Contrastive rhetoric in the EFL context

69 writers is that the frequency of personal pronoun use by Hungarian students far exceeds that of professional native authors. As an implication of Károly’s study, it is stressed that Hungarian students need EAP courses that are tailored in accordance with their cultural backgrounds.

70 experience of the society of speakers” (p 10). In line with Sapir and Whorf, Kaplan reaffirms an earlier hypothesis regarding the predetermining role of language in modes of interpretation and observation. He demonstrates through a short composition of an Arabic learner of English that there are noteworthy differences between English and Arabic syntactic patterns. The former is shown to prefer subordinations as a way of structuring syntactic constituents in complex sentences, whereas the latter, heavily influenced by the rhetorical and organisational conventions of the Koran, not completely detached from Judeo-Christian discursive traditions, tends to employ parallel structures (i.e. coordination). Extending this discussion by including implications for teaching, Kaplan proposes that not only syntactic units but even rhetorical patterns are culturally coded and should be taught explicitly to foreign students (p. 15). As for the discourse socialisation and psychological facets of this development in learners from the teacher’s viewpoint, Kaplan furnishes the ‘bottom line’ of his study:

Any language has to be learned as an entity whose only logic is internal. The student needs to be taught the “logic” which is reflected in the rhetoric in the same way that he has had to learn to “logic” reflected in the grammatical patterns.

A closer approach, at least for many of your students, to THE WORD may be accomplished by the narrow road of rhetoric. But remember, please, that at this stage you are not merely teaching the student to manipulate language – you are actually teaching him to see the world through English-coloured glasses. In doing so you run the very serious risk of being legitimately accused of brainwashing (p.

16).

Leki (1991), besides the accolades she attaches to Kaplan’s (1966) revolutionary study, usher in a new era in cross-cultural rhetorical analysis, does not mince words to exposes two disputable aspects of his work (p. 123). On the one hand, she describes Kaplan’s empirical contribution as mainly exploratory, predicated more on intuitive observations rather than on scientifically grounded ones. On the other hand, Leki also points to the apparently irresolvable tension between the attitude to the teaching of L2 composition

71 skills as understood by contrastive rhetoric and the process oriented interpretation of writing teaching prevalent in communicative pedagogical frameworks. Partly speaking on behalf of those embracing the principles of process-oriented writing instruction, Leki notes that contrastive rhetoric appears to restrict its research focus exclusively to the product, neglecting the rhetorical context background of L2 writers, as well as the developmental stages they may have been through. To touch on yet another objection to contrastive rhetoric commonly raised by proponents of the process approach, the author points out that traditional contrastive rhetoric is very often felt to foist certain patterns upon learners, frequently exuding an air of cultural superiority.

Despite showcasing the perceived or real weaknesses of contrastive rhetoric, Leki (1991) also tries to make sure to present a balanced and unbiased overview of the ripples this school of thought has set off since its emergence in the late 1960s (pp. 124-125). Foregrounding ESL graduate students studying in English speaking countries, she argues that it would be preposterous to disregard the rhetorical experience these students ‘import’ into the L2 writing classroom. She also makes haste to overthrow the assumption that rhetorical strategies may not be transferred from L1 into L2. Starting out from the premise that, although different disciplines are said to have developed their own discourse conventions even within the same language and culture, writers can easily move between these discourse communities and apply or adjust their rhetorical strategies accordingly, similarly there should no impediment for L2 writers to transfer L1 writing skills across languages. Adopting a predominantly historical perspective, Leki describes the first two decades of contrastive rhetoric as mainly intuitive, oftentimes focused on isolated occurrences, and thus rendering observations inapplicable in a wider discourse context (p. 125). As opposed to this torpor in terms of having any powerful impact on instruction and material development, the contrastive

72 rhetoric of the 1980s and onwards are shown to be characterised by an ever growing awareness of discourse cohesion, moving beyond surface-level observations, as well as aiming for generalisability and quantifiability (p. 126). In spite of this shift in the scope of contrastive rhetoric research, Leki still points to a somewhat fossilised and static understanding of writing conventions in English and laments the widespread use of recommendations based on model texts and style manuals. Harking back to the issue of generalisibility, the author warns that meaningful comparability across languages and cultures is not always ensured, as there could be certain genres that are expressly peculiar of one particular culture, but seldom occurs in another one. To highlight the pedagogical implications of the philosophically embedded differences between contrastive rhetoric and a process oriented approach referred to above, Leki recapitulates the main divisions between these two traditions along the following lines:

