This essay reports on the relationship between persuasion techniques used by collaborators and possible gender influences. To examine this relationship, the authors observed four proposal developers (two males and two females) as they collaborated with several groups at Southwestern Bell Telephone company. The authors examined preconceptions about three factors: effective and ineffective collaboration, gender's effect on collaboration, and gender's effect on persuasion. They also examined persuasion techniques used by the proposal developers.

Rhetorical studies on experimental research articles in science have focused predominantly on introductions and discussions. The contextual nature of Results sections—the empirical heart of a scientific article—remains largely unexplored, however. What is known about the content of these sections comes from prescriptive style guides, which define Results as purely expository, leaving the argumentation to other sections of the article. This study examines one eminent biochemist's publications over time and a sampling of current articles authored by other biochemists. Six rhetorical moves were identified: (a) justifications for methodological selections, (b) interpretations of experimental results, (c) evaluative comments on experimental data, (d) statements citing agreement with preestablished studies, (e) statements disclosing experimental discrepancies, and (f) statements admitting interpretive perplexities. This investigation demonstrates that biochemists explicitly argue for the validity of their experimental data by employing certain rhetorical moves. Moreover, the findings challenge the traditional lore that Results sections engage in only simple, factual reporting.

This book is a critically informed challenge to the traditional histories of rhetoric to the current emphasis on Aristotle Plato as the most significant classical voices in rhetoric. In it, Susan C. Jarratt argues that the first sophistsa diverse group of traveling intellectuals in the fifth century B.C.should be given a more prominent place in the study of rhetoric composition. Rereading the ancient sophists, she creates a new lens through which to see contemporary social issues, including the orality/literacy debate, feminist writing, deconstruction, writing pedagogy.The sophists pleasure in the play of language, their focus on historical contin-gency, the centrality of their teaching for democratic practice were sufficiently threatening to their successors Plato Aristotle that both sought to bury the sophists under philosophical theories of language. The censure of Plato Aris-totle set a pattern for historical views of the sophists for centuries. Following Hegel Nietzsche, Jarratt breaks the pattern, finding in the sophists a more progressive charter for teachers scholars of reading writing, as well as for those in the adjacent disciplines of literary criticism theory, education, speech communication, ancient history.In tracing the historical interpretations of sophistic rhetoric, Jarratt suggests that the sophists themselves provide the outlines of an alternative to history-writing as the discovery recounting of a set of stable facts. She sees sophistic use of narrative in argument as a challenge to a simple division between orality literacy, current discussions of which virtually ignore the sophists. Outlining similarities between ecriture feminine and sophistic style, Jarratt shows that contemporary feminisms have more in common with sophists than just a style; they share a rhetorical basis for deployment of theory in political action. In her final chapter, Jarratt takes issue with accounts of sophistic pedagogy focusing on technique the development of the individual. She argues that, despite its employment by powerful demagogues, sophistic pedagogy offers a resource for today s teachers interested in encouraging minority voices of resistance through language study as the practice of democracy.

he question of the existence of a Hebrew concept of per­ suasion arises as a subordinate pofrit in James BCinneavy's book, The Greek Rhetorical Origins of Christian Faith. Kmneavy's thesis is that the Christian notion of TTIO-TIC, faith as dis­ tinct from the Hebrew concept of faithfulness or trust, 'emunâ, owes its origin the Greek concept of TTIO-TIC, beUef as persuasion or proof. In the process of proving this thesis, Kinneavy cites G. Berfram's Hebrew supplement Rudolf Bultmann's essay on -rreidu} in the Theological Dictionary of the New Testament. Berfram comments that bibUcal Hebrew has no word corresponding TTeidu), to persuade (Bultmann 1). From this, and from the con­ cordance the Septuagint which indeed shows that no Hebrew verb was franslated with Greek ireido) in its active fransitive form, Kirmeavy draws the conclusion that this apparent lack is conceptual—that what is lacking is an awareness of a reflective and analytical concept of persuasion as such (54). In my opinion, this conclusion, whUe not in itself incorrect, is unwarranted by the evidence Kinneavy attests, which instead points a more specifie difference between disparate concepts of persuasion, whether pragmatic and impUdt, as in the Hebrew fradition, or reflective and analytical, as in the Greek.

