Contrastive Rhetoric Reaching to intercultural rhetoric

314 Pages·2008·4.31 MB·English

by  Ulla Connor, Ed Nagelhout, William Rozycki

Introduction
*UllaConnor,EdNagelhout,*WilliamRozycki
*IndianaUniversity-PurdueUniversityIndianapolis/UniversityofNevada,
LasVegas
Copyright 2008. John Benjamins Publishing Co.All rights reserved. May not be reproduced in any form without permission from the publisher, except fair uses permitted under U.S. or applicable copyright law. EAABNcS:cC oO2u 2nP9tu7:b1 l2ri us;gh .iRmnoaciia(httCThckdaacgzinmeiE ynoaorrieeo:c.oxSneesnFnn kenupntmneihtaesB,oLtvurtssaLSacoo stesuti,oWt)noarcpiooxannokintcacit lfcipnntoonClcqtsocls(oioclEiddiktatwlaeThsiu2einuodnnnilmaipesnnie v0netrnlengiiLscVtdettrieegnmtn0t.h”emut,cgti,aahtlie0oelo sorctaah–irnnsipnNei.xohndos)atn aastvegge(gThahaotinnne,telwEegtavuacemBlUftt.tiimatsuanShencrtfomarahttCoeioenanhiOuipircsgranreevhtstsdtreadiiho,lheyehattmetcls e,tsiisiaetEt-eAeeRvtmsulcn)d(ttrE:npdhit ,eeEhabenceot- ogfnhpgen CuhsytarreSSgbrpogluaaoehoerntdseyLtiutleinaiasccaaefeeimsnoeo)itrsirotrrtttgeasow.mshte,hodneecutd eco-cKrai UKsaohtirttholcitsfiffih.roasinlnccopaoaotiby ancendn4.ipbpefchfewo/;Pnodttiag8 ulolswygoffrcr/Cnaguakyrp2otlaaaconenor0ntiitnrhuiso2tnnlutriinrpnf2r.ctietntaleg aalinitihKoams1stwndsnwnnrsb:tugnecst3iaesfafgcgori4viosoeroogurtswp eveiietnshrsP tsptrurmoeshMRlt.eiiatma haahvanisfweveThsirnntenEittegexanghhhaoeth’eddcstse rSederRiasuiaseoitLrIchs(hstptnnwthsJ nnan1tokeK:heeoe(abheS hil9d4sriUREnatvcdnnrly.dNeeio60wtloiIaeoSceldsVcaip6ratirayEhLffrnrtimleieRi)hnsdhEeclinSnneariyatIg,agcratiehnrT ictasgeydofuEtrntwteahgttoIohhslosnnT uapigeplrseie ItvreaiagnstcGncdealrsieRteeosgceeectgOeaeiirhxt-xdNrtftooesacrvEIcwspitoss,NumaehlsniisaGloengsoftnrsaEt,hgpscmurtNupieguwratasetiaaortddailnes.earhlsotfihrfFe rltstrttiWeiyRneieesoehonphEnthmys.teiredmrdata-FttnohntKseeoaserdohLbarrgprrisistiaaoilmgleyeeicalceepilwcfound“onaaattuilnrfsoEhiornarlkLettialEieknlehgnapiattlaafnahsoFiirntegoaAnnvn(oeogaLot“rilpeiaggdffgimdtfiks)n”f.stetuuc,iecht3hEEsffrhpEeoeaarAtao1tneeSSraFhenngugna9strrisLLddLeeees-------)t,
2 UllaConnor,EdNagelhout,WilliamRozycki
successfulapplicationformorethanfortyyears,ithasalso,especiallyinrecent
years,beenacontestedareaofstudy.
