Running head: IR IN LINGUISTICALLY HETEROGENEOUS CLASSROOMS

Intercultural Rhetoric in Linguistically Heterogeneous Classrooms Bridget Schuberg Colorado State University

IR IN LINGUISTICALLY HETEREOGENEOUS CLASSROOMS Abstract The aim of this paper is to provide novice/in-service non-EFL/ESL teachers working with underperforming English language learners in content areas in linguistically heterogeneous schools with a definition of intercultural rhetoric, a brief history of the changes it has undergone since its inception, and a multitude of reasons why its study is both warranted and necessary for their particular purposes. Keywords: rhetoric, contrastive, intercultural, context, culture

IR IN LINGUISTICALLY HETEREOGENEOUS CLASSROOMS Intercultural Rhetoric in Linguistically Heterogeneous Classrooms One of the hot subjects in linguistics today is that of intercultural rhetoric (Enkvist, 1997, as

cited in Connor, 2011, p. 1). In the simplest of terms, the term rhetoric can be defined as merely writing beyond the sentence level (Connor, 2011). However, it can be conceptualized more in depth as a mode of thinking...for the achievement of a designated end, composed of the factors of analysis, data gathering, interpretation, and synthesis (Kaplan, 1966, p. 1). Before and/or during the writing process, one must decide on a topic, how to demonstrate his/her credibility, which form his/her writing will take, which pieces of evidence are most effective, and how to present this evidence in a manner that will be most appealing to his/her audience (Kaplan, 2001). However, intercultural rhetoric is based on the idea that the preferred methods of addressing these questions is not static across cultural backgrounds. Consequently, teachers working with ELLs in the area of must be aware of possible complications that may arise, particularly in a U.S. EFL writing classroom. It was Kaplan's noticing of the existence of multiple approaches to rhetoric in his experience as a director of a university ESL program which first led him to write his trailblazing 1966 article in which he proposes the idea that teachers should not take the same approach to English language learners when teaching reading and composition as they do with American students. In this article, he notes that, though students may be proficient in their understanding of grammar and vocabulary, they may not be familiar with American conventions regarding the writing of themes, theses, and essays. He claims that diversity not only affects language, but also the whole system of institutions that are tied to [it], including culture (p. 2). As a result, he concluded that logic and thought organization are not universal, but are culturally bound phenomena (p. 2). As such, the linguistic patterns and rhetorical conventions of a student's L1 may transfer to writing in ESL, and therefore could cause interference regarding his/her choice not only of content but also of rhetorical strategies (Connor, 2002, p. 494). Therefore, he suggests that teachers, particularly of advanced English language learners of writing,

IR IN LINGUISTICALLY HETEREOGENEOUS CLASSROOMS should consider an approach which includes a contrastive analysis of rhetoric (Kaplan, 1966, p. 15). However, contrastive rhetoric has been subjected to many influences and has undergone a variety changes since the establishment and subsequent critique of Kaplan's original idea of contrastive rhetoric. Through the inclusion of new texts in analysis (Bhatia, 1993; Swales, 1990; Connor, 2000), new developments in research methods (Hyland, 2000; Connor & Moreno, 2005), a redefining of the term rhetoric (Kennedy, 1998, and Sullivan & Porter, 1997, as cited in Connor, 2011, p. 5), an emphasis on social contexts (Connor & Moreno, 2005), and a renaming of the field (Connor, 2004), intercultural rhetoric has gained more credibility as a legitimate area of study. Through all of