This analysis is a specific study that investigates the role ethos plays in the scientific papers of American glacial geologists. Five articles, spanning the time period 1839–1988, a time period which saw the tentative beginnings, development, and maturation of glacial research and theory, were analyzed to determine the rhetorical strategies the writers used to establish their particular research and writing as being good science worthy of recognition and acceptance by their communities of glacial geologists. Early articles were written to portray the author's notion of good science as a strict attention to personal observation and analogy. Articles in the middle period continued to stress personal observation, but also appealed to the observations of other workers. The most contemporary articles favored quantified relationships and precise measurement.

When we design a course in writing, we join that debate over whether we should see individual cognition or social and cultural context as motive force in literate (Flower 282). To remind us of this debate, Linda Flower recently asked, Can we... reconcile a commitment to nurturing a personal voice, individual purpose, or an inner, self-directed process of making meaning, with rhetoric's traditional assumption that both inquiry and purpose are responses to rhetorical situations, or with more recent assertions that inquiry in writing must start with social, cultural, or political awareness? (282). Those three commitments are not really incongruous. All three can be found reconciled in advanced composition course described below. As a course built by students around individualized projects, it encourages students to apply general principles to specialized tasks. Good writers, according to Richard M. Coe, know how to apply general principles of composition to particular writing tasks and contexts (412). With so many different projects resulting from this approach, students' divergent interests must be shared in an atmosphere of collaboration. John Trimbur has stated that one of goals of collaborative learning is to replace traditional hierarchical relations of teaching and learning with practices of participatory democracy (6.11). Yet even collaborative models need to leave instructor with a certain authority. For example, James A. Reither and Douglas Vipond, whose teaching model is based on collaboration, suggest that the most powerful way to arrange this kind of situation is to organize a course so students collaboratively investigate a more or less original scholarly question or field. The teacher sets a research project or question for class, casting students as members of a research group (863). The final exam in my course acts as that long-range research project. This assignment, which is submitted to students on first day of class, summarizes

Research Article| August 01 1992 Cicerone, De oratore: la doppia funzione dell'ethos dell'oratore Lucia Calboli Montefusco Lucia Calboli Montefusco Dipartimento di FiloIogia Classica e Medioevale, Universita Degli Studi di Bologna, via Zamboni, 32–34, 40126 Bologna. Search for other works by this author on: This Site PubMed Google Scholar Rhetorica (1992) 10 (3): 245–259. https://doi.org/10.1525/rh.1992.10.3.245 Views Icon Views Article contents Figures & tables Video Audio Supplementary Data Peer Review Share Icon Share Twitter LinkedIn Tools Icon Tools Get Permissions Cite Icon Cite Search Site Citation Lucia Calboli Montefusco; Cicerone, De oratore: la doppia funzione dell'ethos dell'oratore. Rhetorica 1 August 1992; 10 (3): 245–259. doi: https://doi.org/10.1525/rh.1992.10.3.245 Download citation file: Ris (Zotero) Reference Manager EasyBib Bookends Mendeley Papers EndNote RefWorks BibTex toolbar search Search Dropdown Menu toolbar search search input Search input auto suggest filter your search All ContentRhetorica Search This content is only available via PDF. Copyright 1992, The International Society for the History of Rhetoric1992 Article PDF first page preview Close Modal You do not currently have access to this content.

Research Article| August 01 1992 Aristotle on Persuasion Through Character William W. Fortenbaugh William W. Fortenbaugh Dept. of Classics, Rutgers University, New Brunswick, New Jersey 08903-0270. Search for other works by this author on: This Site PubMed Google Scholar Rhetorica (1992) 10 (3): 207–244. https://doi.org/10.1525/rh.1992.10.3.207 Views Icon Views Article contents Figures & tables Video Audio Supplementary Data Peer Review Share Icon Share Facebook Twitter LinkedIn MailTo Tools Icon Tools Cite Icon Cite Search Site Citation William W. Fortenbaugh; Aristotle on Persuasion Through Character. Rhetorica 1 August 1992; 10 (3): 207–244. doi: https://doi.org/10.1525/rh.1992.10.3.207 Download citation file: Ris (Zotero) Reference Manager EasyBib Bookends Mendeley Papers EndNote RefWorks BibTex toolbar search Search Dropdown Menu toolbar search search input Search input auto suggest filter your search All ContentRhetorica Search This content is only available via PDF. Copyright 1992, The International Society for the History of Rhetoric1992 Article PDF first page preview Close Modal You do not currently have access to this content.

