Reading response

Anonymous
timer Asked: Mar 8th, 2019
account_balance_wallet $10

Question Description

answer those two questions about 60-100 words each. read the uploaded files to answer both questions.



1-

How do Bazerman's ideas about intertextuality help us understand any connections between "new Directions" and "Subversive Complicity"?


2- What rhetorical role do you think V's opening anecdote serves, particularly with regard to an audience to his peers?

Unformatted Attachment Preview

Teachers of English to Speakers of Other Languages, Inc. (TESOL) New Directions in Contrastive Rhetoric Author(s): Ulla Connor Source: TESOL Quarterly, Vol. 36, No. 4 (Winter, 2002), pp. 493-510 Published by: Teachers of English to Speakers of Other Languages, Inc. (TESOL) Stable URL: https://www.jstor.org/stable/3588238 Accessed: 08-03-2019 18:07 UTC JSTOR is a not-for-profit service that helps scholars, researchers, and students discover, use, and build upon a wide range of content in a trusted digital archive. We use information technology and tools to increase productivity and facilitate new forms of scholarship. For more information about JSTOR, please contact support@jstor.org. Your use of the JSTOR archive indicates your acceptance of the Terms & Conditions of Use, available at https://about.jstor.org/terms Teachers of English to Speakers of Other Languages, Inc. (TESOL) is collaborating with JSTOR to digitize, preserve and extend access to TESOL Quarterly This content downloaded from 69.166.46.154 on Fri, 08 Mar 2019 18:07:20 UTC All use subject to https://about.jstor.org/terms New Directions in Contrastive Rhetoric ULLA CONNOR Indiana University in Indianapolis Indianapolis, Indiana, United States Contrastive rhetoric examines differences and similarities in w across cultures. Although mainly concerned with student essay in its first 30 years, the area of study today contributes to kn about preferred patterns of writing in many English for purposes situations. This article discusses some of the new d contrastive rhetoric has taken. Following a brief review of the methods, and accomplishments of research in contrastive r during the past 30 years, the article examines how contrastive has been pursued with varying aims and methods in a variet situations involving academic and professional writing. Rece cisms of contrastive rhetoric and their effects on changing dir are then surveyed. C ontrastive rhetoric examines differences and similarities in ESL and EFL writing across languages and cultures as well as across such different contexts as education and commerce. Hence, it considers texts not merely as static products but as functional parts of dynamic cultural contexts. Although largely restricted throughout much of its first 30 years to a fairly rigid form, student essay writing, the field today contributes to knowledge about preferred patterns of writing in many English for specific purposes situations. Undeniably, it has had an appreciable impact on the understanding of cultural differences in writing, and it has had, and will continue to have, an effect on the teaching of ESL and EFL writing. Despite many developments in contrastive rhetoric in the past 30 years and its contribution to ESL and EFL teaching, its focus on the study of contrast or difference has laid the area open to criticism. In two 1997 issues of TESOL Quarterly, three papers (Scollon, 1997; Spack, 1997; Zamel, 1997) criticized contrastive rhetoric for an alleged insensitivity to cultural differences. In other issues, Kubota (1999, 2001) has been critical of perceptions of a cultural dichotomy between East and West and the alleged resulting promotion of the superiority of Western writing. Such criticism stems in part from critics' lack of understanding TESOL QUARTERLY Vol. 36, No. 4, Winter 2002 493 This content downloaded from 69.166.46.154 on Fri, 08 Mar 2019 18:07:20 UTC All use subject to https://about.jstor.org/terms about current perspectives in contrastive rhetoric and changes that have taken place in this area in the past decade. Hence, instead of viewing the criticisms from an adversarial perspective (Belcher, 1997), I would like to see them as suggesting the need to articulate a current framework for contrastive rhetoric, especially regarding changing definitions of culture (Atkinson, 1999, Mauranen, 2001). This article addresses that need by surveying some new directions of contrastive rhetoric, particularly in view of some of its criticisms. As background, I briefly summarize the goals, methods, and major accomplishments of research in contrastive rhetoric during the past 30 years. The area of study has expanded from its early beginnings as the analysis of paragraph organization in ESL student essay writing (Kaplan, 1966) to an interdisciplinary area of applied linguistics incorporating theoretical perspectives from both linguistics and rhetoric (Connor, 1996). I then address criticisms of contrastive rhetoric and their relation to changing directions in the field. These new directions involve innovative views of culture, literacy, and critical pedagogy and