The DOI matches its Crossref record; 7 of the 7 references it cites were found in a registry or an index.
New Directions in Contrastive Rhetoric
Abstract
Contrastive rhetoric examines differences and similarities in writing across cultures. Although mainly concerned with student essay writing in its e rst 30 years, the area of study today contributes to knowledge about preferred patterns of writing in many English for specie c purposes situations. This article discusses some of the new directions contrastive rhetoric has taken. Following a brief review of the goals, methods, and accomplishments of research in contrastive rhetoric during the past 30 years, the article examines how contrastive rhetoric has been pursued with varying aims and methods in a variety of EFL situations involving academic and professional writing. Recent criticisms of contrastive rhetoric and their effects on changing directions are then surveyed.
Overview
The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.
Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.
Integrity signals
Registry
Cites
Statistics
Verification
Claims the paper makes
The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.
Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.
Self-check
Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.
The self-check needs the paper’s full text.
Citations
Cites
Toulmin, S. E. (2003) · doi:10.1017/cbo9780511840005 · Cited by 7,101
Rhetorical Structure Theory: Toward a functional theory of text organization
MANN, W. C., & THOMPSON, S. A. (1988) · Text - Interdisciplinary Journal for the Study of Discourse · doi:10.1515/text.1.1988.8.3.243 · Cited by 3,853
CULTURAL THOUGHT PATTERNS IN INTER‐CULTURAL EDUCATION
Kaplan, R. B. (1966) · Language Learning · doi:10.1111/j.1467-1770.1966.tb00804.x · Cited by 2,069
Chinese students' perceptions of ESL peer response group interaction
Carson, J. G., & Nelson, G. L. (1996) · Journal of Second Language Writing · doi:10.1016/s1060-3743(96)90012-0 · Cited by 351
ESL students' perceptions of effectiveness in peer response groups
Nelson, G. L., & Carson, J. G. (1998) · Journal of Second Language Writing · doi:10.1016/s1060-3743(98)90010-8 · Cited by 298
Writing for scholarly publication in English: The case of Hong Kong
Flowerdew, J. (1999) · Journal of Second Language Writing · doi:10.1016/s1060-3743(99)80125-8 · Cited by 250
Becoming biliterate: First language influences
Carson, J. G. (1992) · Journal of Second Language Writing · doi:10.1016/1060-3743(92)90019-l · Cited by 122
Cited by
Rhetorical Structure Theory: looking back and moving ahead
Taboada, M., & Mann, W. C. (2006) · Discourse Studies · doi:10.1177/1461445606061881 · Cited by 451
Ideas and Options in English for Specific Purposes
Basturkmen, H. (2014) · Routledge eBooks · doi:10.4324/9781410617040 · Cited by 338
Metadata
- Authors
- Connor, U.
- Venue
- TESOL Quarterly
- Publisher
- JSTOR
- Published
- 2002
- Volume
- 36
- Issue
- 4
- Pages
- 493
- ISSN
- 0039-8322 (ISSN-L)
- OpenAlex
- W2059688108
- Cited by
- 325
- References
- 7
- FWCI
- 114.15
- Type
- journal article
- Language
- en
- Open access
- closed
About these checks
Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.
Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.
Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.
What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›
Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review
How to cite
Cite CoChat for the checks on this page, and the paper for its own findings.
- This page
- CoChat. (2026). Citation check: New Directions in Contrastive Rhetoric. https://app.cochat.ai/papers/10.2307/3588238
- The paper
- Connor, U. (2002). New Directions in Contrastive Rhetoric. TESOL Quarterly. https://doi.org/10.2307/3588238
Data sources
Bibliographic data: Semantic Scholar, OpenAlex, Crossref.
Contains information from the Semantic Scholar Academic Graph Datasets, made available under the ODC Attribution License (ODC-BY 1.0).
Semantic Scholar’s data is described in: Kinney, R., et al. (2023). The Semantic Scholar Open Data Platform. arXiv:2301.10140.
