This article discusses challenges involved in contrastive discourse analysis that emerged while carrying out a follow-up study into a Content and Language Integrated Learning (CLIL) program in Spain. Reversing the focus on English of much contrastive rhetoric work, the study investigates the effect of second-language-English on first-language-Spanish writing. The motivation for this focus and the choice of tools from Systemic Functional Linguistics (SFL) for genre and clause analysis are discussed. Reflecting on the difficulties involved in contrastive discourse analysis, in particular the challenges of comparing texts, it is suggested that contrastive work benefits from a more differentiating analytical method and a more dynamic conception of language. The implications of an influence from English are also considered, with the theses of hybridity and of homogeneity contributing to indicate a role for language awareness work in schools.
Alcón SolerE. (2007). Linguistic unity and cultural diversity in Europe: Implications for research on English language and learning. In Alcón SolerE.Safont JordàM.P. (Eds.), Intercultural language use and language learning (pp. 23-39). New York, NY: Springer.
2.
Arcay HandsE.CosséL. (2004). Academic biliteracy and the mother tongue. In ModerC. L.Martinovic-ZicA. (Eds.), Discourse across languages and cultures (pp. 285-299). Philadelphia: John Benjamins.
3.
Beeby LonsdaleA. (1996). Teaching translation from Spanish to English: Worlds beyond words. Ottawa, Ontario, Canada: University of Ottawa.
4.
BernárdezE. (2008). El lenguaje como cultura: Una crítica del discurso sobre el lenguaje. [Language as culture: A critique of the discourse on language]. Madrid, Spain: Alianza.
5.
CameronD. (1999). Linguistic relativity: Benjamin Lee Whorf and the return of the repressed. Critical Quarterly, 41(2), 153-156.
6.
CanagarajahS. (2002a). “Reconstructing local knowledge.”Journal of Language, Identity, and Education, 1(4), 243-259.
7.
CanagarajahS. (2002b). Multilingual writers and the academic community: Towards a critical relationship. Journal of English for Academic Purposes, 1, 29-44.
8.
ConnorU. (1996). Contrastive rhetoric: Cross-cultural aspects of second language writing. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
9.
ConnorU. (2004). Intercultural rhetoric research: Beyond texts. Journal of English for Academic Purposes, 3, 291-304.
10.
ConnorU. (2008). Mapping multidimensional aspects of research: Reaching to intercultural rhetoric. In ConnorU.NagelhoutE.RozyckiW. (Eds.), Contrastive rhetoric: Reaching to intercultural rhetoric (pp. 299-315). Philadelphia: John Benjamins.
11.
ConnorU.NagelhoutE.RozyckiW. (Eds.). (2008). Contrastive rhetoric: Reaching to intercultural rhetoric. Philadelphia: John Benjamins.
12.
CoyleD.HoodP.MarshD. (2010). CLIL: Content and language integrated learning. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press.
13.
DendrinosB. (2002). The marketisation of English as a global(ising) language: Discourses and counter discourses. In KalantzisM.Varnava-SkouraG.CopeB. (Eds.), Learning for the future: New worlds, new literacies, new learning, new people (pp. 241-255). Altona, Melbourne, Victoria, Australia: Common Ground.
14.
GeneseeF. (2004). What do we know about bilingual education for majority-language students? In BhatiaT.RitchieW. (Eds.), The handbook of bilingualism (pp. 547-576). Oxford, UK: Blackwell.
15.
GumperzJ.LevinsonS. (Eds.). (1996). Rethinking linguistic relativity. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press.
16.
HallidayM. A. K. (1978). Language as social semiotic: The social interpretation of language and meaning. London: Edward Arnold.
17.
HallidayM. A. K.MatthiessenC. M. I. M. (2004). An introduction to functional grammar. London: Arnold.
18.
HatimB.MasonI. (1990). Discourse and the translator. New York: Longman.
19.
HuntK. (1965). A synopsis of clause-to-sentence length factors. The English Journal, 54(4), 300-309.
20.
JarvisS.PavlenkoA. (2007). Crosslinguistic influence in language and cognition. New York: Routledge.
21.
