Week 6 - Constructive Rhetoric

In the article written by Connor called, “Changing currents in contrastive rhetoric: Implications for teaching and research,” he explains what contrastive rhetoric is and how it ties back to Robert Kaplan's work. Contrastive rhetoric is a how a person’s first language and culture can influence his or her writing in a second language. It has helped both researchers and teachers understand the preferred patterns that are involved in writing. In his studies Kaplan suggested that, “different cultures have different rhetorical tendencies,” and after much research he claimed that, “linguistic patterns and rhetorical conventions of a first (or native) language (L1) often transfer to writing in ESL and thus cause interference” (Connor 218). Connor then goes onto mention various ways to use contrastive rhetoric in the classroom, such as using single essays to contrast organizational patterns, using journal writing to help students explore cultural difference in L2 writing, making sure to use L2 writing conventions explicit to L2 learners.

He shows a few examples of different types of writing. First off he focuses on the difference of how a U.S. college student and Flemish college student wrote an application. The U.S. applicant’s letter had a long section contributed to his credentials even though he had a resume enclosed in the application as well. Furthermore, he also added his background experience would benefit the job. It seemed to me that the U.S applicant did a better job at selling himself and making a better impression for the employer. On the other hand, the Flemish applicant was direct and to the point. The applicant did not elaborate on his specific qualities that would set him apart from other applicants nor did he mention any specific accomplishments.

     Another example that Connor used was that of two scientists. One was Finnish and the other Swedish. The Finnish scientist was very direct. He wrote a short autobiographical statement and listed his appointments and ended by listing his appointments and the number of theses and dissertations supervised and papers published. Whereas the Swedish scientist lists, “two strong positive appraisals,” that include, “a very distinguished academic record” and states that, “the department has excellent facilities” (Conor 222).

     These examples illustrate the differences of their respective cultures through the content and style of writing they used. After much research Connor claimed that, “Anglo-European expository essays follow a linear development; Semitic languages use parallel coordinate clauses; Oriental languages prefer an indirect approach and come to the point at the end; in Romance languages and in Russian, essays employ a degree of digressiveness and extraneous material that would seem excessive to a writer of English” (Connor 223).

Like Connor, and Kaplan, I do believe that they way you speak or write in your L1 influences how you’re going to speak or write in your L2. I believe this because of experience. When I speak in Spanish at times, I refer back to English. I tend to think about it in English first in my head and then translate it into Spanish. I do the same when it comes to writing. I believe that this is why it is very important to teach students that do not know English in their L1. Until students have a basic understanding of their BICS and CALP in their L1, then teachers can start to teach them in their L2. Reason being is that students will not be able to comprehend the material in their L2 if they barely understand it in their L1.