RhetorClick - User contributions [en]

Burke, Kenneth "Definition of Man"

2012-04-13T20:36:47Z

Becca Hall:

In "Definition of Man," Kenneth Burke outlines his philosophical exploration of the essence of man, or what makes us human and therefore fundamentally different from other animals. Although Burke concedes that humans might be classified as animals, he argues that our mode of being is distinct.

'''I. Introduction'''
In Section I of his "Definition of Man," Burke describes the relationship between definition and meaning. Definition, Burke believes, inspires meaning as it is "prior to the observations it summarizes" (Burke, 40). He notes that definition is essential and prior to discussion of any idea or object. In this sense, a definition exists “prior” to its attributes. This understanding of discussion provides the framework for the rest of Burke's essay, and emphasizes his belief in the power of language to shape reality.

'''II “Symbol-Using Animal”'''
Burke begins section II with an anecdote about bird to illustrate the difference between man (a symbol-using animal) and animal (unable to use symbols). He uses the anecdote to illustrate how non symbol-using animals are limited in their transfer of ideas due to an inability to illustrate complex ideas through the use of symbols, as well as lack the attention necessary to complete the task. Burke notes, however, that while limited by this inability, birds are also freed from the constraints associated with living a reality constructed by and through symbols.

This illustration helps Burke segway into his discussion about how our realities are limited by the terministic screens we erect when we begin to name and define things. He believes that apart from personal experience, our conception of the world is simply a symbolic representation enabled by language. We use the symbol-sets to navigate "reality," even as they screen us from the "non-verbal." Words, he argues, are like a map which help guide us through life but say little about the true nature of their substance. Additionally, just as humans have control over the construct of words, words also have control over the construct of our being, causing us to view the world through prescribed lenses, or “ideologies.” Language itself can help us "find our way about," while at the same time neglecting the inexpressible.

Ideologies may function negatively, as in the examples he gives of brainwashing or hexing. Words and symbols can be so powerful that they may affect not only the way we perceive our physical reality, but also our very bodily functions.

He concludes the first clause with a discussion of how substitution is inherent to symbolism, and how symbols are substitutes for often complex, detailed actions that cannot be illustrated by evoking the symbol alone. The symbol is a substitute, an abbreviation, for a specific and detailed object or action. In this way, the symbol becomes “transcendent,” as it leaves the realm of the physical, and enters into the realm of the psychological and theoretical.

'''III. “Inventor of the Negative”'''
Burke begins the third clause of his argument with the observation that the “negative” is a human construct that does not exist in nature. A lamp is never “not a table,” or “not a child” - it can only possess its true nature, not the nature of things it is without. This differentiation is a human construction.

The negative is most often employed in regards to what Bergson, a quoted scholar, calls “unfulfilled expectations.” In other words, if we are expecting something to turn out a certain way, and it turns out differently than expected, we say it “did not happen.” Burke then argues that while we cannot have an idea of “nothing,” we can have an idea of “no,” which is why employing the negative is essential to our understanding of the world. In fact, he argues that the negative is so essential to our world that almost all seeming “positives” are in fact “quasi-positives,” or reactions to the negative - what things are “not” in society.

The word action (he differentiates this from the neutral “motion”) implies a choice, a response made to a “shalt not” or a “do not” negative imbued via life. He then raises the question of whether the positive or negative proceed the other, while acknowledging that by their very essence they imply the other - the positive cannot exist without the negative space, and vice versa. He argues that negativity proceeds positivity, because negativity is the predecessor of definition; before we deduct what something IS, we must figure out what it IS NOT.

He ends this section by suggesting that exploration of the “do not’s” can be incredibly rewarding.

'''IV. “Man as a Tool-Using Animal”'''
In this clause, Burke acknowledges that since primitive times, humans have consistently been seeking ways to improve their existence outside the realm of the basic needs of food, shelter, sex. Tools and language, he notes, are intrinsically linked, as it would be impossible to use tools in a communal building session without the aid of language. Humans using tools and language represents our “second-level” nature - our ability to develop complex systems to improve our lives, and then develop words about words to demonstrate how to use those systems.

He concludes this clause with the argument that man as a symbol-using animal precludes man’s status as a tool-using animal, because in order to label man as a tool-using animal we must first find a definition for what man is, and what he is not. This is symbology.

