68
for dismissing linguistic and cultural differences in writing among related
languages, that is, for including Uzbek,Chinese, Thai, and Korean speakers
in one ‗Oriental‘ group;
for considering transfer from a first language a negative influence on
second language writing
.
Kaplan has modified his earlier position in a number of recent publications,
calling his 1966 article his ―doodles‖ article and
suggesting that rhetorical
differences do not necessarily reflect different patterns of thinking. Instead,
differences may reflect different writing conventions that are learned in a culture.
Despite many past attacks on contrastive rhetoric, the time has not yet come to
dismiss it as a viable theory of second language writing. In the 1990s, significant
changes have taken place in contrastive rhetorical research. Contrastive rhetoric
seems almost to have experienced a revolution in the Kuhnian sense, paradigm
shift
97
. The traditional contrastive rhetoric framework is no longer able to account
for all the data, and an expanded framework is needed. According to Connor, a
broader definition that considers cognitive and socio-cultural
variables of writing
in addition to linguistic variables has been substituted for a purely linguistic
framework interested in structural analyses of products. Connor continues,
―Contrastive rhetoric has moved from examining only products to studying
processes in a variety of writing situations‖.
Both internal and external forces have necessitated this new framework. Both
the cognitive and the social-cultural emphasis in composition studies has influence
the study of cross-cultural emphasis in applied linguistics contexts. Contrastive
rhetoric in the context of applied linguistics is taking new directions mainly in the
following five domains.
Text linguistics is written discourse analysis, an
analysis of texts that goes
beyond the sentence level. Text features are cohesion, coherence, intentionality,
acceptability, informationality, situationlity, and intertexuality.
97
Connor, Ulla. (2001).
Contrastive Rhetoric: Cross-cultural Aspects of Second-language Writing
. Shanghai
Foreign Language Education Press. P-18
69
Several text linguistic studies have contrasted coherence
and discourse patterns
of various kinds in different languages. Perhaps the most influential has been the
work of applied linguist John Hinds. He has shown that certain text structures are
used to achieve coherence, which guides the reader in making the right inference;
and that textual patterns used to express coherence vary among languages and
cultures. Hinds has described how writing in Japanese, Chinese, Thai, and Korean
favors a ―quasi-inductive‖ rather than an inductive or a deductive style of
presentation, or what Hinds calls a ―delayed introduction of purpose.‖
98
This
delayed introduction of purpose makes the writing appear incoherent to the
English-speaking reader (although not to the native reader).
In addition, writers need to be sensitive to the different expectations of readers
and writers across cultures. In proposing a new typology of language based on
―speaker and/or writer responsibility as opposed to listener and/or reader
responsibility‖, Hinds has shown that, with respect to coherence, Japanese writing
demands
more of the reader, whereas the rhetorical form preferred in the West
places the expository burden chiefly on the writer. English readers expect and
require landmarks of coherence and unity as they read. The writer needs to provide
transitional statements. In Japanese, on the other hand, transitions may be lacking.
The reader is expected to piece sections together to make a coherent text.
Study of Writing as a Cultural Activity.
The 1980s saw a proliferation of
research examining the processes of becoming literate in one‘s native language and
culture. Anthropologists,
psychologists, and researchers in education are among
those who have particularly investigated the processes of learning literacy and the
effects of literacy on learners‘ thinking as well as social behavior. Important
discoveries have been made about the embeddedness of discourse and writing in
culture and about the roles that schooling and instruction play in this
embeddedness. Most significantly, research points to the fact that written texts and
the ways they are used vary according to cultural group.
98
Hinds, J. (1987). Reader versus writer responsibility: A new typology. In U. Connor & R. B. Kaplan (Eds.),
Writing across languages: Analysis of L2 text
(pp. 141–152). Reading, MA: Addison-Wesley Publishing Company.
70
Empirical research examining the relationship between
culture and discourse
falls into three categories. The first type of research is conducted in the domain of
anthropology and psychology and focuses on the social functions of writing.
Scribner and Cole investigated the various kinds of literacy among the West
African Vai, and Heath researched the varying oral traditions and their effects on
subsequent
literacy
development
among
African-American
and
white
Appalachians.
The second major research direction is educational and deals with the role of
instruction on writing in a given language and culture. The International Study of
Written Composition, planned and carried out during the 1980s as art of the
International Association for the Evaluation of Educational Achievement (IEA),
examined the relationships among culture, writing, and the curriculum in schools
in fourteen countries. Although the findings point to some universal characteristics
of the conventions and uses of writing, they also confirm culture-specific uses and
conventions in school writing.
The third area of investigation is the influence of research on the development
of literacy in L1, which comprises studies of ESL students‘
backgrounds and the
effect of background on their literacy in L2. A beneficial direction of research in
ESL related to this general area is the one charted by Carson and by Folman and
Sarig. Each originated research that will provide valuable knowledge for the
teaching of ESL literacy. Each study used a different type of theoretical,
quantitative, and qualitative analysis.
Do'stlaringiz bilan baham: 
