The Basic Aims of Discourse by James Kinneavy

Kinneavy states in this article that he is concerned with complete discourse, or the full text, oral or written, delivered at a specific time and place or delivered at several instances (107). He is looking at the effect the discourse is meant to achieve. The message is central, as well as its aim. Is the work intended to delight or to persuade or to inform or to demonstrate the logical proof of a position? (108) He dissects how messages are created, intended, and received, or what he calls the "encoder, reality, and language itself, (which) all become instrumental to the achievement of some practical effect in the decoder" (114).

What I found most interesting about this article is that Kinneavy says that the product, text, or work itself may be the focus of the process as an "object worthy of being appreciated in its own right" (114). This spoke to me of poetry or creative writing, where the process of creation is as important as the final message, or "structures worthy of contemplation in their own right."

The Rise and Fall of the Modes of Discourse by Robert J. Connors

Discourse was formerly classified into different classifications, according to this article. I believe they still are classified this way, as I've either taken or taught a class titled in one of these modes: narration, description, exposition, and argument.

The article takes a look at different classifications of discourse through the 1800s, including Samuel P. Newman's in his text "A Practical System of Rhetoric", where he distinguished the difference between writings as "didactic, persuasive, arguementative, descriptive, and narrative ... didactic writing, as the name implies, is used in conveying instruction (perhaps technical or expository in nature?) ... when it is designed to influence the will, the composition becomes of the persuasive kind ... the various forms of argument, the statement of proofs, the assigning of causes ... are addressed to the reasoning faculties of the mind. Narrative and descriptive writings relate past occurences, and place before the mind for its contemplation, various objects and scenes."

This is the second time I've come across a definition of exposition as as type of writing that conveys instruction, which concerns me, as I've been told by others that expository writing (which I'm teaching next semester) is more like creative non-fiction. But I'm still early in the stages of defining what expository writing is, so I'll let the definitions lie for now.

Connors points out that rhetorical study in America "was transformed after 1860. In tandem with the shift in the structure of higher education from a preponderance of smaller private colleges to a preponderance of larger institutions with more varied and scientific curricula, the study of rhetoric mutated from a traditional (that is, classically derived) analysis of argument, eloquence, style, and taste into a discipline much more concerned with forms" (446). He believes that the turning point for the modes of discourse came after the publication of Genung's "The Practical Elements of Rhetoric."

Connors believes that the modes of writing were abandoned after 1950, after exposition had its hey day, and that the modes are no longer thought of as special types of writing (452). However, I think I disagree with him there. I teach "Expository Writing" and "Analytical and Persuasive Writing"; I've taken a class in my undergraduate creative writing major labeled "Narration and Description". So I think the modes are still very much practiced. Whether or not this is for the good of a writer is up for debate.

Outlines of Rhetoric by John F. Genung

Dr. Jacobs let me know ahead of time that this work, printed in 1894, was most valuable to studies of composition theory because, even though it's more than one hundred years old, it still has several practices embodied within its pages that we teach today.

I found that to be true, and to try to catch every detail in one blog would be impossible. So I'll just give the highlights.

Genung describes what he feels are the leading requisites of composition. He believes that by giving these requisites in a numerical order, he is attempting to "bring the core of the rhetorical art into small and manageable compass, the rules being a body of precept to which constant reference is made" (iii). I found myself nodding along with this argument, as I try to break down writing into small tasks for my students as well. As they master and grow comfortable with one concept, I'll add another. By the end of the semester they've understood, if not conquered, several of the tasks that Genung describes in his work.

I liked that Genung mentioned that "composition is positive, requireing the constructive attitude on the part of the writer" (vi). I try to make composition positive for my students by allowing them to write about the subjects they find interesting to them, not those I prescribe. As Janet Burroway says about writing in her book "Writing Fiction", you have to write about what's in your heart and what you believe in. That makes it positive -- and interesting -- for those learning to write.

