대조 수사(修辭)학(Contrastive Rhetoric) 연구는 일반적으로 두 가지 혹은 그 이상의 언어를 모국어로 사용하는 사회의 사람들의 표현에 있어서 유사한 표현법들을 분석하고 비교함을 말한다 (Conner, 1996). 이 논문은 먼저 그 연구와 연관된 주요 문제들뿐만이 아니라, 그러한 연구의 비교를 위해 적합한 글들을 선택하는데 관한 주요한 문제점들에 관해서도 논의하고자 한다.  주된 通話의 실 예에 초점을 맞춘 통화 인종학(Ethnography of Communication) 이론은 여러 가지 복잡한 문제들을 분석하는, 가능한 방법으로서 제시되고 있다. 결론적으로 사빌 트로이키(Saville-Troike, 1989)의 통화 인종학(Ethnography of Communication) 이론이 미국과 한국의 잡지에 실린 두 광고들의 비교로 대조 수사(修辭)학(Contrastive Rhetoric)의 실제 연구에의 사용을 위한 유용한 방법의 하나로서 보여지고 있다.

1. Defining Contrastive Rhetoric

        According to Purves (1988), "the basic premise of contrastive rhetoric is that one must deal with at least two groups of writers; therefore the contrast" (p. 15). Even this seemingly "safe" statement is not without controversy, however, since there is disagreement about what actually constitutes the area of study usually referred to as "contrastive rhetoric." Contrastive rhetoric research began with Robert Kaplan's now classic article (Kaplan, 1966) which compared the English essays of native speakers of what he identified as five language groups. Kaplan's work has since been criticized for, among other things, building a model only on the work of writers writing in a second language (Pery-Woodley, 1990). Other researchers have expanded the scope of contrastive rhetoric studies to include comparisons of two or more groups of writers writing in their respective native languages (e.g., the articles in Purves, 1988). Still others would include comparisons of different types of writing produced by members of the same speech community. Finally, some would go beyond an exclusive emphasis on writing to include comparisons of spoken discourse as contrastive rhetoric (e.g., the articles in Chafe, 1980; Saville-Troike, 1989).
        One problem in carrying out contrastive rhetoric research from the very beginning, then, is dealing with these varying definitions. Still, whatever one chooses to focus on, it seems to be agreed upon that the general problem in conducting a contrastive rhetoric study is "that one must deal with a number of sources of variation in order to see what indeed emerges from the contrast and to avoid making overgeneralizations" (Purves, 1988, p. 15). This simple statement of the general problem, however, implies a number of more specific methodological issues and problems in conducting this type of research which will be dealt with in more depth in the next section.
 

