- Email: [email protected]
Intercultural Rhetoric in the Writing Classroom
Book reviews / Journal of English for Academic Purposes 14 (2014) 124e127
125
comments on what makes a social science essay distinctive. And they define such terms as, ‘question’, ‘claim’, ‘evidence’, ‘evaluation’ and ‘theory’. Theory, in particular, is instructively analysed to show how allegiances to particular theories and stances will affect not only methodology but also analyses. Redman and Maples then discuss the common errors in social science essays and, in doing so, again establish what makes such essays different from other types of writing. The bulk of their book, Chapters 3 to 9, examines the process of writing the essay. Chapter 3 presents an overview of the process and chapter 4 examines ‘Matching the Answer to the Question’. This chapter very usefully looks at ‘command’ or ‘process’ words in essay titles, such as ‘define’, ‘compare’, ‘discuss’, etc. Again, Redman and Maples contextualise these terms with good examples from essay titles. In this chapter as well, social science students are lead towards particular kinds of social science essays, i.e., advocacy, compare and contrast, and evaluation. Additionally, the authors give good suggestions as to breaking down the constituents of each of these essay types. Reading, note-taking and literature searches are discussed in chapter 5; in which the authors show how important it is to read with an eye to the question that is to be answered. Chapter 6 somewhat skims over critical thinking. It gives good examples of how to look at the limitations of evidence but little sense of how an undergraduate might escape those limitations. Chapters 7, 8 and 9 look at introductions, writing the ‘main’ section, and finally writing conclusions. The best of these is the long chapter on writing the main section (Chapter 8) with its useful advice on using evidence and quotation, although its comments on ‘communicating with your audience’ are a little generalised. Chapter 10 is on referencing, including good reasons for using references, not only the obvious need to acknowledge but also the need for students to demonstrate their familiarity with key material in an area. Chapter 11 is entitled ‘Some common worries’ and has some friendly and cogent advice on why people might not be able to write enough. Like Monipally and Pawar, Redman and Maples flag up the difficulties there are with the use of the first person and concomitant issues of subjectivity and objectivity, and the problems associated with and reasons for plagiarism. In Chapter 12, Redman and Maples tell their readers what tutors look for when marking essays. This is a slightly disappointing checklist of marking criteria and it would be easy to imagine a novice writer looking through these undigested lists and throwing up their hands in despair. The final chapter is more useful; a selection of four student essays with commentaries on each. Notwithstanding the provisos suggested above, this is a very useful book in many ways. It is a clear introduction to academic essay writing for novice social science writers, and, although its prose is sometimes clunky and costive, I would be happy to recommend it for use not only with its target audience but with post-graduate researchers. Ian Pople * University of Manchester, Oxford Road, Manchester M13 9PL, UK Tel.: þ44 (0)161 275 3996. E-mail address: [email protected] http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.jeap.2013.03.003
Intercultural Rhetoric in the Writing Classroom, U. Connor. University of Michigan Press, Ann Arbor (2011). 124 pp., ISBN: 978-0-472-03458-1, $US31.50, £UK20.95 Many readers of JEAP will be familiar with the work of Ulla Connor. She is perhaps best known for refining the concept of contrastive rhetoric, first introduced by Robert Kaplan in a 1966 essay “Cultural thought patterns in intercultural education”, and for her advocacy in setting up contrastive rhetoric as a field of study. Connor’s full-length work Contrastive Rhetoric: Cross-cultural Aspects of Second Language Writing (1996) is essential reading for anyone teaching or researching the way multilingual writers experience writing in different cultures. And yet, in Connor’s latest publication, Intercultural Rhetoric in the Writing Classroom, she argues that contrastive rhetoric is an outdated concept incapable of identifying or responding to the complexities of crosscultural communication. Given the importance of the concept of contrastive rhetoric to the teaching and research of many JEAP readers, a revisionary argument from a scholar of Connor’s reputation makes Intercultural Rhetoric an important work. To understand the importance of Connor’s argument in Intercultural Rhetoric it is necessary to provide a brief overview