World Englishes and Rhetoric Across Cultures

This article was downloaded by: [University of Windsor]On: 14 November 2014, At: 20:38Publisher: RoutledgeInforma Ltd Registered in England and Wales Registered Number: 1072954 Registered office: Mortimer House,37-41 Mortimer Street, London W1T 3JH, UK

Asian EnglishesPublication details, including instructions for authors and subscription information:http://www.tandfonline.com/loi/reng20

World Englishes and Rhetoric Across CulturesYamuna Kachrua

a Professor Emerita of Linguistics University of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign Department ofLinguistics 4088 FLB, 707 S. Mathews Urbana, IL 61801, U.S.A. Fax: 1–217–333–3466 E-mail:Published online: 11 Mar 2014.

To cite this article: Yamuna Kachru (2001) World Englishes and Rhetoric Across Cultures, Asian Englishes, 4:2, 54-71, DOI:10.1080/13488678.2001.10801076

To link to this article: http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/13488678.2001.10801076

PLEASE SCROLL DOWN FOR ARTICLE

Taylor & Francis makes every effort to ensure the accuracy of all the information (the “Content”) containedin the publications on our platform. However, Taylor & Francis, our agents, and our licensors make norepresentations or warranties whatsoever as to the accuracy, completeness, or suitability for any purpose of theContent. Any opinions and views expressed in this publication are the opinions and views of the authors, andare not the views of or endorsed by Taylor & Francis. The accuracy of the Content should not be relied upon andshould be independently verified with primary sources of information. Taylor and Francis shall not be liable forany losses, actions, claims, proceedings, demands, costs, expenses, damages, and other liabilities whatsoeveror howsoever caused arising directly or indirectly in connection with, in relation to or arising out of the use ofthe Content.

This article may be used for research, teaching, and private study purposes. Any substantial or systematicreproduction, redistribution, reselling, loan, sub-licensing, systematic supply, or distribution in anyform to anyone is expressly forbidden. Terms & Conditions of access and use can be found at http://www.tandfonline.com/page/terms-and-conditions

http://www.tandfonline.com/loi/reng20

http://www.tandfonline.com/action/showCitFormats?doi=10.1080/13488678.2001.10801076

http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/13488678.2001.10801076

http://www.tandfonline.com/page/terms-and-conditions

http://www.tandfonline.com/page/terms-and-conditions

NEW PERSPECTIVES IN WORLD ENGLISHES

World Englishes and Rhetoric Across Cultures

Yamuna KACHRU

Abstract: This paper explores the relevance of cultural values and conventions of writingin the context of writing for academic purposes in world varieties of English. The focusis on argumentative-persuasive writing. The paper discusses the various approaches toargumentation in the Western and non-Western traditions. It examines what role, if any,cultural values play in conceptualising argumentation and/or persuasion as a distinctmode of scholarly activity. It investigates the macro- and micro-structure of academictexts exemplifying writing in a number of world Englishes to highlight the differences.Finally, it points out the implications of these observable trends in academic writingacross world Englishes for the ELT profession.

1. INTRODUCTION

The Chomskyan revolution in linguistics has by now led to a general acceptanceof the axiom that humans acquire linguistic competence with no conscious effort.This is true, in normal circumstances, of speaking.1 Competence in writing,however, is different in that it is acquired with deliberate effort in institutionalsettings such as the family, the school, the monastery. It involves instruction and,usually, practice over a long period of time, and the rate of success in achievingwriting competence varies considerably within any given population. Each literateculture has its own conventions and uses of writing, and it is instructive to look atthese closely if one is interested in understanding the process of writing, the culturalcontext of the product, and the cultural value assigned to writing.

This paper explores the interaction of culture and conventions of writing in orderto understand the current trends in research on two related topics: one concernedwith writing in English by users of world Englishes in academic settings, and theother with a study of manifestation(s) of the genre, or set of genres, of academicwriting across languages and cultures, and how that affects writing in world

54

Asian Englishes, Vol. 4, No. 2, 2001

1. It is worth noting that this does not apply to all contexts of oral language use. Some contexts ofspeaking require special training, such as speaking with certain interlocutors (e.g., royalty and certaincategories of clergy, among others), in certain settings (delivering a sermon, a eulogy), on certainoccasions (proposing a toast, giving a blessing to a newly married couple in certain cultures, etc.), andso on.

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Uni

vers

ity o

f W

inds

or]

at 2

0:38

14

Nov

embe

r 20

14

Englishes. My particular focus here is on academic writing in general andargumentative-persuasive writing in particular.

The paper is organized as follows: the first section following the introductiondiscusses why culture is relevant in the context of writing, the second focuses onhow argumentation has been viewed by researchers, the third outlines thecharacterization of argumentative-persuasive writing within the Western tradition ofrhetoric, the fourth brings in the parameter of cultural values in characterizing suchwriting in non-Western traditions, the fifth takes a look at micro- and macro-structure in texts exemplifying academic writing in world Englishes, and the finalsection points out the implications of this discussion for the ELT profession.

