[{"data":1,"prerenderedAt":-1},["ShallowReactive",2],{"detail-sidebar-cat-0-en-105":3,"doc-seo-594067-105":59,"doc-detail-594067-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","returning-to-contrastive-rhetorics-basic-communication-principles-a-common-ground-theory-perspective","(Re)turning to contrastive rhetoric’s basic communication principles - A Common Ground theory perspective","","Contrastive rhetoric (CR) significantly informs understanding of L2 writing, yet it has faced persistent criticisms that led to “reimagined” variants. These revisions, according to the author, have produced a set of complex ideologies that complicate CR and limit its effectiveness in research and classrooms. The paper argues for decluttering CR by reframing it through Clark’s (1996) Common Ground theory, returning CR to fundamental communication principles.",{"@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/returning-to-contrastive-rhetorics-basic-communication-principles-a-common-ground-theory-perspective/594067/",{"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/returning-to-contrastive-rhetorics-basic-communication-principles-a-common-ground-theory-perspective/594067.png","ImageObject",300,407,{"name":92,"@type":93},"Franzy","Person",{"url":74,"name":95,"@type":96},"DocShare","Organization","application/pdf","2026-10-26","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},"Why does the paper argue that contrastive rhetoric needs to be decluttered?","Question",{"text":112,"@type":113},"Because longstanding criticisms and subsequent “reimagined” forms have turned CR into a collection of complex ideologies that unnecessarily complicate it and reduce its practical effectiveness in research and teaching.","Answer",{"name":115,"@type":110,"acceptedAnswer":116},"What theoretical framework does the author use to reinterpret contrastive rhetoric?",{"text":117,"@type":113},"The paper applies Clark’s (1996) Common Ground (CG) theory to CR, linking it to more universal communication principles.",{"name":119,"@type":110,"acceptedAnswer":120},"How does combining CR with Common Ground address major criticisms?",{"text":121,"@type":113},"It shifts CR from an ideological perspective that overlooks socially and politically constructed notions of L2 writing toward an approach centered on basic communication principles, making CR more practical for researchers and teachers.","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},594067,1792119673,{"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":139,"language":140,"language_code":63,"site_id":62,"html_lang":63,"table_of_contents":141,"faqs":142,"seo_title":143,"seo_description":67,"update_tm":144,"read_time":145},2336478945519,"https://ap-avatar.wpscdn.com/davatar_085a072bc5b1113ac321206ff7593b45","| | \u003Cbr>Australian Journal of Applied Linguistics\u003Cbr>ISSN 2209-0959\u003Cbr>[https://www.castledown.com/journals/ajal/](https://www.castledown.com/journals/ajal/) |  |\n| --- | --- | --- |\n| Australian Journal of Applied Linguistics, 5(2), 77–87 (2022) [https://doi.org/10.29140/ajal.v5n2.783](https://doi.org/10.29140/ajal.v5n2.783) |  |  |\n| (Re)turning to contrastive rhetoric’s basic communication principles: A Common Ground theory perspective |  | |\n| JONATHAN DAVID BROWN\u003Cbr>Hosei University, JAPAN [brownj@hosei.ac.jp](brownj@hosei.ac.jp) |  |  |\n| Abstract\u003Cbr>Contrastive rhetoric (CR) has made great contributions to our understanding of L2 writing. Nevertheless, CR has endured countless criticisms over the years, resulting in “reimagined” forms attempting to address many of these criticisms. In doing so, these forms have shaped CR into a collection of complex ideologies that have unnecessarily complicated CR and impeded its efficacy in both research and the classroom. Therefore, to make it more practicable, it must be decluttered and brought back to its fundamentals. To accomplish this, I look at CR within the theoretical framework of Clark’s (1996) Common Ground (CG) theory, which affixes it to something much more universal and heterogeneous—communication. Essentially, what I postulate here is that when CR is considered in tandem with CG theory, it is shifted from an ideological theory that fails to take into consideration socially and politically conscructed notions ofL2 writing to an approach concerned with basic communication principles. When this shift occurs, many of its criticisms can then be assuaged and CR can once again become more practical for researchers and an effective tool for teachers to help their students achieve their writing goals.\u003Cbr>Keywords: contrastive rhetoric; common ground theory; L2 writing |  |  |\n| Introduction\u003Cbr>Since its inception over half a century ago, contrastive rhetoric (CR) and its founder, Robert Kaplan (1966), have endured countless criticisms. Yet even its numerous opponents cannot ignore the fact that CR has provided a great deal of insight into L2 writing and has contributed immensely to L2 writing pedagogy, as evidenced by a more discipline-oriented approach that is common in most textbooks and |  |  |\n\nCopyright: © 2022 Jonathan David Brown. This is an open access article distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution Non-Commercial 4.0 International License, which permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original author and source are credited. Data Availability Statement: All relevant data are within this paper.  \nclassrooms today (Silva, 1990) . Accordingly, CR cannot be readily abandoned as there is no denying its importance to the field. This balancing act of acknowledging CR’s contributions while at the same time finding fault with its ideological and theoretical wrongdoings has resulted in the creation of its reimagined forms, the most notable being Liebman’s (1992)“new contrastive rhetoric”(NCR), Connor’s (1996)“intercultural rhetoric”(IR) and, perhaps the most critical (and aptly named) of the three, Kubota and Lehner’s (2004)“critical contrastive rhetoric”(CCR) .  \nThough undoubtedly much of the criticism put forth by such scholars is not without merit, their attempts to reimagine CR have more times than not been superfluous. It is due to these attempts that CR is now entrenched in convoluted concepts and ideas that Kaplan never claimed and the theory itself never attested to. In other words, these reimagined forms have turned CR into something it was never intended to be. CR proponents have made similar arguments in the past, suggesting that many of its criticisms stem from critics’ lack of understanding and pointing to the fact that the theory is rooted in pedagogy rather than ideology (see Connor, 2002; Li, 2014; Péry-Woodley, 1990) . Thus, the purpose of this paper is not to dwell on such issues. Rather, what","cbCaieGjeBzzFAmU","https://ap.wps.com/l/cbCaieGjeBzzFAmU","pdf",168173,11,"English","# Introduction\n## Overview of Contrastive Rhetoric","[{\"question\":\"Why does the paper argue that contrastive rhetoric needs to be decluttered?\",\"answer\":\"Because longstanding criticisms and subsequent “reimagined” forms have turned CR into a collection of complex ideologies that unnecessarily complicate it and reduce its practical effectiveness in research and teaching.\"},{\"question\":\"What theoretical framework does the author use to reinterpret contrastive rhetoric?\",\"answer\":\"The paper applies Clark’s (1996) Common Ground (CG) theory to CR, linking it to more universal communication principles.\"},{\"question\":\"How does combining CR with Common Ground address major criticisms?\",\"answer\":\"It shifts CR from an ideological perspective that overlooks socially and politically constructed notions of L2 writing toward an approach centered on basic communication principles, making CR more practical for researchers and teachers.\"}]","(Re)turning to contrastive rhetoric’s basic communication principles - A Common Ground theory perspective | PDF",1792078472,28]