Contrastive Rhetoric Reaching to intercultural rhetoric PDF
Preview Contrastive Rhetoric Reaching to intercultural rhetoric
Introduction *UllaConnor,EdNagelhout,*WilliamRozycki *IndianaUniversity-PurdueUniversityIndianapolis/UniversityofNevada, LasVegas Copyright 2008. John Benjamins Publishing Co.All rights reserved. May not be reproduced in any form without permission from the publisher, except fair uses permitted under U.S. or applicable copyright law. EAABNcS:cC oO2u 2nP9tu7:b1 l2ri us;gh .iRmnoaciia(httCThckdaacgzinmeiE ynoaorrieeo:c.oxSneesnFnn kenupntmneihtaesB,oLtvurtssaLSacoo stesuti,oWt)noarcpiooxannokintcacit lfcipnntoonClcqtsocls(oioclEiddiktatwlaeThsiu2einuodnnnilmaipesnnie v0netrnlengiiLscVtdettrieegnmtn0t.h”emut,cgti,aahtlie0oelo sorctaah–irnnsipnNei.xohndos)atn aastvegge(gThahaotinnne,telwEegtavuacemBlUftt.tiimatsuanShencrtfomarahttCoeioenanhiOuipircsgranreevhtstsdtreadiiho,lheyehattmetcls e,tsiisiaetEt-eAeeRvtmsulcn)d(ttrE:npdhit ,eeEhabenceot- ogfnhpgen CuhsytarreSSgbrpogluaaoehoerntdseyLtiutleinaiasccaaefeeimsnoeo)itrsirotrrtttgeasow.mshte,hodneecutd eco-cKrai UKsaohtirttholcitsfiffih.roasinlnccopaoaotiby ancendn4.ipbpefchfewo/;Pnodttiag8 ulolswygoffrcr/Cnaguakyrp2otlaaaconenor0ntiitnrhuiso2tnnlutriinrpnf2r.ctietntaleg aalinitihKoams1stwndsnwnnrsb:tugnecst3iaesfafgcgori4viosoeroogurtswp eveiietnshrsP tsptrurmoeshMRlt.eiiatma haahvanisfweveThsirnntenEittegexanghhhaoeth’eddcstse rSederRiasuiaseoitLrIchs(hstptnnwthsJ nnan1tokeK:heeoe(abheS hil9d4sriUREnatvcdnnrly.dNeeio60wtloiIaeoSceldsVcaip6ratirayEhLffrnrtimleieRi)hnsdhEeclinSnneariyatIg,agcratiehnrT ictasgeydofuEtrntwteahgttoIohhslosnnT uapigeplrseie ItvreaiagnstcGncdealrsieRteeosgceeectgOeaeiirhxt-xdNrtftooesacrvEIcwspitoss,NumaehlsniisaGloengsoftnrsaEt,hgpscmurtNupieguwratasetiaaortddailnes.earhlsotfihrfFe rltstrttiWeiyRneieesoehonphEnthmys.teiredmrdata-FttnohntKseeoaserdohLbarrgprrisistiaaoilmgleyeeicalceepilwcfound“onaaattuilnrfsoEhiornarlkLettialEieknlehgnapiattlaafnahsoFiirntegoaAnnvn(oeogaLot“rilpeiaggdffgimdtfiks)n”f.stetuuc,iecht3hEEsffrhpEeoeaarAtao1tneeSSraFhenngugna9strrisLLddLeeees-------)t, 2 UllaConnor,EdNagelhout,WilliamRozycki successfulapplicationformorethanfortyyears,ithasalso,especiallyinrecent years,beenacontestedareaofstudy. Critiques of contrastive rhetoric OneofthefirstcriticswasthetextlinguistJohnHinds(1983),whopointedout thatinsteadofexaminingonlysecondlanguagewritingoflearners,weneedto examinefirstlanguageacquisitionofthesestudents.HindswascriticalofKaplan’s ethnocentricviewofrepresentingEnglishproseasalinearline.Additionally, Kaplan’sgroupingsoflanguagesinto“Oriental,”“Semitic,”and“Romance”drew criticism. Morerecently,severalpostmodernscholarshavechallengedcontrastiverhet- oricasessentializingwritersandprivilegingEnglishwriting.Intwo1997issuesof TESOLQuarterly,threearticles(Scollon1997;Spack1997;Zamel1997)criticized contrastiverhetoricforanallegedinsensitivitytoculturaldifferences.Inotheris- sues,Kubota(1999,2001)hasbeencriticalofperceptionsofaculturaldichotomy betweenEastandWestandtheallegedresultingpromotionofthesuperiorityof Westernwriting. Canagarajah(2002)offeredanothercriticalperspectiveoncontrastiverheto- ric: ThoughCRisarareresearchandpedagogicaltraditionindigenoustoESLwith considerablevalueforteachers,itmustdevelopmorecomplextypesofexplana- tionfortextualdifferenceiftheschoolistoenjoycontinuedusefulness.Though differenceisalwaysgoingtobethereinwriting,andthoughmuchofitmay