2. Context, Comparability, Data Collection, and Interpretation

        Pery-Woodley (1990) points out that one of the major problems of contrastive rhetoric is that of comparability, that is, how to choose texts (or pieces of spoken discourse) from two populations that are truly representative of the same genre, topic, event, etc., but are still interesting enough to be worthy of comparison and likely to provide insights into important differences between the two populations. Obviously, it is often possible to choose or elicit texts produced in very comparable situations for the groups being compared, but this still cannot control for all the variability in cross-cultural situations. An important reason for this is that different cultures may disagree on exactly what constitutes a certain genre or type of speech event, or there may be genres or speech events that simply do not exist in some cultures. Also, some cultures may place much more importance on a certain type of event than others do. For example, greeting one's parents after a prolonged absence for many Americans may differ very little from greeting them in other situations or from greeting friends in the same situation. There seems to be very little ceremony or special importance attached to this specific speech event. For speakers of certain other languages like Arabic or Korean, however, this may be an event that demands careful attention to ritual and some degree of formulaic speech. So even though the participants, settings, and purpose of the event itself in all of the these situations may be comparable, other things, including the form and content of the greeting, the key (i.e., the tone, manner, or spirit in which it is done),¹ and the types of nonverbal communicative acts expected, are not.
        Second, many studies have pointed out that different speech communities can have very different ideas about what constitutes "good" rhetoric. Eggington (1987), for example, reported that the "Korean preferred rhetorical structure" in composition of ki-sung-cen-kyel² consists of an introduction that begins the argument [ki], followed by a section that begins to develop that idea [sung]. In marked contrast to the "preferred English style of writing," the next section of the composition usually turns abruptly away from the main line of development and states the main point [cen]. The final section then returns to the original idea and acts as a conclusion [kyel]. Siler and Labadie-Wondergem (1982) found that "the organization of Native American speeches often leads Anglo listeners to conclude that they are rambling, difficult to follow, and move from topic to topic without any transitions" (p. 93). They argue that the reason for this lies in the Native American's concept of what constitutes a good speech: Speeches are expected to contain perhaps three to five topics, all related, but with no explicit connection between them. Speakers are not supposed to make decisions about the correct perspective or merely "provide information to the listener"; instead, "the listener is responsible for deciding the importance and relevance of each information point" (p. 97).
        While these, as well as numerous other examples from the literature are, for one thing, examples of the types of findings contrastive rhetoric research is trying to uncover, they also serve to illustrate another of the major issues in contrastive rhetoric research. That is, of course, the problem of objectivity, or interpreting data without imposing your own cultural biases and perspectives. This has been another of the major criticisms of Kaplan's (1966) original article, that is, that he took an ethnocentric approach by representing English paragraph development as a straight line and the styles of speakers of the other languages as variations of that (presumably preferred) model.
        In order to compare texts from different speech communities in a fair and objective manner, then, the contrastive rhetoric researcher needs to possess (or discover) a great deal of knowledge and understanding of both (or all) of the communities under consideration. This includes not only a knowledge of the language, but also an in-depth understanding of the cultural beliefs, rules for interaction, and norms from how people in that culture interpret what is said or written about in the particular situation or topic under consideration. Furthermore, types and styles of appropriate rhetoric change over time and can vary greatly with the rhetorical situation, even within the same speech community. That means, for example, that the style of rhetoric considered appropriate for religious purposes, or political purposes, or educational purposes many vary considerably from that considered appropriate for everyday uses, and that the style considered appropriate within a given group today may not be considered appropriate at some point in the future.
        Another related issue is discussed by Kadar-Fulop (1988). She makes the point that the function of literacy itself can be very different in different countries. Therefore, she argues that it is not possible to compare written texts in themselves and make sense of them without also considering the writers' reasons for writing, beliefs about what an essay is, etc. In other words, the contrastive rhetoric researcher must also consider the function of literacy in the society (or societies) of the writers, the function of literacy in education in that society, and the domain of literacy in the schools. One of the findings from the well-known work of Shirley Brice Heath (1982, 1983, 1986), for example, is that orientations toward literacy by children from communities with "literate traditions" versus those with "oral traditions" can vary greatly, and this affects the ways in which they use language and expect language to be used as well as their performance in school.
        Finally, a problem that has already been hinted at above is the problem of defining exactly what constitutes a coherent speech community. It is often assumed that speakers of the same language automatically belong to the same discourse community and therefore share many of the same attitudes, opinions, and ways of expressing themselves in speech and writing. A great deal of work by researchers such as Gumperz (1958, 1968), Heath (1882, 1983, 1986), and Schieffelin and Ochs (1986), however, shows that language use, including the choice of rhetorical strategies, can vary greatly even for people living in the same community. Becoming a member of a particular speech or discourse community involves a complex process (or processes) of socialization, which includes learning and using certain rhetorical strategies and styles to identify oneself with (or perhaps distance oneself from) the members of a given speech community. A further distinction can be made between being a member of a speech or discourse community and being able to communicate fully and effectively in that community.
        The methodological problem arising from this, of course, is choosing samples of text for comparison that will represent the typical styles of specific, meaningful groups. The work of Tannen (1984, 1986), for example, shows that American English speakers of different gender and from different geographical locations and ethnic groups may use very different strategies and styles of speaking. Similarly, membership in speech communities may depend on age, social status, occupation, and many other factors. On the other hand, it is quite possible that people who speak mutually unintelligible languages may share many attributes that pull them together as a coherent speech community. An example of this might be the speakers of various Chinese dialects who still view themselves primarily as Chinese and share many of the same attitudes, cultural assumptions, and rhetorical strategies. The contrastive rhetoric researcher must be careful in drawing conclusions about any particular group unless that group can somehow be described as a coherent speech community (i.e., overgeneralization must be avoided). This is yet another of the criticisms of Kaplan's (1966) model, which, for example, grouped together writers of several languages from distinct language families under the term "Oriental."
 

