Effective citizens do more than interpret the world around them - they change it. In Between the Lines, John Schilb shows the role composition could play in enabling students to intervene in civic affairs by suggesting ways they can create their own discourses. When instructors understand and put into practice the latest in theory, they can help students learn how to read and write the lines to initiate change. In addition to looking at the line between the academy and the world at large, Schilb examines traditional barriers within English Departments. He argues that many of them have used theory to reinforce a separation of composition studies and literary studies in both theory and instruction. The book offers a thorough, accessible review of recent developments in both composition and literary theory as well as a fruitful comparison of their respective uses and understandings. The chapters in Part One discuss how composition studies and literary studies have differed in their interpretations of the term rhetoric. Part Two examines the ways in which each has handled the ideas of postmodernism. In Part Three, Schilb compares their new shared interest in personal writing, their different attitudes toward collaboration, and issues that arise when literary theories travel into composition. With this book, readers will benefit from an enriched understanding of the theoretical perspectives, institutional conditions, and pedagogical strategies involved in teaching English.

Readers in the sixteenth century read (that is, interpreted) texts quite differently from the way contemporary readers do; they were trained to notice different aspects of a text and to process them differently. Using educational works of Erasmus, Ascham, and others, commentaries on literary works, various kinds of religious guides and homilies, and self-improvement books, Kintgen has found specific evidence of these differences and makes imaginative use of it to draw fascinating and convincing conclusions about the art and practice of reading. Kintgen ends by situating the book within literary theory, cognitive science, and literary studies. Among the writers covered are Gabriel Harvey, E. K. (the commentator on The Shepheardes Calendar), Sir John Harrington, George Gascoigne, George Puttenham, Thomas Blundeville, and Angel Day.

Reviews 347 dimension often missing (a point mentioned by Trevor Melia in his erudite Comment). Here rhetoric reaches its fullest extension, becoming one with the domain of poetics - but that should come as no surprise to historians of rhetoric. Jean Dietz Moss Ronald H. Carpenter, History as Rhetoric: Style, Narrative, and Persuasion (Columbia, SC: University of South Carolina Press, 1995). Ronald Carpenter's History as Rhetoric argues that the stories of past events we call "history" draw upon the resources of rhetoric and can serve to shape a public understanding of the world. For postmodernists, this may not qualify as news, but Carpenter is no postmodernist. He relies pri­ marily on methods that would satisfy the most doctrinaire neoAristotelian or New Critic. He uses the tools of "scientific history" and traditional literary analysis to demonstrate the rhetoricality of history. The focus of Carpenter's book is on American historians of the late nineteenth and twentieth centuries: Frederick Jackson Turner, Carl Becker, Alfred Thayer Mahan, Frank L. Owsley, and Barbara Tuchman. He attempts to show how each of these writers employs techniques of style and/or narrative in an effort to achieve "opinion leadership" beyond the realms of academic history. In the cases of Turner, Becker, Mahan, and Tuchman, Carpenter argues that they achieved an effective "rhetorical impress," making his case by means of close readings of their texts com­ bined with documentary evidence of the responses of actual readers. As his one negative example, Carpenter attempts to show that Frank Owsley's contribution to the agrarian manifesto I'll Take My Stand failed in its persuasive purpose. Carpenter devotes three chapters (one each on Turner, Becker, and Mahan) to the effects of style, and three chapters (another on Mahan, plus one each on Owsley and Tuchman) to techniques of narrative. In a long concluding chapter, he ranges more broadly across historical and popular writings and even motion pictures to show the pre­ science of Turner's frontier hypothesis in respect to twentieth-century American attitudes toward warfare, and to urge the need for alternatives to the frontiersman metaphor in war-related public discourse. Carpenter is at his best when working as a rhetorical analyst on archival materials. In his chapter on Frederick Jackson Turner, for exam- 348 RHETORICA pie, Carpenter traces the evolution of Turner's style, starting with analyses of primary sources from Turner's high-school and college days, and mov­ ing from those to the later professional writings. Drawing upon both clas­ sical and modem stylistic theory, Carpenter teases out the stylistic lessons Turner learned as a student and shows how those lessons found their way into his mature work. Carpenter then uses published reviews and corre­ spondence from readers to support an argument that, through the power of an "oratorical" style, Turner helped establish the frontiersman as an archetype of American culture. The chapter is a model of stylistic analysis and of cautiously developed argument. Equally interesting and somewhat more venturesome in interpreta­ tion is Carpenter's treatment of Barbara Tuchman's The Guns ofAugust and its role in John Kennedy's decision making during the Cuban missile crisis of 1962. That Kennedy had drawn lessons from Tuchman was previously established, and here, as elsewhere in the book, Carpenter acknowledges his debts to other writers with meticulousness and grace. Carpenter's own purpose is to get at specific rhetorical techniques that might account for Tuchman's influence. He draws on Tuchman's correspondence with edi­ torial adviser Denning Miller in an effort to understand the compositional choices made in the writing of her book, and uses Hayden White's tropical theory to characterize the resulting narrative form. He simultaneously develops a speculative argument that draws on documentary evidence to show how specific narrative and stylistic features of The Guns of August might account for its role in Kennedy's thinking during the crisis. Throughout the chapter, Carpenter interweaves narrative, rhetorical analysis, theoretical explication, and the citation of documentary evidence in an admirably coherent and persuasive form. In the Tuchman chapter, Carpenter focuses on the rhetorical effect of a single work on an audience of one. In other chapters he examines rhetori­ cal effects wrought on audiences...

