Intercultural Rhetoric

doi:10.1017/9781108884303.019

18 - Intercultural Rhetoric

from Part III - Interface of Intercultural Pragmatics and Related Disciplines

Published online by Cambridge University Press: 29 September 2022

Ulla Connor

Edited by

Istvan Kecskes

Show author details

Istvan Kecskes: Affiliation:
State University of New York, Albany

Book contents

Get access

Summary

Intercultural rhetoric and intercultural pragmatics are two linguistically based fields with many principles and processes in common: both examine the use of language systems in encounters between people with different L1s, coming from different cultures, but communicating in a common language. This chapter provides an overview of intercultural rhetoric highlighting the ways in which intercultural pragmatics and intercultural rhetoric parallel and complement one another. The chapter begins with a description of the evolution of intercultural rhetoric from contrastive rhetoric drawing particular attention to the shift to understanding culture dynamic, understanding the importance of analyzing texts in context, and drawing greater attention to the use of negotiation and accommodation. The chapter then explores the influences that intercultural rhetoric and intercultural pragmatics have exerted on English for Specific Purposes, English for Academic Purposes, and second language teaching, particularly noting the ways the two fields have complemented and paralleled one another and suggesting ways the fields can serve as a bridge across chasms that have formed in linguistics, second language writing, English as a Lingua Franca, and translingualism. The chapter ends with a short discussion of the future of intercultural rhetoric and suggestions for future trends.

Keywords

writing language culture rhetorics contrastive anaysis genre discourse

Type: Chapter
Information: The Cambridge Handbook of Intercultural Pragmatics , pp. 469 - 483

DOI: https://doi.org/10.1017/9781108884303.019 [Opens in a new window]

Publisher: Cambridge University Press

Print publication year: 2022

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.)

Book purchase

Temporarily unavailable

References

Atkinson, D. (2004). Contrasting rhetorics/contrasting cultures: Why contrasting rhetoric needs a better conceptualization of culture. Journal of English for Academic Purposes [Special Issue on Contrastive Rhetoric in EAP], 3(4), 277–289.Google Scholar

Atkinson, D. and Matsuda, P. (2008). A conversation on contrastive rhetoric: Dwight Atkinson and Paul Kei Matsuda talk about issues, conceptualizations, and the future of contrastive rhetoric. In Connor, U., Nagelhout, E., and Rozycki, W., eds., Contrastive Rhetoric: Reaching to Intercultural Rhetoric. Amsterdam: John Benjamins, pp. 277–298.Google Scholar

Atkinson, D., Crusan, D., Matsuda, P., Ortmeier-Hooper, C., Ruecker, T., Simpson, S., and Tardy, C. (2015). Clarifying the relationship between L2 writing and translingual writing: An open letter to writing studies editors and organization leaders. College English, 77(4), 383–386.Google Scholar

Bazerman, C. and Prior, P. (eds.) (2003). What Writing Does and How It Does It: An Introduction to Analyzing Texts and Textual Practices. New York: Routledge.Google Scholar

Belcher, D. and Connor, U. (2001). Reflections on Multiliterate Lives. Clevedon: Multilingual Matters.Google Scholar

Belcher, D. (2014). What we need and don’t need intercultural rhetoric for: A retrospective and prospective look at an evolving research area. Journal of Second Language Writing, 25, 59–67.Google Scholar

Bhatia, V. K. (1993). Analysing Genre: Language Use in Professional Settings. London: Longman.Google Scholar

Blommaert, J. (1998). Different approaches to intercultural communication: A critical survey. Plenary lecture, Lernen und Arbeiten in einer international vernetzten und multikulturellen Gesellschaft, Expertentagung Universität Bremen, Institut fur Projektmanagement und Witschaftsingformatik (IPMI), February 27–28.Google Scholar

Canagarajah, S. (2007). Lingua franca English, multilingual communities, and language acquisition. The Modern Language Journal, 91, 923–939.Google Scholar

Canagarajah, S. (2008), Language shift and the family: Questions from the Sri Lankan Tamil diaspora. Journal of Sociolinguistics, 12, 143–176.Google Scholar

Canagarajah, S. (2013). From intercultural rhetoric to cosmopolitan practice: Addressing new challenges in lingua franca English. In Belcher, D. and Nelson, G., eds., Critical and Corpus-Based Approaches to Intercultural Rhetoric. Ann Arbor: University of Michigan Press, pp. 203–226.Google Scholar

Connor, U. (1996). Contrastive Rhetoric: Cross-Cultural Aspects of Second-Language Writing. New York: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar

Connor, U. (1999). How like you our fish? Accommodation in international business communication. In Hewings, M. and Nickerson, C., eds., Business English: Research into Practice. Harlow: Longman, pp. 115–128.Google Scholar

Connor, U. (2004). Intercultural rhetoric research: Beyond texts. Journal of English for Academic Purposes, 3, 291–304.Google Scholar

Connor, U. (2008). Mapping multidimensional aspects of research: Reaching to intercultural rhetoric. In Connor, U., Nagelhout, E., and Rozycki, W., eds., Contrastive Rhetoric: Reaching to Intercultural Rhetoric. Amsterdam: John Benjamins, pp. 115–128.Google Scholar

Connor, U. (2011). Intercultural Rhetoric in the Writing Classroom. Ann Arbor: University of Michigan Press.Google Scholar

Connor, U. and Mauranen, A. K. (1999). Linguistic analysis of grant proposals: European Union research grants. English for Specific Purposes, 18, 47–62.Google Scholar

Connor, U. and Moreno, A. (2005). Tertium Comparationis: A vital component in contrastive research methodology. In Bruthiaux, P., Atkinson, D., Eggington, W. G., Grabe, W., and Ramanathan, V., eds., Directions in Applied Linguistics: Essays in Honor of Robert B. Kaplan. Bristol: Multilingual Matters, pp. 153–164.Google Scholar

Ene, E., McIntosh, K., and Connor, U. (2019). Using intercultural rhetoric to examine translingual practices of postgraduate L2 writers of English. Journal of Second Language Writing, 45, 105–110.Google Scholar

Enkvist, N. E. (1978). Some aspects of applications of text linguistics. In Kohonen, V. and Enkvist, N. E., eds., Text Linguistics, Cognitive Learning, and Language Teaching. Turku: Suomen Sovelletun Kielitieteen Yhdistyksen (Afinla) Julkaisuja, pp. 1–27.Google Scholar

Fairclough, N. (1992). Discourse and Social Change. Cambridge: Polity Press.Google Scholar

Feng, H. (2008). A genre-based study of research grant proposals in China. In Connor, U., Nagelhout, E., and Rozycki, W., eds., Contrastive Rhetoric: Reaching to Intercultural Rhetoric. Amsterdam: John Benjamins, pp. 63–86.CrossRef Google Scholar

Flowerdew, J. (2002a). Genre in the classroom: A linguistic approach. In Johns, A. M., ed., Genre in the Classroom: Multiple Perspectives. New York: Routledge, pp. 91–102.Google Scholar

Flowerdew, J. (ed.) (2002b). Academic Discourse. New York: Routledge.Google Scholar

Flowerdew, J. (2007). Shaping Chinese novice scientists’ manuscripts for publication. Journal of Second Language Writing, 16, 100–117.Google Scholar

Flowerdew, L. (2016). A genre-inspired and lexico-grammatical approach for helping postgraduate students craft research grant proposals. English for Specific Purposes, 42, 1–12.Google Scholar

Giles, H., Coupland, N., and Coupland, J. (1991). Accommodation theory: Communication, content, and consequence. In Giles, H., Coupland, N., and Coupland, J., eds., Contexts of Accommodation: Developments in Applied Sociolingustics. New York: Cambridge University Press, pp. 1–68.Google Scholar

Granger, S. (1993). The international corpus of learner English. In Aarts, J., de Haan, P., and Oostdijk, N., eds., English Language Corpora: Design, Analysis and Exploitation. Amsterdam: Rodopi, pp. 57–69.Google Scholar

Grice, H. P. (1975). Logic and conversation. In Cole, P. and Morgan, J. J., eds., Syntax and Semantics, Vol. III: Speech Acts. New York: Academic Press, pp. 41–58.Google Scholar

Gumperz, J. J. (1982). Discourse Strategies. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar

Hoey, M. (1991). Patterns of Lexis in Text. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar

Holliday, A. (1999). Small cultures. Applied Linguistics, 20, 237–264.Google Scholar

Hopkinson, J. (2021). Realizations of oppositional speech acts in English: A contrastive analysis of discourse in L1 and L2 settings. Intercultural Pragmatics, 18(2), 163–202.Google Scholar

House, J. (1977). A Model for Translation Quality Assessment. Tübingen: Gunter Narr Verlag.Google Scholar

Hyland, K. (2000). Disciplinary Discourses: Social Interactions in Academic Writing. London: Longman.Google Scholar