2. CULTURE

The question might arise: It is obvious why writing across languages is worthexploring, but why across cultures? The answer is that culture is intimately involvedin defining norms of human behavior and is in turn continuously evolving as a resultof changing contexts of human behavior. Appropriate behavior includes verbalinteraction in socially defined contexts in a socioculturally suitable code or codes.Linguistic interactions, whether spoken or written, have to conform to notions ofappropriacy held in the community. For instance, in a bi-/multilingual situation, it islegitimate to mix and switch shared languages and/or dialects, whereas in amonolingual situation, mixing and switching would be unacceptable since it wouldhamper intelligibility and cause anxiety among interlocutors. Similarly, how variousspeech acts such as apology, compliment, invitation, persuasion, request, sermon,prayer, etc. are performed, and which code or codes are selected for such speech actsdepends on the sociocultural norms of the group participating in interaction. Someexamples may make this clear. In the Hindi speech community of India, thefollowing code choices are likely: a poetry reading session would involve Hindi orUrdu, worshipping in a Hindu temple setting would usually involve Sanskrit, whilepraying in a mosque would involve Arabic; writing in academic settings and legalproceedings in higher courts of law would involve English.

Competence in using language(s) in socially appropriate ways constitutescommunicative competence. Along with the acquisition of communicativecompetence in a language or languages shared in one’s speech community, oneacquires a social identity, and within the framework of social identity, a personal orindividual identity. In the normal course of events, it is difficult for one to assumenew subtractive identities that replace the original one, though adding new role-based identities seems to present no problems. For instance, in the course of one’slife, one learns to speak like a son or daughter, brother or sister, husband or wife,

55

New Perspectives in World Englishes — World Englishes and Rhetoric Across Cultures

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Uni

vers

ity o

f W

inds

or]

at 2

0:38

14

Nov

embe

r 20

14

father or mother, boss or employee, friend or colleague, and so on. On the otherhand, it is very difficult for an Indian to acquire Japanese-ness or for a Japanese toacquire Australian-ness to the exclusion of his/her earlier identity. This is true evenof second-generation immigrant children of, say, Asian Americans in the USA, orSouth Asian British in the UK.

It is worth remembering that, unlike speech, which is universal, literacy is notuniversal, and was not widespread until very recently in history. Universal literacyin Europe is a post-industrial-revolution condition, and there are still pockets ofpopulation in Europe and America where literacy plays a very limited role.Elsewhere in the world, there are societies and cultures where literacy plays hardlyany role in the life of the community, e.g., rural societies in South Asia, sub-SaharanAfrica, the Arab world, and many other regions of the world. According toUNESCO estimates, about a quarter of the world population is illiterate. That,however, does not mean that illiteracy is necessarily to be equated with a lack ofeducation. People may lack literacy skills and yet, in traditional societies of Asiaand Africa, be very well educated through the oral medium. That is, they mayacquire all the knowledge they need in order to conduct their personal, social,political, economic and spiritual lives without having to resort to reading or writing.This is certainly true of many African and South Asian communities.

It is also noteworthy that literacy practices vary a great deal across cultures andrequire careful study, as has been shown by Ferdman et al. (1994), Freebody andWelch (1993), Heath (1983), Scribner and Cole (1981), among others. Against thisbackground, it is helpful to look at argumentative or persuasive writing, within whatis known as the overarching genre of academic writing, to learn more about theintersection of language and culture in the context of world Englishes.

3. ARGUMENTATION

Similar to culture or society, the concept of argumentation in the context ofwriting is difficult to define. There is a great deal of disagreement amongresearchers with regard to viewing the nature and purpose of argumentation. Thesedisagreements are a result of viewing argumentation-persuasion from differentperspectives. For instance, argumentation has been defined as an activity in whichspeakers/writers intend to create or increase the audience adherence to the thesispresented (Perelman & Olbechts-Tyteca 1969). An effective argument results in theintended action, or an increased willingness to act, on part of the audience. On theother hand, argumentation has also been conceived of as an activity designed toconvince the audience of the acceptability of one’s position, rather than it leading toany action (Kummer 1972). A distinction has also been made between an argument

56


Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Uni

vers

ity o

f W

inds

or]

at 2

0:38

14

Nov

embe

r 20

14

carried out between two sets of participants and by one person only (Blair 1987).The former arises out of a disagreement, or perception of disagreement, betweenthose involved, and its goal is to convince the other. The latter involves only oneperson and its purpose is to inquire into the acceptability of a point of view that isnot yet fully established.

Followers of Greek rhetoric and formal logic tend to use the term "persuasion"rather than "argumentation," or use the two terms interchangeably. Young et al.(1970) have a category of persuasive discourse in which argument plays a role.Kinneavy (1971:211) uses the term "persuasion" and defines it as an activitydesigned to elicit from the audience a specific action or emotion or conviction, whileSecor (1983) makes a clear distinction between argumentation and persuasion, andcharacterizes argument as one of the means of accomplishing persuasion. Thisposition seems to be consistent with the position of philosophers who discusspersuasion and argumentation in their work (See Teo 1995:2-6 for a summary ofvarious positions). In spite of these differences, there is widespread acceptance inacademia that there is something called argumentative-persuasive writing, and therehave been attempts to describe this text type in books on rhetoric and composition.

