Teacher therapy

Culture has been considered as one of the most complex words. No scholar has given it an exact definition, beginning in the 18^th century when Tyler (1871) defined culture as “that complex whole which includes knowledge, belief, art, law, morals, custom, and any other capabilities and habits acquired by man as a member of society” to Byron (1947) who defined culture as “human energy organized in patterns of repetitive behavior”.   However, every definition of culture by a particular scholar seems to be insufficient.  In 2004, Atkinson provided a discussion on culture by the sets of binary oppositions i.e. received culture vs. postmodern culture vs. cultural studies culture; culture as product vs. culture as process; culture in the head vs. culture in the world; and big culture vs. small culture, and tried their relevance to CR studies and research.It can be gleaned from the many definitions of culture that it has undergone reformulations.  It has evolved and become an important aspect of CR studies.   The study of culture has legitimized the study of CR because it applies the notion of cultural differences found in the written texts and written practices.  This argument may seem limited but the study of CR has been accepted in this respect. 

Aside from culture, contrastive rhetoric has also been reformulated. Connor (2004) renamed CR as intercultural rhetoric.  In fact, the changing definition of culture has contributed a lot to the changing nature of contrastive rhetoric studies, now also known as intercultural rhetoric research, a term that best reflects the dynamic nature of this field in applied linguistics.   There is indeed logic and wisdom in this new name because Connor (2004) posited that the theories and methodologies in intercultural research make use of interdisciplinary approach.   Primarily theories and methods are drawn from L2 acquisition,    composition and rhetoric, genre analysis, etc.  Recently, the methodologies were examined and informed scholars to be mindful of the new definitions of culture, which could be useful in the reformulations of studies in cross-cultural writing and intercultural rhetoric.

As far as I am concerned, the new definitions of culture and the renaming of CR to intercultural rhetoric seem to be more pragmatic. In terms of L2 teaching, especially in the teaching of writing, the evolution of the two concepts, culture and intercultural rhetoric, does not encourage the use of English as the benchmark of CR studies.  In terms of research, the combination of the new definition of culture and the interdisciplinary approach of intercultural research makes CR studies broader and more interesting than what Kaplan started in the 60s.  In intercultural rhetoric, researchers have called for the expansion of studies to include not only written product but also other aspects of second-language writing like educational, cognitive, and social or cultural dimension of compositions of L2 writers.  Besides, intercultural rhetoric also considers text analysis, genre analysis and corpus analysis as necessary tools in doing research.   The interlocking of cultures in the written output of L1 and L2 learners should not be undermined though culture is still a “great unknown” (Atkinson, 2004) in CR studies.   (March 4, 2008)

Halliday’s (1975) theory on “meaning potential” came from an intrinsic concept of language acquisition and language use and defined from a cultural point of view as “what people can mean and can do (Kachru, 1997).  Halliday argues that it is in language use that culture is transmitted and subsequently develops individual and social identity.  As it is claimed that “language is not a set of isolated sentences; rather, it is an interrelated set of texts in which meaning potential is actualized (Kachru, 1999, p. 77), it can be said that the context of culture defines the meaning potential, while the context of situation determines its actualization because it is in cultural society where language is used. As can be gleaned from the definition of “meaning potential” as given by Kachru, it can be said that “meaning potential” has some form of intertextuality in which the production and interpretation of text is derived not only from text but also from social context.The notion of “meaning potential” also finds its relevance in the writing systems like linguistic structures and rhetorical patterns.  Besides, it is also relevant to the teaching of writing to the Outer Circle in the form of contrastive rhetoric, a basically under-researched area of applied linguistics.  It has been believed that users of English who belong to the Outer Circle particularly Philippines, Singapore, and India which are considered multilingual countries have developed their own rhetorical patterns which are reflective of their cultures.  In other words, rhetorical patterns in these Outer Circle of English users do not necessarily follow the linear format of the Anglo-American style.  The concept of “meaning potential” is important in the teaching of writing in these countries so that they can be understood by the readers from the Inner Circle of English. Outer circle writers of English are often found to be unskilled, inefficient by the readers from the Inner Circle, thus “meaning potential” theory can help native speakers understand the Outer Circle writers through the context of culture, as it is claimed that “humans are alike in their capacity for language acquisition” (Kachru, 1997).

A number of CR studies have been conducted and have been criticized but it is undeniable that CR studies have had an impact on writing across cultures and on teaching of English in the Outer Circle.  It can be said therefore that CR studies help in understanding the “ways of saying and meaning” (Kachru, 1999) of rhetorical styles and culture of speech communities.  However, in doing CR studies Kachru explicitly mentioned that there should be comparable data especially when the study involves Outer Circle.  The researcher’s main task is to see to it that traditions of writing of language under investigation have been studied because there might be certain genre that is unique to the language and culture, and each genre might be governed by a set of rhetorical patterns.  In addition, social meaning and intertextuality should be taken into account in CR research because meanings can be derived from the social context and the texts present in the culture’s tradition.  This is important in accounting for genre differences across cultures. 

In Kachru (1997), it was mentioned that Inner Circle users of English have the competence in rhetorical form which the Outer Circles do not possess. I beg to disagree because even among the Inner Circle, American or British, there are variations found and that their rhetorical forms do not follow the ideal linear form.  Therefore, while it is worthwhile to teach L2 writing based on the Anglo-American linear format, it is also noteworthy to make learners become aware and appreciate the rhetorical patterns of their own culture.  (February 19, 2008).

