[Teaching_Composition] Academic Discourse

Wed, 22 Nov 2006 08:40:30 -0600

------=_Part_18423_4863784.1164206430851
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1; format=flowed
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Content-Disposition: inline

On 11/21/06, Thelin,William <wthelin@uakron.edu> wrote:
>
>  The way I have worded this in our outcomes statement here at Akron is
> that we are teaching rhetorical principles or concepts that students then
> can take with them to future writing tasks, whether in college or
> elsewhere.  Following the WPA Outcomes Statement, I also included an outcome
> of "versatility," which seems to parallel what Linda is saying about
> promoting "flexibility" in writers.  I'm glad to see this strand appear.
> One of the problems I have with Graff and Birkenstein's very popular *They
> Say, I Say* is that what we call "academic writing" (something I don't
> think really exists in any pure form) is privileged at the expense of
> rhetorical situations dependent on an understanding of audience and
> purpose.  We're replacing writing with formulas based on a type of
> discourse, as Russ suggests, that doesn't translate well in real-world
> situations.
>
Hearing the buzz about They Say, I Say, I requested a copy and my initial
reaction to the book was much the same as Bill's, but on further reflection
I'm seriously considering using it next term. I agree with much of what has
been said about the over emphasis on academic discourse in FYC, but at the
same time I'm required to focus on academic discourse in the course I'll be
teaching next semester. In that course, I will include assignments that work
towards developing flexibility, what we might call a rhetorical
consciousness, but the final outcomes assessment tool used to analyze final
portfolios focuses on academic discourse.

Which is why I find myself taking a serious look at Graff and
Birkenstein's They
Say, I Say. After my initial reaction to the book, I reread some of Walter
Ong's discussions of the role of rhapsody in rhetoric--in particular, his
reviews of Brian Vicker's Classical Rhetoric in English Poetry and Samuel
Howell's Eighteenth-Century British Logic and Rhetoric, and his article
"Typographic Rhapsody: Ravisius Textor, Zwinger, and Shakespeare"--for my
dissertation chapter on database technologies as compositional tools. The
purpose of copia and of the commonplace tradition and, quite frankly, the
classical and medieval ars memoria, was not to memorize vast amounts of
material but to have an internalized database of material to use
inventively. (Mary Carruthers' The Craft of Thought , while focusing on
medieval monastic practice, offers one of, if not the, most detailed
discussions of this practice.)

So, with the theory and practice of memoria constantly in the background of
my thinking, and with both Ong's discussions of rhapsodizing and Carruthers'
discussions of memoria foregrounded in my mind, I reread Graff and
Birkenstein's Preface. In the section, "Okay, But Templates?", they write:

The aim of the templates, then, is not to stifle critical thinking but to be
direct with students about the key rhetorical moves that comprise it. [...]
Our templates do, however, provide concrete prompts that can stimulate and
shape such thought: What do "they say" about my topic? What would a naysayer
say about my argument? What is my evidence? Do I need to qualify my point?
Who cares?

In fact, templates have a long and rich history. Public orators from ancient
Greece and Rome through the European Renaissance studied rhetorical topoi or
"commonplaces," model passages and formulas that represented the different
strategies available to public speakers. In many respects, our templates
echo this classical rhetorical tradition of imitating established models.
(XV)

As I understand them, and this understanding comes from more than just the
passage I quote above, the idea behind They Say, I Say is to use the
templates to interiorize the process of writing as response to an ongoing
discussion, and the purpose of the templates is not for them to be used
verbatim in rote recitation (iterata scentia), but to be used as a starting
point from which to create one's response. In short, the purpose of the
templates is to provide a framework for rhapsodizing.

