I think this blog is hilarious. They take user submitted photos of signs that have misplaced quotation marks, and comment on them. It made me think of Gina, and her campaign against bad grammar and spelling in signs.
The "Blog" of "Unnecessary" Quotation Marks
Thursday, February 28, 2008
Monday, February 25, 2008
"Hillary and the Band"
Hillary attempts to reach out to young voters, and fails miserably. The interesting thing about this video is that there are two identical copies of it on YouTube. One copy was put up by Hillary's campaign, the other was put up by a "neutral" third party. Comments on the campaign video are heavily censored, anything that mocks or is negative towards Clinton is immediately deleted.
Some comments from the campaign version:
Jonno04
Great ad! excellent viral!
VivianeAnjelica
OMG, WIN! That was awesome. *now wants to see Hillary play Rock Band*
mariandelochs
Hilarious video, and energising! Go, Hillary!
This is Grandpa Simpson riding by on a motorcycle, yelling "I'M GOIN' TO LOLLAPALOOZA!": as dated, as out-of-touch and just as hilariously insulting.
The difference is that The Simpsons was JOKING. Jesus Christ, politicians.
I thought it was a parody right up til it said she paid for it. Wow...even if it's tongue-in-cheek, how pathetic is it for her and her people to think kids see her as a rock star!
She's a dowdy, aging matron, getting noticeably dowdier by the day. Leave it to a baby boomer to delude herself into believing that she's forever cool.
"the blogs were going crazy" LOL
this is lame beyond words....
she might as well campaign through the halls of a public high school in hightops a leather jacket and dark sunglasses to "connect with the youth"
and if she has so much money couldn't she have hired better writers?? sounds like it was written by parents at a PTA meeting.
Response to 2/25 Readings
The four articles we have read this week vary widely in the time periods they discuss, some focus on ancient and post-Civil War rhetoric, some are contemporary, and others talk about both. Many of the articles focus on how composition and rhetoric was taught in the past, and how they have both changed and still affects our programs today.
The Rise and Fall of the Modes of Discourse
Robert J. Connors
Robert J Connors’ essay “The Rise and Fall of the Modes of Discourse” gives a thorough history of a method of teaching composition that was popular for many years. This method involved teaching students “modes”, listed as Narration, Description, Exposition, and Argument. Although these modes were in existence before George Campbell and Alexander Bain wrote about them, most short histories accredit them to these authors.
Although these modes weren’t especially useful, they were immensely popular for many decades. Connors points out that "a fascination with categories […] became one of the hallmarks of the rigidly formalized rhetoric of the late nineteenth century." (Connors 445) Other reasons that these classifications became widely popular include the fact that Bain used them to organize his book. The changing atmosphere of education was another reason for their popularity.
Bain classified his modes in the following way Description, Narration and Exposition (have the objective of informing), and Persuasion (the means of influencing the will). Different authors gave the four modes various names, but all seemed to place persuasion on the lowest rung. For many decades the modes reigned supreme, but as both culture and composition changed (another author mentions that changes in culture and rhetoric usually go hand in hand), the fall of the modes was imminent.
The various modes were delegated to numerous departments, narration and description to creative writing, and argumentation went to the Speech department. Exposition remained a staple in composition courses.
My favorite two quotes from Connor's paper would have to be "The weakness of the modes of discourse as a practical tool in the writing class was that they did not really help students to learn to write" (Connor 454) and "For years the fact that this schema did not help students learn to write better was not a concern […] we need always to be on guard against systems that seem convenient to teachers but that ignore the way writing is actually done" (Connor 455) Although it may seem that he is stating the obvious, it is important to remember that what is “good” (or easy) for the instructor is not always in the student’s best interest.
Current- Traditional Rhetoric
James Berlin
In this chapter, Berlin outlines the changes in rhetoric that occurred after the Civil War. Both rhetoric and colleges in general were facing new changes, instead of the old aristocratic model, "[t]he new college was to serve the middle class, was to become an agent of upward social mobility" (Berlin 60) Much like Connor's article, Berlin discusses the different modes in composition. Persuasion is removed from composition, as it is assumed that one can only use persuasion in oratory acts.
