In the present study, I am interested in differences in the use of epistemic rhetorical devices in the academic texts (RAs) written in English by Ghanaian (L2) and Ango- American (L1) researchers. Thus the overall focus of this study can be situated within the contrastive rhetoric tradition. A major concern of contrastive rhetoric (CR) has been to examine problems and difficulties of writing encountered by second language writers and to explain them relying on the rhetorical strategies of the first language (Connor, 1996). Although much work in CR has concentrated on the composition rhetorical practices of students at different levels across different languages and cultures, with Kaplan’s (1966) study being the pioneering work, it has been extended in its application to include non-native English-speaking professional writers in many different cultures (e.g., Mauranen, 1993). Comparisons of cross-cultural rhetorical practices between ESL and L1 English texts, as is the case in the present study, are a major concern of CR (Cahyono, 2001; Connor, 1996; Leki et al., 2008).
While such comparisons may take into account culture-specific rhetorical features in academic writing, thereby recognising differences across cultures, such differences
58
often do not help to advance the cause of academic discourse communities, where the specific academic or disciplinary cultures aim at convergence rather than divergence in the use of rhetorical features for academic communication. So for example, members of the international community of sociologists, whether they are native speakers of English, ESL or EFL speakers based anywhere in the world would typically be expected to deploy similar rhetorical styles of writing preferred by sociologists as a way of identifying with and showing awareness of community practices. Thus English as a lingua franca in academia is expected to be used to achieve common rhetorical goals in research and scholarship (Mauranen, 2010).
However, in discussing cross-cultural practices between native and non-native speakers of English, some studies have, instead, emphasised divergence and/or difference in academic rhetorical practices. These have focused on CR in the context of World Englishes (e.g., Kachru, 1995; Yajun and Zhou, 2006). Kachru (1995), for instance, has questioned the underlying assumptions of CR, drawing attention to ways these assumptions favour Anglo-American rhetorical styles and thought patterns (Inner Circle Englishes) over those of non-native speakers of English such as Indians and the Chinese (representing the Outer and Expanding Circles respectively).
One of these assumptions, she argues, is the view that “there is a norm of writing in Inner Circle English which is clearly identifiable” (Kachru, 1995: 22), and for which other users of English must learn to conform to in order not to violate the expectations of the native reader. According to Kachru, rather than insisting that non-native users of English write like those from the Inner Circle, CR practitioners need to redefine their focus and be more tolerant of the norms of writing and rhetorical styles used by non-native English- using population from Asia, Africa, and other parts of the world.
59
It makes sense to argue, as Kachru does, that because of the socio-cultural and linguistic diversity observed among groups of non-native users of English in the non- Western world, the Western world (native speakers of English) must be tolerant of the cultural differences in rhetorical styles and thought patterns across the many varieties of English around the world, especially as expressed through writing in higher education.
The tolerance argument of Kachru seems realistic, especially when argued for from the theoretical standpoint of World Englishes: a perspective that recognises the legitimate linguistic differences between regional varieties of English worldwide, with a particular emphasis on ‘New Englishes’ (Platt, Weber and Ho, 1984; Mesthrie and Bhatt, 2008). As Kachru (1997) explains, the term ‘Englishes’ is intended to characterise English- speaking communities globally by recognising the different forms and functions of the language in diverse geographical contexts. It is this framework that drives Kachru’s argument that there is the need to tolerate cultural differences in rhetorical styles of academic writing in English across the many varieties of English worldwide.
However, while World Englishes might be a useful framework for recognising and accepting socio-cultural linguistic differences between national varieties of the language in the context of ‘general English’ usage, it does not seem to capture the essence of English for scholarly communication and scientific writing. Academia is an international community characterised by social practices of disciplinary communities and perceived to be a global research network of scholars writing in English (Hyland, 2007). English for scholarly writing thus requires writers (native and non-native speakers alike, anywhere in the world) not just to be aware of the preferred rhetorical styles and conventions in specific disciplinary communities, but to learn to apply them in their scholarly writing in
60
order to be accepted as competent participants in the disciplinary community they consider themselves a part of.
The vital point, therefore, is that English as a lingua franca in academia stresses convergence and/or similarities (rather than the cultural differences that are stressed in World Englishes) in the use of the normative and conventional rhetorical features acknowledged in academic discourse communities. This point is confirmed by Mauranen (2010: 9) who observes that English as an academic lingua franca is “not used or learned for the purpose of linguistic and cultural identification with a community that uses it as a national language.”