Contrastive rhetoric

Structure of the master's dissertation: 
This work contains of introduction, three main chapters, 8 paragraphs, 
conclusion and list of used literature. This master‘s dissertation will begin with a 

---

7 
brief history of research into L2 writing, followed by an overview of the historical 
developments of contrastive rhetoric and its present significance. This is followed 
by criticism of comparative research and CR then arguments for using CR in the 
L2 classroom. It concludes with a discussion of possible reasons behind the unique 
characteristics of L2 writers and implications for teaching. 

---

8 
CHAPTER I. GENERAL CHARACTERISTICS OF CONTRASTIVE 
RHETORIC 
I.1 Historical background of Contrastive Rhetoric 
 
There are many definitions of contrastive rhetoric. Panetta presented
9
one of 
the most direct definitions of contrastive rhetoric as follows , "The term used to 
describe the argument that the linguistical, organizational, and presentational 
choice that English as a second language (ESL) students-writers make 
substantively differ from the choices that native language writers make" . 
Almost fifty years ago, the American linguist Kaplan initiated
10
contrastive 
rhetoric analysis by positing that every language and culture has a unique system 
of rhetoric. In the field of second language acquisition, contrastive rhetoric is 
elaborated into the assumption that the differences between the discourse-level 
features of learner's first and second language cause difficulties for learners who 
are attempting to learn a foreign language. Researchers such as Casanave 
examined
11
whether there is an inherently negative transfer process that occurs 
when learners transfer their L1 thoughts into their second language. 
In applied linguistics "rhetoric" often refers to discourse-level organizational 
patterns. In recent decades, there have been an increasing number of studies on 
contrastive rhetoric. Connor mentioned
12
some possible reasons for the increasing 
interest in contrastive rhetoric, such as the increased understanding of second-
language learners' needs to read and write in the target language; the enhanced 
interdisciplinary approach to studying second language acquisition through 
educational, rhetorical, and anthropological methods; and new trends in linguistics. 
Those who have contributed to contrastive analysis theory consider themselves 
applied linguists. They use a structuralistic approach to linguistics, and their 
purpose is to improve language teaching. 
9
Panetta, C. G. (Ed.). (2000). 
Contrastive rhetoric revisited and redefined. 
Routledge. P-3 
10
Kaplan, R. B. (1966). Cultural thought patterns in inter-cultural education. 
Language learning, 
16(1-2), 1-20. 
11
Casanave, C. G. (Ed.). (2000). 
Contrastive rhetoric revisited and redefined. 
Routledge. 
12
Connor, U. 1996. Contrastive rhetoric. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. P-5 

---

9 
Contrastive rhetoric analysis is promising since it may help scholars 
understand the source of language misusage for ESL learners. Contrastive rhetoric 
analysis is used to study the relationship between language and culture, but there 
are still many problems that have not been analyzed with this approach. This paper 
will provide an in depth examination of the contrastive rhetoric literature before 
applying the theory to the specific challenges of Uzbek ESL learners.