Introduction

Nowadays, when an immense amount of knowledge and information is publicly available through various international media, when borders are demolished in terms of employment, communication or tourism, and when Hungary is aspiring to become a full member of the EU, it seems that knowing foreign languages (one of which is English) is a vital condition for `international existence'. It is seen as a passport into a global cultural community and as a way to access our share of its benefits. However, no language, be it a world language such as English, is just a `tool' which works equally effectively in anybody's hands. However politically correct it seems to speak of `world Englishes', the English language cannot be fully `de-culturised': while facilitating global communication as a shared linguistic medium, it also functions as a way to channel British and American cultural and interactional expectations into international communication, research and language pedagogy. This necessarily entails that for speakers of English as a foreign or second language, it is perhaps more difficult to become equal members of this global cultural community or access its benefits. Measured by native speaker standards, they will always be less proficient and less efficient users of the dominant code, unless they find a different status for themselves. 

The aim of this article is twofold. First, I shall demonstrate how the idea of ESL (English as a Second Language) and EFL (English as a Foreign Language) learners'/speakers' unequal status is reinforced in the discourse used to report the findings of Anglo-American comparative language studies and in related pedagogical approaches. Secondly, an alternative ideology will be suggested and illustrated which promotes a tolerance for multicultural standards in international communication, a non-judgemental tone in academic discourse and the pedagogical objective of the competent mediator in our foreign language teaching environment.

Ideology of inequality: the roots of ethnocentric bias

In any area of investigation where comparisons are made, judgements are involved as for the basis of comparison and the evaluation of digression from these standards. Language teaching and comparative language research are problematic from the point of view of quality judgements. While revealing and correcting language errors are justified practices to promote linguistic development, critiquing rhetorical patterns, identifying and aiming to alter `errors' in the thought patterns of ESL or EFL students reflecting an L1 socio-cultural and intellectual background concerns deeper-lying values that may fall outside the scope of language pedagogy. The expression of thoughts belongs to the realm of personal creativity (as opposed to the more objectively describable area of linguistic proficiency), where the discussion of differences can easily slip into the criticism or degradation of personal intellectual ability or cultural tradition. This is what happens when, comparing second or foreign language learners' writing to the norms of the target language, researchers often describe the idiosyncratic features of ESL/EFL writing as `digressions' and `deviations' from a standard, a discourse which lays the foundations of ethnocentric bias. 

Ethocentrism and socio-pragmatic expectations

According to Connor (1995), "Ethnocentrism results from assuming that the world view of one's own culture is central to all reality. It results in denigration of others' languages and cultures" (p.22). As Thomas (1983) points out, in the realm of socio-pragmatic behaviour, this kind of first language (L1) bias on the part of researchers and teachers is natural, as it concerns inbuilt, often unconscious patterns of thought and action that are part of one's personality rather than linguistic competence: 
 

Grammatical errors may be irritating and impede communication, but at least, as a rule, they are apparent in the surface structure. [...] Pragmatic failure, on the other hand, is rarely recognised as such by non-linguists. If a non-native speaker appears to speak fluently (i.e. is grammatically competent), a native speaker is likely to attribute his/her apparent impoliteness or unfriendliness, not to any linguistic deficiency, but to boorishness or ill-will. While grammatical error may reveal a speaker to be a less proficient languag- user, pragmatic failure reflects badly on him/her as a person. (pp. 96-97). 

Often, however, ethnocentric bias reflects the belief in one of two influential theoretical orientations, universalism and linguistic relativity, both of which aim to define the origin of languages, thought and logic, and the relation between language and culture.

Universalism and linguistic relativity

Universalism rests on the belief that the human mind is in some way preconditioned for language learning, commanding a universal language learning capacity. This capacity includes certain inductive, systematising and abstraction skills, which are activated by environmental exposure and enable humans to acquire any language. The common source of ethnocentric bias stemming from universalism is creating linguistic theories on the basis of a single linguistic code and overgeneralising them as relevant for all human linguistic behaviour without seeking evidence to prove it. For instance, Wierzbicka, (1985) and Clyne (1996) point out that the Gricean maxims 2clearly reflect an English language-based bias, and the rules described in them may not automatically apply in other cultural contexts. Houghton & Hoey (1982) and Kaplan (1987) mention van Dijk's and de Beaugrande's models of text comprehension and structure as problematic examples of `universal' language models. Comparing linguistic behaviour from this standpoint inevitably leads to ethnocentric discourse declaring anything that does not match these standards `deviant', `problematic' or `exotic' (Kubota, 1999). 