'''V. “Goaded by the Spirit of Hierarchy”'''
This clause is fairly straightforward as it is built on the foundation of Burke’s previous clauses. Man, as defined by his nature of a symbol-using animal, conforms to the rules of hierarchy as created by negativity. Negativity defines what man “is not,” and he conforms to this position in both the physical (class, education, etc.) and spiritual (man as subordinate to God).

'''VI. "Man is Guided by a Perfectionist Nature"'''
Burke argues that man constantly aims towards a state of perfection, while acknowledging that philosophers such as Aristotle have recognized that by his very being, man is in a state of perfection, existing in this moment as it is meant to be.

Freud calls man’s fruitless hunt towards perfection a “destiny compulsion” - man becomes stuck in his compulsion to achieve success in an area that earlier proved a failure.

----

In addition to being a philosophical exploration, Definition of Man serves as political and religious commentary. Burke’s assertion that humans are capable of higher thought and of contemplating the negative necessarily leads to religious questions. If humans are capable of higher thought, then what is higher thought, and where does it come from? And where does “nothing” come from? Burke argues that the existence of “yes” and “no,” of “something” and “nothing” make a strong argument for the existence of God and Devil. Definition of Man is political commentary in that Burke attempts to answer questions about why we make war. His short poem at the end and various comments throughout the essay demonstrate is disgust and awe at the possibility of nuclear war.

In “Definition of Man,” [[Kenneth Burke]] takes a fairly dark view of human beings and their use of language. He defines man, using five clauses, as “Man is a symbol-using (symbol-making, symbol-misusing) animal/ inventor of the negative (or moralized by the negative)/ separated from his natural condition by instruments of his own making/ goaded by the spirit of hierarchy (or moved by the sense of order)/ and rotten with perfection” (53-54). At the beginning, Burke clearly states that his definition is subject to debate and modification. Burke asserts that our symbols-systems are what allow humans to survive and innovate; however, these same systems can also lead to destruction, thus introducing a duality of symbols or language, a main theme in this article. Continuing with the idea of duality, Burke introduces the clause regarding humans as the inventor of the negative, as he claims that nothing in nature is negative and that the negative was constructed by the symbol-systems. He continues to reference language used in the discussion of morality, i.e. the “Thou shall-not.” He believes in stating this negative phrase brings both positive and negative ideas. Then, Burke argues that our symbol-systems construct social networks and norms, etc., that separate us from our natural instincts; in other words, we regard natural occurrences or “things” as negative as a result of language. Furthermore, when he says “rotten with perfection,” Burke does not mean that humans are perfect. He means that humans strive to fulfill their perfect, already formulated ideas. This can lead to political scapegoating and a number of other sad occurrences.

== Related Articles ==

* [[Bryant, Donald C. "Rhetoric: Its Functions and Its Scope"]] Bryant attempts to add focus to Burke's broad definition of rhetoric.

Burke, Kenneth "Definition of Man"

2012-04-13T20:36:04Z

Becca Hall:

Mooney, Annabelle "The Rhetoric of Cults: Intoduction"

2012-04-13T19:04:02Z

Becca Hall: Created page with "In the introduction to her book examining the rhetorical practices of widely recognized “cults,” Mooney challenges previous conceptions and applications of the word “cult,..."

In the introduction to her book examining the rhetorical practices of widely recognized “cults,” Mooney challenges previous conceptions and applications of the word “cult,” as well as asserts than many of the recruitment tactics used by such groups do not vastly differ from recruitment tactics used by more mainstream, Western religious traditions. All manners of recruitment, she claims, mirror the recruitment strategies used by so-called “cult texts.” Abuse that takes place within purported “cults” should be dealt with separate of the organization itself, lest all “prejudicial recruitment tactics” become illegal, which Mooney sees as a very serious breach of personal freedom.

Mooney wishes to direct the reader’s attention to the loaded nature of the word “cult” when discussing fringe or counter-culture religious movements, as the word is often haphazardly applied to any sort of religious movement that challenges the mainstream or recruits aggressively.

Mooney sets up the context of her book by first discussing the problem she sees with the nature of the word “cult,” a brief analysis of how the recruitment techniques of several purported cults do not differ from the recruitment techniques of more well-known religious organizations, as well as a discussion of how the prosecution of “cults” might severely limit our freedoms.

Article Summaries

2012-04-13T19:03:41Z

Becca Hall: /* M-P */

This page links to in-depth article summaries from prominent authors in this field. Links are organized by author's last name.

