Revision history for MorgansCompTheoryNotes26Sept2011
Additions:
- statement of p 223: thinking about error and its relationship to the worship of formal grammar and hyperliterate perception of the value of formal rules.
Deletions:
Additions:
To see grammar 2 in action, read Language Log. For a linguistic critique of StrunkNWhite, [[http://chronicle.com/article/50-Years-of-Stupid-Grammar/25497 read this]].
Deletions:
Additions:
Some premises are being challenged by recent models of situated perception. Gibson, James J. //The Ecological Approach to Visual Perception//. Hilldale, USA, 1977.
The doctrine that we could not perceive the world around us unless we already had the concept of space is nonsense. It is quite the other way around: We could not conceive of empty space unless we could see the ground under our feet and the sky above. Space is a myth, a ghost, a fiction for geometers. All that sounds very strange, no doubt, but I urge the reader to entertain the hypothesis. For if you agree to abandon the dogma that "percepts without concepts are blind," as Kant put it, a deep theoretical mess, a genuine quagmire, will dry up. This is one of the main themes of the chapters that follow.
Semiotics is challenging the New Rhetorical, especially Kress and a new model of communication. Kress, Gunther R. //Multimodality : A Social Semiotic Approach to Contemporary Communication//. London; New York: Routledge, 2010.
Some texts fall into the new rhetorical by virtue of method and emphasis on the //how//: how does this text create meaning? The method is to tinker with actual texts - very much inductive or even abductive. versions and compare, to translate, to transduce (change mode) to discover what's vital. The emphasis in these is on the material rather than the abstractions of language and the medium as rhetorical.
Harris, Joseph. //Rewriting: How to Do Things with Texts//. Logan, Utah: Utah State University Press, 2006.
Pope, Rob. //Textual Intervention: Critical and Creative Strategies for Literary Studies//. London, Routledge, 1995.
Another trend is to borrow methods from other disciplines, primarily ethnographic study, where language is used to self-conscioulsly represent understandings. Tavory, Iddo, and Stefan Timmermans. //Abductive Analysis : Theorizing Qualitative Research.// Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 2014.
And another branch involves rhetoric and design. Again, the emphasis is on New Rhetorical but incorporates notions of contemporary psychological theories of representation
Kaufer, David S, and Brian S Butler.//Designing Interactive Worlds with Words: Principles of Writing As Representational Composition//. New Jersey: LEA, 2000.
Kaufer, David S, and Brian S Butler. //Rhetoric and the Arts of Design//. New Jersey: LEA, 1996.
The doctrine that we could not perceive the world around us unless we already had the concept of space is nonsense. It is quite the other way around: We could not conceive of empty space unless we could see the ground under our feet and the sky above. Space is a myth, a ghost, a fiction for geometers. All that sounds very strange, no doubt, but I urge the reader to entertain the hypothesis. For if you agree to abandon the dogma that "percepts without concepts are blind," as Kant put it, a deep theoretical mess, a genuine quagmire, will dry up. This is one of the main themes of the chapters that follow.
Semiotics is challenging the New Rhetorical, especially Kress and a new model of communication. Kress, Gunther R. //Multimodality : A Social Semiotic Approach to Contemporary Communication//. London; New York: Routledge, 2010.
Some texts fall into the new rhetorical by virtue of method and emphasis on the //how//: how does this text create meaning? The method is to tinker with actual texts - very much inductive or even abductive. versions and compare, to translate, to transduce (change mode) to discover what's vital. The emphasis in these is on the material rather than the abstractions of language and the medium as rhetorical.
Harris, Joseph. //Rewriting: How to Do Things with Texts//. Logan, Utah: Utah State University Press, 2006.
Pope, Rob. //Textual Intervention: Critical and Creative Strategies for Literary Studies//. London, Routledge, 1995.
Another trend is to borrow methods from other disciplines, primarily ethnographic study, where language is used to self-conscioulsly represent understandings. Tavory, Iddo, and Stefan Timmermans. //Abductive Analysis : Theorizing Qualitative Research.// Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 2014.
And another branch involves rhetoric and design. Again, the emphasis is on New Rhetorical but incorporates notions of contemporary psychological theories of representation
Kaufer, David S, and Brian S Butler.//Designing Interactive Worlds with Words: Principles of Writing As Representational Composition//. New Jersey: LEA, 2000.
Kaufer, David S, and Brian S Butler. //Rhetoric and the Arts of Design//. New Jersey: LEA, 1996.
Deletions:
And by semiotics. Esp Kress, new model of communication. Multimodal Communication
Some texts are challenging all of these, but tend to fall into new rhetorical, by virtue of method and emphasis on the how: how does x create meaning? The method is to tinker with actual texts - very much inductive or even abductive. versions and compare, to translate, to transduce (change mode) to discover what's vital. The emphasis in these is on the material rather than the abstractions of language and the medium as rhetorical.
Additions:
====Topic Sentences, Braddock====
Back to the actual practice, as w paragraphing. Published in RTE, and making an implicit call for more empirical research in grounding teaching and thinking s out writing.
This section is about testing and rethinking textbook codified concepts and precepts **to theorize them**. What Emig calls magical thinking. That students learn only what we teach and only because we teach it.
This reading makes a pretty good model for textual analysis. Explicit in what he's doing. Focused on two answerable questions. Method.
==IDing t-units==
Linguistic concept. Do some t unit ID in a piece of student writing.
==IDing topic sentences==
To note is that Braddock recounts the difficulties he ran into as part of method. We see theorizing arising from practical need.
Note technique: create sentence outline - as teachers recommend. Problems there. Goes with inter-rater reliability. Acknowledges outline is an interpretive act.
===Comments on table 1===
- What do you glean from the table?
By coding, he develops types, which is a step forward. The types come from his coding, and are likly an artifact of method. But he complicates a sense of reading, and an understanding of how sentences work w in and across paras to signal how to construct coherence.
[Check Lang log for refernce to basing rules on ?]
===Conclusions===
- 55% of the sample - and distributed across wider expanse of paragraphs than texts account for - do not use topic sentences.
- Placement. Less than 50% in first t-unit. Less than 15% in other designated places. Could be as low at 13% in first position.
- uses frequency table to determine distribution, which is to address the study's question.
==== Discussion ====
- Claims of writing textbooks concerning use and distro of topics across paragraphs are not grounded in practice. This might not hold for other kinds of writing. Might want to check that out. It would make a good final project.
- Claims from working authors are just as shaky. Claims based in their texts might mike good grounds for teaching.
- suggests changes in teaching reading, to ID more sophisticated use of topic-like sentences.
- see how these findings relate to other genres.
==Start here==
Where do you place yourself in the discussion: Do you teach formal grammar as a way of teaching writing? or do something else? v p 208. Do you subscribe to the idea that students must learn the rules before they can break them? - and is it "break"? Do you have any evidence that that is a grounded pedagogical position, or is this idea used for other, non-pedagogical reasons? Control, perhaps. Or to exercise authority. Those who learn the rules are allowed to flaunt them but those who don't are confined to the corner? Is mastery of writing mastery of formal grammar? It's measurable.
Research is not telling us much about the value of teaching grammar for writing development - rather, we're interpreting results as supporting our positions. so Hartwell aims to look into the confusion by articulating the grammar question in more productive terms.
List, p 208, esp what is our theory of language - the theory we teach by, practice, enforce? Problem defined, 208, last para.
He starts by reviewing the work that has been done, and then turns to theorizing about what direction to take in light of what the research tells us - which is not much. Like the rest of the authors in this section, Hartwell is going to be explicit in his terms and definitions because that's where the confusions seem to lay too often.
1. Grammar as it exists in heads of native speakers.
This comes of untaught languagae acquisition but also seems influenced by literacy (214) - a point which could speak to the case for teaching literacy - reading, at any rate. Tacit and usable knowledge. Q here would be what environs influence acquisition of NORMS as norms. To claims that this knowledge is unreachable and not under control, we can invoke the rules by varying situations. Seems to be influenced by acquisition - learning - of literacy. Literacy may change the deep structure. 214.
2. Grammar as an area of linguistics, creating and testing various models of grammars.
There is no relation in the matter of teaching The model to get to performance. Hartwell spends a lot of time in this area because at the time of writing there was a push for applying linguistically discovered rules (regularities found in the language) to teaching - as in the article use flow chart. Discovery that surfaces is that the rules we think we use are inadequate to explain what we do, but they do allow us to access internalized rules. But trying to use the rules as procedures degrades performance, while exposure to rule-driven constructs produces tacit knowledge. 218.
To see grammar 2 in action, read Language Log.
3. Usage. linguistic étiquette
4. Grammar as used in schools.
Incantations that are COIK. These rules are clear and understandable as stated only if the student has already gained the tacit knowledge on which the stated rule is based. But the rules work w a paradox: people who think that the rules actually work use the inadequate rule as heuristics to access the internal rules they do us. 220.
Using this grammar is not connected with literate behavior: that is, literate people don't actually follow the strictures and guidelines that the texts present. The hyperliterate think they are. (The disconnect between what they texts say and actual practice might be a source of the "Learn the Rules before you can Break Them" homily). Based on Latin and logic.
For instance,
- p 221: IDing a fragment. Problem: This school grammar defines the fragment error as a conceptual error: evidence that writer doesn't have a grasp of a sentence - as opposed to an error of idiom as it is taken in academia - a performance error.
- statement of p 223: thinking about error and its relationship to worship of formal grammar and hyperliterate perception of the value of formal rules.
- redefine error as a problem of metacognition
What it means for teaching,
- teach literacy as a way of teaching metacognition. 223-224: metacognition and literacy: not that metacognition helps literacy but literacy develops metacognition. Meta linguistic play. Literacy artifacts. Nonsense phrases. Puns, fork handles. Games, puzzles, tweeting.
- Print is a cultural code, and perhaps one masters the code from the top down, from pragmatic questions of voice, tone, audience, register, rhet strats, we gain tacit knowledge of surface grammar. 224. No evidence given.
- procedures can hinder. Proofreader's marks.
- set things up to invoke tacit knowledge rather than procedural. ID error with a mark and let student correct.
- write better textbooks and grammar guides
- where do we place drill for skill?
5. Stylistic grammars
Strunk and White, Williams, Lynn Tuss, Wired, AP Stylebook, etc. subsets or flavors of stylistic grammars.
All the variations are united by method: but both rest on idea that one learns to control the language of print by manipulating meaningful texts in communicative contexts, not by the study of rules of grammar in isolation. 225
- broadly meta-linguistic, involving active manipulation of language with attention to surface form - and this conception points to composition as material stuff.
Postscript on experimental research
Any active involvement with language is preferable to instruction in rules.
P 235ff
Teaching writing is to argue for a version of reality and the best way of knowing and communicating it. 236. This is not just a matter of different emphasis on elements or processes of writing.
=== State of the discipline 1980===
Surveys the discipline as of 1980 to see what patterns he can see. Berlin's analysis uncovers some historical events that help us explain some anomalies you might be seeing in the discipline itself - like the difference between argumentation, exposition, and persuasion (grounded in faculty psychology, each appeals to understanding and emotion).
There's an imperative that a comp teacher form and practice in pedagogy a coherent version of understanding rather than pick and mix. Teaching writing is teaching a way of understanding reality, not a mechanical skill, and so the teacher is under a larger understanding made explicit.
=== the ground ===
Different conceptions of pedagogy are grounded in different rhetorical theories - and are grounded in the way writer, audience, reality, language are conceived - and how they inter-relate. That is, there are different sets of preconceptions and assumptions about language, the world, knowledge ... that shape and ground our teaching of writing - and students' learning of writing. 236
=== Classicist - Neo-Aristotelians===
The world exists independently of the observer - and our minds our constructed so to understand the world and its rules. Reality can be known and communicated. Truth is a matter of performing in conformance with logic. - with language an unproblematic medium. Both word and thing referred to are part of thought - Dialectic is the way to discover knowledge in learned discourse. Rhetoric is the means to address probabilistic realms. Business of rhet is to enable speaker to persuade others of that probable truth, a truth that was discovered by other, arhetorical means. Emphasis on invention leads to subordination on arrangement and style - view of language is that the word is an isolatable unit of meaning and that structuring them into sentences creates combinatory meaning
=== Current-Traditional or Positivist approach===
Aristotle as realized in Scottish and British philosophers as common sense realism - induction rather than deduction. Denies the value of deduction: closed system. individual sense impression provides the basis for all knowledge, and builds knowledge by induction. the world is rational, but its logic is discovered through scientific / experimental method. Rhetoric becomes the study of all forms of communication - not just one branch - but rhetoric does not deal with invention as it did w Aristotle. Truth is discovered outside of rhetoric - experimental method, study in a discipline, genius - and rhetoric deals with how to communicate that pre-existant truth: how to adapt discourse to hearers. Esp focuses on skill in arrangement and style. When we are freed of biases, senses provide mental facilities with a clear image of the world. College writing is to be concerned with communicating the truth that is certain and empirically verifiable - not probable. Right - wrong - or it falls into the realm of opinion, which is outside rhetoric. Arrangement and style.
