of 
the rhetoric of power in an idealized and apolitical way while debasing others does 
not help to cultivate a profound understanding of how culture is implicated in ever-
shifting power relations, constructing and transforming the ways we engage in 
communication. Contrastive rhetoric‘s unique focus on culture in written 
communication can be broadened significantly by incorporating such concepts as 
power, discourse, and subjectivities. It is thus necessary to establish a framework 
that allows non-essentialist understandings of culture and rhetoric, appropriation of 
the rhetoric of power for resisting domination, and new rhetorical possibilities. By 
politicizing cultural difference in rhetoric, critical contrastive rhetoric can create 
new space for divergent ways of understanding writers and texts in cross-cultural 
contexts. 

---

90 
The role of contrastive rhetoric in applied linguistics is significant and reflects 
the enhanced role of teaching writing in ESL, EFL, and FL instruction. Contrastive 
rhetoric research is interdisciplinary; it draws on several related fields of study 
such as text linguistics, composition pedagogy, and literacy development. These 
influences enrich the scope and depth of contrastive rhetoric research, enabling 
recommendations for teaching L2 writing in several ways: evaluating written 
products of ESL and EFL students based on textlinguistic insights, understanding 
cultural differences in writing processes, appreciating influences of L1 literacy 
acquisition on L2 writing, understanding writing cross-culturally in academic and 
professional situations, and being sensitive to societal-cultural differences in 
intellectual traditions and ideologies. 
Acccording to above mentioned informations and opnions in our work we 
can conclude the impact of contrastive rhetoric on second language writing is 
clearly noteworthy and has definitely had a strong impact based on the well-
documented research that exists in the area. In brief, contrastive rhetoric: 

identifies the possible causes for the apparent lack of coherence in second 
language texts; 

provides teachers with some insights that can guide their decisions in 
developing curriculum and in responding to second language students' 
needs; 

develops some understanding of students' native rhetorical choices, bridging 
rhetorical gaps so writer, instructor, and even peer reader have a common 
ground from which to work on the writing; 

helps instructors who teach writing to second language students see that our 
truth is not the truth; 

provides students and learners with rhetorical choices; 

promotes cultural decentering. 
However, if it is not perceived with English as the benchmark, contrastive 
rhetoric does alert instructors of the need to bring a rhetorical awareness to the 
classroom. Teachers and students need to be familiar with knowledge of rhetorical 

---

91 
patterns of arrangement, composing conventions, the morphosyntax of the target 
language, and writing conventions, audience, and subject. 
Nevertheless, an increase in awareness does not necessarily translate into an 
improvement in classroom results, nor does it imply a distinct approach for the 
teaching of writing. It is more about the creation of a more knowable environment 
for the second language writers to develop their skills. 
Stronger conclusions are perhaps needed in the area of contrastive rhetoric. 
There are still many on-going questions that need to be resolved in this disciplinary 
field.
It is presumed that it is possible to identify formal features, such as patterns of 
rhetorical organization across different languages and cultures. Then, this 
knowledge can be used to help students learn how to write in culturally and 
rhetorically appropriate ways. Unfortunately, it seems that more evidence is 
necessary before this can be considered a fact, especially, in terms of defining the 
conceptual contribution of culture and its relationship to rhetorical patterns. 
Finally, it is important to point out that a pedagogy of critical contrastive rhetoric 
is self-reflexive. In aiming for praxis with and among students, critical teachers 
consistently question what they do and critique the means by which they teach 
students. At the same time that critical contrastive rhetoric is neither hegemonic 
nor monolithic, it is also not static. Therefore, there is a need for consistent and 
constant reevaluation of purpose and methodology. In this regard, teachers ask 
themselves: 
What am I doing?, Where is it leading?, What do I intend to achieve?, 
Where might I be better informed?, 
etc. In other words, those teachers engaged in 
pedagogies of critical contrastive rhetoric critique themselves. Thus, when 
responding to student writing, the teachers question whether they are encouraging 
students to challenge essentialist, normative, cultural knowledge and to seek 
rhetorical pluralism or whether they are imposing yet another hegemonic 
knowledge. 

---

92 
In conclusion, we can see how complex academic writing is for students and 
for teachers. It is our belief that we need to do more studies including other groups 
of students who have not had out-of-country experiences to better understand the 
process of academic writing from the students' perspective. We should Also, 
maintain contact with the current participants to see what evolution occurs in their 
future studies in academic writing. Further research needs to be carried out in the 
EFL context on writing and more specifically academic writing because it seems 
we cannot assume the traditional ESL process follows the same process as an 
individual's development of a writing identity in a second language.