Contrastive rhetoric

Richness in writing: Empowering ESL students
(pp. 263–283). New York, London: Longman. 
96
Purves, A. C. (1988). Introduction. In A. C. Purves (Ed.), 
Writing across languages and cultures 
(pp. 9–21). 
Newbury Park, CA: Sage Publications. P-19 

---

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.