Abstract

Abstract In his essay “Disciplinary Identities: On the Rhetorical Paths between English and Communication Studies,”; Steven Mailloux notes that “many compositionists in the seventies and eighties did not find it necessary to claim to be a scientific discipline “(16). I respond to this claim by focusing on the new discourse about writing that emerged in the 1970s in work by Emig, Shaughnessy, Flower & Hayes, and others. Distinguishing between the “formative “ (intellectual) contexts from which this work drew, and the “receptive”; contexts in which it came to valued, used, and resonate, I show that whereas the roots of this work were almost exclusively empirical, their effects in the receptive context, including beyond the academy, were deeply rhetorical.

Journal
Rhetoric Society Quarterly
Published
2001-06-01
DOI
10.1080/02773940109391208
Open Access
Closed

Citation Context

Cited by in this index (2)

  1. Rhetoric Society Quarterly
  2. Rhetoric Society Quarterly

Cites in this index (2)

  1. Rhetoric Review
  2. Written Communication
Also cites 6 works outside this index ↓
  1. Syntactic structures.
  2. 10.2307/411334
  3. 10.2307/375768
  4. 10.2307/356600
  5. The act of reading: A theory of aesthetic response.
  6. 10.1145/360018.360022
CrossRef global citation count: 3 View in citation network →