Abstract Treatises on rhetoric since antiquity have illustrated how to amplify passages but give scant attention to strategies for when or why. Dealing mostly with isolated passages, they ignore the effect of amplification on amplitude, the proportions of units that give a text its overall shape. This article considers the relationship between length and importance, sets criteria for a method of mapping amplitude, and applies the method to the Gettysburg addresses of Abraham Lincoln and Edward Everett. Though their shapes differ, each address balances crucial sections against each other. In Lincoln’s case, a more symmetrical shape emerged by accident as he delivered the speech. Then, when editing the official version, he decided to preserve the new shape. Everett’s address is shown to have better proportions than critics assume. Mapping amplitude sheds light on authors’ strategies for dealing with their kairos.

Click to increase image sizeClick to decrease image size Additional informationNotes on contributorsDavida CharneyDavida Charney is a professor in the Department of Rhetoric and Writing at the University of Texas at Austin. Her latest project is a book, Persuading God: Rhetorical Studies of First Person Psalms, to be published by Sheffield Press.NotesSummer Smith Taylor's research career was too brief, cut short by her death from illness at age 39 in 2011.

How do comments on student writing from peers compare to those from subject-matter experts? This study examined the types of comments that reviewers produce as well as their perceived helpfulness. Comments on classmates’ papers were collected from two undergraduate and one graduate-level psychology course. The undergraduate papers in one of the courses were also commented on by an independent psychology instructor experienced in providing feedback to students on similar writing tasks. The comments produced by students at both levels were shorter than the instructor’s. The instructor’s comments were predominantly directive and rarely summative. The undergraduate peers’ comments were more mixed in type; directive and praise comments were the most frequent. Consistently, undergraduate peers found directive and praise comments helpful. The helpfulness of the directive comments was also endorsed by a writing expert.

Popular accounts of scientific discoveries diverge from scholarly accounts, stripping off hedges and promoting short-term social consequences. This case study illustrates how the “horse-race” framing of popular accounts devalues the collective sharing, challenging, and extending of scientific work. In her best-selling Longitude , Dava Sobel (1996) depicts John Harrison's 18th-century invention of a marine chronometer, a ground-breaking precision instrument that eventually allowed sailors to calculate their longitude at sea, as an unequal race with Harrison as beleaguered hero. Sobel represents the demands of the Board of Longitude to test and replicate the chronometer as the obstructionist machinations of an academic elite. Her framing underreports the feasibility of the chronometer and its astronomical rival, the lunar distance method, which each satisfied different criteria. That readers accept Sobel's framing is indicated by an analysis of 187 reviews posted on Amazon.com, suggesting that popular representation of science fuels cynicism in popular and academic forums.

Studies in the rhetoric of science have tended to focus on classic scientific texts and on the history of drafts and the interaction surrounding them up until the moment when the drafts are accepted for publication by a journal. Similarly, research on disasters resulting from failed communication has tended to focus on the history of drafts and the interaction surrounding them up until the moment of the disaster. The authors argue that overattention to the moment skews understanding of what makes scientific discourse successful and neglects other valuable sources of evidence. After reviewing the promises and limitations of studies from historical, observational, and text-analytic approaches, the authors call for studies of responses to research articles from disciplinary readers and argue for studies using a variety of qualitative and quantitative methodologies that will explore the real-time responses of readers to scientific texts, test the effects of rhetorical strategies on readers, and track the course of acceptance or rejection over time.

Since the 1960s, attitudes toward empirical research on writing, including research on technical/professional writing, have shifted from encouragement to resistance. This essay traces these shifts in light of changes in writing research, psychology, and the rhetoric of science. In composition studies, an initial mild uneasiness about “scientism”; intensified with the rise of process models, suggesting a Romanticist defense of the mystique of creativity. More recent post‐modernist denunciations of scientific methods as immoral have other Romanticist overtones. In technical communication, a long‐standing interest in workplace writing practices allowed a smoother integration of empirical analysis with descriptive studies of writing contexts. However, as in composition, recent critiques in technical communication suggest that empirical methods should not be employed. These critiques too tightly circumscribe the values that may be considered humanist and cut off important avenues of inquiry and critique that historically have advanced both the sciences and humanities.

