03 4月 美国代写被抓：跨文化交际
第一段更直接、更开放、更直接，使用了更多段落中涉及到的能够影响行为的元素，例如，这里的语言和文化被认为是破坏了交流的意图，而不是用户使用它们。这种风格更具有挑衅性，要求中国人立即或极端的行动，这使读者更专注，更有可能采取行动(Stott & Avery, 2001)。写作是主动的，而不是被动的，每句话都试图唤起或引发一个极其重要的行动。当它使用中国人必须具备足够的沟通能力时，这种风格也是修辞性的。这表明被说服的可能性更大。从论点的意图来看，终点线更令人印象深刻。
Cross cultural communication is an important phenomenon, especially when two people from varied backgrounds are communicating. The primary issues in such a communication are different in culture and language, which does not allow the people to get involved to understand each other as they expect to. The communicators must understand how the culture builds, how it acts and provides hints about the communication to be transferred so that a clear idea of understanding is developed. It is required that the communicator must try and understand the deeper meanings of the opposite culture, so that their intent of the dialogue is met with both ending up understanding each other’s expectations. Thus, for one who desires to convey exactly as one interprets, it is required that one must indeed become a master of the culture and the communication theories of the opposite person.
For example, a Chinese individual trying to communicate in English language with an American, he must equip himself with the cultural beliefs and understanding of the American, and their display of treating the Chinese person. It may happen, in such instance, that the American may not pay attention to what is spoken by the Chinese owing to the distraction caused by the problems in speaking that the Chinese experiences. It follows therefore that the Chinese must learn the intricacies of the American culture so that he can truly express his inherent intent to the American, just as he would expect anyone to receive and accept.
The first paragraph is more upfront, open, direct and uses more of the elements involved in the paragraph as capable of effecting an act, for example, language and culture here are seen to break the intent of communication rather than their use by the user. The style is more provoking, demanding an immediate or extreme action by the Chinese, which makes the reader more attentive, and more likely to act (Stott & Avery, 2001). The writing is active and not passive, evident by each sentence trying to revive or give rise to an extremely important action. The style is also rhetorical when it uses the necessity of the Chinese to be equipped enough to communicate. This shows the chances of persuasion more likely. The finishing line is more impressive when considered in terms of the intent of the argument.
The second paragraph is a light hearted one, and uses rhetoric in its ideal or non-threatening sense, leading very cosily from one sentence to another, without intending to provoke or give rise to any action. The writing style is sequential and smooth, leaving less room for flair of heightened words (Romano, 2000). The style being simpler and progressively persuasive is less likely to create anyone reading to take immediate action, but to ponder over the reasoning behind the suggestions. It is light, grounded, and undiluted in terms of the simplicity of persuading the Chinese to learn communication with the American. The finishing line is less impressive and may need more editing to make it more persuasive and worthy of receiving more receivership and approval from readers.