Critiques of contrastive rhetoric
OneofthefirstcriticswasthetextlinguistJohnHinds(1983),whopointedout
thatinsteadofexaminingonlysecondlanguagewritingoflearners,weneedto
examinefirstlanguageacquisitionofthesestudents.HindswascriticalofKaplan’s
ethnocentricviewofrepresentingEnglishproseasalinearline.Additionally,
Kaplan’sgroupingsoflanguagesinto“Oriental,”“Semitic,”and“Romance”drew
criticism.
Morerecently,severalpostmodernscholarshavechallengedcontrastiverhet-
oricasessentializingwritersandprivilegingEnglishwriting.Intwo1997issuesof
TESOLQuarterly,threearticles(Scollon1997;Spack1997;Zamel1997)criticized
contrastiverhetoricforanallegedinsensitivitytoculturaldifferences.Inotheris-
sues,Kubota(1999,2001)hasbeencriticalofperceptionsofaculturaldichotomy
betweenEastandWestandtheallegedresultingpromotionofthesuperiorityof
Westernwriting.
Canagarajah(2002)offeredanothercriticalperspectiveoncontrastiverheto-
ric:
ThoughCRisarareresearchandpedagogicaltraditionindigenoustoESLwith
considerablevalueforteachers,itmustdevelopmorecomplextypesofexplana-
tionfortextualdifferenceiftheschoolistoenjoycontinuedusefulness.Though
differenceisalwaysgoingtobethereinwriting,andthoughmuchofitmay
derivefromculture,thewaysinwhichthisinfluencetakesplacecanbeposi-
tiveornegative,enablingaswellaslimiting,andteachershavetobeawareofall
thesepossibilitieswhentheyteachstudentwriting.Moreimportantly,teachers
mustkeepinmindthatnooneneedstobeheldhostagebylanguageandculture;
studentscanbetaughttonegotiateconflictingrhetoricalstructurestotheirad-
vantage. (p.68)
Mostrecently,KubotaandLehner(2004)criticizedcontrastiverhetoricfordis-
couragingactivenegotiationofmultiplerhetoricsinthewritingclassroom,and
calledfor“criticalcontrastiverhetoric.”
EBSCOhost - printed on 4/8/2022 1:34 PM via RIJKSUNIVERSITEIT GRONINGEN. All use subject to https://www.ebsco.com/terms-of-use
 Introduction 3
New directions in contrastive rhetoric research
Aspointedout(Connor2005),itisunfortunatethatthesecriticshavebegunre-
ferringtocontrastiverhetoricasifithadbeenfrozeninspace.Understoodby
manyasKaplan’soriginalwork(1966),contrastiverhetoricisoftencharacterized
asstaticandlinkedtocontrastiveanalysis,amovementassociatedwithstructural
linguisticsandbehavioralism.However,since1966,whenKaplan’soriginalwork
oncontrastiverhetoricappeared,and1996,whenConnor’sbookoncontrastive
rhetoricwaspublished,manynewtrendshaveappearedinresearchandmethods.
Kaplanhimselfhascontinuedasatheoristforcontrastiverhetoric(2000,2005).
Changeshavebeenaffectedbytwomajordevelopments.First,therehasbeenan
increaseinthetypesofwrittentextsthatareconsideredthepurviewofsecond
languagewritingaroundtheworld.ESLandEFLclassesteachothertypesofwrit-
ingbesidesthestudentessayrequiredincollegeclasses.Otherimportantgenres
aretheacademicresearcharticle,researchreport,andgrantproposal.Writingfor
professionalpurposes,suchasbusiness,isnowconsideredalegitimatetypeof
secondlanguagewritingandworthyofresearchandteaching.