4. ARGUMENTATIVE-PERSUASIVE WRITING

Most textbooks on English rhetoric contain some information on text types. Forinstance, Kinneavy (1971) classifies texts into four types — expressive, persuasive,reference, and literary — depending on whether they emphasize the writer, thereader, the message or the language. Beaugrande and Dressler (1981) classify textsaccording to their communicative function into descriptive, narrative andargumentative. Youga (1989) classifies texts into three major types — expressive,persuasive and informative — defined according to whether their purpose is sharingexperience with the audience, changing audience behavior or attitude, or explainingthe subject matter to the audience.

Classification and labeling aside, it is instructive to examine the realization ofthe abstract notion of argumentative text type in published literature. Argumentativepieces have been characterized either in terms of linguistic structure of sentences inthe text, or speech acts of utterances. According to the grammatical structuralapproach (Werlich 1976), the dominant sentence type in an argumentative piece isquality-attributing sentences [e.g., The problem is complex]; clause expansion typesare causal, concessive and nominal; sequence type is contrastive; text structuring isdeductive, inductive, and dialectical; and tense form is present. According to Biber(1986) argumentative texts contain infinitives, suasive verbs (e.g., command,demand), conditional clauses, split auxiliaries, and prediction, necessity and

57


Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Uni

vers

ity o

f W

inds

or]

at 2

0:38

14

Nov

embe

r 20

14

possibility modals. In terms of speech acts, Aston (1977) assigns two types ofvalues to speech acts in an argumentative text: an illocutionary value and aninteractional value. He further maintains that argumentative texts are characterizedby representatives in terms of illocutionary acts, and the interactional relationshipsbetween acts are of four types: explanation, evaluation, instances andmetastatements. Tirkkonen-Condit (1985) draws upon van Dijk (1980), Kummer(1972) and Aston (1977), and suggests the following view of argumentative text: ithas a superstructure — the schematic form that organizes the global meaning of atext; it is a problem-solving process; and its goal is to convince the audience of thepoints made in the text (see Teo 1995:17-39 for a detailed discussion of this model).

In a more recent study of academic writing (Meyer 1997:19) it has beensuggested that:

...perhaps the most interesting group of relevant lexemes are speech-actverbs and nouns (argue , assumption , explanation , describe,recommendation) which explicate the pragmatic status of linguistic actsperformed, mentioned or reported in a text....It is obvious that they play acentral role in the structure of technical texts. What is more, they signal oneaspect of text structure...that is both typical of and common to all technicaldiscourse...and that is manifested in a wide variety of expressions....It is atthese words that we look for information on what the authors are doing intheir texts, and what they ascribe to other authors. And this is often morerevealing to the expert than the references to subject matter proper.

One additional point worth keeping in mind is that text types such as narrative,argumentative-persuasive, expressive, etc., are not exclusive. For instance, Parret(1987:165) observes that there is overlap between argumentation and narration:"nobody can deny that argumentation and narrativity overlap in many sequences ofdiscourse as well as of everyday language...." Hatim (1991:190) notes: "texts aremultifunctional, normally displaying features of more than one type, and constantlyshifting from one type to another." According to Beaugrande and Dressler(1981:183), the major difficulty in text typology is that "many actualized instancesdo not manifest complete or exact characteristics of an ideal type." Biber(1986:390) supports this conclusion, "the identity of the salient text-type distinctionsin English is an unresolved issue." It has been suggested that, in view of thedifficulty of identifying text types, the notion of text type be seen as an abstraction.Although the abstract notion of text type is useful in research, it is obvious that texttypes usually overlap in real writing (see Teo 1995:8-10).

58


Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Uni

vers

ity o

f W

inds

or]

at 2

0:38

14

Nov

embe

r 20

14

5. CULTURAL VALUES AND ARGUMENTATIVE-PERSUASIVE WRITING

Having briefly surveyed the thinking on argumentation-persuasion in theWestern tradition of rhetoric as reflected in the works referred to above, it is usefulto look at the current research on literacy and non-Western traditions as they relateto argumentative-persuasive writing. Post-process, post-cognitive theory andpedagogy in the field of literacy studies represent "literacy as an ideological arenaand composing as a cultural activity by which writers position and repositionthemselves in relation to their own and other’s subjectivities, discourses, practicesand institutions" (Trimbur 1994:109).

If we examine the literature on rhetoric and composition in the field of ELT, itbecomes quite clear that the gatekeepers of academic discourse are still holding onto the traditional assumptions about the nature of the autonomous self and theconcept of authorship as ownership of singly held property rights in spite of all theresearch findings in rhetoric of other cultures (Blalock 1997). There are numerousreferences to the conventions of writing in Arabic, Chinese, Japanese, Persian andother languages, and accounts of African-American and Native American oraltraditions of discourse, but the recommendation is the same: the ELT profession hasto uphold the ideal of direct, linear progression of ideas in academic writing (Connor1996).

First of all, as Lisle and Mano (1997:16) observe, "a survey of persuasivestrategies in other cultures suggests that as a measure of rhetorical effectiveness thelogocentrism of Western tradition is the exception rather than the rule; both oral andliterate culture traditions of non-European cultures challenge the straight-edgedgeometry of Western rhetoric." They go on to document evidence for this assertionby citing observations about several non-Western traditions.