Recounts a veteran instructor’s experiences with teaching new subjects, American literature and poetry writing, after many years away from graduate school. Muses about the reality of teaching undergraduates. Considers teaching as a rhetorical act and finds that learning is more likely to occur when teachers approach teaching as a rhetorical act rather than an enactment of theory.

Acknowledgments Introductions Standard at the University of Texas by Alan W. Friedman Political Correctness, Principled Contextualism, Pedagogical Conscience by Evan Carton Canonicity, Subalternity, and Literary Pedagogy Pedagogy and the Canon Controversy by Jacqueline Bacon A Multicultural Curriculum: Diversity or Divisiveness? by Helena Woodard Rereading Texas History: Cultural Impoverishment, Empowerment, and Pedagogy by Louis Mendoza English Literature, the Irish, and The Norton Anthology by Rachel Jennings The Thumb of Ekalavya: Postcolonial Studies and the Third World Scholar in a First World Academy by S. Shankar Reclaiming the Teaching Assistant: Dissent as a Pedagogical Tool by Jean Lee Cole and Jennifer Huth Reading, Writing, Teaching: Principles and Provocations Warranting a Postmodernist Literary Studies by Gordon A. Grant III Knowledge, Power, and the Melancholy of Studies by Robert G. Twombly Collaborative Learning in the Postmodern Classroom by Jerome Bump Professionalism and the Problem of the We in Composition Studies by Nancy Peterson An Accidental Writing Teacher by Sara E. Kimball Having Students Write on Moral Topics: Legal, Religious, and Pedagogical Issues by James L. Kinneavy Bodies, Sexualities, and Computers in the Classroom Desire and Learning: The Perversity of Pedagogy by Kathleen Kane Learning and Desire: A Pedagogical Model by Edward Madden Gender and Trauma in the Classroom by Margot Backus Type Normal Like the Rest of Us: Writing, Power, and Homophobia in the Networked Composition Classroom by Alison Regan Rethinking Pedagogical Authority in Response to Homophobia in the Networked Classroom by Susan Claire Warshauer Here, Queer, and Perversely Sincere: Lesbian Subjects in the Department by Kim Emery Works Cited Index

The early works of I. A. Richards, while not committed to hard-line verificationism, nonetheless seem persuaded of the central tenet of logical positivism, that the only truth strictly so-called is the truth disclosed by the methods of empirical science. This minimal positivism, coupled with a non-physicalist form of behaviorism, is evident in books like Science and Poetry (1926) and Principles of Literary Criticism (1925). However, if Richards was a positivist, he was a positivist who wanted to save poetry from positivism. Primitive positivists like A. J. Ayer impenitently regarded poetic discourse as meaningless. Since they are neither analytic nor available for empirical testing, the statements found in poems are really pseudo-statements, expressions of feeling and no more. Richards, who loved poetry, feared that people would cease to read it or write it if they were convinced that it was nothing but emotional gush. And so, in his early books, he developed an affectivism in which poetry, by helping us order our conflicting impulses, acquires a value distinct from the value of science. On this view, poetry is not a means of expressing and communicating propositional truth-only science does that-but a device for constructive behavior-modification by means of language. Meanwhile, from the very beginning of his career, Richards had been a diligent student of Samuel Taylor Coleridge. He was convinced that the works of Coleridge contained many important insights into the nature and effects of poetry which, in order to be made generally accessible and secure wider appreciation, needed only to be disentangled from the metaphysics of romantic idealism in which they were embedded. Quotations from Coleridge appeared with great frequency in his own writing and teaching. Kathleen Coburn predicted that sooner or later Richards would have to write a book on Coleridge, and eventually her prophecy was fulfilled. Setting out to rewrite Coleridge in the language of empiricism, Richards produced Coleridge on Imagination (1934), which suggested to some of his readers that Richards had not converted Coleridge to empiricism but that Coleridge had made Richards an idealist, if not a metaphysical then at least a linguistic idealist. It is the Richards thus baptized in the Alphean flood who speaks in the lectures on The Philosophy of Rhetoric (1936) delivered two years after the publication of the Coleridge book.' From first to last, in all his writings and through all his changes of mind, Richards insisted that he was a pragmatist. And indeed, in every project he undertakes, from Basic English to literary theory, he is unfailingly preoccupied with the practice of reading and the possibilities of communication. If behaviorism and romanticism are just the low-mimetic (preterite) and high-mimetic (elite) forms of pragmatism, respectively, then Richards' progress from the former to

Examines assumptions of “oppositional” literary criticism, namely the assumption that older-style “objective” literary criticism must, in its political silence, be supportive of dominant ideologies.