A note on the paragraph concerning appeals and faculties. Note how argumentation is distinguished from persuasion: by way of mental faculties. Persuasion is special, making an appear to the will. Argumentation appeals to understanding, especially along disciplinary lines. 240.
In comes the split between lit and comp, by way of branches of discourse and faculty psychology. 241.
=== Expressionist===
Developed in response to CTR. Plato as realized in Emerson, and some current teachers. Truth is discovered through internal apprehension - all writing and knowing are personal - but cannot be communicated. Truth - not writing, but truth - can be learned but not taught. Rhetoric becomes the correction of error, removal that which obscurers the inner vision. The method towards Truth is dialectic, disruptive of day to day perceptual set. This leads to a difficult view of language - truth is beyond the resources of language - but language can speak analogically of truth. Personal truths: true to the expression of self. true to feeling of experience. Some of this is hackneyed, but more generally, the approach places a Self (often a plural essential self) at the center of communication - not the other, not balanced with other, but at the center. Plato argued for transcendent Truth. Expressionist place claims on personal truth - that doesn't necessarily transcend the personal. Solepcism isn't far away.Classroom procedures: provide place to learn rather than be taught. relies on analogical method
The emphasis on dialogue and dialectic in an expressionist approach is not aimed at communicating or adjusting the message to make it communicable. To adapt the message to an audience would be a violation of the self, the inner vision of Truth. The others in the dialogue are at the service of the writer: they are there to help the writer get rid of what's insincere and false to the writer's personal, incommunicable sense of things. Remove the inauthentic.
=== New Rhetoric aka social epistemic approach===
What the first 3 share: knowledge is a commodity situated in a permanent location, a repository that the individual goes to for enlightenment.
New Rhet: knowledge is dynamic and dialectical, the result of a shifting process of synthesis of opposing elements. That relation is created, not pre-existing. The elements are those embedded in the communicative situation: writer, audience, reality, language. Truth and knowledge is always knowledge for someone standing in a particular relationship in a circumscribed situation. writer - audience - reality - language are the things we use to shape knowledge.
=== The position of the writer===
==== More recently ====
Some premises are being challenged by recent models of situated perception. Gibson - ECOLOGICAL APPROACH TO VISUAL PERCEPTION.pdf
And by semiotics. Esp Kress, new model of communication. Multimodal Communication
Some texts are challenging all of these, but tend to fall into new rhetorical, by virtue of method and emphasis on the how: how does x create meaning? The method is to tinker with actual texts - very much inductive or even abductive. versions and compare, to translate, to transduce (change mode) to discover what's vital. The emphasis in these is on the material rather than the abstractions of language and the medium as rhetorical.
Back to the actual practice, as w paragraphing. Published in RTE, and making an implicit call for more empirical research in grounding teaching and thinking s out writing.
This section is about testing and rethinking textbook codified concepts and precepts **to theorize them**. What Emig calls magical thinking. That students learn only what we teach and only because we teach it.
This reading makes a pretty good model for textual analysis. Explicit in what he's doing. Focused on two answerable questions. Method.
==IDing t-units==
Linguistic concept. Do some t unit ID in a piece of student writing.
==IDing topic sentences==
To note is that Braddock recounts the difficulties he ran into as part of method. We see theorizing arising from practical need.
Note technique: create sentence outline - as teachers recommend. Problems there. Goes with inter-rater reliability. Acknowledges outline is an interpretive act.
===Comments on table 1===
- What do you glean from the table?
By coding, he develops types, which is a step forward. The types come from his coding, and are likly an artifact of method. But he complicates a sense of reading, and an understanding of how sentences work w in and across paras to signal how to construct coherence.
[Check Lang log for refernce to basing rules on ?]
===Conclusions===
- 55% of the sample - and distributed across wider expanse of paragraphs than texts account for - do not use topic sentences.
- Placement. Less than 50% in first t-unit. Less than 15% in other designated places. Could be as low at 13% in first position.
- uses frequency table to determine distribution, which is to address the study's question.
==== Discussion ====
- Claims of writing textbooks concerning use and distro of topics across paragraphs are not grounded in practice. This might not hold for other kinds of writing. Might want to check that out. It would make a good final project.
- Claims from working authors are just as shaky. Claims based in their texts might mike good grounds for teaching.
- suggests changes in teaching reading, to ID more sophisticated use of topic-like sentences.
- see how these findings relate to other genres.
==Start here==
Where do you place yourself in the discussion: Do you teach formal grammar as a way of teaching writing? or do something else? v p 208. Do you subscribe to the idea that students must learn the rules before they can break them? - and is it "break"? Do you have any evidence that that is a grounded pedagogical position, or is this idea used for other, non-pedagogical reasons? Control, perhaps. Or to exercise authority. Those who learn the rules are allowed to flaunt them but those who don't are confined to the corner? Is mastery of writing mastery of formal grammar? It's measurable.
Research is not telling us much about the value of teaching grammar for writing development - rather, we're interpreting results as supporting our positions. so Hartwell aims to look into the confusion by articulating the grammar question in more productive terms.
List, p 208, esp what is our theory of language - the theory we teach by, practice, enforce? Problem defined, 208, last para.
He starts by reviewing the work that has been done, and then turns to theorizing about what direction to take in light of what the research tells us - which is not much. Like the rest of the authors in this section, Hartwell is going to be explicit in his terms and definitions because that's where the confusions seem to lay too often.
1. Grammar as it exists in heads of native speakers.
This comes of untaught languagae acquisition but also seems influenced by literacy (214) - a point which could speak to the case for teaching literacy - reading, at any rate. Tacit and usable knowledge. Q here would be what environs influence acquisition of NORMS as norms. To claims that this knowledge is unreachable and not under control, we can invoke the rules by varying situations. Seems to be influenced by acquisition - learning - of literacy. Literacy may change the deep structure. 214.
2. Grammar as an area of linguistics, creating and testing various models of grammars.
There is no relation in the matter of teaching The model to get to performance. Hartwell spends a lot of time in this area because at the time of writing there was a push for applying linguistically discovered rules (regularities found in the language) to teaching - as in the article use flow chart. Discovery that surfaces is that the rules we think we use are inadequate to explain what we do, but they do allow us to access internalized rules. But trying to use the rules as procedures degrades performance, while exposure to rule-driven constructs produces tacit knowledge. 218.
To see grammar 2 in action, read Language Log.
3. Usage. linguistic étiquette
4. Grammar as used in schools.
Incantations that are COIK. These rules are clear and understandable as stated only if the student has already gained the tacit knowledge on which the stated rule is based. But the rules work w a paradox: people who think that the rules actually work use the inadequate rule as heuristics to access the internal rules they do us. 220.
Using this grammar is not connected with literate behavior: that is, literate people don't actually follow the strictures and guidelines that the texts present. The hyperliterate think they are. (The disconnect between what they texts say and actual practice might be a source of the "Learn the Rules before you can Break Them" homily). Based on Latin and logic.
For instance,
- p 221: IDing a fragment. Problem: This school grammar defines the fragment error as a conceptual error: evidence that writer doesn't have a grasp of a sentence - as opposed to an error of idiom as it is taken in academia - a performance error.
- statement of p 223: thinking about error and its relationship to worship of formal grammar and hyperliterate perception of the value of formal rules.
- redefine error as a problem of metacognition
What it means for teaching,
- teach literacy as a way of teaching metacognition. 223-224: metacognition and literacy: not that metacognition helps literacy but literacy develops metacognition. Meta linguistic play. Literacy artifacts. Nonsense phrases. Puns, fork handles. Games, puzzles, tweeting.
- Print is a cultural code, and perhaps one masters the code from the top down, from pragmatic questions of voice, tone, audience, register, rhet strats, we gain tacit knowledge of surface grammar. 224. No evidence given.
- procedures can hinder. Proofreader's marks.
- set things up to invoke tacit knowledge rather than procedural. ID error with a mark and let student correct.
- write better textbooks and grammar guides
- where do we place drill for skill?
5. Stylistic grammars
Strunk and White, Williams, Lynn Tuss, Wired, AP Stylebook, etc. subsets or flavors of stylistic grammars.
All the variations are united by method: but both rest on idea that one learns to control the language of print by manipulating meaningful texts in communicative contexts, not by the study of rules of grammar in isolation. 225
- broadly meta-linguistic, involving active manipulation of language with attention to surface form - and this conception points to composition as material stuff.
Postscript on experimental research
Any active involvement with language is preferable to instruction in rules.
P 235ff
Teaching writing is to argue for a version of reality and the best way of knowing and communicating it. 236. This is not just a matter of different emphasis on elements or processes of writing.
=== State of the discipline 1980===
Surveys the discipline as of 1980 to see what patterns he can see. Berlin's analysis uncovers some historical events that help us explain some anomalies you might be seeing in the discipline itself - like the difference between argumentation, exposition, and persuasion (grounded in faculty psychology, each appeals to understanding and emotion).
There's an imperative that a comp teacher form and practice in pedagogy a coherent version of understanding rather than pick and mix. Teaching writing is teaching a way of understanding reality, not a mechanical skill, and so the teacher is under a larger understanding made explicit.
=== the ground ===
Different conceptions of pedagogy are grounded in different rhetorical theories - and are grounded in the way writer, audience, reality, language are conceived - and how they inter-relate. That is, there are different sets of preconceptions and assumptions about language, the world, knowledge ... that shape and ground our teaching of writing - and students' learning of writing. 236
=== Classicist - Neo-Aristotelians===
The world exists independently of the observer - and our minds our constructed so to understand the world and its rules. Reality can be known and communicated. Truth is a matter of performing in conformance with logic. - with language an unproblematic medium. Both word and thing referred to are part of thought - Dialectic is the way to discover knowledge in learned discourse. Rhetoric is the means to address probabilistic realms. Business of rhet is to enable speaker to persuade others of that probable truth, a truth that was discovered by other, arhetorical means. Emphasis on invention leads to subordination on arrangement and style - view of language is that the word is an isolatable unit of meaning and that structuring them into sentences creates combinatory meaning
=== Current-Traditional or Positivist approach===
Aristotle as realized in Scottish and British philosophers as common sense realism - induction rather than deduction. Denies the value of deduction: closed system. individual sense impression provides the basis for all knowledge, and builds knowledge by induction. the world is rational, but its logic is discovered through scientific / experimental method. Rhetoric becomes the study of all forms of communication - not just one branch - but rhetoric does not deal with invention as it did w Aristotle. Truth is discovered outside of rhetoric - experimental method, study in a discipline, genius - and rhetoric deals with how to communicate that pre-existant truth: how to adapt discourse to hearers. Esp focuses on skill in arrangement and style. When we are freed of biases, senses provide mental facilities with a clear image of the world. College writing is to be concerned with communicating the truth that is certain and empirically verifiable - not probable. Right - wrong - or it falls into the realm of opinion, which is outside rhetoric. Arrangement and style.
A note on the paragraph concerning appeals and faculties. Note how argumentation is distinguished from persuasion: by way of mental faculties. Persuasion is special, making an appear to the will. Argumentation appeals to understanding, especially along disciplinary lines. 240.
In comes the split between lit and comp, by way of branches of discourse and faculty psychology. 241.
=== Expressionist===
Developed in response to CTR. Plato as realized in Emerson, and some current teachers. Truth is discovered through internal apprehension - all writing and knowing are personal - but cannot be communicated. Truth - not writing, but truth - can be learned but not taught. Rhetoric becomes the correction of error, removal that which obscurers the inner vision. The method towards Truth is dialectic, disruptive of day to day perceptual set. This leads to a difficult view of language - truth is beyond the resources of language - but language can speak analogically of truth. Personal truths: true to the expression of self. true to feeling of experience. Some of this is hackneyed, but more generally, the approach places a Self (often a plural essential self) at the center of communication - not the other, not balanced with other, but at the center. Plato argued for transcendent Truth. Expressionist place claims on personal truth - that doesn't necessarily transcend the personal. Solepcism isn't far away.Classroom procedures: provide place to learn rather than be taught. relies on analogical method
The emphasis on dialogue and dialectic in an expressionist approach is not aimed at communicating or adjusting the message to make it communicable. To adapt the message to an audience would be a violation of the self, the inner vision of Truth. The others in the dialogue are at the service of the writer: they are there to help the writer get rid of what's insincere and false to the writer's personal, incommunicable sense of things. Remove the inauthentic.
=== New Rhetoric aka social epistemic approach===
What the first 3 share: knowledge is a commodity situated in a permanent location, a repository that the individual goes to for enlightenment.
