| |
Contrastive Rhetoric in American English and Chinese: A Study of Intertextual Knowledge in Different Discourses
Author: Joel Bloch
Degree: Ph.D. in Rhetoric, Carnegie Mellon University, 1998
Contrastive rhetoric has endured for over thirty years as a paradigm
for discussing second language composition. Contrastive rhetoric is based on two
fundamental assumptions: (1) rhetorical forms of language can be transferred from a
writer's first language (L1) to a writer's second language (L2), and (2) these rhetorical
forms are different because of differences in rhetorical tradition. Since the initial
publication of an article by Robert Kaplan in 1966, there has been an ongoing debate
in the field of ESL composition over the significance of contrastive rhetoric. In this
dissertation, I examine the assumptions an d controversies underlying contrastive
rhetoric and attempt to forge a middle ground between those who have championed
contrastive rhetoric and those who have opposed it. The dissertation is divided into
three parts. Part 1 examines the theoretical basis for contrastive rhetoric and shows
how establishing a middle ground position can guide research to better account for how
contrastive rhetoric may be both a positive and negative influence on the writer's L2.
Part 2 focuses on one of the key elements in the teaching of academic writing,
intertextuality, which refers here to the incorporation of previously published
texts into the creation of a new text. I examine possible similarities and differences
in the use of these texts in Chinese-language and English-language academic texts, using
two key factors: the date of the text and the rhetoric function of the text. The results
show a complex series of relationships where in areas there is great similarity and in
some areas there is great difference. In Part 3, I explore the implications of these
results in terms of the long tradition of Chinese rhetoric and conclude this section
with a discussion of what rhetorical strategies Chinese writers feel they have learnt
and how they feel these strategies compare across languages. In conclusion I discuss
the pedagogical and methodological implications of this research and offer some
suggestions for future research.
|