Research Article| August 01 1992 From Disputation to Argumentation: The French Morality Play in the Sixteenth Century Marijke Spies Marijke Spies Herenstratt 11 B, 1015 BX, Amsterdam, The Netherlands. Search for other works by this author on: This Site PubMed Google Scholar Rhetorica (1992) 10 (3): 261–271. https://doi.org/10.1525/rh.1992.10.3.261 Views Icon Views Article contents Figures & tables Video Audio Supplementary Data Peer Review Share Icon Share Facebook Twitter LinkedIn MailTo Tools Icon Tools Get Permissions Cite Icon Cite Search Site Citation Marijke Spies; From Disputation to Argumentation: The French Morality Play in the Sixteenth Century. Rhetorica 1 August 1992; 10 (3): 261–271. doi: https://doi.org/10.1525/rh.1992.10.3.261 Download citation file: Ris (Zotero) Reference Manager EasyBib Bookends Mendeley Papers EndNote RefWorks BibTex toolbar search Search Dropdown Menu toolbar search search input Search input auto suggest filter your search All ContentRhetorica Search This content is only available via PDF. Copyright 1992, The International Society for the History of Rhetoric1992 Article PDF first page preview Close Modal You do not currently have access to this content.

Two recent books that extend the claim that scientific inquiry is rhetorical are compared and contrasted: Science in Action: How to Follow Scientists and Engineers Through Society by Bruno Latour, Harvard University Press, Cambridge, MA, 1987, and The Rhetoric of Science by Alan G. Gross, Harvard University Press, Cambridge, MA, 1990. Latour argues the importance of social networks in science: claims become facts when numerous resources and allies are gathered to support them. Gross applies rhetoric as defined by Aristotle to scientific texts and argues that the claims of science are solely the products of persuasion.< <ETX xmlns:mml="http://www.w3.org/1998/Math/MathML" xmlns:xlink="http://www.w3.org/1999/xlink">></ETX>

Two admissions in Hugh Blair's Lectures on Rhetoric and Belles Lettres seem peculiar in relation to his own rhetorical practice. One is his observation in Lecture 25 that it is debate in popular assemblies, rather than the pulpit, which provides the illustrious field for the highest kind of eloquence. The other, not so striking in itself, but somewhat so in relation to Blair's own choice of rhetorical strategies as a preacher, is his judgment in Lecture 26, and again in Lecture 29, that among modern divines, it is French preachers rather than English who most nearly approach the ideal of true eloquence. There are repeated indications in the middle parts of Blair's Lectures that he accepts the Ciceronian view that the truest eloquence is strongly pathetic in the sense of vigorously arousing the more violent and more perturbing emotions. This highest degree of eloquence he characterizes in Lecture 25 as eloquence

Academic Literacies suggests that the narrow focus on academic ways of reading, writing and thinking is limited and limiting for both students and teachers at the college level. Chiseri-Strater uses ethnographic field methods to uncover the multiple literacies that two college students bring to different disciplines and shows how factors such as gender, human development, and private talents are ignored in the college curriculum. She works against Hirsch's restricted view of literacy and offers many suggestions for expanding our notion of what it means to be literate in an academic setting. This book joins the continuing debate over cultural literacy, but unlike Hirsch's and Bloom's works, it offers a new point of view - the students'. Those who plan curricula and set goals for higher education too often ignore these individuals who are the patrons of the system. In addition, composition scholars who are involved in the emerging field of academic discourse communities will find Chiseri-Strater's position of interest. Finally, since the book offers a critique of the dominant mastery mode of teaching in colleges, it should appeal to those woman's studies scholars who are developing a feminist pedagogy that brings women students into the conversation about womens's ways of knowing, perceiving and learning.