Although a significant bulk of contrastive language research sought to find, or unexpectedly raised evidence for the universal tendencies of linguistic and rhetorical development and functioning, it is the theoretical background of linguistic relativity that has fuelled comparative research in general. Most studies aim to explore the differences between the linguistic behaviours of different cultures or remedy the problems that emerge in cross-cultural communication and ESL or EFL. The idea of linguistic relativity was proposed by Sapir and Whorf (Whorf, 1956). Although the strong version of their Linguistic Relativity Hypothesis, that language controls thought and perception has been seriously questioned (e.g. Connor, 1996), the weak version, that language influences thought, has remained immensely influential in contrastive studies. Language is a tool to conceptualise reality and different cultures may have different linguistic preferences to express thoughts. Inspired by the Whorfian ideas, Robert Kaplan (1966; 1987; 1997) extended the concept of relativism to logic and rhetoric as well, claiming that "the logic expressed through the organisation of written text is culture-specific" (p. 18). His famous `doodles article' (1966) proposes the strong version of his `Cultural Relativism' hypothesis claiming on the basis of Spitzer that "every language offers to its speakers a ready-made interpretation of the world" (p. 18), which determines the acceptable patterns of describing this reality. It follows from this that the rhetoric that the members of different cultures use will conform to these patterns and values that underlie them, thus rhetoric "varies from culture to culture and even from time to time within a given culture" (p. 3). Kaplan has a distinct pedagogical orientation as well: he believes that "if students could see differences between the way they organized text in their L1 and the way `typical' English texts were organised, they could more closely approximate the text logic - the propositional relationship - characteristic of English" (Kaplan, 1997, p. 19). 

Manifestation of ethnocentrism in academic discourse

Despite the seemingly attractive pedagogical aims and the initiation of a new research field called "contrastive rhetoric", Kaplan's 1966 article has been subject to severe criticism ever since. First, it is overtly ethnocentric privileging the writing of native English speakers. While he makes an attempt to eliminate this bias saying "[English rhetoric] is not a better nor a worse system than any other, but it is different" (p. 3), throughout the article the English conventions are held up as the standards and the other styles are compared to it in a rather critical fashion ("The patterns of paragraphs in other languages are not so well established, or perhaps only not so well known to speakers of English" (p. 16)). Raimes (quoted in Connor, 1996) put forward the criticism that an excessive focus on target language standards led Kaplan to regard the L1 (first language) influence as unquestionably negative, which resulted in the ignorance of learners' L1 linguistic and literacy experiences, and often even in the intellectual denigration of ESL learners. 

Although Kaplan himself admitted that this early prescriptive stance was inadequate, he introduced the notion of cultural determinism into American second language pedagogy as well. At the same time, he inspired a line of relativistically-oriented research in which ethnocentric bias stems from proclaiming the linguistic or social traditions, patterns of one language superior to those of others. Kubota (1999) calls this kind of academic orientation Colonial discourse. It is based on the construction of the exotic `Other', emphasising the uniqueness element in it or overtly denigrating it as, for instance, Hazen (1986) does when asking a rather rhetorical question "whether the Japanese are capable of using logical arguments to the degree that other people are" (p.232). For this reason, the superiority and importance of acquiring the dominant code is pointed out as in Flowerdew's discussion of the recent academic situation in Hong Kong (1999): "In this era of globalization, to publish in a language other than English is to cut oneself off from the international community of scholars on the one hand, and to prejudice one's chances of professional advancement, on the other" (p. 124). Sometimes, the dominant linguistic code appears as the carrier of intellectually liberating potential: "They felt freer when writing in English [...] Writing in English provided these students a relief from limitations ..." (Kuhlman, 1992, p. 139). The critical point about such ethnocentric discourse is that even if the research findings could have potential pedagogical implications, this judgmental, ideology-laden style makes many possible `consumers' question the relevance of such results. 