That framework, of course, is the beginning, not the end, of the process,
and from my skimming here and there through the book, Graff and Birkenstein
seem to be aware of this (it could just be that I'm bringing too much of my
own understanding of the commonplace tradition into my reading of their
work). As one interiorizes this framework and the rhetorical consciousness
it requires (issues such as but not limited to "What do 'they say' about my
topic? What would a naysayer say about my argument? What is my evidence? Do
I need to qualify my point? Who cares? "), one can use it inventively to
analyze and meet the needs of particular rhetorical contexts. This
assumption on my part seems to be bolstered by examples in the book which
follow the formulas implicitly rather than explicitly, once again suggesting
to me that the goal is not to use them by rote but to interiorize them and
the noetic processes needed for their use so that the rhetor can concern
herself or himself with the current rhetorical situation.

Foregrounding this use of the templates, from what I've seen in my skimming
of the book, is largely left up to the instructor. G and B seem to introduce
the idea, at least to this particular reader who is deeply enmeshed in a
dissertation on the theory and practice of memory, but G and B don't try to
dictate how this should be introduced in any programmatic way. And this is
one of the facets I do like about the book: it seeks not to shape a course
as so many FYC textbooks do but, rather, to be integrated into a course.
Unlike many course-in-a-book texts, They Say, I Say requires an instructor
to approach the text rhetorically, to approach the course as a conversation
into which the text is invited. I might be pushing this metaphor a bit too
far, but I do think this flexibility of the text is one of its strengths.

The text does privilege a particular type of discourse, but it's also short
enough to integrate as a unit in a much broader course. But the more I think
about it, the more I'm inclined to think that the book is more versatile
that many of us (including myself) might give it credit for on first,
second, or even third glance. G and B assert that the "they say, I say"
formula governs much more than just academic writing and do offer a number
of examples illustrating this claim. Wanting to come up with an example of a
genre I've taught, I quickly thought of the resume. If we assume that the
"they say, I say" formula is intended to be used verbatim, to be memorized
and repeated as acts of iterata scentia, then it serves little purpose for
resume writing.

But if we assume that the goal in using the templates is an act of
reminiscentia
, what Albertus Magnus describes as recollection involving the power of
discernment to consciously use that recollection, and what Aquinas defines
as a "quasi-syllogistic" use of recollection according to one's intentions,
then we do find the "they say, I say" formula applying to resume writing:
They (the people doing the hiring) say they are looking for these specific
requirements, and I say (in the form of my resume and cover letter) that I
meet those requirements and am a good fit for the position. In fact, thought
of this way, the "they say, I say" formula asks the applicant to not be
formulaic in the writing of their resume but to tailor the resume for each
specific position.

I know it's counter-intuitive for us to think of formulas as being
rhetorical, but they can be, and for much of the history and practice of
rhetoric, they have been. That, rather than the (rote) memorization of
speeches for oral delivery, was the purpose of memoria and the memory arts.
This requires us to approach They Say, I Say as a memory text, as a handbook
for thinking (which is what the ars memoria were for) rather than as a
substitute for thinking (which is what Ramus' method turned memory into).

Again, I could be reading too much into the book, especially since I haven't
yet read it closely. Whether or not I am reading too much into the book,
there is something to think about here: we need to make the distinction
between formulas (copia, tropes, commonplaces, topoi, ars memoria, etc.) for
rhapsodizing and formulas as Ramist method. Because method came to dominate
the teaching of rhetoric and writing, we've forgotten the former, even going
so far as to project our understanding back onto classical rhetoric (e.g.,
Corbett's still widely accepted claim that the purpose of memoria was
memorizing speechs for oral delivery).

