discussion for 2/4/08 Theories on Rhetoric and composition

Discussion blog for 2/04/08

Brereton, John C. “Introduction.” The Origins of Composition Studies in the American College, 1875

Hill. Adam Sherman. “An Answer to the Cry for More English

“A Brief History of Rhetoric and Composition.” The Bedford Bibliography for Teachers of Writing.

Nystrand, “Where did Composition Studies Come from

As it has been more than twenty years since I have done any studies in “English” I had to do a little research to understand some of the language in these articles. Wikapedia and I have become good friends.

The first article I read was the “Brief History of Rhetoric and composition. I found this to be a good historical review for me. I had heard the names of the ancient Greek philosophers, Isocrates, Plato and Aristotle, but had not associated them with anything but “Philosophy”. I suppose they philosophized about Rhetoric. Not meaning to trivialize the piece or its intent or my reason for reading it, I appreciated the historical perspective offered in this piece.

Philology was term I had never heard. Now I understand that this is something I have always done (to investigate then meaning or root of a word or language)…” In modern usage, the term "philology" is most accurately defined as "an affinity toward the learning of the backgrounds as well as the current usages of spoken or written methods of human communication." I had to practice a bit of “philology” to understand the readings for this assignment and have always been interested in word origins and meanings. This is most often referred to as “Linguistics”.

I was under the impression that Rhetoric was rather “purposeless” speech. “I hear a lot of rhetoric from him, but don’t see any action”. Now we would call this “lip service” This article helped me to understand the progression from the ancient study of the spoken word, or discourse, for the purpose of deliberative, forensic or epideictic, (Political, legal or honoraria) to the modern concepts of teaching communication in its many forms within present University settings. We still use the term “Socratic questioning” as a form of formative evaluation in teaching.

The article briefly discusses the many key people, dates and events that occurred throughout the millennia that helped develop the theories and principles of the spoken and written word and the methodologies for teaching and evaluations. It was interesting to see the seemingly cyclical thoughts on the subject the discourse being directed to the purpose and audience. And the language of the society as in Ancient times to medieval times with the influence of the Church ad Church/States and then in the theories of the 1960’s, where teachers were encouraged to help students use their own voice and to shape their ideas through writing.

The Bedford article was a “whirl-wind” tour through the evolution of Rhetoric and composition whereas the Nystand article was a very in depth look at the process of change that has occurred over the past forty years.

The Brereton article “Origins of compostition” looks at the development of college and university departments of “English” and several of the celebrated founders. The authors discusses the theorists and scholars the shaped the structure of the departments and the programs of instruction as they were influenced by the European programs of the times. The German influence was the strongest on shaping the American graduate schools and had many indirect effects on the undergraduate programs in rhetoric and composition. The article outlines the influences on the division of the departments of rhetoric, composition and writing, denigrating the position of composition to the first year. Making it a fundamental course and giving it the reputation of being a “remedial” course transitioning student from secondary education to college. Harvard had the most influence on how departments of English were set up and the feeling I got from this article is that the “Harvard” system was regimented and rigid with a distinct hierarchy of Rhetoric and literature for the professors and teaching of writing and composition taught by the part-time staff or graduate assistants. The discussion on the “Harvard Admission” criteria gave an idea as to how demanding and structured this program was.

The article “An Answer to the Cry for More English” makes Hill sound like a “Bully”, but the article discusses a contemporary theme we have seen repeatedly in secondary education; the failure of preparatory education to adequately prepare student for college learning. This was decried in the 1960’s (Why can’t Johnny Write”) and we hear this today.

The article looks at the structure of evaluating composition and writing by its elements. Hill’s tirade on the failures of the students and the secondary programs and his opinion that the Only objective in writing is the use of “good English” would, today be considered almost racist. It is certainly ethnocentric.

The Nystand article begins with what sounds like “A cry for More English”; a critique on the teaching of writing and the knowledge of teacher in how to teach writing. (History repeats itself? Or did it never change?) The article travels through the theories of the 1950’s to present and some of the concepts resonated strongly for me.