112 RHETORICA On the whole, while his critical assumptions need to be supplemented with recent scholarship on orality, literacy, and the history of education, Purcell's work is useful because it summarizes material which is not easily available to most undergraduate students. His discussion of the content of the poetic manuals will be helpful to those who are not familiar with Latin, or whose libraries do not contain the printed editions of the texts, some of which are out of print or only available in microfilm (e.g., Catherine Yodice Giles' Ph.D. dissertation, the only English translation of Gervasius of Melkle/s Ars poética; Traugott Lawler's edition and translation of John of Garland's Parisiana poetria; and Evelyn Carlson's translation of Eberhard the German's Laborintus, her 1930 M.A. thesis). The appendix of figures, with definitions, is especially useful, along with the bibliography of sources relat­ ing to the poetic treatises. In a subsequent edition, the author might consid­ er including a chart comparing the classical definitions of these figures with those in the medieval poetic manuals, to illustrate how the medieval manu­ als depart from the classical tradition, a point which Purcell emphasizes. However, undergraduate students who seek broad outlines and neat categories for material must be cautioned, just as Purcell shows, that mate­ rial frequently resists tidy schematization; that principles of grammar and rhetoric overlap in figurative language; and that medieval poetics adapts and transcends classical theory in a variety of ways. Illustrations of how this theory operates in poetic texts and cultural contexts, and in relation to various views of language change and interaction, are needed to support the critical assumptions in this book. William Purcell has made an impor­ tant beginning in an area which has long been overlooked in the history of composition and literary criticism: medieval poetics, a field in which the criteria for measuring orality and literacy await further study. Elza C. Tiner John Parker and Carol A. Johnson, Sir Walter Raleigh's Speech from the Scaffold: A Translation of the 1619 Dutch Edition, and Comparison with English Texts (Minneapolis, MN: Associates of the James Ford Bell Library, 1995), ii + 79 pp. Sir Walter Raleigh's speech from the scaffold, October 29,1618, in the Old Palace Yard at Westminster, has lived long as an "exit" speech of con­ siderable historic importance, especially familiar to students of British public address. It was included in David Brewer's older anthology and in Reviews 113 the excellent An Historical Anthology of Select British Speeches.1 Scholars of the history of rhetoric do not need to be told that one of the initial steps in their explorations is to answer the question, "What did that orator really say?" Whose version, manuscript or printed, was the closest to the event, and how reliable are the available versions? We remember how Thucydides dealt with the problem in the fifth century BCE: "With references to the speeches in this history, . . . some I heard myself, others I got from various quarters; it was in all cases difficult to carry them word for word in one's memory, so my habit has been to make the speakers say what was in my opinion demanded of them by the vari­ ous occasions, of course adhering as closely as possible to the general sense of what they really said."2 So what did Pericles and others really say? Only when the step of description is accomplished as well as possi­ ble, can the rhetorical critic with the greatest meaningfulness enter into sound analysis and insightful evaluation. With painstaking and thorough scholarship, Parker and Johnson dig deeply into their chosen terrain. They construct a succinct and wellwritten sketch (pp. 1-11) of the man and his role in the late Elizabethan and early Stuart eras. "Entrepreneur, politician, poet, historian, explorer, colonizer" (p. 1), Raleigh was a central figure in his time, a time when "the line between dissent and treason was not always apparent" (p. 5). Parker, Curator Emeritus of the James Ford Bell Library, and Johnson, Assistant Professor in the University Library, enter into a microscopic, forty-three-page comparison of the eight available printed versions of the...

Rehearses some 20th-century narratives as they have appeared in United States history and as they have been represented in African-American literature. Suggests that some of these narratives are insufficiently critical in their construction of stereotypes or in their over-romanticized notions of racial memory, which mask the complications of color and racial identity in the United States.

Rehearses some 20th-century narratives as they have appeared in United States history and as they have been represented in African-American literature. Suggests that some of these narratives are insufficiently critical in their construction of stereotypes or in their over-romanticized notions of racial memory, which mask the complications of color and racial identity in the United States.

Abstract: Vico's theory of metaphor is best understood as a monster in the tradition of classical rhetorical invention. It is the mutant offspring of metaphor characterized as “necessary” (an “ear” of com, for example) and metaphor characterized in terms of analogy. From the perspective of his method. Vico marries these apparently incompatible forms inherited from Aristotle and thereby identifies a third type of linguistic metaphor. I argue that the metaphor identifies a stipulatory definition taken out of context. In order to situate this claim, I outline Vico's genetic analysis and elaborate in general terms what metaphor and definition share. Most importantly. Vico insists that beings, actions, and events are linguistically identified in some particular diseursive context. Indeed, in many cases that context alone determines whether the expression can be called a definition or a metaphor. Like Cicero's ideal jurist, Vico's hero employs motivated words and realizes possibilities available to common sense. Henee Vico's theory of metaphor is both “constructivist”—language has the power to makes things—and “humartist”—it must do so in a form appropriate to history and culture. Vico's theory is consequently important to us because it challenges the proper/figurative distinction championed in the philosophy of language and adds a pragmatic dimension to contemporary views of metaphor at work in literary theory.

