[{"data":1,"prerenderedAt":-1},["ShallowReactive",2],{"detail-sidebar-cat-0-en-105":3,"doc-seo-589928-105":59,"doc-detail-589928-en":130},{"code":4,"msg":5,"data":6},0,"success",[7,13,18,23,28,33,38,43,48,51,55],{"id":8,"doc_module":4,"doc_module_name":9,"category_name":10,"show_sort_weight":11,"slug":12},1,"Document","Story & Novel",90,"story-novel",{"id":14,"doc_module":4,"doc_module_name":9,"category_name":15,"show_sort_weight":16,"slug":17},2,"Literature",80,"literature",{"id":19,"doc_module":4,"doc_module_name":9,"category_name":20,"show_sort_weight":21,"slug":22},4,"Exam",70,"exam",{"id":24,"doc_module":4,"doc_module_name":9,"category_name":25,"show_sort_weight":26,"slug":27},5,"Comic",60,"comic",{"id":29,"doc_module":4,"doc_module_name":9,"category_name":30,"show_sort_weight":31,"slug":32},6,"Technology",50,"technology",{"id":34,"doc_module":4,"doc_module_name":9,"category_name":35,"show_sort_weight":36,"slug":37},7,"Healthcare",40,"healthcare",{"id":39,"doc_module":4,"doc_module_name":9,"category_name":40,"show_sort_weight":41,"slug":42},8,"Research & Report",30,"research-report",{"id":44,"doc_module":4,"doc_module_name":9,"category_name":45,"show_sort_weight":46,"slug":47},9,"Religion & Spirituality",20,"religion-spirituality",{"id":46,"doc_module":4,"doc_module_name":9,"category_name":49,"show_sort_weight":46,"slug":50},"World Cup","world-cup",{"id":52,"doc_module":4,"doc_module_name":9,"category_name":53,"show_sort_weight":52,"slug":54},10,"Lifestyle","lifestyle",{"id":56,"doc_module":4,"doc_module_name":9,"category_name":57,"show_sort_weight":24,"slug":58},19,"General","general",{"code":4,"msg":60,"data":61},"ok",{"site_id":62,"language":63,"slug":64,"title":65,"keywords":66,"description":67,"schema_data":68,"social_meta":123,"head_meta":125,"extra_data":127,"updated_unix":129},105,"en","analyzing-cross-cultural-writing-differences-using-contrastive-rhetoric-a-critical-review","Analyzing Cross-Cultural Writing Differences using Contrastive Rhetoric: A Critical Review","","This paper delivers a critical review of cross-cultural writing styles through the contrastive rhetoric approach attributed to Kaplan (1966). The review examines prior debates and critiques, including responses from scholars such as Conor (1996), while assessing advantages and limitations for identifying cultural influences in L2 writing. It also outlines implications for teaching L2 writing, showing how such analysis can inform instruction and awareness among educators and policymakers.",{"@graph":69,"@context":122},[70,84,105],{"@type":71,"itemListElement":72},"BreadcrumbList",[73,77,79,82],{"item":74,"name":75,"@type":76,"position":8},"https://docshare.wps.com","Home","ListItem",{"item":78,"name":9,"@type":76,"position":14},"https://docshare.wps.com/document/",{"item":80,"name":40,"@type":76,"position":81},"https://docshare.wps.com/document/research-report/",3,{"item":83,"name":65,"@type":76,"position":19},"https://docshare.wps.com/document/analyzing-cross-cultural-writing-differences-using-contrastive-rhetoric-a-critical-review/589928/",{"url":83,"name":65,"@type":85,"image":86,"author":91,"headline":65,"publisher":94,"fileFormat":97,"inLanguage":63,"description":67,"dateModified":98,"datePublished":99,"encodingFormat":97,"isAccessibleForFree":100,"interactionStatistic":101},"DigitalDocument",{"url":87,"@type":88,"width":89,"height":90},"https://docshare.wps.com/thumbnails/analyzing-cross-cultural-writing-differences-using-contrastive-rhetoric-a-critical-review/589928.png","ImageObject",300,407,{"name":92,"@type":93},"Cart","Person",{"url":74,"name":95,"@type":96},"DocShare","Organization","application/pdf","2026-11-04","2026-10-15",true,{"@type":102,"interactionType":103,"userInteractionCount":29},"InteractionCounter",{"@type":104},"ViewAction",{"@type":106,"mainEntity":107},"FAQPage",[108,114,118],{"name":109,"@type":110,"acceptedAnswer":111},"What is the main focus of the critical review?","Question",{"text":112,"@type":113},"The review analyzes cross-cultural writing styles using the contrastive rhetoric approach to explain cultural influences in L2 writing, and discusses its benefits and drawbacks.","Answer",{"name":115,"@type":110,"acceptedAnswer":116},"How does the paper connect Arabic diglossia to writing practices?",{"text":117,"@type":113},"It explains that diglossia leads students to develop strong oral features and different literacy practices, which can shape rhetorical organization in their writing.",{"name":119,"@type":110,"acceptedAnswer":120},"Why is the review significant for education and policy?",{"text":121,"@type":113},"It highlights how knowledge of cross-cultural rhetorical errors can support better instructional materials, classroom lessons, and pedagogy tailored to learners’ cultural and L1 backgrounds.","https://schema.org",{"og:url":83,"og:type":124,"og:title":65,"og:site_name":95,"og:description":67},"article",{"robots":126,"canonical":83},"index,follow",{"doc_id":128,"site_id":62},589928,1792103299,{"code":4,"msg":5,"data":131},{"doc_id":128,"user_id":132,"nickname":92,"user_avatar":133,"doc_module":4,"category_id":39,"category_name":40,"doc_title":65,"doc_description":67,"doc_content":134,"file_id":135,"file_url":136,"file_type":137,"file_size":138,"view_count":29,"is_deleted":4,"is_public":8,"is_downloadable":8,"audit_status":8,"page_count":24,"language":139,"language_code":63,"site_id":62,"html_lang":63,"table_of_contents":140,"faqs":141,"seo_title":142,"seo_description":67,"update_tm":143,"read_time":144,"preview_page_count":4},18829141979164,"https://eur-avatar.wpscdn.com/davatar_6f874abed73319feea01a86fa6f0fab8","Advances