对比修辞理论与中英文写作的修辞差异_英文_

2008年12月第31卷　第6期中国英语教学(双月刊)C EL EA J ournal(Bimonthly)Dec.2008Vol.31N o.6CR THEOR Y AN D RHET ORICAL DIFFERENCES BETWEEN CHINESE AN D ENG L ISH WRITINGChe n Xia nCe nt ral Sout h U niversit y of Forest ry a nd Tec h nologyAbstract CR theory f ocuses on the study of academic or professional writing across diff erent cultural settings.One recurring question of CR theory in the Chinese ESL context is whether the rhetorical diff erences in organization,modeling,and syntax bet ween Chinese and English writing indeed exist,and if so how they affect ESL writing.Through examining the controversies surrounding these rhetorical diff erences along with a brief review of the develop ment of CR theory and pedagogical i mplications,this paper contends that the study of CR theory has exerted benef icial inf luences on L2writing.Key w or dsCR theory;organization,modeling,and syntax;pedagogical i mplications1.Int roductionCont rastive r het oric(hereaf ter,CR)as a p romising area of linguistic st udy a nd second language (L2)research p rop oses valuable generalizations about how p eople st ruct ure written work a nd how lear ners lear n t o write.The t heory of C R,pioneered by Kapla n in1966,f ocuses on two main p ersp ectives(Wa ng2004):a)t he unique r het orical f eat ures of each la nguage and cult ure;and b)t he interf erences of first la nguage(L1)r het orical conventions in Englis h as a Subsequent L anguage (hereaf ter,ESL)writing(p.74).Wit h resp ect t o t he two p ersp ectives in t he Chinese ESL context,t hree significant r het orical diff erences between Chinese a nd Englis h have been p rop osed(e1g1Bloom1981;Hint on1951;Kaplan 1966;Kowal1998;L evenson1968;Liu1990;Matalene1985;):(i)indirection vs.direction in organization,i1e1t he organization of Chinese writing is less linear t han Englis h(Kapla n1966);(ii)non2 innovation vs.innovation in modeling,i1e1Chinese writers are more likely t o comply wit h conventional writing rules t han are Wester n writers(Matalene1985);a nd(iii)p ref erence f or f act ual vs. counterf actual hyp ot heses,i1e1in cont rast t o Wester n writers,Chinese writers tend t o employ less counterf actual sentences as a reflection of t heir cult urally2rooted t hinking p atter ns(Bloom1981).One recurring issue in relevant C R research is w het her t hese r het orical diff erences indeed exist and if so how t hey aff ect Chinese lear nersπESL writing,as cont roversies have arisen wit h regard t o each of t he p rop osed cont rasts(e1g1Au1983;Moha n&L o1985;Kir kp at rick1991;Kowal1998).This p ap er will f ocally exa mine t he cont roversies surrounding t he p rop osed r het orical diff erences between Chinese and Englis h f ollowing a review of C R t heory,a nd p resent arguments a nd evidence of t heir i mp acts on ESL writing.Af ter t he review of t hese cont roversies,it s hows t hat Chinese r het oric do diff er f rom Englis h r het oric because of diff erent cult ures.Finally,p edagogical i mplications of C R t heory will be discussed.C EL EA J our na lπ822.A Brief Review of CR TheoryThe1950s a nd1960s wit nessed a changed world wit h t he develop ment of civic rights by t he end of World War Two.As Kowal(1998)states,more and more st udents f rom East Asia a nd Eastern Europ e attended universities,which cha nged mainst rea m classrooms t o multicult ural ones.As universities beca me “macrocos ms of t he worldwide communit y”(Kowal1998:102),educat ors and researchers bega n t o be conf ronted by t he issue of how t o deal wit h st udents f rom diff erent cult ural backgrounds.In order t o resolve t his issue and give guidance t o teachers in multicult ural classrooms,Kaplan(1966)conducted a research int o t he r het orical f eatures of ESL st udents and p rop osed t he Classical