Hostname: page-component-cd9895bd7-jn8rn Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-12-28T12:05:05.090Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Contrastive Rhetorics

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  19 November 2008

Diane Houghton  and
Michael Hoey
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Extract

Considering the immense difficulty of the English language to Japanese students, the ability of some of my boys to express their thoughts in it is astonishing. Their compositions have also another interest for me as revelations, not of individual character, but of national sentiment, or of aggregate sentiment of some sort or other. What seems to me most surprising in the compositions of the average Japanese student is that they have no personal cachet at all (Hearn n.d.:31).

Type
Linguistics and Written Discourse
Information
Annual Review of Applied Linguistics , Volume 3 , March 1982 , pp. 1 - 22
Copyright
Copyright © Cambridge University Press 1982

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

References

UNANNOTATED BIBLIOGRAPHY

Allen, J. 1972. Relationships between sentence and discourse in Halia. Papers in New Guinea linguistics. 16.1–15. [Pacific Linguistics, Series A, No. 34.]Google Scholar
Austing, J. F. and Austing, J.. 1977. Semantics of ömie discourse. Ukarumpa, E.H.P., Papua New Guinea: Summer Institute of Linguistics. [Language Data: Asian-Pacific Series No. 11.] [Also published as Language Data Microfiche AP11.]Google Scholar
Ballard, D. L. 1974. Telling it like it was said, Part 1: Some thoughts on reporting speech. Notes on translation. 51.23–28.Google Scholar
Banker, J. 1980. How can we improve our translations stylistically? Notes on translation. 78.31–36.Google Scholar
Bartelt, G. Forthcoming. Transfer and variability of rhetorical redundancy in Apachean Engligh interlanguage. In Selinker, L. and Gass, S. (eds.) Language transfer in language learning. Rowley, MA: Newbury House.Google Scholar
Beaugrande, R. de. 1980. Text, discourse, and process: Toward a Multidisciplinary science of texts. Norwood, NJ: Ablex Publishing. [Advances in Discourse Processes, Vol. IV.] [London: Longman.]Google Scholar
Beekman, J. and Callow, J.. 1974. Translating the word of God. Grand Rapids, MI: Zondervan Publishing House.Google Scholar
Bendor-Samuel, P. 1976. Titus: Analysis of the larger semantic units. Notes on translation. 61.2–8.Google Scholar
Blight, R. 1977. A literary-semantic analysis of Paul's first discourse to Timothy. Mimeo.Google Scholar
Blood, D. and Blood, D.. 1979. Overview of Acts. Notes on translation. 74.2–36.Google Scholar
Callow, K. 1974. Discourse considerations in translating the word of God. Grand Rapids, MT: Zondervan Publishing House.Google Scholar
Candlin, C. and K., Lotfipour Saedi. 1980. Processes of discourse. Unpublished paper. University of Lancaster.Google Scholar
Clark, H. H. and Clark, E. V.. 1977. Psychology and language: An introduction to psycholinguistics. New York: Harcourt Brace Jovanovich.Google Scholar
Coe, R. 1981. Form and substance: An advanced rhetoric. New York: John Wiley and Sons.Google Scholar
Cohen, A. D. and Fine, J.. 1978. Reading history in English: Discourse analysis and the experience of native and non-native readers. Working papers on bilingualism. 16.55–74.Google Scholar
Cooper, M. Forthcoming. An investigation of the structure of academic written text with particular reference to sentence connection. University of Birmingham, Ph.D. diss.Google Scholar
Crowell, T. H. 1973. Cohesion in Bororo discourse. Linguistics. 104.15–27.Google Scholar
Dehghanpisheh, E. 1973. Contrastive analysis of Persian and English paragraphs. Proceedings of the second annual seminar of the association of professors of English in Iran. Tehran: Association of Professors of English in Iran.Google Scholar
Dehghanpisheh, E.. 1978. Language development in Farsi and English: Implications for the second language learner. IRAL. 16.1.45–61.Google Scholar
Dehghanpisheh, E.. 1979. Bridging the gap between controlled and free composition: Controlled rhetoric at the upper-intermediate level. TESOL quarterly. 13.4.509–519.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Derbyshire, D. C. 1977. Discourse redundancy in Hixkaryana. International journal of American linguistics. 43.3.176–188.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Dubois, C. A. 1973. Connectives in Sarangani Manobo narratives. Linguistics. 110.17–28.Google Scholar