derivefromculture,thewaysinwhichthisinfluencetakesplacecanbeposi- tiveornegative,enablingaswellaslimiting,andteachershavetobeawareofall thesepossibilitieswhentheyteachstudentwriting.Moreimportantly,teachers mustkeepinmindthatnooneneedstobeheldhostagebylanguageandculture; studentscanbetaughttonegotiateconflictingrhetoricalstructurestotheirad- vantage. (p.68) Mostrecently,KubotaandLehner(2004)criticizedcontrastiverhetoricfordis- couragingactivenegotiationofmultiplerhetoricsinthewritingclassroom,and calledfor“criticalcontrastiverhetoric.” EBSCOhost - printed on 4/8/2022 1:34 PM via RIJKSUNIVERSITEIT GRONINGEN. All use subject to https://www.ebsco.com/terms-of-use Introduction 3 New directions in contrastive rhetoric research Aspointedout(Connor2005),itisunfortunatethatthesecriticshavebegunre- ferringtocontrastiverhetoricasifithadbeenfrozeninspace.Understoodby manyasKaplan’soriginalwork(1966),contrastiverhetoricisoftencharacterized asstaticandlinkedtocontrastiveanalysis,amovementassociatedwithstructural linguisticsandbehavioralism.However,since1966,whenKaplan’soriginalwork oncontrastiverhetoricappeared,and1996,whenConnor’sbookoncontrastive rhetoricwaspublished,manynewtrendshaveappearedinresearchandmethods. Kaplanhimselfhascontinuedasatheoristforcontrastiverhetoric(2000,2005). Changeshavebeenaffectedbytwomajordevelopments.First,therehasbeenan increaseinthetypesofwrittentextsthatareconsideredthepurviewofsecond languagewritingaroundtheworld.ESLandEFLclassesteachothertypesofwrit- ingbesidesthestudentessayrequiredincollegeclasses.Otherimportantgenres aretheacademicresearcharticle,researchreport,andgrantproposal.Writingfor professionalpurposes,suchasbusiness,isnowconsideredalegitimatetypeof secondlanguagewritingandworthyofresearchandteaching. Second,inadditiontotheexpansionofthegenre,thefieldhasmovedto emphasizethesocialsituationofwriting.Today,writingisincreasinglyregarded associallysituated;eachsituationmayentailspecialconsiderationtoaudience, topurposes,andtolevelofperfection,andcorrespondinglymayrequirevarying amountsofrevision,collaboration,andattentiontodetail.Theexpectationsand normsofdiscoursecommunitiesorcommunitiesofpractice(culturalanddisci- plinary),ofcourse,mayshapethesesituationalexpectationsandpractices.Social constructionofmeaningasdynamic,sociocognitiveactivitiesbestdescribesthis approachtotexts.Insteadofanalyzingwhattextsmean,wewanttounderstand howtheyconstructmeaning.BazermanandPrior(2004:6)posethreequestions toguidetheanalysisofwriting:“Whatdoesthetexttalkabout?Howdotexts influenceaudiences?Andhowdotextscomeintobeing?”Thus,twomajorrea- sons–theacknowledgmentofmoregenreswithspecifictextualrequirements andthesocialcontextsofwriting–havemotivatedscholarsofcontrastiverheto- rictoadjustandsupplementresearchapproachesintheirwork. InaspecialissueoncontrastiverhetoricinJournalofEnglishforAcademic Purposes(2004),Connorreviewedresearchmethodologiesusedintheexpanded definitionofcontrastiverhetoric.Textuallinguisticanalyseshaveasharpenedfo- cusinthespecificgenrecharacteristicsofthemanykindsofwritingstudiedand taughtintoday’swritingcontexts.Ontheonehand,corpus-basedstudiesrelyon new,sophisticatedcorpuslinguisticsquantitativeanalyses.Therigorintroduced bycorpuslinguisticsintodesign,datacollection,andanalysisisawelcomedstan- EBSCOhost - printed on 4/8/2022 1:34 PM via RIJKSUNIVERSITEIT GRONINGEN. All use subject to https://www.ebsco.com/terms-of-use 4 UllaConnor,EdNagelhout,WilliamRozycki