Blog for 2/25/08

Blog for 2/25/08

I am writing this under the influence of an antihistaminic haze as my husband and I have been ill with the flu or a serious cold this week. I will try to make sense and hit the highlights of the articles and my “take away” from them. (My thanks to Microsoft for spell checking).

In the first two articles, Berlin and Connors discussed the historical developments and changes that have occurred in higher education since the “Civil War”. Berlin describes the change from private colleges “dominated by clergymen” to the more scientific Universities influenced by the German model of the mid 1800’s. The University was committed to all of the citizens, not just the elite, and an education that “prepared students for work in this life not rewards in the next” (59). The “new college” was geared to the middle class with an emphasis on individual differences allowing the student the opportunity to follow their “own natural talents “The only course that was required was the composition class, which everyone had to take. This helped support the department, but overburdened the faculty. The composition class was relegated to the ‘lower faculty” and teaching assistants. This makes no sense to me as this is the “fundamental class” and to me, would need to have an important place in any curriculum. It makes sense to put it in the first year to acclimate students with writing for the many and varied purposes they will have in their academic careers.

The difficulty in teaching writing was investigated at Harvard in 1891 by an outside committee of three (with no credentials in teaching or academics). Again (as we have read before) the blame for poor writing skills was put on the lower schools and , much like what has happened recently, with the “No child left behind Act”, the schools were Ordered to do a better job but were not given any money or tools to do so. As Berlin states “the larger (and lasting) effects of the Harvard Report were the focus on spelling, grammar and usage…matters of superficial correctness” (61).

The “scientific” and “technical world view” took over from that point, turning the teaching of writing into a course in technical writing. Technical writing, which was valued by the business community, restricted the composing process and teaching style became the focus of the writing course. Berlin claims that the audience is not important in scientific writing and the writer “only needs to reproduce the original experience in the minds of the reader. The auditor has no part in shaping meaning” (63, 64). This is in keeping with other forms of rhetoric; the author recalls Campbell’s adaptation constructivism which emphasizes the writer’s aim as bringing about a particular effect on the audience, the audience being passive and static. We now know that the audience does contribute to meaning in their social context.

Berlin focuses on the analysis of redefining the composing process as it is shaped by the scientific rhetoric. He describes “managerial invention” as the forms of discourse: description, narration, exposition, and argument. What Berlin calls “forms of discourse”; Connor calls “Modes of discourse”. Both articles discuss the same time period and the influence of scholars and theorists such as, A.S. Hill, Barrett Wendell, John Genung and Fred Newton Scott on the teaching of writing, rhetoric and composition. When they discussed the assigning of topics to teach these modes or forms, I could relate to this as this was how my undergraduate English was taught. The influence of this teaching persisted into the 1980s – the focus on the essay (assigned to a topic or mode) descriptive, narrative, expository or argumentative in the freshman year and the scientific or research method in the second year.

The Corbett article was the easiest to read and my favorite. He discusses what I have been thinking about since I began this course. Rhetoric is used extensively in Advertisement. Marketing departments are expert rhetoricians and incorporate a lot of psychology in their messages. They use every form of rhetoric including propaganda and every form of composition (or genre). I especially enjoyed the discussion on the informal modes of discourse such as those used in contemporary speech, “small talk, explanations, directions”, etc. (1). This article was understandable and helpful to me because it used concrete examples, such as the HP ad and the analysis of the parts of the speeches from Homers Iliad. This especially helped me better understand “Classic Rhetoric”

Corbett covers all the aspects of rhetoric from the classic 5 canons to the modern uses of rhetoric, including advertisement. He discussed the everyday uses of rhetoric (a parent uses rhetoric on a child; a teacher on his/her students; a supervisor to employees; a salesperson on customers). He states that “rhetoric is an inescapable activity in our lives” (25). He also discusses some of the negative forms of rhetoric such as propaganda, demagoguery, doublespeak and brainwashing.

He also, admits the old ways need to give way to newer ways of thinking. [Old ways] “should be retained only if they prove relevant and useful” (25). He seems to defend “formulaic” teaching while at the same time admitting that it can inhibit creativity and innovation. He uses examples of some of the major writers of the Renaissance: Chaucer, Shakespeare, Johnson etc. and claims that the strict method by which they learned could only have helped them become better writers than they may have been without it. He seems to be saying that learning the classical forms of rhetoric and methods of developing discourse doesn’t have to inhibit or limit your creativeness – Use it if it serves you.

Kinneavy’s chapter on the “Aims of Discourse” describes “discourse” in its context – complete discourse, oral and written. He focuses on the intent of the discourse and cautions against two types of fallacies that can occur. Assuming that the intent of the author is what actually happens, is a form of fallacy he describes as “intentional fallacy” and “Affective fallacy” he describes as the assumption that “reaction of the reader accurately indicates the intent of the author” (130).

Kinneavy distinguishes the various theories of the aims of discourse (as internal norms affecting discourse) in a table format that compares the theories from Aristotle to contemporary theorists like himself. His use of the table in figure 2 (135) that demonstrates the basic purposes of composition was very helpful to me in understanding the divisions he is discussing. (Obviously, I am a visual learner). He discusses the external norms that affect discourse such as historical context, social context and language itself, referencing a variety of theorists from many disciplines.

I especially enjoyed his analogy of language to a window pane. This was a very expressive way he demonstrates the uses of writing. Like the window pane writing can be used expressively (to make a point or express an opinion by breaking it), persuasively (as a weapon [“the pen is mightier than the sword” (who said that?)], referentially (as a mirror) and aesthetically (as a piece of “work” in itself).

Kinneavy defends the place of composition as the “foundation of liberal arts tradition”.

I would agree with him here. Composition is essential to higher education. Students need to learn the principles of the use of language (rhetoric) and writing to convey their message in whatever subject they are studying, be that a test question or paper that identifies their understanding of their lessons or a professional paper demonstrating their research to other professionals in their field.

I admit that I am somewhat biased (or at least inexperienced) to other forms of writing as I have only done technical writing for nursing.