A part that I found very relevant to contemporary issues is that of the pressure on secondary schools to better prepare students for college. I especially like the quote "[a]s has become the custom in America during such tempests, the schools were ordered to do a better job, but were given neither the money nor the techniques to do so." (Berlin 61) This reminds me of the current controversy over the "No Child Left Behind" act, which holds schools to increased standards, but provides little or no additional funds to help achieve this.
Much like Connor's article, Berlin discusses the different modes in composition. Persuasion is removed from composition, as it is assumed that one can only use persuasion in oratory acts.
Introduction Classical Rhetoric for the Modern Student
Edward Corbett
I really enjoyed Corbett's use of both modern and ancient examples. By using an advertisement to illustrate rhetorical analysis, Corbett is providing an example that modern students will be familiar with. Corbett segues from this into an analysis of Odysseus' plea to Achilles in The Iliad. I liked this segment of his chapter, and Corbett does an excellent job providing contemporary examples of the methods both Odysseys and Achilles employ.
Corbett spends the majority of this chapter discussing the five cannons of rhetoric.
Inventio literally means invention or discover. It is the act of finding an argument that will support the speaker's case. According to Aristotle, there are two types of persuasion that can be used, the non-artistic and the artistic. The artistic proof includes rational, emotional and ethical appeal. Once again, I found these ways of classification still relevant to modern rhetoric, although they have more recently been delegated to the realm of philosophy classes.
Dispotio deals with the arrangement of an argument, which involves methods still used today; I’m sure we all remember the five paragraph essays assigned in high school.
Elocutio means style; the following paragraphs on it are somewhat vague. I did like the three levels of style discussed, especially since the words are all cognates of modern day terms such as mediocre and subtle.
Memoria is the act of memorizing speeches, and much like the books Corbett discusses, he gives it little attention.
Much like memoria, pronuntiatio is neglected in its description, even though it is one of the most important aspects of oration.
The Basic Aims of Discourse
James L. Kinneavy
Without his handy diagrams, I probably wouldn’t have found Kinneavy’s essay quite as enlightening as I did. As it stands, Kinneavy, much like Corbett, does a fantastic job tying together ancient and contemporary theories of rhetoric. I think Kinneavy effectively draws from numerous academic fields (such as linguistics and psychology).
Although I agreed with most of Kinneavy’s examples and statements concerning the peril when only one form of rhetoric is taught at the expense of other, I found one of his statements to be condescending and unfounded, until I realized the time period in which he had written the article. “[T]he neglect of expressionism, as a reaction to progressive education, has stifled self-expression in the student and partially, at least, is a cause of the unorthodox and extreme forms of deviant self-expression now indulged in by college students on many campuses today” (Kinneavy 137)
I was irritated at this sentence, until I saw the date of publication, December 1969. If this had been a more recent article, I would have pointed out that college students have been engaging in “deviant self-expression” for many decades, but as one can make the argument that this time period was the beginning of this trend, I decided against it. I am interested to see how my other classmates reacted to this segment of the article, especially those who were alive during this time period.
The Rise and Fall of the Modes of Discourse
Robert J. Connors
Robert J Connors’ essay “The Rise and Fall of the Modes of Discourse” gives a thorough history of a method of teaching composition that was popular for many years. This method involved teaching students “modes”, listed as Narration, Description, Exposition, and Argument. Although these modes were in existence before George Campbell and Alexander Bain wrote about them, most short histories accredit them to these authors.
Although these modes weren’t especially useful, they were immensely popular for many decades. Connors points out that "a fascination with categories […] became one of the hallmarks of the rigidly formalized rhetoric of the late nineteenth century." (Connors 445) Other reasons that these classifications became widely popular include the fact that Bain used them to organize his book. The changing atmosphere of education was another reason for their popularity.
Bain classified his modes in the following way Description, Narration and Exposition (have the objective of informing), and Persuasion (the means of influencing the will). Different authors gave the four modes various names, but all seemed to place persuasion on the lowest rung. For many decades the modes reigned supreme, but as both culture and composition changed (another author mentions that changes in culture and rhetoric usually go hand in hand), the fall of the modes was imminent.
The various modes were delegated to numerous departments, narration and description to creative writing, and argumentation went to the Speech department. Exposition remained a staple in composition courses.
