CHAPTER I. THE BACKGROUND OF THE STUDY
Statement of the Problem
Contrastive rhetoric holds that people in different cultures organize their ideas differently. Unfortunately, although a contrast in rhetorical styles is the basic tenet of the field, much of the research in this field focuses on a text analysis of product. Its research areas have been mostly descriptions of rhetorical styles and their characteristics at the surface level. Although contrastive rhetoric has provided English/ESL writing instructors with some useful pedagogical notions, it has not provided them with insights into the important cultural assumptions of particular groups of international students; that is, how students from other countries look at and express reality and what rhetorical assumptions cause them to write differently from native English speakers. Of the five canons of invention, disposition (arrangement), style, memory, and delivery posited by the Greeks, up until now contrastive rhetoric has continued to focus on only one of these canons, that of arrangement. Few scholars have much endeavored to look for the rhetorical origins of other languages by searching for those origins.
Because contrastive rhetoric is usually classified as a scholarly field of applied linguistics, the concept of contrastive rhetoric has been narrowly defined. However, Houghton and Hoey (1983) have argued "It [contrastive rhetoric] needs to be inserted within a broader scheme, to include the theoretical as well." It has been too long confined to being a ¡®notion' rather than a theory. The area of concern needs to be broadened to the degree that rhetorical elements in non-Western cultures -- from philosophical to cognitive issues -- which influence the formation of culturally embedded rhetorical styles may be explored and then introduced to English/ESL writing teachers. The concept of contrastive rhetoric is too multifaceted and important to be treated from only the linguistic perspective. The one area of study which offers at least a partial solution to the problem posed by Houghton and Hoey is that of rhetoric and composition. The theoretical foundation of rhetoric and composition in the United States, the field which researches the basis of native speaker writing conventions, looks to the origins of Western rhetoric, the influence of Hellenistic thought, and further development of the Greco-Roman rhetorical traditions. The discipline of rhetoric and composition recognizes that rhetoric is to be related to cultural and philosophical issues, cognitive activity, and educational practice. Adding a similar component to contrastive rhetoric makes it possible to broaden the field from a notion to a theory.
The lack of firm theoretical foundations has left contrastive rhetoric in a weak position. Because of its focus on arrangement and on the linguistic differences between languages, the pedagogy which has emerged has been criticized as being prescriptive (Leki 1991). The weak version of the Sapir-Whorf hypothesis on which contrastive rhetoric is founded supports contrastive rhetoric as a ¡®notion.' The usual interpretation of the Sapir-Whorf hypothesis states, in its stronger version, that language governs thought, and in its weaker version that language influences thought. The notion of "weak" and "strong" are terms which do not originate with Whorf, but with his critics. Lucy (1992) demonstrates, through his research, that the hypothesis is convincing in every day language without the qualifiers. However, Aristotelian rhetoric is accepted as a theory, because the field not only covers the forms which are considered appropriate, but because there is a well documented history to explain why this particular system is preferred over others.
Although Kaplan (1966) linked his original work to the Sapir-Whorf hypothesis, which implicates the relation among language, thought, and culture, most contrastive rhetoric research only provides cultural support from one of the contrasting cultures, that of English. But theory building research in contrastive rhetoric should look at the rhetorical styles from every culture covered by the study. Where rhetorical theories have not yet been discovered and/or described, it is necessary to investigate the philosophical, religious, social and educational practices of a culture to determine from where the preferred rhetorical patterns are derived. It is easy to deduce that when writing is not formally taught, people write in the way they speak. And when people express themselves, either in speech or in writing, they reflect their culturally coded belief systems. Further it is important to remember that, unlike speaking, composition usually does not fall in the category of an every day activity. It must be acquired through the process of learning usually in culturally formulated educational systems. For example, Western rhetoric and writing have been established on the concept of ¡®theory,' and its teachers have been trained in their own ways of teaching English writing.
In 1966 Kaplan recognized that writing styles differ across cultures, a statement that has been widely supported through linguistic analysis. But the rest of his premises, that these differences are culturally coded, has been largely ignored. Thus, it is crucial to explore, find, and describe the origins of rhetorical differences between cultures. There are many ways of listening to the world (Fox 1986) and at least the major ways, for example such as those of East Asian rhetoric, need to be understood. Once the historical and cultural counterparts of Aristotelian rhetorical traditions have been established for other cultures then it may be possible to establish universal writing theories that recognize the full breadth of contrastive rhetoric as well as a realistic and supportive pedagogy that will both liberate expressive power and provide form for the language learning writer. The philosophical, social, and cognitive issues which contrastive rhetoric has yet to examine in depth, if they are uncovered and understood, will help establish a theoretically based pedagogy for teaching ESL students writing in English.
The need to discover and describe the causes for the preferences found in other cultures is based on the idea that there are unique rhetorical traditions in at least the world's major cultures. This approach would support the fact that people in different cultures not only write in contrasting styles, as has been adequately demonstrated in numerous contrastive rhetoric studies, but that they develop these ways because of different ways of thinking, that is, of viewing the world. The clues are not terribly difficult to find. They lie frequently in the form of expression which is valued in cultures, education, and in philosophy or religious practices. For example, Confucian principles and learning processes in East Asian cultures explicate how to use rhetoric in their own ways. East Asian rhetorical practices are not equivalent to those of the United States' rhetorical traditions. And there is also ample evidence that even within the United States there are differences in rhetorical patterns across time, across disciplines, and across sub-cultural groups.
It is generally acknowledged among those familiar with East Asia that East Asian culture shares little with that of Anglo-Europe and the United States: the ways of thinking of East Asian people are different from those of native English speakers, and constructing reality and seeking the truth through rhetorical activities in East Asian culture is not approached in the same way as it is in the Anglo-European and the United States cultures. One reason for this is the rhetorical practice and modes of their respective philosophical influences. For example, the ancient Chinese philosopher, Confucius (551 - 479 B.C.) did not practice rhetoric as did Plato (428 - 347 B.C.) and Aristotle (384 - 322 B.C.) in ancient Greece. Confucius taught that action was the crucial means of persuasion, much more important than speech or writing. In contrast, persuasive rhetoric was the essential part of the public life in Greece. Even today in East Asia, much of what would be considered rhetorical activity in the West is performed without linguistic expression. Rhetorical styles of East Asian writing have been formulated within this cultural and philosophical norm of action being preferred over speech. The uniqueness of this approach strongly suggests that there would also be differences in rhetoric from that of the West.
Based on the perspective that people in different cultures look at the world in different ways and organize their ideas differently, contrastive rhetoric should be further developed theoretically. This theoretical development will then be able to show not only that East Asian rhetorical patterns found in an essay are organized differently from those of the English essay in the United States, but these patterns can also demonstrate the causes of those differences. Contrastive rhetoric needs to move from a notion base to a theory base to account for cultural differences, such as those between the Confucian and the Aristotelian models. Teaching and learning a second language must be accompanied by a consideration of learners' own cultural elements and thought patterns.
Thus, this study is intended to explore the major rhetorical elements in East Asian and the United States' cultures, and then to demonstrate empirically how these elements influence rhetorical styles of students' expository writing in their respective languages. For East Asian culture, rhetorical aspects of Confucianism will be presented here in far greater detail, whereas the formation and influence of Aristotelian rhetoric on the United States mainstream culture is briefly summarized on the assumption that readers of this study are more familiar with the latter.
Contrastive Rhetoric
The Beginning of Modern Contrastive Rhetoric
Modern contrastive rhetoric began with Robert Kaplan's (1966) article, "Cultural Thought Patterns in Inter-Cultural Education," which investigated and described the several patterns of writing found in international students' English academic essays. His objective was to solve a troublesome pedagogical difficulty in teaching international students English writing for use in colleges and universities in the United States (Kaplan 1988). International students with the ability to largely control English sentence structure did not always compose acceptable English text. The pedagogy of the time, based on the audiolingual method, could not help these students write an English essay which was rhetorically correct beyond the sentence level. As Kaplan was examining a large number of those students' English essays, he recognized that essays written by international students whose native languages were not English displayed rhetorical styles unlike those of native English speaker students. As a result, he proposed that people from different cultures thought and wrote by employing culturally determined rhetoric and logic (Kaplan 1966).
