Professional Documents
Culture Documents
15 Winter 2012
Laura M. Colombo
1
Vol. 15 Winter 2012
2
Vol. 15 Winter 2012
3
Vol. 15 Winter 2012
find themselves struggling with the highly literacy autobiographies and/or the texts
technical jargon employed. Nevertheless, they produced in the second language. This
the inherent link of CR to the second- type of classroom task can give teachers the
language acquisition field prevails and most opportunity to apply the aforementioned
articles directly address the pedagogical investigative pedagogical approach and
implications of research. empower students by granting authority to
Therefore, the best thing we can do as their voices and literacy stories. The ready-
educators is to embrace what I call an to-apply recipes, then, become
educated eclecticism. In my opinion, collaboratively constructed activities since
being eclectic in the classroom can be the decision of how to apply CR findings
profitable, but only if we take our does not only lie with the teacher but starts
profession (and, over all, our students) a negotiation process in the class. If the
seriously. Based on the readings of the educator explores CR findings in a
extant CR literature, I have come to think collaborative way with the students, they
that there are two main factors which could can later reach a common agreement as to
help us avoid the erstwhile-contested how to apply them to improve the students
reductionist approach: a student-centered writing. For example, students can analyze
pedagogy, and a definition of writing as a their own writing in the light of CR facts. In
socially situated activity. When we apply a this way, they gain ownership over their
student-centered approach in our own writing and take more control over
classrooms, we not only give our students their language learning process by being
more opportunities for negotiations in the more aware of how they write.
second language (Antn, 1999), but we also In addition to a student-centered
evaluate our students needs through an approach, if we articulate the conception of
individualized lens. This avoids categorizing writing as both a culturally shaped
them solely by their cultural and linguistic phenomenon and a situated activity, we
background, since we are considering each would be better positioned to inform our
student as a person-in-the-world (Lave & teaching practices. First, our classes should
Wenger, 1991). Inevitably, we start taking propose contextualized writing activities,
into account other factors that could avoiding writing addressed to fictitious
influence their writing such as home culture, audiences or solely to the teacher. Many
educational trajectories and personalities. micropublishing tools, such as blogs,
CR research could enhance this student- discussion boards and wikis, can be used to
centered approach not only by informing provide students with a real audience,
the teacher about each students cultures, emphasizing writing as a process rather than
but also by providing the students with as a final product. These tools can also
tools to enable a better understanding of facilitate collective editing, which
their own cultures. Along these lines, as emphasizes writing as a social activity rather
Casanave (2004) proposed, teachers and than as an individual and solitary practice.
students could evaluate CR postulates by Second, CR could help teachers and
contrasting them against their life-stories, students to learn more about audience
and by applying its methods in class expectations. I endorse Casanaves (2004)
activities. idea of borrowing CR methods not only to
One way of bringing CR research to the compare texts, but also to analyze readers
classroom is by getting students in contact expectations. Furthermore, activities in
with CR findings pertinent to their own first which students both write and read texts
language(s). Thus, instead of simply produced in class can be fruitful if we
assigning Chinese-speaking students tons of provide students with a space to discuss
exercises about article uses because CR says writers intentions and readers
so, teachers can present and discuss these interpretations. Another class activity of
findings with the students. Depending on note consists of having students from
the level, students could read the articles different linguistic backgrounds compose
themselves or teachers could present a texts together. This would give students an
summary to the class. Then, students can opportunity to practice collaborative
contrast CR findings against their own writinga skill in great contemporary
4
Vol. 15 Winter 2012
demandand learn from each others Connor, U. & Kramer, M. (1995). Writing from
writing strategies and rhetorical preferences. sources: Case studies of graduate students in
Finally, I would like to add that, as Business Management. In Belcher, D. &
English language teachers, we have a unique Braine, G. (eds.). Academic Writing in a Second
Language: Essays on Research and Pedagogy (pp.
and valuable place: the one that brings
155-182). Norwood, NJ: Ablex.
together the situatedness of writing and the Grabe, W. & Kaplan R. (1989). Writing in a
diversity embodied in our students. It is our second language: Contrastive rhetoric. In
responsibility to provide those articulation Johnson, D. & Roen, D. (eds.). Richness in
points where theories and practices come Writing: Empowering ESL Students (pp. 263-
together so that theories frame classroom 283). White Plains, NY: Longman.
practices, and classroom practices critically Hinds, J. (1987). Reader versus writer
evaluate theories. responsibility: A new typology. In Connor,
U. & Kaplan, R. (eds.). Writing Across
References Languages: Analysis of L2 Text (pp. 141-152).
Antn, M. (1999). The discourse of a learner- Reading, MASS: Addison Wesley.
centered classroom: Sociocultural Hinds, J. (1990). Inductive, deductive, quasi-
perspectives on teacher-learner interaction in inductive: expository writing in Japanese,
the second-language classroom. The Modern Korean, Chinese and Thai. In Connor, U. &
Language Journal 83/3, 303-318. Johns, A.M. (eds.). Coherence in Writing:
Atkinson, D. (2004). Contrasting rhetorics/ Research and Pedagogical Perspectives (pp. 87-
contrasting cultures: Why contrastive 110). Alexandria, VA: TESOL.
rhetoric needs a better conceptualization of Kaplan, R. (1984). Cultural Thought Patterns in
culture. Journal of English for Academic Purposes Intercultural Education. In McKay, S. (ed.).