dard.Ontheotherhand,ethnographicapproacheshavegainedimportancebe- causeoftheincreasingawarenessofthesocialnatureofwriting. Alreadyin2002,Connoraddressedrecentcriticismandofferednewdirec- tionsforaviablecontrastiverhetoric.Inaddressingthecritiques,Connoraimed todrawattentiontothebroadscopeofcontrastiverhetoricanddeterminedthat anewtermwouldbetterencompasstheessenceofcontrastiverhetoricinitscur- rentstate.Todistinguishbetweentheoften-quoted“static”modelandthenew advancesthathavebeenmade,itmaybeusefultobeginusingthetermintercul- turalrhetorictorefertothecurrentdynamicmodelsofcross-culturalresearch. Thefieldiscurrentlydynamicandexploratory,extendingtonewgenres,widening contextualresearchthroughhistoricalandethnographicinquiry,refiningmeth- odology,utilizingelectroniccorporaoftexts,goingbeyondlinguisticpatternsto thestudyofotherdistinctivedifferencesinwriting,andexploringcontrastseven beyondwriting,suchasthedifferencesinWebusebetweenspeakersofdifferent languages. Approaches highlighted in this volume Allofthesenewapproaches–genreanalysis,corpusanalysis,qualitativehistori- calandethnographicapproaches,andextensiontoareasbeyondwriting–are presentedinthechaptersinthisvolume.Thisbookshowcasesagreatnumber ofempiricalstudiesofcontrastiveandinterculturalrhetoricinvolvingmanyfirst languagesandwritinggenres.Thetwoothermajorgoalsofthevolumeare(1)to furtherdevelopthetheoreticalbaseofcontrastiverhetoricand(2)toevaluateits applicationsforthewritingclassroom.Theoverridinggoalofthisvolumeisto takecontrastiverhetorictothefuture,toreachtointerculturalrhetoric. Thecollectionisdividedintofoursections.SectionI–CurrentStateofCon- trastiveRhetoric–setsthetonefortheentirecollection.XiaomingLioffersan idealbeginningforthecollectionbytracingrecentattacksoncontrastiverhetoric withacriticaleye.Inarguingforpracticalandpedagogicalaspectsofcontras- tiverhetoric,especiallythoseexemplifiedprimarilybyitsdemonstrablelinguistic nature,shebelievesaturntocultural/criticalstudiesisneitheraviablealterna- tivenorthemostappropriatedirectionforthistypeofwork.Instead,tocoun- terideologicalattacks,shewantstoexpandthenotionofcontrastiverhetoric. “Intercultural”rhetoricshouldfocuson/buildonappliedlinguisticresearchand discourseanalysisthatpromotes“procedural”rhetoricascounterpointtono- tionsofdominantdiscourses.Andforthiscollection,thefirstkeypointisLi’s callforamovefromcontrastiverhetorictointerculturalrhetoric.AnaMoreno completesSectionIbyofferingasecondkeypointforthiscollection:theneed EBSCOhost - printed on 4/8/2022 1:34 PM via RIJKSUNIVERSITEIT GRONINGEN. All use subject to https://www.ebsco.com/terms-of-use Introduction 5 forcontinuedvalidandrigorousresearchincross-culturalstudies.Sheargues forthecontinueduseofcorporaandmakesthecasefortextsasexemplarsof situatedgenres.Aninterculturalrhetoricapproachhighlightstheverysituated- nessofagivengenre,andonlyrigorousstudiescandetermineifgenresaretruly comparableacrosscultures.Likewise,aninterculturalrhetoricapproachshould alsostatisticallycontrolforrelevantcontextualfeatures(especiallyforthosethat aresimilaracrosscultures)inordertomakereliableclaimsabouttheeffectof cultureontextualconstructions.Byestablishingthemovementfromcontrastive rhetorictointerculturalrhetoricandcallingforcontinuedrigorousresearchin cross-culturalstudies,SectionIestablishesapowerfulframeworkfortherestof thecollection. SectionII–ContrastiveCorpusStudiesinSpecificGenres–buildsonSec- tionIbyofferingarangeofissuesandarangeofgenresthatlegitimatelyfallun- derthepurviewofinterculturalrhetoricalstudies.AnnelieÄdel’sexaminationof metadiscourseinargumentativewritingleadsthissection.Herstudyusesthree differentcorporatoanalyzebothquantitativeandqualitativedifferencesbetween learnersandnativespeakersandbetweenBritishandAmericanspeakers.