C R t heory(Connor 1996).Through exa mining nearly seven hundred English essays written by U niversity of Sout h Calif ornia st udents f rom all over t he world,Kapla n(1966)identified five diff erent r het orical organization p atter ns, each of w hich he clai med rep resents a kind of cult ural t hought p atter n:“Englis h”,“Semitic”,“Oriental”,“Roma nce”a nd“Russian”(p.15),as s hown in Figure1:English↓Semitic Oriental Romance Russia nFigure1.Kaplan(1966:15)Cult ural Thought Patter nAccording t o Figure1,Englis h r het oric is logically linear based on its linear t hought p atter n;w hile t he Oriental t hought p attern is p resented as spiral a nd circular,w hich leads t o an indirect r het orical p atter n(Kapla n1966:13).In Classical C R t heory,Kaplan(1966)suggested t hat L2learnersπusing single words or sentences correctly does not i mply p roducing eff ective p aragrap hs or essays because of t heir diff erent ways of logical t hinking,w hich are largely aff ected by t heir own cult ures(Kaplan1966). In ot her word,cult ure plays a crucial role in ESL writing.Though Classical C R t heory has op ened up a new direction of r het orical research,it has met wit h some difficulties a nd criticis ms in regard t o its inadequacy of empirical research,t he p rivileged sta ndards of native Englis h sp ea kersπwriting,a nd t he overgeneralization of orga nizational p atter ns,w hich will be elaborated later.A mong many critics,Connor(1996)adva nced two major revisions in her Revised C R t heory(Connor2002,2003).First,t he Revised C R t heory moved f rom t he text linguistic p ersp ective t o st udying writing as an activit y p erception;t hat is,writing is exa mined as p rocess rat her t ha n p roduct. Second,Connorπs(1996)Revised C R t heory is based on a multi2t heoretical f ra mewor k(Figure2). According t o Figure2,in addition t o linguistic relativit y t heory,t he t heory of applied linguistics,t he t heory of r het oric,t he t heory of text linguistics,t he t heory of discourse t yp es genres,t he t heory of literacy a nd t he t heory of t ra nslation ai m at cult ural eff ects in ESL writing.All t hese help build a st ronger and richer t heoretical web f or C R t heory,and p ave t he way f or new directions in C R st udies.Connor(2002,2003)has in recent years f urt her revised and exp a nded C R t heory in ter ms of redefining cult ure,literacy,a nd critical p edagogy.One p aradigm p rop osed by Connor(2002)has gained wide p op ularit y a mong many cont rastive r het oricia ns,i1e1cult ural diff erences s hould be taught in order t o help writers t o be p roficient in t he target la nguage writing.Besides t hese new develop ments,current C R t heory has embraced ot her di mensions,such as a nalyzing p articular cult ural writing st yles a nd explaining diff erent writing p atter ns(Connor2003).Figure 2.Connor πs (1996:9)Cont rastive R het oric Theoretical FoundationsThrough reviewing hist orical develop ment of CR t heory ,it is clear t hat ,cult ure plays a n i mp ortant role in C R t heory a nd CR t heory has t o be op en and flexible enough t o evolve as new data come t o light (Kapla n 2005).When C R t heory applies t o a sp ecific setting such as Chinese ESL writing ,one recurring question is w het her t he alleged r het orical diff erences between Chinese and Englis h writing indeed exist a nd ,if so ,how t hey diff er.The f ollowing discussion will explore t he releva nce of C R t heory t o ESL writing t hrough critically reviewing cont roversies on r het orical diff erences between Chinese a nd Englis h writing.3.The Effects of CR Theory on Chinese ESL Writing3.1Generalized Differences between Chinese and Englis h Rhetoric3.1.1Indirection vs.Direction in OrganizationBased on t he five r het orical p atter