Furthermore, Kaplan (1966) discovered that English essays written by international students not only differed in rhetorical style from those written by native English speaker students but rhetorical styles of written texts are organized differently, depending upon the respective native languages and cultures of the students. As a visual aid, Kaplan drew five idiosyncratic diagrams to illustrate the culturally-embedded rhetorical patterns. For example, the rhetorical patterns of English writing tended to be distinctively linear following the Platonic-Aristotelian sequence. They are linear in that they state first, what is called, the topic of the essay and then develop the topic with relevant details in the following paragraphs through describing, defining, comparing, or illustrating. English compositions written by Asian students such as Koreans and Chinese exhibited the gyre form of turning ever outward, illustrating an indirection. These essays seemed to be developed with what they did not say. Students whose native languages were Semitic used an elaborate parallel structure-- "a repetition of sound, of syntax, and of thought" (Ostler 1987). Kaplan named contrastive rhetoric using contrastive in response to the contemporary interest in text linguistics, and rhetoric to describe the fact that this notion was culturally embedded (Kaplan 1988). In this way, he provided the nurturing soil for future research in contrastive rhetoric. Kaplan's intuitive observation was sensational initially and has continued to receive much attention as the foundation for much contrastive rhetoric research.
Contrastive rhetoric has thrived for thirty-three years. Its initial purpose was pedagogical, to meet the needs of teaching international students learning to write academic English compositions. Kaplan's ideas have been contested by some opposing pedagogical researchers such as Mohan and Lo (1985), and criticized by cognitive researchers such as Zamel (1983) and Spack (1988) who narrowly interpret rhetoric and composition as linguistic and cognitive activity. On the other hand, several contrastive rhetoricians such as Matalene (1985), Ostler (1987), Claiborne (1992), and Wolfe (1994) have provided some evidence of rhetorical differences rooted in culture and philosophy, establishing a foundation for the cultural aspect as a basis of contrastive rhetoric. However, the weakness of contrastive rhetoric is that, although its seminal paper (Kaplan 1966) mentions the cultural aspects of rhetoric, rarely has an in-depth research been carried out on culture and philosophy which are epistemologically related to rhetorical issues and writing patterns. Although studies have established major linguistic and discoursal differences, they have not explored how these differences have evolved out of the cultural and philosophical resources of the target culture's history. Much too often, contrastive rhetoric still deals with current and external product-based phenomena.
The Theoretical Foundation for Contrastive Rhetoric
It is widely accepted that contrastive rhetoric has been anchored in linguistic relativity, the mild version of the Sapir-Whorf hypothesis (Kaplan 1988, Ostler 1987). This hypothesis was introduced by Benjamin Lee Whorf, a fire insurance investigator studying linguistics at MIT as an avocation, under the guidance of Sapir. One of his major studies in linguistics was an analysis on how people's mental images of the world around them was affected by language. For example, as a fire insurance examiner he had seen how people carelessly smoke near empty gasoline drums and cause fires because they have a mental image that the drums are empty, although the gasoline fumes can cause them to explode. Whorf's ideas of linguistic relativity did not emerge in a full-fledged form until he began to analyze the Hopi Indian language, when he began to appreciate that the notion of linguistic relativity could be developed by recognizing differences not only in lexicon but also in grammatical structure. Later he appeared to believe that the content of thought influences the process of thought, or that differing contents produce differing species of process so that generalization about process is impossible without the contents being taken into account. He believed that differences in thought content and their corresponding effects on the thought process and behavior, in general, would be revealed by comparison of different language structures (Carroll 1962). Whorf explained:
The categories and types that we isolate from the world of phenomena we do not find there because they stare every observer in the face; on the contrary, the world is presented in a kaleidoscopic flux of impressions which have to be organized by our mind? and this means largely by the linguistic system in our minds. We cut the nature up, organize it into concepts, and ascribe significance as we do, largely because we are parties to an agreement to organize it in this way? an agreement that holds throughout our speech community and is codified in the patterns of our language (Carroll 1962, 213). Whorf views language as classificatory, isolating and organizing elements of experiences. In his study, he put an emphasis on "the productive formal completeness of the linguistic system of classification and the dependency of meaning on the patterns of relations among classifications" (Lucy 1992, 26). He also demonstrated how specific, often minor, differences in such classifications could cumulatively generate quite common, often major underlying differences in the fundamental approach to a linguistic representation of reality.
Thus, classification provides the beginning of the differences between languages; each language adopts different devices morphologically, syntactically, and lexically to make its own rules and then creates different linguistic realities with these rules. Whorf argued that because language is socially transmitted but remains unconscious while a speaker uses it, the use of language reflects its social nature. For this reason speakers of a language are so strongly bound by this social background agreement that even when they are exposed to another language, they are still inclined to analyze it in terms of their native language. He felt that "language classifications influence everyday habitual thought and, therefore, that diversity of those classifications guarantees a certain diversity of thought among the speakers of different languages" (Lucy 1992, 38). In sum, Whorf's perspective is that the principal influence of language would be on habitual, everyday concepts wherein speakers take the patterns by which their language is organized and use them as guides to the nature of reality. When using language patterns in this way, speakers involve the whole range of associations and connections implicit in the language's analogical groupings. A crucial element of his argument is "the emphasis on the importance of the transfer of elements of meaning with linguistic analogies for the individual interpretation of experience which shapes specific cultural patterns of behavior" (Lucy 1992, 67). Whorf's assertions, therefore, clarify why a world view in any one culture is different from that in another culture.
The Whorfian hypothesis contends that human beings' thought is influenced by the language they speak. Known as the relativistic relationship of language and thought, this hypothesis argues that people from different cultures and languages think differently. But a question of how much people's thought patterns are influenced by language generated much discussion, ultimately yielding two versions, "the stronger one" and "the weaker ones." The stronger version, which holds that language not only shapes the way people think but also completely determines their thought patterns, may not have been Whorf's intention (Lucy 1992). The weaker version holds that people's thoughts are influenced by everyday language. Kaplan is a proponent of the weaker view, and adapted it in his initial formulation of the notion of contrastive rhetoric.
The names of Sapir and Whorf briefly appeared in Kaplan's seminal article (1966), but Kaplan gave very little explanation for the hypothesis. Rather, he quoted Dufrenne's comments on the Sapir-Whorf's hypothesis and logical difference. But later, Kaplan (1988) stated that the discipline and notion of contrastive rhetoric was closely associated to the Whorfian hypothesis. In explaining the relationship of language to culture as suggested by Sapir and Whorf, he made clear that the origin of the rhetorical styles of English essays was derived from the Plato-Aristotelian traditions. But rather than using a similar explanation regarding the choice of preferred styles for the other cultures, he simply let the Whorfian hypothesis do the explaining. It can be presumed that, as an applied linguist, he thought it was proper to place contrastive rhetoric in the boundaries of the Sapir-Whorf hypothesis but without specifying a need for a detailed knowledge of other cultures and philosophies. Thus, Kaplan (1966) borrowed both from the sociologist's and anthropologists' hypotheses. The connection of logic and the Sapir-Whorf hypothesis attracted his attention; their hypothesis on language, logic, and culture as linguists seemed to be a good basis for contrastive rhetoric.