3, 277-290. Composing in a Second Language (pp. 43-62).
Canagarajah, S. (2002). Multilingual writers and New York: Harper & Row.
the academic community: Towards a critical Lave, J. & Wenger, E. (1991). Situated Learning:
relationship. Journal of English for Academic Legitimate Peripheral Participation. New York:
Purposes 1, 29-44. CUP.
Casanave, C. (2004). Controversies in Second Leki, I. (1991). Twenty-five years of contrastive
Language Writing: Dilemmas and Decisions in rhetoric: Text analysis and writing
Research and Instruction. Ann Arbor: University pedagogies. TESOL Quarterly 25/1, 123-143.
of Michigan Press. Leki, I. (1992). Understanding ESL Writers. A
Choi, Y.H. (1988). Text structure of Korean Guide for Teachers. Portsmouth, NH:
speakers argumentative essays in English. Boyton/Cook Publishers.
World Englishes 7/2, 129-142. Leki, I. (1997). Cross-talk: ESL issues and
Clyne, M. (1987). Cultural differences in the contrastive rhetoric. In Severino, C., Guerra,
organization of academic texts: English and J. & Butler, J. (eds.). Writing in Multicultural
German. Journal of Pragmatics 11, 211-247. Settings (pp. 234-245). New York: Modern
Connor, U. (1996). Contrastive Rhetoric: Cross- Language Association of America.
cultural Aspects of Second-Language Writing. New Lux, P.A. (1991). Discourse styles of Anglo and
York: CUP. Latin American college student writers.
Connor, U. (1997). Contrastive rhetoric: Unpublished PhD, Arizona State University,
Implications for teachers of writing in United States, Arizona.
multicultural classrooms. In Severino, C., Mauranen, A. (1993). Contrastive ESP rhetoric:
Guerra, J. & Butler, J. (eds.). Writing in Metatext in Finnish-English economics texts.
Multicultural Settings (pp. 198-208). New York: English for Specific Purposes 12, 3-22.
Modern Language Association of America. Mauranen, A. (1996). Discourse competence:
Connor, U. (2004). Intercultural rhetoric Evidence from thematic development in
research: Beyond texts. Journal of English for native and non-native texts. In Ventola, E.
Academic Purposes 3, 291-304. & Mauranen, A. (eds.). Academic Writing:
Connor, U. (2008). Mapping multidimensional Intercultural and Textual Issues (pp. 195-230).
aspects of research: Reaching to intercultural Philadelphia: John Benjamins.
rhetoric. In Connor, U., Nagelhout, E. & Montao-Harmon, M.R. (1991). Discourse
Rozycki, W. (eds.). Contrastive Rhetoric: features of written Mexican Spanish: Current
Reaching to Intercultural Rhetoric (pp. 299-315). research in contrastive rhetoric and its
Philadelphia, PA: John Benjamins. implications. Hispania 74, 417-425.
Connor, U. & Kaplan, R. (eds.). (1987). Writing Moreno, A. (1997). Genre constraints across
Across Languages: Analysis of L2 Text. (2nd ed.). languages: Causal metatext in Spanish and
Reading, MASS: Addison Wesley. English RAs. English for Specific Purposes 16/3,
161-179.
5
Vol. 15 Winter 2012
Neff, J. & Prieto, R. (1994). L1 Influence on Spanish and English Students. Unpublished
Spanish EFL University Writing Development doctoral dissertation, Colorado State
(paper presented at the Annual Meeting of University.
the Teachers of English to Speakers of Santana-Seda, O. (1975). A Contrastive Study in
Other Languages) Baltimore, MD: Teachers Rhetoric: An Analysis of the Organization of
of English to Speakers of Other Languages English and Spanish Paragraphs Written by
(ERIC Document Reproduction Service No. Native Speakers of each Language.
ED385144). Unpublished doctoral dissertation, New
Ostler, S. (1987). English in parallels: A York University, New York, U.S.
comparison of English and Arabic prose. In Trujillo-Sez, F. (2003). Culture in writing:
Connor, U. & Kaplan, R. (eds.). Writing Discourse markers in English and Spanish
Across Languages: Analysis of L2 Text (pp. 169- student writing. In Departamento de
185). Reading, MA: Addison-Wesley. Didctica de la Lengua y la Literatura (ed.).
Prez-Ruiz, L. (2001). Anlisis Retrico Contrastivo: Tadea Seu Liber de Amicitia (pp. 345-364).
El Resumen Lingstico y Mdico en Ingls y Granada: Generalife.
Espaol. Unpublished doctoral dissertation, Ventola, E. & Mauranen, A. (eds.). (1996).
Facultad de Filosofa y Letras. Universidad Academic Writing: Intercultural and Textual
de Valladolid. Retrieved on 02/10/2005 Issues. Philadelphia: John Benjamins.
from: Zamel, V. (1997). Toward a model of
http://www.cervantesvirtual.com/FichaObr transculturation. TESOL Quarterly 31/2, 341-
a.html?Ref=7782&ext=pdf 352.
Reid, J. (1988). Quantitative Differences in
English Prose Written by Arabic, Chinese,