The essay has three parts, with the first two introductory to the third. The first part explores the ideas of several modem philosophers about imagery and imagination and their relationship to language and communication. The second part reviews contemporary theories of mental imagery and verbal processes as derived from empirical studies in cognitive psychology. The final section synthesizes the ideas of the philosophers and psychologists and relates them to the rhetorical concept of persona, with examples. The examples I will use in the final section will deal with imagery in composing exposition, specifically argument and persuasion. The processes of imagery and imagination involved in depicting character and action or composing vivid description, while interesting in their own right, are more obvious. Donald Murray cites numerous poets and fiction writers who testify that imagery is not only the motivation but the vehicle of their composing (Write 59-60). To show that imagination is basic to all composing, I will avoid the narrative and poetic and steer into realms where demonstration is more subtle.

readers a philosophical endorsement of rhetoric, an argument for narrative, a hypotactical defense of parataxis, and a serious discussion of playfulness. The one exception to this cryptodialectical commentary is Jarratt's second chapter. There she skillfully avoids the binary trope of mythos-logos, rejects convincingly the logic of linear historical progress, and demonstrates nicely how the sophistical affinity for nomos shifts our attention from a questionable and outdated dichotomy to a field large enough to include both binary terms and meaningful enough to transcend their differences. Dismissing neither mythos nor logos, nomos appropriates both, and in so doing invents something other that problematizes the already familiar. Unfortunately, the story of nomos is only half of a larger sophistical story. The other, opposing half, the story of physis, finds itself associated only with the philosophers. Insofar as Antiphon's and Hippias' arguments for physis support part of her agenda, this omission or misassociation is all the more perplexing. In the 1850's George Grote observed that the sophists were the mainstream intellectuals in their culture and Plato an eccentric reformer. True, many historians of philosophy reversed this historical reality, making Plato the intellectual king and the sophists his unworthy subjects. Now Jarratt urges historians of rhetoric to give the sophists, women, and teachers of English composition a more prominent role in the new histories of rhetoric. Recent works by Vickers, Conley, and Bizzell are already doing what she is urging. If Jarratt is looking for more recognition as a historian of rhetoric, a feminist intellectual, and a teacher of college composition, she has a great deal more support than she may realize.

Global multi-cultural reader. Perspectives - short quotes at beginning of each chapter. Myths/folktales at beginning of each chapter. Includes some student essays. New: chapters on gender and pop culture; 2 essays in each chapter with potentially polarizing situations so students can practice argumentative writing; pedagogy offers increased attention to rhetorical strategies.

This study used on-line protocol analysis to contrast the effects on the writing process of knowledge taught in three instructional treatments: Models (declarative knowledge of form), General Procedures (declarative knowledge of form plus general procedural knowledge related to content plus procedural knowledge related to form), and Task-Specific Procedures (declarative knowledge of form plus task-specific procedural knowledge related to content plus procedural knowledge related to form). Pretest and posttest protocols from six students in each treatment measured treatment effects on the processes of students writing essays involving extended definition. Students in the Models treatment made weak improvements in relating the elements of definition and did not think critically about the concepts being defined. Students in the General Procedures treatment made gains in linking ideas according to particular task constraints and improved their critical thinking skills. Students in the Task-Specific Procedures integrated their ideas purposefully, thought critically about the concepts being defined, and appeared to establish a conversational voice to anticipate composing needs.

This study was designed to determine (a) whether the writing of persuasive discourse can be improved by instruction and (b) the effect of reading on writing and of writing on reading within the mode of persuasion. Students in two sixth-grade classes in each of two schools (n= 110) were stratified by sex and ability and randomly assigned to one of four treatment groups: 1. instruction in a model for persuasion plus writing practice; 2. instruction in a model for persuasion plus reading practice; 3. reading novels and writing book reports plus a single lesson in the persuasion model; 4. reading novels and writing book reports (control group). Instruction was given for ten 45-minute lessons over five weeks. Pretests and posttests each consisted of writing a recall protocol of a persuasive text and writing two persuasive compositions. On the posttest, both the writing and the reading groups (groups 1 and 2) scored significantly higher than the control group on writing quality, on the organization of compositions, on the number of conclusions and text markers used, and on the degree of elaboration of reasons. There were no differences between the control group and other groups on reading recall scores.

This paper compares the effects of pencil-and-paper and computer-assisted versions of a process/model approach in a college writing program with the effects of a more traditional approach. Three empirical measures are used in the study: a frequency count of linguistic markers of argumentation and comparison/contrast based on previous work by Odell (1977), a measure of the number of arguments, and a measure of their logical integrity. All significant differences favored students in the experimental sections, who used more markers, made more arguments and made stronger arguments. Students in the computer-assisted (CAI) version of the experimental approach used still more markers than students in the pencil-and-paper version, suggesting that the CAI materials may enhance the efficiency of student learning of some formal aspects of reasoning in writing. These results suggest that it may be possible to attain a postprocess paradigm for teaching writing and thinking that transcends the dialectic that places process and product in opposition to each other.