The Notion of Contrastive Rhetoric
The notion of contrastive rhetoric is difficult to define in a clear-cut manner because contrastive rhetoric only shows one aspect of ¡®rhetoric,' arrangement, and because the aspects of rhetoric are indeed multifarious. Indeed, the definition of rhetoric has constantly changed during the history of Western rhetoric, and different rhetoricians have put an emphasis on different aspects of rhetoric according to their own perspectives. In defining contrastive rhetoric, Kaplan (1966) held that contrastive rhetoric was a notion: people in different cultures view reality and organize their discourse according to their own cultures and life styles. In so doing, people not only develop their oral discourse in a unique culture-specific fashion, but also write in a way which reflects that culture. Kaplan (1966) explained:
Logic (in the popular, rather than the logician's sense of the word), which is the basis of rhetoric, is evolved out of a culture; it is not universal. Rhetoric, then, is not universal either, but varies from culture to culture and even from time to time within a given culture. It is affected by canons of taste within a given culture a given time(2).
Based on his holistic analysis of 500 international students' English essays, Kaplan postulated that in writing the expository paragraph, "each language and each culture has a paragraph order unique to itself, and that part of the learning of the particular language is the mastering of its logical system"( Kaplan 1966, 14). Later, Leki (1991) further supported the basis of the notion of contrastive rhetoric (See note 1):
It seems reasonable to assume that different cultures would orient their discourse in different ways. Even different discourse communities within a single language such as constituted by different academic disciplines, have different writing conventions: Preferred length of sentences, choice of vocabulary, acceptability of using first person, extent of using passive voice, degree to which writers are permitted to interpret, amount of metaphorical language accepted. If different discourse communities employ differing rhetorics, and if there is transfer of skills and strategies from L1 [first language] to L2 [second language], then contrastive rhetoric studies might reveal the shape of those rhetorical skills and strategies in writers from different cultures (124 -125).
So contrastive rhetoric holds that the stylistic preferences of writing are culturally embedded, and that the second language learner may carry over these preferred rhetorical patterns of their native languages into their second language expository writing (Ostler 1987).
Kaplan (1987) states that the notion of contrastive rhetoric in the initial stage was intended to meet a "pedagogical necessity." At that time (1966) he said there was not much interest in understanding the origins of issues under discussion. The urgent matter was to provide ESL writing teachers with immediate and practical suggestions. Because of the focus on pedagogical needs, many theoretical elements were not considered. Regardless of a lack of concrete theoretical foundation, the notion became widely known and popular with the ESL writing teachers and researchers. Grabe and Kaplan (1989) later restated the original definition:
.....notions of contrastive rhetoric assume that literacy skills (both reading and writing) are learned; that they are culturally (and linguistically) shaped; that they are, at least in part, transmitted through the formal educational system; and that learners are, in principle, capable of learning writing conventions and strategies of various types (264).
However, even Kaplan's redefinition of contrastive rhetoric has come under criticism (Connor 1997): its framework, which was structured around linguistics and the Whorfian hypothesis, has gradually been proved insufficient for explaining emerging questions regarding social and cultural issues. Kaplan has been constantly under pressure to reiterate his notion (Connor 1997). This reiteration reflects Kaplan's endeavor to reevaluate the scope of contrastive rhetoric; however, the need to further modify its framework with the help of rhetoric and composition theories in English and ESL writers' cultural considerations still exists.
The Research Areas of Contrastive Rhetoric
Because contrastive rhetoric evolved within the discipline of applied linguistics, its research has mainly focused on linguistic issues. This research has been inspired by such major trends of acquiring spoken language as contrastive analysis, error analysis, and analysis of interlanguage (Connor 1996). According to Connor, in the early 1960's a second language theory, contrastive analysis, held that the native linguistic backgrounds of L1(native/first language) intervened in L2 (second language) acquisition. Contrastive analysis held that errors and mistakes made by the second language learners were mainly due to the effects of the native language because the learner's native linguistic background was considered a liability. The theory held that the influence of the L2 learners' native linguistic backgrounds must be reduced as much as possible in the course of learning the target language. Later, some researchers, not content with this assertion, developed the concept of error analysis. They attempted to analyze L2 learners' errors systematically. The study of error analysis was contradicted by the study of interlanguage, which was defined as "a transitional competence of the L2 learner" (Corder 1967). In this perspective, the learner was considered a dynamic communicator in the learning process, a learner who was examining and constructing hypotheses in the course of establishing an internal linguistic system of the target language. This theory has been criticized because it sought solutions only within a syntactical framework, sacrificing the contributions to language fluency made by semantics, phonology and pragmatics (Connor 1996). However, it gave dignity to the studies of the learner and recognized that error is essential to learning.
The discipline of contrastive rhetoric displays similar trends to that of the L2 acquisition of spoken language as its research areas have developed, but unlike the research of L2 spoken language that evolved into interlanguage analysis, contrastive rhetoric quite early began to consider cultural elements at a surface level in analyzing the written text (Connor 1996). Primarily concentrating on suggesting pedagogical solutions, the initial studies of contrastive rhetoric adopted both contrastive and error analysis to its research designs. Like contrastive analysis of spoken language, contrastive rhetoric recognized that the effects of various L1 cultural characteristics were one of the major interferences in disrupting the acquisition of acceptable rhetorical styles of English writing. Thus, rationales for different writing patterns were hypothesized according to the cultural and linguistic backgrounds of the L2 writers. And as in Kaplan's 1966 study, contrastive rhetoric researchers turned their interest to the analysis of discourse and rhetorical structures, focusing on syntactical analysis on the basis of logical differences and cultures.
The expansion of Kaplan's ideas in his seminal article (1966) reflects the above trend well. Mentioning the logical and cultural differences of the other languages, he analyzed students' essays to illustrate five different types of paragraph structures, and created the famous five diagrams which supported his hypothesis that the rhetorical patterns of the L1 evidently appeared in the international students' English expository writing. The concept of culture and logic was introduced to applied linguistic research, and the importance of culture and logic was recognized in analyzing the rhetorical structures of the written text. As mentioned, issues of culture and logic were presented only from the limited perspectives of applied linguistics. Kaplan (1986) interpreted rhetoric as text analysis; rhetoric in Kaplan's article meant rhetoric of arrangement. For this reason, his first notion of contrastive rhetoric generated limited research designs, mostly based on syntactic features, and few of the earlier researchers were familiar enough to discuss rhetorical influence in other cultures.
As time went by, many critics found problems with the notion of contrastive rhetoric in the Khunian sense (Kuhn 1970, Hairston 1982). The old notion and framework that Kaplan established could no longer account for emerging new expressive, cognitive, and social theories in L1 (Faigley 1986). Particularly, contrastive rhetoric was put under pressure largely as a result of rapidly developing composition theories for native English speakers in response to the insights provided by the cognitive view, one that evolved out of a premise that the composing process is not linear but discursive (Emig 1971) and which was later elaborated by Flower and Hayes (1981) who suggested a cognitive model of composing. Thus, contrastive rhetoric needed a new paradigm which, in addition to culturally embedded rhetorical patterns, could explain cognitive and sociocultural aspects of both L1 and L2 writing. Trying to be more comprehensive, Grabe and Kaplan (1986) redefined contrastive rhetoric:
Because of the specific emphasis of contrastive rhetoric in the differing rhetorical conventions exhibited in the construction of complex texts in two different languages, it has been primarily concerned with the nature of coherence and with the nature of text construction itself, and it has been concerned with the development of writing beyond the initial stages.....Contrastive rhetoric is the study of L1 rhetorical influence on the organization of text in an L2, on audience consideration, on goal definition; it seeks to define L1 influences on text coherence, on perceived audience awareness, and on rhetorical context features..... Accordingly, contrastive rhetoric research must seek to understand and employ some theory of coherence, some theory of audience awareness, and some theory of the rhetorical context (266).
This statement defined the research domain of contrastive rhetoric more specifically than ever before, yet still maintained text analysis as the main concern. However, this new position eventually led to some new approaches. Broadly speaking, contrastive rhetoric research is now focused on two areas: contrastive text linguistics and its relevant issues, and writing as literacy and as a sociocultural and rhetorical activity.
