Sociolinguistics and Language Education.pdf

Cross-cultural Perspectives on Writing 273
the time, especially in terms of the second assumption of contrastive rhetoric
(i.e. L1–L2 transfer). Methodological approaches of contrastive rhetoric
can be compared to those of contrastive analysis and error analysis. Yet,
as researchers such as Connor (2008) point out, the unique aspect of the
initiation of contrastive rhetoric was its focus on discourse structures
beyond the sentence level in written communication as opposed to
sentence- or clause-level features of spoken language, which was the
predominant focus of inquiry at that time. Another unique focus was
cultural difference, to which I will now turn.
Whorfi an linguistic relativity
The fi rst assumption of contrastive rhetoric that focuses on cultural difference
in thought patterns as refl ected in written languages parallels the
theory of Whorfi an linguistic relativity proposed in the 1930s (or the
Sapir–Whorf hypothesis, named after Benjamin Whorf and his mentor,
Edward Sapir), which postulates that different language systems shape
different thought patterns or worldviews. Whether this hypothesis infl uenced
Kaplan’s original idea about cultural thought patterns has been
debated (Matsuda, 2001; Ying, 2000, 2001). However, Kaplan himself mentions
the infl uence of the Sapir–Whorf hypothesis (Kaplan, 1972) and uses
the term ‘neo-Whorfi an’ to refer to the underlying assumption of contrastive
rhetoric (Kaplan, 1988: 279; see also Kowal, 1998). Yet the fact that
Whorfi an linguistic relativity parallels the fi rst assumption of contrastive
rhetoric does not imply that both share an ideological stance in relation to
a wider discourse of language and culture. In fact, they refl ect quite different
ideologies. To understand this difference, we need to historically and
politically situate the conceptualization of cultural difference.
Benjamin Whorf was a linguist known for his work on Hopi, one of the
Native American languages, in the 1930s and early 1940s. Although his
idea that language shapes thought has often been criticized as promoting
linguistic determinism, it was actually proposed in order to critique the
narrow Eurocentric views of language and culture, which are based on what
Whorf called ‘Standard Average European (SAE)’ languages and thought.
While critiquing Western ethnocentrism, Whorf in turn celebrated the plurality
of languages and multilingual consciousness (Kowal, 1998; Schultz,
1990). However, the subsequent popularity of Chomskyan generative linguistics
undermined the Whorfi an principle. Generative linguistics underscored
linguistic universals and innateness, deemphasizing cultural aspects
of language and thought and framing Whorf as a proponent of linguistic
determinism. Whorf’s political stance draws a sharp contrast with the conceptual
underpinnings of contrastive rhetoric – that is, Anglocentric, assimilationist
and essentialist. As discussed below, scholars have problematized
this conceptual framework from various perspectives.