3. The Ethnography of Communication and Contrastive Rhetoric

        Obviously, there are many factors that go far beyond the text itself that are necessary to consider in contrastive rhetoric research. One approach that provides a frame of reference for dealing with the complex assortment of necessary considerations in such research is that of the ethnography of communication (Hymes, 1972, 1974; Johnson, 1992; Saville-Troike, 1989) which "takes language first and foremost as a socially situated cultural form, while recognizing the necessity to analyze the code itself and the cognitive process of its speakers and hearers" (Saville-Troike, 1989, p. 3). An ethnography of communication approach, which takes the communicative event as central, can provide a useful framework for guiding the contrastive rhetoric researcher in choosing appropriate "texts" for comparison as well as in considering the relevant factors (genre, purpose, setting, message forms, norms of interpretation, etc.) from the point of view of the speakers or writers who produced the texts. This section provides an example of the use of Saville-Troike's model for applying the ethnography of communication approach to a comparison of two magazine advertisements--one in American English and one in Korean.
        Several of the advertisements that appeared in recent issues of two women's magazines, one Korean (Kakyeypu) and one American (Good Housekeeping) were for skin care products. The two advertisements selected for comparison are for skin creams. The name of the Korean product is Skinol skin cream, and the American product is Plenitude "advanced wrinkle defense cream." They were chosen because they seem to be fairly typical examples of the genre and topic from their respective speech communities and also represent very comparable product types. Although many of the components of the communicative situation involving the two ads and their readers are the same or very similar (i.e., genre, topic, function and purpose, setting, participants, and message form), others vary a great deal and perhaps reflect differences in socio-cultural norms or aspect of world view held (or assumed to be held) by typical Korean and American middle-class adult women. This is particularly true of the key, message content and sequence, and of course, the norms for interpretation.
 

GENRE: Advertisements in popular women's magazines

TOPIC: Skin care and skin care products

FUNCTION/PURPOSE: Primarily, to interest readers in buying the product; Secondarily, to present information about the product

SETTING: The ads appear in magazines devoted to topics of interest to women, especially housewives

KEY: Korean--Polite, somewhat vague (indirect); American--Informative, factual, straightforward (direct)

PARTICIPANTS: Companies producing the products (with professional marketing and advertising help); Readers (potential customers), mainly middle-class adult females (Korean/White American)

MESSAGE FORM: Printed text; Photographs, graphic design, color

MESSAGE CONTENT & SEQUENCE:

This is represented by the advertisements themselves. The Korean text translated literally reads as follows:

This winter,
even with the cold wind [there can be] beautiful skin
--Skinol
If the wind blows and the temperature drops
women's skin also freezes. (formal-polite style)
[Their skin] easily becomes rough and dry. (formal-polite style)
Please try using Skinol before you sleep. (honorific noun; informal-polite style)
While sleeping
the skin structure absorbs natural tocopherol and
by preventing the accumulation of
bad elements in the skin
[tocopherol] helps to preserve the skin's youthfulness. (formal-polite style)
The nourishing product skin wants
Natural tocopheral cream--Skinol

The main text of the American ad reads as follows:

A discovery from the Skincare Laboratories of L'Oreal...defense against
wrinkles so advanced, it's patented. Silky-light in texture. Fortified in
treatment. Advanced Wrinkle Defense Cream absorbs instantly with
an exclusive "skin resiliency booster." Skin responds with increased
vitality for a smoother, fresher look that radiates with youth. Confirmed
by consumer studies, Advanced Wrinkle Defense Cream:
1 TODAY Significantly reduces the appearance of lines and wrinkles
2 TOMORROW Combats the visible appearance of new fine lines with continued use

