2.

Contrastive rhetoric
In 1966 an article was printed by Robert Kaplan that has been the subject of great
debate and discussion ever since. Kaplan’s thesis was that different languages (and their
cultures) have different patterns of written discourse. English discourse, according to
Kaplan (1966:14) was schematically described as proceeding in a straight line, Semitic
writing in a zigzag formation, “Oriental” written discourse in a spiraling line, and so forth
(see below).
Figure 17.1. Patterns of Written Discourse (Kaplan, 1966:14)

The point of his conclusions about how we write was, of course, that learners of
English bring with them certain predispositions, which come from their native languages,
about how to organize their writing. If English writers get “straight” to the point, and
Chinese writers “spiral” around the point, then a Chinese speaker who is learning English
will encounter some difficulty in learning to write English discourse.
There were serious problems with Kaplan’s study. His diagrams and conclusions
were simplistic and overgeneralized. Simplistic, because he based his conclusions about
English discourse on style manuals rather than using data from actual writing in English.
Overgeneralized, because on cannot conclude that English writers consistently use a
“straight-line” attack on a thesis and certainly cannot make any generalization that applies,
for example, to all Oriental languages. Furthermore, without a native-speaking English
control group, one cannot determine if the “difficulty” of his sample data is simply the
difficulty any inexperienced writer might encounter in learning to write.
Nevertheless, there was and still is a ring of truth to Kaplan’s claims. No one ca
deny the effect of one’s native culture, or one’s predispositions that are the product of
perhaps years of schooling, reading, writing, thinking, asserting, arguing, and defending. In
our current paradigm of attending carefully to schemata and scripts, native language
patterns of thinking and writing simply cannot be ruled out. A balanced position of this
issue, then, would uphold the importance of your carefully attending to the rhetorical first
language interference that may be at play in your students’ writing. But rather than holding
a dogmatic or predictive view (that certain writers will experience difficulty because of their
native language), you would be more prudent to adopt a “weak” position (see PLLT,
Chapter 89 in which you would consider a student’s cultural/literacy schemata as one
possible source of difficulty.
In recent years new research studies have appeared that tackle the issue of
contrastive rhetoric (see Leki, 1991). One important conclusion from this renewed wave of
research is the significance of valuing students’ native-language-related rhetorical
traditions, and of guiding them through a process of understanding those schemata, but
not attempting to eradicate them. That self-understanding on the part of students may then
lend itself to a more effective appreciation and use of English rhetorical conventions.

Brown, H.D. 1994. Teaching by Principles. Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice Hall (pp 322-
323)