Indirectness Of Chinese Writing: An Issue In Contrastive Rhetoric

Contrastive Rhetoric (CR) studies the differences of discourse patterns across languages and cultures. Kaplan published an article in 1966, arguing that the patterns of discourse by ESL learners are influenced by patterns of thinking which in turn are determined by their native languages. He summarized the typical patterns of ESL writings by writers who came from different cultures with different native languages. According to him, Chinese thinking is illogical and its rhetoric is indirect and circular;while English thinking is logical and its rhetoric direct. Some scholars agree with Kaplan and explain the indirectness of Chinese rhetoric by the Confucianism, eight-legged essays and dialecticism and so on. Others disagree and hold that the so-called discourse patterns are in fact a result of developmental factors.The author holds that there are similarities as well as disparities on the level of discourse pattern across different languages and cultures after examining the so-called "indirectness" of Chinese writing. The author argues that synchronically, four aspects can explain the issue of directness: Linguistically, Chinese is meaning oriented, while English is form oriented. Developmentally, improper command of English by Chinese students and confused invention process leads to indirect patterns of writing. Socio-culturally, collectivism leads to indirect patterns and individualism leads to direct patterns;indirectness is universally a manifestation of social status and a communication strategy. Esthetically, it is universal to use an actual instance to illustrate a point;Chinese people find it more nature to tell the story by and by, while Western writers feel it necessary to start by a topic.Chinese writings demonstrate preferences for indirectness. It is the result of complicate contexts including traditional culture and thought, contemporary socio-political factors and local factors of classroom activities, the evaluation of society and teachers etc. These contexts are analyzed to further explain theindirectness of Chinese writers.The author holds that more research attention should be paid to the dynamic nature of the issue while doing static descriptions. Further ethnographic researches on the activities of the learners both in and outside classroom are suggested.