Second,inadditiontotheexpansionofthegenre,thefieldhasmovedto
emphasizethesocialsituationofwriting.Today,writingisincreasinglyregarded
associallysituated;eachsituationmayentailspecialconsiderationtoaudience,
topurposes,andtolevelofperfection,andcorrespondinglymayrequirevarying
amountsofrevision,collaboration,andattentiontodetail.Theexpectationsand
normsofdiscoursecommunitiesorcommunitiesofpractice(culturalanddisci-
plinary),ofcourse,mayshapethesesituationalexpectationsandpractices.Social
constructionofmeaningasdynamic,sociocognitiveactivitiesbestdescribesthis
approachtotexts.Insteadofanalyzingwhattextsmean,wewanttounderstand
howtheyconstructmeaning.BazermanandPrior(2004:6)posethreequestions
toguidetheanalysisofwriting:“Whatdoesthetexttalkabout?Howdotexts
influenceaudiences?Andhowdotextscomeintobeing?”Thus,twomajorrea-
sons–theacknowledgmentofmoregenreswithspecifictextualrequirements
andthesocialcontextsofwriting–havemotivatedscholarsofcontrastiverheto-
rictoadjustandsupplementresearchapproachesintheirwork.
InaspecialissueoncontrastiverhetoricinJournalofEnglishforAcademic
Purposes(2004),Connorreviewedresearchmethodologiesusedintheexpanded
definitionofcontrastiverhetoric.Textuallinguisticanalyseshaveasharpenedfo-
cusinthespecificgenrecharacteristicsofthemanykindsofwritingstudiedand
taughtintoday’swritingcontexts.Ontheonehand,corpus-basedstudiesrelyon
new,sophisticatedcorpuslinguisticsquantitativeanalyses.Therigorintroduced
bycorpuslinguisticsintodesign,datacollection,andanalysisisawelcomedstan-
EBSCOhost - printed on 4/8/2022 1:34 PM via RIJKSUNIVERSITEIT GRONINGEN. All use subject to https://www.ebsco.com/terms-of-use
4 UllaConnor,EdNagelhout,WilliamRozycki
dard.Ontheotherhand,ethnographicapproacheshavegainedimportancebe-
causeoftheincreasingawarenessofthesocialnatureofwriting.
Alreadyin2002,Connoraddressedrecentcriticismandofferednewdirec-
tionsforaviablecontrastiverhetoric.Inaddressingthecritiques,Connoraimed
todrawattentiontothebroadscopeofcontrastiverhetoricanddeterminedthat
anewtermwouldbetterencompasstheessenceofcontrastiverhetoricinitscur-
rentstate.Todistinguishbetweentheoften-quoted“static”modelandthenew
advancesthathavebeenmade,itmaybeusefultobeginusingthetermintercul-
turalrhetorictorefertothecurrentdynamicmodelsofcross-culturalresearch.
Thefieldiscurrentlydynamicandexploratory,extendingtonewgenres,widening
contextualresearchthroughhistoricalandethnographicinquiry,refiningmeth-
odology,utilizingelectroniccorporaoftexts,goingbeyondlinguisticpatternsto
thestudyofotherdistinctivedifferencesinwriting,andexploringcontrastseven
beyondwriting,suchasthedifferencesinWebusebetweenspeakersofdifferent
languages.
Approaches highlighted in this volume
Allofthesenewapproaches–genreanalysis,corpusanalysis,qualitativehistori-
calandethnographicapproaches,andextensiontoareasbeyondwriting–are
presentedinthechaptersinthisvolume.Thisbookshowcasesagreatnumber
ofempiricalstudiesofcontrastiveandinterculturalrhetoricinvolvingmanyfirst
languagesandwritinggenres.Thetwoothermajorgoalsofthevolumeare(1)to
furtherdevelopthetheoreticalbaseofcontrastiverhetoricand(2)toevaluateits
applicationsforthewritingclassroom.Theoverridinggoalofthisvolumeisto
takecontrastiverhetorictothefuture,toreachtointerculturalrhetoric.