of the field of contrastive rhetoric studies. In 1966 Robert Kaplan presented the concept of contrastive rhetoric in an attempt to theorize how a writer’s rhetorical preferences, internalized while learning a language in one culture, might "interfere" with the writer’s ability to identify and learn the rhetorical preferences in a different cultural setting. Kaplan’s argument was important for the way it encouraged teachers and researchers to search for the connections between culture and rhetoric, and to use this information to improve the way language and writing are taught and experienced. While the concept was sometimes present in academic debates about ESL and EFL research and pedagogy in the 1970s and 1980s, Ulla Connor’s Contrastive Rhetoric (1996) represented a watershed moment for the development of contrastive rhetoric into a field in its own right. Connor updated research methods from the field of linguistics, particularly corpus and text analysis methods, to help researchers identify how writing approaches and styles are connected to cultural backgrounds. However, the concept of contrastive rhetoric has attracted criticism since its inception. Scholars have claimed that not all individuals are inculturated in the same way. That is, it is argued that rhetorical preferences apparent on a broad cultural (usually equated with national) scale are not internalized or valued equally by each individual member of that culture. This brings into question the assumption behind some early contrastive rhetoric studies that an individual’s cultural background
126
Book reviews / Journal of English for Academic Purposes 14 (2014) 124e127
instills certain rhetorical preferences that lead to pre-identifiable "mistakes" when that student writes in English. Further, critics argued that many working in the field of contrastive rhetoric assumed that culture is relatively static, unchanging over long periods of time and unchangeable by individual writers who may seek to develop individualized rhetorical flair or alter the language of their community. The challenge for scholars of contrastive rhetoric in the late 1990s and early 2000s was to argue for a more nuanced theory of culture to help explain the connection between individuals, cultural backgrounds and language learning in different cultural settings. In 2002, while Connor responded to some of these challenges in “New directions in contrastive rhetoric”, critics continued to challenge the field for its perceived rigidity in theorizing culture. In 2004, Connor presented “Intercultural rhetoric research: Beyond texts” in the Journal of English for Academic Purposes, an attempt to break free from the critical legacy of contrastive rhetoric and establish a new approach to crosscultural communication e an approach founded on a more complex and sensitive understanding of culture. Connor’s latest monograph is a continuation of what might be seen skeptically as the contrastive rhetoric rebranding exercise begun in her 2004 article in JEAP. But one of the very impressive aspects of Intercultural Rhetoric is the honest and open way in which Connor engages with criticisms of contrastive rhetoric. Citing criticisms such as those by Spack (1997), Zamel (1997), and Kubota (1999), Connor treats counter-arguments fairly with an intention to improve research into how culture influences the way students learn to write. As the name of the “new” field suggests, the central reorientation in the approach to understanding the influence of L1 and L2 cultures on writing is to place both cultures on an even footing e they are inter-related rather than contrasting. To further emphasize this shift, the method of the "new" field aims to redress perceived imbalances between the quantitative approaches to text analysis familiar to linguists and the qualitative approaches to discourse studies familiar to those from fields such as cultural and English studies. Text analysis, it is suggested, can usefully identify rhetorical patterns, while discourse analysis can properly contextualize such findings to develop a nuanced understanding of how rhetoric and culture are connected. However, balancing two different methodological approaches is always going to be difficult, and readers of Intercultural Rhetoric expecting discourse studies to make a significant contribution to the revision of Connor’s approach might be left wanting. While the text appears to be structured to develop a balanced methodology e two chapters are devoted to methodology, “Culture in intercultural rhetoric” and “Text analysis in intercultural rhetoric” e Connor appears to favour linguistics-based text analysis approaches. The 11-page chapter on culture, for example, is eclipsed by a 27-page chapter on text analysis. The danger here, particularly for