have a major impact o research agenda of contrastive rhetoric. A BRIEF HISTORY OF CONTRASTIVE RHETORIC Early History Initiated 30 years ago in applied linguistics by Robert Kap tive rhetoric is premised on the insight that, to the degree and writing are cultural phenomena, different cultures h rhetorical tendencies. Furthermore, the linguistic patterns cal conventions of the L1 often transfer to writing in ESL interference. It is important to distinguish this concern fr interference at the level of syntax and phonology. In contra the interference manifests itself in the writer's choice of rhetorical strategies and content. Kaplan's (1966) pioneering study analyzed the organization of p graphs in ESL student essays and identified five types of parag development, each reflecting distinctive rhetorical tendencies. K claimed that Anglo-European expository essays are developed line whereas essays in Semitic languages use parallel coordinate claus those in Oriental languages prefer an indirect approach, coming to point in the end; and those in Romance languages and in Rus include material that, from a linear point of view, is irrelevant. Kaplan's early contrastive rhetoric was criticized for seeming to pr lege the writing of native English speakers. It seemed as well to dism 494 TESOL QUARTERLY This content downloaded from 69.166.46.154 on Fri, 08 Mar 2019 18:07:20 UTC All use subject to https://about.jstor.org/terms linguistic and cultural differences in writing among closely related languages. Kaplan himself (Connor & Kaplan, 1987) has referred to his early position as a notion. He has also noted the underdeveloped nature of written text analysis at the time of his 1966 paper, which limited his own analysis of the sample student writing, and, significantly, he has further acknowledged the concept of linguistic relativity as a primary influence. In discussing early contrastive rhetoric (Connor, 1996), I claimed that "the Sapir-Whorf hypothesis of linguistic relativity is basic to contrastive rhetoric because it suggests that different languages affect perception and thought in different ways" (p. 10). This weak version of the hypothesis (i.e., that language influences thought), rather than the once dominant strong version (i.e., that language controls thought and perception), is regaining respectability in linguistics, psychology, and composition studies, resulting in a renewed interest in the study of cultural differences (Gumperz & Levinson, 1996). In a recent article devoted to the exploration of the origins of contrastive rhetoric, Ying (2000) argues that "the claim that the origin of contrastive rhetoric lies in the Sapir-Whorf hypothesis is untenable because the latter is actually rooted in German ideas on linguistic determinism" (p. 260); and these ideas, according to Ying, are incompatible with Kaplan's (1966) view of rhetoric and culture. Ying claims that Kaplan did not view language and rhetoric as determinative of thought patterns but that he merely argued that language and rhetoric evolve out of a culture. According to Ying, Hymes's (1962) ethnography of communication can be seen as "an important historical antecedent for contrastive rhetoric" (p. 265); in Hymes's system, the framework is communica- tion, not language, and is important in studying the patterned use of language, often across cultures. Matsuda's (2001) response to Ying (2000) includes a personal communication from Kaplan (March 11, 2001) in which Kaplan admits not having been influenced by Hymes's work at the time of the writing but having been very much influenced by the Sapir-Whorf hypothesis. Matsuda concludes that the origin of contrastive rhetoric was a result of Kaplan's effort to synthesize at least three different intellectual traditions: contrastive analysis, the Sapir-Whorf hypothesis, and the emerging field of composition and rhetoric, especially Christensen's (1963) generative rhetoric of the paragraph. The latter influence encouraged Kaplan to approach contrastive analysis at the paragraph level. No matter what its origin, Kaplan's (1966) earlier model, which was concerned with paragraph organization, was useful in accounting for cultural differences in essays written by college students for academic purposes. It also introduced the U.S. linguistic world to a real, if basic, insight: Writing is culturally influenced in interesting and complex ways. Nevertheless, the model was not designed to describe writing for NEW DIRECTIONS IN CONTRASTIVE RHETORIC 495 This content downloaded from 69.166.46.154 on Fri, 08 Mar 2019 18:07:20 UTC All use subject to https://about.jstor.org/terms academic and professional purposes. Nor was it intended to describe composing processes across cultures. Research Methods In its early years, contrastive rhetoric was heavily based on linguistic and linguistic text analysis. In the 1980s, contrastive rh cians included linguistic text analysis as a tool to describe the c tions of writing in English and to provide analytical techniqu which to compare writing in students' Li and L2. Edited volumes i (Connor & Kaplan), 1988 (Purves), and 1990 (Connor &Johns) ty included several chapters with a text analytic emphasis, focusin cially on methods of analyzing cohesion, coherence, and the d superstructure of texts. A text analytic approach was also adopted large international projects of student writing as the Intern Education Achievement (IEA) study and the Nordtext project. study compared high school students' writing in their mother ton three different grade levels in 14 different countries (Purves, 198 Nordtext project (Enkvist, 1985; Evensen, 1986) involved linguists Nordic countries whose interest was in EFL writing. Each proj designed to create useful models for instructional practice, and ea heavily text based. In summing up the research paradigm of the 1 is fair to say that more or less decontextualized text analytic characterized the field of study. Despite the reliance on the textual analysis of cohesion and cohe patterns in much contrastive rhetorical research, however, some c tive rhetoric researchers had early on questioned the adequacy of text-based analyses as a basis for conclusions that extend beyo realm of textual features. For example, Hinds (1987) proposed phenomenon for analysis: the distribution of responsibility b readers and writers; that is, the amount of effort writers expend t texts cohere through transitions and other uses of metatext. Thus referred to Japanese texts as reader responsible, as opposed to texts writer responsible. And much of my own work on contrastive rhetoric 1980s involved building a comprehensive model of texts-o integrated rhetorical analysis with linguistically oriented analy example, in a cross-cultural study of writing that compared argum tive writing in students' essays from three English-speaking coun Lauer and I (Connor & Lauer, 1985, 1988) developed a lingu rhetorical system that helped quantify both linguistic features in (e.g., cohesion, coherence, and discourse organization) and rh features (including the three classical persuasive appeals-logos, ethos-and Toulmin's 1958 argument model of claim, data, and war 496 TESOL QUARTERLY This content downloaded from 69.166.46.154 on Fri, 08 Mar 2019 18:07:20 UTC All use subject to https://about.jstor.org/terms 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 Li 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 gradu- ate 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 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). Major Findings of the Past 30 Years The past 30-plus years have seen significant changes as contrastive rhetoric has benefited from insights drawn from four domains: text linguistics, the analysis of writing as a cultural and educational activity, classroom-based studies of writing, and contrastive genre-specific studies (see Table 1 for sample studies). The genres involved include journal articles, business reports, letters of application, grant proposals, and editorials. Several published papers (e.g., Connor, in press) describe studies in these domains. What major findings in 30 years of contrastive rhetoric research s to the current debates about cultural differences and L2 writing? Firs groups engage in a variety of types of writing, whereas preferred patt of writing are genre dependent. Another finding is that readers' exp tations determine what is perceived as coherent, straightforward writ Thus, Kaplan's (1966) diagram of the linear argument preferred native English speakers may well represent what such speakers vi coherent, though speakers of other languages may disagree, and a texts may or may not reflect that view. NEW DIRECTIONS IN CONTRASTIVE RHETORIC 497 This content downloaded from 69.166.46.154 on Fri, 08 Mar 2019 18:07:20 UTC All use subject to https://about.jstor.org/terms TABLE 1 Sample Contrastive Studies in Four Domains of Investigation Domain Purpose Examples Contrastive text Examine, compare, and Clyne (1987); Connor & linguistic studies contrast how texts are formed Kaplan (1987); Eggington and interpreted in different (1987); Hinds (1983, 1987, languages and cultures using 1990) methods of written discourse analysis Studies of writing as Investigate literacy Carson (1992); Purves (1988) cultural and development on L1 language educational activity and culture and examine effects on the development of L2 literacy Classroom-based Examine cross-cultural Allaei & Connor (1990); contrastive studies patterns in process writing, Goldstein & Conrad (1990); collaborative revisions, and Hull, Rose, Fraser, & student-teacher conferences Castellano (1991); Nelson & Murphy (1992) Genre-specific Are applied to academic and Bhatia (1993); Connor, Davis, investigations professional writing & De Rycker (1995); Jenkins & Hinds (1987); Mauranen (1993); Swales (1990); Tirkkonen-Condit (1996); Ventola & Mauranen (1991) RECENT RESEARCH IN ACADEMIC AND PROFESSIONAL WRITING ACROSS CULTURES Particularly informative for current discussion of differe from research in academic and professional writing origina the Anglo-American context. According to Atkinson (200 The contrastive rhetoric hypothesis has held perhaps its greate those in nonnative-English-speaking