1997
DOI: 10.2307/3588050
|View full text |Cite
|
Sign up to set email alerts
|

Toward a Model of Transculturation

Abstract: The TESOL Quarterly invites commentary on current trends or practices in the TESOL profession. It also welcomes responses to rebuttals to any articles or remarks published here in The Forum or elsewhere in the Quarterly.

Help me understand this report

Search citation statements

Order By: Relevance

Paper Sections

Select...
2
1
1
1

Citation Types

1
67
0
5

Year Published

2002
2002
2022
2022

Publication Types

Select...
7
3

Relationship

0
10

Authors

Journals

citations
Cited by 147 publications
(73 citation statements)
references
References 23 publications
1
67
0
5
Order By: Relevance
“…Contrastive rhetoric, although highlighting some special characteristics and needs of ESL students, has been criticized in terms of its tendencies (a) to view language and culture as static rather than dynamic, (b) to overgeneralize cultural characteristics based on isolated examples, and (c) to overlook the similarities in text structures between languages (Bloch & Chi, 1995; Kirkpatrick, 1997;Kubota, 1997;Leki, 1997;Taylor & Chen, 1991;Zamel, 1997). Contrary to contrastive rhetoricians who suggest negative transfers from first languages, Mohan and Lo (1985) argue that the organizational problems in the writing of non-native English students are developmental.…”
Section: Literature Reviewmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…Contrastive rhetoric, although highlighting some special characteristics and needs of ESL students, has been criticized in terms of its tendencies (a) to view language and culture as static rather than dynamic, (b) to overgeneralize cultural characteristics based on isolated examples, and (c) to overlook the similarities in text structures between languages (Bloch & Chi, 1995; Kirkpatrick, 1997;Kubota, 1997;Leki, 1997;Taylor & Chen, 1991;Zamel, 1997). Contrary to contrastive rhetoricians who suggest negative transfers from first languages, Mohan and Lo (1985) argue that the organizational problems in the writing of non-native English students are developmental.…”
Section: Literature Reviewmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…Kaplan's original proposal has become an influential framework for early rhetoric studies that focused mainly on contrastive analysis, error analysis, and the idea of L1 influencing on L2 learning. Some later studies (Atkinson, 1999;Flower & Hayes, 1981;Mohan & Lo, 1985;Scollon, 1997;Spack, 1997;Zamel, 1997;) have criticized Kaplan's proposal as insufficient in explaining the organizational features of L2 writing, including limitations on ignoring the writers' writing process, simplifying the nature of organization of a particular language or culture, misinterpreting organizational structure of some languages or cultures, being insensitive to cultural differences, and overlooking the individual differences in cultural issues.…”
Section: Literature Reviewmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…Even though Kaplan himself later qualified his model (Kaplan, 1987;Grabe & Kaplan, 1996), which then had focused only on the paragraph level and was not related to academic writing, researchers still argue in favor of "cultural" and first language (L1) influences in the target language (Alonso, 2016;Connor, 2002;Connor & Kaplan, 1987;Coulthard, 1994;James, 2014;Jarvis & Crossley, 2012;Van Weijen, Vand den Bergh, Rijlassrsdan, & Sanders, 2009;Zamel, 1997). Petric, (2005) found after instruction of argumentation writing to L1 Russian tertiary students that their thesis statements had a more linear type of thought in the essays.…”
Section: Statement Of the Problemmentioning
confidence: 99%