a text that will be vital to the effort to shift the approach of contrastive rhetoric scholars to the new approaches of intercultural rhetoric, is that the critics of contrastive rhetoric might too easily extend their arguments to intercultural rhetoric by claiming that there remains only a thin veneer of cultural theory over a predominantly quantitative approach to understanding writing. Culture, it might be claimed, is something scholars need to understand only in order to interpret the real data that is derived from text analysis. Such appearances e where cultural studies is explanatory in contrast to the field of linguistics, which uncovers truth and knowledge e risk ostracizing many scholars who would benefit from an understanding of the general aim of intercultural rhetoric. Connor’s work here, then, might be more valuable for engaging text analysis scholars with some basic theories of culture, while it misses an opportunity to engage cultural studies scholars with some basic theories of text analysis. Despite allegations that Intercultural Rhetoric prioritizes text analysis over discourse studies as a method for investigating the challenges faced by multilingual writers, the cultural theory that is used by Connor is well selected. In particular, the use of Adrian Holliday’s (1994) work on small and large cultures allows Connor to pre-empt any claims that intercultural rhetoric stereotypes students according to national background. In summarizing Holliday’s work, Connor (2011) states: Large cultures have ethnic, national, or international group features as essential components and tend to be normative and prescriptive. Small cultures, on the other hand, are non-essentialist and based on dynamic processes that relate to cohesive behaviours within social groupings. Small cultures avoid culturist ethnic, national, and international stereotyping. (29) In using Holliday’s definitions of large and small cultures, Connor is able to develop a schema for inter-relating cultures in classroom environments, where a student’s communication may be affected by overlapping and interacting cultures that correspond to the numerous communities the student is a part of, such as national cultures, youth cultures, professional cultures, students cultures, and so on. Holliday’s distinction, and Connor’s application of it to the situation of multilingual writers, provides an accessible and useful concept of culture (that identifies the complexities of interacting cultures in a global world) for students and teachers alike. The definition of small and large cultures is central to the new field of intercultural rhetoric. Connor (2011) suggests that there are three premises from which to begin teaching and research using intercultural rhetoric studies: 1) “texts need to be seen in their full contexts” 2) it should be understood that “small and large cultures interact in complex ways”, and 3) “interaction in intercultural communication requires accommodation and negotiation, which also requires cultural sensitivity and effective communication strategies.” (64)
Following this, the process of research and teaching in intercultural rhetoric requires skills in contextualized textual analysis informed by a deep and sensitive understanding of culture. Unfortunately, these premises are not commonplace in
Book reviews / Journal of English for Academic Purposes 14 (2014) 124e127
127
most universities, and so Connor’s clear articulation of these values can be seen as a welcome contribution to the resources that influence our understanding of and teaching with multilingual writers. As an important contribution to the Michigan Series on Teaching Multilingual Writers, Intercultural Rhetoric provides an accessible review of a number of approaches to writing research and pedagogy. Connor also presents an argument that will no doubt transform the field of contrastive rhetoric and reposition cultural sensitivity and nuanced cultural analysis at its core. But there will remain some confusion about the intended audience of the text. Discussion questions at the end of each chapter appear to set the text up as a teaching textbook, but the questions are targeted variously at trainee teachers, research students, and experienced teachers and researchers. This lack of clarity around the intended audience may stretch the text too thinly across several readerships, where it may have had a larger impact by focussing more specifically on research students, trainee teachers or experienced academics. Connor’s latest work, that is, is unlikely to have the impact of Contrastive Rhetoric, even if it is an important work for various audiences. Experienced academics interested in the latest developments in contrastive and intercultural rhetoric, or interested in the feasibility of