Ethnocentric bias in language pedagogy

Ethnocentric academic discourse promotes what Kubota (1999) calls the Acculturation Model. Still prevalent in US academic environments, this pedagogical approach targets the explicit teaching of the dominant code to ESL students to overcome cultural differences and enable students to survive in their new surroundings. While, in my view, this purpose can be partly justified in Second Language (SL) environments, it is often undesirably coloured by the superiority of this dominant code. A good example of this is Connor's (1986) cross-cultural study of student argumentation, in which she suggests that ESL students should be specifically taught one particular way of problem-introduction (i.e. by narrative) because it was found effective in one single (!) American native -speaker student writing, in spite of the fact that the ESL writings were found as effective on all measures in their own way as the native English writings. This approach implies that the native language and culture of ESL students is problematic, limiting or less valuable, and they are often characterised as coming from a culturally deprived background. Thisbelief is promoted by Silva's (1993) summary of the distinctive features of ESL writing, which paints a completely discouraging picture of it as ESL writing merely `lacks' and `deviates' in all possible areas. Naturally, the pedagogical implication is the explicit inculcation of target language standards and the elimination of the cultural difference. Based on the idea of cultural determinism, this approach promotes the idea that cultures have completely different social and linguistic practices, so the SL/FL student can have no relevant knowledge whatsoever to build on in learning L2, this is why the practices of the new code have to be taught explicitly from scratch. A proponent of democratic pedagogical models, Freire (1993, quoted in Kubota, 1999) calls this "banking pedagogy" and warns that this approach often involves the intellectual denigration of students by ignoring their existing background literacy, and by aiming essentially for mere survival skills, instead of mastery competence. This in turn may lead to the strengthening of the subordinated position of SL/FL speakers/students. This `survival approach' is illustrated well in Atkinson & Ramanathan's (1995) comparison of how two US university composition programmes take into account ESL writers' needs. The programme criticised by them practised an inductive approach to academic writing both with native-speakers and ESL students, not teaching form explicitly, but hoping that the right form will naturally evolve with content. According to Atkinson & Ramanathan, this approach disadvantages ESL students as they may not be familiar with the culturally preferred forms that should evolve (they do not address the question, though, if native speakers can in fact better access the rhetorical forms if they have not been explicitly taught). Consequently, they praised the other programme in the comparison, which preferred a deductive teaching of survival writing skills to ESL students, even if they themselves admit that this may be limiting. 

As the discussion above demonstrates, ethnocentrism can be a sore issue in contrastive language research and language pedagogy, whether it follows a universalistic or relativistic orientation. A universalistic standpoint offers the possibility to overgeneralise the patterns of one language/culture, whereas a relativistic approach may easily lead to regarding the rhetorical norms of one language/culture as superior to others. While there are language learners in all contexts whose needs are met by a strong non-comparative target language focus (and their numbers are increasing with, for instance, Hungary joining the EU, which means that people have better chances to find a job abroad), many fear that such practices carry the danger of creating linguistic, cultural and scientific imperialism (Kontra, 1997), as well as intellectual imperialism (Ramanathan & Kaplan, 1996), where language becomes a means for cultural domination.

Solutions

There has been growing concern for some time to counteract the ethnocentric influence in academic discourse and language pedagogy, not only in EFL but in ESL contexts too. In her recent article, Kubota (1999) warns that relying on research results and implications, certain pedagogical models "uncritically exploit the notion of cultural differences" (p. 25). Her main point of attack is cultural determinism, which, based on a relativistic theoretical background and supported by contrastive research evidence as well, promotes the idea that "there is a systematic, culturally determined way in which all members in a certain culture think, behave, and act" (p. 14). This view also suggests a "monolithic, static, and exoticized image of culture as well as promotes deterministic thinking that regards students as rigidly bound by cultural traditions" (p. 14). Kubota clearly indicates that unequal power relations can only be eliminated through critical discourse and awareness raising in education. While her point against cultural determinism is crucial in all language teaching contexts, the strong social criticism she proposes is not appropriate for all learners, and rendering the classroom an arena of social fight may be as antidemocratic as the other ideologies she condemns. Thus I will first introduce the pedagogical models that aim to act against ethnocentrism in North American ESL contexts described by Kubota, then discuss the research trends and ideologies that underlie these models. This will be followed by a note on the relevance of context (second language vs. foreign language environment), and concluded with a different type of pedagogical solution and suitable academic discourse relevant in foreign language contexts. 

