Contrastive rhetoric

Contrastive rhetoric research began in the 1960s, started by the American applied linguist Robert Kaplan. Since that time, the area of study has had a significant impact on the teaching of writing in both English as a second language (ESL) and English as a foreign language (EFL) classes. Kaplan’s (1966) research pioneered the attention to cultural and linguistic differences in the writing of ESL students. This attention to writing was especially welcomed in the area of ESL instruction, as an emphasis on oral language skills had previously dominated ESL contexts in the United States.

Since 1966, when Kaplan’s original work on contrastive rhetoric appeared, and 1996, when Ulla Connor’s book on contrastive rhetoric was published, many new trends have appeared in research approaches and methods. The change has been affected by two major developments, namely an expansion of genres under consideration, and a move to emphasize the contexts of writing. First, there has been an increase in the types of written texts that are considered the purview of second language writing around the world. English for Academic Purposes (EAP) classes teach other types of writing besides the student essay required in college classes. Other important genres are the academic research article, research report, and grant proposal. Writing for professional purposes, such as business, is also now considered a legitimate type of second language writing and worthy of research and teaching.

In addition to the expansion of the genre, the field has moved to emphasize the social situation of writing. Today, writing is increasingly regarded as being socially situated; each situation may entail special consideration to audience, purposes, level of perfection, and correspondingly may require varying amounts of revision, collaboration, and attention to detail. The expectations and norms of discourse communities or communities of practice (cultural and disciplinary), of course, may shape these situational expectations and practices. Social construction of meaning as dynamic, socio-cognitive activities is a phrase used to describe this approach to texts. Instead of analyzing what texts mean, we want to understand how they construct meaning. Bazerman and Prior (2004, p. 6) pose three questions to guide the analysis of writing: “What does the text talk about?” “How do texts influence audiences?” and “How do texts come into being?” Thus, two major factors—the acknowledgment of more genres with specific textual requirements and increased awareness of the social contexts of writing—have motivated scholars contrastive rhetoric to adjust and supplement research approaches in their work.

It is unfortunate that some postmodern and critical pedagogy writers in the second language (L2) writing field, however, have begun referring to contrastive rhetoric as if it had been frozen in space. Over the years, the term contrastive rhetoric has gained a negative connotation. Understood by many as Kaplan’s original work, contrastive rhetoric is often characterized as static, and is linked to contrastive analysis, a movement associated with structural linguistics and behavioralism. Many of the contributions made to contrastive rhetoric in the past 30 years have been ignored. In a 2002 article, Connor attempted to address these recent criticisms and to offer new directions for a viable contrastive rhetoric. In addressing the critiques, she aimed to draw attention to the broad scope of contrastive rhetoric and determined that a new term would better encompass the essence of contrastive rhetoric in its current state. To distinguish between the often-quoted “static” model and the new advances that have been made, Connor suggests it may be useful to begin using the term intercultural rhetoric instead of contrastive rhetoric to refer to the current models of cross-cultural research.

The term intercultural rhetoric better describes the broadening trends of writing across languages and cultures. It preserves the traditional approaches that use text analysis, genre analysis, and corpus analysis, yet also introduces ethnographic approaches that examine language in interactions. Furthermore, it connotes the analysis of texts that allows for dynamic definitions of culture and the inclusion of smaller cultures (e.g., disciplinary, classroom) in the analysis.

Further Reading

Bazerman, C., & Prior, P. (Eds.). (2004). What writing does and how it does it: An introduction to analyzing texts and textual practices. Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.

Connor, U. (1996). Contrastive rhetoric: Cross-cultural aspects of second-language writing. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press.

Connor, U. (2002). New directions in contrastive rhetoric. TESOL Quarterly 36: 493-510.

Connor, U. (2004). Introduction. Journal of English for Academic Purposes 3: 271-276.

Connor, U. (2004). Intercultural rhetoric research: Beyond texts. Journal of English for Academic Purposes 3: 291-304.

ETIC (1975). English for academic study: Problems and perspectives. ETIC Occasional Paper. London: The British Council.

Jordan, R. (1997). English for academic purposes: A guide and resource book for teachers. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press.

Kaplan, R. (1966). Cultural thought patterns in intercultural education. Language Learning 16(1): 1-20.