This article discusses the work of two American ecologists of the first half of the twentieth century, F. E. Clements and H. A. Gleason, who differed in terms of their understanding of community succession—that is, how ecological communities change over time. Clements's and Gleason's debate about the nature of ecological communities demonstrates, first, that in considering questions of succession, ecologists are constructing and testing plausible narratives. Second, it suggests that the structures of scientific narratives resemble structures of other cultural narratives in depending, at least to some extent, on cultural assumptions and values. The presence of these competing stories about ecological data thus calls attention to the importance of narrative as an interpretive and rhetorical strategy in scientific discourse.

Introduction: A Model of Discourse Development Reading and Writing as Social Activities The Answers Are Not in the Back of the Book: Developing Discourse Practices in First-Year English THE SOCIAL STANCE The Artful Conversation: Characterizing the Development of Advanced Literacy Making Sense of Reading The Development of Poetic Understanding During Adolescence Writing and Reasoning about Literature THE TEXTUAL STANCE Writers, Judges and Text Models The Development of Persuasive Argumentative Writing Adolescents' Uses of Intertextual Links to Understand Literature Verbocentrism, Dualism, and Oversimplification: The Need for New Vistas for Reading Comprehension Research and Practice THE INSTITUTIONAL STANCE Developing Reflective Thinking and Writing Teaching English for Reflective Thinking Reading, Writing, and the Prose of the School THE FIELD STANCE Telling Secrets: Student Readers and Disciplinary Authorities Assessing Literacy Learning with Adults: An Ideological Approach Developmental Challenges, Developmental Tensions: A Heuristic for Curricular Thinking Author Index Subject Index

Abstract Nineteenth‐Century Rhetoric in North America by Nan Johnson. Carbondale: Southern Illinois UP, 1991. 313. Protagoras and Logos: A Study in Greek Philosophy and Rhetoric by Edward Schiappa. Columbia, South Carolina: University of South Carolina Press, 1991. xvii + 239. Rhetoric and Irony, Western Literacy and Western Lies by C. Jan Swearingen. New York: Oxford University Press, 1991; xiv + 323. Democracy and the Mass Media: A Collection of Essays ed. Judith Lichtenberg. New York: Cambridge UP, 1990; 410. The Rhetoric of Reaction: Perversity, Futility, Jeopardy by Albert O. Hirschman. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press, 1991, pp. xi+197.

James Boyd White in Heracles' Bow: Essays on the Rhetoric and Poetics of the explains one of his uses of the term rhetoric, of which, he contends, the language of law is species (33): A judge's or lawyer's language, he notes, is argumentatively constitutive of the language it employs; such language is not only instrumental in arguing but announces, in effect, Here in this language is the way this and similar cases should be talked (34). Legal professionals thus shape language behavior; the dynamics of such processes and similar ones are the objects of White's attention and analysis in the several studies included in Heracles' Bow and in When Words Lose Their Meaning. White's analyses of the rhetorical nature of the law embody detailed suggestions which, if realized, could work positive influences. He frequently makes statements like the following: Law should take as its most central question what kind of we should be, with what values, motives, and aims (42). Indeed, in White's thinking, law and rhetoric are to be seen as linked in broad shaping process, one which promises to build a of certain sort, set of shared relations, attitudes, and meanings. To view law as rhetoric might enable us to attend to the spiritual or meaningful side of our collective life (42-43). The points made by White in his essays embody praiseworthy aims; in the present essay, I will illuminate one type of aim in exploring White's claims concerning law and rhetoric operating in communities of certain sort, those of the U. S. Constitution. When Words Lose Their Meaning presents the legal and epistemological basis for the communities of the Constitution in reading of Justice John Marshall's Supreme Court decision of McCulloch v. Maryland. This decision, White contends, activated the inert Constitution of the United States and, in effect, exercised reconstitution of culture and community (247). The issues he treats are complex and of interest to rhetoricians. The discussion here will emphasize U. S. Constitution that establishes variety of communities engaged in rhetorical practices. The variety occurs along with number of benefits, because the Constitution's communicants are invited to act in most cases while free of specifications and directives. Such an invitation leaves room for communicator to consider specific circumstances, to engage in the activity Aristotle designated in terms of blank paradigm, that is, to find the available means of persuasion in given case (7). White in his confrontation of several paradoxical issues suggested by McCulloch v. Maryland raises the sorts of questions which he asks in his other essays, questions about communities and the nature of the texts with which they are associated. He is interested in the boundaries, strengths and limitations of the Constitution and of the nature of its rhetorical communities.