ns p rop osed in Kaplan (1966),Kapla n (1972)p ost ulated t he p rinciples of discourse orga nization and believed ,a mong ot her t hings ,t hat Ger ma nic la nguages tend t o be linear in writing ,in cont rast t o oriental la nguages ,w hich tend t o be circular.CR The ory a nd Rhe t ori c a l Dif f e r e nc e s be t we e n Chine s e a nd Englis h Wri t ing Chen Xi anC EL EA J our na lπ82Bef ore Kapla n,t he spiral Asia n writing p atter n had already been identified by some r het oricia ns a nd educat ors as a unique writing model f or quasi2i nductive organization.For exa mple,Hint onπs(1951) quasi2i nductive p rinciple states t hat Asia n writing,in cont rast t o Wester n written discourse,tends t o be more indirect and t hat t he narrative texts develop in ter ms of what t hey are not rat her t han what t hey act ually are.Furt her more,Hint on clai med t hat t his kind of writing app ears t o be wit hout a t hesis state ment in t he Wester n sense,which ma kes it more difficult f or Wester n readers t o understand t he aut horπs intention.Hsu(1981)clai med t hat t his indirect ness in Chinese writing originated f rom Chinese mut ual dependence.Founded on Edwardπs(1977)inter2group explanations f or high context cult ure,Hsu(1981) defined Chinese mut ual dependence as“being more sit uation2centered”a nd being“inclined t o be socially or psychologically dep endent on ot hers”(p.10).That is t o say,comp ared wit h t he fluid and changing groups,Chinese groups tend t o be more stable a nd established(Hsu1981).U nder t he influence of t his i mmobile cult ural tendency,Chinese writers tend t o use more eup hemis ms and circumlocutions t o avoid off ending ot hers and maintain self2estee m in t he social communit y,w hich is reflected in t he more indirect organization of Chinese writing.In addition t o Chi nese mut ual dependence,Conf ucia nism has also influenced t he indirect r het orical f eat ure of Chinese writing(L evenson1968).L evenson explained t hat Conf ucianis m ca n be underst ood generally as a p hilosop hy t hat advocates f or social group t o f ollow t he moral,p olitical,and p hilosop hical doct rines and ort hodoxies.The consciousness of avoiding complacency and being modest in Conf ucia nism would render it rude t o exp ress oneπs intention at t he beginning of a conversation or a text(Carson&Nelson1996).Hence,it is generally difficult t o find a n initial t hesis state ment in articles by Chinese writers.3.1.2Non2innovation vs.Innovation in ModelingA variety of st udies off er t he insight t hat Chinese writers are more likely t o comply wit h conventional writing rules t ha n are Western writers(Matalene1985).For instance,some researchers believe t hat Chinese t raditional exa mination system is resp onsible f or t his r het orical f eat ure(e1g1Bloom1981;Clyne 1994;Kapla n1966;Liu1990).Tracing back t o t he Sui dynast y(607AD),t he t raditional Chinese exa mination system has exerted a significa nt i mp act on t he Chinese language(Miyaza ki1963).Through exa mining t he civic service exa mination of i mp erial China,Miyaza ki stated t hat t his exa mination emp hasized a p ersonπs complia nce and loyalt y t o t he sovereignty,since p assing t his exa mination mea ns t o step int o t he upp er societ y.Since t he main p urp ose of t his exa m is t o select officials f or monarchy,it consisted of writing a n essay wit h ext re mely rigid rules in order t o show obedience(L evenson1968).The eight2legged essay,requiring fixed Conf ucian content and a rigidly p rescriptive st ruct ure,was employed and develop ed as a highly valued t raditional genre f or t his civic service exa m(Kapla n1966).Kaplan argued t hat t he eight2legged conventional f or m has exerted a p rof ound influence on Chinese r het