Ädel determinedfourfactors–genrecomparability,culturalconventions,register awareness,andgenerallearnerstrategies–andcallsforfuturestudiestoclarify thesefactorsaslegitimateandtoevaluatetheirrelativeimpactinothercross-cul- turalsituations.Moreimportantly,sheposesimportantquestionsforL2teaching thatarosefromherwork:Whataregoodmodels?Howdoconventionsinthe English-speakingworlddiffer?Whatarecross-culturaldifferencesinconventions formetadiscourse? HaiyingFengperformsagenreanalysisofrhetoricalmovesfromninesuc- cessfulChineseresearchgrantproposals.Thecontextualfactorsinclude“face,” networking,researchtraditions,sociopoliticalstructure,andeconomiccondi- tions,butshemakesastrongcasethatdifferencesshouldnotbeseenassimply cultural;instead,Fengarguesanextremelyimportantpoint:thatthesefactors maybeattributabletoalocalcontextspecifictoaparticulargenre.Cultureisboth awide-ranging–yetspecific–consideration. MariaLoukianenkoWolfeexaminesRussianandEnglishbusinesscorre- spondenceusingamethodologicalframeworkbasedonelementsfromHofst- ede’stheoryofculturaldimensions:power,distance,uncertaintyavoidance,and individualism/collectivism.Whileshetestedonlylimiteddata,shealsomakes astrongcaseforlocalconsiderationsandarguesthatstudentswhounderstand culturalmechanismsmaybeabletoanalyzerhetoricalchoicesinparticularinter- culturalwritingsituationsmoreeffectively. Chin-SookPakandRebecaAcevedousefivecorporatoexaminevarietiesof Spanishinnewspapereditorials.Theylookedatarangeofstylisticandrhetorical EBSCOhost - printed on 4/8/2022 1:34 PM via RIJKSUNIVERSITEIT GRONINGEN. All use subject to https://www.ebsco.com/terms-of-use 6 UllaConnor,EdNagelhout,WilliamRozycki featuresincomparinglocalnewspaperslikeElDiario(inNewYorkCity)andLa Opinión(inLosAngeles)withmajornewspaperssuchastheNewYorkTimes,El País(Madrid),andElUniversal(MexicoCity).Theydemonstrateregionaldif- ferencesinallfivepapersandcallforfutureresearchtodescribepluricentrality ofculturesandhowpersuasionisconstructedinspecificcontexts.Intercultural rhetoriciscertainlymorethancontrastingdominantdiscourses. LorenaSuárezandAnaMorenofocusontheacademicjournalbookreview aswritteninSpanishandinEnglish.Whiletheyonlyhaveasmallsample(20 each),theyofferabetterdefinition,aswellasarefinement,ofthegenreofthe academicbookreview,especiallyintermsofrhetoricalstructure.Theyargue,in particular,fortheinfluenceofspecificculturalpreferences,suchasevidencethat Spanishauthorsusedescriptivemovesandmoresympatheticevaluations.Suárez andMorenocallforagreaterexaminationofwritingculturesinordertoexplain possiblesourcesforthesetypesofdifferences.WeiWangexaminesnewspaper commentariesonterrorisminbothChinaandAustralia.Hisfindingsshowclear differencesinuseoffact(Chinese)andopinion(Australian);genericparticipants (Chinese)andspecificparticipants(Australian);andtheuseof“I”(Australian) andnoauthorialpresence(Chinese).Whilehemakessomebroadculturalclaims, therealstrengthofthisworkishiscallfortheuseofavarietyofanalyticalframe- workstoofferdifferentperspectivesandproduceamorethoroughpictureofpar- ticularrhetoricalsituations. SectionIII–ContrastiveRhetoricandtheTeachingofESL/EFLWriting–fo- cusesonthepedagogicalconcernstraditionallyassociatedwithcontrastiverheto- ric.Thissection,however,expandsthediscussionininterestingwaysbyusinga varietyofmethods.VirginiaLoCastrobeginsthesectionwithanethnographic