My favorite two quotes from Connor's paper would have to be "The weakness of the modes of discourse as a practical tool in the writing class was that they did not really help students to learn to write" (Connor 454) and "For years the fact that this schema did not help students learn to write better was not a concern […] we need always to be on guard against systems that seem convenient to teachers but that ignore the way writing is actually done" (Connor 455) Although it may seem that he is stating the obvious, it is important to remember that what is “good” (or easy) for the instructor is not always in the student’s best interest.
Current- Traditional Rhetoric
James Berlin
In this chapter, Berlin outlines the changes in rhetoric that occurred after the Civil War. Both rhetoric and colleges in general were facing new changes, instead of the old aristocratic model, "[t]he new college was to serve the middle class, was to become an agent of upward social mobility" (Berlin 60) Much like Connor's article, Berlin discusses the different modes in composition. Persuasion is removed from composition, as it is assumed that one can only use persuasion in oratory acts.
A part that I found very relevant to contemporary issues is that of the pressure on secondary schools to better prepare students for college. I especially like the quote "[a]s has become the custom in America during such tempests, the schools were ordered to do a better job, but were given neither the money nor the techniques to do so." (Berlin 61) This reminds me of the current controversy over the "No Child Left Behind" act, which holds schools to increased standards, but provides little or no additional funds to help achieve this.
Much like Connor's article, Berlin discusses the different modes in composition. Persuasion is removed from composition, as it is assumed that one can only use persuasion in oratory acts.
Introduction Classical Rhetoric for the Modern Student
Edward Corbett
I really enjoyed Corbett's use of both modern and ancient examples. By using an advertisement to illustrate rhetorical analysis, Corbett is providing an example that modern students will be familiar with. Corbett segues from this into an analysis of Odysseus' plea to Achilles in The Iliad. I liked this segment of his chapter, and Corbett does an excellent job providing contemporary examples of the methods both Odysseys and Achilles employ.
Corbett spends the majority of this chapter discussing the five cannons of rhetoric.
Inventio literally means invention or discover. It is the act of finding an argument that will support the speaker's case. According to Aristotle, there are two types of persuasion that can be used, the non-artistic and the artistic. The artistic proof includes rational, emotional and ethical appeal. Once again, I found these ways of classification still relevant to modern rhetoric, although they have more recently been delegated to the realm of philosophy classes.
Dispotio deals with the arrangement of an argument, which involves methods still used today; I’m sure we all remember the five paragraph essays assigned in high school.
Elocutio means style; the following paragraphs on it are somewhat vague. I did like the three levels of style discussed, especially since the words are all cognates of modern day terms such as mediocre and subtle.
Memoria is the act of memorizing speeches, and much like the books Corbett discusses, he gives it little attention.
Much like memoria, pronuntiatio is neglected in its description, even though it is one of the most important aspects of oration.
The Basic Aims of Discourse
James L. Kinneavy
Without his handy diagrams, I probably wouldn’t have found Kinneavy’s essay quite as enlightening as I did. As it stands, Kinneavy, much like Corbett, does a fantastic job tying together ancient and contemporary theories of rhetoric. I think Kinneavy effectively draws from numerous academic fields (such as linguistics and psychology).
Although I agreed with most of Kinneavy’s examples and statements concerning the peril when only one form of rhetoric is taught at the expense of other, I found one of his statements to be condescending and unfounded, until I realized the time period in which he had written the article. “[T]he neglect of expressionism, as a reaction to progressive education, has stifled self-expression in the student and partially, at least, is a cause of the unorthodox and extreme forms of deviant self-expression now indulged in by college students on many campuses today” (Kinneavy 137)
I was irritated at this sentence, until I saw the date of publication, December 1969. If this had been a more recent article, I would have pointed out that college students have been engaging in “deviant self-expression” for many decades, but as one can make the argument that this time period was the beginning of this trend, I decided against it. I am interested to see how my other classmates reacted to this segment of the article, especially those who were alive during this time period.
Monday, February 11, 2008
Response for 2/11
Note: I am having some problems formatting this blog entry, hopefully I'll have it worked out before class.