oric, w hich f ollows t he p attern of“beginni ng2t ra nsition2t urn2synt hesis”(Liu1990:40).This new model is equally rigid,which writers tend t o f ocus on wit hout innovation just as t hey once did.In ot her words,Liu clai med t hat t he non2innovative writing model continues unabated.Philosop hically,Oliver(1971)stated t hat t his r het orical f eat ure comes f rom t he p rinciple of loyalt y and obedience emp hasized in Conf ucianis m,w hich highlights t he absolute obedience t o a nd t otal resp ect f or aut horit y a nd seniorit y.A not her critical f act or t hat leads t o t his non2innovation r het orical f eat ure f or Chinese writers is t he p rinciple of Chi nese social decency in Chinese social relationship(Gra ha m&L a m 2003).In view of Gra ha m a nd L a mπs descrip tion,social decency mea ns t o keep t o t he conduct a nd sp eech of a series of standards t hat are deter mined by various cultural contexts.By a nalyzing Chinese negotiation,Gra ha m a nd L a m(2003)clai med t hat westerners are f requently conf used w hy someti mes Chinese be have so f or mally even in casual circumsta nces.As a matter of f act,acting f or mally caters t o Chi nese social decency because f or malit y is a n indicat or of a p ersonπs social stat us.As a result,writing can be seen as a f or m of exercising a certain social f unction.Consequently,Chinese written discourse nor mally f ollows t he p reset f or ms wit hout much innovation.3.1.3Preference for Fact ual vs.Counterf act ual Sentences in SyntaxThe counterf act ual sentence,defined by Kapla n(1987b)as an if2t hen conditional state ment,is an app rop riate MODAL+IN FINI TIV E in t he indep endent clause wit h a p ast tense as t he mar ker in t heCR The ory a nd Rhe t ori c a l Dif f e r e nc e s be t we e n Chine s e a nd Englis h Wri t ing　Chen Xi andep endent clause,as in“If Cleop at raπs nose had been longer,t he hist ory of t he world would have been diff erent”(Kaplan2005:378).The essence of t he counterf act ual sentence is a hyp ot hetical statement t o exp ress t he irrealis(Kowal1998).Bloom(1981)investigated crosslinguistic counterf actualit y by conducting a n exp eri ment a mong native Chinese sp ea kers,native Englis h sp ea kers and bilingual sp ea kers of Chinese and English.The exp eri mental group was comp rised of native sp ea kers of Chinese at a Taiwan U niversit y,hotel wor kers in Taiwa n,and st udents f rom Hong Kong,w hile t he cont rol group was comp rised of all native English sp ea kers at a U.S.college.Each group was asked t o interp ret t he counterf actual mea ning in a st ory.The result shows t hat“[t]he average p ercentage of Chinese counterf actual resp onses is only29%vs.97%f or A mericans”(Bloom1981:28),and Chinese sp ea kers in general“do not have at t heir disp osal already p rep ared cognitive sche mas t o interp ret counterf act ual state ments”(p.28).The result confir ms t hat t he counterf act ual conditional is rarely used in Chinese writing,t hough t he conventional conditional occurs(Bloom1981).Relating linguistic st ruct ure wit h cognitive st ruct ure,Kapla n(2005)clai med t hat t he rare occurrence of counterf act ual conditionals in Chinese as opp osed t o Englis h is due t o diff erences of p hilosop hic cognition between Buddhist logic in Chinese and Arist otelia n logic in Englis h.Kaplan(1987b)p ointed out five diff erences between Wester n Arist otelia n t hinking and Chinese Buddhist t hinking t o explain t he use of counterf act ual statements in Chinese a nd English.First,Arist otelia n reasoning is only concer ned wit h t he f or mal validity of a n argument,a nd w her t he p re mises of a n argument are t rue or not ma kes no diff erence;while Buddhist reasoning emp hasizes t he act ualit y of hyp ot hetical p