Ulla Connor (1996) writes: “Contrastive rhetoric is an area of
research in second language acquisition that identifies problems in composition
encountered by second language writers, and by referring to rhetorical
strategies of the first language, attempts to explain them” (5). Connor notes
that Kaplan’s “Doodles” article (1966) is the grandfather of the CR field
(2002, 495). Connor’s 2002 article exposes critical controversy within Kaplan’s
methodology and the origins of his CR “notion.” For example, Ying and Matsuda assert
that Kaplan draws from a problematic Germanic “linguistic determinism” that
belies the complexity of social, historical, political, and cultural ideologies
that are embedded in language acquisition (2002, 495).
In the 1996 work, Connor explains her intent: “I will argue in this
book that a different contrastive model is needed for the description of cross-cultural
writing in academic and professional situations” (9). Ultimately, Connor poses
three purposes for her book: (1) to assert the general value of CR for applied linguistics,
(2) to suggest practical applications for teachers and researchers, and (3) to
define an emerging CR discipline that is interdisciplinary in nature (7).
Basically, Connor’s book serves as an introduction to the field of
Contrastive Rhetoric. Practitioners of CR seek to study the ways in which
language learners’ cultures impact their writing in multiple contexts. Connor’s
definition is more narrow in the 1996 work than it is in 2002. The 2002 article
demonstrates a very broad definition
of CR. Connor writes: “Contrastive rhetoric examines differences and
similarities in writing across cultures” (493). I find that definition to be of
little use value because it is so vague.
Clearly, Connor is reacting to criticisms of CR as a field, criticisms
demonstrated in Kubota’s article about essentialized notions of Japanese
writers of English as a Second Language. Of her own article, Kubota writes: “This article takes Japanese culture as an example and,
after summarizing the characteristics of Japanese culture that appear in the
applied linguistics literature, critiques the essentialized representations of
culture found in discussions of teaching writing and critical thinking to ESL
students” (9). Kubota is obviously taking issue with stereotypical
representations of Japanese peoples as “group oriented” or “exotic Other” (11).
She is also taking issue with the “West-East cultural dichotomy” (9; 30).
Connor creates a reflexive
response to the controversies developing with in the CR discourse community.
She forwards Sarangi’s term “intercultural” to move past the binary
divisiveness suggested by Contrastive Rhetoric (504).
Connor’s most recent publication
(2011) {an optional reading for Week Seven} is entitled: Intercultural Rhetoric in the Writing Classroom. In the series
forward, by Diane Belcher and Jun Liu, intercultural rhetoric is “under fire
ever since it first emerged as an area of research and pedagogical interest”
(Forward, i). Belcher and Liu ask: (1) “Can the rhetorical conventions of any
culture be described without over-simplification? “(2) “Can cultures be
discussed without essentializing them?” (3) “Can we even come to consensus on
what the term culture means?”
(Forward i). These questions are questions we can ask as we think about the
kinds of projects we will engage with as the semester progresses. To my mind,
the answer to all of these questions is: “No,” but we can attempt to do as
Connor’s interlocutors suggest and build “…[a] more extensive and sophisticated
… culturally contextualized study…” of intercultural rhetorics (Forward i).
No comments:
Post a Comment