All of the readings for this week share a common theme; they either discuss or mention issues related to the internet and composition. In addition to this, they investigate the changing role of teachers and English departments in general, and how technology and understanding of our current world can affect us.
Canagarajah sees the use of WE in classrooms as beneficial, stating that "[v]ernacular is an asset in the learning of mainstream languages" (Canagarajah 592) Canagarajah talks about the CCCC sponsored Student's Right to Their Own Language. As per Canagarajah’s suggestion, I looked this statement up:
"We affirm the students' right to their own patterns and varieties of
language -- the dialects of their nurture or whatever dialects in which they
find their own identity and style. Language scholars long ago denied that
the myth of a standard American dialect has any validity. The claim that
any one dialect is unacceptable amounts to an attempt of one social group
to exert its dominance over another. Such a claim leads to false advice for
speakers and writers, and immoral advice for humans. A nation proud of
its diverse heritage and its cultural and racial variety will preserve its
heritage of dialects. We affirm strongly that teachers must have the
experiences and training that will enable them to respect diversity and
uphold the right of students to their own language."
Although respect of diversity and an understanding of our multicultural society is important, I find the rest of this to be a somewhat unrealistic expectation for modern classrooms. With our current state of overcrowding and a lack of qualified teachers, I don’t think sparse resources should be used on encouraging students to write in AAVE or other dialects.
Another method that Canagarajah introduced that I found interesting was “code meshing.” While similar to code switching (the practice of switching from a non-standard dialect to a standard one or vice versa, depending on the situation), code meshing involves using non-standard vocabulary in multilingual situations. Canagarajah points out that “Though code-meshing was used in classical rhetoric as a high-brow activity (i.e. inserting Greek or Latin without translation into English texts), I am presenting this notion as a popular communicative strategy in multilingual communities, and developing it even for cases outside such elite bilingualism.” (598 Canagarajah)
I found this idea very interesting; using what was a formally elite activity as modern rhetorical strategy involving non-standard dialects. My only issue would be comprehension, just as I get somewhat frustrated when forced to look up Latin, Greek or French translations (thanks Henry James…at least you provide endnotes), I feel that not everyone would be able to understand all of the vocabulary from AAVE or another dialect.
Sometimes, we have a moment.
No, I’m not going to do this throughout my response. I promise. Kathleen Blake Yancey, the author of “Made Not Only in Words: Composition in a New Key” makes frequent use of repetition in her article, such as the oft repeated “We have a moment.”
I thought that Yancey made many good points, although I found her to be longwinded in some parts of her essay. I enjoyed her parallels between the modern digital revolution that is taking place, and the increased literacy that occurred in the 19th century. In regards to increased composition on the internet, I didn’t share her continued shock that THIS WAS TAKING PLACE OUTSIDE OF SCHOOL. Yancey seems flabbergasted that students would be interested in writing when no grades or requirements are forcing them.
Throughout her essay, Yancey advises English teachers at all levels to integrate technology, and warns of what may happen if they fail to. She cautions against anachronistic English departments, and cites statistics that suggest the departments are shrinking and in some cases disappearing (perhaps it is aliens). She follows this data with the statement “the number of tenure-line jobs in English continues its now altogether-too-familiar decline (which makes the continuing increase in tenure-line jobs in rhetoric and composition all the more remarkable). (Yancey 303) I have to admit, the statement in parenthesis there made me perk up. It also made me wonder what state the English department will be in ten or twenty years from now. Will there be less focus on literary theory and literature in general, and a shift towards composition and rhetoric? Or will there be little change at all? And how will English classes change? Should freshmen composition classes use blogs, as this next article suggests? (Note: I must have Microsoft Word 2003, because it shows blog and blogs as being misspelled. So much has changed in the last few years!)
Given the structure of our class, I found “Moving to the Public: Weblogs in the Writing Classroom” to be a relevant read. Charles Lowe and Terra Williams discuss the difference between a controlled online discussion, such as in WebCT or Blackboard, and the freedom of a blog, a situation in which a member of the public can comment on a students writing. I honestly hope someone stumbles across our blogs, and has comments to add. To be honest, I’ve contemplated linking them on a message board I frequent, but I decided against it.