NORMS FOR INTERPRETATION:

        The most immediately noticeable difference between the two advertisements is the physical layout. Both ads include basically the same items: the product, a female model, the name of the product in large letters, and a small amount of text describing the benefits of using the product. The two-page American ad, however, is dominated by the product--open, dynamic, and ready to be used. The much smaller photograph of the model also shows action. The woman seems to be either applying the product or, perhaps, touching her face and noticing the positive results of a prior application. The American ad also includes a small chart (referred to as a "dramatization") showing the type of improvement that might be expected with "treatment." The text is also a prominent part of the layout; the company name, product name, slogans, and product description are spread around the page, and important words and phrases are highlighted using color and various font sizes and styles.
        The one-page Korean ad, on the other hand, is dominated by the human model. Except for her smooth flawless skin, however, there seems to be no direct relation between the woman silently staring off into space and the product. The product itself appears in the lower right corner of the page--small (so small that many of the words on the packages cannot be read), static, and unopened. The text in this ad appears in a block, more or less as a part of the background. The layout of these ads at least begins to suggest what might be referred to as a "human" organization in the Korean ad and a "product and text" orientation in the American ad.
        There are also significant differences in the structures and the content of the text in the two ads. The American text, which generally uses short, concise phrases rather than complete sentences, might be described as direct, straightforward, and following a linear development. It introduces the product, briefly explains how it was developed and how it works, and concludes by telling what the results of use should be. Three important patterns appear in this text. First, the text reinforces the dynamic look of the ad by stressing the idea that the product works, and works quickly--"today and tomorrow." It absorbs "instantly," and skin "responds" with "vitality" and "radiates" youth. Secondly, there is a major emphasis on presenting the product as new, scientifically advanced, and therefore different from and superior to similar products. It is "advanced," "exclusive," a "discovery" from a "laboratory," "patented," and "confirmed by consumer studies." The chart appears to be a further attempt to add a feeling of scientific validity. Finally, according to the text, this product is a "defense" cream, "fortified" in treatment, that "combats" a problem. Metaphorically, the ad seems to be promoting the product as a kind of weapon to be used in the war against an enemy--"lines and wrinkles."
        The Korean text takes a very different approach. Rather than presenting the product as a quick solution to a specific problem, it begins by describing general conditions that may be harmful to skin and then suggests a means of preventing any possible damage from somewhat vaguely-defined "bad elements." Emphasis seems to be on slowly and naturally (i.e., "while sleeping") building up a resistance to outside forces that could harm the skin. There is little specific reference to actual symptoms to be cured, and there is only a vague reference to a technical explanation of how the product works. In addition, the development style employed in the Korean text is very different from the linear style of the American text. In fact, it may be seen as following very closely the "Korean preferred rhetorical structure" of ki-sung-cen-kyel described in Eggington (1987, p. 156-157). The first few lines of the text begin the argument [ki]; the next two sentences begin to loosely develop that argument [sung]; the next sentence states the main point [cen] (i.e., the reader should try the product); and the remainder of the text acts as the conclusion [kyel]. A final difference between the Korean and American texts is the style of speech used. In contrast
to the matter-of-fact style of the American text, the Korean text is very formal and polite. As is typical in Korean advertisements, the formal-polite style is used throughout, except in the one sentence that appeals to the reader to try the product. In that sentence, there is a switch to the informal-polite style, which seems to have the effect of making that one request more personal and direct.
        The above comparison perhaps begins to suggest support for the argument that the main difference in the approaches in these Korean and American advertisements lies in the level of directness. The American ad presents the product as a direct and almost instant solution to a problem. The language and style is informative and straightforward, and the layout of the ad is dynamic. It attempts to convince the reader to buy the product by appealing directly to facts and reason. The Korean ad, on the other hand, uses less direct and explicit language in describing the product and how it works. Rather than proposing a direct solution to an existing problem, it seems to be suggesting that the company's product provides a way for women to protect themselves against certain conditions that occur generally.
 

