This article analyzes the conceptual metaphor Corporations Are Governments in order to demonstrate the integral relationship between the unconscious operations of metaphor emphasized by conceptual metaphor theory and explicit rhetorical influences such as linguistic choices, patterns of rhetorical response, and overarching narratives that are used to organize and evaluate evidence. It argues that conceptual metaphors are shaped significantly by a give-and-take among ideologically accented and often deliberately considered metaphors, metonymies, and narratives.

The phrase “academic bullshit” presents compositionists with a special dilemma. Because compositionists study, teach, and produce academic writing, they are open to the accusation that they both tolerate and perpetuate academic bullshit. We argue that confronting this problem must begin with a careful definition of “bullshit” and “academic bullshit.” In contrast to Harry Frankfurt’s checklist method of definition, we examine “bullshit” as a graded category. We suggest that some varieties of academic bullshit may be both unavoidable and beneficial.

In this study, six focus groups comprising technical communicators and technical communication instructors evaluated and discussed two versions of an instructional manual and two versions of a memo. Findings reveal that the practitioners and academics relied on similar metaphors (including the Conduit Metaphor), metonymies, and constructed scenarios. Although their ways of evaluating texts were broadly similar, practitioners exhibited greater awareness of task-related rhetorical variables whereas academics were more likely to be concerned with textual features and general principles that apply to technical writing tasks. Differences between the groups were particularly evident in discussions of the memo.

Abstract This article takes the form of a dialogue between traditional rhetoric and cognitive rhetoric, offering complementary readings of rhetoric and figuration in President George W. Bush's 2002 State of the Union Address, the so‐called “axis of evil” speech. Traditional and cognitive rhetorics differ most markedly in their approach to metaphor, metonymy, and other figures. This dialogue brings important differences into focus and, at the same time, demonstrates the potential of combining approaches. In addition to metonymy and metaphor, it discusses blending theory, acutezze, and related questions.

In this article, we recommend a research methodology, focus groups, that we have found useful in supplementing other, more commonly used measures of qualitative and quantitative assessment. We explain why focus groups are particularly well suited for assessment, how we have used them in our research to examine teacher and practitioner perspectives of effective technical writing, and how others might use them for evaluating texts, programs, or courses.

The Conduit Metaphor has been roundly condemned by language scholars, including scholars in rhetoric and composition, but it is time to reevaluate its import and value. Rather than simply asserting a mistaken view of linguistic communication, the Conduit Metaphor combines with the metaphor Language Is Power to form a prudentially applied ethical measure of discourses, genres, and texts.

Writing studies has been all but silent on the subject of metaphor because no theory has sufficiently forged a connection between the way metaphor works and what we actually say and write. Even the best accounts of metaphor put forward by proponents of conceptual metaphor do not consider important patterns of variation that concrete data reveal. Presenting findings from a study of the conceptual metaphor trade is war, the author offers a reconsideration of metaphor that refutes the standard Aristotelian view of metaphor and substantially expands upon current understandings of conceptual metaphor. Like all language, metaphors are fundamentally responsive. They are therefore implicated in a rhetorically constituted give and take among related groupings of metaphors and literal concepts. Moreover, metaphors are inflected by speakers' and writers' social commitments and are constrained by a concomitant rhetorical etiquette.

Carolyn Miller's definition of genre as “social action” has become widely accepted in writing studies; this acceptance has prompted troubling questions about the teaching of professional genres. Because current research emphasizes Miller's reconceptualization of “exigence” as a socially construed need for particular kinds of writing and talk (155-58), some researchers now suggest that unless a genre's social exigence can be fully replicated in the classroom, the genre cannot be taught effectively. Genres, however, entail several kinds of exigence: social exigence that prompts generic writing; social exigence that is reflected in the generic text; textual exigence that shapes the rhetorical situation; and what I call educational exigence, an exigence that prompts writers to learn explicitly how to compose generic texts. Educational exigence was evident in the writing processes of two technical translators who composed in a variety of genres, both familiar and unfamiliar to them. The translators not only responded to educational exigence but also followed a well-considered strategy for gathering information about generic texts.