New Rhet: knowledge is dynamic and dialectical, the result of a shifting process of synthesis of opposing elements. That relation is created, not pre-existing. The elements are those embedded in the communicative situation: writer, audience, reality, language. Truth and knowledge is always knowledge for someone standing in a particular relationship in a circumscribed situation. writer - audience - reality - language are the things we use to shape knowledge.
=== The position of the writer===
==== More recently ====
Some premises are being challenged by recent models of situated perception. Gibson - ECOLOGICAL APPROACH TO VISUAL PERCEPTION.pdf
And by semiotics. Esp Kress, new model of communication. Multimodal Communication
Some texts are challenging all of these, but tend to fall into new rhetorical, by virtue of method and emphasis on the how: how does x create meaning? The method is to tinker with actual texts - very much inductive or even abductive. versions and compare, to translate, to transduce (change mode) to discover what's vital. The emphasis in these is on the material rather than the abstractions of language and the medium as rhetorical.
Deletions:
====Topic Sentences in Prose, Braddock====
This section is about testing and rethinking textbook codified concepts and precepts to theorize them. What Emig calls magical thinking. That students learn only what we teach and only because we teach it.
This reading makes a pretty good model for textual analysis. Explicit in what he's doing. But could use some comments from Sara and Ivory on method.
Gloss T-units.
Note technique: create sentence outline - as teachers recommend. Problems there. Goes with IRR.
==Comments on table 1==
- What do you glean from the table? Don't pride yourself in being non-literate in reading tables.
==Conclusions==
- 55% of the sample - and distributed across wider expanse of paragraphs than texts account for.
- Placement.
=== Discussion ===
- Claims of writing textbooks concerning use and distro of topics across paragraphs are not grounded in practice. This might not hold for other kinds of writing. Might want to check that out. It would make a good final project.
- Claims from working authors are just as shaky. Claims based in their texts might mike good grounds for teaching.
Start here
Where do you place yourself in the discussion: Do you teach formal grammar as a way of teaching writing? or do something else? v p 208. Do you subscribe to the idea that students must learn the rules before they can break them? - and is it "break"? Do you have any evidence that that is a grounded pedagogical position, or is this idea used for other, non-pedagogical reasons? Control, perhaps. Or to exercise authority. Those who learn the rules are allowed to flaunt them but those who don't are confined to the corner?
Research is not telling us much about the value of teaching grammar for writing development - so Hartwell aims to look into the confusion. He starts by reviewing the work that has been done, and then turns to theorizing about what direction to take in light of what the research tells us - which is not much. Like the rest of the authors in this section, Hartwell is going to be explicit in his terms and definitions because that's where the confusions seem to lay too often.
1. Grammar as it exists in heads of native speakers. This comes of untaught languagae acquisition but also seems influenced by literacy (214) - a point which could speak to the case for teaching literacy - reading, at any rate.
2. Grammar as an area of linguistics, creating and testing various models of grammars. There is no relation in the matter of teaching The model to get to performance. Hartwell spends a lot of time in this area because at the time of writing there was a push for applying linguistically discovered rules (regularities found in the language) to teaching - as in the article use flow chart. Discovery that surfaces is that the rules we think we use are inadequate to explain what we do, but they allow us to access internalized rules.
3 - Usage. linguistic étiquette
4. Grammar as used in schools. Incantations that are COIK. These rules are clear and understandable as stated only if the student has already gained the tacit knowledge on which the stated rule is based. Using this grammar is not connected with literate behavior: that is, literate people don't actually follow the strictures and guidelines that the texts present. (The disconnect between what they texts say and actual practice might be a source of the "Learn the Rules before you can Break Them" homily).
- p 221: IDing a fragment. Problem: This school grammar defines the fragment error as a conceptual error: evidence that writer doesn't have a grasp of a sentence - as opposed to an error of idiom as it is taken in academia - a performance error.
- statement of p 223: thinking about error and its relationship to worship of formal grammar and hyperliterate perception of the value of formal rules.
- and 224: metacognition and literacy: not that metacognition helps literacy but literacy develops metacognition
5. Stylistic grammar: Strunk and White, Williams, Lynn Tuss, Wired, AP Stylebook, etc. subsets or flavors of stylistic grammars
All the variations are united by method: but both rest on idea that one learns to control the language of print by manipulating meaningful texts in communicative contexts, not by the study of rules of grammar in isolation.
- broadly meta-linguistic, involving manipulation of language with attention to surface form - and this conception points to composition as material stuff.
What else do we teach when we teach writing?
State of the discipline 1980
Surveys the discipline as of 1980 to see what patterns he can see.
Berlin's analysis uncovers some historical events that help us explain some anomalies you might be seeing in the discipline itself - like the difference between argumentation, exposition, and persuasion (grounded in faculty psychology, each appeals to understanding and emotion).
Different conceptions of pedagogy are grounded in different rhetorical theories - and are grounded in the way writer, audience, reality, language are conceived - and how they inter-relate. That is, there are different sets of preconceptions and assumptions about language, the world, knowledge ... that shape and ground our teaching of writing - and students' learning of writing.
Classicist - Neo-Aristotelians
The world exists independently - and our minds our constructed so to understand the world and its rules. Reality can be known and communicated. Truth is a matter of performing in conformance with logic. - with language an unproblematic medium. Both word and thing referred to are part of thought - Dialectic is the way to discover knowledge in learned discourse. Rhetoric the way to address probabilistic realms. Emphasis on invention leads to subordination on arrangement and style - view of language is that the word is an isolatable unit of meaning and that structuring them into sentences creates combinatory meaning
Current-Traditional or Positivist
Aristotle through common sense realism - induction rather than deduction, individual sense impression provides the basis for all knowledge. the world is rational, but its logic is discovered through scientific / experimental method. Rhetoric becomes the study of all forms of communication - not just one branch - but rhetoric does not deal with invention anymore. Truth is discovered outside of rhetoric - experimental method, study in a discipline, genius - and rhetoric deals with how to communicate that pre-existant truth: how to adapt discourse to hearers. When we are freed of biases, senses provide mental facilities with a clear image of the world. College writing is to be concerned with communicating the truth that is certain and empirically verifiable - not probable. Right - wrong - or it falls into the realm of opinion, which is outside rhetoric.
A note on the paragraph concerning appeals and faculties. Note how argumentation is distinguished from persuasion: by way of mental faculties. Persuasion is special, making an appear to the will. Argumentation appeals to understanding, especially along disciplinary lines.
Expressionist
Developed in response to CTR. Careful here: Berlin is not talking about romantic expressionism - Truth is discovered through internal apprehension - all writing and knowing are personal - but cannot be communicated. Truth - not writing, but truth - can be learned but not taught. Rhetoric becomes the correction of error, removal that which obscurers the inner vision. Method is dialectic, disruptive. This is a difficult view of language - truth is beyond the resources of language - but language can speak analogically of truth. Personal truths: true to the expression of self. true to feeling of experience. Some of this is hackneyed, but more generally, the approach places a Self (often a plural essential self) at the center of communication - not the other, not balanced with other, but at the center. Plato argued for transcendent Truth. Expressionist place claims on personal truth - that doesn't necessarily transcend the personal. Solepcism isn't far away.Classroom procedures: provide place to learn rather than be taught. relies on analogical method
The emphasis on dialogue in an expressionist approach is not aimed at communicating or adjusting the message to make it communicable. To adapt the message to an audience hat would be a violation of the self. The others in the dialogue are at the service of the writer: they are there to help the writer get rid of what's insincere and false to the writer's personal, incommunicable sense of things.
New Rhetoric aka social epistemic approach
What the first 3 share: knowledge is a commodity situated in a permanent location, a repository that the individual goes to for enlightenment. New Rhet: knowledge is dynamic and dialectical, the result of a shifting process of synthesis of opposing elements. That relation is created, not pre-existing. The elements are those embedded in the communicative situation: writer, audience, reality, language. Truth and knowledge is always knowledge for someone standing in a particular relationship in a circumscribed situation. writer - audience - reality - language are the things we use to shape knowledge.
The position of the writer
Deletions:
Rhetorical style books
Williams, J M. Style: Ten Lessons in Clarity and Grace. N.p.: Longman, 2002.
Kolln, M J. Rhetorical Grammar: Grammatical Choices, Rhetorical Effects. N.p.: Longman, 2006.
See also Forming/Thinking/Writing.
Additions:
=== New Rhetorical aka Social Epistemic Approaches ===
=== Grammar 5: Style ===
Rhetorical style books
Williams, J M. Style: Ten Lessons in Clarity and Grace. N.p.: Longman, 2002.
Kolln, M J. Rhetorical Grammar: Grammatical Choices, Rhetorical Effects. N.p.: Longman, 2006.
See also Forming/Thinking/Writing.
=== Grammar 5: Style ===
Rhetorical style books
Williams, J M. Style: Ten Lessons in Clarity and Grace. N.p.: Longman, 2002.
Kolln, M J. Rhetorical Grammar: Grammatical Choices, Rhetorical Effects. N.p.: Longman, 2006.
See also Forming/Thinking/Writing.
Deletions:
Additions:
Coles, Jr, and William William. The Plural "I": The Teaching of Writing. New York: Holt, Rinehart and Winston, 1978.Republished as The Plural I and After.
Deletions:
Additions:
Coles, Jr, and William William. The Plural "I'': The Teaching of Writing. New York: Holt, Rinehart and Winston, 1978. Republished as The Plural I and After.
Deletions:
Additions:
Net Rhetorical aks Social Epistemic Approaches
Coles, Jr, and William William. The Plural ``I'': The Teaching of Writing. New York: Holt, Rinehart and Winston, 1978. Republished as The Plural I and After.
Coles, Jr, and William William. Seeing Through Writing. New York: Harper & Row, Publishers, 1988.
Coles, Jr, and William William. The Plural ``I'': The Teaching of Writing. New York: Holt, Rinehart and Winston, 1978. Republished as The Plural I and After.
Coles, Jr, and William William. Seeing Through Writing. New York: Harper & Row, Publishers, 1988.
Deletions:
Coles, Jr, and William William. The Plural ``I'': The Teaching of Writing. New York: Holt, Rinehart and Winston, 1978.
Coles, Jr, and William William. Seeing Through Writing. New York: Harper & Row, Publishers, 1988.
Additions:
=====week 4: how to read a page and the contexts of reading=====
approaches
Eight Approaches to Teaching Composition. Ed. Timothy R Donovan and Ben W McClelland. Urbana, Il: NCTE, 1980.
Berthoff, Ann E, and James Stephens. Forming/Thinking/Writing: The Composing Imagination. 2nd ed. Boynton/Cook, Pubs., 1988.
Coles, Jr, and William William. The Plural ``I'': The Teaching of Writing. New York: Holt, Rinehart and Winston, 1978.
Bartholomae, David, and Anthony R Petrosky. Facts, Artifacts and Counterfacts: Theory and Method for a Reading and Writing Course. Portsmouth, NH: Boynton/Cook Publishers, 1986.
Coles, Jr, and William William. Seeing Through Writing. New York: Harper & Row, Publishers, 1988.
approaches
Eight Approaches to Teaching Composition. Ed. Timothy R Donovan and Ben W McClelland. Urbana, Il: NCTE, 1980.
Berthoff, Ann E, and James Stephens. Forming/Thinking/Writing: The Composing Imagination. 2nd ed. Boynton/Cook, Pubs., 1988.
Coles, Jr, and William William. The Plural ``I'': The Teaching of Writing. New York: Holt, Rinehart and Winston, 1978.
Bartholomae, David, and Anthony R Petrosky. Facts, Artifacts and Counterfacts: Theory and Method for a Reading and Writing Course. Portsmouth, NH: Boynton/Cook Publishers, 1986.
Coles, Jr, and William William. Seeing Through Writing. New York: Harper & Row, Publishers, 1988.
Deletions:
epistemic approach
Additions:
What else do we teach when we teach writing?
To teach writing is to argue for a version of reality and to argue for the best way to know reality and to communicate it. So as you work with Berlin, understand that he is analyzing how writing is taught, mainly in in university exposition courses. Most creative writing courses fall into expressionist approaches. But that doesn't mean that that approach is appropriate in the FY classroom. We are teaching in a larger context of a state social institution. If in teaching writing we teach more than just writing, we need to be aware of, responsible for, the other things we teach.
Aristotle through common sense realism - induction rather than deduction, individual sense impression provides the basis for all knowledge. the world is rational, but its logic is discovered through scientific / experimental method. Rhetoric becomes the study of all forms of communication - not just one branch - but rhetoric does not deal with invention anymore. Truth is discovered outside of rhetoric - experimental method, study in a discipline, genius - and rhetoric deals with how to communicate that pre-existant truth: how to adapt discourse to hearers. When we are freed of biases, senses provide mental facilities with a clear image of the world. College writing is to be concerned with communicating the truth that is certain and empirically verifiable - not probable. Right - wrong - or it falls into the realm of opinion, which is outside rhetoric.