For instance, Chinese students are said to be taught to devote the openingparagraph of an essay to statements of universal truth; only after that it is appropriateto broach the topic of the paper (Lisle & Mano 1997:16). In the Japanese andKorean traditions, an essay consists of at least one tangentially related sub-topic"brought up with few overt transition markers" (Hinds 1987:150).

In Arabic rhetoric, verbal artistry and emotional impact are the primary measuresof persuasive power: rhythm, sound, repetition, and emphatic assertion carry moreweight than factual evidence, and organization may depend more on metaphor andassociation than on linear logic (Lisle & Mano 1997:17). This is supported bySa'adeddin (1989), who makes a distinction between two different modes of textdevelopment: aural and visual (38-39). The former is characterized by recurrent andplain lexis, exaggeration, repetition of syntactic structures, loose packaging ofinformation, a lack of apparent coherence, etc. — that is, a style that signals

59


Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Uni

vers

ity o

f W

inds

or]

at 2

0:38

14

Nov

embe

r 20

14

informality and solidarity, highly valued in the Arabic tradition. The latter, on theother hand, has the features of linearization, progressive development of a thesis,logical coherence, and syntactic cohesiveness, all of which are highly valued in theWestern tradition.

Indirection and circumlocutory rhetoric are a part of African discourse strategy,as well. "By 'stalking' the issues, the speaker demonstrates skill and arouses hearers'interest. The person who gets directly to the issues is said to have little imaginationand even less flair for rhetorical style" (Asante 1987:51).

In addition to cultural preferences mentioned above, research has shown that notall languages and cultures share the text types described or posited in English. Forinstance, a standard textbook on grammar and composition in Hindi published bythe National Council of Educational Research and Training, India (Vyas et al.1972:209), mentions the following categories of essays: descriptive (varnanaatmak),narrative (vivaranaatmak), deliberative (vicaaratmak), explanatory (vyaakhyaatmak)and imaginative (kalpanaatmak), and further reduces these to three groups:descriptive (including narrative), deliberative (including explanatory), andimaginative. Argumentation is one sub-type of deliberation or explanation; it is nota distinct category. The "deliberative" is not necessarily equivalent to the Anglo-American "argumentative" essay. In a Western argumentative text the goal is toconvince the audience that the view put forward in the text is right and that allcompeting opinions lead to undesirable consequences. In the Indian deliberativetext, on the other hand, the points in favor as well as those opposed to a particularposition are put forward so that the audience is informed on all facets of an issue,and the decision as to which one of the positions presented is right or wrong is left tothem. The advice given to students in Vyas et al. (1972) is as follows:

[F]or elaboration (prasaar) [i.e., the body of the essay: YK], material shouldbe categorized carefully to facilitate the sequential presentation of points.Everything that is said must be proved (pramanit) by arguments (tark), facts(tathy), events (ghatna) or quotation (uddharan) [i.e., citing authority: YK]and they should be arranged in such a form that readers can easily arrive atthe conclusion desired by the writer (emphasis added).

The purpose is not to provide solutions and convince the audience of theirrightness; rather, it is to lead the readers to find the right solutions. Thus,deliberative essays are indirect by design.

The instruction to students outlined above conforms to the Indian tradition.According to Heimann (1964):

60


Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Uni

vers

ity o

f W

inds

or]

at 2

0:38

14

Nov

embe

r 20

14

The method applied in Indian epistemology is that of gaining higherknowledge through discussion. One standpoint is first pronounced, and thenconfronted and denounced by a second, a third and further pakshas "wings"or "viewpoints." Finally the highest, or at any rate the at-present no-more-refutable notion is reached. The Indian textbook of philosophical systems,the Sarvadarshanasamgraha, "the compilation of all viewpoints," is soarranged that the first mentioned is the worst, and the last the best, from thevedantic standpoint which is here proclaimed. It is divergency which helpsto elucidate the comparatively higher, i.e. wider grasp of the problem inhand. Samvada "discussion," instead of vivada "dispute," is the methodicalmeans of gathering all the different facets of the truth, which is onlyindirectly and gradually approachable. (170-171)

Furthermore, not all languages, even when they share some genres, may have thesame patterns of structure in genres. The relationship of scientific or academicdiscourse and the generic structure of that discourse are not organic; it is based onconventions. As I have shown elsewhere, mathematical problems can be posed inverse (Y. Kachru 1997) and so can philosophical arguments, as was done in theIndian tradition of scholarship (see Dhillon 1998).

Another example of generic structural divergence is provided by Chinesescientific texts. A large-scale study by Taylor and Chen (1991) is worth mentioningin this connection. The study compared introductions to scientific papers written bythree groups of physical scientists: Anglo-Americans writing in English, Chinesewriting in English, and Chinese writing in Chinese. Several notable differencesbetween the Anglo-American and Chinese texts show up, two of which are worthmentioning. One is the preference for simple instead of elaborated structure ofintroduction, and the other is deletion of critical review of literature irrespective ofwhether the Chinese scientific texts were written in Chinese or in English. TheAnglo-American introductions were 1.7 times longer than the Chinese introductions,almost fifty percent of the Chinese introductions were missing the critical review ofliterature, and the Chinese texts had almost fifty-seven percent fewer references.The authors rule out the developmental explanation of shorter introductions and themissing reviews of literature and references. Instead, they suggest that "the Chinesescholars find it less acceptable to identify by name and to summarize the works ofothers whom they will then proceed to 'expose,' as it were" (331).