== A-D ==
* [[Aristotle, Poetics]]
* [[Aristotle, Rhetoric]]
:
:
* [[Bakhtin, Mikhail "Toward a Methodology for the Human Sciences"]]
* [[Baron, Dennis "From Pencils to Pixels: The Stages of Literacy Technology"]]
* [[Barthes, Roland "Death of the Author"]]
* [[Blythe, Stuart "Coding Digital Texts and Multimedia"]]
* [[Bitzer, Lloyd "The Rhetorical Situation"]]
* [[Bizzell, Patricia "Arguing About Literacy"]]
* [[Bormann, Ernest G. "Symbolic Convergence Theory"]]
* [[Brent, Douglas "Rogerian Rhetoric: An Alternative to Traditional Rhetoric"]]
* [[Bryant, Donald C. "Rhetoric: Its Functions and Its Scope"]]
* [[Burke, Kenneth "Definition of Man"]]
:
:
* [[Corder, Jim W. "Argument as Emergence, Rhetoric as Love"]]
* [["CCCC Position Statement"]]
* [[Cope, Bill and Kalantzis, Mary. "A Grammar of Multimodality"]]
:
:
* [[Delagrange, Susan "When Reflection is Re-Design: Key Questions for Digital Scholarship"]]
* [[DePew, Kevin Eric “Through the Eyes of Researchers, Rhetors, and Audiences”]]
* [[Downs, Douglas and Elizabeth Wardle “Teaching About Writing, Righting Misconceptions: (Re)Envisioning 'First Year Composition' as 'Introduction to Writing Studies'”]]

== E-H ==
* [[Ede, Lisa S. and Andrea A. Lunsford "On Distinctions between Classical and Modern Rhetoric"]]
* [[Ehninger, Douglas "On Systems of Rhetoric"]]
:
:
* [[Fisher, Walter "Narration as a Human Communication Paradigm"]]
* [[Foucault, Michel "What Is an Author?"]]
:
* [[Hea, Amy C. Kimme "Riding The Wave"]]
* [[Halloran, Michael S. "On the End of Rhetoric: Classical and Modern"]]
* [[Hart-Davidson, Bill and Steven D. Krause “Re: The Future of Computers and Writing: A Multivocal Textumentary”]]

== I-L ==
* [[Jenkins, Henry "Eight Traits of the New Media Landscape"]]
* [[Johnson-Eilola, Johndan “Negative Spaces: From Production to Connection in Composition”]]
:
:
* [[Logie, John “Champing at the Bits: Computers, Copyright, ad the Composition Classroom”]]
* [[Lunsford, Andrea and Lisa Ede "On Distinctions between Classical and Modern Rhetoric"]]

== M-P ==
* [[McIntire-Strasburg, Janice "Multimedia Research"]]
* [[McKeon, Richard “The Uses of Rhetoric in a Technological Age: Architectonic Productive Arts”]]
* [[Moeller, Ryan and David Christensen "System Mapping: A Genre Field Analysis of the National Science Foundation's Grant Proposal and Funding Process"]]
* [[Mooney, Annabelle "The Rhetoric of Cults: Intoduction"]]

:
:
* [[Ohmann, Richard “In Lieu of a New Rhetoric”]]
:
:
* [[Palmquist, Mike, Kate Kiefer, James Hartvigsen, and Barbara Goodlew "Contrasts: Teaching and Learning about Writing in Traditional and Computer Classrooms"]]
* [[Perelman, Chaïm "The New Rhetoric: A Theory of Practical Reasoning"]]