A note on the paragraph concerning appeals and faculties. Note how argumentation is distinguished from persuasion: by way of mental faculties. Persuasion is special, making an appear to the will. Argumentation appeals to understanding, especially along disciplinary lines.
Expressionist
Developed in response to CTR. Careful here: Berlin is not talking about romantic expressionism - Truth is discovered through internal apprehension - all writing and knowing are personal - but cannot be communicated. Truth - not writing, but truth - can be learned but not taught. Rhetoric becomes the correction of error, removal that which obscurers the inner vision. Method is dialectic, disruptive. This is a difficult view of language - truth is beyond the resources of language - but language can speak analogically of truth. Personal truths: true to the expression of self. true to feeling of experience. Some of this is hackneyed, but more generally, the approach places a Self (often a plural essential self) at the center of communication - not the other, not balanced with other, but at the center. Plato argued for transcendent Truth. Expressionist place claims on personal truth - that doesn't necessarily transcend the personal. Solepcism isn't far away.Classroom procedures: provide place to learn rather than be taught. relies on analogical method
The emphasis on dialogue in an expressionist approach is not aimed at communicating or adjusting the message to make it communicable. To adapt the message to an audience hat would be a violation of the self. The others in the dialogue are at the service of the writer: they are there to help the writer get rid of what's insincere and false to the writer's personal, incommunicable sense of things.
So: an emphasis on using metaphor to break away from these false ideas: telling writing, etc. Language doesn't refer to shared concepts. To present truth (internal, personal, original) relies on original metaphors to capture what is unique.
Caveat: Just because you see someone using groups doesn't mean they are taking an expressionist approach.
Caveat: All writers are creative writers. This erases any epistemic and methodological difference between poet and first-year student. the only difference is in the forms used.
What the first 3 share: knowledge is a commodity situated in a permanent location, a repository that the individual goes to for enlightenment. New Rhet: knowledge is dynamic and dialectical, the result of a shifting process of synthesis of opposing elements. That relation is created, not pre-existing. The elements are those embedded in the communicative situation: writer, audience, reality, language. Truth and knowledge is always knowledge for someone standing in a particular relationship in a circumscribed situation. writer - audience - reality - language are the things we use to shape knowledge.
Perception is active, not mere reception. And language is a medium by which we put the phenomena of the world together so it make sense. Language is prior to truth and determines or influences the shapes truth can take. Language is what we use to shape the world, decide what will be perceived and what not, what will have meaning and what won't. But those choices are social - not strictly individual: truths and knowledge are operable only within a universe of discourse - and that universe is shaped by all the elements, including audience.
The position of the writer
- CTR: efface yourself to focus on empirical and rational information
- Expressionist: writer is the center of the act - but cut off from all. Can only shape her limited view and sense of things.
- Social Epistemic: writer is a creator of meaning, shaper of reality. learning to write is learning to make words behave the way you want them to behave. It's a matter of learning to make meaning. we are all writers.
Social-Epistemic - one of the more comprehensive views. Draws in invention as heuristics, arrangement and style are part of meaning and so ay the center of invention. Looks at how contemporary observers have done things - and places an emphasis on method: heuristics.
----
----
To teach writing is to argue for a version of reality and to argue for the best way to know reality and to communicate it. So as you work with Berlin, understand that he is analyzing how writing is taught, mainly in in university exposition courses. Most creative writing courses fall into expressionist approaches. But that doesn't mean that that approach is appropriate in the FY classroom. We are teaching in a larger context of a state social institution. If in teaching writing we teach more than just writing, we need to be aware of, responsible for, the other things we teach.
Aristotle through common sense realism - induction rather than deduction, individual sense impression provides the basis for all knowledge. the world is rational, but its logic is discovered through scientific / experimental method. Rhetoric becomes the study of all forms of communication - not just one branch - but rhetoric does not deal with invention anymore. Truth is discovered outside of rhetoric - experimental method, study in a discipline, genius - and rhetoric deals with how to communicate that pre-existant truth: how to adapt discourse to hearers. When we are freed of biases, senses provide mental facilities with a clear image of the world. College writing is to be concerned with communicating the truth that is certain and empirically verifiable - not probable. Right - wrong - or it falls into the realm of opinion, which is outside rhetoric.
A note on the paragraph concerning appeals and faculties. Note how argumentation is distinguished from persuasion: by way of mental faculties. Persuasion is special, making an appear to the will. Argumentation appeals to understanding, especially along disciplinary lines.
Expressionist
Developed in response to CTR. Careful here: Berlin is not talking about romantic expressionism - Truth is discovered through internal apprehension - all writing and knowing are personal - but cannot be communicated. Truth - not writing, but truth - can be learned but not taught. Rhetoric becomes the correction of error, removal that which obscurers the inner vision. Method is dialectic, disruptive. This is a difficult view of language - truth is beyond the resources of language - but language can speak analogically of truth. Personal truths: true to the expression of self. true to feeling of experience. Some of this is hackneyed, but more generally, the approach places a Self (often a plural essential self) at the center of communication - not the other, not balanced with other, but at the center. Plato argued for transcendent Truth. Expressionist place claims on personal truth - that doesn't necessarily transcend the personal. Solepcism isn't far away.Classroom procedures: provide place to learn rather than be taught. relies on analogical method
The emphasis on dialogue in an expressionist approach is not aimed at communicating or adjusting the message to make it communicable. To adapt the message to an audience hat would be a violation of the self. The others in the dialogue are at the service of the writer: they are there to help the writer get rid of what's insincere and false to the writer's personal, incommunicable sense of things.
So: an emphasis on using metaphor to break away from these false ideas: telling writing, etc. Language doesn't refer to shared concepts. To present truth (internal, personal, original) relies on original metaphors to capture what is unique.
Caveat: Just because you see someone using groups doesn't mean they are taking an expressionist approach.
Caveat: All writers are creative writers. This erases any epistemic and methodological difference between poet and first-year student. the only difference is in the forms used.
What the first 3 share: knowledge is a commodity situated in a permanent location, a repository that the individual goes to for enlightenment. New Rhet: knowledge is dynamic and dialectical, the result of a shifting process of synthesis of opposing elements. That relation is created, not pre-existing. The elements are those embedded in the communicative situation: writer, audience, reality, language. Truth and knowledge is always knowledge for someone standing in a particular relationship in a circumscribed situation. writer - audience - reality - language are the things we use to shape knowledge.
Perception is active, not mere reception. And language is a medium by which we put the phenomena of the world together so it make sense. Language is prior to truth and determines or influences the shapes truth can take. Language is what we use to shape the world, decide what will be perceived and what not, what will have meaning and what won't. But those choices are social - not strictly individual: truths and knowledge are operable only within a universe of discourse - and that universe is shaped by all the elements, including audience.
The position of the writer
- CTR: efface yourself to focus on empirical and rational information
- Expressionist: writer is the center of the act - but cut off from all. Can only shape her limited view and sense of things.
- Social Epistemic: writer is a creator of meaning, shaper of reality. learning to write is learning to make words behave the way you want them to behave. It's a matter of learning to make meaning. we are all writers.
Social-Epistemic - one of the more comprehensive views. Draws in invention as heuristics, arrangement and style are part of meaning and so ay the center of invention. Looks at how contemporary observers have done things - and places an emphasis on method: heuristics.
----
----
Deletions:
To teach writing is to argue for a version of reality and to argue for the best way to know reality and to communicate it.
As you work with Berlin, understand that he is analyzing how writing is taught, mainly in in university exposition courses. Most creative writing courses fall into expressionist approaches. But that doesn't mean that that approach is appropriate in the FY classroom. We are teaching in a larger context of a state social institution. If in teaching writing we teach more than just writing, we need to be aware of, responsible for, the other things we teach.
Aristotle through common sense realism - induction rather than deduction, individual sense impression provides the basis for all knowledge. the world is rational, but its logic is discovered through scientific / experimental method. Rhetoric becomes the study of all forms of communication - not just one branch - BUT rhetoric does not deal with invention anymore. Truth is discovered outside of rhetoric - experimental method, study in a discipline, genius - and rhetoric deals with how to communicate that pre-existant truth: how to adapt discourse to hearers. When we are freed of biases, senses provide mental facilities with a clear image of the world. College writing is to be concerned with communicating the truth that is certain and empirically verifiable - not probable. Right - wrong - or it falls into the realm of opinion, which is outside rhetoric.
Note on the paragraph concerning appeals and faculties. Note how argumentation is distinguished from persuasion: by way of mental faculties. Persuasion is special, making an appear to the will. Argumentation appeals to understanding, esp along disciplinary lines.
expressionist -
developed in response to CTR. Careful here: this is not romantic expressionism -
truth is discovered through internal apprehension - all writing and knowing are personal - but cannot be communicated. truth - not writing, but truth - can be learned but not taught. Rhetoric becomes the correction of error, removal that which obscurers the inner vision. Method is dialectic, disruptive. This is a difficult view of language - truth is beyond the resources of language - but language can speak analogically of truth. Personal truths: true to the expression of self. true to feeling of experience. Some of this is hackneyed, but more generally, the approach places a Self (often plural) at the center of communication - not the other, not balanced with other, but at the center. Plato argued for transcendent Truth. Expressionist place claims on personal truth - that doesn't necessarily transcend the personal. Solepcism.
Classroom procedures: provide place to learn rather than be taught. relies on analogical method
>> The emphasis on dialogue is not aimed at communicating or adjusting the message to make it communicable. that would be a violation of the self (Charles). the others are at the service of the writer: they are there to help the writer get rid of what's insincere and false to the writer's personal, incommunicable sense of things.
So: an emphasis on using metaphor to break away from these false ideas: telling writing, etc. Language doesn't refer to shared concepts. to present truth (internal, personal, original) relies on original metaphors to capture what is unique.
Caveat: Just because you see someone using groups doesn't mean they are doing expressionist stuff.
Caveat: all writers are creative writers. this erases any epistemic and methodological difference between poet and first-year student. the only difference is in the forms you use.
what the first 3 share: knowledge is a commodity situated in a permanent location, a repository that the individual goes to for enlightenment. New Rhet: knowledge is dynamic and dialectical, the result of a shifting process of synthesis of opposing elements. That relation is created, not pre-existing. The elements are those embedded in the communicative situation: writer, audience, reality, language. Truth and knowledge is always knowledge for someone standing in a particular relationship in a circumscribed situation. writer - audience - reality - language are the things we use to shape knowledge.
perception is active, not mere reception. and language is the medium by which we put the phenomena of the world together so it make sense. Language is prior to truth and determines or influences the shapes truth can take. Language is what we use to shape the world, decide what will be perceived and not, what will have meaning and what won't. But those choices are social - not strictly individual: truths and knowledge are operable only within a universe of discourse - and that universe is shaped by all the elements, including audience.
the writer
CTR: efface yourself to focus on empirical and rational information
Expressionist: writer is the center of the act - but cut off from all. Can only shape her limited view and sense of things.
Social Epistemic: writer is a creator of meaning, shaper of reality. learning to write is learning to make words behave the way you want them to behave. It's a matter of learning to make meaning. we are all writers.
Social-Epistemic - one of the more comprehensive views. Draws in invention as heuristics, arrangement and style are part of meaning and so ay the center of invention. Looks at how contemporary observers have done things - and places an emphasis on method: heuristics
Additions:
Berlin is careful to ground his analysis in historical terms and concepts, and to state his position: New Rhet is the most practical approach - but no matter what approach they take, writing teachers need to be fully aware of the significance of their pedagogical strategies. At the very least, some approaches offer contradictory advice about composing; at its most significant, writing teachers teaching versions of realities and the students places and ways of operating in that reality.
The texts that Berlin quotes from and mentions are all classic rhetorical texts - those that had been taught as fundamental and articulate the general knowledge of the discipline.
Different conceptions of pedagogy are grounded in different rhetorical theories - and are grounded in the way writer, audience, reality, language are conceived - and how they inter-relate. That is, there are different sets of preconceptions and assumptions about language, the world, knowledge ... that shape and ground our teaching of writing - and students' learning of writing.
To teach writing is to argue for a version of reality and to argue for the best way to know reality and to communicate it.
As you work with Berlin, understand that he is analyzing how writing is taught, mainly in in university exposition courses. Most creative writing courses fall into expressionist approaches. But that doesn't mean that that approach is appropriate in the FY classroom. We are teaching in a larger context of a state social institution. If in teaching writing we teach more than just writing, we need to be aware of, responsible for, the other things we teach.
- Neo-Aristotelians
- Current-Traditionalists
- Expressionists
- New Rhetoricians
In each, the rhetorical elements - writer - audience - reality - language - are define and related to form a distinct world construct - an epistemic complex - with distinct rules for discovering and communicating knowledge.