Lowe and Williams go on to list the advantages blogs hold over other online projects; the two main advantages being that they are easier to create and readers can leave comments. In my experience so far, I have found blogs to be more fun than the traditional online classroom software. I enjoy leaving comments on other students blogs, and feel that our blogs have a more personal touch than merely posting on Blackboard.
I found “Writing Into the 21st Century: An Overview of Research on Writing, 1999 to 2004” to be a much dryer read than the other articles. I liked the fact it was a research article though, especially given our discussion last week about research in the composition and rhetoric field. I have to admit, I was somewhat let down, after reading that “[o]
I think this article did a good job highlighting a deficit in composition research, mainly that “early practices and acquisition of writing in childhood and youth” (Juzwik et all 471) are neglected in research.
Monday, February 4, 2008
Corporations in the Age of the Internet
I recently read an article in the New York Times that I thought might interest some of my classmates. It deals with the importance of blogs to our modern society, and the fact that many corporations may need to reconsider their policies to adapt.
To sum up the article, a blogger found an image that Target used for advertising to be offensive to women. The blogger, Amy Jussel, emailed Target with her concerns, and was told "Unfortunately we are unable to respond to your inquiry because Target does not participate with nontraditional media outlets."
Bloggers all over the internet (I hate using the word blogosphere) were pretty peeved at this. Target responded to this by issuing the following statement "[W]e are reviewing the policy and may adjust it."
My personal take on t
his article is two part. Firstly, I think that the initial anger over the ad is completely ridiculous. As you can see, it is not just the woman's crotch in the bullseye, it is most of her torso and upper legs. As a woman, I in no way associate this symbol with any sort of degradation to my gender. It is a pretty cheesy ad, but hey, most Target ads are. At least the store themselves look nicer than Wal-Mart, and the clothing sold there is slightly nicer, but that has nothing to do with this article.
Moving on, in response to the second part of this article, I think Target has shown a lot of ignorance when it comes to dealing with new media. Remember a couple months ago when it came out that Target was bribing members of Facebook and Myspace to shill their wares? That probably wouldn't have had such a bad effect if a ham fisted Target hadn't told participants to "keep it a secret." One look at the application page for "Target Rounders" shows that it seeks to recruit students who are popular both online and in real life.
Although Target shows some awareness as to the importance of media and word of mouth on the internet, they still exhibit blatant ignorance when it comes to not pissing people off. People in general don't like being belittled or lied to (even if their complaint is somewhat inane in the first place.) I will be curious to see if Target does indeed update their policy in regards to blogs, and if they will show any savvy when it comes to dealing with the internet.
To sum up the article, a blogger found an image that Target used for advertising to be offensive to women. The blogger, Amy Jussel, emailed Target with her concerns, and was told "Unfortunately we are unable to respond to your inquiry because Target does not participate with nontraditional media outlets."
Bloggers all over the internet (I hate using the word blogosphere) were pretty peeved at this. Target responded to this by issuing the following statement "[W]e are reviewing the policy and may adjust it."
My personal take on t
his article is two part. Firstly, I think that the initial anger over the ad is completely ridiculous. As you can see, it is not just the woman's crotch in the bullseye, it is most of her torso and upper legs. As a woman, I in no way associate this symbol with any sort of degradation to my gender. It is a pretty cheesy ad, but hey, most Target ads are. At least the store themselves look nicer than Wal-Mart, and the clothing sold there is slightly nicer, but that has nothing to do with this article.Moving on, in response to the second part of this article, I think Target has shown a lot of ignorance when it comes to dealing with new media. Remember a couple months ago when it came out that Target was bribing members of Facebook and Myspace to shill their wares? That probably wouldn't have had such a bad effect if a ham fisted Target hadn't told participants to "keep it a secret." One look at the application page for "Target Rounders" shows that it seeks to recruit students who are popular both online and in real life.
Although Target shows some awareness as to the importance of media and word of mouth on the internet, they still exhibit blatant ignorance when it comes to not pissing people off. People in general don't like being belittled or lied to (even if their complaint is somewhat inane in the first place.) I will be curious to see if Target does indeed update their policy in regards to blogs, and if they will show any savvy when it comes to dealing with the internet.