interdisciplinary approaches to ESL research and teaching, will find the text a quick study and a welcome summation of trends in the field. Research students and trainee teachers specializing in approaches to ESL, EFL, and EAP will likely constitute the most appreciative audience. In terms of a disciplinary readership, given the emphasis on text analysis and the use of sources predominantly from linguistics journals and texts, Connor’s work will appeal more to those in linguistics than other disciplines. Overall, Intercultural Rhetoric presents us with a new direction in teaching and research with multilingual writers. It will prove useful as a theoretical and practical guide for postgraduate students and trainee teachers, while experienced academics will appreciate a leader in the field providing a clear and honest synopsis of contrastive rhetoric and an argument for its transformation into intercultural rhetoric. References Connor, U. (1996). Contrastive Rhetoric: Cross-cultural aspects of second language writing. Cambridge UP. Connor, U. (2002). New directions in contrastive rhetoric. TESOL Quarterly, 36, 493e510. Connor, U. (2004). Intercultural rhetoric research: beyond texts. Journal of English for Academic Purposes, 3, 291e304. Connor, U. (2011). Intercultural rhetoric in the writing classroom. Michigan UP. Holliday, A. (1994). Small cultures. Applied Linguistics, 20, 237e264. Kaplan, R. (1966). Cultural thought patterns in intercultural education. Language Learning, 16, 1e20. Kubota, R. (1999). Japanese culture constructed by discourses. TESOL Quarterly, 33, 9e35. Spack, R. (1997). The rhetorical construction of multilingual students. TESOL Quarterly, 31, 765e774. Zamel, V. (1997). Toward a model of transculturation. TESOL Quarterly, 31, 341e343.
Benjamin Miller is a lecturer in the Writing Hub at the University of Sydney. The Writing Hub engages with the latest research in rhetoric-composition and the scholarship of teaching and learning to support the teaching and learning of academic writing. Benjamin is a published expert on Aboriginal rhetoric and writing in Australia, and is currently engaged in research into crosscultural communication in colonial Australia. Benjamin Miller * Writing Hub, School of Letters, Art and Media, Faculty of Arts and Social Sciences, University of Sydney, NSW 2006, Australia Tel.: þ61 2 9351 2542. E-mail address: [email protected] http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.jeap.2013.09.002
125
comments on what makes a social science essay distinctive. And they define such terms as, ‘question’, ‘claim’, ‘evidence’, ‘evaluation’ and ‘theory’. Theory, in particular, is instructively analysed to show how allegiances to particular theories and stances will affect not only methodology but also analyses. Redman and Maples then discuss the common errors in social science essays and, in doing so, again establish what makes such essays different from other types of writing. The bulk of their book, Chapters 3 to 9, examines the process of writing the essay. Chapter 3 presents an overview of the process and chapter 4 examines ‘Matching the Answer to the Question’. This chapter very usefully looks at ‘command’ or ‘process’ words in essay titles, such as ‘define’, ‘compare’, ‘discuss’, etc. Again, Redman and Maples contextualise these terms with good examples from essay titles. In this chapter as well, social science students are lead towards particular kinds of social science essays, i.e., advocacy, compare and contrast, and evaluation. Additionally, the authors give good suggestions as to breaking down the constituents of each of these essay types. Reading, note-taking and literature searches are discussed in chapter 5; in which the authors show how important it is to read with an eye to the question that is to be answered. Chapter 6 somewhat skims over critical thinking. It gives good examples of how to look at the limitations of evidence but little sense of how an undergraduate might escape those limitations. Chapters 7, 8 and 9 look at introductions, writing the ‘main’ section, and finally writing conclusions. The best of these is the long chapter on writing the main section (Chapter 8) with its useful advice on using evidence and quotation, although its comments on ‘communicating with your audience’ are a little generalised. Chapter 10 is on referencing, including good reasons for using references, not only the obvious need to acknowledge but also the need for students to demonstrate their familiarity with key material in an area. Chapter 11 is entitled ‘Some common worries’ and has some friendly and cogent advice on why people might not be able to write enough. Like Monipally and Pawar, Redman and Maples flag up the difficulties there are with the use of the first person and concomitant