The world exists independently - and our minds our constructed so to understand the world and its rules. Reality can be known and communicated. Truth is a matter of performing in conformance with logic. - with language an unproblematic medium. Both word and thing referred to are part of thought - Dialectic is the way to discover knowledge in learned discourse. Rhetoric the way to address probabilistic realms. Emphasis on invention leads to subordination on arrangement and style - view of language is that the word is an isolatable unit of meaning and that structuring them into sentences creates combinatory meaning
This approach leads today to
Note on the paragraph concerning appeals and faculties. Note how argumentation is distinguished from persuasion: by way of mental faculties. Persuasion is special, making an appear to the will. Argumentation appeals to understanding, esp along disciplinary lines.
The texts that Berlin quotes from and mentions are all classic rhetorical texts - those that had been taught as fundamental and articulate the general knowledge of the discipline.
Different conceptions of pedagogy are grounded in different rhetorical theories - and are grounded in the way writer, audience, reality, language are conceived - and how they inter-relate. That is, there are different sets of preconceptions and assumptions about language, the world, knowledge ... that shape and ground our teaching of writing - and students' learning of writing.
To teach writing is to argue for a version of reality and to argue for the best way to know reality and to communicate it.
As you work with Berlin, understand that he is analyzing how writing is taught, mainly in in university exposition courses. Most creative writing courses fall into expressionist approaches. But that doesn't mean that that approach is appropriate in the FY classroom. We are teaching in a larger context of a state social institution. If in teaching writing we teach more than just writing, we need to be aware of, responsible for, the other things we teach.
- Neo-Aristotelians
- Current-Traditionalists
- Expressionists
- New Rhetoricians
In each, the rhetorical elements - writer - audience - reality - language - are define and related to form a distinct world construct - an epistemic complex - with distinct rules for discovering and communicating knowledge.
The world exists independently - and our minds our constructed so to understand the world and its rules. Reality can be known and communicated. Truth is a matter of performing in conformance with logic. - with language an unproblematic medium. Both word and thing referred to are part of thought - Dialectic is the way to discover knowledge in learned discourse. Rhetoric the way to address probabilistic realms. Emphasis on invention leads to subordination on arrangement and style - view of language is that the word is an isolatable unit of meaning and that structuring them into sentences creates combinatory meaning
This approach leads today to
Note on the paragraph concerning appeals and faculties. Note how argumentation is distinguished from persuasion: by way of mental faculties. Persuasion is special, making an appear to the will. Argumentation appeals to understanding, esp along disciplinary lines.
Deletions:
The texts that Berlin quotes from and mentions are most all classic rhetorical texts - those that had been taught as fundamental, as articulating the general knowledge of the disciplines -
Different conceptions of pedagogy are grounded in different rhetorical theories - and are grounded in the way writer, audience, reality, language are conceived - and how they inter-relate.
That is, there are different sets of preconceptions and assumptions about language, the world, knowledge ... that shape and ground our teaching of writing - and students' learning of writing.
>> Approach might be to explicate
role of teacher in this approach
methods
status of knowledge
>> To teach writing is to argue for a version of reality and to argue for the best way to know reality and to communicate it.
>> as we work with this, understand that Berlin is analyzing how writing is taught, mainly in in university exposition courses - Most if not all of your creative writing courses fall into expressionist approaches. But that doesn't mean that that approach is appropriate fort the FY classroom. We are teaching in a larger context of a state social institution. If, as a writing teacher, you teach more than just writing, you need to be sensitive to, aware of, responsible for, the other things you teach.
Neo-Aristotelians
Current-Traditionalists
Expressionists
New Rhetoricians
writer - audience - reality - language are related to form a distinct world construct - an epistemic complex - with distinct rules for discovering and communicating knowledge.
world exists independently - and our minds our constructed so to understand the world and its rules. Reality can be known and communicated. Truth is a matter of performing in conformance with logic. - with language an unproblematic medium. Both word and thing referred to are part of thought - Dialectic is the way to discover knowledge in learned discourse. Rhetoric the way to address probabilistic realms. Emphasis on invention leads to subordination on arrangement and style - view of language is that the word is an isolatable unit of meaning and that structuring them into sentences creates combinatory meaning
this leads today to
[might be interested in how they argue against or for Berlin's perspective -
para on appeals to faculties
see how argumentation is distinguished from persuasion: by way of mental faculties. Persuasion is special, making an appear to the will. Argumentation appeals to understanding, esp along disciplinary lines.
Additions:
Throughout this ad are many different strategies. The first one used is Narration because when you look at this ad and see the woman and huskies outside in the cold winter weather its telling a story of how if you live in the cold, you can still stay warm. The second strategy used is example/illustration because the way this product is advertised is having a woman wear their products outside in the snow, showing that they work well. The cause and effect strategy is also used because they demonstrate the benefits of the UGG products by having the woman wear them in the cold weather. The fourth strategy used is definition because this UGG ad does clarify the products purpose and function. The final strategy used in this ad is Process because they demonstrate they way the product can be used by having the woman wear the products out in the cold weather.
Faigley and Witte are impressed by the differences, which are sharp, distinct. The results also suggest what writers of high-rated papers tend to do: use local rather than distant ties. While we might look at a paper and say, "It's loose, disorganized, confusing, hard to read and get the point", or "It doesn't flow', F&W document the differences by looking closely at the internal lexical and semantic structuring.
They take these frequency findings back to skilled writer behaviors / strategies. Skilled writers are better able to expand and connect ideas. We can see that in the way they use lexical and other ties. F&W don't consider whether this is a function of practice or teaching or something else. They imply but don't state that the issue with cohesion they find might reside in invention, in that in order to make something cohere, the writer needs a storehouse of related content to work with.
===== Contemporary Composition, Berlin =====
What else dl we teach when we teach writing?
Surveys the discipline as of 1980 to see what patterns he can see.
Berlin is very careful to ground his analysis in historical terms and concepts, and to state his position: New Rhet is the most practical approach - but no matter what approach they take, writing teachers need to be fully aware of the significance of their pedagogical strategies. At the very least, some approaches offer contradictory advice about composing; at its most significant, writing teachers teaching versions of realities and the students places and ways of operating in that reality.
Faigley and Witte are impressed by the differences, which are sharp, distinct. The results also suggest what writers of high-rated papers tend to do: use local rather than distant ties. While we might look at a paper and say, "It's loose, disorganized, confusing, hard to read and get the point", or "It doesn't flow', F&W document the differences by looking closely at the internal lexical and semantic structuring.
They take these frequency findings back to skilled writer behaviors / strategies. Skilled writers are better able to expand and connect ideas. We can see that in the way they use lexical and other ties. F&W don't consider whether this is a function of practice or teaching or something else. They imply but don't state that the issue with cohesion they find might reside in invention, in that in order to make something cohere, the writer needs a storehouse of related content to work with.
===== Contemporary Composition, Berlin =====
What else dl we teach when we teach writing?
Surveys the discipline as of 1980 to see what patterns he can see.
Berlin is very careful to ground his analysis in historical terms and concepts, and to state his position: New Rhet is the most practical approach - but no matter what approach they take, writing teachers need to be fully aware of the significance of their pedagogical strategies. At the very least, some approaches offer contradictory advice about composing; at its most significant, writing teachers teaching versions of realities and the students places and ways of operating in that reality.
Deletions:
they take these frequency findings back to skilled writer behaviors / strategies. they are better able to expand and connect ideas - we can see that in the way they use lexical and other ties, whether this is a function of practice or what is not considered -
might need to bring in Christensen and open sentence combining - a couple of workbooks?
[I'd argue that this is a reason for requiring notes and lists: to build up the number of different inventional ideas]
----
Contemporary Composition
Berlin
what else are you teaching when you teach writing?
May be too early in your career to ask this question, but it came up -
Surveys the discipline as of 1980 to see what patterns he can see -
Very careful to ground his analysis in historical terms and concepts, and to state his position: New Rhet is the most practical approach - but no matter: writing teaching need to be fully aware of the significance of their pedagogical strategies - at the very least, offering contradictory advice about composing - at the most significant, because we are teaching versions of realities and the students place and ways of operating in that reality.
Additions:
====Topic Sentences in Prose, Braddock====
This section is about testing and rethinking textbook codified concepts and precepts to theorize them. What Emig calls magical thinking. That students learn only what we teach and only because we teach it.
The aim of the study is to see if looking at cohesive ties can be useful - and if so, how. p 247.
In the first part of the article, they detail a taxonomy of lexical ties. Not worth memorizing but worth working through to have the concepts at hand to consider cohesiveness.
They are dealing with the kind of implicit knowledge people aquire by reading and writing. Cohesiveness his isn't taught directly, but this is the kind of metalinguistic knowledge students need to pick up. This is what flow looks like when it's considered analytically rather than impressionistically. Teachers who need to talk sensibly about cohesion and who need to be able to diagnose problems in texts and give advice need to know this stuff.
Tech writing teachers need to be familiar with these matters because it can explain how we create meaning or when meaning isn 't working or needs clarification. Experienced writers might be able to create a cohesive text on their rhetorical wits - but not explain it.
They next turn to applying the taxonomies to student papers to see if there is a correlation between cohesiveness and writing quality. By looking at papers rated high- and low, they can design cohesion profiles that characterize the writing - the significance is in the profiles, which suggests that cohesiveness comes about not as a surface level problem but as problems with invention.
It's not difficult to find examples of this in student papers, notes, and drafts:
[I'd argue that this is a reason for requiring notes and lists: to build up the number of different inventional ideas]
This section is about testing and rethinking textbook codified concepts and precepts to theorize them. What Emig calls magical thinking. That students learn only what we teach and only because we teach it.
The aim of the study is to see if looking at cohesive ties can be useful - and if so, how. p 247.
In the first part of the article, they detail a taxonomy of lexical ties. Not worth memorizing but worth working through to have the concepts at hand to consider cohesiveness.
They are dealing with the kind of implicit knowledge people aquire by reading and writing. Cohesiveness his isn't taught directly, but this is the kind of metalinguistic knowledge students need to pick up. This is what flow looks like when it's considered analytically rather than impressionistically. Teachers who need to talk sensibly about cohesion and who need to be able to diagnose problems in texts and give advice need to know this stuff.
Tech writing teachers need to be familiar with these matters because it can explain how we create meaning or when meaning isn 't working or needs clarification. Experienced writers might be able to create a cohesive text on their rhetorical wits - but not explain it.
They next turn to applying the taxonomies to student papers to see if there is a correlation between cohesiveness and writing quality. By looking at papers rated high- and low, they can design cohesion profiles that characterize the writing - the significance is in the profiles, which suggests that cohesiveness comes about not as a surface level problem but as problems with invention.
It's not difficult to find examples of this in student papers, notes, and drafts:
[I'd argue that this is a reason for requiring notes and lists: to build up the number of different inventional ideas]
Deletions:
This section is about testing and rethinking textbook codified concepts and precepts to theorize them. WhT emit calls magical thinking. That students learn only what we teach and only because we teach it.
The aim of the study is to see if looking at cohesive ties can be useful - and if so, how. p 247
explaining some theory of cohesive ties -
that is, if you're a teacher and you want to talk sensibly about cohesion, you need to know this stuff. If you aim to diagnose problems in texts and give advice, you need to know this stuff.
this is the kind of implicit knowledge people aquire by reading and writing - this isn't taught directly, but this is the kind of metalinguistic knowledge students need to pick up.
This is what flow looks like when it's considered analytically rather than impressionistically.
they detail a taxonomy of lexical ties
tech writing teacher need to be familiar with it because it can explain how we create meaning or when meaning isn 't working or needs clarification. You might be able to do this on your wits - but not explain it.
they turn to applying the taxonomies to student papers to see if there is a difference in coherence and writing quality-
by looking at papers rated high- and low. they can design cohesion profiles that characterize the writing - the significance is in the profiles, which suggests some problems with invention.
[I'd bet I can find examples of this in student papers, notes, and drafts]
[I'd also argue that this is a reason for requiring notes and lists: to build up the number of different inventional ideas]
Additions:
===== Coherence, Cohesion, and Writing Quality. Witte and Faigley =====
This article looks at characteristics of text that cross sentence boundaries, characteristics we use to evaluate those texts. That idea takes us back to Braddock and the rhetoric of paragraph but this time internally.
=== Distinguish between cohesion and coherence ===
Lack of coherence comes not of a lack of internal ties but of a violation of the reading script, such as to include only stuff that is important to understanding the message in the context.
The aim of the study is to see if looking at cohesive ties can be useful - and if so, how. p 247
This article looks at characteristics of text that cross sentence boundaries, characteristics we use to evaluate those texts. That idea takes us back to Braddock and the rhetoric of paragraph but this time internally.
=== Distinguish between cohesion and coherence ===
Lack of coherence comes not of a lack of internal ties but of a violation of the reading script, such as to include only stuff that is important to understanding the message in the context.