Hyland, K. (2018). Academic writing and non-Anglophone scholars. In Mur-Dueñas, P. and Šinkūnienė, J., eds., Intercultural Perspectives on Research Writing. Amsterdam: John Benjamins, pp. 7–10.Google Scholar

Hymes, D. H. (1962). The ethnography of speaking. In Gladwin, T. and Sturtevant, W. C., eds., Anthropology and Human Behavior. Washington, DC: The Anthropology Society of Washington, pp. 13–53.Google Scholar

Jenkins, J. (2014). English as a Lingua Franca in the International University: The Politics of Academic English Language Policy. New York: Routledge.Google Scholar

Kaplan, R. B. (1966). Cultural thought patterns in intercultural education. Language Learning, 16, 1–20.Google Scholar

Kecskes, I. (2004). Lexical merging, conceptual blending and cultural crossing. Intercultural Pragmatics, 1(1), 1–21.Google Scholar

Kecskes, I. (2017). Cross-cultural and intercultural pragmatics. In Huang, Y., ed., The Oxford Handbook of Pragmatics. Oxford: Oxford University Press, pp. 400–415.Google Scholar

Kecskes, I. (2019). English as a Lingua Franca: The Pragmatic Perspective. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar

Kennedy, G. A. (1998). Comparative Rhetoric: An Historical and Cross-cultural Introduction. New York: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar

Lado, R. (1957). Linguistics across Cultures. Ann Arbor: University of Michigan Press.Google Scholar

Larina, T. and Ponton, D. (2020). Tact or frankness in English and Russian blind peer reviews. Intercultural Pragmatics, 17(4), 471–496.Google Scholar

Li, Y. and Ma, X. (2018). Teaching English academic writing to non-English major graduate students in Chinese universities. In You, X., ed., Transnational Writing Education: Theory, History, and Practice. New York: Routledge, pp. 222–243.Google Scholar

Lu, M-Z. (1994). Professing multiculturalism: The politics of style in the contact zone. College Composition and Communication, 45(4), 442–458.Google Scholar

Mauranen, A. K., Carey, R. S., and Ranta, E. (2015). New answers to familiar questions: English as a lingua franca. In Biber, D., and Reppen, R., eds., The Cambridge Handbook of English Corpus Linguistics (Cambridge Handbooks in Language and Linguistics). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, pp. 401–417.Google Scholar

McIntosh, K. and Connor, U. (2020). Intercultural rhetoric research in an internationalizing world. Manuscript, Department of English and Writing, University of Tampa.Google Scholar

McIntosh, K., Connor, U., and Gokpinar-Shelton, E. (2017). What intercultural rhetoric can bring to EAP/ESP writing studies in an English as a lingua franca world. Journal of English for Academic Purposes, 29, 12–20.Google Scholar

Moreno, A. I. (1997). Genre constraints across languages: Causal metatext in Spanish and English RAs. English for Specific Purposes, 16(3), 161–179.Google Scholar

Moreno, A. I. (1998). The explicit signaling of premise-conclusion sequences in research articles: A contrastive framework. Text, 18, 545–585.Google Scholar

Mur-Dueñas, P. and Šinkūnienė, J. (eds.) (2018). Intercultural Perspectives on Research Writing. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.Google Scholar

Ringbom, H. (ed.) (1993). Near-Native Proficiency in English. Åbo: English Department Publications.Google Scholar

Rozycki, W. and Johnson, N. H. (2013). Non-canonical grammar in Best Paper award winners in engineering. English for Specific Purposes, 32(3), 157–169.Google Scholar

Sapir, E. (1932). Cultural anthropology and psychiatry. The Journal of Abnormal and Social Psychology, 27(3), 4–8.Google Scholar

Sapir, E. (1934). The emergence of the concept of personality in a study of cultures. The Journal of Social Psychology, 5(3), 408–415.Google Scholar

Street, B. V. (1984). Literacy in Theory and Practice. New York: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar

Sullivan, P. and Porter, J. E. (1997). Opening Spaces: Writing Technologies and Critical Research Practices. Greenwich, CT: Ablex.Google Scholar

Swales, J. (1990). Genre Analysis: English in Academic and Research Settings. New York: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar

Swales, J. (2004). Research Genres: Explorations and Applications. Ann Arbor: University of Michigan Press.Google Scholar

Watson, M. (2021). The inevitable mess of translingualism: Its -ism and the schism of cross-disciplinary conflict. Pedagogy: Critical Approaches to Teaching Literature, Language, Composition, and Culture, 21(1), 83–107.Google Scholar

You, X. (ed.) (2018). Transnational Writing Education: Theory, History, and Practice. New York: Routledge.Google Scholar