crWord文档下载推荐.docx

crWord文档下载推荐.docx

《crWord文档下载推荐.docx》由会员分享，可在线阅读，更多相关《crWord文档下载推荐.docx（12页珍藏版）》请在冰点文库上搜索。

CULTURALTRANSFERINEFLWRITING:

ALOOKATCONTRANSTIVERHETORICON

ENGLISHANDINDONESIAN

Introduction

ThestudyofcontrastiverhetorichasundergonesubstantialgrowthsincethepublicationofKaplan’sarticleentitledCulturalthoughtpatternsininterculturaleducationin1966.InhisarticleKaplanpresentedfivedrawingsdepictingfivedifferentrhetorics.Englishrhetoricwasdepictedasastraightline,Orientalrhetoricasaspiral,Arabicrhetoricasaseriesofzigzags,andRomanandRussianaslinesheadingdownwardbutveeringoffatdifferentanglesalongtheway.Kaplan’s1966researchhasbeenconsideredasthefirstmajorstudythatattemptedtoanalyzehowL1culturesmanifestinL2writing,whichwasinfluencedbytheSapir-WhorfHypothesis.HearguedthatL2studentswritings,especiallytheirparagraphorganization,exhibitedthestudents’L1culturalthoughtpatterns.（Allaei&

Connor,1990,p.22）.ForsometimethevisualmemoryofthefivesketchesKaplanproposedwasdominatingthethinking,learning,teachingandwritingofteachersandstudents.ManyESLwritingtextbooksandteachertextsreprintedthesketchesandgenerationsofteachersandstudentslearnedthatEnglishspeakersdiddeveloptheirideasinalinearfashionandOrientalsinanon-linearandspiralfashionetc.（Soverino,1993,pp.44-45）

Afteroverthirtyyearsofstudiescarriedoutinthisfield,therehavebeenconsiderablereactionsastothequalificationofKaplan’spositionincontrastiverhetoric.（Amongthemare:

Hinds,1987,1990;

Carell,1987;

MohanandLo,1985;

Matalene,1985;

Purves,1986;

Liebman,1992;

Allaei&

Connor,1990;

Leki,1991;

Severino,1993）.Itwasarguedthatcontrastiverhetoricresearchexaminestheproductonly,detachingitfromandignoringboththecontrastiverhetoricalcontextfromwhichtheL2writersemergeandtheprocessthesewritersmayhavegonethroughtoproduceatext.（Leki,1991,p.123）.Liebmanmaintainsthat“Kaplanbelievedthattextsreflectedculture,yettheculturalcontextthatproducedthesetextswasnotexplored.”（1992,p.143）Kaplanhimselfhasrevisitedhisculturalthoughtpatternsarticlewhichhasbeenknownasthe“doodlesarticle.”Hewrotethat

Inthatstudy,Itriedtorepresent,incrudegraphicform,thenotionthattherhetoricalstructureoflanguagesdiffers.Itisprobablytruethat,inthefirstblushofdiscovery,Ioverstatedboththedifferenceandmycase.Intheyearssincethearticlefirstappeared,Ihavebeenaccusedofreductionism–oftryingtoreducethewholeoflinguisticstothissingleissue.Itwasnotmyintentthen,anditisnotmyintentnow,toclaimmoreforthenotionthanitdeserves.Nevertheless,Ihavebecomegraduallymoreconvincedthatthereissomevaliditytothenotion.（1987,p.9）

Hencehewastryingtoreducehisstrongconvictionasproposedinhis1966article,yetsimultaneouslystillmaintainthevalidityofthenotion.

Severalstudiesincontrastiverhetorichaveshownthatweneedtoapproachthisfieldwithastancethatacknowledgesthecomplexitiesoftherhetoricsofdifferentlanguagesandculturesbyexaminingthegenre,ageandclassbackgroundinacomplexdiscourseanalysis（Indrasutra,1988）;

theorganizationalpatternsemphasizedinschoolwritingandstudents’pedagogicalhistories（Soverino,1993）;

whilecontinuingtoexaminecontrastsinthesmallestfeaturesoftexts,investigationsofthebroadpoliticalandhistoricalcontextsforwritingandrecognitionofnotjustrhetoricalstylebutalsopurpose,task,topic,andaudience,needtobeincluded（Leki,1991）;

orinaframeworkofwhatLiebman（1992,p.142）callsthe“newcontrastiverhetoric”whichconsidersnotonlyinhowpeopleorganizetextsindifferentlanguages,butalsointheirapproachtoaudience,theirperceptionofthepurposeofwriting,thetypesofwritingtasks,thecomposingprocess,andtherolewritingplaysintheireducation.