The aim of the study is to see if looking at cohesive ties can be useful - and if so, how. p 247
Deletions:
Witte and Faigley
looking at characteristics that we use to evaluate a text highly that cross sentence boundaries - takes us back to rhetoric of paragraph but this time internally.
distinguish early between cohesion and coherence
latter is a violation of the script - to include only stuff that is important to understanding the message in the context
aim is to see if looking at cohesive ties can be useful - and if so, how. p 247
Additions:
Romantic - stylistic grammars have little place in teaching comp because students need to suffer towards meaning. Go0d writing depends not on grammars but talent. Writers are born, not taught. This conceptualizes writing as aesthetics, literacy as etiquette
Classical - Teachers can find ways to offer suggestions and create curricula to help students develop a prose style. Literacy works in society and serves social functions. Writing is functional.
All the variations are united by method: but both rest on idea that one learns to control the language of print by manipulating meaningful texts in communicative contexts, not by the study of rules of grammar in isolation.
Ending with two types of knowledge
- broadly rhetorical, involving communication in meaningful contexts
- broadly meta-linguistic, involving manipulation of language with attention to surface form - and this conception points to composition as material stuff.
Classical - Teachers can find ways to offer suggestions and create curricula to help students develop a prose style. Literacy works in society and serves social functions. Writing is functional.
All the variations are united by method: but both rest on idea that one learns to control the language of print by manipulating meaningful texts in communicative contexts, not by the study of rules of grammar in isolation.
Ending with two types of knowledge
- broadly rhetorical, involving communication in meaningful contexts
- broadly meta-linguistic, involving manipulation of language with attention to surface form - and this conception points to composition as material stuff.
Deletions:
classic - we can find ways to offer suggestions and curricula to help writers develop a prose style. literacy. writing as functional
very conception of language - but united by method: but both rest on idea that one learns to control the language of print by manipulating meaningful texts in communicative contexts. not by the student of rules of grammar in isolation.
>> ending with two types of knowledge
broadly rhetorical, involving communication in meaningful contexts
broadly meta-linguistic, involving manipulation of language with attention to surface form
- and this is pointing to composition as material stuff
Additions:
This section is about testing and rethinking textbook codified concepts and precepts to theorize them. WhT emit calls magical thinking. That students learn only what we teach and only because we teach it.
====Grammar, Grammar, and the Teaching of Grammar. Hartwell====
This article opens up the consideration of grammar and with it error (see Shaughenessy) - and develops an analysis and implications based on that analysis. Hartwell's observations are still operative as prescriptive v descriptive approaches in teaching formal grammar.
Start here
Where do you place yourself in the discussion: Do you teach formal grammar as a way of teaching writing? or do something else? v p 208. Do you subscribe to the idea that students must learn the rules before they can break them? - and is it "break"? Do you have any evidence that that is a grounded pedagogical position, or is this idea used for other, non-pedagogical reasons? Control, perhaps. Or to exercise authority. Those who learn the rules are allowed to flaunt them but those who don't are confined to the corner?
Research is not telling us much about the value of teaching grammar for writing development - so Hartwell aims to look into the confusion. He starts by reviewing the work that has been done, and then turns to theorizing about what direction to take in light of what the research tells us - which is not much. Like the rest of the authors in this section, Hartwell is going to be explicit in his terms and definitions because that's where the confusions seem to lay too often.
To get a handle on this, review what characterizes each grammar.
1. Grammar as it exists in heads of native speakers. This comes of untaught languagae acquisition but also seems influenced by literacy (214) - a point which could speak to the case for teaching literacy - reading, at any rate.
2. Grammar as an area of linguistics, creating and testing various models of grammars. There is no relation in the matter of teaching The model to get to performance. Hartwell spends a lot of time in this area because at the time of writing there was a push for applying linguistically discovered rules (regularities found in the language) to teaching - as in the article use flow chart. Discovery that surfaces is that the rules we think we use are inadequate to explain what we do, but they allow us to access internalized rules.
3 - Usage. linguistic étiquette
Hartwell sidesteps this as simply off track: this ain't gramma. But usage and etiquette is often taught as though it were grammar, or in the same category of structureation as grammar. Confusing the teaching of grammar with teaching of usage seems to cause a lot of difficulties with student and administrator confusion about the teaching of writing. Even an informal project to tease out the differences between formal grammar and usage would make in interesting final project.
4. Grammar as used in schools. Incantations that are COIK. These rules are clear and understandable as stated only if the student has already gained the tacit knowledge on which the stated rule is based. Using this grammar is not connected with literate behavior: that is, literate people don't actually follow the strictures and guidelines that the texts present. (The disconnect between what they texts say and actual practice might be a source of the "Learn the Rules before you can Break Them" homily).
- p 221: IDing a fragment. Problem: This school grammar defines the fragment error as a conceptual error: evidence that writer doesn't have a grasp of a sentence - as opposed to an error of idiom as it is taken in academia - a performance error.
- statement of p 223: thinking about error and its relationship to worship of formal grammar and hyperliterate perception of the value of formal rules.
- and 224: metacognition and literacy: not that metacognition helps literacy but literacy develops metacognition
5. Stylistic grammar: Strunk and White, Williams, Lynn Tuss, Wired, AP Stylebook, etc. subsets or flavors of stylistic grammars
Romantic - stylistic grammars have little place in teaching comp because students need tl suffer towards meaning. talent. writing as aesthetics.
====Grammar, Grammar, and the Teaching of Grammar. Hartwell====
This article opens up the consideration of grammar and with it error (see Shaughenessy) - and develops an analysis and implications based on that analysis. Hartwell's observations are still operative as prescriptive v descriptive approaches in teaching formal grammar.
Start here
Where do you place yourself in the discussion: Do you teach formal grammar as a way of teaching writing? or do something else? v p 208. Do you subscribe to the idea that students must learn the rules before they can break them? - and is it "break"? Do you have any evidence that that is a grounded pedagogical position, or is this idea used for other, non-pedagogical reasons? Control, perhaps. Or to exercise authority. Those who learn the rules are allowed to flaunt them but those who don't are confined to the corner?
Research is not telling us much about the value of teaching grammar for writing development - so Hartwell aims to look into the confusion. He starts by reviewing the work that has been done, and then turns to theorizing about what direction to take in light of what the research tells us - which is not much. Like the rest of the authors in this section, Hartwell is going to be explicit in his terms and definitions because that's where the confusions seem to lay too often.
To get a handle on this, review what characterizes each grammar.
1. Grammar as it exists in heads of native speakers. This comes of untaught languagae acquisition but also seems influenced by literacy (214) - a point which could speak to the case for teaching literacy - reading, at any rate.
2. Grammar as an area of linguistics, creating and testing various models of grammars. There is no relation in the matter of teaching The model to get to performance. Hartwell spends a lot of time in this area because at the time of writing there was a push for applying linguistically discovered rules (regularities found in the language) to teaching - as in the article use flow chart. Discovery that surfaces is that the rules we think we use are inadequate to explain what we do, but they allow us to access internalized rules.
3 - Usage. linguistic étiquette
Hartwell sidesteps this as simply off track: this ain't gramma. But usage and etiquette is often taught as though it were grammar, or in the same category of structureation as grammar. Confusing the teaching of grammar with teaching of usage seems to cause a lot of difficulties with student and administrator confusion about the teaching of writing. Even an informal project to tease out the differences between formal grammar and usage would make in interesting final project.
4. Grammar as used in schools. Incantations that are COIK. These rules are clear and understandable as stated only if the student has already gained the tacit knowledge on which the stated rule is based. Using this grammar is not connected with literate behavior: that is, literate people don't actually follow the strictures and guidelines that the texts present. (The disconnect between what they texts say and actual practice might be a source of the "Learn the Rules before you can Break Them" homily).
- p 221: IDing a fragment. Problem: This school grammar defines the fragment error as a conceptual error: evidence that writer doesn't have a grasp of a sentence - as opposed to an error of idiom as it is taken in academia - a performance error.
- statement of p 223: thinking about error and its relationship to worship of formal grammar and hyperliterate perception of the value of formal rules.
- and 224: metacognition and literacy: not that metacognition helps literacy but literacy develops metacognition
5. Stylistic grammar: Strunk and White, Williams, Lynn Tuss, Wired, AP Stylebook, etc. subsets or flavors of stylistic grammars
Romantic - stylistic grammars have little place in teaching comp because students need tl suffer towards meaning. talent. writing as aesthetics.
Deletions:
====Grammars====
This article pens up the consideration of grammar and with it error (see Shaughennessy) - and develops an analysis and implications based on that analysis.
till operative as prescriptive v descriptive approaches
>> open with, where do you place yourself in the discussion: teach formal grammar as a way of teaching writing? or do something else? v p 208
must learn the rules before you can break them? evidence that that is a grounded pedagogical position? like sequence, do you? those that learn the rules are allowed to flaunt them but those who don't learn them are confined to the corner?
research not telling us much about the value of teaching grammar for writing development - so hartwell aims to look into the confusion
we would call this a meta-study now. hart well reviews the work and turns to theorizing about what direction to take in light of what the research tells us - which is not much. like the rest of the authors in this section, he's gong to be explicit in his terms and definitions because that's where the confusions seem to lay too often.
review what characterizes each grammar
1. grammar as it exists in heads of native speakers. this comes of untaught acquisition but seems influenced by literacy (214). which could speak to the case for teaching literacy - reading, at any rate.
2. an area of linguistics. models of grammars. no relation in the matter of teaching the model to get to performance, he spends a lot of time in this area because at the time there was a push for applying linguistically discovered rules (regularities found in the language) to teaching - as in the article use flow chart. discover is that the rules we think we use are inadequate to explain what we do, but they allow us to access internalized rules.
3 - usage. linguistic étiquette
4. grammar as used in schools. incantations that are COIK. these rules are clear and understandable as stated only if you have already gained the tacit knowledge on which the stated rule is based. teaching this grammar is unconnected with standard literate behavior: that is, literate people don't actually follow the strictures and guidelines the texts give when they read and write. p 221: ID a fragment. problem: this grammar defines the fragment error as a conceptual error: evidence that writer doesn't have a grasp of a sentence - as opposed to an error of idiom as it is taken in academia - a performance error.
>> esp statement of p 223: thinking about error its relationship tp our worship of formal grammar and hyperliterate perception of the value of formal rules.
>> and 224: metacognition and literacy: not metacognition helps literacy but literacy develops metacognition -
>> implications
5. stylistic grammar: Strunk and White, Williams, etc. subsets or flavors of stylistic grammars
romantic - stylistic grammars have little place in teaching comp because students need tl suffer towards meaning. talent. writing as aesthetics.
Additions:
==Comments on table 1==
==Conclusions==
=== Discussion ===
- Claims of writing textbooks concerning use and distro of topics across paragraphs are not grounded in practice. This might not hold for other kinds of writing. Might want to check that out. It would make a good final project.
- Claims from working authors are just as shaky. Claims based in their texts might mike good grounds for teaching.
- The defense of placement of topics by practice of professional writers in not on solid ground. Dictum of placing topic sentences might be valid in terms of clarity, skimmability, comprehension - and can be tested. But placement of topic depends not solely on the indented unit of the paragraph but in how topics and explication are distributed, seemingly physically on the page. Consider, for instance, how paragraphing and topic sentence placement works when the text is distributed on a two-page spread or a three-fold brochure. How placement and explication work when a bullet list is involved. When an image is integral to the text. When the text is written and intended to be read at least twice.
====Grammars====
Magical thinkers, alchemists, and scientists
This article pens up the consideration of grammar and with it error (see Shaughennessy) - and develops an analysis and implications based on that analysis.
till operative as prescriptive v descriptive approaches
==Conclusions==
=== Discussion ===
- Claims of writing textbooks concerning use and distro of topics across paragraphs are not grounded in practice. This might not hold for other kinds of writing. Might want to check that out. It would make a good final project.
- Claims from working authors are just as shaky. Claims based in their texts might mike good grounds for teaching.
- The defense of placement of topics by practice of professional writers in not on solid ground. Dictum of placing topic sentences might be valid in terms of clarity, skimmability, comprehension - and can be tested. But placement of topic depends not solely on the indented unit of the paragraph but in how topics and explication are distributed, seemingly physically on the page. Consider, for instance, how paragraphing and topic sentence placement works when the text is distributed on a two-page spread or a three-fold brochure. How placement and explication work when a bullet list is involved. When an image is integral to the text. When the text is written and intended to be read at least twice.
====Grammars====
Magical thinkers, alchemists, and scientists
This article pens up the consideration of grammar and with it error (see Shaughennessy) - and develops an analysis and implications based on that analysis.
till operative as prescriptive v descriptive approaches
Deletions:
Conclusions
Discussion
Claims of texts are not true. Might not hold for other kinds of writing. Might want to check it out.
If you're defending placement by reason of pro writers, you're not sound. You might be able to defend the placement in terms of clarity or other reasons. And those are valid.