these changes, two major principles have guided what falls under the umbrella of contrastive rhetoric in the 40 years since the inception of the term: it focuses on multilingual writers and deals with rhetoric involving persuasion of the audience (Connor, 2008). The first big reform in the study of contrastive rhetoric occurred when Robert Kaplan and Ulla Connor first became involved in international text projects, making links between American traditions of written discourse analysis and rhetoric and European traditions of text and contrastive linguistics (Connor, 2008, p. 303). In contrast to early contrastive rhetoric which was based on notional analyses of rhetorical styles, today a plethora rigorous text-analytic studies exists (Connor, 2008) which explain in detail the histories of individual rhetorics of specific languages and cultures in their own right (Connor, 2011, p. 4). Although early research regarding contrastive rhetoric was based mainly on organization patterns of sentences and paragraphs which examined coherence and cohesion (Connor & Kaplan, 1987; Purves, 1988; Connor & Johns, 1990; Connor, 1994), some contrastive rhetoric researchers questioned the adequacy of analyses that only considered textual features (Hinds, 1987; Connor, 2002, p. 496). The term rhetoric has therefore been broadened from this minimal definition to encompass not just organization, but also invention, style, and types of rhetorical proof: logos (the use of reasoning),

IR IN LINGUISTICALLY HETEREOGENEOUS CLASSROOMS ethos (the speaker's credibility), and pathos (the speaker's use of emotional appeals) (Connor, 2011).

Today's modern innovations in research methods for studying writing such as genre analysis and corpus linguistics have helped make the results of analysis in contrastive rhetoric to be more precise (Connor, 2008). In addition, studies in the field have begun to make connections between contrastive rhetoric and English for Specific Purposes teaching (Dudley-Evans & St. John, 1998). An explosion of studies in culture and its definition (Holliday, 1999; Atkinson, 1999, 2004) has helped expand the field of contrastive rhetoric by going beyond mere text analyses and including case studies, observations, and ethnographies in its realm of study (Connor, 2011, p. 6). This emphasis on specificity further contributes to the study of rhetoric in context. Because the many rhetorical choices involved in writing are largely dependent on genre, it is necessary that contrastive rhetoric focuses on writing for particular purposes and in different contexts, and that it uses specific, corpus-based evidence to do so (Connor, 2011). Although Kaplan (1966) seemed to favor the adjective contrastive and Enkvist (1997) believes that contrastive, cross-cultural, and intercultural are interchangeable terms that can be used to describe the analysis of various rhetorical styles, Connor (2011) prefers the term intercultural for a variety of reasons. Most importantly, she wishes to disprove that this field is culturally prejudiced; she believes that collaborative interaction among cultures and individuals is a core element of such a discussion of rhetoric. The prefix -contra gives the impression that two items are in opposition with no middle ground, while -inter suggests reciprocality and interrelation (Connor, 2011, p. 1). We have established that many of the criticisms of intercultural rhetoric are outdated and unfounded. However, many might still wonder why from a pedagogical standpoint we should devote so much time and effort to the analysis of similarities and differences between and among various cultural contexts. Most importantly, it is absolutely critical that a teacher does not attribute what may seem like a learner's funny oddities to faulty logic or low intelligence (Enkvist, 1997, p. 191). The need to be

IR IN LINGUISTICALLY HETEREOGENEOUS CLASSROOMS aware of rhetorical variances among students is particularly relevant in the context of composition in U.S. composition courses (Kaplan, 2001). By definition, the job of a composition teacher is to make students write texts which serve certain definite types of communication with maximum efficiency, which Enkvist (1997) says is one which conforms to set patterns and seems native-like (p. 191). It is the duty of composition teachers to move beyond the superficial sentence level into a curriculum in which they facilitate reading and writing in English and to allow students to express their beliefs in a creative way (Kaplan, 2001). Contrary to popular belief, teachers in U.S. schools are not in fact addressing a monolingual,