contexts abroad, forced as look EFL writing in the eye to try to understand why it at lea looks "different"-often subtly out of sync with that one might "native" perspective. (p. 319) Enkvist, in his 1997 article "Why We Need Contrastive Rhe mends that contrastive rhetoric be pursued according to and methods within different institutions at universities and in EFL situations. In fact, this is what many Finnish university programs o training in foreign language skills do. Finnish universities have la departments that teach language, literature, linguistic and literary 498 TESOL QUARTERLY This content downloaded from 69.166.46.154 on Fri, 08 Mar 2019 18:07:20 UTC All use subject to https://about.jstor.org/terms and applied linguistics. Additionally, however, in the past 25 years Finnish universities have operated language centers that teach languages for specific purposes as well as providing translation and editorial services. Other types of educational institutions interested in contrastive rhetoric include departments of business and intercultural communication. The review that follows is not intended to be exhaustive; its examples highlight some major directions contrastive rhetoric research relevant to academic and professional setting has been taking in Europe, the Middle East, and Asia. Europe In their research, which studies cultural differences between the writing of Finnish- and English-speaking researchers in Finland, Ventola and Mauranen (1991) have shown the value of text analysis in a contrastive framework. They investigated the revising practices native English speakers used with Finnish scientists' articles written in English and compared the writing of Finnish scientists with the writing of native-English-speaking scientists, finding that Finnish writers used connectors less frequently and in a less varied fashion than native-English-speaking writers did. The Finnish writers had difficulty using the article system appropriately, and there were differences in thematic progression. Moreover, Mauranen (1993) found that Finnish writers wrote less text about text, or metatext, and that they placed their main point later in the text than native English speakers did. My colleagues and I (Connor et al., 1995) found that Finnish writers had the same difficulties when writing grant proposals. The studies by Ventola and Mauranen (1991) and Connor et al. (1995) cited above, and the study by Moreno (1998) on cross-cultural differences in premise-conclusion sequences in Spanish and English research articles, show that the contrastive rhetoric framework, originally developed for ESL settings in the United States, can be helpful in analyzing and teaching EFL writing in academic and professional contexts. Moreover, researchers and teachers in EFL situations other than professional ones are also finding the contrastive rhetoric framework useful for a variety of L2 contexts. Thus, a great many EnglishPolish contrastive studies have appeared in the past few years in journals such as Text and Journal of Pragmatics. For example, Duszak (1994) analyzed research article introductions in Polish and English academic journals, and Golebiowski's (1998) study dealt with psychology journal writing, finding many textual and stylistic differences. These findings showed that the English texts used more direct, assertive, and positive positions. NEW DIRECTIONS IN CONTRASTIVE RHETORIC 499 This content downloaded from 69.166.46.154 on Fri, 08 Mar 2019 18:07:20 UTC All use subject to https://about.jstor.org/terms Middle East Research in contrastive rhetoric is not exclusively European American. In addition to the publication of numerous empirical s of Arabic-English contrasts, Hatim (1997) and Hottel-Burkhart ( have produced contributions to contrastive rhetoric theory. H whose disciplinary interest is translation studies, made a major stud Arabic-English discourse contrasts, dealing with the typology of mentation and its implication for c ...
Purchase answer to see full attachment

Tutor Answer

AntiqueTutorNatal
School: Carnegie Mellon University

Attached.

Outline
Introduction
Body
Conclusion
References


Course title
Student name
Institution affiliation

1
Question 1
According to Bazerman, intertextuality implies that the originality and crafts of writers depend
on how they ...

flag Report DMCA
Review

Anonymous
Excellent job

Similar Questions
Hot Questions
Related Tags
Study Guides

Brown University





1271 Tutors

California Institute of Technology




2131 Tutors

Carnegie Mellon University




982 Tutors

Columbia University





1256 Tutors

Dartmouth University





2113 Tutors

Emory University





2279 Tutors

Harvard University





599 Tutors

Massachusetts Institute of Technology



2319 Tutors

New York University





1645 Tutors

Notre Dam University





1911 Tutors

Oklahoma University





2122 Tutors

Pennsylvania State University





932 Tutors

Princeton University





1211 Tutors

Stanford University





983 Tutors

University of California





1282 Tutors

Oxford University





123 Tutors

Yale University





2325 Tutors