Grammars
Magical the;inkers v alchemists
opens up the consideration of grammar and so error - and develops an analysis and implications based on that analysis
still operative as prescriptive v descriptive approaches
Additions:
=====week 4: how to read a page=====
====related readings====
====Braddock====
Again - this section is about testing and rethinking textbook codified concepts and precepts to theorize them. WhT emit calls magical thinking. That students learn only what we teach and only because we teach it.
This reading makes a pretty good model for textual analysis. Explicit in what he's doing. But could use some comments from Sara and Ivory on method.
Builds on discourse centered rhetoric of paragraph. Starts to make observations that traditional concepts of sentence, paragraph blind us to.
Does surveying professional writing provide solid data for his conclusions? The samples Braddock analyzes are are taught in classes as models, yet do not seem to follow the premises or advice given about writing.
Gloss T-units.
Braddock tries to find topic sentences only to discover that the definition isn't as clear as it has been assumed to be to be and is typically presented. Aka "sentence is a thought" makes an unusable definition. The definition is designed for teaching composing and so fails or presents difficulties is being applied.
Note technique: create sentence outline - as teachers recommend. Problems there. Goes with IRR.
In coding, Bradd0ck discovers and names different kinds or strategies of topic sentenes with some notes on form rather than application. Quietly demonstrates that we're missing some significant possible strategies.
Notes in coding that paras don't always follow at the same level of coordination. Some are superordinate to subordinate chains of paragraphs. These relationships are not necessarily signaled by topic sentences. Show on board. And cf what students tend to (are taught to) do with paragraphs: chains of observations at one ordinate level. One para for each topic -
Comments on table 1
- What do you glean from the table? Don't pride yourself in being non-literate in reading tables.
- Kind of T-units is interesting. Variance of para to topic sentences is notable but we can't tell if it's statistically significant.
Conclusions
- 55% of the sample - and distributed across wider expanse of paragraphs than texts account for.
- Placement.
Discussion
Claims of texts are not true. Might not hold for other kinds of writing. Might want to check it out.
If you're defending placement by reason of pro writers, you're not sound. You might be able to defend the placement in terms of clarity or other reasons. And those are valid.
----
Grammars
Magical the;inkers v alchemists
opens up the consideration of grammar and so error - and develops an analysis and implications based on that analysis
still operative as prescriptive v descriptive approaches
>> open with, where do you place yourself in the discussion: teach formal grammar as a way of teaching writing? or do something else? v p 208
must learn the rules before you can break them? evidence that that is a grounded pedagogical position? like sequence, do you? those that learn the rules are allowed to flaunt them but those who don't learn them are confined to the corner?
research not telling us much about the value of teaching grammar for writing development - so hartwell aims to look into the confusion
we would call this a meta-study now. hart well reviews the work and turns to theorizing about what direction to take in light of what the research tells us - which is not much. like the rest of the authors in this section, he's gong to be explicit in his terms and definitions because that's where the confusions seem to lay too often.
review what characterizes each grammar
1. grammar as it exists in heads of native speakers. this comes of untaught acquisition but seems influenced by literacy (214). which could speak to the case for teaching literacy - reading, at any rate.
2. an area of linguistics. models of grammars. no relation in the matter of teaching the model to get to performance, he spends a lot of time in this area because at the time there was a push for applying linguistically discovered rules (regularities found in the language) to teaching - as in the article use flow chart. discover is that the rules we think we use are inadequate to explain what we do, but they allow us to access internalized rules.
3 - usage. linguistic étiquette
4. grammar as used in schools. incantations that are COIK. these rules are clear and understandable as stated only if you have already gained the tacit knowledge on which the stated rule is based. teaching this grammar is unconnected with standard literate behavior: that is, literate people don't actually follow the strictures and guidelines the texts give when they read and write. p 221: ID a fragment. problem: this grammar defines the fragment error as a conceptual error: evidence that writer doesn't have a grasp of a sentence - as opposed to an error of idiom as it is taken in academia - a performance error.
>> esp statement of p 223: thinking about error its relationship tp our worship of formal grammar and hyperliterate perception of the value of formal rules.
>> and 224: metacognition and literacy: not metacognition helps literacy but literacy develops metacognition -
>> implications
5. stylistic grammar: Strunk and White, Williams, etc. subsets or flavors of stylistic grammars
romantic - stylistic grammars have little place in teaching comp because students need tl suffer towards meaning. talent. writing as aesthetics.
classic - we can find ways to offer suggestions and curricula to help writers develop a prose style. literacy. writing as functional
very conception of language - but united by method: but both rest on idea that one learns to control the language of print by manipulating meaningful texts in communicative contexts. not by the student of rules of grammar in isolation.
>> ending with two types of knowledge
broadly rhetorical, involving communication in meaningful contexts
broadly meta-linguistic, involving manipulation of language with attention to surface form
- and this is pointing to composition as material stuff
----
Coherence, Cohesion, and WRiting Quality
Witte and Faigley
looking at characteristics that we use to evaluate a text highly that cross sentence boundaries - takes us back to rhetoric of paragraph but this time internally.
cohesive ties
distinguish early between cohesion and coherence
latter is a violation of the script - to include only stuff that is important to understanding the message in the context
aim is to see if looking at cohesive ties can be useful - and if so, how. p 247
explaining some theory of cohesive ties -
that is, if you're a teacher and you want to talk sensibly about cohesion, you need to know this stuff. If you aim to diagnose problems in texts and give advice, you need to know this stuff.
this is the kind of implicit knowledge people aquire by reading and writing - this isn't taught directly, but this is the kind of metalinguistic knowledge students need to pick up.
This is what flow looks like when it's considered analytically rather than impressionistically.
they detail a taxonomy of lexical ties
tech writing teacher need to be familiar with it because it can explain how we create meaning or when meaning isn 't working or needs clarification. You might be able to do this on your wits - but not explain it.
part II
they turn to applying the taxonomies to student papers to see if there is a difference in coherence and writing quality-
by looking at papers rated high- and low. they can design cohesion profiles that characterize the writing - the significance is in the profiles, which suggests some problems with invention.
[I'd bet I can find examples of this in student papers, notes, and drafts]
[I'd also argue that this is a reason for requiring notes and lists: to build up the number of different inventional ideas]
they are impressed by the differences, which are sharp, distinct. the results also suggest what writers of high-rated papers tend to do: local rather than distant ties - . While we might look at a paper and say, it's loose, disorganized, confusing, hard to read and get the point, Witte document the differences by looking closely at the internal lexical and semantic structuring.
they take these frequency findings back to skilled writer behaviors / strategies. they are better able to expand and connect ideas - we can see that in the way they use lexical and other ties, whether this is a function of practice or what is not considered -
might need to bring in Christensen and open sentence combining - a couple of workbooks?
----
Contemporary Composition
Berlin
what else are you teaching when you teach writing?
May be too early in your career to ask this question, but it came up -
Berlin's analysis uncovers some historical events that help us explain some anomalies you might be seeing in the discipline itself - like the difference between argumentation, exposition, and persuasion (grounded in faculty psychology, each appeals to understanding and emotion).
State of the discipline 1980
Surveys the discipline as of 1980 to see what patterns he can see -
Very careful to ground his analysis in historical terms and concepts, and to state his position: New Rhet is the most practical approach - but no matter: writing teaching need to be fully aware of the significance of their pedagogical strategies - at the very least, offering contradictory advice about composing - at the most significant, because we are teaching versions of realities and the students place and ways of operating in that reality.
The texts that Berlin quotes from and mentions are most all classic rhetorical texts - those that had been taught as fundamental, as articulating the general knowledge of the disciplines -
Different conceptions of pedagogy are grounded in different rhetorical theories - and are grounded in the way writer, audience, reality, language are conceived - and how they inter-relate.
That is, there are different sets of preconceptions and assumptions about language, the world, knowledge ... that shape and ground our teaching of writing - and students' learning of writing.
>> Approach might be to explicate
role of teacher in this approach
methods
status of knowledge
>> To teach writing is to argue for a version of reality and to argue for the best way to know reality and to communicate it.
>> as we work with this, understand that Berlin is analyzing how writing is taught, mainly in in university exposition courses - Most if not all of your creative writing courses fall into expressionist approaches. But that doesn't mean that that approach is appropriate fort the FY classroom. We are teaching in a larger context of a state social institution. If, as a writing teacher, you teach more than just writing, you need to be sensitive to, aware of, responsible for, the other things you teach.
The difference and similarities fall into groups
Neo-Aristotelians
Current-Traditionalists
Expressionists
New Rhetoricians
writer - audience - reality - language are related to form a distinct world construct - an epistemic complex - with distinct rules for discovering and communicating knowledge.
Classicist - Neo-Aristotelians
world exists independently - and our minds our constructed so to understand the world and its rules. Reality can be known and communicated. Truth is a matter of performing in conformance with logic. - with language an unproblematic medium. Both word and thing referred to are part of thought - Dialectic is the way to discover knowledge in learned discourse. Rhetoric the way to address probabilistic realms. Emphasis on invention leads to subordination on arrangement and style - view of language is that the word is an isolatable unit of meaning and that structuring them into sentences creates combinatory meaning
this leads today to
Current-Traditional or Positivist
Aristotle through common sense realism - induction rather than deduction, individual sense impression provides the basis for all knowledge. the world is rational, but its logic is discovered through scientific / experimental method. Rhetoric becomes the study of all forms of communication - not just one branch - BUT rhetoric does not deal with invention anymore. Truth is discovered outside of rhetoric - experimental method, study in a discipline, genius - and rhetoric deals with how to communicate that pre-existant truth: how to adapt discourse to hearers. When we are freed of biases, senses provide mental facilities with a clear image of the world. College writing is to be concerned with communicating the truth that is certain and empirically verifiable - not probable. Right - wrong - or it falls into the realm of opinion, which is outside rhetoric.
[might be interested in how they argue against or for Berlin's perspective -
para on appeals to faculties
see how argumentation is distinguished from persuasion: by way of mental faculties. Persuasion is special, making an appear to the will. Argumentation appeals to understanding, esp along disciplinary lines.
expressionist -
developed in response to CTR. Careful here: this is not romantic expressionism -
truth is discovered through internal apprehension - all writing and knowing are personal - but cannot be communicated. truth - not writing, but truth - can be learned but not taught. Rhetoric becomes the correction of error, removal that which obscurers the inner vision. Method is dialectic, disruptive. This is a difficult view of language - truth is beyond the resources of language - but language can speak analogically of truth. Personal truths: true to the expression of self. true to feeling of experience. Some of this is hackneyed, but more generally, the approach places a Self (often plural) at the center of communication - not the other, not balanced with other, but at the center. Plato argued for transcendent Truth. Expressionist place claims on personal truth - that doesn't necessarily transcend the personal. Solepcism.
Classroom procedures: provide place to learn rather than be taught. relies on analogical method
>> The emphasis on dialogue is not aimed at communicating or adjusting the message to make it communicable. that would be a violation of the self (Charles). the others are at the service of the writer: they are there to help the writer get rid of what's insincere and false to the writer's personal, incommunicable sense of things.
So: an emphasis on using metaphor to break away from these false ideas: telling writing, etc. Language doesn't refer to shared concepts. to present truth (internal, personal, original) relies on original metaphors to capture what is unique.
Caveat: Just because you see someone using groups doesn't mean they are doing expressionist stuff.
Caveat: all writers are creative writers. this erases any epistemic and methodological difference between poet and first-year student. the only difference is in the forms you use.
New Rhetoric aka social epistemic approach
what the first 3 share: knowledge is a commodity situated in a permanent location, a repository that the individual goes to for enlightenment. New Rhet: knowledge is dynamic and dialectical, the result of a shifting process of synthesis of opposing elements. That relation is created, not pre-existing. The elements are those embedded in the communicative situation: writer, audience, reality, language. Truth and knowledge is always knowledge for someone standing in a particular relationship in a circumscribed situation. writer - audience - reality - language are the things we use to shape knowledge.
There is no knowledge apart from that which can be articulated. And until you can articulate it, you don't really know it.
perception is active, not mere reception. and language is the medium by which we put the phenomena of the world together so it make sense. Language is prior to truth and determines or influences the shapes truth can take. Language is what we use to shape the world, decide what will be perceived and not, what will have meaning and what won't. But those choices are social - not strictly individual: truths and knowledge are operable only within a universe of discourse - and that universe is shaped by all the elements, including audience.
the writer
CTR: efface yourself to focus on empirical and rational information
Expressionist: writer is the center of the act - but cut off from all. Can only shape her limited view and sense of things.
Social Epistemic: writer is a creator of meaning, shaper of reality. learning to write is learning to make words behave the way you want them to behave. It's a matter of learning to make meaning. we are all writers.