monocultural population (Kaplan, 2001, p. vii). As time goes on, more and more students who are not native speakers of Standard American Schooled English and who do not participate to any significant degree in the dominant U.S. cultural traditions will comprise the population of writing classrooms (Kaplan, 2001, p. vii). The universality of rhetorical tendencies should not be assumed. If conventions are not taught, the ELL runs the risk of creating a piece of writing that seems unclear and/or not straightforward to its reader, who would likely focus on its alien structures rather than on its content and arguments (Enkvist, 1997, p. 191). Because content writing involves new information, and information is surprise (Enkvist, 1997, p. 191), adherence to rhetorical norms is crucial. New concepts and arguments may already pose an obstruction to the audiences correct interpretation of a text; with the additional surprises of deviance from rhetorical norms, the information load in a text might become overwhelming for a reader. Kaplan (2001) also points out that grammar cannot be equated with languagea solid grasp of syntactic rules and/or the conventions of speaking does not necessitate writing proficiency in that language. Casanave (2004) and Kubota and Lehner (2004) (as cited in Connor, 2011, pp. 64-65) offers several ways in which the underlying theories of intercultural rhetoric can improve pedagogical practice. Though it may not be appropriate to explicitly explain differences in writing conventions

IR IN LINGUISTICALLY HETEREOGENEOUS CLASSROOMS during class time in a classroom with native speakers, ELLs should be encouraged to reflect on the purposes of their writing and the audience that will be reading what they produce in order to help students investigate their own stereotypes of the languages they speak. Teachers can also ask students to examine texts from both their L1s and L2s so as to guide them in breaking down paragraph and discourse-level organizational patterns. Lastly, teachers can ask students to examine examples of good writing in their L1 and their L2; in doing so, they may become aware of what conventions are valued or discouraged in writing by certain cultures (Li, 1996).

Because studies in intercultural rhetoric consider various cultural and social practices that shape preferences in writing and communication, teachers can gain valuable insights regarding their students on both a personal and an academic level by becoming informed of the cross-cultural studies encompassed by intercultural rhetoric.

IR IN LINGUISTICALLY HETEREOGENEOUS CLASSROOMS References Bhatia, V. K. (1993). Analyzing genre: Language use in professional settings. London: Longman. Casanave, C. (2004). Controversies in second language writing: Dilemmas and decisions in research and instruction. Ann Arbor: University of Michigan Press. Connor, U. (2002). New directions in contrastive rhetoric. TESOL Quarterly, 36(4), 493-510. Connor, U. (2004). Introduction. Journal of English for Academic Purposes, 3, 271-276. Connor, U. (2008). Mapping multidimensional aspects of research. In U. Connor, E. W.V. Rozycki (Eds.), Contrastive rhetoric: Reaching to intercultural 315). Amsterdam: John Benjamins. Connor, U. (2011). Intercultural rhetoric: The writing classroom. Ann Arbor, MI: The University of Michigan Press. Connor, U. & Moreno, A. I. (2005). Tertium Comparationis: A vital component in contrastive research methodology. In P. Bruthiaux, D. Atkinson, W. G. Eggington, W. Grabe, & V. Ramanathan (Eds.), Directions in Applied Linguistics: Essays in honor of Robert B. Kaplan. Clevedon, pp. 153-164. England: Multilingual Matters. Dudley-Evans, T., & St. John, J. (1998). Developments in English for specific purposes: A multidisciplinary approach. Cambridge, U.K.: Cambridge University Press. Enkvist, N. E. (1997). Why we need contrastive rhetoric. Alternation, 4, 188-206. Holliday, A. (1999). Small cultures. Applied Linguistics, 20, 237-264. Hyland, K. (2000). Disciplinary discourses: Social interactions in academic writing. Ann Arbor: University of Michigan Press. Kaplan, R. (1966). Cultural thought patterns in inter-cultural education. Language Learning, 16(1), 1-20. Kaplan, R. (2001). Foreword: What in the world is contrastive rhetoric. In C.G. Panetta (Ed.), Nagelhout, &

rhetoric (pp. 299-

IR IN LINGUISTICALLY HETEREOGENEOUS CLASSROOMS Contrastive rhetoric revisited and redefined (pp. vii-xx). Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates, Publishers. Li, X. (1996). Good writing in cross-cultural context. Albany: State University of New York Press.