== Q-T ==
* [[Richards, I.A. "How to Read a Page"]]
* [[Rickly, Rebecca "Messy Contexts: Research as a Rhetorical Situation"]]
:
:
* [[Saussure, Ferdinand de "Nature of the Linguistic Sign"]]
* [[Scott, Robert L. "On Viewing Rhetoric as Epistemic"]]
* [[Sidler, Michelle "Playing Scavenger and Gazer with Scientific Discourse: Opportunities and Ethics for Online Research"]]
* [[Selfe, Cynthia L. & Richard J. Selfe Jr. "The Politics of the Interface: Power and Its Exercise in Electronic Contact Zones"]]
* [[Slatin, John M. "Reading Hypertext: Order and Coherence in a New Medium"]]
* [[Sorapure, Madeleine, Pamela Inglesby, and George Yatchisin "Web Literacy: Challenges and Opportunities for Research in a New Medium"]]
:
:
* [[Toulmin, Stephen "The Layout of Arguments"]]
== U-X ==
* [[Vatz, Richard "The Myth of the Rhetorical Situation]]
:
:
* [[Wardle, Elizabeth and Douglas Downs “Teaching About Writing, Righting Misconceptions: (Re)Envisioning 'First Year Composition' as 'Introduction to Writing Studies'”]]
* [[Weaver, Richard "The Cultural Role of Rhetoric]]
* [[Williams, Sean D. "Part 2: Toward an Integrated Composition Pedagogy in Hypertext"]]
== Y & Z ==
* [[Yancey, Kathleen Blake "Looking for Sources of Coherence in a Fragmented World: Notes toward a New Assessment Design"]]
* [[Yancey, Kathleen Blake "Made Not Only in Words: Composition in a New Key"]]

Bizzell, Patricia "Arguing About Literacy"

2012-04-13T18:59:57Z

Becca Hall: Created page with "Bizzell begins her essay with an introduction to groups of individuals that have historically been at odds with the normative model of literacy advocated in most academic. These ..."

Bizzell begins her essay with an introduction to groups of individuals that have historically been at odds with the normative model of literacy advocated in most academic. These individuals, says Bizzell, have often included “lower classes, foreign born, non-white, and/or female.” She insists, however, that change is possible.

Bizzell then examines arguments defending the academic status quo before transitioning to an argument for her view of literacy.

Social science research: Because the social sciences examine how individuals interact with each other and their social environment, there is not “monolithic concept” of what happens when an individual or society acquire literacy. Some of such research may be found, however, in the humanities - a department that typically analyzes stylistic differences as indicators of culture.

Humanists argue that changes one experiences after mastering literacy are not dependent on social factors, and that all individuals will experience similar changes in ways of communicating and organizing their thoughts. They do argue that literacy is dependent on mastering alphabetic combinations, which I took to mean mastering basic writing/spelling. Social scientists, however, predict a wider array of changes and base many of these changes on the social contexts of a given situation. Some social scientists have suggested that humanists’ findings are a result of their almost exclusive investment in Western academia.

By ignoring the suggestion that their observation pool is somewhat limited, humanists have limited the potential cognitive gains and furthered the somewhat unfounded suggestion that true literacy = academic literacy.

The concept of “cultural literacy” is the antithesis to the problem humanists identified as “The Great Divide.” Cultural literacy suggests that the changes an individual experiences upon learning language are not a result of mastering alphabetic literacy alone - that is, words and concepts are given emotion and meaning via the culture they exist in and point to.

Berlin then examines an argument from a scholar E.D. Hirsch, who argued for the status-quo of standard, written English based on research he’d done on information processing and memory. After the research, Hirsch concluded that standard English should be taught as it is the most “efficient” means of processing and conveying information. His preferences often leaned towards the stylistically academic, inherently making himself a victim of the cultural ideologies he dismissed.

After further research, Hirsch acknowledged the need for what he called “canonical knowledge” - that is, prior cultural knowledge which is necessary to understand any written text. To this extent, his views align with that of the social scientists’. But Bizzell noted that when he turned to pedagogy, he reverted to prescriptivism again. Hirsch claims that we need to teach illiterate incoming Freshmen the standards of the academic writing circle via exposure to works that embody it - he provides his suggestions in the form of a list (originally composed by Harvard). Yet Hirsch neglects to include work representativel of non-hegemonic bodies.

Bizzell sees several problems with Hirsch’s list, which can be summed up in his failure to acknowledge the attitude that makes us feel compelled to submit to standard English as the superior mode of communication.

As an alternative to what she deems Hirsch’s “foundational” view, Bizzell suggests that we both teach/learn how to argue and gain a “better understanding of literacy itself.” Because we cannot prove another absolutely wrong and our case absolutely right in most circumstances, we must resort to persuassion. Persuasion requires a complete understanding of the audience’s cultural knowledge and identity. Bizzell defends against critiques that understanding/manipulation of one’s audience is inherently dishonest - knowledge is not a body conveyed through rhetoric, but rather, knowledge happens when the speaker and audience reach an agreement. Therefore, the speaker does not exist outside of the rhetorical situation he creates. He too must be changed by the experience.