Social-Epistemic - one of the more comprehensive views. Draws in invention as heuristics, arrangement and style are part of meaning and so ay the center of invention. Looks at how contemporary observers have done things - and places an emphasis on method: heuristics
====related readings====
====Braddock====
Again - this section is about testing and rethinking textbook codified concepts and precepts to theorize them. WhT emit calls magical thinking. That students learn only what we teach and only because we teach it.
This reading makes a pretty good model for textual analysis. Explicit in what he's doing. But could use some comments from Sara and Ivory on method.
Builds on discourse centered rhetoric of paragraph. Starts to make observations that traditional concepts of sentence, paragraph blind us to.
Does surveying professional writing provide solid data for his conclusions? The samples Braddock analyzes are are taught in classes as models, yet do not seem to follow the premises or advice given about writing.
Gloss T-units.
Braddock tries to find topic sentences only to discover that the definition isn't as clear as it has been assumed to be to be and is typically presented. Aka "sentence is a thought" makes an unusable definition. The definition is designed for teaching composing and so fails or presents difficulties is being applied.
Note technique: create sentence outline - as teachers recommend. Problems there. Goes with IRR.
In coding, Bradd0ck discovers and names different kinds or strategies of topic sentenes with some notes on form rather than application. Quietly demonstrates that we're missing some significant possible strategies.
Notes in coding that paras don't always follow at the same level of coordination. Some are superordinate to subordinate chains of paragraphs. These relationships are not necessarily signaled by topic sentences. Show on board. And cf what students tend to (are taught to) do with paragraphs: chains of observations at one ordinate level. One para for each topic -
Comments on table 1
- What do you glean from the table? Don't pride yourself in being non-literate in reading tables.
- Kind of T-units is interesting. Variance of para to topic sentences is notable but we can't tell if it's statistically significant.
Conclusions
- 55% of the sample - and distributed across wider expanse of paragraphs than texts account for.
- Placement.
Discussion
Claims of texts are not true. Might not hold for other kinds of writing. Might want to check it out.
If you're defending placement by reason of pro writers, you're not sound. You might be able to defend the placement in terms of clarity or other reasons. And those are valid.
----
Grammars
Magical the;inkers v alchemists
opens up the consideration of grammar and so error - and develops an analysis and implications based on that analysis
still operative as prescriptive v descriptive approaches
>> open with, where do you place yourself in the discussion: teach formal grammar as a way of teaching writing? or do something else? v p 208
must learn the rules before you can break them? evidence that that is a grounded pedagogical position? like sequence, do you? those that learn the rules are allowed to flaunt them but those who don't learn them are confined to the corner?
research not telling us much about the value of teaching grammar for writing development - so hartwell aims to look into the confusion
we would call this a meta-study now. hart well reviews the work and turns to theorizing about what direction to take in light of what the research tells us - which is not much. like the rest of the authors in this section, he's gong to be explicit in his terms and definitions because that's where the confusions seem to lay too often.
review what characterizes each grammar
1. grammar as it exists in heads of native speakers. this comes of untaught acquisition but seems influenced by literacy (214). which could speak to the case for teaching literacy - reading, at any rate.
2. an area of linguistics. models of grammars. no relation in the matter of teaching the model to get to performance, he spends a lot of time in this area because at the time there was a push for applying linguistically discovered rules (regularities found in the language) to teaching - as in the article use flow chart. discover is that the rules we think we use are inadequate to explain what we do, but they allow us to access internalized rules.
3 - usage. linguistic étiquette
4. grammar as used in schools. incantations that are COIK. these rules are clear and understandable as stated only if you have already gained the tacit knowledge on which the stated rule is based. teaching this grammar is unconnected with standard literate behavior: that is, literate people don't actually follow the strictures and guidelines the texts give when they read and write. p 221: ID a fragment. problem: this grammar defines the fragment error as a conceptual error: evidence that writer doesn't have a grasp of a sentence - as opposed to an error of idiom as it is taken in academia - a performance error.
>> esp statement of p 223: thinking about error its relationship tp our worship of formal grammar and hyperliterate perception of the value of formal rules.
>> and 224: metacognition and literacy: not metacognition helps literacy but literacy develops metacognition -
>> implications
5. stylistic grammar: Strunk and White, Williams, etc. subsets or flavors of stylistic grammars
romantic - stylistic grammars have little place in teaching comp because students need tl suffer towards meaning. talent. writing as aesthetics.
classic - we can find ways to offer suggestions and curricula to help writers develop a prose style. literacy. writing as functional
very conception of language - but united by method: but both rest on idea that one learns to control the language of print by manipulating meaningful texts in communicative contexts. not by the student of rules of grammar in isolation.
>> ending with two types of knowledge
broadly rhetorical, involving communication in meaningful contexts
broadly meta-linguistic, involving manipulation of language with attention to surface form
- and this is pointing to composition as material stuff
----
Coherence, Cohesion, and WRiting Quality
Witte and Faigley
looking at characteristics that we use to evaluate a text highly that cross sentence boundaries - takes us back to rhetoric of paragraph but this time internally.
cohesive ties
distinguish early between cohesion and coherence
latter is a violation of the script - to include only stuff that is important to understanding the message in the context
aim is to see if looking at cohesive ties can be useful - and if so, how. p 247
explaining some theory of cohesive ties -
that is, if you're a teacher and you want to talk sensibly about cohesion, you need to know this stuff. If you aim to diagnose problems in texts and give advice, you need to know this stuff.
this is the kind of implicit knowledge people aquire by reading and writing - this isn't taught directly, but this is the kind of metalinguistic knowledge students need to pick up.
This is what flow looks like when it's considered analytically rather than impressionistically.
they detail a taxonomy of lexical ties
tech writing teacher need to be familiar with it because it can explain how we create meaning or when meaning isn 't working or needs clarification. You might be able to do this on your wits - but not explain it.
part II
they turn to applying the taxonomies to student papers to see if there is a difference in coherence and writing quality-
by looking at papers rated high- and low. they can design cohesion profiles that characterize the writing - the significance is in the profiles, which suggests some problems with invention.
[I'd bet I can find examples of this in student papers, notes, and drafts]
[I'd also argue that this is a reason for requiring notes and lists: to build up the number of different inventional ideas]
they are impressed by the differences, which are sharp, distinct. the results also suggest what writers of high-rated papers tend to do: local rather than distant ties - . While we might look at a paper and say, it's loose, disorganized, confusing, hard to read and get the point, Witte document the differences by looking closely at the internal lexical and semantic structuring.
they take these frequency findings back to skilled writer behaviors / strategies. they are better able to expand and connect ideas - we can see that in the way they use lexical and other ties, whether this is a function of practice or what is not considered -
might need to bring in Christensen and open sentence combining - a couple of workbooks?
----
Contemporary Composition
Berlin
what else are you teaching when you teach writing?
May be too early in your career to ask this question, but it came up -
Berlin's analysis uncovers some historical events that help us explain some anomalies you might be seeing in the discipline itself - like the difference between argumentation, exposition, and persuasion (grounded in faculty psychology, each appeals to understanding and emotion).
State of the discipline 1980
Surveys the discipline as of 1980 to see what patterns he can see -
Very careful to ground his analysis in historical terms and concepts, and to state his position: New Rhet is the most practical approach - but no matter: writing teaching need to be fully aware of the significance of their pedagogical strategies - at the very least, offering contradictory advice about composing - at the most significant, because we are teaching versions of realities and the students place and ways of operating in that reality.
The texts that Berlin quotes from and mentions are most all classic rhetorical texts - those that had been taught as fundamental, as articulating the general knowledge of the disciplines -
Different conceptions of pedagogy are grounded in different rhetorical theories - and are grounded in the way writer, audience, reality, language are conceived - and how they inter-relate.
That is, there are different sets of preconceptions and assumptions about language, the world, knowledge ... that shape and ground our teaching of writing - and students' learning of writing.
>> Approach might be to explicate
role of teacher in this approach
methods
status of knowledge
>> To teach writing is to argue for a version of reality and to argue for the best way to know reality and to communicate it.
>> as we work with this, understand that Berlin is analyzing how writing is taught, mainly in in university exposition courses - Most if not all of your creative writing courses fall into expressionist approaches. But that doesn't mean that that approach is appropriate fort the FY classroom. We are teaching in a larger context of a state social institution. If, as a writing teacher, you teach more than just writing, you need to be sensitive to, aware of, responsible for, the other things you teach.
The difference and similarities fall into groups
Neo-Aristotelians
Current-Traditionalists
Expressionists
New Rhetoricians
writer - audience - reality - language are related to form a distinct world construct - an epistemic complex - with distinct rules for discovering and communicating knowledge.
Classicist - Neo-Aristotelians
world exists independently - and our minds our constructed so to understand the world and its rules. Reality can be known and communicated. Truth is a matter of performing in conformance with logic. - with language an unproblematic medium. Both word and thing referred to are part of thought - Dialectic is the way to discover knowledge in learned discourse. Rhetoric the way to address probabilistic realms. Emphasis on invention leads to subordination on arrangement and style - view of language is that the word is an isolatable unit of meaning and that structuring them into sentences creates combinatory meaning
this leads today to
Current-Traditional or Positivist
Aristotle through common sense realism - induction rather than deduction, individual sense impression provides the basis for all knowledge. the world is rational, but its logic is discovered through scientific / experimental method. Rhetoric becomes the study of all forms of communication - not just one branch - BUT rhetoric does not deal with invention anymore. Truth is discovered outside of rhetoric - experimental method, study in a discipline, genius - and rhetoric deals with how to communicate that pre-existant truth: how to adapt discourse to hearers. When we are freed of biases, senses provide mental facilities with a clear image of the world. College writing is to be concerned with communicating the truth that is certain and empirically verifiable - not probable. Right - wrong - or it falls into the realm of opinion, which is outside rhetoric.
[might be interested in how they argue against or for Berlin's perspective -
para on appeals to faculties
see how argumentation is distinguished from persuasion: by way of mental faculties. Persuasion is special, making an appear to the will. Argumentation appeals to understanding, esp along disciplinary lines.
expressionist -
developed in response to CTR. Careful here: this is not romantic expressionism -
truth is discovered through internal apprehension - all writing and knowing are personal - but cannot be communicated. truth - not writing, but truth - can be learned but not taught. Rhetoric becomes the correction of error, removal that which obscurers the inner vision. Method is dialectic, disruptive. This is a difficult view of language - truth is beyond the resources of language - but language can speak analogically of truth. Personal truths: true to the expression of self. true to feeling of experience. Some of this is hackneyed, but more generally, the approach places a Self (often plural) at the center of communication - not the other, not balanced with other, but at the center. Plato argued for transcendent Truth. Expressionist place claims on personal truth - that doesn't necessarily transcend the personal. Solepcism.
Classroom procedures: provide place to learn rather than be taught. relies on analogical method
>> The emphasis on dialogue is not aimed at communicating or adjusting the message to make it communicable. that would be a violation of the self (Charles). the others are at the service of the writer: they are there to help the writer get rid of what's insincere and false to the writer's personal, incommunicable sense of things.
So: an emphasis on using metaphor to break away from these false ideas: telling writing, etc. Language doesn't refer to shared concepts. to present truth (internal, personal, original) relies on original metaphors to capture what is unique.
Caveat: Just because you see someone using groups doesn't mean they are doing expressionist stuff.
Caveat: all writers are creative writers. this erases any epistemic and methodological difference between poet and first-year student. the only difference is in the forms you use.
New Rhetoric aka social epistemic approach
what the first 3 share: knowledge is a commodity situated in a permanent location, a repository that the individual goes to for enlightenment. New Rhet: knowledge is dynamic and dialectical, the result of a shifting process of synthesis of opposing elements. That relation is created, not pre-existing. The elements are those embedded in the communicative situation: writer, audience, reality, language. Truth and knowledge is always knowledge for someone standing in a particular relationship in a circumscribed situation. writer - audience - reality - language are the things we use to shape knowledge.
There is no knowledge apart from that which can be articulated. And until you can articulate it, you don't really know it.
perception is active, not mere reception. and language is the medium by which we put the phenomena of the world together so it make sense. Language is prior to truth and determines or influences the shapes truth can take. Language is what we use to shape the world, decide what will be perceived and not, what will have meaning and what won't. But those choices are social - not strictly individual: truths and knowledge are operable only within a universe of discourse - and that universe is shaped by all the elements, including audience.
the writer
CTR: efface yourself to focus on empirical and rational information
Expressionist: writer is the center of the act - but cut off from all. Can only shape her limited view and sense of things.
Social Epistemic: writer is a creator of meaning, shaper of reality. learning to write is learning to make words behave the way you want them to behave. It's a matter of learning to make meaning. we are all writers.
Social-Epistemic - one of the more comprehensive views. Draws in invention as heuristics, arrangement and style are part of meaning and so ay the center of invention. Looks at how contemporary observers have done things - and places an emphasis on method: heuristics
