The Myth of the "Turn" in Contrastive Rhetoric

@article{citeulike:570222, abstract = {Contrastive rhetoric scholarship researches rhetorical structures across languages to predict the difficulties experienced by students learning to write essays in a second language. The paradigmatic contrast is between Western languages (e.g., English) that are said to exemplify "linearity" and "directness" and Eastern languages (e.g., Chinese, Japanese) that are said to exemplify "nonlinearity" and "indirectness." The prime examples in English-language contrastive rhetoric scholarship of Asian essay structure are the four-part Chinese qi cheng zhuan he and Japanese ki sho ten ketsu, whose third steps are said to represent a "turn." The author's research into Chinese and Japanese-language scholarship on these two structures finds that the "turn" is not a rhetorical move of "circularity" or "digression" as commonly assumed but rather serves as the occasion to develop an essay further by alternative means. The implication for second-language writing is recognition of greater similarities in essayist literacy across these languages than previously supposed. 10.1177/0741088303020002003}, author = {Cahill, David }, citeulike-article-id = {570222}, doi = {http://dx.doi.org/10.1177/0741088303020002003}, journal = {Written Communication}, keywords = {chinese, comparative, contrastive, cross-cultural, education, efl, english, esl, essays, japan, japanese, language, learning, rhetoric, styles, teaching, tefl, tesl, tesol, writing}, month = {April}, number = {2}, pages = {170--194}, posted-at = {2006-03-30 05:05:33}, priority = {3}, title = {The Myth of the "Turn" in Contrastive Rhetoric}, url = {http://dx.doi.org/10.1177/0741088303020002003}, volume = {20}, year = {2003} }

TY - JOUR ID - citeulike:570222 L3 - citeulike-article-id:570222 TI - The Myth of the "Turn" in Contrastive Rhetoric JF - Written Communication VL - 20 IS - 2 SP - 170 EP - 194 N2 - Contrastive rhetoric scholarship researches rhetorical structures across languages to predict the difficulties experienced by students learning to write essays in a second language. The paradigmatic contrast is between Western languages (e.g., English) that are said to exemplify "linearity" and "directness" and Eastern languages (e.g., Chinese, Japanese) that are said to exemplify "nonlinearity" and "indirectness." The prime examples in English-language contrastive rhetoric scholarship of Asian essay structure are the four-part Chinese qi cheng zhuan he and Japanese ki sho ten ketsu, whose third steps are said to represent a "turn." The author's research into Chinese and Japanese-language scholarship on these two structures finds that the "turn" is not a rhetorical move of "circularity" or "digression" as commonly assumed but rather serves as the occasion to develop an essay further by alternative means. The implication for second-language writing is recognition of greater similarities in essayist literacy across these languages than previously supposed. 10.1177/0741088303020002003 KW - chinese KW - comparative KW - contrastive KW - cross-cultural KW - education KW - efl KW - english KW - esl KW - essays KW - japan KW - japanese KW - language KW - learning KW - rhetoric KW - styles KW - teaching KW - tefl KW - tesl KW - tesol KW - writing AU - Cahill, David PY - 2003/04/01/ UR - http://dx.doi.org/10.1177/0741088303020002003 ER -