Thoughts on Contrastive Rhetoric

I have always found it fascinating to read my students' writing--challenging, but fascinating. The challenge has been not so much in grasping the intended meaning of the text; instead, the linguist in me wants to understand why these L2 writers write the way they do. During the last two semesters my students at the English Language Institute have been classified as low intermediate to high intermediate level in their English proficiency. This transfers to a wide range in writing ability. It is interesting to note that overall, my students demonstrate much more oral than written fluency with English. This is a source of frustration for both of us—partly because there is more opportunity for immediate negotiation of meaning with oral communication—and partly because the writing fluency seems much more difficult to achieve.

After reading the 1966 Kaplan article, I could so easily imagine a scene from four decades ago when teachers discovered that the difficulties faced by their non-native English speaking students could be blamed on something that the teachers could understand. Also, by researching the rhetorical styles of L1 writing of the nationalities represented by the students, teachers could more fully comprehend what was behind the students’ problematic language and logic, as well as paragraph construction.

And once they understood the background of the problems, they developed teaching methods designed to acquaint students with the reasons they were having trouble with their English writing. To me, this sounds like a “this is what you are doing (because you are from X country, where they write this way), and this is what we (English-speaking Americans) do when we write; just copy this template and insert the appropriate words, and everything will be fine (or at least better; maybe then we can correct the remaining problems with grammar and punctuation). "

I know that is a simplistic analysis of teacher behavior in the 60s, but in the various readings for this week I have noticed quite a change in the pattern of thinking regarding this subject.

As more recent researchers have commented, there is more to consider than the rhetorical style of one’s L1. In fact, as Kubota (2004) noted, “the conceptual basis of contrastive rhetoric…has tended to perpetuate the othering of languages other than English…” (9) and by reflecting on how teachers may inadvertently be doing this in their classrooms, we can stimulate new teaching strategies in which teachers see “students as individuals rather than members of a generalized cultural group” (10).

Some of these strategies include developing a better understanding of our students’ needs.  I was very interested in Casanave’s discussion of the Grabe & Kaplan articles which mentioned the importance of teaching L2 writers “to define an audience before writing” and to teach them “that writing types, tasks, and organizational and other conventions may differ in L1 and L2; and that writers need subject matter knowledge and knowledge of the interactive and social nature of writing” (44). I was also interested in Casanave’s investigative pedagogical approach, in which “[t]eachers and students can investigate L1 and L2 texts, the kinds of writing instruction students received, and the expectations that readers have in L1 and L2” (46).

Casanave also suggests strategies for helping EFL students with more academic needs. These students can compare texts written in their L1 and in the L2 (English) in a particular genre that they need to learn or practice, with the goal of developing “a text-level sense of what kinds of information typically belong in different sections of academic articles” as well as being able to “take control…” and “…make informed choices in their own writing” (48).

These are some of the goals I have for my classes: to help my students develop an awareness of what is going on when they are writing, and to help them develop strategies for success as they strive to improve their L2 writing skills.