SofarthestudiesincontrastiverhetorichavebeenconductedindifferentlanguagessuchasJapanese（Hinds,1983,1987,1990）,Chinese（Mohan&

Lo,1985）,Thai（Indrasatra,1988）,Korean（Eggington,1987）,Hindi（Kachru,1983,1987,1988）,Arabic（Hatim,1991）,Vietnamese（Soter,1988）,andsomeEuropeanlanguagesreviewedbyKaplanandGrabe（1996）,buttherehasnotbeenanysignificantstudydoneonIndonesianEFLstudents’writing.AsoneofthemajorcountriesinAsiawhereEnglishisgettingmorepopular,IbelievethatthestudyofrhetoricinIndonesianwritingsmaycontributeandenrichthestudiesofcontrastiverhetoric.Furthermore,asIndonesiancultureispresumablyclosetoOrientalcultures,itmightbewellconsideredtoseeifsuch“culturaltransfer”inwritingashavingbeenconductedwithotherAsianwritingshasalsoconstitutedthesame,similar,orevendifferentproblemscomparedtotheirIndonesiancounterparts.

Byconsideringthepreviousstudiesthathavebeenconductedincontrastiverhetoricandtheproposedapproachesbysomeresearchers,inthispaperIwillfirstseebrieflythehistoricalbackgroundofschoolwritinginIndonesia.ThenIwillseehowthewriterandreaderrelationship,andtextdevelopintheprocessofIndonesianwriting.

BriefHistoricalBackgroundoftheLearningofSchoolWritinginIndonesia

InthemultiethnicandmulticulturescountrylikeIndonesia,IndonesianlanguageorBahasaIndonesiahasbeenusedasournationallanguagethatwasformallydeclaredinOctober28,1928,evenbeforeIndonesiadeclareditsindependencein1945.Bahasahasbeentaughtinallschoolsintheentirecountrybesidestheregionaldialectthatisalsotaughtuntiljuniorhigh.ThecurriculumoftheteachingofBahasahasalsobeenundergoingalotofchanges.However,therehasnotbeenanysignificantformalinstructionintheteachingofwritingorcomposition.Forinstance,myownprimaryeducationinIndonesiaduringthesixties,writinginbahasawashardlyassignedbytheinstructor.Whenwedidhavetowrite,theteacherwouldusuallyassignatopic,suchasMyvacation,Myidealhome,forustowriteathomewithoutgivingusanyguidanceastotheorganizationorthestyleofwriting.Therewasnorevisionafterfirstdraftwassubmitted.Thatwasfinalandtheteacherwouldgiveusgradeonthatfirstandfinaldraftwithoutanysubstantialcommentgiventothecontent,northeorganization.

Duringtheeightiesandninetiesthecurriculumofbahasawasundergonesomechanges,butstilltherehasnotbeenanysignificantformalinstructionforwriting.FromtheCurriculumofBahasaIndonesiapublishedbytheDepartmentofEducationandCulturein1995,theteachingofwritingisintegratedinthecourse.ABahasaIndonesiateacheradmittedthatthereisnoseparatecourseforteachingwriting.Itdependsontheteacher’screativitytoteachit.1）ArecentgraduatefromIndonesianhighschoolreportedthatwhatshelearnedwasmostlyIndonesiangrammar,reading,andsometheoriesonliterature.Anotherreportedthatshegotsomeguidelinefromherprimaryschoolteacherthatwritingshouldconsistofintroduction,contents,andconclusion.Butthatwasaboutitwithnofurtherelaborationandseriouspractice.Anotheradmittedthattheonlythinghelearnedaboutwritinginbahasawasthemodesinwritingwithsomeparagraphsgivenasexamples,butheandhisclassmateswereneverassignedtowriteacomposition.Hence,likeothercoursestaughtatschool,thestudyofbahasaistreatedmorelikeasciencewhoseknowledgeistobelearnedandmemorizedthantobeusedinpracticalactualcommunication.Attheendoftheirhighschoolyear,someschoolsassigntheirstudentstowriteafinalpaperonacertaintopic,butwhatthestudentsdidwasoftenimitatinghowformerstudentshadwritten.Again,therehasnotbeenanysignificantguidanceastohowtoorganizeapaperwriting.Perhapsweareassumingthatsincebahasaisourownlanguage,sothereisnoneedforustolearnhowtowriteaslongasweknowthegrammarandhowtowritecorrectsentences,butthisnotionstillneedtobefurtherinvestigated.

MyIndonesianfriendswhohavebeenstudyingoverseas,andthosewhotookEnglishastheirmajorincollegeagreewithmethattheystartedtolearnhowtocomposeapaperwhentheystudyEnglish.SobasicallymostofuswouldlearnEnglishrhetoricintheirfirstformallearningofwriting.Thosewhohappentolikewritingdowriteevenwhentheyarestillinhighschool,butmostlytheyareintheformofcreativewritingsuchaswritingashortstory.Hencetheirstyleandorganizationaremainlyurgedbytheircreativityorbyimitatinghowotherwriterswrote.

EnglishasaforeignlanguageinIndonesiaislearnedfromjuniorhightohighschoolasarequiredcourse.However,likeinthelearningofbahasa,whatwelearninourEnglishclassismostlygrammarandreading.Thus,IndonesianstudentswhocometostudyintheEnglishspeakingcountriesfacesomehardtimeintheiroralcommunication,whatismoreinwriting.

TheWriter-ReaderRelationship

Englishisasubjectprominentlanguage.Thepersonprimarilyresponsibleforeffectivecommunicationisthespeaker.Hindscategorizeswritingasreaderorwriterr