studyofaMexicanstudent’suniversitywritinginbothL1(Spanish)andL2(Eng- lish).Whileshedoessometraditionalanalysisofpunctuationmarkers,thebeauty ofthisstudyisthewayLoCastroplacesthewritinginthelargereducationalen- vironment:classroom,textbook,teacher,universityculture,etc.Herpointisthat educationisnotanacontextualactivity,andsoourresearchneedstoaccount forthelargerEFLcontext,especiallywhenwestudystudentwriting.Inasimilar vein,KaraMcBrideexaminesEFLinternetusersinChile.Shealsocreatesanun- derstandingofthelargercontextualnatureofInternetresearchbystudents.Her useofbothcontrastiverhetoricandschematheoryhelpsMcBrideargueeffec- tivelyforteacherstodescribethevisualdesignofWebsitesmorecompletelyand todevelopmoreeffectivestrategiesforstudentstodevelopsuccessfulkeyword searches.Sheconcludeswithacallforresearcherstoexpandtraditionalnotions ofschematabuildingforreadingandwritinginordertoapplyittothewaysthat experiencedInternetusersbuildschemataforconductingresearchonline. EBSCOhost - printed on 4/8/2022 1:34 PM via RIJKSUNIVERSITEIT GRONINGEN. All use subject to https://www.ebsco.com/terms-of-use Introduction 7 XiaoyeYouoffersahistoricalexaminationofthemewritinginChineseedu- cation.Theimportanceofthemesisevidentinthemovementoftopicsovertime fromneo-Confuciantosocialistissues.Youfoundthatthemecarriesweightin scoringthatisequivalenttotextualorganization;moreimportantly,hefound thatsuccessfulacademicwritingmeantthatthemeisnecessarilyalignedwiththe dominantideologyand,infact,dictatesthelayoutofthetextualstructure.His researchshowsthetrajectoryofthemeovertimeandrevealsacomplexityand fluidityofrhetoricalpracticesinChina.Heconcludeswithacallformorehistori- calstudiesinordertocontributenewknowledgeinthisarea. JoelBlochexaminesplagiarismfrombothcross-culturalandhistoricalper- spectives.Hebeginswiththenotionthatinstancesofplagiarism,especiallyamong Asianstudents,aretheresultofculturaldifferencesengrainedinrhetoricaltradi- tionsdeemed“other.”Heshowsthisasanexampleofessentialisticthinking,then offersamorethoroughexaminationoftheissueinahistoricalcontext.Indoing so,Blochprovidesamodelforrethinkingthedichotomiesprevalentincriticisms leveledatcontrastiverhetoric.Morespecifically,headdressespedagogicalcon- cernsofteachersofcompositionbyoffering“investigative”strategiesthathelp studentsunderstandplagiarismmoreeffectively. Finally,SectionIV–FutureDirections–describesboththelimitsandpoten- tialforinterculturalrhetoricinthefuture.DwightAtkinsonandPaulMatsuda beginthefinalsectionofthecollectionwithaself-edited“conversation”about possiblefuturesforcontrastiverhetoric.Theycallforopen-endedconversations thatwilltakecontrastiverhetoricinpositivedirectionsinthefuture.Theyinitiate theirdiscussionbytracingthehistoryofcontrastiverhetoricthroughtheirown experiences,addressingboththeirintellectualandemotionalresponsestothe controversiessurroundingcontrastiverhetoricovertheyears.TheyanalyzeKa- plan’s1966articlefrommultipleangles:pedagogy,research,reception.Theylabel manyrecentcritiquesasa“strawman.”Whiletheydonotbelievethatcontrastive rhetoricisa“field”(noraretheycontentwithanamechangeto“intercultural rhetoric”),theyoffertwoprimarydirectionsforcontrastiverhetoricinthefuture: all-inclusiveorreintegration.Ineithercase,AtkinsonandMatsudabelievethat contrastiverhetoricisstuckinacycleofunderminingandattack.Theyconclude withatoolkitofideasforconstructivecritique,somethingneededifpeopleare goingtotakecontrastiverhetoricseriouslyandmoveforward. UllaConnorconcludesthecollectionwithahistoryofcontrastiverhetoric