Article Summaries

2012-04-13T18:59:33Z

Becca Hall: /* A-D */

This page links to in-depth article summaries from prominent authors in this field. Links are organized by author's last name.

== A-D ==
* [[Aristotle, Poetics]]
* [[Aristotle, Rhetoric]]
:
:
* [[Bakhtin, Mikhail "Toward a Methodology for the Human Sciences"]]
* [[Baron, Dennis "From Pencils to Pixels: The Stages of Literacy Technology"]]
* [[Barthes, Roland "Death of the Author"]]
* [[Blythe, Stuart "Coding Digital Texts and Multimedia"]]
* [[Bitzer, Lloyd "The Rhetorical Situation"]]
* [[Bizzell, Patricia "Arguing About Literacy"]]
* [[Bormann, Ernest G. "Symbolic Convergence Theory"]]
* [[Brent, Douglas "Rogerian Rhetoric: An Alternative to Traditional Rhetoric"]]
* [[Bryant, Donald C. "Rhetoric: Its Functions and Its Scope"]]
* [[Burke, Kenneth "Definition of Man"]]
:
:
* [[Corder, Jim W. "Argument as Emergence, Rhetoric as Love"]]
* [["CCCC Position Statement"]]
* [[Cope, Bill and Kalantzis, Mary. "A Grammar of Multimodality"]]
:
:
* [[Delagrange, Susan "When Reflection is Re-Design: Key Questions for Digital Scholarship"]]
* [[DePew, Kevin Eric “Through the Eyes of Researchers, Rhetors, and Audiences”]]
* [[Downs, Douglas and Elizabeth Wardle “Teaching About Writing, Righting Misconceptions: (Re)Envisioning 'First Year Composition' as 'Introduction to Writing Studies'”]]

== E-H ==
* [[Ede, Lisa S. and Andrea A. Lunsford "On Distinctions between Classical and Modern Rhetoric"]]
* [[Ehninger, Douglas "On Systems of Rhetoric"]]
:
:
* [[Fisher, Walter "Narration as a Human Communication Paradigm"]]
* [[Foucault, Michel "What Is an Author?"]]
:
* [[Hea, Amy C. Kimme "Riding The Wave"]]
* [[Halloran, Michael S. "On the End of Rhetoric: Classical and Modern"]]
* [[Hart-Davidson, Bill and Steven D. Krause “Re: The Future of Computers and Writing: A Multivocal Textumentary”]]

== I-L ==
* [[Jenkins, Henry "Eight Traits of the New Media Landscape"]]
* [[Johnson-Eilola, Johndan “Negative Spaces: From Production to Connection in Composition”]]
:
:
* [[Logie, John “Champing at the Bits: Computers, Copyright, ad the Composition Classroom”]]
* [[Lunsford, Andrea and Lisa Ede "On Distinctions between Classical and Modern Rhetoric"]]

== M-P ==
* [[McIntire-Strasburg, Janice "Multimedia Research"]]
* [[McKeon, Richard “The Uses of Rhetoric in a Technological Age: Architectonic Productive Arts”]]
* [[Moeller, Ryan and David Christensen "System Mapping: A Genre Field Analysis of the National Science Foundation's Grant Proposal and Funding Process"]]
:
:
* [[Ohmann, Richard “In Lieu of a New Rhetoric”]]
:
:
* [[Palmquist, Mike, Kate Kiefer, James Hartvigsen, and Barbara Goodlew "Contrasts: Teaching and Learning about Writing in Traditional and Computer Classrooms"]]
* [[Perelman, Chaïm "The New Rhetoric: A Theory of Practical Reasoning"]]
== Q-T ==
* [[Richards, I.A. "How to Read a Page"]]
* [[Rickly, Rebecca "Messy Contexts: Research as a Rhetorical Situation"]]
:
:
* [[Saussure, Ferdinand de "Nature of the Linguistic Sign"]]
* [[Scott, Robert L. "On Viewing Rhetoric as Epistemic"]]
* [[Sidler, Michelle "Playing Scavenger and Gazer with Scientific Discourse: Opportunities and Ethics for Online Research"]]
* [[Selfe, Cynthia L. & Richard J. Selfe Jr. "The Politics of the Interface: Power and Its Exercise in Electronic Contact Zones"]]
* [[Slatin, John M. "Reading Hypertext: Order and Coherence in a New Medium"]]
* [[Sorapure, Madeleine, Pamela Inglesby, and George Yatchisin "Web Literacy: Challenges and Opportunities for Research in a New Medium"]]
:
:
* [[Toulmin, Stephen "The Layout of Arguments"]]
== U-X ==
* [[Vatz, Richard "The Myth of the Rhetorical Situation]]
:
:
* [[Wardle, Elizabeth and Douglas Downs “Teaching About Writing, Righting Misconceptions: (Re)Envisioning 'First Year Composition' as 'Introduction to Writing Studies'”]]
* [[Weaver, Richard "The Cultural Role of Rhetoric]]
* [[Williams, Sean D. "Part 2: Toward an Integrated Composition Pedagogy in Hypertext"]]
== Y & Z ==
* [[Yancey, Kathleen Blake "Looking for Sources of Coherence in a Fragmented World: Notes toward a New Assessment Design"]]
* [[Yancey, Kathleen Blake "Made Not Only in Words: Composition in a New Key"]]