Text linguistics has been traditionally the main focus of contrastive rhetoric. It has been interested in analyzing the mechanism that readers and writers experience in understanding and constructing texts. This kind of study has attempted to comprehend how coherence and rhetorical patterns are different by comparing English with one or more other languages. According to Grabe and Kaplan (1996), much comparative research has been done between/among English and other languages such as Chinese, Korean, Japanese, Spanish, Hindi, Thai, Vietnamese, German, and Arabic. Ostler (1987) contrasted English with Spanish, Japanese, and Arabic, noting that the use of coherence and rhetorical patterns varies among languages and cultures. Hinds (1987, 1990) analyzed coherence and rhetorical patterns of Chinese, Korean, Japanese, and Thai. Sotor (1988) examined the narratives of Vietnamese students writing in English in Australia. Eggington (1987) has compared rhetorical patterns in Korean and English.
Ostler (1997) states that text analysis in contrastive rhetoric is by no means confined to that of ESL writing. To remove common misconceptions regarding the myths perpetuated about contrastive rhetoric, she presents many contrastive studies which demonstrates various contrasting materials such as first and second language products written by the same students (Santiago 1968), professional journals (McDaniel 1980), academic textbooks (Newsham 1982), fifteen genre of texts (Grabe 1984), business letters (Jenkins and Hinds 1987), and newspaper editorials (Park 1996). Although contrastive rhetoric is primarily defined as a study of textual units, its research areas are wide, and the findings of these many studies validate that rhetorical differences both across languages and between subgroups within languages exist.
The second research area, writing as literacy, has especially delved into examining the practices of learning literacy, and the influences of literacy not only on learners' ways of thinking but also on sociocultural performance. Because this kind of study requires assistance from the research findings of other disciplines such as rhetoric, cultural studies, philosophy, psychology, or anthropology, it is still in the initial stage of development. So far the literacy studies support the argument that rhetorical styles of written texts and their ways of use are culturally specific. Claiborne's (1992) contrastive study of Japanese and American rhetoric investigated invention processes between the two cultures. Wolfe (1994) also analyzed the historical literacy practice of Japanese rhetoric as it is rooted in Chinese rhetorical traditions. This research here might be classified as a study belonging to the second area, but it is more concerned with how each particular culture assumes its ways of looking at the world and has influenced the way literacy was practiced, and how rhetorical styles of written texts have been formed according to culturally-embedded ways of thinking. Examining the origins of rhetorical and literacy practices in culture and education is important because they are foundations for current rhetorical traditions which have risen out of the past ones.
Major Findings of Contrastive Rhetoric in East Asian Culture
As contrastive rhetoric has been mainly constructed around applied linguistics, its findings describe and explicate stylistic forms of written texts and relevant issues. Rather than cultural and rhetorical aspects of the texts or classical-rhetoric speaking, the main concern to many contrastive rhetoricians is arrangement among the five rhetorical canons and its linguistic aspects. The assumption that logic is culturally specific, one of Kaplan's initial arguments, infers another assumption -- that coherence is likewise different from culture to culture. Differing languages use different modes of coherence in writing -- at least in expository and persuasive writing -- the two modes on which most contrastive rhetoric research has been done. Kaplan's (1966) article was intended to present those textual differences among languages. Asian writing such as Chinese and Korean, Kaplan called indirect, because he saw it as turning in a widening gyre with its diagram turning circularly from the outside in. Kaplan did not fully explain why rhetorical and thought patterns had been culturally formed that way. He merely suggested it was due to ¡®cultural and logical differences.' However, his article (1966) is valuable because it demonstrates diverse stylistic differences.
As contrastive rhetoricians continued to follow Kaplan's research approach, they produced more and more detailed descriptions. Because of this, much contrastive rhetoric research on East Asian languages has been done using analysis of text features. Hinds (1987) picked up Kaplan's incomplete study of the East Asian writing style, looked at East Asian texts in terms of coherence, and presented the two most influential works in East Asian writing research. One discusses writer- and reader- responsibility (1987); the other, quasi-inductive pattern of organization (1990). His 1987 argument began with the assumption of a traditional East Asian rhetorical sequence. He later elaborated on that assumption when he (1990) suggested that there was only one established rhetoric sequence in East Asian expository writing: Chinese Chi-Chen-Juan-He, Japanese Ki-Sho-Ten- Ketsu, and Korean Ki-Sung-Chon-Kyul (Kubota 1992, Hinds 1990, Eggington 1987). These sequences are representations of the same Chinese characters ( ) although they are pronounced differently. The original form, Chi-Chen-Juan-He was derived from the sequence of classical Chinese poetry which puts an emphasis on the aesthetical shape of poetry rather than its logical. According to Hinds and others the East Asian essay has four stages: the first stage ( ) is an introduction which initiates the situation, but does not contain a thesis statement; the second ( ) is where the writer develops his/her argument; the third ( ) is where the writer turns the development to a subtopic which is not directly connected to the major theme; the final stage ( ) is equivalent to a conclusion in Western rhetoric, but it also provides the writer's implicit intention in writing or a thesis statement. The three rhetorical patterns of Chinese, Japanese, and Korean generally define each stage similarly (Hinds 1990). However, since they each have their own distinctive subcultures within the boundary of a broadly shared rhetoric, the differences between them influence rhetorical patterns to develop in culturally specific ways.
After studying the traditional East Asian rhetorical sequence, Hinds (1987) suggests a new typology of language "based on speaker and/or writer responsibility as opposed to listener and/or reader responsibility" (143). He demonstrates that, in terms of coherence, Japanese text structures makes the reader responsible for completing meaning while English texts require the writer to be responsible. In other words, in Japanese, the listener/reader is more responsible for effective communication than the speaker/writer, while in English the speaker/writer is more responsible. Hinds intends to classify the rhetorics of differing cultures according to the degree to which the listener/reader is expected to infer cohesive ties between propositions and to comprehend meaning from a text, as opposed to the condition of the writer's responsibility to clearly communicate the meaning of propositions. He then generalizes the textual characteristic of reader-responsibility among East Asian languages as it applies to Korean and ancient Chinese. He classifies modern Chinese as being in the process of changing from reader- to writer- responsible rhetoric.
The term, quasi-inductive, is coined because of the disparity of logical order and rhetorical preference between East Asian and English writing. Hinds (1990) describes how rhetorical patterns of Oriental writing differ from those of English (See note 2). He argues that native English speakers/writers and audiences expect essays to employ inductive or deductive reasoning. He explains:
Inductive writing is characterized as having the thesis statement in the final position (along with having supporting details before the thesis statement) whereas deductive writing has the thesis statement in the initial position (and supporting details after the thesis statement)..... English, for example, allows either type of development, although the model that expository writers apparently aim for and that students are consciously taught tends to be deductive rather than inductive (89).
So, native English speaker audiences in the United States generally anticipate that an expository essay is written in the deductive style. If they recognize that the rhetorical pattern is not deductive, they expect that the essay will take the inductive pattern.
On the other hand, the rhetorical styles of Asian languages are neither inductively or deductively organized. Thus, Hinds coined the term, quasi-inductive. He asserts that there is an Oriental rhetorical style which does not meet either set of criteria in the above dichotomy. In this style, the thesis statement is not as explicitly set as is that of an English essay. He maintained that the ¡®implied' thesis statement is put near the end of the essay, and that is the reader's responsibility to interpret the thesis in the way the writer intends. Readers are expected to bring to the text their culturally embedded knowledge and information to fill the gaps between the words in the essay and the writer's intention. Hinds draws two conclusions: One is that Oriental essays are "well-organized and easily comprehensible" to a native audience; the other is that their writing style uses a pseudo- inductive style, meaning there is no clear thesis statement. Based on his analysis, Hinds suggests that the essays of East Asian languages represent the only style of writing permitted in their languages. He argues that the classification of inductive or deductive style is not a reasonable parameter for evaluating texts across all languages. The organizational patterns of cultural groups Hinds was studying do not match the inductive or deductive styles of Western rhetoric; thus, East Asians have to change their organizational patterns when writing English essays in order to meet the expectations of the English academic audience. It is not too unreasonable to extrapolate the expression of "East Asian writers" to "writers from other language or cultural groups."