Other cultural values that are expressed through literacy practices are just asimportant as text types and generic structures. According to Nakamura (1967[1981]:191], "the value of ways of Japanese expression lies more in aesthetic andintuitive aspects than in exactly logical ones." According to Moore (1967

61


Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Uni

vers

ity o

f W

inds

or]

at 2

0:38

14

Nov

embe

r 20

14

[1981]:295), "Japan has been worldly and realistic from the very beginning....Thisprobably [is] the most significant clue to the wide range of attitudes that constitutethe Japanese perspective." Japan has absorbed many different points of view (e.g.,Buddhist thought from India, Confucianism from China), but:

[T]he basis of such adaptation has not been intellectual. It has been strictlyin terms of practical suitability for Japanese life....Like the Indians and theChinese, the Japanese stress harmony and tolerance — and try more than theothers to minimize both practical and intellectual cleavages andconfrontation....In most of the adjustments to life, whether they are inphilosophy, religion, or practical affairs, there are clear intellectualincompatibilities, but to the Japanese mind they are not — in the name ofintellectual and practical harmony (and tolerance) (Moore 1967 [1981]:294).

Harmony and aesthetics are two principal characteristics of Japan. Moore (1967[1981]:296) sums up the discussion thus: "In comparison with other cultures, theaesthetic has been considered to be the essentially unique expression of spiritualityin Japan, as is ethics in China, religion in India, and possibly reason in the West."

This account of varying cultural norms may be taken to be an instance ofsweeping overgeneralization. Nevertheless, it is clear that there are differencesbetween the literacy practices of various literate communities and often within thesame community over time. As Cook-Gumperz (1986:22) observes, there has been,in Western society, a shift from the eighteenth century onward from "a pluralisticidea about literacy as a composite of different skills related to reading and writingfor many different purposes and sections of a society's population, to a twentieth-century notion of a single, standardised schooled literacy." Gee (1986) asserts thatdiscourse practices are always embedded in the particular world view of a particularsocial group; they are tied to a set of values and norms. Mainstream or dominantcultural groups' literacy practices, no less than minority groups,' reflect a particularworld view and are but one cultural way of making sense among many others. Thefact that these practices are often regarded as the norm, the natural, or the universalhas less to do with the particular forms themselves than with the fact that theconsciousness they represent reflects the interests of the most powerful social groupswithin the society. Gee notes that the dominant culture in the United States mostusually values, cultivates, and rewards "essay-text literacy," characterized by aheavy emphasis on explicit, decontextualized, impersonal language. And, he argues,the features that characterize this form of literacy behavior should be understood associally preferred behavior reflective not of universal values but of the particularvalues of a limited segment of the population.2

62


Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Uni

vers

ity o

f W

inds

or]

at 2

0:38

14

Nov

embe

r 20

14

6. WORLD ENGLISHES AND RHETORICAL PRACTICES

Rhetorical practices in non-Western cultures differ in more than one way. Someof these have been discussed in the literature (e.g., Asante 1987, Hinds 1987, Y.Kachru 1988, Sa'adeddin 1989, Lisle & Mano 1997, among others). Having notednecessary cultural considerations, I would like to focus on the structural aspects ofacademic writing in world Englishes very briefly.

Writing in different world Englishes differs in macro-structure as well as micro-structure. That is, there are differences in how the text as a whole is organized(macro-structure), and how each element of the text, i.e., a sentence, a paragraph,etc., is organized (micro-structure).

In terms of micro-structures, it has been observed that the Outer and ExpandingCircle varieties prefer grammatical devices which are different from the onespreferred by the Inner Circle varieties to signal relationships between elements of atext. A few examples will make this clear. First, we will look at some examples tosee how inter- and intra-sentential relationships are expressed in the new varieties.This is the domain of cohesion (Halliday & Hasan 1976). In addition, we willdiscuss the macro-structure of texts in terms of the concept of coherence (van Dijk1977). Examples will be presented to show the characteristics of overall textualstructure in the new varieties in terms of thematization and staging within a text.

The following excerpts from letters to editors of prominent English languagenewspapers from India and Singapore illustrate the differing norms of expressingcohesive relationships in these varieties:

1. Though the intention of the government was good but in realityadministration of public schools has collapsed for the negligence of theeducation department.

[Letter to the Editor, The Assam Tribune, March 24, 2000]2. They should not have been appointed as Cabinet Ministers in the first

place until they are exonerated of the charge by the trial court.[The Hindu, March 25, 2000]

3. These laws might have proved useful and efficient, but, nevertheless, theyare counterproductive to our goal of becoming a civil society.

[The Straits Times, April 6, 2000]

63


2. One very divergent form of literary practice is that of the Islamic religious schools or madrassas incertain parts of the world where the initial schooling for many years is confined to religious texts only.Another form of literacy, now almost obsolete, was practiced in many parts of the world, includingEurope and South Asia, where women were exposed to literacy for the limited purposes of readingsacred texts and writing personal letters.

