Revolution Lullabye

January 28, 2009

Tate, Teaching Composition

This blog entry is a comparison of the table of contents across two editions of Gary Tate’s bibliographic essay collection, Teaching Composition. I’m looking at a couple of these composition guides intended for beginning composition teachers and/or entering graduate students in the field to see how they change over different editions and to correlate the publication dates with major movements and trends in the history of composition pedagogy. I see the table of contents and the terms that the chapter titles use as a map that can suggest these transformations in how we view the field of composition and its pedagogy.

Tate’s collection pulls together bibliographic essays that scan the literature written about different parts of the field. Each is written by an “expert,” and it’s interesting to see what constituted different areas and specialties in the field in 1976 and in 1987. There hasn’t been an edition published since, probably due to the sheer number of articles, books, reviews, and other scholarship published in rhetoric and composition since 1987. Plus, there are more databases and other ways of finding relevant scholarship now that weren’t in place in the 1970s and 1980s.

Tate, Gary, ed. Teaching Composition: Ten Bibliographic Essays. Forth Worth: Texas Christian UP, 1976.

Young, “Invention: A Topical Survey”
Larson, “Structure and Form in Non-fiction Prose”
Corbett, “Approaches to the Study of Style”
D’Angelo, “Modes of Discourse”
Shaughnessy, “Basic Writing”
Comprone, “The Uses of Media in Teaching Composition”
Winterowd, “Linguistics and Composition”
Korder, “A Rhetorical Analysis of Writing”
Kinneavy/Kline, “Composition and Related Fields”
Giannasi, “Dialects and Composition”

Tate, Gary, ed. Teaching Composition: Twelve Bibliographical Essays. Fort Worth: Texas Christian UP, 1987.

Richard Young, “Recent Developments in Rhetorical Invention”
Richard Larson, “Structrue and Form in Non-narrative Prose”
Edward P.J. Corbett, “Approaches to the Study of Style”
Frank D’Angelo, “Aims, Modes, and Forms of Discourse”
Richard Lloyd-Jones, “Tests of Writing Ability”
Mina P. Shaughnessy, “Basic Writing”
Andrea Lunsford, “Basic Writing Update”
Jennifer Giannasi, “Language Varieties and Composition”
W. Ross Winterowd, “Litearcy, Linguistics, and Rhetoric”
Joseph Comprone, “Liteary Theory and Composition”
Jim Corder, “Studying Rhetoric and Literature”
James Kinneavy, “Writing across the Curriculum”
Hugh Burns, “Computers and Composition”

Some things I notice: “dialects” turns into “language varieties;” the “basic writing update;” Winterowd’s chapter now includes literacy and rhetoric in the title; “media” becomes specifically computers; addition of writing across the curriculum as an area of interest and research; introduction of the term “rhetoric” in two of the chapter titles; “modes” of discourse becomes “aims, modes, and forms”; new chapter on assessment with “tests of writing ability.”

What these might suggest: turn away from linguistics and toward rhetoric; beginning of interests in cultural studies and the rhetorical practices of minority groups; seeing composition as an administrative force in the academy (with both chapters on WAC and assessment); move away from traditional notions of style, arrangement, and structural form to a more social approach to the teaching of writing; lots of growth in the reseach in basic writing and literacy.

Advertisements

January 23, 2009

Lunsford and Ede, “Audience Addressed/Audience Invoked”

This (and subsequent posts) were in editions 2, 3, and 4 of The Writing Teacher’s Sourcebook.

Lunsford, Andrea and Lisa Ede. “Audience Addressed/Audience Invoked: The Role of Audience in Composition Theory and Pedagogy” 243-257.

The two ways of thinking of a writer’s audience – audience addressed (an actual, researchable, real-world audience) and audience invoked (an audience that is imagined and created by the writer) – have significant shortcomings by themselves, but when combined, they form a more complex, accurate understanding of how audiences are formed, how they function, and how the circular relationship between writers and readers work. The major problems with the audience addressed model include the absence of the writer as a reader who forms an internal dialogue with the emerging text, constantly analyzing, getting feedback, and creating their own vision of who the audience might be. With the audience invoked model, there is an overemphasis of the Ong distinction between written and spoken communication (oral communicators can know their audiences; written communicators can’t), resulting in a writer-centered text that doesn’t take into consideration the concerns of potential readers. Lunsford and Ede emphasize the importance of the writer as a reader of their own work as part of the writing process.

Quotable Quotes

“Writers create readers and readers create writers” – that’s how communication happens (257)

“The most complete understanding of audience thus involves a synthesis of the perspectives we have termed audience addressed, with its focus on the reader, and audience invoked, with its focus on the writer” (255).

“integrated, interdependent nature of reading and writing” (256).

The two models fail to recognize “(1) the fluid, dynamic character of rhetorical situations; and (2) the integrated, interdependent nature of reading and writing” (244).

Blog at WordPress.com.