remises.Second,“accepta nce,t rut h,and validit y are not diff erentiated”in Chinese Buddhist logic;rat her,“t he t hree are clearly diff erentiated”in Arist otelia n logic.Third,Arist otelia n logic op erates in ter ms of variables such as diff erent subjects;w hile Chinese Buddhist logic does not f ocus on such variables and is“not syste matically abst ract f rom t he concrete ter ms in its p rop ositions t o f or mulate laws gover ning valid inf erence”.Fourt h,in contrast to Aristotelian logic,actuality of a concrete semantic structure is important in Chinese Buddhist logic.Fift h,Chinese Buddhist logic is tolerant to implicit argument;while Aristotelian logic has to be“explicit on every logically relevant aspect of an argument”(Kaplan1987b:2).The literat ure on diff erences in organization,modeling,and concept ually2based syntax between Chinese a nd English writing,wit h argumentative and e mpirical evidence,has suggested t hat t he organization of Chinese writing is less linear t han Englis h(Kaplan1966);t hat Chinese writers are more likely t o abide by conventional writing nor ms t ha n are Wester n writers(Matalene1985);and t hat Chinese writers employ significantly less counterf act ual sentences(Bloom1981).We ca n find t hose r het orical diff erences indeed exist and are influenced by cult ure.However,counter2arguments regarding each diff erence are not lacking(e1g1Au1983;Mohan&L o1985;Matalene1985;Kowal1998;Zhu 2005),t o which we now t ur n.3.2Cont roversies over t he Proposed Rhetorical DifferencesThe p rop osition of indirect r het oric f or Chinese has met wit h some criticisms,one of which is its overgeneralization.Moha n a nd L o(1985)conducted a survey on a comp arison of English comp ositions in Hong Kong a nd Britis h Columbia,w hich argues t hat instead of making a n objective a nd quantitative error analysis of t he110essays collected f rom Chinese st udents,Kaplan only discussed f our exa mples,of w hich only one was exp osit ory p rose a nd t he ot her t hree belonged t o narration or descrip tion.Given t he under2 rep resentation a nd s mall size of t he sa mples,Kapla nπs conclusion about t he indirect ness see ms an overgeneralization.Regarding rigid f or m in Chinese writing,Kirkp at rick(1991)suggested t hat t his r het orical f eat ure in Chinese writing can be att ributed t o a diff erent syntactic rule,i1e1subordinate2main st ruct ure(S2M), w hich means t hat t he main clause is p receded by a subordinate clause;w hereas English takes t he main2 subordinate st ruct ure(M2S)as un mar ked.Zhu(2005)indicated t hat bot h S2M a nd M2S are p revalent in moder n Chinese writing.For exa mple,S2M usually occurs in a p olite request letter;while ot her genres related t o sp eech2act t yp es tend t o be more direct as only M2S(Zhu2005).In a word,such research advocates against an overly si mplistic generalization t hat Chinese writers are likely t o comply wit h fixed writing rules rat her t han innovation.C EL EA J our na lπ82In resp onse t o Chinese p ref erence f or t he f act ual as argued by Bloom(1981)and Kapla n(1987),Au (1983)argued t hat t he Chinese subjects in Bloomπs st udy had not interp reted t he st ory counterf act ually because t he diction of t he Chinese st ory was unnecessarily complicated and conf using,t hus conf ounding t he findings.The above counter2arguments against t he t hree r het orical diff erences between Chinese and English writing rep resent a complex p a nora ma wit h resp ect t o CR t heory.Nonet heless,most st udies in supp ort of t he diff erences do p rovide e mpirical evidence;on t he ot her hand,t he st udies against t he validit y of such diff erences lack sufficient empirical evidence.According t o Connorπs(1996)Revised C R t heory,one way t o achieve a rational