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Uni

vers

ity o

f W

inds

or]

at 2

0:38

14

Nov

embe

r 20

14

The following properties of the three examples cited above are worth noting:a. The use of a correlative construction (though....but) for expressing the

concessive relationship, and for to signal a causal relationship, in example1;

b. The lack of tense agreement in 2; and c. The use of both but and nevertheless in 3 to signal the adversative

meaning.

There are differing norms of how thematization and staging operate in differentvarieties of world Englishes: that is, how sentences in a paragraph are organized inthematic terms, and how a message is presented so that thematic unity is maintainedfor ease of processing by the reader. In British English, the initial element in thesentence is normally the theme (Halliday 1967-68). Besides this structural position,there are several grammatical processes that thematize certain elements which donot normally occur in the initial position. Some of these are simple word orderadjustments, others are more complex, such as clefting, as in It was yesterday thatJohn finally left for London to thematize the adverbial "yesterday." Thematizationinvolves picking out items which were under focus in the preceding text so that thespeaker/writer can treat them as the point of departure for the subsequent text. It isas though the speaker/writer presents what s/he wants to say from a particularperspective.

The speaker/writer perspective has important consequences for the structure ofsentences, paragraphs, and other units of discourse. An example will make thisclear. Consider the following texts:

4. The first half-decade of the 1970's represents the pioneer years in theserious study of vernacular literature. During these years, the acceleratingprocess of decolonization encouraged nationalist inquiry into the dynamicsof cultural relations between the Philippines and its past colonial masters.In the process, the impulse was towards re-examination of our culturalheritage from the past. The resulting rediscovery of the hithertoneglected native tradition has led to a fresh and enlightened appreciationof the attempts of our vernacular writers to assert through their works avision of their society and its future. (Lumbera 1978:65)

The title of the essay, "Philippine Vernacular Literature," provides a point ofdeparture for the entire essay. The opening sentence thematizes a time expression,The first half-decade of the 1970's, and the subsequent sentence maintains thethematic unity by thematizing the time adverbial, during these years. In the two

64


Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Uni

vers

ity o

f W

inds

or]

at 2

0:38

14

Nov

embe

r 20

14

following sentences, there is a shift in the perspective; what is being thematized inthese two sentences is what was under focus in the preceding sentences. Forexample, the process in the initial adverbial in the third sentence refers back to thefocused item, nationalist inquiry in the preceding sentence, and the resultingrediscovery of...tradition in the last sentence refers back to the focused item,cultural heritage in the preceding sentence. Thus, the writer adopts a stagingstrategy that leads the reader through a temporal setting to a process to its result: anappreciation of the vernacular literature of the Philippines.

The overall topic of the essay is identified in its title; there are several relatedtopics, such as the time period, cultural heritage of the past, colonial experience, andrediscovery of the indigenous culture, that are relevant in the discussion of theglobal topic. Thematization in one or more successive paragraphs may pick up thesesubtopics and establish local topics for parts of a paragraph, a whole paragraph, or anumber of paragraphs. In the paragraph quoted above, more than one local topic hasbeen picked up; the relationship between them, however, has been clearlyestablished. Hence, in spite of a multiplicity of local topics, the paragraph seemscoherent to the reader.

The next example, however, is of a different nature:

5. Among the literary genres, it is the novel which has been used mosteffectively as a vivid reflector of certain given conditions in a particularsociety. Its form lends itself quite well to an all-encompassing view ofsociety as projected by the novelist bent on capturing that texture of livedlife. As pointed out by Ian Watt in his Rise of the novel, the novel couldarise only when philosophy started to debunk the myth of the universalsand in its place affirm the view that reality was composed of concrete andever-changing patterns of experience. Hence, preoccupation withrecognizable characters and situations set against such particularizedtime and place, became a distinguishing trait of the novel. Occupying apivotal role is the novel's hero no longer endowed with supernaturalqualities; he is seen as a man among men, a product of his society and insome contemporary western novels (the works of Kafka, Hemingway, orFaulkner) reduced to a pitiful victim of society. (Reyes 1978:72)

There are several characteristics of this paragraph which are worth discussing.The following are especially notable: the focusing device used in the first sentenceto establish the novel in the consciousness of the reader, maintenance of thematicunity by referring back to the novel through the device of making its form thesubject in the second and the novel in the third sentence, and the change of theme in

65


Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Uni

vers

ity o

f W

inds

or]

at 2

0:38

14

Nov

embe

r 20

14

the fourth sentence. The staging strategy up to the fourth sentence is successful, andthere is little difficulty in keeping up with the text. The sudden shift in the fourthand fifth sentences, however, is difficult to process. It is obvious that the novel'shero is being thematized in the fifth sentence, as signaled by the structure of theclause, but the only item in the preceding text to which this item could be related isrecognizable characters. Unfortunately, this noun phrase is buried in a conjoinedphrase functioning as a prepositional object not under focus in the clause, and hencegoes almost unnoticed at first reading. Obviously, the staging strategy at this pointis not successful, at least from the point of view of users of several varieties ofEnglish. All the items in boldface are potential exponents of local topics in view ofthe global topic of the text. Thematization of the novel's hero without adequatepreparation, however, creates problems for readers who are not used to sudden topic-shifts. From the point of view of these readers, the paragraph in 5, as compared withthe paragraph in 4, seems to be less coherent.