issues of subjectivity and objectivity, and the problems associated with and reasons for plagiarism. In Chapter 12, Redman and Maples tell their readers what tutors look for when marking essays. This is a slightly disappointing checklist of marking criteria and it would be easy to imagine a novice writer looking through these undigested lists and throwing up their hands in despair. The final chapter is more useful; a selection of four student essays with commentaries on each. Notwithstanding the provisos suggested above, this is a very useful book in many ways. It is a clear introduction to academic essay writing for novice social science writers, and, although its prose is sometimes clunky and costive, I would be happy to recommend it for use not only with its target audience but with post-graduate researchers. Ian Pople * University of Manchester, Oxford Road, Manchester M13 9PL, UK Tel.: þ44 (0)161 275 3996. E-mail address: [email protected] http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.jeap.2013.03.003
Intercultural Rhetoric in the Writing Classroom, U. Connor. University of Michigan Press, Ann Arbor (2011). 124 pp., ISBN: 978-0-472-03458-1, $US31.50, £UK20.95 Many readers of JEAP will be familiar with the work of Ulla Connor. She is perhaps best known for refining the concept of contrastive rhetoric, first introduced by Robert Kaplan in a 1966 essay “Cultural thought patterns in intercultural education”, and for her advocacy in setting up contrastive rhetoric as a field of study. Connor’s full-length work Contrastive Rhetoric: Cross-cultural Aspects of Second Language Writing (1996) is essential reading for anyone teaching or researching the way multilingual writers experience writing in different cultures. And yet, in Connor’s latest publication, Intercultural Rhetoric in the Writing Classroom, she argues that contrastive rhetoric is an outdated concept incapable of identifying or responding to the complexities of crosscultural communication. Given the importance of the concept of contrastive rhetoric to the teaching and research of many JEAP readers, a revisionary argument from a scholar of Connor’s reputation makes Intercultural Rhetoric an important work. To understand the importance of Connor’s argument in Intercultural Rhetoric it is necessary to provide a brief overview of the field of contrastive rhetoric studies. In 1966 Robert Kaplan presented the concept of contrastive rhetoric in an attempt to theorize how a writer’s rhetorical preferences, internalized while learning a language in one culture, might "interfere" with the writer’s ability to identify and learn the rhetorical preferences in a different cultural setting. Kaplan’s argument was important for the way it encouraged teachers and researchers to search for the connections between culture and rhetoric, and to use this information to improve the way language and writing are taught and experienced. While the concept was sometimes present in academic debates about ESL and EFL research and pedagogy in the 1970s and 1980s, Ulla Connor’s Contrastive Rhetoric (1996) represented a watershed moment for the development of contrastive rhetoric into a field in its own right. Connor updated research methods from the field of linguistics, particularly corpus and text analysis methods, to help researchers identify how writing approaches and styles are connected to cultural backgrounds. However, the concept of contrastive rhetoric has attracted criticism since its inception. Scholars have claimed that not all individuals are inculturated in the same way. That is, it is argued that rhetorical preferences apparent on a broad cultural (usually equated with national) scale are not internalized or valued equally by each individual member of that culture. This brings into question the assumption behind some early contrastive rhetoric studies that an individual’s cultural background
126
Book reviews / Journal of English for Academic Purposes 14 (2014) 124e127
instills certain rhetorical preferences that lead to pre-identifiable "mistakes" when that student writes in English. Further, critics argued that many working in the field of contrastive rhetoric assumed that culture is relatively static, unchanging over long periods of time and unchangeable by individual writers who may seek to develop individualized rhetorical flair or alter the language of their community. The challenge for scholars of contrastive rhetoric in the late 1990s and early 2000s was to argue for a more nuanced theory of culture to help explain the connection between individuals, cultural backgrounds and language learning in different cultural settings. In 2002, while Connor responded to some of these challenges in “New directions in contrastive rhetoric”, critics continued to challenge the field