Oral and Written Communication: Historical Approaches. Edited by Richard Leo Enos. Newbury Park, CA: Sage, 1990. Pp.vi + 264. Aristotle, On Rhetoric: A Theory of Civic Discourse. Newly Translated, with Introduction, Notes and Appendices by George Kennedy. New York and Oxford: Oxford University Press, 1991, xvi + 335 pp. Writing Biology: Texts in the Social Construction of Scientific Knowledge by Greg Meyers. Madison: Wisconsin UP, 1990. Ethics in Human Communication by Richard L. Johannesen. 3rd Edition. Waveland Press, 1990. Voices of the Mind: A Sociocultural Approach to Mediated Action by James V. Wertsch. Cambridge: Harvard UP, 1991. 147 pp. + references and name and subject index. Thomas Henry Huxley: Communicating for Science by J. Vernon Jensen. Newark: University of Delaware, 1991. Pp. 253. The Rhetorical Turn: Invention and Persuasion in the Conduct of Inquiry. Edited by Herbert W. Simons. Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 1990. Pp. xii + 388.

Research Article| May 01 1991 Patterns of Persuasion in the Gospels Burton L. Mack and Vernon K. Robbins; Patterns of Persuasion in the Gospels. Sonoma, CA: Polebridge Press, 1989; 230 pp. James D. Hester James D. Hester Department of Religion, University of Redlands, Redlands, California 92373. Search for other works by this author on: This Site PubMed Google Scholar Rhetorica (1991) 9 (2): 179–185. https://doi.org/10.1525/rh.1991.9.2.179 Views Icon Views Article contents Figures & tables Video Audio Supplementary Data Peer Review Share Icon Share Facebook Twitter LinkedIn Email Tools Icon Tools Cite Icon Cite Search Site Citation James D. Hester; Patterns of Persuasion in the Gospels. Rhetorica 1 May 1991; 9 (2): 179–185. doi: https://doi.org/10.1525/rh.1991.9.2.179 Download citation file: Ris (Zotero) Reference Manager EasyBib Bookends Mendeley Papers EndNote RefWorks BibTex toolbar search Search Dropdown Menu toolbar search search input Search input auto suggest filter your search All ContentRhetorica Search Copyright 1991, The International Society for the History of Rhetoric1991 Article PDF first page preview Close Modal You do not currently have access to this content.

Sales activities have been understood by some to be negative, one-sided rhetorical encounters. Teachers of technical communication will find it more helpful to view sales proposals as aimed toward the construction and maintenance of long-term relationships, a view held by far-thinking sales professionals. Hermeneutic theory, by offering a different conceptual relationship between means and ends than even new rhetoric suggests, can help clarify the process by which ethical know-how intersects with persuasion. Consequently, it can offer technical communication instructors a valuable perspective from which to teach sales proposal writing.

It has recently been argued that researchers should pay increased attention to the ways in which critical thinking processes are stimulated when students can determine their own types and sequences of reading and writing activities. This argument underscores the need to look more closely at the research process for the research paper, probably the best means that teachers have for fostering independent critical thinking. Remarkably, only a few studies touch on what students do as they select and narrow a topic, locate sources, sift through these sources, and develop a central research question or thesis statement. Nevertheless, much can be learned from these few studies, especially with respect to the intellectual significance of when and how a thesis or controlling idea is formulated. This article examines these studies in detail, notes the limitations of a related body of research focusing on other kinds of academic writing, and raises a number of conceptual and methodological issues for researchers to address in future research on the research process.

