Recent discussions of metaphor illuminate its function as a paradigm-building trope with significant rhetorical and epistemological power. Historical and current discourse within biological science provide a complex and poignant example of metaphor's influence: Throughout much of the twentieth century, the field operated under a deterministic assumption that DNA is the "genetic code." Though this reductionist association still shapes biological research, postgenomic discoveries are now reconceiving the connection between DNA and cells in more complex ways. The ensuing scientific debate demonstrates that rhetoric and language have primary roles in the discourse of contemporary biology, creating a rhetoric of cells.

This essay examines the rhetorical practices of Charlotte Forten and Ann Plato, freeborn African-American women of the Antebellum North. I argue that their highly literate texts contribute to the history of women's rhetoric on at least two counts. They engage the major theoretical and philosophical influences of nineteenth-century rhetoric in America, in particular George Campbell's Principle of Sympathy. These women's writings also attest to the gulf between rhetoric and reality in a "democratizing" culture that fails to address the issue of race.

During his long scholarly career, Kenneth Burke interacted with numerous other important twentieth-century thinkers. Several of these relationships have been documented and studied through article- and book-length projects. However, Burke's long correspondence with prominent folklorist and sociolinguist Dell Hymes, while mentioned by some Burke scholars, has not been extensively explored. This article examines their written correspondence and elements of their published works and argues that Burke's articulation of key rhetorical concepts—especially "identification"—figures large in Hymes's early articulation of the basis of sociolinguistic study.

While it has become increasingly commonplace to claim Kenneth Burke as a proto-ecocritic, the question of how his thinking and criticism was influenced by the science of ecology has not been addressed. This article places Attitudes toward History, the work in which Burke first mentions ecology by name, back within ecological conversations of the mid 1930s and argues not only that the science of ecology was fairly well known to Burke and his contemporaries but that ecological rhetoric saturates Attitudes toward History; in particular, it underlies Burke's critique of efficiency and his idea of the "comic frame."

Abstract The material conditions in which most writing classes are taught-by an adjunct, who has little or no job security, is poorly compensated, and is isolated from colleagues-cannot be conceptualized as merely an "adjunct problem." This so-called "adjunct problem" cannot be separated from the ethics of the university and its faculty, from the principles of the discipline and its pedagogies, or from the responsibility of this particular adjunct and her future career decisions.

ly and less accessibly for teachers. Even as I was finishing this project, I was worrying about the dangers of becoming ungrounded by too much abstraction while I fretted on another level about the increasing elevation of theory over practice in composition. My intellectual history-like that of the teachers I've talked with-shows that my work has thrived on relationships with reflective counterparts, through whom it is constantly challenged, transformed, expanded, and refreshed. Textual others have an extraordinary part to play in enlarging reflection beyond the merely personal, as the teachers' conversations and materials emphasize. But face-to-face or other intimate reflective interactions, like Steve's letters to his This content downloaded from 157.55.39.217 on Tue, 06 Sep 2016 04:01:40 UTC All use subject to http://about.jstor.org/terms

(1992). Robert Zoellner's “talk‐write pedagogy”: Instrumental concept for composition today. Rhetoric Review: Vol. 10, No. 2, pp. 239-243.

Over twenty years ago, Robert Zoellner argued that our post hoc, artifactual approach to writing instruction, our teaching students by commenting on final drafts, is an especially inefficient system. In his College English monograph, Zoellner notes that in directing both our and our students' attention to characteristics of their written artifacts rather than to characteristics of the scribal act which produced those artifacts, we are dealing with effects only and thus adroitly avoiding the problem of cause altogether (272). In trying to teach writing by commenting on student papers, we are, he says, confusing texts with people, written words with the act of writing, the lever with the laboratory rat (280), history with behavior, the past with the present (283). In our confusion we end up trying to teach the page rather than the person, the product rather than the process, which, he notes, is patently hopeless endeavor (280). In other words, Zoellner implies, we are confusing declarative knowledge with procedural knowledge and thus teaching the what of writing rather than the how of writing. Four years ago in a lecture at Colorado State University, Zoellner was still voicing this same critique. In a telling analogy, he said:

(1992). Reviving the rodential model for composition: Robert Zoellner's alternative to flower and Hayes. Rhetoric Review: Vol. 10, No. 2, pp. 244-249.

(1987). The status of composition faculty: Resolving reforms. Rhetoric Review: Vol. 5, No. 2, pp. 190-193.