The theory of formalism, which began developing in the 1920’s looked at written texts as being addressed through analysis of text elements and their interrelationship between them. Formalism “assumed an objectivity of text elements, contending that all important issues about text and text meaning could be addresses through analysis of text elements and their interrelationships. I found this reminiscent of the Puritanical theory of Peter Ramus from the 16^th century in that Ramus hoped to define rhetoric as a “logical, scientific discourse, untainted by nonlogical appeals” The four concepts of formalism raised many questions of me (and others, as I was to find out).

1. Language is composed of objective elements organized into a fixed system. (all languages?)

2. the meaning of texts is encoded in “autonomous” texts themselves and is explicit to the extent that the writer spells things out. (this assumes that the reader understands these codes. It also does not allow for any imagination or interpretation of the reader.)

3. Written tests are more explicit than oral utterances. (no emotions here!)

4. texts are properly interpreted only when readers avoid inferences about the writer or the context in which the text was written. (this makes me think about my “auto correct that doesn’t know that “form” should have been “from” or the typist that doesn’t “read” what they are typing, so how can the text have meaning. I guess that was the issue: to develop a formula for evaluating texts.).

This formula and theory (to me, an unenlightened student of composition studies) is incomprehensible. It is saying, to me, that Shakespeare’s Henry V and A Midsummer’s Night Dream could be analyzed exactly the same as Rev. Martin Luther King’s Speech “I have a dream” with no regard as to the social, political or personal context of the writer or reader. (of course, the reader must understand the context of the writer to understand the meaning of the work. I did not “get” the double entendre of Shakespeare’s Romeo and Juliet until I read an interpretation of it.)

I agreed with Bakhtin’s dialogical and sociological view that regards language “as a social practice rooted in material and historical processes” (p. 269). Some languages don’t have words for some Western concepts and some have words that incorporate a complete concept. This is later expressed as “social-epistemic rhetoric” of the 1980’s (p.271) which embraced the notion “rhetoric is a political act involving dialectic interaction engaging the material, the social, and the individual writer with language as the agency of the mediation”. I think this would apply to evaluating any work, written or spoken, in whatever the language of the writer. The study of Rhetoric didn’t begin in English or with American political ideations. The evolution of thought as to what rhetoric “is” and how to teach it had to change with the changing social, political and ideological environment of the times.

I liked what was said later by Linda Fowler considering “construct of meaning” that” mental representation is not always linguistic; it may be kinetic or imagistic (p.283) (– dance or art). In this age of visual media, especially the internet, composition is, again taking on new forms and expression. I also could relate to the composition scholars of the 1970’2 and 1980’s that looked at “language as community” especially Shaughnnesy (1977). Her work looking at student’s interaction within the academic community and nontraditional students. She observed that student’s failure was not necessarily “cognitive” but could result from the students” lack of practice and familiarity with the forms and conventions of academic discourse.” Also, the misinterpretation of instructions; Sometimes the student does not understand the expectations of the teacher.

My interpretation of this is that writing should be taught “for the subject”, as I believe we have in our academic community. Writings such as we are reading for these classes are very different from the readings and writing I must do for other subjects, in other disciplines. Even the style formulations different, MLA vs., APA. Again, the “discourse” must be adapted to the purpose and audience (back to the basics).

Conclusion:

Much discussion was given to the many and varied theories and theorists from ancient times to the present. Nystand emphasizes the concepts from the 1970’s and the “social” nature of writing. The table on page 302 was helpful to me to understand the evolution of the theories referenced in the reading.

My interpretation of these articles and excerpts results in the following:

Present theorist in writing and composition seem to agree that writing must reflect the experience of both the writer and reader and that there is no one GOOD theory or formula for evaluating and teaching written discourse.

The questions remain: 1). How do we teach writing – for any purpose?

2). How do we teach people to analyze and evaluate student composition? 3). Should there be or is there an appropriate formula?

Sorry it is so long worded !

Patti W.