Thecollectionisdividedintofoursections.SectionI–CurrentStateofCon-
trastiveRhetoric–setsthetonefortheentirecollection.XiaomingLioffersan
idealbeginningforthecollectionbytracingrecentattacksoncontrastiverhetoric
withacriticaleye.Inarguingforpracticalandpedagogicalaspectsofcontras-
tiverhetoric,especiallythoseexemplifiedprimarilybyitsdemonstrablelinguistic
nature,shebelievesaturntocultural/criticalstudiesisneitheraviablealterna-
tivenorthemostappropriatedirectionforthistypeofwork.Instead,tocoun-
terideologicalattacks,shewantstoexpandthenotionofcontrastiverhetoric.
“Intercultural”rhetoricshouldfocuson/buildonappliedlinguisticresearchand
discourseanalysisthatpromotes“procedural”rhetoricascounterpointtono-
tionsofdominantdiscourses.Andforthiscollection,thefirstkeypointisLi’s
callforamovefromcontrastiverhetorictointerculturalrhetoric.AnaMoreno
completesSectionIbyofferingasecondkeypointforthiscollection:theneed
EBSCOhost - printed on 4/8/2022 1:34 PM via RIJKSUNIVERSITEIT GRONINGEN. All use subject to https://www.ebsco.com/terms-of-use
 Introduction 5
forcontinuedvalidandrigorousresearchincross-culturalstudies.Sheargues
forthecontinueduseofcorporaandmakesthecasefortextsasexemplarsof
situatedgenres.Aninterculturalrhetoricapproachhighlightstheverysituated-
nessofagivengenre,andonlyrigorousstudiescandetermineifgenresaretruly
comparableacrosscultures.Likewise,aninterculturalrhetoricapproachshould
alsostatisticallycontrolforrelevantcontextualfeatures(especiallyforthosethat
aresimilaracrosscultures)inordertomakereliableclaimsabouttheeffectof
cultureontextualconstructions.Byestablishingthemovementfromcontrastive
rhetorictointerculturalrhetoricandcallingforcontinuedrigorousresearchin
cross-culturalstudies,SectionIestablishesapowerfulframeworkfortherestof
thecollection.
SectionII–ContrastiveCorpusStudiesinSpecificGenres–buildsonSec-
tionIbyofferingarangeofissuesandarangeofgenresthatlegitimatelyfallun-
derthepurviewofinterculturalrhetoricalstudies.AnnelieÄdel’sexaminationof
metadiscourseinargumentativewritingleadsthissection.Herstudyusesthree
differentcorporatoanalyzebothquantitativeandqualitativedifferencesbetween
learnersandnativespeakersandbetweenBritishandAmericanspeakers.Ädel
determinedfourfactors–genrecomparability,culturalconventions,register
awareness,andgenerallearnerstrategies–andcallsforfuturestudiestoclarify
thesefactorsaslegitimateandtoevaluatetheirrelativeimpactinothercross-cul-
turalsituations.Moreimportantly,sheposesimportantquestionsforL2teaching
thatarosefromherwork:Whataregoodmodels?Howdoconventionsinthe
English-speakingworlddiffer?Whatarecross-culturaldifferencesinconventions
formetadiscourse?
HaiyingFengperformsagenreanalysisofrhetoricalmovesfromninesuc-
cessfulChineseresearchgrantproposals.Thecontextualfactorsinclude“face,”
networking,researchtraditions,sociopoliticalstructure,andeconomiccondi-
tions,butshemakesastrongcasethatdifferencesshouldnotbeseenassimply
cultural;instead,Fengarguesanextremelyimportantpoint:thatthesefactors
maybeattributabletoalocalcontextspecifictoaparticulargenre.Cultureisboth
awide-ranging–yetspecific–consideration.
MariaLoukianenkoWolfeexaminesRussianandEnglishbusinesscorre-
spondenceusingamethodologicalframeworkbasedonelementsfromHofst-
ede’stheoryofculturaldimensions:power,distance,uncertaintyavoidance,and
individualism/collectivism.Whileshetestedonlylimiteddata,shealsomakes
astrongcaseforlocalconsiderationsandarguesthatstudentswhounderstand
culturalmechanismsmaybeabletoanalyzerhetoricalchoicesinparticularinter-
culturalwritingsituationsmoreeffectively.