Democratic discourse and language pedagogy

One way to free SL students from the role of the passive and uncritical receiver which, according to Kubota (1999), is promoted by the Acculturation Model and banking pedagogy is to recognise the fact that they are not `empty vessels' when they enter language education: their L1 background and literacy are important assets that have already helped the student develop a voice in L1, and which can be relied on in the process of acquiring a new, target language (TL) literacy. This literacy experience may include, for instance, a variety of rhetorical forms as well. As Kaplan (1987) points out in the revision of his 1966 article, there are a variety of discourse forms in every language, although there are preferred ways of composing rhetoric in different cultures (as, for example, linear deductive or inductive argumentation in English). However, this does not mean that only that preferred form is used by everyone on every occasion as illustrated by Hatim (1997), who proves that there are at least three well identifiable rhetorical patterns both in English and Arabic. What is different in the two languages is the order of text-type preferences. While in English the most common type, the Balance Counter-argument (argument based on the rebuttal of an opposite viewpoint, where the contrastive shift between the claim and the counter-claim is signalled either explicitly or implicitly), is followed by the Through-argument (a viewpoint is argued through without reference to a different opinion) and the Explicit Concessive Argument (a type of Counter-argument where the counter claim is signalled by an explicit concessive), in Arabic this preference order is Through-argumentation, Explicit Concessive, Balance Argument. (p. 44). This recognition puts into a different light Atkinson & Ramanathan's (1995) above outlined concerns (strongly implying the `empty vessel' concept) that, in contrast with native speaker students, ESL students are incapable of developing suitable rhetorical forms matching academic content without explicit instruction. 

If we admit that there is not only one acceptable form in the TL and recognise that ESL students also have a variety of culturally ingrained rhetorical schemata in their mental store, it can be reasonably expected that they can utilise their existing resources and come up with rhetorical forms that at least resemble TL patterns. The pedagogical model that promotes these principles according to Kubota (1999) is the Pluralist Model, which "respects cultural differences and promotes rhetorical pluralism in mainstream English-speaking discourse communities by allowing students to express their voices in their own cultural mode of expression" (p. 26). The need for such pedagogical practices is raised by Ramanathan & Kaplan (1996), who criticise US first language composition texts for being too ethnocentric and encourage a discipline-specific approach to academic writing both for native-speaker and ESL students; also by Ramanathan & Atkinson (1999), who criticise the strong individualistic orientation in US composition instruction pointing out that individualism is culturally rooted and students from other cultures cannot and should not be expected to share the specifically American ideology that underlies it. Although such pedagogy legitimises ESL students' first language rhetorical practices, according to Kubota it does not sufficiently empower them as it "does not critically explore the issues of the construction of certain social representations, nor does it examine how power comes into play in the distinction between dominant and subordinate forms of rhetorical conventions" (p. 27). 

This `non-committal' pedagogical approach is supported by what could be called a democratic or non-critical academic discourse. Research that represents this ideology comprises descriptive studies which do not regard either language in the comparison as the standard, but do not explore the socio-cultural and intellectual background of observed rhetorical or linguistic phenomena either. Two examples are Kachru's (1982) comparative study of English and Hindi and Hinds' (1990) research on deductive, inductive and quasi-inductive rhetorical styles in English, Japanese, Korean, Chinese and Thai. 

Critical orientation

In Kubota's (1999) view, value-free discourse and pedagogy do not sufficiently cater for ESL students' needs: being allowed to rely on their native rhetorical practices does not fully change their subordinated position in target intellectual culture or international publishing. She is convinced that ESL pedagogy should aim at empowering students for the reconstruction of unequal power relations between speakers of different languages, a purpose that is best served by a pedagogical model she calls Critical Multiculturalism. It promotes a critical understanding of the roots of difference, and how it is "produced, legitimated and eliminated within unequal relations of power" (p. 27). Students and teachers should go beyond affirming and respecting cultural differences, and working "toward transforming the status quo [of English]" (p. 28). While it is important for ESL students to acquire the dominant code in the second or foreign language (L2) environment, it seems that besides the educational purposes it is equally important to use L2 to "advocate cultural and linguistic equality in the wider society" (p. 29).

