Blog Post #5. Consuelo

I found particularly useful, in intercultural rhetoric, Investigative activities focusing on facilitating students to become “ethnographers” of their own writing (Liebman,1982, 1992; Liebman-Kleine) by asking them about their previous instruction in reading and writing, as well as their beliefs concerning the meaning of “good writing.” Raising awareness as a result of this seems to be productive for both the students in facilitating writing effectiveness and for teachers in planning class activities. Moreover, investigating about audience expectations or the criteria for “good writing” for different languages becomes also a tool for raising awareness.

Definitively, initial assertions such as “[l]ogic (in the popular, rather than the logician’s sense of the word) which is the basis of rhetoric is evolved out of a culture; it is not universal” (Kaplan 1966, 2) are highly problematic. Does this imply that logic does not exist in some cultures?  Similarly, the connections among language, culture and thought seem to be considered irrelevant when centering the discussion of the piece on structural aspects of students’ writing. Aren’t those structural aspects being affected by those connections?

Awareness building for both students and instructors become relevant in tutoring second language learners. Differences in writing among cultures, audience expectations, as well as beliefs concerning what “good writing” is, require deliberate efforts on both parts to become more cognizant of the complexity of the processes involved.

Comments

Popular posts from this blog

Consuelo Guayara Sánchez

Alina Vamanu, blog post #6

Alina Vamanu, blog post #9