for its perceived rigidity in theorizing culture. In 2004, Connor presented “Intercultural rhetoric research: Beyond texts” in the Journal of English for Academic Purposes, an attempt to break free from the critical legacy of contrastive rhetoric and establish a new approach to crosscultural communication e an approach founded on a more complex and sensitive understanding of culture. Connor’s latest monograph is a continuation of what might be seen skeptically as the contrastive rhetoric rebranding exercise begun in her 2004 article in JEAP. But one of the very impressive aspects of Intercultural Rhetoric is the honest and open way in which Connor engages with criticisms of contrastive rhetoric. Citing criticisms such as those by Spack (1997), Zamel (1997), and Kubota (1999), Connor treats counter-arguments fairly with an intention to improve research into how culture influences the way students learn to write. As the name of the “new” field suggests, the central reorientation in the approach to understanding the influence of L1 and L2 cultures on writing is to place both cultures on an even footing e they are inter-related rather than contrasting. To further emphasize this shift, the method of the "new" field aims to redress perceived imbalances between the quantitative approaches to text analysis familiar to linguists and the qualitative approaches to discourse studies familiar to those from fields such as cultural and English studies. Text analysis, it is suggested, can usefully identify rhetorical patterns, while discourse analysis can properly contextualize such findings to develop a nuanced understanding of how rhetoric and culture are connected. However, balancing two different methodological approaches is always going to be difficult, and readers of Intercultural Rhetoric expecting discourse studies to make a significant contribution to the revision of Connor’s approach might be left wanting. While the text appears to be structured to develop a balanced methodology e two chapters are devoted to methodology, “Culture in intercultural rhetoric” and “Text analysis in intercultural rhetoric” e Connor appears to favour linguistics-based text analysis approaches. The 11-page chapter on culture, for example, is eclipsed by a 27-page chapter on text analysis. The danger here, particularly for a text that will be vital to the effort to shift the approach of contrastive rhetoric scholars to the new approaches of intercultural rhetoric, is that the critics of contrastive rhetoric might too easily extend their arguments to intercultural rhetoric by claiming that there remains only a thin veneer of cultural theory over a predominantly quantitative approach to understanding writing. Culture, it might be claimed, is something scholars need to understand only in order to interpret the real data that is derived from text analysis. Such appearances e where cultural studies is explanatory in contrast to the field of linguistics, which uncovers truth and knowledge e risk ostracizing many scholars who would benefit from an understanding of the general aim of intercultural rhetoric. Connor’s work here, then, might be more valuable for engaging text analysis scholars with some basic theories of culture, while it misses an opportunity to engage cultural studies scholars with some basic theories of text analysis. Despite allegations that Intercultural Rhetoric prioritizes text analysis over discourse studies as a method for investigating the challenges faced by multilingual writers, the cultural theory that is used by Connor is well selected. In particular, the use of Adrian Holliday’s (1994) work on small and large cultures allows Connor to pre-empt any claims that intercultural rhetoric stereotypes students according to national background. In summarizing Holliday’s work, Connor (2011) states: Large cultures have ethnic, national, or international group features as essential components and tend to be normative and prescriptive. Small cultures, on the other hand, are non-essentialist and based on dynamic processes that relate to cohesive behaviours within social groupings. Small cultures avoid culturist ethnic, national, and international stereotyping. (29) In using Holliday’s definitions of large and small cultures, Connor is able to develop a schema for inter-relating cultures in classroom environments, where a student’s communication may be affected by overlapping and interacting cultures that correspond to the numerous communities the student is a part of, such as national cultures, youth cultures, professional cultures, students cultures, and so on. Holliday’s distinction, and Connor’s application of it to the situation of multilingual writers, provides an accessible and useful concept of culture (that identifies the complexities of interacting cultures in a global world) for students and teachers alike. The definition of small and large cultures is central to the new field of intercultural rhetoric. Connor (2011) suggests that there are three premises from which to begin teaching and research using intercultural rhetoric studies: 1) “texts need to be seen in their full contexts” 2) it should be understood that “small and large cultures interact in complex ways”, and 3) “interaction in intercultural communication requires accommodation and negotiation, which also requires cultural sensitivity and effective communication strategies.” (64)