The voice for this social "fight for the transformation of an unjust and cruel society" (Freire, 1993, as cited in Kubota, 1999. p. 28) can be borrowed from what I call Reconstructivist Academic Discourse. The underlying aim of this rather radical rhetoric is to bring about change in the current state of education and international communication and break the hegemony of the Anglo-American rhetorical tradition in global communication. Writers in this ideology are convinced that the currently observable move toward global communication and the breaking down of linguistic and political barriers is not a logical next step in the development of a modern world, but a way of new colonisation. Thus they explicitly explore issues of power and inequality, and criticise colonial discourse promoting linguistic, cultural and intellectual imperialism. Kubota's (1999) article that served as the basis for the present discussion of pedagogical models is a clear example of this trend, together with Kontra's (1997) article, which discusses the uncritical acceptance of Anglo-American influences in a different linguistic environment, Hungary. He claims that this Hungarian attitude to English language(s) and culture(s) reflects one of two dominant language policy paradigms prevalent today, the "diffusion- of-English" paradigm. On the basis of Tsuda (1994, as cited in Kontra, 1997, p. 86), the features that characterise this paradigm are capitalism, science and technology, modernisation, monolingualism, globalisation, Americanisation and homogenisation of global culture, as well as linguistic, cultural and media imperialism. This language political paradigm has grave implications for language teaching too, promoting such language teaching preferences as the avoidance of mother tongue in ELT, the superiority of the native teacher, or the necessity for an early start in language learning. These pedagogical principles clearly serve marketing interests by promoting a monolingual and monocultural approach to ESL and EFL teaching, consequently 1) ignore the native language background of learners, 2) denigrate the role of competent bilingual language teachers, 3) conceptualise ESL competence in an unrealistic way by holding up the vague ideal of native speaker competence including `perfect pronunciation' and rhetorical behaviour as targets but neglecting the more realistic functions of ESL/EFL speakers, e.g. mediation across cultures. 

To counteract the influence of the "diffusion-of-English" paradigm, Kontra (1997), in agreement with Tsuda (1994), proposes the "ecology-of- language" paradigm in international communication and language pedagogy, which is based on the general principles of promoting human and civil rights, equality in communication, multilingualism, preserving languages and cultures, protecting national autonomy, and supporting foreign language teaching (Kontra, 1997, pp. 85-86). In harmony with this, Kontra suggests that English teacher education programmes should foreground teaching intercultural communication and discussing language policy issues, as well as examining the role of teachers of English in promoting the "ecology-of-language" or "diffusion-of-English" paradigm.

The significance of context

An important conclusion that can be drawn from the above discussion of reconstructivist discourse is that Kubota (1999) and Kontra (1997) represent two different language learning environments: while Kubota is concerned with the interests of foreign students studying in a US second language environment (where students have constant exposure to the target language and learning the dominant code is practically the key to their survival, even if temporarily), Kontra (1997) discusses the language policy issues relevant in a foreign language context (where learning a particular foreign language is a choice and there is no day-to-day contact with the target language and culture). My reservations about the relevance of pedagogical models described by Kubota stem from the consideration of such contexts: the general language learning context, SL or FL, plus the particular language learning context that the individual language learner enters. I feel that issues of ideology here somewhat overshadow the most important factor in language learning - the students' needs. Seen from this perspective, an acculturation model can be a completely acceptable pedagogical approach in an SL environment if it meets with the students' aims, that is their long term goal is to stay in the TL culture and become its full right member. On the other hand, however empowering it may seem for students to approach SL or FL learning from a social/critical/human rights angle, I believe that 1) not every student is willing to see the language learning classroom as an arena of social fight, and for many, power issues are not relevant from the point of view of their language learning; 2) not every student is willing or able to exercise such conscious socio-political awareness and critical thinking, and I am not sure if it is within the scope of ELT in any context to encourage or teach language students to do so. In certain situations pedagogical models aggressively promoting `critical thinking' are as antidemocratic and authoritarian as anything else. 