The paragraph quoted above is the opening paragraph of an essay in a Filipinopublication and has been identified as a piece of formal writing. Obviously, theabove paragraph represents writing in educated Filipino English, and the stagingstrategy is acceptable in this variety.

Examples of such writing can of course be found in many different varieties ofworld Englishes, not just in Philippine English.

7. IMPLICATIONS FOR ELT

It is clear that there is no entity called "International English" which everyEnglish-using person is competent in. Instead, what we have are world Englishes,with their own cultural underpinnings and rhetorical strategies. As all linguistsknow, the concept of language is a convenient myth; it helps in idealizing the data,bewildering in their variation along many parameters, to make generalizations aboutthe data. Communication across cultures through a linguistic medium forcesrecognition of variation along the cultural, linguistic and textual dimensions.Ignored, the variation leads to misunderstandings with potentially immenseconsequences, as has been noted in a number of incidents of diplomatic failure.

Educational practices are cultural practices. Language education does not andshould not mean perpetuation of outdated prejudices and attitudes that result fromthem. There is no denying the fact that all over the world, educators feel the needfor English education, and international students flock to American, Australian,British, and Canadian universities in ever larger numbers. Institutions that teachEnglish in China, Japan, Korea, India, Thailand, Malaysia, Nigeria — all across theworld — are attracting unprecedented number of learners. However, we must not

66


Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Uni

vers

ity o

f W

inds

or]

at 2

0:38

14

Nov

embe

r 20

14

forget that English-using populations in the Outer and Expanding Circle representthe majority of English-users and come with their own identities and world-views.As an experienced writing teacher says (Fox 1994:126):

...there are ways to see and experience the world that most of us have neverdreamed of, ways of creating and communicating knowledge that are vastlydifferent from what we have long been convinced is "good writing," "goodthinking," and "proper understanding." As teachers, we have an obligation tohelp world majority students [international students] find a voice at theuniversity by explaining in respectful, knowledgeable ways how we expectthem to think, investigate, and express themselves in the U.S. context. Andif we listen closely to what they have to tell us, we will not only teach morecompletely but deepen the meaning of our own intellectual lives as well.

The English language, as a language of international communication, ispluricentric, and carries the weight of various sociocultural identities. Consequently,the language teaching profession faces both challenges and opportunities. Thechallenge is to see and appreciate the pluricentricity of English and the opportunityis to educate future generations of language professionals in dealing with thecomplexities of world Englishes.

ACKNOWLEDGEMENT: I am grateful to my friend and colleague, Cecil L. Nelson, forreading and commenting on an earlier version of this paper.

67


Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Uni

vers

ity o

f W

inds

or]

at 2

0:38

14

Nov

embe

r 20

14

REFERENCES

Asante, Milefi Kete. 1987. The Afrocentric idea. Philadelphia, PA: TempleUniversity Press.

Aston, Guy. 1977. "Comprehending value: aspects of the structure ofargumentative discourse." Studi Italiani di Linguistica Teorica ed Applicata 6.465-509.

Beaugrande, Robert-Alaine de and W. U. Dressler. 1981. Introduction to textlinguistics. London: Longman.

Biber, Douglas. 1986. "Spoken and written textual dimensions in English:resolving the contradictory findings." Language 62. 384-414.

Blair, J. A. 1987. "Argumentation, inquiry and speech act theory." In F. H. vanEemeren et al. (eds.), Argumentation: across the lines of discipline.Providence, RI: Foris Publications. 189-199.

Blalock, Susan. 1997. "Negotiating authority through one-to-one collaboration inthe multicultural writing center." In Carol Severino et al. (eds.), Writing inmulticultural settings. New York: The Modern Language Association ofAmerica. 79-93.

Connor, Ulla. 1996. Contrastive rhetoric: Cross-cultural aspects of secondlanguage writing. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

Cook-Gumperz, J. (ed.) 1986. The social construction of literacy. New York:Cambridge University Press.

Dhillon, Pradeep. 1998. "Literary form and philosophical argument in premoderntexts." Dialogue and Universalism 11-12. 131-141.

van Dijk, Teun. 1977. Text and context: explorations in the semantics andpragmatics of discourse. New York: Longman.

van Dijk, Teun. 1980. Macrostructure: an interdisciplinary study of globalstructures in discourse, interaction and cognition. Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence-Erlbaum Associates.

Ferdman, Bernardo M. et al. (eds.) 1994. Literacy across languages and cultures.Albany, NY: SUNY Press.

Fox, Helen. 1994. Listening to the world: cultural issues in academic writing.Urbana, IL: National Council of Teachers of English.

Freebody, Peter and Anthony R. Welch. (eds.) 1993. Knowledge, culture, andpower: International perspectives on literacy as policy and practice. NewYork: Falmer Press.

68


Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Uni

vers

ity o

f W

inds

or]

at 2

0:38

14

Nov

embe

r 20

14

Gee, J. P. 1986. "Orality and literacy: From The Savage Mind to Ways with Words."TESOL Quarterly 20. 719-746.

Halliday, M. A. K. 1967-68. "Notes on transitivity and theme." Journal ofLinguistics 3. 37-81 and 199-244; 4. 179-215.

Halliday, M. A. K. and R. Hasan. 1976. Cohesion in English. London: Longman.