Following this, the process of research and teaching in intercultural rhetoric requires skills in contextualized textual analysis informed by a deep and sensitive understanding of culture. Unfortunately, these premises are not commonplace in
Book reviews / Journal of English for Academic Purposes 14 (2014) 124e127
127
most universities, and so Connor’s clear articulation of these values can be seen as a welcome contribution to the resources that influence our understanding of and teaching with multilingual writers. As an important contribution to the Michigan Series on Teaching Multilingual Writers, Intercultural Rhetoric provides an accessible review of a number of approaches to writing research and pedagogy. Connor also presents an argument that will no doubt transform the field of contrastive rhetoric and reposition cultural sensitivity and nuanced cultural analysis at its core. But there will remain some confusion about the intended audience of the text. Discussion questions at the end of each chapter appear to set the text up as a teaching textbook, but the questions are targeted variously at trainee teachers, research students, and experienced teachers and researchers. This lack of clarity around the intended audience may stretch the text too thinly across several readerships, where it may have had a larger impact by focussing more specifically on research students, trainee teachers or experienced academics. Connor’s latest work, that is, is unlikely to have the impact of Contrastive Rhetoric, even if it is an important work for various audiences. Experienced academics interested in the latest developments in contrastive and intercultural rhetoric, or interested in the feasibility of interdisciplinary approaches to ESL research and teaching, will find the text a quick study and a welcome summation of trends in the field. Research students and trainee teachers specializing in approaches to ESL, EFL, and EAP will likely constitute the most appreciative audience. In terms of a disciplinary readership, given the emphasis on text analysis and the use of sources predominantly from linguistics journals and texts, Connor’s work will appeal more to those in linguistics than other disciplines. Overall, Intercultural Rhetoric presents us with a new direction in teaching and research with multilingual writers. It will prove useful as a theoretical and practical guide for postgraduate students and trainee teachers, while experienced academics will appreciate a leader in the field providing a clear and honest synopsis of contrastive rhetoric and an argument for its transformation into intercultural rhetoric. References Connor, U. (1996). Contrastive Rhetoric: Cross-cultural aspects of second language writing. Cambridge UP. Connor, U. (2002). New directions in contrastive rhetoric. TESOL Quarterly, 36, 493e510. Connor, U. (2004). Intercultural rhetoric research: beyond texts. Journal of English for Academic Purposes, 3, 291e304. Connor, U. (2011). Intercultural rhetoric in the writing classroom. Michigan UP. Holliday, A. (1994). Small cultures. Applied Linguistics, 20, 237e264. Kaplan, R. (1966). Cultural thought patterns in intercultural education. Language Learning, 16, 1e20. Kubota, R. (1999). Japanese culture constructed by discourses. TESOL Quarterly, 33, 9e35. Spack, R. (1997). The rhetorical construction of multilingual students. TESOL Quarterly, 31, 765e774. Zamel, V. (1997). Toward a model of transculturation. TESOL Quarterly, 31, 341e343.
Benjamin Miller is a lecturer in the Writing Hub at the University of Sydney. The Writing Hub engages with the latest research in rhetoric-composition and the scholarship of teaching and learning to support the teaching and learning of academic writing. Benjamin is a published expert on Aboriginal rhetoric and writing in Australia, and is currently engaged in research into crosscultural communication in colonial Australia. Benjamin Miller * Writing Hub, School of Letters, Art and Media, Faculty of Arts and Social Sciences, University of Sydney, NSW 2006, Australia Tel.: þ61 2 9351 2542. E-mail address: [email protected] http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.jeap.2013.09.002