A solution for EFL contexts

In view of the above considerations, my proposal of an ideal pedagogical model and related academic discourse is based on the recognition that the pedagogical models and research implications rooted in an ESL environment are often irrelevant for an EFL context because:
 

1) unlike ESL contexts, in our Hungarian EFL environment students are not dominantly characterised by integrative orientation; they are more inspired by instrumental motives and by a general need for achievement (Dörnyei, 1991);

2) in Hungarian EFL, English does not appear as a dominant code of communication, so issues of dominance or subordination are not so immediately apparent to learners ; thus "fighting for the transformation of an unjust and cruel society" (Freire, 1993 as cited in Kubota, 1999, p. 28) is not a justifiable language-related objective;

3) in our environment, EFL learners are equally likely to communicate with native speakers and non-native speakers, thus instead of native speaker norms as the ultimate goal, different standards and competencies can be relevant in non-native/non-native communication (Clyne, 1996).

In view of the above outlined reservations, the pedagogical model that could function profitably in an EFL context could best be denoted as Pragmatic Multiculturalism. It is based on the principle of multiculturalism as it should promote the idea that no culture or language variety is superior to the others, and that learning another linguistic code should not mean giving up one's own cultural and linguistic heritage. On the other hand, it should encourage exploring and understanding the cultural-intellectual roots of sociolinguistic practices in the first language and the target language, so that learners should develop an awareness and appreciation of differences. This awareness could help them fulfil pragmatic functions such as using the different codes consciously matching them to context and audience to effectively partake of international communication with native speakers and other non-native speakers. A strong focus on mediation and intercultural communication skills can promote the idea that the ultimate goal of language learners is not to become `mini' (i.e. less proficient, less competent, less effective, etc.) native speakers (unless they are driven by integrative motives), but to act as competent mediators between cultures having the unique advantage of the comparison. According to Clyne (1996), "successful inter-cultural communicators are aware of their own and their interlocutor's expectations, express themselves as `culturally neutral' as possible, keep control of the communication, and keep their own face without threatening that of the other interlocutor(s)" (p. 204). I think this definition aptly summarises the essence of intercultural competence, although I do not accept the idea of cultural neutrality. There is no reason for speakers to hide their cultural belonging, but it is important to learn to tolerate and appreciate differences and avoid a judgmental or superior attitude. In sum, the Pragmatic Multiculturalism approach foregrounds awareness and acceptance of cultural and linguistic differences without a social-critical line, as well as a view of foreign language(s) as an instrument of communication rather than a way of acculturation, respecting the students' aims as well.

The academic discourse which promotes such pedagogical practice is non-judgemental, descriptively or pragmatically oriented, emphasising informative or pragmatic purposes. It means finding rhetoric that is not based on the critical evaluation of languages and cultures, but which appreciates differences. As a sign of an increasing awareness that contrastive rhetoric research should not be a tool to promote the dominance of any language and culture, there are many examples of such non-judgemental discourse in current contrastive language research. 

An important feature of such projects is that they aim to raise awareness to different cultural styles and intellectual traditions connected to languages which are less often used in international communication, and they focus on descriptive and pragmatic functions. In their comparison of Czech and English and Polish and English academic writing respectively, Cmerjková (1996) and Duszak (1994) describe the differing intellectual traditions and cultural expectations that gain representation in various rhetorical forms, and emphasise the fact that intended native readers in all cultures have the capacity to read between the lines and infer the writer's intentions. Connor & Mayberry's study (1996) of a Finnish PhD student's initiation into US discipline-specific academic standards draws attention to the fact that what may be perceived as academic incompetence in one context (e.g. the lack of the explicit documentation of all sources, or of specifically defining all terms and concepts in US academic context) can be a sign/consequence of conscious, well-versed literacy in another context (e.g. the same features are a sign of a reader-responsible formal style in Finnish).

Another favourable tendency in non-ethnocentric discourse is to offer conclusions to all parties in the comparison. A remarkable example of this trend is Precht's (1998) comparison of letters of recommendation across cultures: to raise awareness on all sides, her conclusion includes recommendations about US expectations to foreign speakers/writers as well as recommendations about observed European styles to American English speakers. 