Ferguson, C. A. 1978. Patterns of literacy in multilingual situations. In Alatis, J. E. (ed.) International dimensions of bilingual education. Washington, DC: Georgetown University Press, 582–590.Google Scholar
Foss, D. J. and Hakes, D. T.. 1978. Psycholinguistics: An introduction to the psychology of language. London: Prentice-Hall.Google Scholar
Goody, J. 1977. The domestication of the savage mind. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Gray, B. 1977. The grammatical functions of rhetoric: Discourse analysis. The Hague: Mouton. [Janua Linguarum: Series Maior, 51.]CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Greenberg, J. H. (ed.) 1978. University of human language. Stanford, CA: Stanford University Press.Google Scholar
Grimes, J. E. 1972. Outlines and overlays. Language. 48.3.513–524.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Grimes, J. E.. (ed.) 1978. Papers on discourse. Dallas, TX: Summer Institute of Linguistics. [S.I.L. Publication in Linguistics and Related Fields, No. 51.]Google Scholar
Gutwinski, W. 1976. Cohesion in literary texts: A study of some grammatical features of English discourse. The Hague: Mouton.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Halliday, M. A. K. and Hasan, R.. 1976. Cohesion in English. London: Longman. [English Language Series, No. 9.]Google Scholar
Hamill, J. F. 1978. Transcultural logic: Testing hypotheses in three languages. In Loflin, M. D. and Silverberg, J. (eds.) Discourse and inference from cognitive psychology. The Hague: Mouton.Google Scholar
Harder, B. D. and Kutz-Harder, H.. 1982. Cultural interface and teaching English composition in Japan. The English teachers' magazine. 7.xxx.I.4. Tokyo: Taishukan. 19–23.Google Scholar
Hearn, L. n.d. Sketches. Tokyo: Kenkyusha.Google Scholar
Hinds, J. 1979. Organizational patterns in discourse. In Givon, T. (ed.) Syntax and semantics 12: Discourse and syntax. New York: Academic Press. 135–157.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Hinds, J. 1982. Contrastive rhetoric: Japanese and English. Paper presented at the annual TESOL conference, Honolulu, HI.Google Scholar
Hoey, M. P. 1979. Signalling in discourse. Birmingham: English Language Research, Univeristy of Birmingham. [Discourse Analysis Monographs, No. 6.]Google Scholar
Hoey, M. P.. 1981. “Text” and “discourse”: A clause-relational analysis of an extract from a spoken monologue as evidence for doubting the value of a familiar terminological distinction. Mimeo.Google Scholar
Hoey, M. P.. In press. On the surface of discourse. London: George Allen and Unwin.Google Scholar
Hollenbach, B. E. 1973. A preliminary semantic classification of temporal concepts. Notes on translation. 47.3–8.Google Scholar
Houghton, D. 1980a. The writing problems of Iranian students. ELT documents 109: Study modes and academic development of overseas students. London: The British Council. 79–90.Google Scholar
Huisman, R. D. 1973. Angaataha narrative discourse. Linguistics. 110.29–42.Google Scholar
James, C. 1980. Contrastive analysis. Harlow: Longman.Google Scholar
Johns, T. F. 1980. The text and its message: Organizing coherence. In Eichheim, H. and Maley, A. (eds.) Leseverstehen im fremdensprachenunterricht. Munich: Goethe Institut. 147–170.Google Scholar
Jones, L. B. and Jones, L. K.. 1979. Multiple levels of information in discourse. In Jones, L. K. (ed.) Discourse studies in Mesoamerican languages; Volume 1: Discussion. Dallas, TX: Summer Institute of Linguistics 3–27. [S.I.L. Publication in Linguistics, No. 58, volume 1.]Google Scholar
Jones, L. K. (ed.) 1979. Discourse studies in Mesoamerican Languages. Volume 1: Discussion. Dallas, TX: Summer Institute of Linguistics. [S.I.L. Publications in Linguistics, No. 58, Volume1.]Google Scholar
Kaplan, R. B. 1966. Cultural thought patterns in intercultural education. Language learning 16.1–20.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
(Reprinted in Bander, R. G. 1981. American English rhetoric. [Instructor's Manual] New York: Holt, Reinhart and Winston;Google Scholar