Japanese rhetoric exhibits the textual characteristics that Hinds suggests. When it comes to expository writing, this sequence of ki-sho-ten-ketsu is most frequently used (Ostler 1987, Hinds 1990, Kubota 1992). The sequence displays reader-responsibility and takes the quasi-inductive pattern. As the Japanese rhetorical pattern does not match that of English, English native speakers who encounter Japanese rhetoric feel that composition in Japanese is disorganized, unfocused or ineffective (Hinds 1990). But Japanese essays are not disorganized: they are just not organized for the native English speaker audience. Japanese readers rely on their knowledge of culture for interpretation, a knowledge English speakers don't have. Because the implied intention of composition normally comes at the end of the essay and because the essay does not take either the inductive or deductive style, it is difficult for native English readers to predict where the essay is heading before the final paragraph. As a result, when Japanese ESL students write an English essay using their native rhetorical pattern, their teachers are likely to find the essay hard to understand.
Recently Kobota (1997) criticizes Hinds' findings stating that they "to view language and culture as exotic and static rather than dynamic, and overgeneralize the traditional sequence of ki-sho-ten-ketsu to be the only style of Japanese expository prose from a few specific examples" (460). Kubota argues that language and social practice change over time. Since 1868, Western influence has brought about a gradual modernization, and Westernization of Japanese discourse has occurred. Direct translations from Western languages to Japanese created new morphological and syntactical devices, brought "the sense of a sentence unit, and increased the logical relationship between clauses" (Kubota 1997, 470). In addition to this influence, American composition theories were introduced in the Meiji period (1868 - 1912), and some Japanese composition scholars recommended Western rhetorical traditions in the teaching of Japanese writing. The latest tendency in the teaching of writing is to advocate "logical expression in writing." For these reasons, the traditional sequence of ki-sho-ten-ketsu, according to Kubota, is not "the typical rhetorical style of expository writing" in Japanese. Although Kubota does not specifically indicate how many and what rhetorical patterns were created, she insinuates that those newly created rhetorical styles of Japanese expository writing are logically similar to those of English exposition because of Western influence.
Kubota (1997) is correct in viewing language and culture as dynamic, but language and culture cannot be greatly changed in a short period of time. She misjudges in saying that rhetorical traditions in Japan have been dramatically changed simply by introducing foreign cultures. Considering that the time and work of the past two millennia have been devoted to the formation of Japanese rhetorical traditions, a mere 132 years would hardly make a great impact on the change of cultural norms, and subsequent changes in rhetorical styles which are deeply rooted in its culture, social and political structures, philosophy and religion. Thus, until Japan has been exposed to the West for as long a period as its historical relationship with China, there will be no significant impact on Japanese culture and rhetorical styles. Kubota completely disregards the ancient Japanese rhetorical traditions and resources by starting her historical analysis from 1867 and by saying that the Japanese language has been heavily influenced by English composition theories ever since Japan's opening to Westernization and modernization. Theories similar to those of rhetoric and composition in the United States may create some changes, but massive ones in the practice of those theories would take a long time. When reviewing rhetorical traditions in history, one must go back to the period when those traditions began to be formulated and valued, such as the Western influence from Greece. Then the writings in which Western rhetoric has influenced Japanese rhetorical styles can be examined in view of already established rhetorical traditions.
It is true that since 1867 more than one rhetorical style of Japanese writing may have been developed. But in the examples Kubota provides Japanese rhetorical patterns do not show more similarities than differences compared with English rhetorical patterns. Because she fails to extend her analysis beyond the lexical and sentential levels. Even though Japanese may have been influenced by Western languages on the word and sentential levels, it does not use exactly the same rhetorical structures of English in terms of idea/concept organization. Although Western styles of rhetoric have produced some variations of Japanese traditional rhetorical patterns, a significant change of rhetorical patterns would be accompanied by changes in the sociocultural, political, philosophical, and religious values. Because the Japanese people and language are not machines which automatically admit everything that comes into their culture, there must be an assimilation process of Japanization. And this process usually happens in a culture, if not forced by colonization, in a manner which fundamentally preserves its sociocultural, political, philosophical and religious heritages. This process is what preserves Japanese as Japanese no matter how the nation and its people have been affected by other powerful cultures and languages. The culturally embedded canons of rhetorical taste and thought patterns developed under those heritages over the country's long history strongly resist yielding to new types of rhetoric just as those of rhetoric and composition in the United States whose origins have descended from the Greco-Roman rhetorical traditions change only slowly. So, despite some influence on word and sentential levels, Japanese rhetorical traditions retain characteristics which can be traced through the long history of Japan (Wolf1994, Claiborne 1992). In this sense, Wolf's and Claiborne's studies are much more valid and convincing than Kubota's.
Wolfe's (1994) study is valuable in understanding the history of pre-modern Japanese rhetoric. She rejects most early studies on the issue of Japanese rhetoric, which commonly maintain that Japan had no rhetorical traditions prior to its steady contact with the West, the national opening which began with the 1868 Meiji Reformation. Instead, she begins with Chinese rhetorical traditions based on Confucianism -- because of the powerful Chinese influence on Japan -- and then those based on Shintoism, Buddhism, and Neo-Confucianism in Japan from the Western rhetorical perspective along with rhetorical elements of ¡®ethos, pathos, audience, occasion, argument, and language.' She asserts that Japanese rhetoric is based on Confucianism, Shintoism, and Zen Buddhism, which share similar elements with respect to principles and doctrines of government and social structures. She also describes how pre-modern Japanese education had, for almost two thousand years, been conducted fundamentally based on Confucian classics. She makes it clear that Confucianism has largely formulated Japanese rhetoric by identifying several characteristics of Japanese rhetoric which are rooted in Confucian ideas and precepts such as emphasis on social harmony, simplicity in speech/writing, hierarchical structure of society, and respect for the sages.
Loveday ( 1983) also takes a cultural approach to suggest some aspects of Japanese rhetorical traditions. In Japanese culture, communication strategies such as a logical debate with continuous bifurcated judgments are considered aggressive and offensive. Japanese rhetorical patterns value interactions and are intended to stress mutuality. The emotive aspects which avoid the clear expression of the writer/speaker's intention are avoided. For example, as "no" almost always constitutes a term of abuse in Japanese, exiting or even lying is preferred over using this term. Traditionally the Japanese have favored an implicit communication style, employing rhetorical styles which facilitate social harmony. These rhetorical preferences have developed because of a homogeneous population and the relatively high aesthetic value they assign to subtlety (Loveday 1983). The ideology of individualism predominates in Western rhetoric whereas Japanese rhetoric facilitates the encouragement of close social relations.
Claiborne's (1992) study demonstrates the cultural and rhetorical differences between the East and the West -- he defines the East as three countries, Japan, Korea, and China, and the West as the United States. Focusing mainly on rhetorical traditions of ¡®Japanese and the Americans,' he explores the inventional processes of the two distinctive conventions, especially the epistemological values of the self and its place in relation to society and nature. He states that the tradition of the East is recognized as having a non-dualistic base whereas that of the West as having a dualistic base. He also notes that the pictographic and ideographic functions of Japanese language tend to "produce more holistic/visual and less linear/abstract processes than are found to be in English" (4). Aesthetical values are more emphasized than logical ones in the East. As a result, logic and coherence are differently set in each culture. Japanese expository prose typically expects the audience's participation in interpreting the meaning of the essay, and draws them into the meaning-making process. The reader may impose his or her own culturally-embedded knowledge, thus allowing non-linear rhetorical styles to unfold. Indirectness is commonly preferred by Japanese rhetoricians. Claiborne argues the major origins of the Japanese rhetorical conventions lie in Zen Buddhism, which denies the natural paradoxical nature of linguistic/thought forms' and any linguistic and logical attempt to discover truth through rhetorical activity. His study clearly supports the findings of Hinds' (1990, 1987) textual analysis of expository prose in East Asian languages.
