1997
DOI: 10.1016/s1060-3743(97)90005-9
|View full text |Cite
|
Sign up to set email alerts
|

Contrastive rhetoric in context: A dynamic model of L2 writing

Abstract: Originally proposed by Kaplan (1966) as a pedagogical solution to the problem of L2 organizational structures, contrastive rhetoric has seen a significant growth as a field of inquiry. In the last three decades, several books have been published

Help me understand this report

Search citation statements

Order By: Relevance

Paper Sections

Select...
1
1
1
1

Citation Types

1
64
0
4

Year Published

2012
2012
2022
2022

Publication Types

Select...
8
1
1

Relationship

0
10

Authors

Journals

citations
Cited by 111 publications
(69 citation statements)
references
References 18 publications
1
64
0
4
Order By: Relevance
“…Nevertheless, there has been little research on bilingual academic writers in university settings where attention is given to the professional practices of second language writers and, in particular, to writers' language choices and discourse identities which emerge through individual professional practice (Olinger, 2011;Storch, 2005). There are powerful studies, such as that by Ivanič (1998), that explore in detail the construction of identity in first language users or those by Matsuda (1997Matsuda ( , 1999Matsuda ( , 2003, who has studied in-depth issues of contrastive rhetoric and the author's voice using English as the benchmark for evaluation. The issue that seems to be less explored is the voice of the actual user and how it is dealt with on a daily basis in the user's professional work life.…”
Section: Second Language Writing and Identitymentioning
confidence: 99%
“…Nevertheless, there has been little research on bilingual academic writers in university settings where attention is given to the professional practices of second language writers and, in particular, to writers' language choices and discourse identities which emerge through individual professional practice (Olinger, 2011;Storch, 2005). There are powerful studies, such as that by Ivanič (1998), that explore in detail the construction of identity in first language users or those by Matsuda (1997Matsuda ( , 1999Matsuda ( , 2003, who has studied in-depth issues of contrastive rhetoric and the author's voice using English as the benchmark for evaluation. The issue that seems to be less explored is the voice of the actual user and how it is dealt with on a daily basis in the user's professional work life.…”
Section: Second Language Writing and Identitymentioning
confidence: 99%
“…The fact of the matter is that focus on form aspects of a written text is likely to distract attention from the need to understand and negotiate the socio-linguistic, cultural, economic, and interactive dimensions linked to the writing context (see Lei, 2008;Matsuda, 1997). Indeed, a teaching model focusing on form aspects contributes to misleading student-writers about the necessary balance between, on one hand, language features such as grammar, spelling and register-related aspects and, on the other hand, elements related to content, purpose, adaptation to audience, etc.…”
Section: Resultsmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…If C-S is useful for representing the development of L2 writing skills, as opposed to merely describing L2 writing processes, then one might envision C-S super-imposed on descriptive L1 (Hayes & Flower, 1981) or L2 (Matsuda, 1997) writing models. In such a developmental model of L2 writing, C-S would diminish for lower level operations (like editing and transcribing, including word generation) as L2 proficiency increases in the face of cognitive difficulty for higher-level operations (like planning and reviewing).…”
Section: Discussionmentioning
confidence: 99%