Friday, February 1, 2008
Response to 2/4 Readings
Considering the political, societal, and interpersonal importance that writing has held for over two thousand years, it may come as a surprise to modern students that composition as a field of study did not exist in colleges and universities until late into the 19th century. Furthermore, this early form of rhetoric and composition was devoid of research until decades later. Although all of our assigned readings deal with this history (one of them is even written by a vital participant in it), the first two deal with the origins, while “Where Did Composition Studies Come From?” investigates the changes wrought in the mid to late 20th century.
The first paper we were assigned to read, “Introduction.” The Origins of Composition Studies in the American College, does exactly as its title would infer, that is, investigate the beginnings of composition in American colleges. Prior to the 1870s, the goal of college was “building character, not to supply useful knowledge” (Brereton 3). This older model also stressed the study of Latin and Greek classics, as opposed to English. Even after the development of the English department, composition classes were spread out, and usually taught as electives, as students were expected to have knowledge of writing from their secondary schools.
In the 1870s, Harvard President Charles W. Eliot and writer Adams Sherman Hill created what can be called the first modern composition program. Changes brought about by this program included a placement examination and the consolidation of composition classes to the freshman year. In his essay “An Answer to the Cry for More English”, Hill discusses the results of this placement examination. In a pompous tone (Was I the only one who thought Hill was kind of a jerk?), Hill claims that half of the students taking the exam failed it. He catalogues all the numerous mistakes found in these exams, such as spelling, factual and grammatical errors, taking time to mock students, stating that some would “put commas […] between words that no rational being would separate from one another” (Hill 50) Hill goes on to chide the secondary schools for the low quality of students they are churning out, and then lists his criteria for what he believes a good English teacher should be; “The teacher of English should be equally quick to detect faults and to recognize merits of every description, and should know how to stimulate his pupils’ minds till they are as fresh and alert at the desk as on the playground. He should possess special qualifications, for his task is at once difficult and important.” (Hill 52) These standards sound highly unrealistic to me, especially if teachers in Hill’s day were paid the same low wages as they are today.
Hills solution to the lack of quality writers applying to college “to give to English two hours or more a week during the Freshman year […] schools would be made to feel that their labors in this direction were going to tell upon a pupil’s standing in college as well as upon his admission.” (Hill 52) The delegation of composition to a first year class can be seen as the beginning of several detrimental attitudes towards rhetoric and composition. As Brereton himself says, “putting composition into the first year was a recognition of its newly developed remedial overtones: freshman year was to make up for what preparatory schools had failed to teach. That goes a long way to explain composition’s lowly status.” (Brereton 18) To this day, a large amount of freshman composition classes are taught by part-timers and graduate assistants. This was not the only negative mind-set regarding composition to be born out of Hill’s actions, a statement he made saying that “rhetoric was an art, not a science” affirmed contemporary views that rhetoric could not be researched; only taught.
The matter of whether rhetoric is an art or a science is one that is explored in “Where Did Composition Studies Come From?” by Martin Nystrand et al. Nystrand’s insanely comprehensive article chronicles different attitudes, forms of research, and fields of rhetoric and composition. Nystrand discusses the concept of “new romanticism”, which holds that composition should be free from control and regulations. On the other hand, new classicism states that “certain aspects of the creative process can be taught.” (Nystrand 269) Nystrand supports the latter conclusion in his essay, as do most people studying composition (I would assume.)
As someone who minored in linguistics, I found the relationship between early rhetoric studies and linguistics fascinating. I recognized many of the areas of research in linguistics that Nystrand brought up; however, I had never realized the extent to which they corresponded with composition studies. It is appropriate that my field of emphasis for my M.A. is entitled language/composition theory study, a title that emphasizes the relationship between the two.
I enjoyed the thorough treatment given to the history of rhetoric given in "A Brief History of Rhetoric and Composition" (which was brief, I suppose, given the amount of time it covers.) As someone who loves Roman history, one aspect that I found fascinating was the loss of Cicero and Quintilian's works until the Renaissance. Having read some Aquinas works, it makes me interested in how rhetoric changed after the discovery of Cicero and Quintilian's writings.