4. Conclusion

        Contrastive rhetoric research generally analyzes and compares similar modes of expression, most often in writing, by native speakers of two or more distinct speech communities (Conner, 1996). This paper, first of all, has discussed the inherent difficulties involved not only in carrying out such research, but also in identifying appropriate texts for comparison in such research. An ethnography of communication framework, which focuses on the communicative event as central, has been suggested as a possible means of dealing with the complex assortment of necessary considerations in contrastive rhetoric research. Finally, an example was given which illustrates the usefulness of Saville-Troike's (1989) model for applying the ethnography of communication approach to an actual study in contrastive rhetoric--a comparison of two advertisements which appeared in American and Korean magazines.
 

Notes

¹This term and concept are borrowed from Hymes (1972, cited in Saville-Troike, 1989, p. 141).
²Korean words in this paper are Romanized using the Yale system (see Martin & Lee, 1986, p. 575).
 

References

Chafe, W. L. (Ed.). (1980). The pear stories. Norwood, NJ: Ablex Publishing Company.

Conner, U. (1996). Contrastive rhetoric: Cross-cultural aspects of second-language writing. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

Eggington, W. G. (1987). Written academic discourse in Korean: Implications for effective communication. In U. Connor & R. B. Kaplan (Eds.), Writing across languages: Analysis of L2 text (pp. 153-167). Reading, MA: Addison-Wesley.

Gumperz, J. J. (1958). Dialect differences and social stratification in a north Indian village. American Anthropologist, 60, 668-681.

Gumperz, J. J. (1968). The speech community. In International encyclopedia of the social sciences (pp. 381-386). New York: Macmillan.

Heath, S. B. (1982). Protean shapes in literary events: Evershifting oral and literate traditions. In D. Tannen (Ed.), Spoken and written language: Exploring orality and literacy (pp. 91-117). Norwood, NJ: Ablex Publishing Company.

Heath, S. B. (1983). Ways with words: Language, life, and work in communities and classrooms. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

Heath, S. B. (1986). What no bedtime story means: Narrative skills at home and at school. In B. B. Schieffelin & E. Ochs (Eds.), Language socialization across cultures (pp. 97-124). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

Hymes, D. (1972). Models of the interaction of language and social life. In J. J. Gumperz, & D. Hymes (Eds.), Directions in sociolinguistics: Ethnography of communication (pp. 35-71). New York: Holt, Rinehart & Winston.

Hymes, D. (1974). Foundations in sociolinguistics: An ethnographic approach. Philadelphia: University of Pennsylvania Press.

Johnson, D. M. (1992). Ethnographic research. In Approaches to research in second language learning (pp. 132-163). New York: Longman.

Kadar-Fulop, J. (1988). Culture, writing, and curriculum. In A. C. Purves (Ed.), Writing across languages and cultures (pp. 25-50). Newbury Park, CA: Sage Publications, Inc.

Kaplan, R. (1966). Cultural thought patterns in intercultural education. Language Learning, 16, 1-20.

Martin, S. E., & Lee, Y.-S. G. (1986). Beginning Korean. Rutland, VT: Charles E. Tuttle Co.: Publishers.

Pery-Woodley, M. P. (1990). Contrasting discourses: Contrastive analysis and a discourse approach to writing. Language Teaching, 23(3), 143-151.

Purves, A. C. (Ed.). (1988). Writing across languages and cultures. Newbury Park, CA: Sage Publications, Inc.

Schieffelin, B. B., & Ochs, E. (1986). Language socialization across cultures. New York: Cambridge University Press.

Saville-Troike, M. (1989). The ethnography of communication. (2nd ed.). Oxford: Basil Blackwell.

Siler, I. C., & Labadie-Wondergem, D. (1982). Cultural factors in the organization of speeches by Native Americans. In F. Barkin, E. A. Brandt, & J. Ornstein-Galicia (Eds.), Bilingualism and language contact. New York: Teachers College Press.

Tannen, D. (1984). Conversational style: Analyzing talk among friends. Norwood, NJ: Ablex Publishing Company.

Tannen, D. (1986). That's not what I meant! New York: Ballantine Books.