p osition f rom discrep ant findings is t o consider t he genre a nd t he readersπexp ectations.For exa mple,Chinese acade mic writing is usually indirect,w hereas Chinese p rof essional writing develops in a more linear way(Zhu2005).For non2acade mic a nd t raditional writing,t here is some ground f or believing t hat t he t hree r het orical diff erences are plausible a nd t hose are indeed interf ered by cult ural f act ors.3.3The Impacts of Rhetorical Differences on ESL WritingThe i mp acts of t he af orementioned r het orical diff erences on ESL writing ca n be seen in some Chinese ESL lear ners.Some st udies have exa mined t he i mp act of indirect and circular organization in Chinese st udentsπESL writing.For exa mple,Fagan and Cheongπs(1987)analysis of60English comp ositions written by Chinese ESL nint h graders in Singap ore showed t hat50.9%of st udents still employed t he t raditional Chinese f our2p art model of qi2cheng2zhua n2he,a n obvious t ransf er of t he indirect orga nization f rom Chinese t o English writing.Through exa mining a Chinese writing class in Taiwan,Chou(1989)clai med t hat qi2cheng2zhuan2he was still being taught in Taiwa nese schools.The st udents had two options w hile writing a n essay:1)qi conceals t he main t hesis t hrough a sub2t he me, chang develop es t he sub2t heme.Zhuan int roduces t he main t heme,a nd he concludes;or2)qi int roduces t he main t he me,chang develop es t he main t heme,zhuan p rovides an a necdotal exa mple,a nd he concludes.In cont rast,t he standard t hree2step p atter n in English is:1)int roducing t he main t he me;2) developing t he main t hesis;and3)concluding(Kapla n1966).Furt her more,Mataleneπs(1985)analysis of Englis h essays written by Chinese ESL st udents revealed many awkward narration a nd unrelated statements bef ore t he arguments.Also,t hese English comp ositions tended t o ref er t o hist orical p hilosop hies a nd rely on cust oms a nd aut horities,rat her t han exp ress t he writersπown viewp oints f reely and directly.Matalene f urt her stated t hat f actual sentences occurred in t hese ESL essays more of ten t han in native English writing,a nd indicated t hat t his r het orical characteristic s hould be identified by ESL writing teachers a nd app rop riate teaching syllabus s hould be adop ted t o address t his issue.Having discussed t he i mp acts of r het orical diff erences on ESL writing,it see ms t hat r het orical diff erences are significantly aff ected by writersπcult ural backgrounds.Even so,one ca n not deny t hat C R t heory still has li mitations.For insta nce,because essays analyzed are written by st udents in t heir develop mental stages,wit h t he develop ment of st udentsπL2p roficiency,r het orical st ruct ures would change(Noor2001).Thus,C R t heory needs t o take int o account ESL learnersπwriting develop ment as well.4.Pedagogical ImplicationsDespite such li mitations,C R t heory still has usef ul p edagogical i mplications.Many researchers indicate t hat t he most adva ntages of C R t heory are t o help ESL teachers wit h teaching ESL writing and t o p rovide writing guidance f or ESL st udents,w hich inf or ms ESL writing lear ners in ter ms of concept ual lear ning,p aying attention t o discourse level,a nd Kir kp at rickπs(1997)Seven Principles(e1g1Gonzalez, Chen&Sa nchez2001;Kir kp at rick1997;Kaplan2005).Through investigating how cult ural t hinking and discourse organizational p atter ns influence Chinese ESL lear nersπwriting skills,Gonzalez et al.