Reflections on Connor (2008)

Having read the article, it does make sense why some linguists "refer to contrastive rhetoric as if it has been frozen at the stage of Kaplan's (1966) article" (p. 304). Most of Connor's (2008) article is about numerous things that NEED to be changed, from the definition of rhetoric and the term contrastive rhetoric to the foci of research and research methods. So, it was a little confusing where contrastive / intercultural rhetoric is at present and what is more of Connor's desire for it to be.

Nevertheless, the idea of mapping was very interesting. The interconnectedness and overlapping within and of different frameworks constituting (or influencing) contrastive / intercultural rhetoric reveals complexity and potential for developing contrastive rhetoric. I found the difference between cross-cultural and intercultural dimensions especially interesting, with the former being more abstract (on the level of notions, like politeness strategies, compared in different cultures), and the latter being more individualized (e.g., studying face-to-face encounters between people from different cultures). Cross-cultural studies are presented as valuable achievements of the past, with a cautious hint on the danger of stereotyping; while intercultural studies are seen as more contemporary, especially those focusing on writers' divergence from and / or accommodation to the language of people they interact with. I often find myself accommodating my speaking and writing in English to the language I think is expected from me by the audience. I cannot say that it is completely devoid of my personality and cultural background, but it is definitely not the same language as the one I use with my L1 interlocutors (even if the communication is in English).