Contrastive rhetoric (CR) has come under sharp criticism in recent years. This chapter first traces CR’s emphasis on textual differences in students’ writing to its historical link to formal linguistics, delineating the reach and limitations of such an approach. Then, examining the major criticisms leveled against CR, it suggests that the criticism reflects the changing theoretical winds in Western academia. CR, with its continuing focus on the demonstrable linguistic traits of writing rather than their ideological implications, is vulnerable to charges of political neutrality, if not naiveté. Finally, it posits that intercultural rhetoric, by including qualitative research with expanded notions of culture, will offer both insights to teaching writing to non-native speakers of English and alternatives to the dominant discourse.
2024. The bidirectionality of epistemological theft and appropriation: contrastive rhetoric in China. Applied Linguistics Review 0:0
Shahi, Mohammad, Ahmad Moinzadeh & Mahmoud Afrouz
2024. Translation of Cultural Conceptualizations in War Literature: A Study of Cultural Schemas and Categories in Translation of Iran–Iraq War Literature. Journal of War & Culture Studies► pp. 1 ff.
Ni, Chuanbin & Xiaobing Jin
2023. Investigating the Borrowing of English Inflectional Morphemes Into Chinese Newspapers. Chinese Journal of Applied Linguistics 46:4 ► pp. 587 ff.
Garska, Jessica & Sarah O'Brien
2019. POWER, IDENTITY, AND CULTURE IN INTERNATIONAL STUDENTS' PERCEPTIONS OF ACADEMIC WRITING. Trabalhos em Linguística Aplicada 58:1 ► pp. 62 ff.
Wang, Zhaozhe
2019. Relive Differences through a Material Flashback.
College Composition & Communication
70:3 ► pp. 380 ff.
Maxwell-Reid, Corinne
2011. The Challenges of Contrastive Discourse Analysis. Written Communication 28:4 ► pp. 417 ff.
Fang, Qi
2009. The Features of Rhetorical Patterns in English Expository Essays by Chinese EFL English Majors and the Pedagogical Issues of Teaching L2 Writing at the Tertiary Level in China. Asian Englishes 12:1 ► pp. 74 ff.
This list is based on CrossRef data as of 25 june 2024. Please note that it may not be complete. Sources presented here have been supplied by the respective publishers.
Any errors therein should be reported to them.