usingpostmodernmappingtechniques.Init,shetracesthreestrandsofthink- ingaboutcontrastiverhetoric:writing(textsandsocialpracticessurroundingit), smallcultures(especiallydisciplinarythinking),andwritingasinterculturalen- counter.Connortakestheall-inclusiveroutedescribedbyAtkinsonandMatsuda andexpandsthecontrastiverhetoricresearchagenda,beginningwitharethink- EBSCOhost - printed on 4/8/2022 1:34 PM via RIJKSUNIVERSITEIT GRONINGEN. All use subject to https://www.ebsco.com/terms-of-use 8 UllaConnor,EdNagelhout,WilliamRozycki ingofthetermitself.Shepresentsacritiqueoftheterm,contrastiverhetoric,and itscurrentviability.Shethenoffers“interculturalrhetoric”asanalternativeand arguesthatthisnewtermismoresensitivetocontextandconsidersinfluencesof boththeinterpersonalandtheintercultural. References Atkinson,D.(2000).OnRobertB.Kaplan’sresponsetoTerrySantosetal.’s“Onthefutureof secondlanguagewriting.”JournalofSecondLanguageWriting,9(3),317–320. Bazerman,C.,&Prior,P.(Eds.).(2004).Whatwritingdoesandhowitdoesit:Anintroductionto analyzingtextsandtextualpractices.Mahwah,NJ:LawrenceErlbaum. Canagarajah,A.S.(2002).Criticalacademicwritingandmultilingualstudents.AnnArbor:Uni- versityofMichiganPress. Connor,U.(2002).Newdirectionsincontrastiverhetoric.TESOLQuarterly,36(4),493–510. Connor,U.(2004).Interculturalrhetoricresearch:Beyondtexts.JournalofEnglishforAca- demicPurposes,(3)4,291–304. Connor,U.(2005).Commenton“Towardcriticalcontrastiverhetoric”byRyukoKubotaand AlLehner.JournalofSecondLanguageWriting,14(2),132–136. Hinds,J.(1983).Contrastiverhetoric:JapaneseandEnglish.Text,3,183–195. Kaplan,R.B.(1966).Culturalthoughtpatternsininterculturaleducation.LanguageLearning, 16(1),1–20. Kaplan,R.B.(2000).Contrastiverhetoricanddiscourseanalysis:Whowriteswhattowhom? When?Inwhatcircumstances?InS.Sarangi&M.Coulthard(Eds.),Discourseandsocial life(pp.82–101).Harlow,UK:PearsonEducationLimited. Kaplan,R.B.(2005).Contrastiverhetoric.InE.Hinkel(Ed.),Handbookofresearchinsecond languageteachingandlearning(pp.375–392).Mahwah,NJ:LawrenceErlbaumAssoci- ates. Kubota,R.(1999).Japanesecultureconstructedbydiscourses:Implicationsforappliedlinguis- ticsresearchandEnglishlanguageteaching.TESOLQuarterly,33,9–35. Kubota,R.(2001).DiscursiveconstructionoftheimagesofU.S.classrooms.TESOLQuarterly, 35,9–38. Kubota,R.,&Lehner,A.(2004).Towardcriticalcontrastiverhetoric.JournalofSecondLan- guageWriting,13,7–27. Scollon,R.(1997).Contrastiverhetoric,contrastivepoetics,orperhapssomethingelse?TESOL Quarterly,31,352–363. Spack,R.(1997).Therhetoricalconstructionofmultilingualstudents.TESOLQuarterly,31, 765–774. Zamel,V.(1997).Towardamodeloftransculturation.TESOLQuarterly,31,341–343. EBSCOhost - printed on 4/8/2022 1:34 PM via RIJKSUNIVERSITEIT GRONINGEN. All use subject to https://www.ebsco.com/terms-of-use sectioni Current state of contrastive rhetoric Copyright 2008. John Benjamins Publishing Co.All rights reserved. May not be reproduced in any form without permission from the publisher, except fair uses permitted under U.S. or applicable copyright law. EAABNcS:cC oO2u 2nP9tu7:b1 l2ri us;gh .iRmnoagzi yn:c. keeihB,oo soWtki lCloilalme cVt.i,o nN a(gEeBlShCoOuhto,s tE)d ,- Cporninnotre,d Uolnl a4./;8 /C2o0n2t2r a1s:t3i5v eP MR hveitao rRiIcJ K:S URNeIaVcEhRiSnIgT EtIoT IGnRtOeNrIcNuGlEtNural Rhetoric EBSCOhost - printed on 4/8/2022 1:35 PM via RIJKSUNIVERSITEIT GRONINGEN. All use subject to https://www.ebsco.com/terms-of-use
The list of books you might like