Introductions in scientific journal articles invite the community to read, accept, and build on new ideas. Often they open with standard moves that bid readers to attend to new findings that fill a serious gap in the literature on an important topic, thus connecting shared communal ideas and new ideas. How do these moves apply to “revolutionary” disciplines that lack a shared literature? Do introductory moves influence scientists' reading strategies? In a two-stage study, we analyzed introductions of four articles on chaos theory and then asked 12 scientists to think aloud while reading them. To investigate effects of disciplinary maturity, we chose two recent and two early articles. The early “revolutionary” articles differed strikingly from the more conventional recent articles in space devoted to old versus new information, use of citations and equations, and the nature of opening appeal. Scientific readers reacted differently to the recent and early articles, commenting more on new information in the recent articles. Across articles, however, they commented more on shared information than on new ideas. These results underscore the importance of connecting new ideas to the literature even when using unusual techniques to introduce radically new ideas.

The authors assessed writing attitudes and epistemologies of 117 first-year and 329 upper-level undergraduates. Attitude scales assessed enjoyment of writing, self-ratings of writing ability, and belief in writing as learnable. Epistemological scales measured absolutism (belief in knowledge as determinably true or false), relativism (belief in the indeterminacy of all claims), and evaluativism (belief that truth can be approximated). Absolutism correlated negatively with writing grades and verbal aptitude, whereas evaluativism exhibited a weak positive correlation with both. Students with higher evaluativism tended to enjoy writing more and to assess themselves as good writers. Upper-level students were less absolutist and marginally more evaluativist than first-year students. Differences in attitudes and epistemologies emerged between men and women and among upper-level students in four disciplinary groups. The authors sketch some implications for writing pedagogy.

I he postmodern penchant for reflexivity has affected all arenas of social research, including composition and rhetoric.Sandra Harding explains the importance of reflexivity as she defines feminist methods: The beliefs and behaviors of the researcher are part of the empirical evidence for (or against) the claims advanced in the results of research.This evidence . . .must be open to critical scrutiny no less than what is traditionally defined as relevant evidence....This kind of relationship between the researcher and the object of research is usually discussed under the heading of the "reflexivity of social science."(9) Reflexivity encourages a questioning of the most basic premises of one's discipline.Charles Bazerman, whose essay "The Interpretation of Disciplinary Writing" appears in Writing the Social Text, describes the fruits of interrogating one's discipline: "By reflection one can come to know the systems of which one is part and can act with greater self-conscious precision and flexibility to carry forward and, if appropriate, reshape the projects of one's discipline" (37).

The Development of Scientific Thinking Skills. Deanna Kuhn, Eric Amsel, and Michael O'Loughlin, Academic Press, 1988. 249 pp. Understanding the Representational Mind, Josef Perner, MIT Press, 1991. 348 pp. Literacy as Involvement: The Acts of Writers and Readers, and Texts. Deborah Brandt. Carbondaie: Southern Illinois, 1990. 159 pp. Dialogue, Dialectic, and Conversation: A Social Perspective on the Function of Writing. Gregory Clark. Carbondale: Southern Illinois, 1990. 93 pp. Hypermedia and Literary Studies. Ed. Paul Delany and George P. Landow. Cambridge: MIT P, 1991. 352 pp. Writing Space: The Computer, Hypertext, and the History of Writing. Jay David Bolter. Hillsdale: Lawrence Erlbaum, 1991. 258 pp. Also from Erlbaum, Writing Space: A Hypertext for Macintosh. Writing and Speaking in Business. Gretchen N. Vik, Clyde W. Wilkinson, and Dorothy C. Wilkinson. 10th ed. Homewood: Irwin, 1990. 636 pp. Communication for Management and Business. Norman B. Sigband and Arthur H. Bell. 5th ed. Glenview: Scott, 1989. 783 pp. Business Communication Today. Courtland L. Bovee and John V. Thill. 2nd ed. New York: Random, 1989. 680 pp. Guidelines for Preparing Proposals: A Manual on How to Organize Winning Proposals. Roy Meador. Chelsea: Lewis, 1985. 116 pp.

Writing for Social Scientists: How to Start and Finish Your Thesis, Book, or Article. Howard S. Becker with a chapter by Pamela Richards. Chicago and London: The University of Chicago Press, 1986. pp. xii + 180. A War of Words: Chicano Protest in the 1960s and 1970s. John C. Hammerback, Richard J. Jensen and Jose Angel Gutierrez. Westport, Connecticut and London: Greenwood Press, 1985. Words and Values: Some Leading Words and Where They Lead Us. Peggy Rosenthal. New York: Oxford University Press, 1984; pp. i‐xii + 29S. Rhetorical Stances in Modern Literature: Allegories of Love and Death. Lynette Hunter. New York: St. Martin's Press, 1984.