also in Allen, H. B. and C&bell, R. N. (eds.) 1972. Teaching English as a second language. New York: McGraw-Hill;Google Scholar
also in Croft, K. (ed.) 1972 (1980). Readings on English as a second language for teachers and teacher trainees. Cambridge, MA: Winthrop.)Google Scholar
Kaplan, R. B. 1972. The anatomy of rhetoric: Prolegomena to a functional theory of rhetoric. Philadelphia: Center for Curriculum Development. (Distributed by Heinle & Heinle.)Google Scholar
Kaplan, R. B. 1976. A further note no contrastive rhetoric. Communication quarterly. 24.2.12–19.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Kaplan, R. B. 1977. Contrastive rhetoric: Some hypotheses. ITL. 39–40. 61–72.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Kaplan, R. B. 1978a. On the notion of topic in written discourse. Australian review of applied linguistics. 2.1–10.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Kaplan, R. B. 1978b. Comparative rhetoric: Some hypotheses. Unpublished paper presented at the Fifth World Congress of the International Association of Applied Linguists, Montreal.Google Scholar
Kaplan, R. B.. In Press. Contrastive rhetoric: Some implications for the writing process. In Pringle, I. et al. , (eds.) Learning ot write: First Language, second Language. London: LongmanGoogle Scholar
Kaplan, R. B. and Shaw, P.. In press. Academic English: Exploring and creating discourse. Rowley, MA: Newbury House.Google Scholar
Kaplan, R. B. and Strauch, A.. 1980. An instructional technique for advanced ESL writing. MEXTESOL journal. 4.2.46–65.Google Scholar
Kussmaul, P. 1978. Kommunikationskonventioner in textsorten am Beispiel deutscher und Englischer geisteswissenschaftlicher abhandlung. Lebende sprache. 23.54–58.Google Scholar
Lezberg, A. and Hilferty, A.. 1978. Discourse analysis in the reading class. TESOL quarterly. 12.1.47–55.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Linnarud, M. 1978. Cohesion and communication in the target language. Interlanguage studies bulletin 3.1.23–34.Google Scholar
Litteral, S. 1972. Orientation to space and participants in Anggor. Papers in New Guinea linguistics. 15.23–44. [Pacific Linguistics, Series A, No. 31.]Google Scholar
Longacre, R. E. 1968. Discourse, paragraph and sentence structure in selected Philippine languages. Dallas, TX: Summer Institute of Linguistics. [S.I.L. Publications in Linguistics and Related Fields, No. 21.]Google Scholar
Longacre, R. E.. 1972. Hierarchy and universality of discourse constituents in New Guinea languages: Discussion. Washington, DC: Georgetown University Press.Google Scholar
Longacre, R. E.. 1982. Grammar of discourse: A revision of an anatomy of speech notions. New York: Plenum Press.Google Scholar
Longacre, R. E. and Woods, F. (eds.) 1976. Discourse grammar: Studies in indigenous languages of Colombia, Panama, and Ecuador. Vol. 1. Dallas, TX: Summer Institute of Linguistics. [S.I.L. Publications in Linguistics and Related Fields, No. 52, Part 1.]Google Scholar
Longacre, R. E. and Woods, F. (eds.) 1979. Discourse grammar: Studies in indigenous languages of Colombia, Panama, and Ecuador Vols. 2,3. Dallas, TX: Summer Institute of Linguistics. [S.I.L. Publications in Linguistics and Related Fields, No. 52, Parts II, III.]Google Scholar
Lowe, I. 1969. An algebraic theory of English pronominal references (Part I). Semiotica. 1.4.397–421.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Lowe, I.. 1974a. An algebraic theory of English pronominal reference (Part II): Plurals from singulars. Semiontica. 10 1.43–73.Google Scholar
Lowe, I.. 1974b. An algebraic theory of English pronominal reference (Part III): Applications to three participant coversations. Semiotica 10.3.233–253.Google Scholar
Newshaw, G. 1982. The paragraph in English and French. Unpublished paper. Concordia University, Montreal.Google Scholar
Nyyssönen, H. 1980. Notes on the structure of English expository prose. In Sajavaara, K. and Lehtonen, J. (eds.) Papers in discourse and contrastive discourse analysis. Jyväskylä: University of Jyväskylä. 203–238. [Jyväskylä Contrastive Studies, No. 5; Reports from the Department of English, University of Jyväskylä, No. 6.]Google Scholar