John

-- 
John Walter | walterj@slu.edu
Ph.D. Candidate, Department of English
Walter J. Ong Collection Processing Archivist, Pius XII Memorial Library
Saint Louis University

------=_Part_18423_4863784.1164206430851
Content-Type: text/html; charset=ISO-8859-1
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Content-Disposition: inline

<br>On 11/21/06, <b class="gmail_sendername">Thelin,William</b> &lt;<a href="mailto:wthelin@uakron.edu">wthelin@uakron.edu</a>&gt; wrote:<div><span class="gmail_quote"></span><blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="border-left: 1px solid rgb(204, 204, 204); margin: 0pt 0pt 0pt 0.8ex; padding-left: 1ex;">

<div link="blue" vlink="blue" style="" lang="EN-US">

<div>

The way I have worded this in our outcomes
statement here at Akron is that we are teaching rhetorical principles or
concepts that students then can take with them to future writing tasks, whether
in college or elsewhere.&nbsp; Following the WPA Outcomes Statement, I also
included an outcome of "versatility," which seems to parallel what
Linda is saying about promoting "flexibility" in writers.&nbsp; I'm
glad to see this strand appear.&nbsp; One of the problems I have with Graff and
Birkenstein's very popular They Say, I Say is that what we call "academic
writing" (something I don't think really exists in any pure form)
is privileged at the expense of rhetorical situations dependent on an
understanding of audience and purpose.&nbsp; We're replacing writing with
formulas based on a type of discourse, as Russ suggests, that doesn't
translate well in real-world situations.</div></div></blockquote><div>Hearing the buzz about They Say, I Say,
I requested a copy and my initial reaction to the book was much the
same as Bill's, but on further reflection I'm seriously considering
using it next term. I agree with much of what has been said about the
over emphasis on academic discourse in FYC, but at the same time I'm
required to focus on academic discourse in the course I'll be teaching
next semester. In that course, I will include assignments that work towards
developing flexibility, what we might call a rhetorical consciousness,
but the final outcomes assessment tool used to analyze final
portfolios focuses on academic discourse.
 <div> Which is why I find myself taking a serious look at Graff and Birkenstein's They Say, I Say.
After my initial reaction to the book, I reread some of Walter Ong's
discussions of the role of rhapsody in rhetoric--in particular, his
reviews of Brian Vicker's Classical Rhetoric in English Poetry and Samuel Howell's Eighteenth-Century British Logic and Rhetoric, and his article &quot;Typographic Rhapsody: Ravisius Textor, Zwinger, and Shakespeare&quot;
--for my dissertation chapter on database technologies as compositional tools. The purpose of copia and of the commonplace tradition and, quite frankly, the classical and medieval 
ars memoria, was not to
memorize vast amounts of material but to have an internalized database
of material to use inventively. (Mary Carruthers' 
The Craft of Thought
, while focusing on medieval monastic practice, offers one of, if not the, most detailed discussions of this practice.) So, with the theory and practice of memoria
constantly in the background of my thinking, and with both Ong's discussions of rhapsodizing and
Carruthers' discussions of memoria foregrounded in my mind, I reread Graff and Birkenstein's Preface. In the
section, &quot;Okay, But Templates?&quot;, they write:
 <div style="margin-left: 40px;">The
aim of the templates, then, is not to stifle critical thinking but to
be direct with students about the key rhetorical moves that comprise
it. [...] Our templates do, however, provide concrete prompts that can
stimulate and shape such thought: What do &quot;they say&quot; about my topic?
What would a naysayer say about my argument? What is my evidence? Do I
need to qualify my point? Who cares?
 In fact, templates have a long and rich history. Public
orators from ancient Greece and Rome through the European Renaissance
studied rhetorical topoi or
&quot;commonplaces,&quot; model passages and formulas that represented the
different strategies available to public speakers. In many respects,
our templates echo this classical rhetorical tradition of imitating
established models. (XV)
 </div> As I understand them, and this understanding comes from more than just the passage I quote above, the idea behind They Say, I Say
is to use the templates to interiorize the process of writing as
response to an ongoing discussion, and the purpose of the templates is
not for them to be used verbatim in rote recitation (iterata scentia), but to be
used as a starting point from which to create one's response. In short,
the purpose of the templates is to provide a framework for
rhapsodizing. 
