On the origins of contrastive rhetoric.docx

On the origins of contrastive rhetoric.docx

《On the origins of contrastive rhetoric.docx》由会员分享，可在线阅读，更多相关《On the origins of contrastive rhetoric.docx（15页珍藏版）》请在冰豆网上搜索。

Ontheoriginsofcontrastiverhetoric

Ontheoriginsofcontrastiverhetoric:

areplytoMatsuda

H.G.Ying

IappreciatethisopportunitytorespondtoMatsuda'scommentsonmyarticle.Inhiscomments,MatsudaagreeswithtwobasicargumentsImadeinmypaper:

（1）Kaplan'sviewoftherelationshipbetweenlanguageandcultureisnotthesameastheSapir-Whorfhypothesisoflinguisticrelativity,and

（2）itisveryunlikelythattheoriginofcontrastiverhetoriccanbepinneddowntoasinglesource—theSapir-Whorfhypothesisoflinguisticrelativity/determinism.ButheraisedthequestionaboutwhetherKaplan'sviewoftherelationshipbetweenlanguageandcultureis'incompatible'withtheSapir-Whorfhypothesis,asIputitinmypaper.Healsoraisedthequestionaboutmyargumentthattheethnographyofcommunication（Hymes1962）canbeanimportantantecedentforcontrastiverhetoric.Myreplywillthustakeupeachofthesetwoquestions.

InternationalJournalOfAppliedLinguistics

Volume11 Issue2 Page261 -December2001

doi:

10.1111/1473-4192.00018

CULTUREAWARENESSINWRITING:

PEDAGOGICALIMPLICATIONSOFCONTRASTIVERHETORIC

FernandoTrujilloSáez

LanguageTeachingDepartment

UniversityofGranada

ftsaez@ugr.es

INTRODUCTION

ThetopicofthispaperisContrastiveRhetoricanditspedagogicalimplications.Ourintentionistorevisebrieflyitshistoryandevolution,itspostulates,itsrelationtoContrastiveAnalysis,itsfutureanditspedagogicalimplications.OurintentionisalsotoprovideanyoneinterestedinContrastiveRhetoricwithabasicbibliographyaboutthislineofwork.

ABITOFHISTORY,ADEFINITIONANDSOMEEXPLANATIONS

Firstofall,wewillconcentrateontheoriginsofContrastiveRhetoric.

INTRODUCTION

ThetopicofthispaperisContrastiveRhetoricanditspedagogicalimplications.Ourintentionistorevisebrieflyitshistoryandevolution,itspostulates,itsrelationtoContrastiveAnalysis,itsfutureanditspedagogicalimplications.OurintentionisalsotoprovideanyoneinterestedinContrastiveRhetoricwithabasicbibliographyaboutthislineofwork.

ABITOFHISTORY,ADEFINITIONANDSOMEEXPLANATIONS

Firstofall,wewillconcentrateontheoriginsofContrastiveRhetoric.Actually,ithasawell-knownfather:

TheappliedlinguistRobertB.Kaplandefineditin1966andhasalsobeenintellectuallyobligedtoredefineitseveraltimes（seeKaplan1966,1967,1972,1983,1983b,1987,1988）.

TheevolutionofContrastiveRhetorichasbeenmarked,followingitsforefather,ContrastiveAnalysis,bydeepcriticisms.Itwasaccusedofethnocentrism,ofbeingproduct-centred,ofsimplisticassociationofrelatedlanguagessuchasChineseandKorean,andofregarding“transfer”and“error”asnegativefeaturesintheprocessofSecondLanguageAcquisition.However,thesecriticismshavebeenpositivelyacceptedandsolvedbycontrastiverhetoricians:

theproofisitspersistenceandevenitsvitalityandpromisingfuture.

Weperceivetwoperiodsin

thehistoryofContrastiveRhetoric:

theoldparadigm,whichtakesfromKaplan’s1966articletothemid80s,andthenewparadigm,fromthemid80suptoourdays.Theperiodoftheoldparadigmwascharacterised,ontheonehand,bythecontemporarynegativeperceptionoftransferanderrorproposedbythetheoryinvogue,Behaviourism,and,ontheotherhand,bypoorresearchdesigns,whichconsistedmainlyofcohesionanalysisofstudent’stextsincomparisonwithprofessionaltexts（seeTrujillo1997:

14-26）.

DuringthesecondperiodthereisanintricaterelationbetweenthenewparadigmandthereappraisalofContrastiveAnalysis.Danesi（1995:

210）explainsthisphenomenonasfollows:

Intheeightiesthecoordinatesinappliedlinguisticschangedonceagain,asinterestinCA[ContrastiveAnalysis]wassomewhatrekindledbythepossibilityofextendingitsmethodologyintotheareaofpragmaticsandcross-culturalanalysis.

ThreedifferentforceshelpedtoredefineContrastiveRhetoric（Trujillo1997:

27-37）:

Theevolutioninwritingresearch,therevivalofthenotionof“genre”asdefinedbySwales（1990）andaninternalgrowthconcerningresearchdesignsandtechniques,provokedbythecooperationofapplieappliedlinguists,psycho-andsocio-linguists,rhetoriciansandotherscholarsinterestedincross-culturalstudies.TheappreciationofContrastiveRhetorichelped,

togetherwithotherfactors,topromoteagaintheimportanceofContrastiveAnalysisfortheoreticalandpractical-pedagogicalreasons.

Connor（1996:

5）definesContrastiveRhetoricinitsmodernsense:

ContrastiveRhetoricisanareaofresearchinsecondlanguageacquisitionthatidentifiesproblemsincompositionencounteredbysecondlanguagewritersand,byreferringtotherhetoricalstrategiesofthefirstlanguage,attemptstoexplainthem.