Finally, the validity and credibility of comparative studies could be greatly enhanced by involving co-investigators with the language backgrounds involved in the comparison. Clyne's (1996) complex research into the rhetorical styles of various ethnic groups in multicultural workplaces in Australia is a representative example of such co-operative inquiry. The conclusion of this study is that the Gricean maxims should be extended and reinterpreted as they are not relevant to all cultures, and in international environments intercultural communication skills should be promoted. This kind of intercultural competence should include an awareness of cultural backgrounds and the resulting expectations, and willingness to partake of communicative situations as equal partners. Clyne also argues for the increasing importance of biculturalism and of the passive command of as many cultural styles as possible in multicultural environments and international settings.

Table 1 on the opposite page summarises the pedagogical models and academic discourse types outlined in this paper. It is important to see that the articles mentioned represent one particular viewpoint or methodological approach at a certain point of the authors' career and most of these authors could be placed in several different boxes (e.g. Connor's rich research activity and academic work covers almost all areas mentioned). The aim of this article, however, was not to analyse the complete life work of the authors quoted, but to outline certain approaches to research and pedagogy, and illustrate these with typical examples. The source article (Kubota, 1999) that acted as the starting point for this paper is rather judgmental and reconstructivist, and I do not fully identify with that approach. My central claim is that pedagogical models and academic discourse cannot be judged out of context: it is whether they fit their users' needs and the environment that decides their utility.

Conclusion

Undoubtedly, globalisation offers a host of advantages in the form of the widespread accessibility of employment possibilities, intellectual and cultural products, and a working knowledge of English can pave the way for accessing these global benefits. At the same time, it should not mean that anyone whose mother tongue is not English should feel or be regarded disadvantaged on account of his or her English proficiency. A more equal position for the non-British/American members of the international community can be achieved by promoting the ideal of competent cultural mediators instead of the rather discouraging aim of a `quasi-native speaker' in language pedagogy, and by finding a voice in academic literature that conveys a tolerance and appreciation of different linguistic practices. For this reason, it is important to be on constant guard against ethnocentrism in research and pedagogy, as no matter how valuable research results of academic literature are, they can easily become 

Table 1. Summary of academic discourse types and related pedagogical models

discredited if presented in a judgmental style. I suggest that academic discourse that serves this purpose focuses on non-judgemental, functional descriptions of linguistic practices, involves co-investigators of different linguistic backgrounds, and serves the purposes of awareness-raising by addressing conclusions to all parties involved in cross-cultural investigations. A corresponding pedagogical model is Pragmatic Multiculturalism, which emphasises cultural equality, instrumental objectives, mediation and intercultural communication skills as legitimate purposes in EFL contexts. Working by these principles helps to avoid rendering EFL classrooms arenas of social struggle, and promotes the most important purpose of language: communication. 

Notes
 

1. Parts of this paper were presented at the MANYE-2002 Conference, Szeged. (Back)

1. The four sub-principles of the co-operative principle: manner, quantity, quality and relation. (c.f. Brown, G., & Yule, G. 1983. Discourse analysis. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. or Yule, G. 1996. Pragmatics. Oxford: Oxford University Press.) (Back)

