The Myth of the “Turn” in Contrastive Rhetoric

Abstract

Contrastive rhetoric scholarship researches rhetorical structures across languages to predict the difficulties experienced by students learning to write essays in a second language. The paradigmatic contrast is between Western languages (e.g., English) that are said to exemplify “linearity” and “directness” and Eastern languages (e.g., Chinese, Japanese) that are said to exemplify “nonlinearity” and “indirectness.” The prime examples in English-language contrastive rhetoric scholarship of Asian essay structure are the four-part Chinese qi cheng zhuan he and Japanese ki sho ten ketsu, whose third steps are said to represent a “turn.” The author's research into Chinese and Japanese-language scholarship on these two structures finds that the “turn” is not a rhetorical move of “circularity” or “digression” as commonly assumed but rather serves as the occasion to develop an essay further by alternative means. The implication for second-language writing is recognition of greater similarities in essayist literacy across these languages than previously supposed.