3.1 Traditional Contrastive Rhetoric
In his seminal article,Kaplan(1966)proposed a way of using a contrastive analysis of rhetoric to explore rhetorical differences between English and other languages and using the findings to make ESL students aware of the differences between their native language and English.To illustrate the influence of cultures on rhetoric,Kaplan examined the manner of paragraph development in about 600 essays written by non-native speakers of English and identified four types of paragraph structures which are quite different from the English conventions,such as the Oriental style of paragraph development which is featured by the circling pattern around a central idea and is associated with Korean students.The study shows that paragraph development varies significantly across different languages.Since the essay samples and the language of the samples are limited,Kaplan(1966)suggested that further studies are needed to look at more languages.This has been the research agenda followed by researchers of Contrastive Rhetoric for decades.Kaplan(1966)also articulated the practical rationale of Contrastive Rhetoric by suggesting that Contrastive Rhetoric“may help the foreign student to form standards of judgment consistent with the demands made upon him by the educational system of which he has become a part”(p.15).
Kaplan’s 1966 article,which is regarded as the mark of the beginning of Contrastive Rhetoric and has exerted great influence on the pedagogy of teaching English as a second language,draws much attention as well as criticism.As pointed out by Connor(2008),criticism of Contrastive Rhetoric is mainly based on Kaplan’s original study,ignoring the development of the field in the following years.Indeed,Kaplan himself and many other researchers have made major amendments to the initial hypothesis and considerable improvements on research methods.This review,therefore,focuses on the Kaplan and other researchers’amendments and elaboration on Contrastive Rhetoric made after the initial study.
Following the seminal paper,Kaplan(1967)published an article in TESOL Quarterly,discussing the ways in which Contrastive Rhetoric can be used in the teaching of composition.On the one hand,Kaplan proposed that pattern-drills and other pedagogical devices can be used to help L2 students to become familiar with the models of English paragraph development,and on the other hand,he warned English teachers of the danger of being“accused of brainwashing”by making students“to see the world through English-colored glasses”(p.16).In his 1966 article,Kaplan stated that the aim of contrastive analysis of rhetoric is“to demonstrate that paragraph developments other than those normally regarded as desirable in English do exist”(p.14).Although Kaplan deliberately termed the research aim of Contrastive Rhetoric to avoid criticism of prioritizing English norms,it is very likely that he believed that English language is interwoven with the English style of paragraph development,and thus the English rhetoric should be taught together with the language.
Ten years after the publication of the original work,Kaplan(1976)reviewed studies testing the basic assumption that“the organization of paragraphs written in any language by individuals who are not native speakers of that language will be influenced by the rhetorical preferences of the native language”(p.12).By reviewing the findings of studies exploring paragraph development in the English writing of native speakers of Arabic,Chinese,Thai,Persian and Puerto Rican Spanish,Kaplan(1976)indicated that the assumption“survived analysis”since the studies revealed distinctive linguistic features in L2 writing that are related to L1(p.12).
In the following two decades,Kaplan’s focus shifted to finding an appropriate way to define and represent rhetoric of written discourse.In 1979,Kaplan presented a paper at the California Council on Teacher Education Conference in which he proposed using topic-focus structure and intersentential syntax to examine the rhetoric of written discourse(Kaplan,1983).According to him,topic is“the dominant notion that governs a sequence of discourse”and is usually carried in the“head”assertion,while“focus is that set of operations which permit the reader/listener to recognize the prominence of certain information”and is usually realised in the supporting assertions of the paragraph(p.147-148).Intersentential syntax refers to the syntactic structure used to express the focus in the development of a paragraph,such as proposed place holders and sentences in which direct/indirect object position is inverted.Kaplan conducted two experiments to explore whether native speaker and non-native speaker differ in the use of topic-focus structure and intersentential syntax.In the first experiment which examines the difference between native and non-native speakers in the use of intersentential syntax,Kaplan recruited 48 native English speakers and 146 non-native speakers,who were instructed to do a set of tests in which utterances were removed and require participants to select the utterance with the best intersentential syntax to manifest focus.The second experiment examines the difference between native and non-native speakers in the use of hierarchical arrangement of information from generalization to specification,Kaplan recruited roughly 100 native speakers and 200 non-native speakers to replace missing assertions from four options including distractors violating the from-general-to-specific order.The results show differences between native and non-native speakers of English in the development of a topic and the use of intersentential syntax.
Twenty years after the publication of the original work,Kaplan(1987)revisited his 1966 article and reflected on his contrastive analysis of different languages,expressing regrets on making strong claims on writers of different cultural background having unique ways of paragraph development,for example,linking the parallel way of paragraph development with Arabic writers.He contends that the manner of paragraph development,which he previously assumed to be linked to particular languages,exist in all languages.However,though all the strategies of paragraph development are possible in a language,Kaplan contends that certain forms are more frequently used than others in a particular language.In other words,Kaplan admits that the unique features of rhetoric,which he previously obtained by comparing paragraph structures,may not be generalizable to all the writers speaking the same first language,but maintains that differences of rhetoric do exist between writings in different languages,and a better way of rhetoric comparison was needed.