It has been twenty years since Richard Young, Alton Becker and Kenneth Pike brought out their challenging and revolutionary book, Rhetoric: Discovery and Change. Though cast in the mold of a rhetorical handbook, Rhetoric: Discovery and Change (like many of the best rhetorical handbooks, including Aristotle's Rhetoric) attempted to do more than relay the accumulated rhetorical wisdom of its age in a predigested form suitable for students. It was an attempt to synthesize a complete rhetorical system, a system that in some ways built on and in some ways departed from the classical model. Arguing that Profound changes are taking place in the system of Western values that has for centuries guided conduct (8), Young, Becker and Pike wanted to rethink rhetoric from its foundations, using concepts borrowed from problem-solving theory, game theory, dialogic communication, linguistics, and Carl Rogers' nondirective therapy. Out of these materials they created a rhetoric that they claimed offered new goals, new ways of creating ideas, and new ways of managing the rhetor-audience relationship. I would like to focus primarily on Young, Becker and Pike's use of principles. I see this as their most interesting, possibly most enduring, and certainly most controversial contribution to modern rhetoric, a contribution that escapes the bounds of the eighteen pages in which they explicitly discuss Rogers and subtly but pervasively dominates the entire work. The propriety and the pedagogical utility of Young, Becker and Pike's Rogerian rhetoric has been debated before, by Andrea Lunsford, Diane C. Mader, and Lisa Ede among others. This debate has centered chiefly on two questions: whether rhetoric as developed by Young, Becker and Pike is genuinely different from Aristotelian rhetoric and on whether it is fair to its main source, therapy. This debate is far from trivial and it is far from closed; this article to some extent will continue it. But it is time to step back and, from our twenty-year vantage point, ask some larger questions that enclose and put into perspective these more local questions of fairness to sources. To do so, let us look at Young, Becker and Pike's version of rhetoric both in its historical context and in the context of the larger rhetorical sys-

When Mary Belenky, Blythe Clinchy, Nancy Goldberger, and Jill Tarule published their book, Women's Ways of Knowing, they essentially waved red flag before loyal disciples of William Perry's developmental scheme. These researchers question the Perry model because, while its methodology allowed for the incorporation of interviews with female subjects, its conclusions were based only on data from interviews with males. Belenky et al. argue that Perry's research might indicate that women conform to the male pattern, but the research strategy itself was deficient in its ability to uncover developmental patterns which more accurately describe the female experience. What Perry may have been measuring, Belenky et al. argue, is the process by which a relatively homogeneous group of people are socialized into and make sense of system of values, standards and objectives, specifically, how Harvard University promotes and encourages relativistic thought and how male students respond (15).1 To say the least, the resulting confusion, concern, and debate engendered by Belenky et al.'s assertions have influenced wide range of academic disciplines. Composition teachers are certainly not immune. Female students now constitute significant percentage of the college population. To the extent that we have been influenced by and made use of the Perry development model, we may be applying teaching methods developed for and around male students. Belenky et al. alert us to the possibility that William Perry's scheme may not tell us everything we need to know about our female students. Exactly what does the Perry scheme tell us? In 1970 William Perry described the developmental stages of college students in the following way: 1) Entering freshmen are dualists. They view knowledge as collection of information falling into two categories: right and wrong. This habit of structuring the world into opposites-we and they, good and bad, correct and incorrectprompts dualists to assume that truth is inarguable and can be dispensed through the proper authorities. Learning is therefore passive process. 2) Students become multiplists as they are exposed to the spectacle of authorities disagreeing among themselves. Recognizing that often there are no clearcut answers and that truth is not absolute, multiplists become functional