I liked Genungs definition of rhetoric, and I've found myself collecting different definitions of rhetoric, so I just wanted to document his here: "Rhetoric: its definition and aim. — Now when the words, the sentences, the plan, the various details of composition, are skillfully adapted to produce their proper and intended effect, we say the workd has rhetorical qualities. Rhetoric, therefore, is teh art of expressing our thoughts with skill, of giving to our composition the qualities that it ought to have in order to accomplish its author's design.

"For every author, if he works wisely, works with a specific design in view; a determinate object which he is aiming by his writing to effect (2)". This makes my planning stages, learned from Dr. Jacobs, important to my students, as they learn not just to compose, but to compose for an audience, to choose their words and points to a certain person or group of which they have knowledge. It's also important because so many writers have learned to compose "correct" sentences, but not adequate, powerful ones.

Current-Traditional Rhetoric: Paradigm and Practice by James Berlin and Robert Inkster

Berlin and Inkster address the problems of different theories being taught in composition. I find this interesting because I think this can sometimes be at the heart of what ails the English program where I am studying for my Ph.D. right now: What is the right way to teach composition?

The article points out that what is included in the discipline is as important as what is excluded in it (1). So we must remember to strike a balance, even though some instructors could be more comfortable with writing about "common sense" issues and others about emotional, or expressionistic, ones. I wonder if this is part of what causes the split between composition and creative writing, although I'd argue that both belong in both writing practices.

The authors looked at George Campbell's "Philosophy of Rhetoric" which states that thinkers of the "common sense" school of philosophy believe that the external world existed independent of the mind and that direct knowledge of this world was obtainable. Rhetoric, for Campbell, dealt not with certainties but with probabilities (43-46). Also, another definition of rhetoric, this one by Campbell: "Rhetoric is concerned with communication and is defined as "that art of talent by which the discourse is adapted to its end".

Whately's "Elements of Rhetoric" in part responds to Campbell's book (2). He defines rhetoric as the "finding of suitable arguments to prove a given point, and the skillful arrangement of them" (39). His is a rhetoric based on logic (2). I find this interesting because I feel that a large part of persuasive argument involves the affective appeal, or pulling on the heartstrings of the writer. This wouldn't work for Whately, who depends more on logic, or rational and credibility appeals.

On Systems of Rhetoric: Douglas Ehninger

After giving my blog a bit of a rest for a couple of months, I'm starting it again to write about research read for my independent study with Dr. Debra Jacobs in ENC 6700: Studies in Composition Theory.

From Ehninger's article I gathered that there are three areas of development in Western rhetorical thought: the classical period, the late 18th century, and the period extending from the 1930s to the present.

Classical: The rhetoric (which Ehninger defines as an "organized, consistent, coherent way of talking about practical discourse in any of its forms or modes" (131) of the classical period arose out of the need for speechmaking as a needed activity among the democratic institutions in the city states of Sicily and Greece. Speechmaking became known as an art form, as well as a social instrument (132). Its principal functions were to argue the relative merits of laws and policies, and to attack or defend from attack in the courtroom, or the art of persuasion. Its system was basically grammatical in nature (133). Speeches were distinguised and described by "offices" upon which oral communication depends: invention, disposition, style, memory, and delivery.

Late 18th Century: The rhetoric of this period is best described as "psychological". It corrected a deficiency of the classical system by working out the details between the act of oral communication and the mind of the listener-reader. Because the ancients' "lack of attention" to the impact of speeches upon the listener were seen as glaring, "traditional assumptions concerning how men know or are persuaded no longer were acceptable" (135). The statement was shaped by the environment in which it was received, which became an epistemological approach -- analysing the mind of the listener-reader, or concentrating on audience.

"Present": Since the 1930s, the rhetoric has been focused on the "social" aspects of communication, or of rhetoric as an "instrument for understanding and improving human relations" (137). Group discussions, or workshops, I believe became prominent during this time -- because seeing writing as a social activity helped to break down barriers or misunderstandings that are caused through man's habits of using and abusing communication (138). In other words, rhetoric is now not just concerned with the means of the communication, but its ends (139).