A writing pedagogy that embraces the textual orientation of contrastive rhetoric would work actively to foster the construction in students of rhetorical schemata which hopefully correspond to those of English-speaking readers. A difference, then, between such a pedagogy and one less likely to be interested in contrastive rhetoric findings, a process orientation, for example, would centre on the approach taken for the development of schemata. A textual orientation suggests that schemata can be directly taught while a process orientation would hope to induce the construction of schemata indirectly, perhaps through student contact with target language (or, more precisely, target discourse community) readings. A process pedagogy appears to assume that schemata are or can be absorbed unconsciously, perhaps in somewhat the same way as comprehensible input is thought to promote acquisition of grammatical forms […]. In a process-oriented classroom, if L2 readings are used, they do not typically serve as examples of successful target language communication but rather as sources for ideas or touchstones for personal interactions and reactions. Their content is to be evaluated against personal experience (p. 135).

To complete the juxtaposition of contrastive rhetoric, which is presented as a predominantly textual approach, and process orientation, Leki (1991), in an attempt to dispel any unfounded prejudices about the textual approach and, thus, contrastive

73 rhetoric at large, emphasises that its primary focus is not on form but rather on audience (p. 135). To further buttress the case for the pedagogical utility of contrastive rhetoric, the author argues that drawing learners’ attention to L1 rhetorical schemata can enhance awareness of their writing practices in English (pp. 137-138). She also adds that keeping an eye on the findings of contrastive rhetoric helps bear in mind that rhetorical structures do not exist in isolation but are associated with a particular culture.

Severino (1993) goes even further in issuing qualifying labels for contrastive rhetoric.

She appears to put forward some critical remarks about the apparently arbitrary nature of typecasting writers as representing one or another cultural tradition, inevitably suggesting an approach that does not particularly seem to take stock of the variations existing even within a single cultural or geographical tradition (pp. 44-45). Taking a scrutinising look at Kaplan’s (1966) theory, Severino launches attacks against this archetypical construct of contrastive rhetoric on a number of fronts. First of all, she argues that in identifying ‘Cultural Thought Patterns’, Kaplan concentrated primarily on paragraph structure and not on any more extended stretches of discourse. Secondly, she objects to Kaplan’s lack of distinction between thought patterns and rhetorical patterns.

As Severino explains, applying the latter term to refer to patterns in finalised pieces of writing fails to consider the series of changes that might transpire during the process of cyclical revision and the production of multiple drafts. Another area of Severino’s criticism of Kaplan’s study focuses on a number of deficiencies, such as disregard for language backgrounds, gender, age, social class and geographical diversity. The author sounds particularly astringent in condemning Kaplan’s assimilationist attitude when it comes to inculcating the patterns of English essay construction into foreigners’ minds and the prescriptive researcher behaviour he display when, despite calling for further investigations, he seems to promulgate his own collection of exercises.

74 Yet another critique of Kaplan’s harking back to a template of thought patterns to account for any differences in native and no-native composition is voiced by Cahill (2003):

If, for example, Asian student writing is often strange and difficult to understand for native English-speaking readers, it is not necessarily due to differences between Eastern and Western “thought patterns” but might be due instead to the sheer difficulty of learning the conventions of academic writing in any new language (as it already is in one’s native language). Indeed, research in developmental theories of writing suggest that what appear to be foreign-like features in ESL students’ compositions and attributed to cross-cultural transfer actually manifest the cognitive sequence of stages that all second-language writers must traverse between the first and second languages (p. 172).

