OK. Good morning everyone.
Since I don't have a traditional post today, I tried recording my response but it did not embed properly.
Perhaps some of you will be able to see it but I cannot from my computer.
My reason for not having a traditional response today is that I do not understand the reading. I have a lot of questions. Here goes:
Paradigms and Problems: Needed Research in Rhetorical Invention:
It seems to me that the writer is saying that there is a paradigm through which composition is judged. Though it is meant to create unity and provide a set of rules for what is expected, it limits invention and does not put enough emphasis on prewriting.
It values the end product and not the process of writing.
The writer seems to be making a case for classical rhetoric because it provides more wiggle room and widens what is deemed acceptable….right?
What is the difference between prewriting and brainstorming or prewriting and writing multiple drafts?
To my question about prewriting Sharon Crowley seems to be saying that what I understanding as prewriting is really a formula for convention and not invention. She also says that rhetoric is too much about form and not enough about logic.
Kinneavy says that composition does not allow for individual expression. Students are not able to see a connection between writing and themselves. They do not see writing as a way for them to properly express their ideas, thoughts and beliefs.
As for D’Angelo, he talks about different types of writing however I am confused about the distinction between form and mode.
I feel like there is something I am missing. HELP!
I’m looking forward to the discussions on Thursday.
Iris
ReplyDeleteI absolutely know that I cannot help answer your questions as I was faced with many of the same questions, if not more. What I can tell you is that you are not alone in feeling that there is something missing, I'm right there with you. In fact, I believe you may have gather more information about the topics because your discourse leading into your questions seems informed and reveal somewhat of a grasp on the information. You're not too far off, but welcome to my club. Embarassed
Peele
Hi Rhode-Elise,
As for the Young article, he’s making the argument that the field of composition does indeed have a paradigm. He wants to establish the existence of the paradigm so that he can suggest some ways of modifying it. Does that make sense? If he can’t establish that a paradigm exists, then he can’t suggest that it be modified. As he notes early on, following Thomas Kuhn, a “paradigm determines, among other things, what is included in the discipline and what is excluded from it, what is taught and not taught, what problems are regarded as important and unimportant, and, by implication, what research is regarded as valuable in developing the discipline” (397). Composition isn’t really judged through this paradigm, though I think I see what you mean. It’s more that this paradigm exists within the field, and if we want to change it we first have to recognize it.
In the paradigm that he defines, Invention has no place. This is the same argument that Crowley makes. Essentially, both authors argue that in the current-traditional paradigm then in place in composition classes, formal correctness is more important than thinking. Our classroom practice demonstrates our values, and we spend far more time on editorial work than on invention, or the making of knowledge.
Young is making a case for classical invention strategies, but he spends more time discussing the newly developed idea that composition is a process (401) as well as new invention strategies (dramatist, prewriting, and tagmemics) (401). These changes, he writes, both demonstrate the existence of and threaten the continuation of the current-traditional paradigm in composition. He begins his discussion with a reference to classical invention because of its value to an “active citizenship” (402). Young is writing in 1978; he’s quoting a text from 1967. The ‘active citizenship’ he’s describing is student resistance to the war in Vietnam. He then describes three new invention strategies, and ends with a call for more research. The research is necessary if a change is to be made to the paradigm.
Your brief description of Crowley is accurate in regard to her concern that current-traditional rhetoric is more about form and not enough about logic. Her concern is that logic has moved from the canon of Invention, where it can be used to generate knowledge, to the canon of Arrangement, where it’s largely concerned with style. Her article is about that gradual shift. Her concern about prewriting is that it’s much too limited; it doesn’t ask students to think in complex ways (342-43).
As for D’Angelo, the key passage for me is that “there seems to be little awareness of the difference between process and form, or between mode and form” (349). This quote follows a longer discussion of the differences between forms and modes, but this passage crystalizes for me the idea that a mode is a process while a form is static. The modes or narration, description, exposition, and argument, argues D’Angelo, should be removed from composition because we use them incorrectly.
Rhode-Elise
Tom,
Thanks for clarifying. The idea of classical invention now makes more sense.
As for Crowley, I understand what she means that prewriting is too limited. In my reply to another post I suggested that perhaps invention cannot be taught because then it would become a set of convention that does not fit each and every student. Now I think it iss more about encouraging students to think and to invent and trust in their own processes rather than telling them how to.