On the origins of contrastive rhetoric.docx

1、On the origins of contrastive rhetoricOn the origins of contrastive rhetoric: a reply to MatsudaH. G. YingI appreciate this opportunity to respond to Matsudas comments on my article. In his comments, Matsuda agrees with two basic arguments I made in my paper: (1) Kaplans view of the relationship bet

2、ween language and culture is not the same as the Sapir-Whorf hypothesis of linguistic relativity, and (2) it is very unlikely that the origin of contrastive rhetoric can be pinned down to a single source the Sapir-Whorf hypothesis of linguistic relativity/determinism. But he raised the question abou

3、t whether Kaplans view of the relationship between language and culture is incompatible with the Sapir-Whorf hypothesis, as I put it in my paper. He also raised the question about my argument that the ethnography of communication (Hymes 1962) can be an important antecedent for contrastive rhetoric.

4、My reply will thus take up each of these two questions.International Journal Of Applied LinguisticsVolume 11Issue 2Page 261 - December 2001doi:10.1111/1473-4192.00018CULTURE AWARENESS IN WRITING: PEDAGOGICAL IMPLICATIONS OF CONTRASTIVE RHETORIC Fernando Trujillo Sez Language Teaching Department Univ

5、ersity of Granada ftsaezugr.es INTRODUCTION The topic of this paper is Contrastive Rhetoric and its pedagogical implications. Our intention is to revise briefly its history and evolution, its postulates, its relation to Contrastive Analysis, its future and its pedagogical implications. Our intention

6、 is also to provide anyone interested in Contrastive Rhetoric with a basic bibliography about this line of work. A BIT OF HISTORY, A DEFINITION AND SOME EXPLANATIONS First of all, we will concentrate on the origins of Contrastive Rhetoric. INTRODUCTION The topic of this paper is Contrastive Rhetoric

7、 and its pedagogical implications. Our intention is to revise briefly its history and evolution, its postulates, its relation to Contrastive Analysis, its future and its pedagogical implications. Our intention is also to provide anyone interested in Contrastive Rhetoric with a basic bibliography abo

8、ut this line of work. A BIT OF HISTORY, A DEFINITION AND SOME EXPLANATIONS First of all, we will concentrate on the origins of Contrastive Rhetoric. Actually, it has a well-known father: The applied linguist Robert B. Kaplan defined it in 1966 and has also been intellectually obliged to redefine it

9、several times (see Kaplan 1966, 1967, 1972, 1983, 1983b, 1987, 1988). The evolution of Contrastive Rhetoric has been marked, following its forefather, Contrastive Analysis, by deep criticisms. It was accused of ethnocentrism, of being product-centred, of simplistic association of related languages s

10、uch as Chinese and Korean, and of regarding “transfer” and “error” as negative features in the process of Second Language Acquisition. However, these criticisms have been positively accepted and solved by contrastive rhetoricians: the proof is its persistence and even its vitality and promising futu

11、re. We perceive two periods in the history of Contrastive Rhetoric: the old paradigm, which takes from Kaplans 1966 article to the mid 80s, and the new paradigm, from the mid 80s up to our days. The period of the old paradigm was characterised, on the one hand, by the contemporary negative perceptio

12、n of transfer and error proposed by the theory in vogue, Behaviourism, and, on the other hand, by poor research designs, which consisted mainly of cohesion analysis of students texts in comparison with professional texts (see Trujillo 1997:14-26). During the second period there is an intricate relat

13、ion between the new paradigm and the reappraisal of Contrastive Analysis. Danesi (1995:210) explains this phenomenon as follows: In the eighties the coordinates in applied linguistics changed once again, as interest in CA Contrastive Analysis was somewhat rekindled by the possibility of extending it

14、s methodology into the area of pragmatics and cross-cultural analysis. Three different forces helped to redefine Contrastive Rhetoric (Trujillo 1997:27-37): The evolution in writing research, the revival of the notion of “genre” as defined by Swales (1990) and an internal growth concerning research

15、designs and techniques, provoked by the cooperation of applieapplied linguists, psycho- and socio-linguists, rhetoricians and other scholars interested in cross-cultural studies. The appreciation of Contrastive Rhetoric helped, together with other factors, to promote again the importance of Contrast

16、ive Analysis for theoretical and practical-pedagogical reasons. Connor (1996:5) defines Contrastive Rhetoric in its modern sense: Contrastive Rhetoric is an area of research in second language acquisition that identifies problems in composition encountered by second language writers and, by referrin