Ong, W. J. 1971. Rhetoric, romance, and technology: Studies in the interaction of expression and culture. Ithaca: Cornell University Press.Google Scholar
Ong, W. J.. 1979. Literacy and orality in our times. Profession. 79.1–7.Google Scholar
Palmer, J. D. 1981. Discourse analysis. In Mackay, R. and Palmer, J. D. (eds.) Language for special purposes: Program design and evaluation. Rowley, MA: Newbury House. 74–91.Google Scholar
Pike, K. L. 1964. Discourse analysis and tagmeme matrices. Oceanic linguistics. 3.1.5–25.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
(Reprinted in Brend, R. M. (ed.) Advances in tagmemics. Amsterdam: North Holland Publishing Company. 285–305.) [North Holland Linguistic Series, No. 9.]Google Scholar
Pike, K. L.. 1967. Language in relation to a unified theory of the structure of human behavior. 2nd ed.The Hague: Mouton.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Pike, K. L.. 1981a. Levels of observer relationship in verbal art. In Pike, K. L.Tagmemics, discourse, and verbal art. Ann Arbor: University of Michigan. 23–46. [Michigan Studies in the Humanities, No. 3.]Google Scholar
Pike, K. L. and Pike, E. G.. 1972. Seven substitution exercises for studying the structure of discourse. Linguistics. 94.43–52.Google Scholar
Pitkin, W. L. Jr 1969. Discourse blocs. College Composition and Communication. 20.2.138–148.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Rosch, E. 1974. Linguistic relativity. In Silverstein, A. (ed.) Human communication: Theoretical perspectives. London: (Distributed by Wiley). 95–121.Google Scholar
Sajavaara, K., Lehtonen, J. (eds.) 1980b. Papers in discourse and contrastive discourse analysis. Jyväskylä: University of Jyväskylä. [Jyväskylä Contrastive Studies No. 5: Reports from the Department of English, University of Jyväskylä, No. 6.]Google Scholar
Sajavaara, K. and Lehtonen, J. and Korpimies, L.. 1980. The methodology and practice of contrastive discourse analysis. In Sajavaara, K. and Lehtonen, J. (eds.) Papers in discourse and contrastive discourse analysis. Jyväskylä: University of Jyväskylä. 27–55. [Jyväskylä Contrastive Studies No. 5: Reports from the Department of English, University of Jyväskylä, No. 6.]Google Scholar
Seiler, H. (ed.) 1978. Language universals. Töbingen: Gunter Narr Verlag.Google Scholar
Selinker, L.Trimble, R. M. Todd and L., Trimble. 1976a. Presuppositional rhetorical information is EST discourse. TESOL quarterly. 10.3.281–290.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Selinker, L.Trimble, R. M. ToddL., Trimble. 1976b. On reading English for science and technology: Presuppositional rhetorical information in the discourse. In Richards, J. C. (ed.) Teaching English for science and technology. Singapore: Singapore University Press of SEAMEO Regional English Language Centre. 36–68.Google Scholar
Tadros, A. 1981. Linguistic prediction in economics Birmingham: University of Birmingham. Ph.D. diss.Google Scholar
Van, Dijk T. 1972. Some aspects of text grammars: A study of theoretical linguistics and poetics. The Hague: Mouton.Google Scholar
Van, Dijk T.. 1977. Text and context: Explorations in the semantics and pragmatics of discourse. London: Longman.Google Scholar
Van, Dijk T.. 1980. Macrostructures: An interdisciplinary study of global structures in discourse, interaction, and cognition. Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.Google Scholar
Wheatley, J. 1973. Pronouns and nominal elements in Baciri discourse. Linguistics. 104.105–115.Google Scholar
Whorf, B. L. 1956. Language, thought and reality. Carroll, J. B. (ed.). Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.Google Scholar
Williams, J. M. 1979. Defining complexity. College English. 40.595–609.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Winter, E. O. 1977. A clause-relational approach to English texts: A Study of some predivtive lexical items in written discourse. Instructional science. 6.1–92. [Special issue.]CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Winter, E. O.. 1979. Replacement as a fundamental function of the sentecne in context. Forum linguisticum. 4 2.95–133.Google Scholar
Young, R. E., Backer, A. L., and Pike, K. L., 1970. Rhetoric: Discovery and change. New York: Harcourt, Brace and World.Google Scholar