KachruY. (1995). Cultural meaning and rhetorical styles: Toward a framework for contrastive rhetoric. In CookG.SeidlhoferB. (Eds.), Principle and practice: Studies in honour of H. G. Widdowson (pp. 171-184). Oxford, UK: Oxford University Press.
22.
KramschC. (1998). Language and culture. Oxford, UK: Oxford University Press.
23.
KubotaR. (1997). A reevaluation of the uniqueness of Japanese written discourse: Implications for contrastive rhetoric. Written Communication, 14(4), 460-480.
24.
LavidJ.ArúsJ.Zamorano-MansillaJ. R. (2010). Systemic functional grammar of Spanish: A contrastive study with English. London: Continuum.
25.
LekiI. (1991). Twenty-five years of contrastive rhetoric: Text analysis and writing pedagogies. TESOL Quarterly, 25(1), 123-143.
26.
LiX. (2008). From contrastive rhetoric to intercultural rhetoric: A search for collective identity. In ConnorU.NagelhoutE.RozyckiW. (Eds.), Contrastive rhetoric: Reaching to intercultural rhetoric (pp. 11-24). Philadelphia: John Benjamins.
Maxwell-ReidC. (2010). Content and language integrated learning (CLIL): The influence of studying through English on Spanish students’ first language written discourse. Text & Talk, 30(6), 679-699.
29.
McCabeA. (2004). Thematic progression patterns and text types in history textbooks. In BanksD. (Ed.), Text and texture: Systemic functional viewpoints on the nature and structure of text (pp. 215-237). Paris: L’Harmattan.
30.
Mur DueñasP. (2007). Same genre, same discipline; however, there are differences: A cross-cultural analysis of logical markers in academic writing. ESP Across Cultures, 4, 37-53.
31.
NeffJ.DafouzE.DíezM.PrietoR.ChaudronC. (2004). Contrastive discourse analysis: Argumentative text in English and Spanish. In ModerC. L.Martinovic-ZicA. (Eds.), Discourse across languages and cultures (pp. 267-283). Philadelphia: John Benjamins.
32.
NewmanM.Trenchs-PareraM.PujolM. (2003). Core academic literacy principles versus culture-specific practices: A multi-case study of academic achievement. English for Specific Purposes, 22(1), 45-71.
33.
PennycookA. (2007). Global Englishes and transcultural flows. New York: Routledge.
34.
PhillipsonR. (2003). English-only Europe? Challenging language policy. New York: Routledge.
35.
ReppenR.GrabeW. (1993). Spanish transfer effects in the writing of elementary school students. Lenguas Modernas, 20, 113-128.
36.
RisagerK. (2006). Language and culture: Global flows and local complexity. Clevedon, UK: Multilingual Matters.
37.
St. JohnM. J. (1987). Writing processes of Spanish scientists publishing in English. English for Specific Purposes, 6, 113-120.
38.
Sánchez EscobarÁ (1996). La retórica contrastiva del párrafo inglés y español y sus repercusiones en la enseñanza del inglés escrito. [The contrastive rhetoric of English and Spanish paragraphs and its impact on the teaching of written English]. In Martínez VázquezM. (Ed.), Gramática contrastiva inglés-español [Contrastive English-Spanish grammar] (pp. 327-350). Huelva, Spain: Universidad de Huelva.
39.
SchleppegrellM.ColombiM. C. (1997). Text organization by bilingual writers: Clause structure as a reflection of discourse structure. Written Communication, 14(4), 481-503.
40.
SiguanM. (2005). The future of languages in a globalized world. In Rodríguez-YáñezX. P.Lorenzo SuárezA. M.RamalloF. (Eds.), Bilingualism and education: From the family to the school (pp. 51-61). Munich, Germany: Lincom Europa.
41.
SinghP.DohertyC. (2004). Global cultural flows and pedagogic dilemmas: Teaching in the global university contact zone. TESOL Quarterly, 38(1), 9-42.
42.
WhorfB. L. (1956). Language, thought and reality: Selected writings of Benjamin Lee Whorf (ed. John Carroll). Cambridge: MIT Press.