In the same paper,Kaplan briefly touched on the concept of genre,though not using the exact term.After stating that certain forms are favoured over others in a particular language,he emphasizes the influence of sociolinguistic constrain on rhetorical variation and proposes that the forms of rhetoric are related to the circumstances in which the discourses are produced.He contends that schema and“prefabricated sets of syntactic structures”are used in particular circumstances.Instead of examining second language learners’writing in general,Kaplan began to associate writings with their social functions.
In a book chapter published one year earlier,Kaplan(1986)noted the influence exerted by community cultures on writing.When discussing the relationship between culture and language,he mentioned the influence of the culture of scientific community on scientific and technical written language.He suggests that the culture of science has greater influence on scientific writing than national cultures by saying that“the English of science and technology is more closely affiliated with science and technology than it is with the culture of any national society”(p.17).
Kaplan(1988)examined the text analysis tradition of Contrastive Rhetoric,emphasizing that texts have multidimensions,including the surface or linguistic structure and a deeper structure of discoursal features,such as cohesion and coherence,sematic structure and sociolinguistic functions.He also highlights the important role of audiences of written discourses whose feedback is usually missing in the communication loop,and thus it is even harder for writers to determine the scope of shared knowledge with audiences and to“define structural/functional strategies”(p.284).
Grabe and Kaplan(1989)co-authored a book chapter which can be seen as one of the first major serious attempts of conceptualizing the field of Contrastive Rhetoric.They defined Contrastive Rhetoric as“the study of L1 rhetorical influences on the organization of text in L2,on audience considerations,(and)on goal definition”(p.266).They formulated the hypothesis of the field as“writers composing in different languages will produce rhetorically distinct texts,independent of other casual factors such as differences in processing,in age,in relative proficiency,in education,in topic,in task complexity,or in audience”(p.264).Grabe and Kaplan separated language and its related culture from these factors that may cause variation in rhetoric.Simply put,they assumed that different languages have different rhetorical conventions,and that a writer’s L1 rhetorical knowledge influences his/her way of rhetorical organization in L2.Grabe and Kaplan described the primary aim of Contrastive Rhetoric studies as investigating the“text construction”itself,and the practical aim as helping L2 writers to overcome“L1 rhetorical interferences in writing”(p.266).Though the underlying hypothesis and the aims of the field are clearly articulated,the major constructs of field(rhetoric,language,culture,etc.)are left undefined.
Kaplan and Grabe(1991)discussed the influence on writers from“the ambient culture of the larger community”,that is,the culture of a group of people speaking the same first language,which roughly equals to an ethnic culture,and the culture of“the knowledge community”,that is the culture of social groupings(p.203).People speaking the same first language with the writer are not primarily the readers of their writing.Because the power in the science community usually rests with readers,writers tend to follow the rhetorical expectations of the community.
Thirty years after the original work,Grabe and Kaplan(1996)reviewed studies of contrastive analysis of rhetoric and studies in its related area,gathering evidence to support the basic hypothesis that writers of different cultural background have different preferential organization of writings.Evidence was obtained from five related areas,including cross-linguistic language development research,sociolinguistics and literacy studies,language socialization,social construction theory and post-structural rhetoric.They also present text-based evidence,comprising studies comparing English texts with German,Japanese,Korean,Chinese,Vietnamese,Hindi,Arabic and Spanish.
In addition,Grabe and Kaplan(1996)presented five problems hindering the development of Contrastive Rhetoric:a)the focus on product rather than process;b)failure to compare texts by genres;c)failure to determine the writing proficiency of native writers;d)less attention to the norms in languages other than English;e)“no universal theoretical model for contrast”.Around the same time researchers of contrastive rhetoric began to pay more attention to genre when sampling texts to compare,and explore new ways to analyse discourse,such as genre analysis(Duszak,1994).
Kaplan(2000)restated the flaws in his original Contrastive Rhetoric model,elaborated on some points made in the original work,and highlights amendments which have been made to it.He admits that the original study“erred in attempting to represent cultural rhetorics as unique generalizations that have been perceived as stereotypes”(p.89),but maintains that whether the generalized patterns are accurate or not is not as important as the discovery that“there are differences between languages in rhetorical preference”(p.84).He contends that the contribution of Contrastive Rhetoric lies in looking at“discoursal macro-patterns in the light of underlying cultural traditions and not merely in terms of syntactic surface features”(p.89),and emphasizes the importance of comparing texts of the similar topic,genre and length.
Over the years,a multitude of studies have been carried out to verify the initial assumption of Contrastive Rhetoric.Based on evidence and criticisms of the original assumption,Kaplan has made considerable revisions to the model.First,he reformulated the hypothesis by emphasizing preferences of rhetorical organization rather than stereotypes(Grabe &Kaplan,1996;Kaplan,1986;2000).Second,he emphasized the importance of genre,proposing that comparison should be made between texts of the same genre(Kaplan,1986;2000).Third,he acknowledged the cultural influence from social communities,which is regarded as a different influence from first language culture(Kaplan,1986;Kaplan &Grabe,1991).The remaining issue which is considered to be the critical problem of the field is to find an appropriate theoretical model for contrast(Kaplan &Baldauf Jr,2005),that is,the method of discourse analysis to analyse and compare texts following different rhetorical conventions.The research methods as well as theoretical positions of Contrastive Rhetoric were further discussed by Connor in her research in Intercultural Rhetoric(Connor,1998;2002;2004a;2011a).