Rhetoric Review

124 articles
Year: Topic: Clear
Export:
editorial matter ×

September 1990

  1. Editorial board
    doi:10.1080/07350199009388909

March 1990

  1. Editorial board
    doi:10.1080/07350199009388891

September 1989

  1. Review essays
    Abstract

    Edward M. White, Developing Successful College Writing Programs. Foreword by Richard Lloyd‐Jones. San Francisco: Jossey‐Bass, 1989. xxii + 232 pages. Louise Wetherbee Phelps, Composition as a Human Science: Contributions to the Self‐Understanding of a Discipline. New York: Oxford University Press, 1988. xiii + 268 pages. Louise Z. Smith, ed., Audits of Meaning: A Festschrift in Honor of Ann E. Berthoff. Portsmouth, NH: Boynton/Cook, Heinemann, 1988. Foreword by Paulo Freire. xv + 264 pages. Jasper Neel, Plato, Derrlda, and Writing. Carbondale: Southern Illinois University Press, 1988. 252 pages. Brian Vickers, In Defence of Rhetoric. Oxford: Clarendon Press, Oxford University Press, 1988. xi + 508 pages.

    doi:10.1080/07350198909388888
  2. Editorial board
    doi:10.1080/07350198909388874

March 1989

  1. Review essays
    Abstract

    Richard Leo Enos, The Literate Mode of Cicero's Legal Rhetoric. Carbondale: Southern Illinois University Press, 1988. xii + 127 pages. George Campbell, The Philosophy of Rhetoric, ed. Lloyd F. Bitzer. Carbondale: Southern Illinois University Press, 1987. Ixxvi + 415 pages. Jasper Neel, Plato, Derrida, and Writing. Carbondale: Southern Illinois University Press, 1988. 252 pages. William A. Covino, The Art of Wondering: A Revisionist Return to the History of Rhetoric. Portsmouth, NH: Boynton/Cook; Heinemann, I988. 141 pages. Bruce A: Kimball, Orators and Philosophers: A History of the Idea of Liberal Education. Foreword by Joseph L. Featherstone. Columbia University: Teachers College Press, 1986. 293 pages. Jean‐François Lyotard. The Postmodern Condition: A Report On Knowledge. Trans. Geoff Bennington and Brian Massumi. Foreword by Frederick Jameson. Minneapolis: University of Minnesota Press, 1984. 110 pages.

    doi:10.1080/07350198909388871
  2. Editorial board
    doi:10.1080/07350198909388855

September 1988

  1. Editorial board
    doi:10.1080/07350198809388838

March 1988

  1. Editorial board
    doi:10.1080/07350198809359158
  2. A response to Kathleen E. Welch
    doi:10.1080/07350198809359170
  3. Non‐discipline as a remedy for rhetoric? A reply to victor Vitanza
    doi:10.1080/07350198809359168

September 1987

  1. Editorial board
    doi:10.1080/07350198709359148

March 1987

  1. Editorial board
    doi:10.1080/07350198709359142

September 1986

  1. Editorial board
    doi:10.1080/07350198609359128

January 1986

  1. Editorial board
    doi:10.1080/07350198609359114

September 1985

  1. Editorial board
    doi:10.1080/07350198509359098
  2. Editor's note
    doi:10.1080/07350198509359110

January 1985

  1. Editorial board
    doi:10.1080/07350198509359086
  2. The nature of “audience” editor's note
    Abstract

    (1985). The nature of “audience” editor's note. Rhetoric Review: Vol. 3, No. 2, pp. 218-219.

    doi:10.1080/07350198509359095

September 1984

  1. Editorial board
    doi:10.1080/07350198409359071

January 1984

  1. Editorial board
    doi:10.1080/07350198409359059

September 1983

  1. Editorial board
    doi:10.1080/07350198309359051

January 1983

  1. Recent research in reading and its implications for the college composition curriculum
    Abstract

    Articles by Richard Fulkerson, Karen Pelz, and Michael Hogan in the first issue of the Journal of Advanced Composition (Spring 1980) all pointed to a serious lack of consistency in the profession's conception of what should be covered in advanced composition courses in college. Professor Pelz, while arguing against what she perceives as another teacher's advocacy of media-centered rather than writing-centered advanced composition courses, advocates the development of a personal style in advanced writing courses, seemingly calling for an emphasis on expressive discourse and self-discovery (A Reply to Medicott: Evaluating Writing, 7-9). Professor Fulkerson (Some Theoretical Speculations on the Advanced Composition Curriculum, 9-12) uses Abrams' and Kinneavy's theories of literary criticism and the aims of discourse to construct two different curricular models for advanced composition programs--one suggesting courses based on the skills required of students as they produce discourse with different aims, the other suggesting synthesizing all four discourse aims in a single advanced composition course. Finally, Professor Hogan (Advanced Composition: A Survey, 21-29) sent questionnaires to 374 advanced composition teachers at 311 schools and found an enormously diverse range of course objectives and plans among the responses that he received. Hogan also found that many advanced composition courses used the same books as freshman writing courses in the same schools. Although rhetoric, Hogan found, dominated the courses of instruction, there did not seem to be any clear or consistent pattern of rhetorical approach in the schools or teachers who reported. Very few respondents, in fact, reflected much attention to types or aims of discourse, as Fulkerson had suggested, in their assignments or plans. Articles such as these reflect the composition profession's general lack

    doi:10.1080/07350198309359044
  2. Editorial board
    doi:10.1080/07350198309359041

September 1982

  1. Editorial board
    doi:10.1080/07350198209359031