Hatim, M. 1991. "The pragmatics of argumentation in Arabic: The rise and fall of atext type." Text 11. 189-199.

Heath, Shirley B. 1983. Ways with words: language, life, and work in communitiesand classrooms. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

Heimann, B. 1964. Facets of Indian thought. London: George Allen and Unwin.

Hinds, John. 1987. "Readers versus writer responsibility: a new typology." In UllaConnor and Robert Kaplan (eds.), Writing Across Languages: Analysis of L2Text. Reading, MA: Addison-Wesley. 141-152.

Kachru, Yamuna. 1988. "Interpreting Indian English Expository Prose." Issues andDevelopments in English Applied Linguistics 3. 39-50. Urbana, IL: Division ofEnglish as an International Language, University of Illinois.

Kachru, Yamuna. 1997. "Culture and argumentative writing in world Englishes."In Michael Forman and Larry E. Smith (eds.), World Englishes 2000.Honolulu, HI: University of Hawaii Press. 48-67.

Kinneavy, J. L. 1971. A theory of discourse: the aims of discourse. EnglewoodCliffs, NJ: Prentice-Hall.

Kummer, W. 1972. "Aspects of a theory of argumentation." In E. Gulich and W.Raible (eds.), Textsorten. Frankfurt, Germany: Anthenäum. 25-49.

Lisle, Bonnie and Sandra Mano. 1997. "Embracing the multicultural rhetoric." InCarol Severino et al. (eds.), Writing in multicultural settings. New York: TheModern Language Association of America. 12-26.

Lumbera, Bienvenido. 1978. "Philippine vernacular literature." In Visitacion R. DeLa Toree (ed.), A survey of contemporary Philippine literature in English,Philippines: National Book Store, Inc. 65-71.

Meyer, Paul G. 1997. Coming to know: Studies in the lexical semantics andpragmatics of academic English. Tubingen: Gunter Narr Verlag.

Moore, Charles. (ed.) 1967. The Japanese mind: essentials of Japanese philosophyand culture. Honolulu, HI: The University Press of Hawaii. [1981 edition]

Nakamura, Hajime. 1967. "Consciousness of the individual and the universalamong the Japanese." In Charles Moore (ed.), The Japanese mind: essentialsof Japanese philosophy and culture. Honolulu, HI: The University Press of

69


Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Uni

vers

ity o

f W

inds

or]

at 2

0:38

14

Nov

embe

r 20

14

Hawaii. 179-200. [1981 edition]

Parret, H. 1987. "Argumentation and narrativity." In F. H. van Eemeren et al.(eds.), Argumentation: across the lines of discipline. Providence, RI: ForisPublications. 165-175.

Perelman, C. and L. Olbechts-Tyteca. 1969. The new rhetoric: a treatise onargumentation (John Wilkinson & Purcell Weaver, Trans.). Notre Dame, IN:University of Notre Dame Press.

Reyes, Soledad. 1978. "The hero in the contemporary Tagalog novel." InVisitacion R. De La Toree (ed.), A survey of contemporary Philippine literaturein English. Philippines: National Book Store, Inc. 72-80.

Sa'adeddin, Mohammed Akram A. M. 1989. "Text development and Arabic-English negative interference." Applied Linguistics 10. 36-51.

Scribner, S. and Cole, M. 1981. The psychology of literacy. Cambridge, MA:Harvard University Press.

Secor, M. 1983. "Modes of thinking, modes of argument." In J. N. Hays et al.(eds.), The writer's mind: writing as a mode of thinking. Urbana, IL: NationalCouncil of Teachers of English. 67-72.

Taylor, G. and T. Chen. 1991. "Linguistic, cultural and subcultural issues incontrastive discourse analysis: Anglo-American and Chinese scientific texts."Applied Linguistics 12. 319-336.

Teo, Adisa. 1995. "Analysis of newspaper editorials: A study of argumentative textstructure." Ph.D. dissertation, University of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign.

Tirkkonen-Condit, Sonja. 1985. "Argumentative text structure and translation."Ph.D. dissertation, University of Jyvaskyla, Finland.

Trimbur, John. 1994. "Taking the social turn: teaching writing post-process."College Composition and Communication 45. 180-1

Vyas, B. S. et al. 1972. Hindii vyaakaraN aur racnaa. Delhi: National Council ofEducational Research and Training.

Werlich, E. 1976. A text grammar of English. Heidelberg, Germany: Quelle andMeyer.

Youga, Janet Martha. 1989. The Elements of Audience Analysis. New York:Macmillan.

Young, A. E. et al. 1970. Rhetoric: discovery and change. New York: HarcourtBrace.

70


Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Uni

vers

ity o

f W

inds

or]

at 2

0:38

14

Nov

embe

r 20

14

Yamuna KACHRUProfessor Emerita of LinguisticsUniversity of Illinois at Urbana-ChampaignDepartment of Linguistics4088 FLB, 707 S. MathewsUrbana, IL 61801, U.S.A.

Fax: 1-217-333-3466E-mail: [email protected]

71


Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Uni

vers

ity o

f W

inds

or]

at 2

0:38

14

Nov

embe

r 20

14

World Englishes and Rhetoric Across Cultures

Documents

Transcript of World Englishes and Rhetoric Across Cultures