Probing rhetorical structures of advanced learners' expository prose: A data-based approach

Authors

  • Marcellinus Marcellino

DOI:

https://doi.org/10.25170/ijelt.v3i2.1581

Keywords:

rhetoric, expository prose, contrastive rhetoric, AMINEF, rhetorical problems

Abstract

Logic, as the basis of rhetoric, always affects the way ideas, words, and evidence are assembled into one coherent structure. As rhetoric varies from culture to culture, it frequently brings about awkwardness, inappropriateness as well as immaturity of an expository prose if it does not meet the convention of organizational patterns  and signals as expected by the readers having that rhetoric. A number of scholars have highlighted the importance and insights of contrastive rhetoric for the teaching of academic writing. This paper describes various rhetorical problems encountered by dozens of advanced Indonesian learners of English taking an academic writing class at AMINEF (American Indonesian Exchange Foundation) who plan to study in the USA. This paper concludes with the caveat that difficulties in adopting English rhetoric is not simply  a linguistic problem but includes cultural understanding and awareness of its style. This paper offers insightful writing instructions to cope with the existing problems.

References

Bailey, N., Madden, C. & Krashen, S. D. 1974. Is there a ‘Natural Sequence’ in adult second language learning? Language Learning, 24, 235-243.
Brown, G. & Yule, G. 1983. Discourse analysis. London: Cambridge University Press.
Casanave, C. P. 1995. Local interactions: Constructing contexts for composing in a graduate sociology program. In D. Belcher & G. Brainer (Eds.), Academic writing in a second language: Essays on research and pedagogy (pp. 83-110). Norwood, NJ: Ablex.
Connor, U. 1987. Research frontiers in writing analysis. TESOL Quarterly 21/4, 677-696.
Connor, U. 1996. Contrastive rhetoric. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Corder, S. P. 1967. The significance of learners’ errors. International Review of Applied Linguistics, 5, 161-170.
Croft, K. 1980. Readings on English as a second language. Toronto: Little, Brown and Company (Inc.).
Dulay, H. & Burt, M. 1974. Natural sequences in child second language acquisition. Language Learning, 24, 37-53.
Enkvist, N.E. 1987. Text linguistics for an applier: An introduction. In U. Cornor & Robert B. Kaplan (Eds.), Writing across languages: Analysis of L2 Text (pp. 19-43). Reading, MA: Addison-Wesley.
Flower, L. S., & Hayes, J. R. 1981. A cognitive process theory of writing. College Composition and Communication, 32/4, 365387.
Hinds, J. 1983. Contrastive rhetoric: Japanese and English. Text 3/2, 183-195.
Hinds, J. 1990. Inductive, Deductive, Quasi-inductive: Expository writing in Japanese, Korean, Chinese, and Thai. In U. Connor & A. M. Johns (Eds.), Coherence in writing: Research and pedagogical perspectives (pp. 87-110). Alexandria, VA: TESOL, 1990.
Hunt, E. & Agnoli, F. 1991. The Whorfian hypothesis: A cognitive psychology perspective. Psychological Review, 98/3, 377-389.
Kaplan, R. B. 1966. Cultural thought patterns in intercultural education. Language Learning, 16, 1-20.
Kaplan, R. B. 1972. The Anatomy of rhetoric: Prolegomena to a functional theory of rhetoric. Philadelphia: Center for Curriculum Development.
Kaplan, R. B. 1980. Cultural thought patterns in intercultural education. In K. Croft (Eds.), Readings on English as a second language (pp. 213-221). Toronto: Little, Brown and Company (Inc.).
Krashen, S. 1977. Cultural thought patterns in intercultural education. In M.K. Burt, H.C. Dulay, & M. Finocchiaro (Eds.), Viewpoints on English as a second language (pp. 152-161). New York: Regents Publishing.
Leki, I. 1991. Twenty-five years of contrastive rhetoric: Text analysis and writing pedagogies. TESOL Quarterly, 25/1, 123-143.
Liebman, J. D. 1992. Toward a new contrastive rhetoric: Differences between Arabic and Japanese rhetorical instruction. Journal of Second Language Writing, 1/2, 141-166.
Matalene, C. 1985. Contrastive rhetoric: An American writing teacher in China. College English, 47/8, 789-808.
McKay, S. L. 1993a. Examining L2 composition ideology: A look at literacy. Journal of Second Language Writing, 2/1, 65-81.
McKay, S. L. 1993b. Agendas for second language literacy. New York: Cambridge University Press.
Mohan, B. A. & Lo, W.A-Y. 1985. Academic writing and Chinese students: Transfer and developmental factors. TESOL Quarterly, 19/3, 515-534.
Purves, A. C. 1988. Introduction. In A.C. Purves (Ed.), Writing across languages and cultures: Issues in contrastive rhetoric (pp. 9-21). Newbury Park, CA: Sage.
Raimes, A. 1991. Out of the woods: Emerging translations in the teaching of writing. TESOL Quarterly, 25/3, 407-430.
Rubin, D. L. 1988. Introduction: Four dimensions of social construction in written composition. In B.A. Rafoth & D.L. Rubin (Eds.), The social construction of written communication (pp. 1–33). Norwood, NJ: Ablex.
Selinker, L., Swain, M. & Dumas, G. 1975. The Interlanguage hypotheses extended to children. Language Learning, 25, 139-155.

Downloads

Published

2007-10-31
Abstract views: 11 | PDF downloads: 12