Norms of Rhetorical Culture by Thomas B. Farrell. New Haven and London: Yale UP 1993; x + 374pp. Hermogenes On Issues; Strategies of Argument in Later Greek Rhetoric, by Malcolm Heath, Oxford: The Clarendon Press, 1995; pp. ix + 274. The Rhetoric of Politics in the English Revolution, 1642–1660, by Elizabeth Skerpan. Columbia: University of Missouri Press, 1992; 264 pages. The Rhetoric of Courtship: Courting and Courtliness in Elizabethan Language and Literature; by Catherine Bates. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1992; 236 pages. Philosophy, Rhetoric, Literary Criticism: (Inter)views edited Gary A. Olson, with a foreword by Clifford Geertz. Carbondale: Southern Illinois U P, 1994. 250 pp. Understanding Scientific Prose ed. Jack Selzer. Madison: U of Wisconsin P, 1993; 388 pp. Learning from the Histories of Rhetoric: Essays in Honor of Winifred Bryan Horner, ed. Theresa Enos. Southern Illinois UP; 1993; 200 pp. Greek Rhetoric Before Aristotle, by Richard Enos. Prospect Heights, IL: Waveland Press, 1993. 159 pages.

Reviews of 4 professional books: The Language of Interpretation: Patterns of Discourse in Discussions of Literature by James D. Marshall, Peter Smagorinsky, and Michael W. Smith reviewed by Mary C. Daane; Pedagogy in the Age of Politics: Writing and Reading (in) the Academy ed. by Donna J. Qualley and Patricia A. Sullivan reviewed by Alison Tracy; Philosophy, Rhetoric, Literary Criticism: Inter(views), ed. by Gary Olson reviewed by William Dolphin; Teachers Thinking, Teachers Knowing: Reflections on Literacy and Language Education ed. by Timothy Shanahan reviewed by Rodney D. Keller.

Gary A. Olson presents six in-depth interviews with internationally prominent scholars outside of the discipline and twelve response essays written by noted rhetoric and composition scholars on subjects related to language, rhetoric, writing, philosophy, feminism, and literary criticism. The interviews are with philosopher of language Donald Davidson, literary critic and critical legal studies scholar Stanley Fish, cultural studies and African American studies scholar bell hooks, internationally renowned deconstructionist J. Hillis Miller, feminist literary critic Jane Tompkins, and British logician and philosopher of science Stephen Toulmin. Susan Wells and Reed Way Dasenbrock provide distinctly divergent assessments of the application of Donald Davidson s language theory to rhetoric and composition, and especially to writing pedagogy. Patricia Bizzell and John Trimbur explore how Stanley Fish s neopragmatism might be useful both to composition theory and to literacy education. And Joyce Irene Middleton and Tom Fox discuss bell hooks s notions of how race and gender affect pedagogy. In two frank and sometimes angry responses, Patricia Harkin and Jasper Neel take J. Hillis Miller to task for seeming to support rhetoric and composition while continuing to maintain the political status quo. Similarly, Susan C. Jarratt and Elizabeth A. Flynn express skepticism about Jane Tompkins s vocal support of composition and of radical pedagogy particularly. And Arabella Lyon and C. Jan Swearingen analyze Stephen Toulmin s thoughts on argumentation and postmodernism. Internationally respected anthropologist Clifford Geertz provides a foreword; literacy expert Patricia Bizzell contributes an introduction to the text; and noted reader-response critic David Bleich supplies critical commentary. This book is a follow-up to the editor s (Inter)views: Cross-Disciplinary Perspectives on Rhetoric and Literacy, already a major work of scholarship in the field.

Research and writing often begin with a play of determinacy and indeterminacy, or “in-determinacy” Do. Other disciplinary levels include invention and presuppositions D1, formal findings D2, and technical and media products D3. This rhetorical approach leads, here, to identifying levels and relationships; tracing cross-disciplinary information and dominant influences; applying the results to specific cases in science, literary criticism, ethics, and technical writing; thus, suggesting a typology for furthering such dialogue.

Preview this article: Review: Revisioning American Literature, Page 1 of 1 < Previous page | Next page > /docserver/preview/fulltext/ce/56/8/collegeenglish9191-1.gif

Although studies of writing and literary understanding have demonstrated the value of analytic essay writing for enhancing story understanding, these studies have focused on student's initial interpretations without considering the effects of a teacher's support and direction. The purpose of this study was to explore how 9th- (n = 6) and 11th- (n = 6) grade students reformulated and extended their initial written analyses of two short stories through revisions fostered by two different kinds of between-draft written comments. After revising initial drafts in two response modes (directive and dialogue), the students wrote paragraph-length responses to posttest questions of story understanding. Results indicated significant (p &lt; .05) main effects for response condition and grade level, with the dialogue condition enhancing story understanding more than the directive condition, and the 11th graders attaining higher posttest scores than the 9th graders. Data from composing-aloud protocols revealed that the dialogue condition supported the students' reformulation of their own interpretations constructed in the initial drafts, while the directive condition seemed to shift the students away from their own initial interpretations of the stories.