17、g to the rhetorical strategies of the first language, attempts to explain them. Three basic principles complete this definition (ibid.:5): 1) “Language and writing are cultural phenomena”; 2) “Each language has rhetorical conventions unique to it”; 3) “The linguistic and rhetorical conventions of th

18、e first language interfere with writing in the second language”. According to this definition Contrastive Rhetoric is not simply a set of linguistic studies. If we want to be comprehensive and explanatory we must respond to the complexity of the phenomenon of writing with a complex multidimensional

19、interdisciplinary approach. In particular, Michael Clyne (1987) mentions five dimensions to consider within Contrastive Rhetoric: The Linguistic dimension, the Psycholinguistic dimension, the Social Psychological dimension, the Sociocultural dimension and, finally, an Applied dimension, in which the

20、 researcher should consider the implications for foreign language teaching and translation. So, the objects of study of Contrastive Rhetoric are the written text and Writing, both of them contemplated from a cross-cultural, comparative view. We can find comparisons between L1 and L2, as Leki (1991:1

21、28) reports, but most papers in Contrastive Rhetorics consist of investigations about interlanguage texts, that is, texts written by L2 learners (see Clyne 1987, Connor 1990, Kaplan 1966, Lavin Crerand 1992, Montao-Harmon 1991, Ostler 1987, Purves 1988, Raimes 1987, Scarcella 1984, Tarone et al. 199

22、3, etc.) All of them are quantitative descriptive researches which try to analyze the characteristics of L2 learners texts and compare them with L2 native texts or L2 rhetorical patterns as described in writing manuals and the relevant bibliography. Other types of investigations are also reported in

23、 Connor (1996): First, reflective inquiries about the nature and evolution of Contrastive Rhetoric, as the above mentioned Kaplan (1972) and (1987), Purves (1988), Leki (1991) and Connor (1996); Prediction and Classification studies are exemplified by Reid (1992); Liebman (1992) and Halimah (1991) c

24、arried out surveys whereas Pennington and So (1993) and Matta (1992) realised case studies; finally, three examples of quasi-experiments are mentioned: Hinds (1984), Eggington (1987) and Connor and McCagg (1983). It is evident then that there is so far a wide corpus of research which proves the cult

25、ure-bound nature of Rhetoric. However we believe that there are two very important gaps in the network of Contrastive Rhetoric, namely, a solid explanatory theoretical foundation and a clear exposition of the pedagogical implications of Contrastive Rhetoric, making all those findings about L1, Inter

26、language and L2 writing available for the teacher. THE THEORY UNDER THE THEORY The original theoretical support for Contrastive Rhetoric was thought by Kaplan to be the Sapir-Whorf Hypothesis. He wrote (Kaplan 1972:Foreword): My original conception was merely that rhetoric had to be viewed in a rela

27、tivistic way; that is, that rhetoric constituted a linguistic area influence by the Whorf-Sapir hypothesis (.) I would still maintain, as I did in 1964, that rhetoric is a phenomenon tied to the linguistic system of a particular language. Three points are to be considered in relation to this quotati

28、on: First, the value of the Sapir-Whorf hypothesis itself, second the validity of the perception of Rhetoric as a linguistic area, and, third, the appropriate theoretical basis for Contrastive Rhetoric. The Sapir-Whorf Hypothesis, also called the Linguistic Relativity Hypothesis, can be traced back

29、to Wilhelm von Humboldt (1767-1835), who stated that Language mediates between us and the world, and that we perceive the latter by means of the categories of the first. Furthermore, Culture was also structured by Language, which makes Language the decisive factor as far as the differences among nat

30、ions are concerned (Acero et al., 1989). Two American researchers, the anthropologist F. Boas (1858-1942) and, some time later, the anthropologist and linguist E. Sapir (1884-1939) studied American languages. They drew the conclusion that Language was an objective reality which in turn organized and

31、 structured external reality. Sapir is the author of the famous statement: Language is a guide to social reality.(I)t powerfully conditions all our thinking about social problems and processes.(Sapir 1929, reported in Hoijer 1974). Finally B. Lee Whorf (1897-1943) produced the final form of the Ling

32、uistic Relativity Hypothesis. Acero et al. (1989) understands Whorfs works as related to four variables: Lexical Structure, Grammatical Structure, Cultural Organization and Individual Behaviour. The relationship established among them is said to exist in terms of dependency of Culture and Behaviour on Language. Different lexical and grammatical structures will lead societies to categorize and comprehend reality in different ways and, consequently, to react and behave in different ways too. Hoijer (1974:121) summarizes the Sapir-Whorf Hypothesis as follows: Language functions not