(2001)p rop osed t hat a n i mp orta nt i mplication f or ESL lear ners is t o achieve concept ual learni ng,w hich means lear ning how native sp eakers t hink a nd how t o use social a nd cult ural conventions in sp ecific contexts,i1e1lear ning target language t hought p atter ns a ndCR The ory a nd Rhe t ori c a l Dif f e r e nc e s be t we e n Chine s e a nd Englis h Wri t ing　Chen Xi anits p ragmatics,such as“idiomatic exp ressions,adaptation t o audience,a nd content knowledge domain”(Gonzalez et al.2001).Gonzalez et al.f urt her stated t hat concept ual learning will lead st udents t o become bi2cognitive and bicult ural,and ulti mately become a confident bilingual t hrough t ra nscending t he sema ntic and p ragmatic knowledge in syntactic and gra mmatical lear ning.Shenπs(1989)account reveals t hat bicult ural concept ual learni ng is inst rumental t o target language lear ning a nd writing,which suggests t hat concept ual learni ng should be included in ESL teaching curricula.Kir kp at rick(1997)p resented seven p rinciples about p edagogic C R t heory:a)because r het orical f eat ures of a language ca n only be drawn out t hrough exa mining aut hentic essays,L2lear ners s hould be exp osed t o large qua ntities of L2materials t o understand L2r het orical st ruct ures;b)t here must be st ylistic symmet ries in two exa mined essays,in ter ms of t he sa me genre;c)writers s hould always bear in mind t he p otential readers;d)it is i mp ossible t o find out p rescrip tive manuals f or learning L2writing;e) models are i mp ortant w hile learning L2r het orical p atter ns;f)p ractice makes p erf ect;a nd g)C R t heory is evolving over ti me.Kir kp at rickπs seven p rinciples p rovide usef ul p rinciples f or teaching ESL writing, and ESL teachers ca n adopt t hem critically according t o t he teaching environ ment.Furt her more,in Kaplanπs(2005)latest wor k on C R t heory,he p ointed out t hat t he most value of C R t heory lies in helping t o create a n environment w hich ta kes int o consideration not only sentence st ruct ure but also st ruct ural diff erences in discourse across languages.That is,C R t heory t ur ns t he teachersπf ocus teaching f rom t he sentence level t o t he discourse level.Also,Kaplan clai ms t hat r het orical p atter ns a nd texts may diff er widely across cult ures,and ESL writing needs t o f ocus more on influences of cross2cult ural knowledge.5.ConclusionThe discussion of t he develop ment of C R,t he eff ects of Chinese a nd Englis h r het orical diff erences, and p edagogic i mplications of C R has p rovided a p anora ma of C R t heory.Arguments a nd e mpirical evidence f or C R t heory suggest t hat Chinese a nd English r het orical f eat ures do diff er wit h resp ect t o direct ness,modeling,and syntax,due t o diff erent cult ural backgrounds,alt hough t he diff erences are more complex t han what Kaplan initially described.These diff erences have exerted significa nt i mp acts on ESL writing.The evolvement of C R t heory,w hich has undergone cha nges under t he influence of much research over t he years,dema nds t hat ESL teachers hoping t o benefit f rom applying linguistic t heories consta ntly up date t heir p rof essional knowledge,so as t o keep up wit h t he latest develop ments. ReferencesAlf ord,D.K.H.1978.The demise of the Whorf hypothesis.Berkeley Linguistic s So ciety Pro ceedings4:4852 499.Au,T.K. F.1983.Chinese and English counterfactuals:The Sapir2Whorf hypothesis revisited.Cognition 15:155287.Bloom,A.H.1981.The Linguistic Shaping of Thought:A Study in the Impact of Language on Thinking in China and the West.Hillsdale,NJ:Lawrence Erlbau m.Carson,J.G.