Chin-SookPakandRebecaAcevedousefivecorporatoexaminevarietiesof
Spanishinnewspapereditorials.Theylookedatarangeofstylisticandrhetorical
EBSCOhost - printed on 4/8/2022 1:34 PM via RIJKSUNIVERSITEIT GRONINGEN. All use subject to https://www.ebsco.com/terms-of-use
6 UllaConnor,EdNagelhout,WilliamRozycki
featuresincomparinglocalnewspaperslikeElDiario(inNewYorkCity)andLa
Opinión(inLosAngeles)withmajornewspaperssuchastheNewYorkTimes,El
País(Madrid),andElUniversal(MexicoCity).Theydemonstrateregionaldif-
ferencesinallfivepapersandcallforfutureresearchtodescribepluricentrality
ofculturesandhowpersuasionisconstructedinspecificcontexts.Intercultural
rhetoriciscertainlymorethancontrastingdominantdiscourses.
LorenaSuárezandAnaMorenofocusontheacademicjournalbookreview
aswritteninSpanishandinEnglish.Whiletheyonlyhaveasmallsample(20
each),theyofferabetterdefinition,aswellasarefinement,ofthegenreofthe
academicbookreview,especiallyintermsofrhetoricalstructure.Theyargue,in
particular,fortheinfluenceofspecificculturalpreferences,suchasevidencethat
Spanishauthorsusedescriptivemovesandmoresympatheticevaluations.Suárez
andMorenocallforagreaterexaminationofwritingculturesinordertoexplain
possiblesourcesforthesetypesofdifferences.WeiWangexaminesnewspaper
commentariesonterrorisminbothChinaandAustralia.Hisfindingsshowclear
differencesinuseoffact(Chinese)andopinion(Australian);genericparticipants
(Chinese)andspecificparticipants(Australian);andtheuseof“I”(Australian)
andnoauthorialpresence(Chinese).Whilehemakessomebroadculturalclaims,
therealstrengthofthisworkishiscallfortheuseofavarietyofanalyticalframe-
workstoofferdifferentperspectivesandproduceamorethoroughpictureofpar-
ticularrhetoricalsituations.
SectionIII–ContrastiveRhetoricandtheTeachingofESL/EFLWriting–fo-
cusesonthepedagogicalconcernstraditionallyassociatedwithcontrastiverheto-
ric.Thissection,however,expandsthediscussionininterestingwaysbyusinga
varietyofmethods.VirginiaLoCastrobeginsthesectionwithanethnographic
studyofaMexicanstudent’suniversitywritinginbothL1(Spanish)andL2(Eng-
lish).Whileshedoessometraditionalanalysisofpunctuationmarkers,thebeauty
ofthisstudyisthewayLoCastroplacesthewritinginthelargereducationalen-
vironment:classroom,textbook,teacher,universityculture,etc.Herpointisthat
educationisnotanacontextualactivity,andsoourresearchneedstoaccount
forthelargerEFLcontext,especiallywhenwestudystudentwriting.Inasimilar
vein,KaraMcBrideexaminesEFLinternetusersinChile.Shealsocreatesanun-
derstandingofthelargercontextualnatureofInternetresearchbystudents.Her
useofbothcontrastiverhetoricandschematheoryhelpsMcBrideargueeffec-
tivelyforteacherstodescribethevisualdesignofWebsitesmorecompletelyand
todevelopmoreeffectivestrategiesforstudentstodevelopsuccessfulkeyword
searches.Sheconcludeswithacallforresearcherstoexpandtraditionalnotions
ofschematabuildingforreadingandwritinginordertoapplyittothewaysthat
experiencedInternetusersbuildschemataforconductingresearchonline.