That writing has unique powers for promoting learning has become a given among many composition teachers and researchers. Peircean semiotics suggest that writing is one of many forms of composing available for mediating thought and activity, and that the value of any form of mediation depends on the context in which it takes place. The present study used stimulated recall to elicit a retrospective account from an alternative school student following his production of an artistic text representing his view of the relationship between the two central characters in a short story. The student's account indicates that in composing his text he (a) initiated his interpretation by empathizing with one of the characters, (b) produced a graphic representation and transformation of the relationship between the two central characters, (c) situated his text in an intertext, and (d) produced a text that both shaped and was shaped by his thinking. Furthermore, the “text” he produced through the stimulated recall interview likely involved a reconsideration as well as re-representation of the graphic text he had drawn, thus enmeshing the investigative method itself with the student's growing realization of the meaning of his work. His account suggests that nonlinguistic texts—when part of an environment that broadens the range of communication genres available to students—can help students construct meanings that are appropriate to school activities and learning.

ur Ptolemaic system of literary categories goes creaking and groaning onward, in spite of the widely acknowledged need overhaul it in response multiculturalism. This is not say that there have not been attempts revise course design in light of new materials and methods. For example, G. Douglas Atkins and Michael L. Johnson's Writing and Reading Differently (1985), Susan L. Gabriel and Isaiah Smithson's Gender in the Classroom (1990), and James A. Berlin and Michael J. Vivion's Cultural Studies in the English Classroom (1992) address the pedagogical consequences of deconstruction, feminist literary theory, and cultural studies, respectively, and also incorporate more diverse literatures. these attempts foster innovation in the individual classroom still leave the basic structure of English studies intact. In Kristin Ross's description of the multicultural world and cultural studies program at the University of California at Santa Cruz, she comments indirectly on this problem when she identifies as one stumbling block the Santa Cruz program the faculty's unwillingness to depart from their specialized fields (668). They fended off demands diversify their course material with plaints like But I don't have a PhD in South African literature (668). Ross gives good reasons for forging ahead in spite of such protests, but she doesn't say much about the underlying structure of English studies that still makes us think our scholarship must be organized along national or chronological lines, even though these are inimical the process of integrating new materials and methods because devised serve and protect the old ones.

Preview this article: Review: Recent Native American Literary Criticism, Page 1 of 1 < Previous page | Next page > /docserver/preview/fulltext/ce/55/6/collegeenglish9287-1.gif

Ethos is generally associated with individual rhetors.1 Certainly that's association Aristotle had in mind when he recorded most influential usage of term (Rhetoric 1356a). But there is ample warrant for moving to a broader level-the level adopted in this paper, a case study of outrageous of a group of generative linguists on cusp of sixties and seventies. There is ample warrant for identifying not simply with specific individuals in specific orations but also with identifiable communities. In ordinary language, for instance, has always been far more communal than individual: Ethos.... [ 1.] The characteristic spirit, prevalent tone of sentiment, of a people or community; 'genius' of an institution or system (OED, 1933 reissue) . And it has a similar sense among our academic neighbors-in literary criticism, where books have titles like The Ethos of Restoration Comedy (Schneider); in sociology, where books have titles like The Ethos of Hong Kong Chinese (Siu-Kai), or, more famously, in Merton's discussion of general ethos of science (268). Coming closer to home, consider Augustine's notion of a Christian ethos, which presupposes that rhetor stands for group values (De Doctrina 4.27-29). Consider similarly presupposing admonition of George Campbell about influence of party-spirit (97). Consider Black's above-epigramitized talk of patterned commitments and stylistic proclivities, which, as Halloran tells us, is essentially projection of to communal level (Black 85; Halloran, Molecular Biology 71). Elsewhere, Halloran tells us more: the word has both an individual and a collective meaning. It makes sense to speak of of this or that person, but it makes equally good sense to speak of of a particular

ere is seldom mentioned but universally known fact of our profession, bluntly stated: the vast majority of our undergraduate students do not love or appreciate literature as we do. Indeed, the value of studying literature, the rewards of reading, are not immediately apparent to surprisingly large number of students, despite vaguely conceived (and externally imposed) notion that reading serious literature is somehow essential to becoming a wellrounded person. So we shake our heads in dismay, share our war stories in faculty lounges, rejoice in our occasional successes, and generally bemoan these students' lack of interest, spotty education, and limited life experiences; the sorry state of basic literacy in recent years; the dismal and misguided teaching conducted in high schools; and, eventually, the anti-intellectual strain in American culture itself, exacerbated by television, Danielle Steel, and Stephen King. Embedded in all this are unstated inklings that our entire enterprise may be suspect or indefensibly elitist. And it was ever so. Gerald Graff's Professing Literature: An Institutional History is replete with accounts of MLA addresses from the turn of the century onwards which express concern over students' indifference to literary studies and to the latest professional trends in literary theory. Even the decades-long debates over scholarship vs. criticism chronicled by Graff on occasion find it necessary to deal, somewhat reluctantly, with pedagogy and classroom applications. Not often enough, it has always seemed to me. This and other sweeping generalizations that follow, along with some radical observations-and few suggestions-are intended to refocus attention on what I take to be the principal function of college literature teachers, their primary raison d'etre: teaching undergraduates.