That framework, of course, is the beginning, not the end, of the
process, and from my skimming here and there through the book, Graff
and Birkenstein seem to be aware of this (it could just be that I'm
bringing too much of my own understanding of the commonplace tradition
into my reading of their work). As one interiorizes this framework and
the rhetorical consciousness it requires (issues such as but not
limited to &quot;What do 'they say' about my topic? What would a naysayer
say about my
argument? What is my evidence? Do I need to qualify my point? Who
cares?
&quot;), one can use it inventively to analyze and meet the needs of
particular rhetorical contexts. This assumption on my part seems to be
bolstered by examples in the book which follow the formulas
implicitly rather than explicitly, once again suggesting to me that the
goal is not to use them by rote but to interiorize them and the noetic
processes needed for their use so that the rhetor can concern herself
or himself with the current rhetorical situation. Foregrounding
this use of the templates, from what I've seen in my skimming of the
book, is largely left up to the instructor. G and B seem to introduce
the idea, at least to this particular reader who is deeply enmeshed in
a dissertation on the theory and practice of memory, but G and B don't
try to dictate how this should be introduced in any programmatic way.
And this is one of the facets I do like about the book: it seeks not to
shape a course as so many FYC textbooks do but, rather, to be
integrated into a course. Unlike many course-in-a-book texts, They Say, I Say requires an
instructor to approach the text rhetorically, to approach the course as
a conversation into which the text is invited. I might be pushing this
metaphor a bit too far, but I do think this flexibility of the text is
one of its strengths.
 The text does privilege a particular type of discourse, but
it's also short enough to integrate as a unit in a much broader course.
But the more I think about it, the more I'm inclined to think that the
book is more versatile that many of us (including myself) might give it
credit for on first, second, or even third glance. G and B assert that
the &quot;they say, I say&quot; formula governs much more than just academic
writing and do offer a number of examples illustrating this claim.
Wanting to come up with an example of a genre I've taught, I quickly
thought of the resume. If we assume that the &quot;they say, I say&quot; formula
is intended to be used verbatim, to be memorized and repeated as acts
of iterata scentia, then it serves little purpose for resume writing. But if we assume that the goal in using the templates is an act of 
reminiscentia
, what Albertus Magnus describes as recollection involving the
power of discernment to consciously use that recollection, and what
Aquinas defines as a &quot;quasi-syllogistic&quot; use of recollection according
to one's intentions, then we do find the &quot;they say, I say&quot; formula
applying to resume writing: They (the people doing the hiring) say they
are looking for these specific requirements, and I say (in the form of
my resume and cover letter) that I meet those requirements and am a
good fit for the position. In fact, thought of this way, the &quot;they say,
I say&quot; formula asks the applicant to not be formulaic in the writing of
their resume but to tailor the resume for each specific position.
 </div> I
know it's counter-intuitive for us to think of formulas as being
rhetorical, but they can be, and for much of the history and practice
of rhetoric, they have been. That, rather than the (rote) memorization
of speeches for oral delivery, was the purpose of memoria and the memory arts. This requires us to approach They Say, I Say as a memory text, as a handbook for thinking (which is what the 
ars memoria were for) rather than as a substitute for thinking (which is what Ramus' method turned memory into). Again, I could be reading too much into the book, especially since I haven't yet read it closely. Whether or not I am reading too much into the book, there is something to think about here: we need to make the distinction between formulas (
copia, tropes, commonplaces, topoi, ars memoria, etc.) for rhapsodizing and formulas as Ramist method. Because method came to dominate the teaching of rhetoric and writing, we've forgotten the former, even going so far as to project our understanding back onto classical rhetoric (
e.g., Corbett's still widely accepted claim that the purpose of memoria was memorizing speechs for oral delivery). John </div></div> -- John Walter | 
<a href="mailto:walterj@slu.edu">walterj@slu.edu</a> Ph.D. Candidate, Department of English Walter J. Ong Collection Processing Archivist, Pius XII Memorial Library Saint Louis University

------=_Part_18423_4863784.1164206430851--