Due to their cultural similarities, Korean rhetoric and writing styles share similar characteristics with those of Japanese writing. As Hinds (1987, 1990) and Eggington (1998, 1987) acknowledge, the major traditional rhetorical style of Korean writing is the sequence of Ki-Seung-Chon-Kyul in which a thinly posed thesis statement comes in the final paragraph ( Hinds 1990). Koreans produce a rhetorical pattern of expository prose that is a variation of the traditional sequence. This variation drops the chon stage from the traditional sequence, and maintains an introduction, body, and a conclusion. Although this may bear some resemblance to the preferred English rhetorical pattern of introduction, body, and conclusion, the Korean interpretation of beginning, development, and end is quite different from the American equivalents. First of all, Korean essay doesn't contain an explicit thesis statement in the introduction, nor topic sentences in the body paragraphs. Eggington (1987) explains that a Korean academic article, written by a Korean scholar who does not have any US English educational background, has no statement of purpose: "..... for the reader unfamiliar with Korean rhetorical patterns, there appears to be no thesis development, but rather a list of points revolving loosely around an unstated central theme"(158). Hinds (1987) states that sometimes the purpose of writing is revealed through a parallel between the target situation and the commented situation in the essay; the text demands reader-responsibility to interpret the suggested metaphor.
Korean academic writing, usually taking a quasi-inductive pattern according to Hinds, is also not equivalent to that of English in terms of logic and coherence. Both are used differently from how they are in English. Although ordinary Koreans have little difficulty in following the traditional rhetorical pattern and understanding these kinds of texts, a native English speaker audience might consider it unorganized (Eggington 1998, 1987).
Hinds (1990) also explores textual characteristics of Chinese expository prose. Like its Japanese and Korean equivalents, the Chinese sequence of Chi-Chen-Juan-He uses neither topic sentences nor an explicit statement of purpose. Because of this, it is difficult for non-native Chinese speakers to perceive the writer's intention; thus texts are writer-centered and demand more of the reader's efforts to make sense of them. If the reader lacks background knowledge of the Chinese culture, s/he may not understand the writer's intention. For this reason, native English speakers frequently are unable to understand the purpose of the essay.
Matalene (1985) reviews Chinese rhetoric from the Greco-Roman rhetorical perspective with an emphasis on memory, the fourth element of rhetoric. Instead of using the usual textual analysis, she looks for rhetorical differences by looking at the relationship among cultures, language, and rhetoric. She finds the essence of Chinese rhetoric and education has been deeply embedded in Confucianism throughout history. Literacy and rhetorical practices have been built around the educational focus on Confucian classics and its ways of gaining knowledge. To be literate is to have memorized the past-sages' sayings and wisdom and to be able to repeat them without distortion. In Chinese writing, rhetorical "technique is always the repetition of maxims, exemplar, and analogies presented in established forms and expressed in well-known phrases" (795). Historically the government administered examinations tested the knowledge of Confucian classics in the traditional forms of poems and essays which prefer aesthetical and metaphorical considerations. The purpose of learning was to serve the country, which demanded the officers to work for harmony in society, not for the individual's well-being. Because they are trained under the influence of this cultural heritage, Matalene perceives that her Chinese students' "writing take the linguistic and social tendencies toward indirectness in presenting topics and ideas" (802). Although she takes a different approach from that of text analysts in contrastive rhetoric, she draws the same conclusion that the written texts produced by her Chinese students are characterized by indirectness.
Limitations of Current Contrastive Rhetoric Research
There are several limitations to contrastive rhetoric as it is being done today. First, it is established as a notion or hypothesis. Second, few contrastive rhetoricians have sought out the origins of culturally embedded rhetorical styles of other languages. Thus, third, it has not intensely reviewed the relationships among culture, language, and rhetoric. Fourth, contrastive rhetoric has not yet adopted a process-oriented pedagogy. Although Kaplan (1966) mentions rhetorical differences along with cultural and cognitive perspectives, only in the case of English does he discuss specific origins of cultural and cognitive variables which influence the development of different rhetorical patterns of international students. Instead, his assertion about cultural differences, stated in a relatively brief manner, is supported by the Whorfian hypothesis which generally distinguishes cultural divergence in everyday colloquial discourse. The Whorfian hypothesis is a stepping stone for contrastive rhetoric. As contrastive rhetoric deals with writing, it needs further support which can provide umbrella theories for contrastive research, for example, between Greco-Roman rhetoric (or new rhetoric in the United States) and any one or more than one of other rhetorics in other cultures. As culturally embedded rhetorical styles of writing are usually taught and learned in school, the Whorfian hypothesis does not provide specific details which account for rhetorical components and educational systems which are structured to perpetuate their own cultures. The concept of notion/hypothesis is inappropriate to compare theories of rhetorics among various cultures.
However, the Whorfian hypothesis has provided the basis for textual analysis, and much of the early ensuing research in contrastive rhetoric mainly depended upon text analysis. This limited concern obstructed any in-depth research attempts beyond text analysis. Consequently, areas of study related to how rhetorical patterns are shaped by culture have been left out. As Houghton and Hoey (1983) suggest, the hypothesis needs to become a theory. It cannot become a theory until researchers seek answers to how or why those rhetorical styles of other cultures have been formed from cognitive and cultural perspectives. For example, it is still unknown why East Asian ESL students write their English essays in the rhetorical pattern of the widening gyre and what kind of thinking they employ when they produce that style of text.
Because most English/ESL writing teachers know very little about the cultural backgrounds of ESL students have which affect their ways of producing English writing and how they organize their ideas in L1, in the past ESL writers have often been compared to children learning L1. The cognitive process of L2 language acquisition has been believed to be similar to that of children in L1. This comparison has created the impression that adult L2 adult writers are cognitively underdeveloped, and ignores the fact that adult ESL writers have already matured in their native culture and have adopted that culture's own ways of native thinking and writing before they begin to learn L2 rhetorical patterns. A final limitation is that some researchers from the cognitive view have asserted that there would be no effects of L1 on L2 when ESL writers produced English essays. For example, based on their research results, Mohan and Lo (1985) insist that problems of Chinese students' English essays are not due to the influence of Chinese rhetorical patterns but rather to the lack of English writing ability. In addition to this, they mention a Chinese style manual's exhortations to seek directness and clarity and to avoid repetition. However, since no examples are given of texts fulfilling these injunctions, it is difficult to know whether these manuals indicate the same thing that English manuals mean by directness and clarity. The Chinese manuals for writing must be interpreted culturally.
Importance of the Study
This study is interested in the relationship between rhetorical patterns and sociocultural factors as it applies to East Asian writing, and especially that of Korea. Expanding on the work of Matalene (1985) and Ostler (1987), it explores the origins of the preferred rhetorical patterns of East Asian languages and cultures. The cross-cultural and cross-lingual design of this study is based on the influence of Confucianism on the rhetorical style of East Asian writing and the influence of Aristotelian and Greco-Roman rhetoric on the rhetorical style preferred in the United States, patterns which continue to influence rhetoric and composition studies in the United States today.