Identifying problems in recent technical communication studies of historical medical text, this article suggests ways for researchers to overcome them. Its approach uses five steps for conducting sound historical research: establishing originality for historical textual analysis; adopting an authoritative text for analysis; understanding the genre or form of a historical text; understanding the intellectual or social context for a historical text; and understanding the publishing and readership context of a historical text. These steps are discussed within the context of related fields of inquiry, namely history of medicine, history of the book, literary criticism and historical linguistics, and analytical bibliography. The article concludes by exploring new directions for research in technical communication and history of medicine.

Abstract: This survey of Central and Eastern European scholarship begins by placing rhetoric in relation to poetics and literary theory,then examines work on Byzantine rhetoric within this framework. The most striking feature of this scholarship is its formalistic tendency, which is seen above all in the works of such Russian scholars as S. Averinčev, M. Gasparov, and G. Kurbatov, but the same tendency is also evident in Polish studies on the theory of prose composition.

Abstract: In Book 4 of De doctrina Christiana St. Augustine suggests that the three levels of style in Christian oratory should reflect the level of emotional impact on the audience, which would result in frequent variation through the course of the speech. Augustine's literary theory seems to be in complete agreement with contemporary oratorical practice, not only Latin, in the West, but Greek too—witness St. Gregory of Nazianzus, whose Oration 42, The Last Farewell,is used as an example in this article. Finally, a comparison between Augustine's views and those of some later Greek rhetoricians suggests that he may have been influenced as much by their ideas as by his acknowledged source and predecessor, Cicero.

(1993). Selected bibliography: The concept of “author” in rhetoric/composition and literary theory. Rhetoric Society Quarterly: Vol. 23, No. 1, pp. 71-75.

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.

In his 1925 article Literary Criticism of Oratory, Herbert Wichelns, a scholar of rhetoric at Cornell, observed that, with respect to literary study, oratory had become either an outcast or a poor (181). Oratory's falling out of favor indicated to Wichelns that perceptions of discourse had been radically transformed. Intimating what the change might consist of, he wrote, [i]nvolved in it is some shift in the conception of oratory or of literature, or of both; nor can these conceptions have changed except in response to the of which oratory, as well as literature, is part (181). Scholars writing after Wichelns have frequently reported on the ill fate of oratory-and, more broadly, of rhetoric as the practice and study of some kinds of written as well as oral discourse-in American colleges. How had colleges by 1925 come to demote rhetoric to a position beneath literary critical study and literary works of fiction, drama, and poetry? As Wichelns suggested, rhetoric and literature shared some life, and our elaboration of their common history and context can help us account for rhetoric's condition. Some scholars have argued that the study and status of rhetoric in the college curriculum diminished as a strong interest in literature emerged (e.g., Stewart 119-21; Connors, Ede, and Lunsford 5-7; Halloran 176). Exploring the role of the belletristic tradition in rhetoric and of representative individuals such as C. S. Baldwin and the men who held the position of Boylston Professor of Rhetoric at Harvard, the work of these scholars offers insight into the interrelations among rhetoric and literature during the late nineteenth and early twentieth centuries. Historians neither of English nor of speech as academic disciplines, however, have traced the relation between rhetoric and literature as it was construed by scholars who were active during this time. The concomitant rise of literary study and fall of rhetoric suggest that historical perceptions of the relation between literary and rhetorical discourse figure in the story of rhetoric's demise. Part of what we might call the life of rhetoric and of literature is the relation that members of the profession perceived between them. As with contemporary discussions on the issue in such texts as Jane Tompkins' Reader in History and Steven Mailloux's Rhetorical Power, we might guess that turn-of-the-century scholars posited rela-

Beyond Communication is a collection of essays by well-known scholars and teachers in reading comprehension theory and literary criticism, particularly reader-response approaches. These two fields have traditionally been divided by their respective appeals to elementary and secondary education people. In creating this book the editors have sought to repair this unwarranted split. The book presents a rationale for teaching reading comprehension with literary texts that integrates the two pedagogical approaches. It encourages teachers to include literature and reader-response approaches in daily sessions with students regardless of grade level. It provides teachers with alternatives for meeting new language arts curriculum requirements. And it gives an overview of this field from both Canadian and American perspectives.

This article contains results from a literary analysis of fifty scientific papers selected from the top 100 most-cited papers appearing in the Science Citation Index for the period 1945–1988. Most papers are from the field of biochemistry and became citation superstars because their authors discovered a method or material that numerous others could use in their own research. The typical paper has two authors, two tables, six figures, and twenty-two references. It adheres to the conventional topical organization, with the topics distributed as follows: 2 percent abstract, 5 percent introduction, 25 percent methods and materials, 50 percent results, 10 percent discussion, 4 percent conclusion, and 4 percent reference list. Tables and figures occupy about 30 percent of the article. With respect to the writing style, the average sentence is somewhat long (24 words) but not unreasonably so, and the sentence structure is simple greater than half the time. Moreover, sentences tend to rely heavily on to be verbs (about 80% of sentences have at least one) and abstract nouns (0.66 per sentence). Explanations for the typical form and writing style in these papers are provided.

