On the origins of contrastive rhetoric

I appreciate this opportunity to respond to Matsuda’s comments on my article. In his comments, Matsuda agrees with two basic arguments I made in my paper: (1) Kaplan’s view of the relationship between language and culture is not the same as the Sapir‐Whorf hypothesis of linguistic relativity, and (2) it is very unlikely that the origin of contrastive rhetoric can be pinned down to a single source — the Sapir‐Whorf hypothesis of linguistic relativity/determinism. But he raised the question about whether Kaplan’s view of the relationship between language and culture is ‘incompatible’ with the Sapir‐Whorf hypothesis, as I put it in my paper. He also raised the question about my argument that the ethnography of communication (Hymes 1962) can be an important antecedent for contrastive rhetoric. My reply will thus take up each of these two questions

Antecedent (behavioral psychology · Argument (complex analysis · Cognition · Epistemology · Ethnography · Linguistic relativity · Linguistics · Rhetoric · Sociology · Anthropology · Historical Linguistics and Language Studies · Linguistic Variation and Morphology · linguistics and terminology studies · Philosophy · Psychology · Social Psychology