The Value of Culture and Philosophy in Contrastive Rhetoric
Language and rhetoric reflect their culture and/or vice versa. Even word development and/or syntax influence or are influenced by the specific relevant culture and its ways of thinking. Once fully socialized in a culture, it is difficult for individuals to escape from the habitual boundary of their own culture. Cultural experience works to a considerable degree on the individual's consciousness and unconsciousness as thinking resources. The conciseness and clearness of thought of a people depend to a great extent upon their language (Boas 1886), and language originates from its culture and/or vice versa. Culture is an integral part of the interaction between language and thought. Cultural patterns, customs, and ways of life are expressed in language; culture-specific world-views are reflected in language (Brown 1986). As one of the symbolic devices, "language is integrally interwoven into culture as one important way by which society makes something from itself to live on after it is gone" (LeFevre 1981, 118). Philosophy and culturally established educational systems are also major cultural factors which influence cultural characteristics and customs. LeFevre (1981) suggests five key points about the above issues. Among them, three concern the relationship among culture, language, and rhetoric:
1) Thought and language are closely related: so much so, in fact, that they may be referred to a "thought/language" unit. They are not identical, but it is appropriate to consider them as integrally connected in a dynamic process.
2. Thought/language is social: it is not only individual or private, but occurs as dialectical between individual and social spheres. "Human thought is consummately social," as Clifford Geertz has said and "social in its origin, social in its function, social in its forms, social in its application."
3) Rhetorical inventions occur to a great extent through thought/language and are social. While rhetorical activities occur largely through thought/language, their features are similar to those of thought/language. If one holds that language is exclusively a copy of an existing reality (e.g. external object or internal thought), then it is a mirror..... Rhetorical inventions are social in that even while they occur in an individual, they are heavily influenced by an individual's relationship with others through the social entity of language as well as through social structures, forms, purposes, and practices (LeFevre 1981, 118 -120).
To know why people of any given culture shape language and rhetoric in their own ways, it is necessary to explore and discover culturally specific relationships among culture, language, and rhetoric. Although text analysis is interesting to researchers who have a formal linguistic point of view, to really understand how language functions, one must not only know in what ways texts differ linguistically but also what it is in the culture that causes its members to make these particular choices. Text analysis without support from the socio-historical perspective is incomplete. In order to become complete, contrastive rhetoric must return to the original admonition of Kaplan (1966), to explore the roots of why different cultures select to arrange their texts in their unique patterns.
Contrastive Rhetoric Emerging from Notion to Theory
There are two research areas for contrastive rhetoric (Ostler 1987). One is linguistics, and the other, rhetoric. Most contrastive rhetoricians have focused on textual analysis, a kind of linguistic research with a little sprinkle of rhetorical flavor. Few have approached contrastive rhetoric from rhetorical perspectives. Unlike many of the preceding studies in contrastive rhetoric research, this study puts an emphasis on the field of rhetoric for analysis because simply analyzing the textual organization of the written product does not necessarily provide an understanding of why these differences occur. Textual analysis offers much less the information that the differences are cultural rather than developmental and certainly does not provide tools which help ESL writers make an appropriate adjustment in a situation in which they write an English essay.
There must be extended investigations which discover what causes those students to produce written texts rhetorically different from those of native English speaker students. When Kaplan decided the Sapir-Whorf hypothesis to be the theoretical foundation of contrastive rhetoric, he did not consider much about the theoretical aspects of rhetoric. It is notable that although Kaplan recognizes that the relationship between language and culture is situated somewhere on the stronger rather than the weaker version of the continuum, he places contrastive rhetoric in the boundary of the weaker version of the Sapir-Whorf hypothesis. Kaplan (1986) states:
The relationship between culture and language is well established; it is probably not as dramatic as the strong version of the Sapir-Whorfian hypothesis would maintain, but it is perhaps more salient than the weaker version ( 8 ). In suggesting that contrastive rhetoric move from notion to theory status, this study does not reject the previous findings in contrastive rhetoric research. Rather it intends to support them by exploring, developing, and eventually establishing the cultural and rhetorical origins which would support these findings. As rhetoric and composition research shows in the United States, English writing styles have evolved out of the traditions of Greco-Roman rhetoric. This study seeks to demonstrate that Confucian rhetorical conventions are major factors which have influenced the formulation of East Asian rhetorical styles.
The Major Rhetorical Differences between East Asian, and Anglo-European and North American Cultures
In this section, several major differences between East Asian and North American cultures are briefly explained. In Chapters Two and Three an in-depth, though concise, discussion will explain several major differences between East Asian and North American cultures: Chapter Two will deal with East Asian rhetoric and culture and Chapter Three with Western rhetoric and culture.
First, these two cultures have different basic assumptions. To East Asians, the universe is nothing but ten thousand things.' It is a huge, complex, multidimensional, and vital organism containing many corresponding constituents and forces (Kim 1994). For East Asians, the universe is not explainable under one single rule. There are no such notions as absoluteness and transcendental truth. Knowledge in their view is characterized as mellifluous, mysterious, and boundless obscurity. On the other hand, Westerners assume a single-ordered cosmos. "Cosmos as a single-ordered whole, of principles as the origin of order and, specifically, of causal agency is established in the myth of origins to which the founders of the Hellenic and Hebraic traditions appealed" (Hall and Ames 1995, 11). "Absoluteness, transcendence, and subjectivity" are principal characters of Western cultures. "Heaven, Truth, and Self" are formal concepts in the Western tradition (Hall and Ames 1995).
Second, the East Asian view is "profoundly holistic, dynamic, and spiritual" (Kim 1994, 416). Because this perspective does not depend on the concept that the integrity of matter is devised on the basis of a single-ordered world (Hall and Ames 1995), the focus is naturally on the relationship between more than two people/things to perceive it as being meaningful. It puts an emphasis on looking at the process.' Thus, East Asians are much more non-metaphysical' than Westerners (Yum 1994). This holistic view causes a situation in which there is not a deterministic differentiation between subjective and objective views, or between theoretical and practical quests (Hall and Ames 1995). On the other hand, the Western view of the universe is "characteristically dualistic, materialistic, and lifeless" (Kim 1994, 416). The fundamentals of the world are assumed to be particles of substance which could be arranged in a predictable way (Kim 1994). So the main concern is about "What kind of things are there ?" (Kim 1994). Theories and meta-theories have to set boundaries. This view places an emphasis on looking at principles. A major outcome of this view is that
[T]he rational, theoretical interests associated with the analytic and dialectical modes of thinking will come to reshape the area of intellectual activity which had formerly been the preserve of analogical activity (Hall and Ames 1995, 65).
There is a clear distinction between subjective and objective perspectives.
Third, there is a basic contextual difference between two cultures. East Asian culture is interested in finding out how interdependence works among people/things. Hall and Ames (1995) contend that East Asian culture is not developed by any inducement to cosmic classifications comprehending human nature and determining ¡®the unity of mankind.' Little concern is placed on individual operation regardless of whether it is about man or thing. As a result, the goal in cultivating ethos focuses on the accomplishment of good human relationships. In contrast, Anglo-European and North American cultures are characterized by a quest for the arche, which is constituted from a single, material substance. This idea makes possible the more conceptual and complicated axioms concerning the application "in nature of a universal, impersonal, divine, and finally rational (that is, regular, measured, consistent, predictable) arche: an originating element or causative principle. It is the existence of such an arche, [in the Western world] that gives order to the world, thus making it a kosmos" (Johnston 1996, 11).
Fourth, there is a culturally embedded difference in major devices used in ways of thinking; in East Asian culture, correlative thinking is prevalent (Graham1986), while in Anglo-European and North American cultures causal thinking is predominant. The mode of East Asian correlative thinking embraces primarily:
.....change or process over rest and permanence, presumes no ultimate agency responsible for the general order of things, and seeks to account for states of affairs by appeal to correlative procedures rather than by determining agencies or principles
(Hall and Ames 1995, xviii).