References

Atkinson, D. & Ramanathan, V. (1995). Cultures of writing: An ethnographic comparison of L1 and L2 university writing/language programs. TESOL Quarterly, 29, 539- 568.
de Beaugrande, R. (1980). Text, discourse, and process: Toward a 
multidisciplinary science of texts. Norwoog, NJ: Ablex Publishing.
Clyne, M. (1996). Intercultural communication at work: Cultural values in discourse. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. 
Cmerjková, S. (1996). Academic writing in Czech and English. In: E. Ventola & A. Mauranen (Eds.), Academic writing: Intercultural and textual issues. Amsterdam, Philadelphia: John Benjamins Publishing Company.
Connor, U. (1996). Contrastive rhetoric: Cross-cultural aspects of second language writing. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. 
Connor, U., & Mayberry, S. (1996). Learning discipline-specific academic writing: A case study of a Finnish graduate student in the United States. In: E. Ventola & A. Mauranen, (Eds.), Academic writing: Intercultural and textual issues (pp. 231-254). Amsterdam, Philadelphia: John Benjamins Publishing Company.
Connor, U. (1986). Argumentative patterns in student essays: Cross-cultural differences. In: U. Connor & R. B. Kaplan (Eds.), Writing across languages: Analysis of L2 text (pp. 57-71). Reading, Mass.: Addison Wesley. 
Connor, U. (1995). Methods of research in contrastive rhetoric: Some issues. In: B. Warvik, S. K. Tanskanen & R. Hiltunen (Eds.), Organisation in discourse. Proceedings from the Turku Conference. Anglicana Turkunensia 14, 15-28.
Dörnyei, Z. (1991). Az idegennyelv-tanulási motiváció meghatározása. Pszichológia, 11, 573-590.
Duszak, A. (1994), Academic discourse and intellectual style. Journal of Pragmatics, 21, 291-313. 
Flowerdew, J. (1999). Writing for scholarly publication in English: The case of Hong Kong. Journal of Second Language Writing, 8, 123-145. 
Hatim, B. (1997). Communication across cultures. Exeter: University of Exeter Press.
Hazen, M. D. (1986). The universality of logic processes in Japanese argument. In: van F. H Eemeren, R. Grootendorst, J. A. Blair: & L.A. Willard, (Eds.), Argumentation: Analysis and practices (pp. 225-235). Dordrecht: Foris.
Hinds, J. (1990). Inductive, deductive, quasi-inductive: Expository writing in Japanese, Korean, Chinese and Thai. In: U. Connor & A.M. Johns (Eds.), Coherence in writing (pp. 89-109). Arlington, VA: TESOL. 
Houghton, D., & Hoey, M. (1982). Linguistics and written discourse: Contrastive rhetoric. Annual Review of Applied Linguistics, 3, 2- 22.
Kachru, Y. (1982). Linguistics and written discourse in particular languages: Contrastive studies: English and Hindi. Annual Review of Applied Linguistics, 3, 50-77. 
Kaplan, R. B. (1966). Cultural thought patterns in intercultural education. Language Learning, 16, 1-20.
Kaplan, R. B. (1987). Cultural thought patterns revisited. In: U. Connor & R. B. Kaplan (Eds.), Writing across Languages: Analysis of L2 text (pp. 9-22). Reading, Mass: Addison-Wesley. 
Kaplan, R. (1997). Contrastive rhetoric. In: T. Miller, (Ed.), Functional approaches to written text: Classroom applications (pp. 18-32). Washington, D.C.: English Language Programs, United States Information Agency. 
Kontra, M. (1997). English linguistic and cultural imperialism and teacher training in Hungary. In Future directions: The 2nd ELT conference on teacher training in the Carpathian Euro-region. pp. 83-88. Budapest: The British Council.
Kubota, R. (1999). Japanese culture constructed by discourse: Implications for applied linguistics research and ELT. TESOL Quarterly, 33, 9-35. 
Kuhlman, N. A. (1992). Literacy acquisition in Poland: University students' perceptions. In F. Dubin. & N. A. Kuhlman, (Eds.), Cross-cultural literacy. Global perspectives on reading and writing. Englewood Cliffs: Prentice Hall. 
Precht, K. (1998). A cross-cultural comparison of letters of recommendation. System, 17, 241-266.
Ramanathan, V., & Kaplan, R.B. (1996). Audience and voice in current L1 composition texts: Some implications for ESL student writers. Journal of Second Language Writing, 5, 21-33. 
Ramanathan, V., & Atkinson, D. (1999). Individualism, academic writing and ESL writers. Journal of Second Language Writing, 8, 45-75. 
Silva, T. (1993). Toward an understanding of the distinct nature of L2 writing: The ESL research and its implications. TESOL Quarterly, 27, 657-677. 
Spitzer, L. (1953). Language: The basis of science, philosophy and poetry. In: G. Boas et al. (Ed.), Studies in intellectual history pp. 83-84. Baltimore: Johns Hopkins University Press.
Thomas, J. (1983). Cross-cultural pragmatic failure. Applied Linguistics, 4, 91- 112. 
Van Dijk, T. (1972). Some aspects of text grammars: A study of theoretical 
linguistics and poetics. The Hague: Mouton.
Van Dijk, T. (1977). Text and context: Exploration in the semantics and pragmatics of discourse. London: Longman.
Whorf, B. (1956). Science and linguistics. In: J. B. Carroll (Ed.), Language, thought, and reality: Selected writings of Benjamin Lee Whorf. Cambridge: M.I.T. Press. 
Wierzbicka, A. (1985). Different cultures, different languages, different speech acts. Journal of Pragmatics, 9, 145-178.