EBSCOhost - printed on 4/8/2022 1:34 PM via RIJKSUNIVERSITEIT GRONINGEN. All use subject to https://www.ebsco.com/terms-of-use
 Introduction 7
XiaoyeYouoffersahistoricalexaminationofthemewritinginChineseedu-
cation.Theimportanceofthemesisevidentinthemovementoftopicsovertime
fromneo-Confuciantosocialistissues.Youfoundthatthemecarriesweightin
scoringthatisequivalenttotextualorganization;moreimportantly,hefound
thatsuccessfulacademicwritingmeantthatthemeisnecessarilyalignedwiththe
dominantideologyand,infact,dictatesthelayoutofthetextualstructure.His
researchshowsthetrajectoryofthemeovertimeandrevealsacomplexityand
fluidityofrhetoricalpracticesinChina.Heconcludeswithacallformorehistori-
calstudiesinordertocontributenewknowledgeinthisarea.
JoelBlochexaminesplagiarismfrombothcross-culturalandhistoricalper-
spectives.Hebeginswiththenotionthatinstancesofplagiarism,especiallyamong
Asianstudents,aretheresultofculturaldifferencesengrainedinrhetoricaltradi-
tionsdeemed“other.”Heshowsthisasanexampleofessentialisticthinking,then
offersamorethoroughexaminationoftheissueinahistoricalcontext.Indoing
so,Blochprovidesamodelforrethinkingthedichotomiesprevalentincriticisms
leveledatcontrastiverhetoric.Morespecifically,headdressespedagogicalcon-
cernsofteachersofcompositionbyoffering“investigative”strategiesthathelp
studentsunderstandplagiarismmoreeffectively.
Finally,SectionIV–FutureDirections–describesboththelimitsandpoten-
tialforinterculturalrhetoricinthefuture.DwightAtkinsonandPaulMatsuda
beginthefinalsectionofthecollectionwithaself-edited“conversation”about
possiblefuturesforcontrastiverhetoric.Theycallforopen-endedconversations
thatwilltakecontrastiverhetoricinpositivedirectionsinthefuture.Theyinitiate
theirdiscussionbytracingthehistoryofcontrastiverhetoricthroughtheirown
experiences,addressingboththeirintellectualandemotionalresponsestothe
controversiessurroundingcontrastiverhetoricovertheyears.TheyanalyzeKa-
plan’s1966articlefrommultipleangles:pedagogy,research,reception.Theylabel
manyrecentcritiquesasa“strawman.”Whiletheydonotbelievethatcontrastive
rhetoricisa“field”(noraretheycontentwithanamechangeto“intercultural
rhetoric”),theyoffertwoprimarydirectionsforcontrastiverhetoricinthefuture:
all-inclusiveorreintegration.Ineithercase,AtkinsonandMatsudabelievethat
contrastiverhetoricisstuckinacycleofunderminingandattack.Theyconclude
withatoolkitofideasforconstructivecritique,somethingneededifpeopleare
goingtotakecontrastiverhetoricseriouslyandmoveforward.
UllaConnorconcludesthecollectionwithahistoryofcontrastiverhetoric
usingpostmodernmappingtechniques.Init,shetracesthreestrandsofthink-
ingaboutcontrastiverhetoric:writing(textsandsocialpracticessurroundingit),
smallcultures(especiallydisciplinarythinking),andwritingasinterculturalen-
counter.Connortakestheall-inclusiveroutedescribedbyAtkinsonandMatsuda
andexpandsthecontrastiverhetoricresearchagenda,beginningwitharethink-
EBSCOhost - printed on 4/8/2022 1:34 PM via RIJKSUNIVERSITEIT GRONINGEN. All use subject to https://www.ebsco.com/terms-of-use
8 UllaConnor,EdNagelhout,WilliamRozycki
ingofthetermitself.Shepresentsacritiqueoftheterm,contrastiverhetoric,and
itscurrentviability.Shethenoffers“interculturalrhetoric”asanalternativeand
arguesthatthisnewtermismoresensitivetocontextandconsidersinfluencesof
boththeinterpersonalandtheintercultural.