Try, if you will, to imagine yourself around a campfire late on a dark night. You are with a group of English literature teachers, and they begin swapping horror stories about their students, some true, others probably

Preview this article: Narratives of Socialization: Literacy in the Short Story, Page 1 of 1 < Previous page | Next page > /docserver/preview/fulltext/ce/53/6/collegeenglish9557-1.gif

Andrea A. Lunsford, Helene Moglen, and James Slevin, eds., The Future of Doctoral Studies in English. New York: Modern Language Association, 1989. xii + 179 pages. Patrick Brantlinger, Crusoe's Footprints: Cultural Studies in Britain and America. New York: Routledge, 1990. xi + 212 pages. Bernard Bergonzi, Exploding English: Criticism, Theory, Culture. New York: Oxford University Press, 1990. viii + 240 pages. Reed Way Dasenbrock, ed. Redrawing the Lines: Analytic Philosophy, Deconstruction, and Literary Theory. Minneapolis: University of Minnesota Press, 1989. 263 pages. John D. Schaeffer, Sensus Communis: Vico, Rhetoric, and the Limits of Relativism. Durham, NC: Duke University Press, 1990. 181 pages. $25.75. Donald A. Daiker and Max Morenberg, eds. The Writing Teacher as Researcher: Essays in the Theory and Practice of Class‐Based Research. Portsmouth, NH: Boynton/Cook Publishers, 1990. xi + 357 pages. $19.50. Alice Glarden Brand, The Psychology of Writing: The Affective Experience. Foreword by Peter Elbow. New York: Greenwood Press, 1989. 259 pages.

William J. Spurlin, Theorizing Signifying(g) and the Role of the Reader: Possible Directions for African-American Literary Criticism, College English, Vol. 52, No. 7, African-American Criticism (Nov., 1990), pp. 732-742

death of the is a familiar refrain among poststructuralists, a phrase used to mean nonhermeneutic approaches to textsa label against which to react in the name of the historical subject (Kamuf 5). Probably the source of this controversial slogan is Barthes' precisely titled, brief essay, Death of the Author, in which he charts the postmodern move from a literature tyrannically centred on the author.... [where] the explanation of a work is always sought in the man or woman who produced it, to the ascendancy of the reader (143). When Barthes replaces the terms authori scriptor with critic/reader, he suggests that the future movement of literary theory requires the author's death to enable the reader's birth. Foucault, also making a distinction between the author and what happens in the text, offers the term author-function as being outside and preceding the text itself. True, the author is maker of text, but disappears once this is performed, only the function remaining, that is, being outside and preceding the text. In this role the author must accept in the text. Whereas the author in the epic form accepted early death because the epic itself would bring immortality, Foucault says that modem writing no longer is linked to death but to sacrifice of life because the author must accept obliteration of the self that does not require representation in books because it takes place in the everyday existence of the (117). More and more we're hearing another slogan: The tyranny of the author has been replaced by that of the reader. Yet I think one has to accept autonomy of neither author nor reader if we approach poststructuralist theory rhetorically. To do this we need to (1) broaden thinking about literature not only to include the discursive nature of language but also to accept its persuasive nature; (2) attempt distinctions between author and writer; (3) acknowledge the presence of the writer in the text itself (ethos); (4) embrace the concept of the world as language.

Drawing on scholarship in a variety of disciplines - philosophy, political theory, sociology, sociolinguistics, anthropology, literary theory, rhetoric - the authors outline an approach to the study of literacy that does not neglect the cognitive or individual aspects of literacy but rather sees them as largely shaped by the social forces of our political, economic, and educational systems. Ranging from the first-year writing class to adult literacy programs, the essays point the way to effective teaching strategies, program design, and research opportunities.Seven new chapters - on such topics as collaborative writing, discourse communities, women's literacy, and functional literacy - and eight previously published ones make up the book, providing a comprehensive theory of writing as social action.