As with On the Origin of Species, we find that the work to be considered here-The Structure and Distribution of Coral Reefs-demonstrates Darwin's use of hedges to project the ethos of a cautious scientist. Hedges are linguistic elements such as perhaps, might, to a certain degree, or it is possible that. When people use hedges, they signal that they are taking a cautious stance on the truth-value of the referential matter they seek to convey. Hedges are a type of metadiscourse, a level of writing in which authors draw attention to the very art of writing itself-they discourse about their discourse (Crismore, Talking to Readers). This metadiscursive trait, however, represents only one aspect of Darwin's rhetoric. In Coral Reefs, he sculpts a key chapter into a Ciceronian form so pure that one might have to return to the Renaissance to find a parallel, and within this larger form, he strategically places hedges and other metadiscourse. He, further, employs visuals (drawings, diagrams, and maps) for persuasion at those points were the tension between his audiences preconceptions and the new theory being presented threatens to reach a dangerous level. The visuals and the metadiscursive commentary about them, also, help to establish his ethos and to build the argument for his theory of coral reefs. These elements, so perfectly embodied in Coral Reefs, were the rhetorical tools of an extremely sophisticated scientific mind which has much to pass down to our own conception of scientific writing. All too many of today's professional, academic, and textbook writers view exposition of findings as being all that is needed-and other parts of the written document, including visuals, can be handled even more perfunctorily: facts by themselves are enough, after all, according to this view. Darwin, however, believed that bald facts and blunt explanations were insufficient, as he clearly indicates in his A utobiography. There, he writes that in Origin he had first presented a short and rather vague discussion of his own innovative idea in the area of embryology. Later, other scientists got the for the new idea. Darwin felt no bitterness, for he knew that the fault had been his alone and that this fault was a rhetorical one: I failed to impress my readers; and he who succeeds in doing so deserves, in my opinion, all the credit (Barlow 125). Facts and blunt explanations were not enough-rhetorical strategies were needed to impress the reader-even (and we have some reason to say especially) professional scientists. Since, even granting the A utobiography, there will always remain a question about the precise nature of the intended audience for Origin, and since, moreover, a cloud of non-scientific, anachronistic controversy hangs over its theory of natural selection, we have turned to Darwin's work on coral reefs: this work was unquestionably intended for the professional scientists, and yet it also, like Origin, sets forth a theory that involves a historical development measured in geological time. Coral Reefs has, we think, some

In 1989 a bipartisan group of US congressmen attempted to use high-definition television (HDTV) as a vehicle to redirect government policy toward the consumer electronics industry. The authors explore why that effort ultimately failed. It is noted that important technical issues were rarely reflected accurately in the public policy debate. In spite of efforts by the IEEE, engineers were largely absent from the debate and failed to influence it. Technical arguments were carried on primarily by those who did not understand the technical issues involved or who distorted them to fit an established political philosophy. How technical information about HDTV was used by the participants, and how political factors set the terms by which technical information could or could not be presented are examined. How engineers might have made a more effective technical case for HDTV is considered.< <ETX xmlns:mml="http://www.w3.org/1998/Math/MathML" xmlns:xlink="http://www.w3.org/1999/xlink">></ETX>

Ironically, just doing the right thing is often easier than organizing one's thoughts and arguments concerning an ethical issue. This article examines a legalistic model for ethical argumentation proposed in this journal by T. M. Sawyer and finds it to have serious problems and limitations. Also illustrated is how argument from analogy is better suited to the task of discovering and presenting well-defended ethical positions.

This article analyzes the recognition, development, and use of the power of persuasion in American sales letter from 1905-1920, as well as two other business-writing traditions which developed during this period: the “you” viewpoint and the five C's. Examples will show how these two traditions changed the language used in business letters, allowing these letters to play a dual role by making these letters easier for the consumer to read and understand and by using these letters to pursue the growth in national character of American business. The article concludes with a call for further research, to help prepare writers to produce the letters of the future.

(1991). Aristotle and the stasis theory: A reexamination. Rhetoric Society Quarterly: Vol. 21, No. 1, pp. 53-59.

Social constructionist theories suggest that scientific knowledge is the product of socially created conceptual frameworks. These theories have influenced the study of scientific writing because of their emphasis on persuasion and consensus. These issues are developed by the authors of three recent books: Gould demonstrates the social nature of science; Bazerman shows the social nature of the development of scientific genres; and Myers explores scientific writing as socially mediated narratives.

Creating a Computer-Supported Writing Facility: A Blueprint for Action, Cynthia L. Selfe Computer Writing Environments: Theory, Research, and Design, Bruce Britton and Shawn M. Glynn Fred Kemp Critical Perspectiveosn Computers and Composition Instruction, Gail E. Hawisher and Cynthia L. Selfe Bruce L. Edwards Reclaiming Pedagogy: The Rhetoric of the Classroom, Patricia Donahue and Ellen Quandahl Sharon Crowley Audience Expectations and Teacher Demands, Robert Brooke and John Hendricks Alice M. Gillam The Psychology of Writing: The Affective Experience, Alice Glarden Brand Robert Brooke Coping with Failure.: The Therapeutic Uses of Rhetoric, David Payne Paul W. Ranieri Critical Thinking: A Semiotic Perspective, Marjorie Siegel and Robert Carey Alice Heim Calderonello Effective Documentation: What We Have Learned from Research,Stephen Doheny-Farina Jack Selzer