|
According
to the 2000 Census,
11% of all Americans are foreign born, and 18% speak a language other than
English at home. And these numbers are only projected
to increase in the coming years. Thus, it is
of the utmost importance that those invested in the field of contrastive
rhetoric consider relevant theories that affect future research and practice. Over the years, contrastive rhetoric has evolved
from an isolated analysis of linguistic and rhetorical interference to an
analysis of literacy development. Although speaking
about professional
writing, Henry (2001) captures
the essence of this evolution: Modernist understandings of discourse
see it as a vehicle, as words chosen to convey pre-existing ideas and thoughts
and which might be said to mark a speaker or speakers as belonging to a specific
social group, as in the case of a ‘discourse community.’ Postmodern versions
of discourse see language as the very material from which reality is formed:
we are born into language and we learn notions of self (and other) only by
way of the many discourses we encounter and which provide us with the means
to understand and interpret reality. While
progress undoubtedly has been made, contrastive rhetoric is still very much
grounded in theories of modernism, and as such, has neglected issues of critical
pedagogy and ethical responsibility. The
ethics of contrastive rhetoric involve not only how writing is taught but
how teachers respond to L2 texts, thus their response-ibility. Li (as cited in Connor, 1996) states that quality in
writing “resides not only with student texts but with the teachers who read
and evaluate student papers” (p. 106). Atkinson (2002) echoes this account,
stating: When, in responding to a student’s
essay, I ask that student to state or clarify his or her ‘thesis’ at the
paper’s beginning, I may very well be participating in a much larger discourse
or ideology … There is little if any ‘innocent,’ decontextualized, skills-only
teaching activity or knowledge operating in the L2 writing classroom from
this point of view – it is basically all social action. (p. 60) In
addition, Matsuda (2001) warns
against the practice of error correction grounded in modernist theories. He states that “such linguistic and cultural determinism
can result in the perception that deviating from the norm of the target discourse
community is simply undesirable, while divergences of various kinds take
place in the actual discourse practices of both L1 and L2 writers, creating
important social meaning in the process” (p. 56). Berlin (1996) comments on how teachers
might consider teaching matters of form in accordance with postmodern theory:
“Students need a conception of the abstract organizational patterns that
affect their work lives – indeed, comprehensive conceptions of the patterns
that influence all of their experiences” (p. 52). It
is a lack of such knowledge, Connor
(1996) states, that “is believed to be the main cause preventing non-native
writers’ successes in the international community” (p. 169). Thus, with greater consciousness comes greater flexibility,
and greater success, in the art of writing. In
Pirsig’s (1974) words, rhetorical
consciousness enables writers to view these conventions “no longer [as] rules
to rebel against, not ultimates in themselves, but just techniques, gimmicks,
for producing what really count[s] and [stands] independently of the techniques
– Quality” (p. 208). Atkinson (2002) eloquently summarizes
the future of contrastive rhetoric: the field of L2 writing needs to
do rather more than simply acknowledge and understand the potential variability
covered up by such notions [of cultural differences] – it needs an active
research agenda which questions, challenges, and, where necessary, revises
them if L2 writing is to be taught wisely and ethically, at the same time
testing the usefulness of the culture concept in the 21st century.
(p. 57) |