in Language and Literary Studies  \nISSN: 2203-4714  \n[www.alls.aiac.org.au](www.alls.aiac.org.au)  \n| Analyzing Cross-Cultural Writing Differences using Contrastive Rhetoric: A Critical Review\u003Cbr>BadarAlmuhailib*\u003Cbr>State University of New York at Fredonia, USA\u003Cbr>Corresponding Author: BadarAlmuhailib, E-mail: [almu5862@fredonia.edu](almu5862@fredonia.edu) |  |\n| --- | --- |\n| ARTICLE INFO\u003Cbr>Article history\u003Cbr>Received: November 07, 2018\u003Cbr>Accepted: February 27, 2019\u003Cbr>Published: April 30, 2019\u003Cbr>Volume: 10 Issue: 2\u003Cbr>Advance access: March 2019 Conflicts of interest: None\u003Cbr>Funding: None\u003Cbr>Key words:\u003Cbr>Contrastive Rhetoric, Writing Skill, Cultural Influence, L2 Writing | ABSTRACT\u003Cbr>This paper presents a critical review of the cross-cultural writing styles in the light of contrastive rhetoric approach established by Kaplan in 1966. Although Kaplan compared different writing styles depending on the culture each language was attached to, his comparison was criticized by some scholars the prominent one of which is Conor 1996. Advantages and disadvantages ofthe approach being utilized to find the cultural influences in L2 writing was discussed detail. Further, the implementation of such approach was shed light on, apart from how policy makers would benefit from the approach in teaching the L2 writing skill. |\n\nRhetorical styles in writing can vary drastically from one language and culture to another. Kaplan (1966) was the first to employ the concept of contrastive rhetoric to investigate how discourse structures differed between languages. Cultural differences were found to be responsible for differences in rhetorical patterns. Since then, many studies have explored different languages, methods, and contexts using contrastive rhetoric. In the 1980s, linguistic studies focused on the systematic organization of first language (L1) vs second language (L2) (Enkvist, 1987; Leki, 1991; Matsuda, 1997) . The text was later seen asa dynamic entity by Connor (1996), who redefined contrastive rhetoric as “an area of research in second language acquisition that identifies problems in composition encountered by second language writers and, by referring to the rhetorical strategies of the first language, attempts to explain them”(p. 5) . Since the 1980s, numerous studies have complemented the early research on contrastive rhetoric by extending this framework to other domains, such as ESL education, translation, and genre-specific writing (Connor, 1996; Noor, 2001) .  \nAn interesting case that has seen less formal analysis in this field, however, is Arabic diglossia. Sayidina (2010) claimed that cultural differences could be related to different literacy practices in the Arab world. Reading and writing in Arabic were established more than 1,000 years ago, but strong oral features still appear in students’ writing because of diglossia (Ferguson, 1959) . Diglossia occurs when a group of  \npeople use two languages or dialects of the same language for different reasons. In the Arab world, people grow up speaking various colloquial varieties of Arabic that are sometimes mutually unintelligible and vary by country and region. These colloquial varieties are accorded lower social status than Classical Arabic (the language of the Quran) but are ubiquitous. In formal education, students usually learn to read, write, and speak Modern Standard Arabic, a modernized version ofClassical Arabic, even though this language is not used in students’daily lives. Thus, Classical and Modern Standard Arabic are considered an L2 for people in Arab countries, while they often are not taught to read and write in their native variety. Classical or Modern Standard Arabic instruction can therefore be challenging for students as well as teachers, as there are no native speakers students may talk with. Instead, they are required to memorize poetry and prose texts. This shows how Arabic writers may transfer rhetorical organization derived from literacy practice","cbCaitDbLu3HjZSZ","https://ap.wps.com/l/cbCaitDbLu3HjZSZ","pdf",307273,"English","# ARTICLE INFO\n## Article history, access, conflicts, funding, and key words\n# ABSTRACT\n# Rhetorical styles and contrastive rhetoric framework\n## Kaplan’s concept and subsequent research\n## Arabic diglossia as a less-formally analyzed case\n# Significance of the review","[{\"question\":\"What is the main focus of the critical review?\",\"answer\":\"The review analyzes cross-cultural writing styles using the contrastive rhetoric approach to explain cultural influences in L2 writing, and discusses its benefits and drawbacks.\"},{\"question\":\"How does the paper connect Arabic diglossia to writing practices?\",\"answer\":\"It explains that diglossia leads students to develop strong oral features and different literacy practices, which can shape rhetorical organization in their writing.\"},{\"question\":\"Why is the review significant for education and policy?\",\"answer\":\"It highlights how knowledge of cross-cultural rhetorical errors can support better instructional materials, classroom lessons, and pedagogy tailored to learners’ cultural and L1 backgrounds.\"}]","Analyzing Cross-Cultural Writing Differences using Contrastive Rhetoric: A Critical Review | PDF",1792068419,13]