Another aspect of historical rhetoric that attracted my attention is what was said in the "Rhetoric in the Eighteenth Century: The Scottish Influence" section. Some rhetoricians believed that a "correct and pervasive style" would not only create good works of writing, but good people as well. I find this a stretch, as I'm sure that there are plenty of examples of horrible people who write very well.
The first paper we were assigned to read, “Introduction.” The Origins of Composition Studies in the American College, does exactly as its title would infer, that is, investigate the beginnings of composition in American colleges. Prior to the 1870s, the goal of college was “building character, not to supply useful knowledge” (Brereton 3). This older model also stressed the study of Latin and Greek classics, as opposed to English. Even after the development of the English department, composition classes were spread out, and usually taught as electives, as students were expected to have knowledge of writing from their secondary schools.
In the 1870s, Harvard President Charles W. Eliot and writer Adams Sherman Hill created what can be called the first modern composition program. Changes brought about by this program included a placement examination and the consolidation of composition classes to the freshman year. In his essay “An Answer to the Cry for More English”, Hill discusses the results of this placement examination. In a pompous tone (Was I the only one who thought Hill was kind of a jerk?), Hill claims that half of the students taking the exam failed it. He catalogues all the numerous mistakes found in these exams, such as spelling, factual and grammatical errors, taking time to mock students, stating that some would “put commas […] between words that no rational being would separate from one another” (Hill 50) Hill goes on to chide the secondary schools for the low quality of students they are churning out, and then lists his criteria for what he believes a good English teacher should be; “The teacher of English should be equally quick to detect faults and to recognize merits of every description, and should know how to stimulate his pupils’ minds till they are as fresh and alert at the desk as on the playground. He should possess special qualifications, for his task is at once difficult and important.” (Hill 52) These standards sound highly unrealistic to me, especially if teachers in Hill’s day were paid the same low wages as they are today.
Hills solution to the lack of quality writers applying to college “to give to English two hours or more a week during the Freshman year […] schools would be made to feel that their labors in this direction were going to tell upon a pupil’s standing in college as well as upon his admission.” (Hill 52) The delegation of composition to a first year class can be seen as the beginning of several detrimental attitudes towards rhetoric and composition. As Brereton himself says, “putting composition into the first year was a recognition of its newly developed remedial overtones: freshman year was to make up for what preparatory schools had failed to teach. That goes a long way to explain composition’s lowly status.” (Brereton 18) To this day, a large amount of freshman composition classes are taught by part-timers and graduate assistants. This was not the only negative mind-set regarding composition to be born out of Hill’s actions, a statement he made saying that “rhetoric was an art, not a science” affirmed contemporary views that rhetoric could not be researched; only taught.
The matter of whether rhetoric is an art or a science is one that is explored in “Where Did Composition Studies Come From?” by Martin Nystrand et al. Nystrand’s insanely comprehensive article chronicles different attitudes, forms of research, and fields of rhetoric and composition. Nystrand discusses the concept of “new romanticism”, which holds that composition should be free from control and regulations. On the other hand, new classicism states that “certain aspects of the creative process can be taught.” (Nystrand 269) Nystrand supports the latter conclusion in his essay, as do most people studying composition (I would assume.)
As someone who minored in linguistics, I found the relationship between early rhetoric studies and linguistics fascinating. I recognized many of the areas of research in linguistics that Nystrand brought up; however, I had never realized the extent to which they corresponded with composition studies. It is appropriate that my field of emphasis for my M.A. is entitled language/composition theory study, a title that emphasizes the relationship between the two.
I enjoyed the thorough treatment given to the history of rhetoric given in "A Brief History of Rhetoric and Composition" (which was brief, I suppose, given the amount of time it covers.) As someone who loves Roman history, one aspect that I found fascinating was the loss of Cicero and Quintilian's works until the Renaissance. Having read some Aquinas works, it makes me interested in how rhetoric changed after the discovery of Cicero and Quintilian's writings.
Another aspect of historical rhetoric that attracted my attention is what was said in the "Rhetoric in the Eighteenth Century: The Scottish Influence" section. Some rhetoricians believed that a "correct and pervasive style" would not only create good works of writing, but good people as well. I find this a stretch, as I'm sure that there are plenty of examples of horrible people who write very well.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)