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