&G.L.Nelson.1996.Chinese students perceptionsπof ESL peer response group interaction.Journal of Second Language Writing5(1):1219.Chao,Y.R.1976.Aspects of Chinese So ciolinguistic s.Stanf ord:Stanf ord U niversity Press.Chou,H.L.1989.Contrastive rhetoric:Chinese and English.In S.M.Change,D.S. D.Tseng&B. C.Hwang(eds.).Collection of Papers Presented in the Sixth Conference on English Teaching and Learning in the Republic of China,pp.2512269.Taipei,China:Crane.Clyne,M.G.1994.Written discourse across culture.Inter2cultural Communication at Work:Cultural Values in Discourse.Cambridge:Cambridge U niversity Press.Connor,U.1996.Contrastive Rhetoric:Cro ss2cultural Aspects of Second2language Writing.New York: Cambridge U niversity Press.Connor,U.2002.New directions in contrastive rhetoric.TES OL Quarterly36(4):4932510.Connor,U.2003.Changing currents in contrastive rhetoric:Implications f or teaching and research.In B.Kroll(ed.).Exploring the Dynamic s of Second Language Writing,pp.2182241.New York:CambridgeC EL EA J our na lπ82U niversity Press.Gonzalez,V., C.Y.Chen&C.Sanchez.2001.Cultural thinking and discourse organizational patterns influencing writing skills in Chinese EFL learners.Bilingual Research Journal25(4):6272652. Graham,L,G.&m.2003.The Chinese negotiation.Harvard Business Review81(10):82. Fagan, E.R.&P.Cheong.1987.Contrastive rhetoric:Pedagogical i mplications f or the ESL teacher in Singapore.R EL C:A Journal of Language Teaching and Research in Southeast Asia18(1):19231. Hinton,J.M.1951.Quasi2inductive skepticism.Mind,New Series60(240):5422547.Hsu,F.L.K.1981.Americans and Chinese:Two ways of life.Honolulu:U of Hawaii P.Kaplan,R. B.1966.Cultural thought patterns in inter2cultural nguage Learning16(1):1220. Kaplan,R. B.1972.Cultural thought patterns in inter2cultural education.In K.Crof t(ed.).Reading on English as a Second Language,pp.2462262.Cambridge,Mass:Winthrop.Kaplan,R. B.1987a.Cultural thought patterns revisited.In U.Connor&R. B.Kaplan(eds.).Writing acro ss Language:Analysis of L2Text(1st ed.),pp.9222.Reading MA:Addison2Wesley.Kaplan,R. B.1987b.Fact and counterfact:An exploration in Chinese writing.Paper presented to the Annual Conf erence of TESOL,Miami.Kaplan,R. B.2005.Contrastive rhetoric.In E.Hinkel(ed.).Handbook of Research in Second Language Teaching and Learning,pp.3752391.Mahwah,NJ:Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.Kirkpatrick,A.1991.Inf ormation sequencing in Mandarin in letters of request.Anthropological Linguistic s33(2):1832203.Kirkpatrick,ing contrastive rhetoric to teach writing:Seven Principles.Australian Review of Applied Linguistic s14:892102.Kowal,K.H.1998.Rhetorical Implications of Linguistic Relativity.New York:Peter Lang Publishing,Inc. Levenson,J.R.1968.Conf ucian China and its Modern Fate.Berkeley:U of Calif ornia P.Li,Y.2005.Rhetorical structure and cultural thought pattern in ESL writing.U np ublished MA,Brock U niversity.Liu,M. C.1990.Beginning2transition2turn2synthesis(Qi,Cheng,He,Jie).Australian Review of Applied Linguistic s Series6:38269.Matalene. C.1985.Contrastive rhetoric:An American writing teacher in china.College English47(8):789. Matsuda,P.K.2001.O n the origin of contrastive rhetoric:A response to H.G.Ying.International Journal of Applied Linguistic s11(2):2572260.Miyazaki,I.1963.Chinaπs Examination Hell:The Civil Service Examinations of Imperial China.New York: Weatherhill.Mohan,B. A.&W. A.Y.Lo.1985.Academic writing and Chinese students:Transf er and develop mental factors.TES OL Quarterly19(3):5152534.Noor,R.2001.Contrastive rhetoric in expository prose:Approaches and achievements.Journal of Pragmatic s 33(2):2552269.Oliver,munication and Culture in Ancient China and India.Syracuse:Syracuse U P. Taylor,G.&T.Chen.1991.Linguistic,cultural,and subcultural issues in contrastive discourse analysis: Anglo2American and Chinese scientif ic texts.Applied Linguistic s12(3):3152336.Wang,W.2004.A contrastive analysis of letters to the editor in Chinese and English.Australian Review of Applied Linguistic s27(1):72288.Zhu,Y.X.2005.Written Communication acro ss Cultures(1st ed.).Amstedam/Philadelp hia:J ohn Benjamins Publishing Company.。