Introduction: On Chineseness as a Theoretical Problem

Chow, Rey

doi:10.2307/303586

Cited by 141 publications

(44 citation statements)

References 0 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Unclassified

Order By: Relevance

“…Among the growing number of critical studies on Orientalism and the East-West binary problematic see Ang (1998), X. Chen (1995, Chow (1998), Clifford (1988), Goody (1996), Iwabuchi (1994), Kubota (1999Kubota ( , 2001, Liu (1996), Said (1978), Taussig (1993), Thomas (1994), Yeh (1998), and L. Zhang (1988Zhang ( , 1998.…”

Section: Notesmentioning

confidence: 97%

The Myth of the “Turn” in Contrastive Rhetoric

Cahill

2003

Written Communication

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Contrastive rhetoric scholarship researches rhetorical structures across languages to predict the difficulties experienced by students learning to write essays in a second language. The paradigmatic contrast is between Western languages (e.g., English) that are said to exemplify "linearity" and "directness" and Eastern languages (e.g., Chinese, Japanese) that are said to exemplify "nonlinearity" and "indirectness." The prime examples in English-language contrastive rhetoric scholarship of Asian essay structure are the four-part Chinese qi cheng zhuan he and Japanese ki sho ten ketsu, whose third steps are said to represent a "turn." The author's research into Chinese and Japaneselanguage scholarship on these two structures finds that the "turn" is not a rhetorical move of "circularity" or "digression" as commonly assumed but rather serves as the occasion to develop an essay further by alternative means. The implication for secondlanguage writing is recognition of greater similarities in essayist literacy across these languages than previously supposed.

show abstract

Section: Notesmentioning

confidence: 97%

The Myth of the “Turn” in Contrastive Rhetoric

Cahill

2003

Written Communication

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…11 The notion of 'Chineseness' has been subjected to a vituperative attack by Allen Chun (1996) in 'Fuck Chineseness: On the Ambiguities of Ethnicity as Culture as Identity'. Rey Chow (1998), on the other hand, examines the notion from a theoretical and methodological perspective. Other Chinese scholars in the Anglo-American world have also interrogated the notion from different angles.…”

Section: A Storm In a Teacup Or A Local Debate With Wider Significance?mentioning

confidence: 99%

Introduction – Chinese Discourses on Translation

Cheung

2009

The Translator

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Chinese discourses on translation have always been a site for negotiating cultural politics, and for heated debates about the perennial problem of China's relation with the world. In its most recent form, the debate revolves around whether the import of foreign translation theories and the application of these theories to Chinese materials have resulted in a marginalization of traditional Chinese discourse on translation within the Chinese system of knowledge, and in the muting of Chinese voices to mere echoes of the voice of the West. Also debated vigorously is the related question of the importance of asserting Chineseness in academic discourses on translation. The reasons behind the Chinese preoccupation with issues of national and cultural identity are explored in the broader context of the postcolonial world and the plight of scholars working in non-metropolitan centres. The positions and perspectives of the major participants in this local debate are almost certain to have reverberations not only among the scholars concerned but also among those committed to moving beyond Eurocentric modes of thinking and promoting dialogue between major and non-major translation traditions.

show abstract

“…3. Rey Chow's (1998) dissection of the historical formation and ideological investment of ' Chineseness' represents a seminal precursor to Shih's intervention. Ien Ang (2001) advances a significant postnational and post-ethnic argument.…”

Section: Notesmentioning

confidence: 99%

Sinophone Cinemas

2014

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Introduction: On Chineseness as a Theoretical Problem

Cited by 141 publications

References 0 publications

The Myth of the “Turn” in Contrastive Rhetoric

The Myth of the “Turn” in Contrastive Rhetoric

Introduction – Chinese Discourses on Translation

Sinophone Cinemas

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About