Lyudmila's post on Contrastive Rhetoric

I agree with the weaker version of Sapir-Whorf hypothesis that language influences thought. Moreover, as the author asserts, “if we look primarily at structural and organizational features of comparable texts written in different languages, differences are regularly found” (Casanave 29). If there are differences, then, it seems that there should be some structural aspects of L2 students’ writing that could be called “cultural” patterns of rhetorical organization. Kaplan’s thunder of the article “Cultural Thought Patterns Revisited” (1987) was that his seductively simple ideas together with the famous “Sapir-Whorf hypothesis” of linguistic relativity attracted immediate attention and helped people see their own writing and that of L2 writing in new ways (Casanave 37). I agree with Kowal’s critique in regard with Kaplan’s article that natural heteroglossia exhibited by every language prevents any language to exist as a self-contained system, “untinctured by influence from other languages” (38). Regardless the critique of Kaplan’s article, the value of comparative and contrastive text analyses for both research and pedagogy is unmeasurable. Contribution of CR to writing instruction can be tremendously in terms of understanding of the complexities of writing in L1 and L2 and applying that knowledge in classroom. For example, investigation of how different texts use organizational and linguistics features to fit readers’ expectations, a deep understanding of rhetorical differences, and a more complex understanding of how L1 rhetoric creates meaning are just a few examples how introduction to CR issues can raise students’ awareness in this field and help with the writing process. I, myself, think that John Swales’ work on structural features of academic and research genres, “such as ‘moves’ within research article introductions or other sections of research articles and features of other genres such as grant proposal” could help me in my writing process as I still struggle when writing papers for academic discourse. I do not agree with Kubota that CR legitimates the norm as given into which the marginalized are to be acculturated. And that CR together with cultural determinism tends to reinforce a cultural deficit in which certain groups are treated as innately deficient because of their cultural and linguistic background. Rather I consider CR as an empowerment of disadvantaged not their assimilation. Like the Australian genre approach is a movement against liberal humanistic approaches to literacy and is concerned with the social success of disadvantaged (Kubota 13). From my own experience, having acquired the discourse conventions of English academic writing, I feel empowered, not assimilated. I think these attempts to seek clear-cut unambigious difference between English and other given language as Kaplan asserted, in order to solve the writing problems of speakers of other languages who acquire how to function in written English, are very beneficial for L2 students and ESL/EFL teachers.