One of the most obdurate institutional restraints in literary criticism is the periodization of literature for purposes of teaching, of analysis, and of specialization. These periods, created by a male-dominated literary establishment for a predominantly male literary tradition and sanctioned by a chronological inevitability, may be fictions, but they have the tenacity of convenience and convention. Even after feminist critics have worked successfully to recover neglected women writers and to place established women writers in the canon, the old periodization of literary studies holds firm. For example, when Modernism is stretched to include women and blacks, the new term High Modernists arises to relegate the additions to what presumably would be the status of Low Modernists. In reconsidering the question of periodization from a feminist perspective, the best place to start is with a major woman writer. For this purpose, Emily Dickinson is ideal because her writing life spanned literary periods and her poetry dominates the century in which she wrote. Generally credited as the greatest woman poet and a major influence on all subsequent women writers, Dickinson is nonetheless set in the literary period of American Transcendentalism, not as the jewel in its crown, but rather as a writer in the Emersonian and Romantic male tradition (see Homans and Diehl). Yet the genre in which she exclusively writes distinguishes her from the American Transcendentalists, and the attitudes she takes toward the lyric I, her art, and her audience are all quite different from theirs. In this statement, I draw no revolutionary conclusions: Dickinson is generally considered so far outside the main currents of the period that she is not always included in major studies of the time (see Matthiessen and Irwin). She does not fit in, I want to argue, because she belongs to a later period, and the reason she belongs to a later period is that she did not fit into her own. In this situation, she may be typical of many women writers who look forward to the next literary period-the Puritan poet Anne Bradstreet, for example, who has a certain Romantic strain in her poetry, or the Modernist Gertrude Stein, who exemplifies the experiments of Post-Modernism. My reasoning about Dickinson is not so circular as it might at first appear, and it is pertinent to the problems that women writers pose to periodization.

This monograph is designed to help English teachers see what it is that the literary theory of deconstruction has to offer them as they pursue their work. The monograph focuses on the implications of deconstruction for the English classroom in American schools. It includes a discussion of Jacques Derrida's philosophy of reading and writing a review of some American critics' reactions to deconstruction and responses made by English teachers to the theory; and an examination of a deconstructive reading of writing pedagogy as it underscores the appropriateness of much of the lore connected with process pedagogy. The monograph also contains an appendix on How to Read Derrida, three pages of endnotes, a brief glossary of deconstructionist terminology, a 70-item list of references, an 11-item list of Derrida works not cited in the text, a 38-item bibliography of works on Derrida and deconstruction, and a 9-item list of exemplary readings on deconstruction. (RAE) *********************************************************************** * Reproductions supplied by EDRS are the best that can be made * * from the original document. * ******,,,,,..********************************************************,,,,,,,,,,,,

This compilation provides a comprehensive listing of all the known and available publications of Jay R. Gould including books, plays, short stories, articles, essays, papers. It also lists unpublished items such as papers and speeches, plays, and other items, including items about Jay Reid Gould.

The metaphor has gained much importance as of late. No longer simply a decorative feature of discourse, the trope has obtained an epistemological and ontological dimension. No longer merely a figural flourish of prose, the metaphor has acquired an important role in the study of human understanding. Hence, thanks to theoretical rehabilitation and philosophical reconsideration, metaphorical analysis has become an important and popular pursuit for many disciplines--philosophy, literary theory, linguistics, rhetoric, et al.2 While the insights generated and the discoveries made by metaphorical analysis are significant and worthy of much study, we will take as our point of departure the limits of such critical inquiry. This essay offers another perspective, a sort of theoretical intervention which examines from another angle the study of discourse. Rhetorical theory, it will be reasoned, benefits from a perspective which considers the metonymical features of discourse. As such, the comparative advantages of either metaphorical or metonymical analysis are not measured by which one is true, but rather by which one is most useful for a given project. Simply put, a metonymical perspective can recognize and explain a terrain outside the scope of metaphorical analysis. The change we consider in this essay does not render useless or inadequate previous explanations, but rather opens a space or a zone from which to critically evaluate what has been previously overlooked. As noted, the popularity and importance of the metaphor has never been greater. Whether it be conceived as function, cluster, or nature, the research has sought, and continues to seek, the habitation of the metaphor within all symbolic discourse. Indeed, it may be safe to assume that the study of metaphors remains an important and integral component of contemporary rhetorical theory. As a result of theoretician diligence and persistence, a wide array of techniques exist for the study of metaphors within discourse. For examples of such metaphorical research we turn briefly to the work of I.A. Richards, Max Black, Edwin Black, and Paul Ricoeur. Perhaps no one should figure more prominently than I.A. Richards in the reappraisal of the trope. Using the metaphor, his New Rhetoric, seeks to recover meaning, to stabilize and neutralize the somewhat figural moments of discourse.

Tantalizing and provocative questions about classical systems of topical invention continue to receive well-deserved scholarly attention. Recently, Corbett, explored how the topics can inform the teaching of writing and Trimpi2 analyzed the possible connections between the topics and literary theory. Whether or not the topics divide themselves into material and formal received differing answers from Conley3 and Grimaldi.4 Moreover, investigations to discover how the tradition of topics shifted and changed across time has been addressed by Stump,5 Cogan,6 and Leff.7 The intellectual richness of such studies stems from many sources. Aristotle, for example, authors a topical system for dialectic and another, somewhat similar somewhat dissimilar, for the art of rhetoric. Cicero, in his early work offered a topical system based on persons and actions for rhetorical practice. Later, in his Topica something resembling Aristotle's dialectical method appears and then, even more problematic, in his later treatises a topical system uniting rhetoric and philosophy emerges, but in a truncated, fragmented form. As Buckley noted:

Preview this article: Reviews: Writing the History of Literary Criticism, Page 1 of 1 < Previous page | Next page > /docserver/preview/fulltext/ce/51/3/collegeenglish11308-1.gif