Correlative thinking is not operated with the expertise of logical or empirical objectivity.' Rather, it resorts to analogies based on the agent's perspectives and understanding, and association of similar objects. The organization of correlative thinking depends on association and intuition, so it is horizontal among the items being considered. It basically uses metaphors and images to create association within synchronic and spatial expression. On the other hand, causal thinking in Anglo-European and the North American cultures relies on rationality and analysis.' Western thought arranges the items in an hierarchical order. It is fundamentally rational-based on "the presumption that the world is composed of chunks of matter which arrange themselves in measurable ways--either as quantifiable entities with mass and volume, or in terms of causal relations open in principle to prediction and replication" (Hall and Ames 1995). Causal thinking is diachronic and temporal arranged in hierarchical patterns.
Fifth, logic is culturally embedded. In East Asian culture, logic tends to be aesthetic, a result of correlative thinking whereas in Western culture it is rational, a result of causal thinking. Because the focus in East Asian culture is on the interrelationships among numerous things which constantly interact with each other and thus are hard to define in a substantial manner, its linguistic representation prefers perceiving those movements holistically. Aesthetical order does not consider actual elements of a situation. On the surface level, it is possible to have a unity between the target situation and its description. However, the particular items delineating the order cannot be replaced with actual and concrete items of the situation. Aesthetic order is unique and particular to each situation, just the opposite of a search for patterns and regularities. On the other hand, in Western culture, because the universe is presumed to be ordered in a predictable single law which is based on rationality, it is possible to presuppose a structure or pattern. This kind of logical order aims at producing uniformity and pattern regularity' (Hall and Ames 1995) which could explain the actual elements and their structure of the target situation. Hall and Ames (1995) call the Socratic-Platonic vision rational.
Sixth, the use of language is influenced by quite different philosophical assumptions and ways of thinking. East Asian thinking habitually accepts images and metaphors as the primary means of linguistic expression, whereas Western thinking adopts the language of substance which mainly uses causality, the thinking process which makes theory development possible. The use of metaphors and images found in East Asian languages demonstrate the characteristics of correlativity focusing on interrelationships among things. Ideas based on correlative thinking are image packages in which sophisticated semantic associations contain richly indefinite meaning. As the sources of images and metaphors are drawn from the wisdom of the past sages, speakers/writers in East Asian culture resort to exemplars or incidents rather than theories to induce comprehension. "Univocity is therefore impossible" (Hall and Ames 1995, 136). In the West, causal associations require the application of language which organizes actual and concrete items/ideas in hierarchical modes of general-to-specific, specific-to-general, or cause-and-effect. All are dualistic and polarized. Theories and meta-theories replace images and metaphors. Language explicitly defines the relations between the thesis and its details, and delivered meaning is rationally set in the texts.
Seventh, each culture has its own philosophies and religions which are interrelated with the fundamental structure of its society. In the East Asian region, over the past two millennia, Confucianism, Taoism, and Buddhism have greatly influenced the cultures of China, Korea, and Japan, while Hellenism and Judaism are the two supports which have formulated the counterparts of Western Europe, England, and the United Sates for almost the same period. The norms provided by these philosophies and religions have shaped these cultures as we know them today. These norms permeate every aspect of society. Those who have been enculturated into a particular society think and write differently, reflecting the rhetorics which have evolved out of those particular cultures including philosophies and religions. People in any given culture are naturally unable to use the rhetorical and cultural preferences of styles of other languages unless they learn and practice them sufficiently.
Eighth, the learning process is culturally shaped: East Asian education is rooted in a learning process which reflects Confucian teaching, whereas Western education is founded on the traditions of the schools of Isocrates and Quintilian, and the Progymnasmata (the ancient Greek and Latin educational system). The goal of Confucian education is to cultivate ethos, and its process is designed to help students realize how to act in harmony with society. In ancient times in the Western world, education was designed to produce good orators and in modern times to be able to express individuality and originality in effective writing. The Confucian learning process does not have rhetorical training similar to that in Western education. In East Asian culture, in either oral or written form minimal expression is preferred. When one writes or speaks, Confucianism recommends people to focus their purpose of writing/speech on the middle ground so as to keep harmony. On the other hand, Western education teaches how to take a stand and present an effective argument.
Last, East Asian societies establish rules to govern the society hierarchically, and teach their people to live harmoniously. East Asians prefer nonverbal action over elaborate discussion. Western societies, although they arrange their rhetoric and ideas hierarchically, promote the advancement of the individual over that of the society. Government is to protect individual rights. The process of rhetoric is to preserve that individuality through effective means of verbal argumentation and persuasion.
A Brief Description of the Quantitative Research Design
In order to demonstrate some of the differences between East Asian (especially Korean) and Western (specifically the United States) writing, a corpus has been collected from representative groups from the two cultures. Two quantitative methods have been used in analyzing these data, Hunt's (1965) T-unit analysis and Kaplan's (1972) discourse bloc.
The purpose of this quantitative research is to statistically examine possibilities that students' essays of each culture reflect rhetorical characteristics of their own languages. The corpus was coded and tabulated for textual analysis. If culture-specific rhetorical characteristics are detected in the students' essays, it can be reaffirmed that there are distinctive rhetorical differences between two cultures.
To do quantitative research, this study uses a corpus of 100 student essays, fifty each from the two populations. It mainly compares and contrasts the rhetorical patterns used in Korean essays written for college entrance exams by Korean high school seniors with those of English essays written for English placement tests by native English speaker high school graduates.
Research Questions
There are three fundamental questions with which this study examines relevant fields. They are as follows:
1. Are there any rhetorical differences between the languages in East Asia and English in the United States ?
2. Assuming that there are rhetorical differences, can major written discourse patterns, which are culturally embedded, be traceable in each group of the student essays ?
3. If the rhetorical style of an English essay in the United States differs from that of an essay written in Korean, one of the East Asian languages, can this difference be attributed to distinctive cultural and philosophical features respectively ?
Assumptions, Constraints, and Delimitations
There are several assumptions, constraints, and delimitations to this study. It is necessary to clear up some lingering problems occurring in the course of the research. Otherwise they may impede the research process.
Assumptions
1. Both groups of students are under the stress of taking an examination. Time limitations of the test situation are normal for their cultures.
2. Korean students have not been taught in rhetorical patterns of American English. Neither have native English speaker students been taught those of the Korean language.
3. The writing of the Korean and native English speakers reflect what they have learned in their education systems regarding writing instructions respectively. Since the students providing both samples are applying for college admission, it is assumed that they have adequate control of their own language to be able to produce the type of writing expected of them at that level.
4. The corpus drawn from the two populations is consistent in that the students of each group were given the different time to write the essays which were collected for the corpus.
Constraints
1. Although this research is intended to reflect the typical writing style in East Asia, each East Asian country has developed its shared cultural, linguistic, and rhetorical preferences in its own ways. The essays studied here are one way to test East Asian rhetorical preferences, but Korea is only one part of that group and so any generalization is limited. However, the findings here are assumed to be more similar to those which might be found in China and Japan than they would be for any culture not heavily influenced by Confucianism.
2. Findings regarding rhetorical patterns do not apply to those of essays produced for different purposes or under different conditions from those under which the corpus of this study was collected.
Delimitations
1. The T-unit and discourse bloc analyses demonstrate basic rhetorical differences between two cultures.
2. A corpus of 100 essays, 50 from each of two populations, is large enough to gain findings which are statistically convincing.
3. Data tabulated from a summary of the findings from the students' essays represent the rhetorical patterns of each language, Korean and American English.
4. The students' essays reflect the writing ability which they acquire from being socialized into their respective cultures, including their educational systems.
Notes1. In the 1960's, the most common unit of composition analysis when considering evaluation of text was that of the paragraph.
2. In this article, the term, East Asian, is not appropriately used because he also included an analysis of Thai. Culturally and geographically Thailand is not an East Asian country so the term Oriental is used.
Go to Chapter 2 Go to Chapter 3 Go to Chapter 4 Go to Chapter 5 Go to Bibliography