Adopting a perspective similar to that of Leki (1991), Connor (2002), over a decade later, also highlights the most significant milestones in the history of contrastive rhetoric, shifting the focus to more recent developments in the field. One of the major tenets of contrastive rhetoric, as Connor points out, is that texts are not simply static products but

‘functional parts of dynamic cultural contexts’ (p. 493). In line with definitions framed in Kaplan’s (1966) groundbreaking paper, Connor captures the essence of contrastive rhetoric by asserting that languages and language usage are culturally imbedded phenomena, resulting in different rhetorical patterns in different cultures. She also remarks that prior experience with discourse strategies in one’s L1 may be transferred to L2, thus bringing about interference at a rhetorical level (p. 494). Regarding the concept of linguistic relativity (cf. Connor, 1996; Gumperz and Levinson, 1996), referring to its ever growing currency in modern linguistics and social studies, Connor (2002) suggests that there is a link between language and thought, a relationship she describes as based on influence rather than on control (p. 495). She quotes Ying’s (2000) dismissal of the Sapir-Whorf hypothesis of linguistic relativity as an offshoot of linguistic determinism and the recasting of Kaplan’s (1966) understanding of contrastive rhetoric as devoid of

75 any determinative views. Connor also goes on to report on the repercussions of Ying’s claim of Kaplan’s disassociation from the Sapir-Whorf hypothesis by disclosing some details of a dispute between Ying and Matsuda (2001), wherein the latter alludes to a personal communication with Kaplan revealing that, contrary to Ying’s (2000) allegation, Kaplan was affected and guided by three major influences, namely, by contrastive analysis, the Sapir-Whorf hypothesis and the then fledgling field of inquiry, composition and rhetoric.

After disambiguating the sometimes controversial circumstances of the inception of contrastive rhetoric, Connor (2002) continues with an overview of the research methodological and empirical orientations of the field. She underscores the initial hegemony of text analytical research methods and points to the weakness stemming from exclusive reliance on that research paradigm, i.e. decontextualised analyses of texts. However, the author makes sure to note that even at this early stage of contrastive analytical investigations, some researchers, such as Hinds (1987) ventured as far as to treat a research orientation based only on parameters of coherence and cohesion with a pinch of salt and promoted a cross-cultural comparative perspective. To foster a better understanding of the chain of shifts in empirical focus that shaped contrastive rhetoric during its first 30 years, Connor offers the following historical synthesis:

Contrastive studies of academic and professional genres and of the socialization into these genres of L2 writers were a natural development in L2 writing research.

Following the lead of L1 writing research and pedagogy, in which the 1970s were said to be the decade of the composing process and the 1980s the decade of social construction, empirical research on L2 writing in the 1990s became increasingly concerned with social and cultural processes in cross-cultural undergraduate writing groups and classes (Atkinson & Ramanathan, 1995; Carson & Nelson, 1994, 1996; Connor & Asenavage, 1994; Nelson & Carson, 1998), with the initiation and socialization processes that graduate students go through to become literate professionals in their graduate and professional discourse communities (Belcher, 1994; Casanave, 1995; Connor & Kramer, 1995; Connor & Mayberry, 1995; Prior, 1995; Swales, 1990), and, finally, with the processes and products of

76 L2 academics and professional writing in English as a second or foreign language for publication and other professional purposes (Belcher & Connor, 2001; Braine, 1998; Connor et al., 1995; Connor & Mauranen, 1999; Flowerdew, 1999; Gosden, 1992) (p. 497).

In a sense representing discontinuation of the scholarly tradition of contrastive rhetoric, the evolution and sundry ramifications of which have been presented in some detail so far, Donahue (2008) appears to have a less conventional take on the issue of cultural divergence and convergence in composition writing settings. Her cross-cultural analytical perspective, although not completely weaned off the empirical frameworks of contrastive rhetoric, is more heavily informed by the insights of discourse analysis and critical linguistics, functional linguistics and Bakhtinian dialogics (p. 319). Granting prominence to unit analysis, reprise modification and textual movement, Donahue underscores the demand to embed cross-cultural research of discourse in an empirical context which employs a ‘broader cross-cultural methodological base’ (p. 319). On the basis of her results obtained from a circumspect analysis of 250 post-secondary student essays in France and in the US, the author concludes that the institution, the type of assignment, students’ general academic performance and the background readings supporting preparation for the essay writing task could be seen more as tell-tale signs of particular discourse structures than cultural influences deriving from a particular national contexts.