Threebasicprinciplescompletethisdefinition（ibid.:

5）:

1）“Languageandwritingareculturalphenomena”;2）“Eachlanguagehasrhetoricalconventionsuniquetoit”;3）“Thelinguisticandrhetoricalconventionsofthefirstlanguageinterferewithwritinginthesecondlanguage”.

AccordingtothisdefinitionContrastiveRhetoricisnotsimplyasetoflinguisticstudies.Ifwewanttobecomprehensiveandexplanatorywemustrespondtothecomplexityofthephenomenonofwritingwithacomplexmultidimensionalinterdisciplinaryapproach.Inparticular,MichaelClyne（1987）mentionsfivedimensionstoconsiderwithinContrastiveRhetoric:

TheLinguisticdimension,thePsycholinguisticdimension,theSocialPsychologicaldimension,theSocioculturaldimensionand,finally,anApplieddimension,inwhichtheresearchershouldconsidertheimplicationsforforeignlanguageteachingandtranslation.

So,theobjectsofstudyofContrastiveRhetoricarethewrittentextandWriting,bothofthemcontemplatedfromacross-cultural,comparativeview.WecanfindcomparisonsbetweenL1andL2,asLeki（1991:

128）reports,butmostpapersinContrastiveRhetoricsconsistofinvestigationsaboutinterlanguagetexts,thatis,textswrittenbyL2learners（seeClyne1987,Connor1990,Kaplan1966,LavinCrerand1992,Montaño-Harmon1991,Ostler1987,Purves1988,Raimes1987,Scarcella1984,Taroneetal.1993,etc.）AllofthemarequantitativedescriptiveresearcheswhichtrytoanalyzethecharacteristicsofL2learnerstextsandcomparethemwithL2nativetextsorL2rhetoricalpatternsasdescribedinwritingmanualsandtherelevantbibliography.

OthertypesofinvestigationsarealsoreportedinConnor（1996）:

First,reflectiveinquiriesaboutthenatureandevolutionofContrastiveRhetoric,astheabovementionedKaplan（1972）and（1987）,Purves（1988）,Leki（1991）andConnor（1996）;PredictionandClassificationstudiesareexemplifiedbyReid（1992）;Liebman（1992）andHalimah（1991）carriedoutsurveyswhereasPenningtonandSo（1993）andMatta（1992）realisedcasestudies;finally,threeexamplesofquasi-experimentsarementioned:

Hinds（1984）,Eggington（1987）andConnorandMcCagg（1983）.

Itisevidentthenthatthereissofarawidecorpusofresearchwhichprovestheculture-boundnatureofRhetoric.HoweverwebelievethattherearetwoveryimportantgapsinthenetworkofContrastiveRhetoric,namely,asolidexplanatorytheoreticalfoundationandaclearexpositionofthepedagogicalimplicationsofContrastiveRhetoric,makingallthosefindingsaboutL1,InterlanguageandL2writingavailablefortheteacher.

THETHEORYUNDERTHETHEORY

TheoriginaltheoreticalsupportforContrastiveRhetoricwasthoughtbyKaplantobetheSapir-WhorfHypothesis.Hewrote（Kaplan1972:

Foreword）:

Myoriginalconceptionwasmerelythatrhetorichadtobeviewedinarelativisticway;thatis,thatrhetoricconstitutedalinguisticareainfluenceby

theWhorf-Sapirhypothesis（...）Iwouldstillmaintain,asIdidin1964,thatrhetoricisaphenomenontiedtothelinguisticsystemofaparticularlanguage.

Threepointsaretobeconsideredinrelationtothisquotation:

First,thevalueoftheSapir-Whorfhypothesisitself,secondthevalidityoftheperceptionofRhetoricasalinguisticarea,and,third,theappropriatetheoreticalbasisforContrastiveRhetoric.

TheSapir-WhorfHypothesis,alsocalledtheLinguisticRelativityHypothesis,canbetracedbacktoWilhelmvonHumboldt（1767-1835）,whostatedthatLanguagemediatesbetweenusandtheworld,andthatweperceivethelatterbymeansofthecategoriesofthefirst.Furthermore,CulturewasalsostructuredbyLanguage,whichmakesLanguagethedecisivefactorasfarasthedifferencesamongnationsareconcerned（Aceroetal.,1989）.

TwoAmericanresearchers,theanthropologistF.Boas（1858-1942）and,sometimelater,theanthropologistandlinguistE.Sapir（1884-1939）studiedAmericanlanguages.TheydrewtheconclusionthatLanguagewasanobjectiverealitywhichinturnorganizedandstructuredexternalreality.Sapiristheauthorofthefamousstatement:

"Languageisaguideto"socialreality"...（I）tpowerfullyconditionsallourthinkingaboutsocialproblemsandprocesses."（Sapir1929,reportedinHoijer1974）.

FinallyB.LeeWhorf（1897-1943）producedthefinalformoftheLinguisticRelativityHypothesis.Aceroetal.（1989）understandsWhorf'sworksasrelatedtofourvariables:

LexicalStructure,GrammaticalStructure,CulturalOrganizationandIndividualBehaviour.TherelationshipestablishedamongthemissaidtoexistintermsofdependencyofCultureandBehaviouronLanguage.Differentlexicalandgrammaticalstructureswillleadsocietiestocategorizeandcomprehendrealityindifferentwaysand,consequently,toreactandbehaveindifferentwaystoo.Hoijer（1974:

121）summarizestheSapir-WhorfHypothesisasfollows:

"Languagefunctionsnot