References
Atkinson,D.(2000).OnRobertB.Kaplan’sresponsetoTerrySantosetal.’s“Onthefutureof
secondlanguagewriting.”JournalofSecondLanguageWriting,9(3),317–320.
Bazerman,C.,&Prior,P.(Eds.).(2004).Whatwritingdoesandhowitdoesit:Anintroductionto
analyzingtextsandtextualpractices.Mahwah,NJ:LawrenceErlbaum.
Canagarajah,A.S.(2002).Criticalacademicwritingandmultilingualstudents.AnnArbor:Uni-
versityofMichiganPress.
Connor,U.(2002).Newdirectionsincontrastiverhetoric.TESOLQuarterly,36(4),493–510.
Connor,U.(2004).Interculturalrhetoricresearch:Beyondtexts.JournalofEnglishforAca-
demicPurposes,(3)4,291–304.
Connor,U.(2005).Commenton“Towardcriticalcontrastiverhetoric”byRyukoKubotaand
AlLehner.JournalofSecondLanguageWriting,14(2),132–136.
Hinds,J.(1983).Contrastiverhetoric:JapaneseandEnglish.Text,3,183–195.
Kaplan,R.B.(1966).Culturalthoughtpatternsininterculturaleducation.LanguageLearning,
16(1),1–20.
Kaplan,R.B.(2000).Contrastiverhetoricanddiscourseanalysis:Whowriteswhattowhom?
When?Inwhatcircumstances?InS.Sarangi&M.Coulthard(Eds.),Discourseandsocial
life(pp.82–101).Harlow,UK:PearsonEducationLimited.
Kaplan,R.B.(2005).Contrastiverhetoric.InE.Hinkel(Ed.),Handbookofresearchinsecond
languageteachingandlearning(pp.375–392).Mahwah,NJ:LawrenceErlbaumAssoci-
ates.
Kubota,R.(1999).Japanesecultureconstructedbydiscourses:Implicationsforappliedlinguis-
ticsresearchandEnglishlanguageteaching.TESOLQuarterly,33,9–35.
Kubota,R.(2001).DiscursiveconstructionoftheimagesofU.S.classrooms.TESOLQuarterly,
35,9–38.
Kubota,R.,&Lehner,A.(2004).Towardcriticalcontrastiverhetoric.JournalofSecondLan-
guageWriting,13,7–27.
Scollon,R.(1997).Contrastiverhetoric,contrastivepoetics,orperhapssomethingelse?TESOL
Quarterly,31,352–363.
Spack,R.(1997).Therhetoricalconstructionofmultilingualstudents.TESOLQuarterly,31,
765–774.
Zamel,V.(1997).Towardamodeloftransculturation.TESOLQuarterly,31,341–343.
EBSCOhost - printed on 4/8/2022 1:34 PM via RIJKSUNIVERSITEIT GRONINGEN. All use subject to https://www.ebsco.com/terms-of-use
sectioni
Current state of contrastive rhetoric
Copyright 2008. John Benjamins Publishing Co.All rights reserved. May not be reproduced in any form without permission from the publisher, except fair uses permitted under U.S. or applicable copyright law. EAABNcS:cC oO2u 2nP9tu7:b1 l2ri us;gh .iRmnoagzi yn:c. keeihB,oo soWtki lCloilalme cVt.i,o nN a(gEeBlShCoOuhto,s tE)d ,- Cporninnotre,d Uolnl a4./;8 /C2o0n2t2r a1s:t3i5v eP MR hveitao rRiIcJ K:S URNeIaVcEhRiSnIgT EtIoT IGnRtOeNrIcNuGlEtNural Rhetoric
EBSCOhost - printed on 4/8/2022 1:35 PM via RIJKSUNIVERSITEIT GRONINGEN. All use subject to https://www.ebsco.com/terms-of-use