Contrastive Rhetoric

By -

Contrastive Rhetoric

Image result for kaplan contrastive rhetoric diagram

Kaplan's hypotheses of contrastive rhetoric are instructive in that they delineate the different rhetoric  stylistic patterns most second language learners incorporate in their written work, rendering their academic essays certain non-native characteristics. This post presents Kaplan's contrastive rhetoric hypotheses and explains why it is important for L2 writing instructors to recognize the differences in the rhetorical conventions of the learner's first and second languages. It then briefly discusses some important concepts and principles germane to the teaching of second language writing and concludes with a model of expectations of North American English academic writing. 

1. Hypotheses of contrastive rhetoric
            A. Highlights of Kaplan’s proposals
           
                        1. Different cultures have different organizational preferences in written discourse.
2. Second language writing often differs from target language native-like writing,
    because of negative transfer of L1 rhetorical conventions.
3. When an L2 writer incorrectly assumes common knowledge of discourse context
    with a native reader, the resultant text may be incoherent to the reader.
4. In order to communicate effectively in a target language, second language writers
    need to understand the rhetorical expectations of the TL, regarding structural
    organization of written discourse, and how the underlying cultural logic of the TL
    differs from that of the writer’s native language.
           
            B. An opposing hypothesis (Mohan and Lo, 1985)
           
                        1. Kaplan’s contrastive rhetoric hypothesis is as yet unproven.
                        2. Problems in L2 discourse organization, at least partially, can be explained by lack of
                            development in compositional skills in L1.
                        3. Negative transfer from L1 is not significant at the rhetorical level ofL2 composition.
                        4. Mohan suggests further research would be more profitable if it looked for both cross
                            cultural differences and universals.

II. Implications: Why should it be important to recognize the effects of differences in L1 and L2
     rhetorical conventions on L2 written discourse?
            A. Cultural differences in rhetorical styles inhibit native-like acquisition of a target language
            B. SL students may incorrectly assume that their set of writing standards is equivalent to that
                 of the TL
            C. Written work of SL students may not meet the expectations of the TL academic community
            D. Rhetorical stylistic differences may limit normal access to discourse communities using the
                 TL
            E. Increasing the awareness of SL students to significant differences in rhetorical styles may
                 help them to improve their reading and writing

III. Important concepts and principles
            A. Foreignness in second language writing
Written discourse may read like it has been written by a non-native writer for a variety of reasons. At an intra-sentential level, this may occur because of incorrect grammar usage, lexical items, idioms, non-standard word orders, etc.  At an inter-sentential level, deviant use of transition or cohesion devices may result in foreign sounding text.  At the level of discourse organization, the overall coherence of the text may have unanticipated rhetorical effects on the reader.
Competence at each of these levels, in the TL, may be achieved somewhat independently.  However, based on most current teaching practices, second language learners are more likely to achieve competence earlier at the more discrete levels.
The effects of competencies at the different levels of discourse structure are not uniform.  It is common to observe SL writing which is grammatically correct, yet is difficult to understand, because it’s incoherent in global organization.  Conversely, a certain amount of grammatical deviance may be tolerated, without sacrificing communication, if the writing is organized in a manner that allows a reader to follow the ideas of a writer.
           
            B. Reader vs. writer responsibility
                        1. In some languages, including English, the writer is expected to assume predominant
                            responsibility for effectively communicating his ideas to the reader.  In other
                            languages, such as Japanese, the reader is expected to be able to infer meanings
                            which the writer has not communicated explicitly.
                        2. If the expectations of the writer and the reader, regarding reader/writer
                            responsibility are different, effective communication may be impaired.

            C. Coherence in written discourse occurs when a writer effectively communicates to a
                 reader, how the ideas presented in the text relate to the main topic of the text, and how
                 those ideas relate to each other, with no apparently unrelated, leftover ideas.

            D. Cohesion in written discourse

            E. Marked vs. unmarked forms

            F. Cultural vs. linguistic patterns

            G. How old vs. new information is handled

IV. A model of expectations of English rhetoric in academic writing
           
            A. Writer responsible
            B. Rooted in Western culture
                        1. Favors Aristotelian logic (syllogistic reasoning)
                        2. Presuppositions constrained to Western-culture universe of discourse
                                    a) Assumes technological world view, materialistic philosophy
                                    b) Knowledge outside of recognized universe of discourse cannot be assumed,
                                         be assumed, but must be provided to reader in text
                        3. Ideas in a text should be structurally subordinated, in a hierarchical manner, to the
                                discourse topic and sub-topics.
                        4. Deductive logic in exposition is unmarked form



Comments

Post a Comment

Popular posts from this blog

Schumann’s Acculturation Model

By -
Image
Schumann's Acculturation Model Consider how these social and psychological factors affect the extent of the learner’s capacity to learn his or her second language (L2).   Schumann asserts that the more distance created between the L2 learner and his or her target language (TL) culture by such factors, the less contact s/he will have with the TL culture and thus the lower will his or her expected L2 proficiency be. Furthermore, he considers the social factors to be the prime influences; the psychological factors come into play and become the deciding factors only in situations where the combined social factors create neither positive nor negative circumstances for the learner.   Which outcomes of each of these factors make for a bad learning situation and which ones for a good learning situation? Consider as many as apply to your group’s learner testimonial. Social Distance Factors Social dominance : Is the learner’s native group dominant to, equal to, or subor...
Keep reading

The Purpose of Assessment

By -
The purpose of assessment is to improve teaching and learning through intellectual dialogue about measurable learning outcomes, to create a collaborative, dynamic, and continuous assessment process that engages faculty and personnel across the institution in the cultivation of student success, to utilize assessment to improve from within while maintaining a documentary record that demonstrates this improvement to the community, and to balance the assessment process between a meaningful and thoughtful practice, which is part of what educators do daily. My department offers remedial reading and writing courses to both native and non-native speakers of English. The curricular objectives for lower level reading/writing and upper level reading/writing courses are as follows: Lower Level Reading Course Curricular Objectives Upon successful completion of the course, while using some college-level texts, students will be able to: 1)   Distinguish between details and generalitie...
Keep reading

English Pronunciation for Turkish Speakers

By -
Image
Areas of Difficulty for Turkish Speakers Consonants: I.    /t/ & /d/: When Turkish speakers of English pronounce these alveolar consonants, they touch the back of their upper teeth with the tip of their tongue. Instead, try to form a constriction by touching your alveolar ridge (the area behind your upper teeth) with the tip of your tongue. Pronounce these sounds in different phonological environments such as word-initial, medial, and final position and in consonant clusters. tiresome      little      brat       staple    burst     crest                  totalitarianism automatic    trickster            cattle     dental    tirade    tardy     training technique    tangle...
Keep reading