Since the birth of Robert Kaplan’s influential work in 1966, the study of contrastive rhetoric (CR) has already undergone major developments. Researchers who advocated Kaplan’s theory started doing studies on topics like CR and classroom-based studies e.g. Hull et. al (1991) who found cultural mismatches in the classroom through student conversations, collaborative work, and teacher-student conferences; Scollon and Scollon (1981) who found conflicts in communication between native Americans  and English-speaking North Americans; and Goldstein and Conrad (1990) who found differences in students’ participation and negotiation of meaning in conferences.  What Kaplan started also gave rise to the modern CR and genre analysis like the work of Swales (1990) which provided the model in  doing CR analysis on genres and discourse communities. Along this line, Mauranen (1993) made use of genre analysis when she investigated the metalanguage strategies of economists in their economic reports, as well as Connor and Kramer (1995) who compared the writing of business case reports among ESL and American business graduate students.

The noted developments in CR studies can be said to have anchored on the contemporary writing theories.  First, the classical rhetoric saw the changing definition of rhetoric from the times of ancient Greeks to Aristotle whose work was initially unknown but was later recognized by rhetoricians like Janice Lauer and Edward Corbett.  In 1998, Connor and Lauer initiated a discussion of Aristotlean rhetoric as an aid in teaching and evaluating persuasive writing.  After which, there was an emergence of new theories which were remarkably developed by Toulmin and Perelman in 1958.  Toulmin provided a model of argumentative writing, while Perelman introduced the new rhetoric.  Eventually, Toulmin’s model was used to study students’ writing cross-culturally, while Perelman’s new rhetoric was applied in informal arguments.  Second, the expressionist approach considers writing as an individualistic activity whereby the writer has to explore his/her inner feelings.  The expressionists such as Donald Murray (1970) and Peter Elbow (1981) believe that composition teachers should provide the appropriate atmosphere where students can write, and that students should confine to themselves alone when writing so that they can do some introspection.  With this prescription, Reid (1984a; 1984b) and Horowitz (1986a; 1986b) posited that the expressionist approach may not be good for beginning ESL students, thus has little room for CR studies.   The theory was tested by Scollon (1991) with his Taiwanese students and it was found out that the expressionist approach was not appropriate for Taiwanese students who have collective sense of self as an influence of their culture.  Third, the cognitive approach considers writing as complex cognitive process.  Researchers using this approach have looked into the mental states of writers as well as their stylistic decisions and their composing processes.  In L1 research, the notable contribution of Emig (1971) pioneered the shift of product to process approach in writing.  Likewise, Flower and Hayes (1981) developed a cognitive model of composing which made them claim that composing seems to be a complex problem-solving activity.  Moreover, their study revealed some contradictions from the traditional writing pedagogy in which students were found to be writing recursively, not in Anglo-American linear fashion.  In terms of L2 writing, the research proponents during this time i.e. Raimes (1987) and Krapel (1990) apparently followed the L1 writing research processes.  At this point, it can be said that CR studies have been influenced significantly by process-oriented approach to writing.  This development led many of the researchers to consider not just the written product but also the context, situation, knowledge, and purpose of writing among students of different cultures.  Finally, the social constructivist approach gave emergence to the studies on “situated writing” (Witte, 1992); “speech community” (Nystrand, 1982); “discourse community” (Bizzell, 1982a, 1982b); non-academic writing (Odell and Goswami, 1985); and ethnographic studies of two communities and their literary practices (Heath, 1983).  The theorists of this approach consider context and situation, also known as the “discourse community”, as the integral part of writing.  Research findings of those who advocate social constructivist approach seem to indicate that writing in one’s discourse community is indeed a complex process. This development has helped CR researchers understand the function of context and situation in cross-cultural aspect.

Today, the pedagogical implications of contrastive rhetoric are very promising and are challenging.  Looking at the development in CR, it can be said that it has greatly evolved from the simple ‘doodles article” that Kaplan did in the 60s to a more sophisticated and academic nature that it is today.   This implies that Kaplan’s “doodles article” has already gone a long way in the teaching of writing and composition and in understanding L1 and L2 students across cultures. 

The shift of CR studies from L1-focused research to L2 pedagogy indicates that CR have already influenced linguists and language researchers toward a better understanding of multifaceted students in the classroom.  Hence, CR today does not only focus on the writings in L1 but also speakers of languages other than English.  Connor (1996) posits that CR research is multidisciplinary, for it has tremendously developed from students’ expository writing to a variety of genre cross-culturally, which enables a more categorical and focused analysis of students’ writing vis-à-vis culture. Apparently, the field of contrastive rhetoric presents a fascinating challenge, especially to composition teachers of L2 writing who are not aware of the issues in cross-cultural communication. Not much CR investigation and research have been done, and it seems that the ideal solution has not been yet identified that will guarantee unproblematic teaching of rhetorical patterns to both L1 and L2 students. As has been pointed out in the CR researches studied, there seems to be an overemphasis given to the linear Anglo-American fashion in writing which has the tendency to encourage nonnative speakers of English to underestimate their writing style.  Thus the study of CR is significant in addressing the issue on rhetorical patterns, attitudes and cultures of nonnative speakers of English.  (February 12, 2008).

References

Connor, U. (1996).  Contrastive rhetoric:  Cross-cultural aspects of second-language writing.  USA:  Cambridge University Press

Magistro, E. (2007).  The multilingual classroom: New rhetorical frontiers in L2 writing?. College Quarterly.  10 (2). Retrieved on February 11, 2008 from http://www.senecac.on.ca/quarterly/2007-vol10-num02-spring/magistro.html