Cope, Bill and Kalantzis, Mary. "A Grammar of Multimodality"

2012-04-13T18:57:22Z

Becca Hall: Created page with "Recent, widespread technological advances have increased our representational modes of communication, forming new literacies via combinations of textual, visual, and aural elemen..."

Recent, widespread technological advances have increased our representational modes of communication, forming new literacies via combinations of textual, visual, and aural elements. Cope and Kalantzis argue that a new “pedagogy of multiliteracies” is needed to incorporate these new means of communication, one that encompasses written language, oral language, visual representation, audio representation, tactile representation, gestural representation, and spatial representation.

Each of these modes shares communication capabilities, but their purposes are not entirely “parallel.” In other words, while different modes may portray the same idea, the meaning/focus of that idea may change depending on the mode. This shifting between modes to represent the same idea is called “synaesthesia.”

To illustrate this, Cope explains the differences between written and visual/artistic demonstration. By its very nature, writing sequences events along a timeline and thus favors narrative purposes. In contrast, image sequences events according to space, and thus favors purposes of display. Written language is open to a large variety of visualizations, however, image requires the viewer to fill in the details of time, causation, purpose, and effect via already existing visual elements. While reading might require some imaginative filling, image does not possess strict, linear rules of interpretation and thus gives the viewer more power than written modes of communication.

Many individuals have a preference for a mode - i.e., they feel most comfortable working in a certain mode, a particular mode comes naturally to them, etc. Additionally, synaethesia is an invaluable learning tool as it allows us to explore ideas and concepts via often unfamiliar platforms. This is why it’s important that we compile a pedagogy that allows students to work in multimodal platforms.

Although webpages employ written text, the integration of navigational bars, image, caption, list allows the user to experience the page more like he/she would an image. These visual elements allows for a simplification of any writing on the page, yet increasingly “complex multimodality.” However, written language is not simply “going away” - it is simply changing as it becomes influenced and connected with other modes of expression.

Cope then contrasts the different modes of meaning (representational, social, organizational, contextual, ideological) with different modes of expression (linguistic, visual, spatial, gestural, aural) in order to draw attention to similarities and differences between combinations. He then presents us with a series of tables that asks questions about the different modes of meaning, and provides us with instances of how that mode of meaning might be expressed, followed by a specific example.

(Lenses of ways of making meaning)
Linguistic: Implied meaning via written text.
Visual: Meaning through manipulation of perspective, vectors, abstraction, focus, arrangement (cohesion), inclusion/omission.
Spatial: Linguistic and visual representations can mean a “who” or a “what.” Spatial representation is only a “what.” Space can be used to emphasize differences in power, price, social standing, distance, form, intended route/interactions.
Gestural: Expressions, clothing, hand movements/positions, emotion, body language
Audio: Tone, tempo, recordings of sounds specific to a particular setting/mood.

In short, multimodal learning is “all modes of meaning working together.” Cope gives example of linguistic meaning combining the gestural, aural, and spatial. Although modes of learning are often congruous/parallel, they have different effects. The user selects a mode based on desired emphasis.

Representation of meaning multimodally is inherrent to human nature, yet recently we have placed too heavy an emphasis on linguistic modes of representation.

Article Summaries

2012-04-13T18:56:51Z

Becca Hall: /* A-D */

This page links to in-depth article summaries from prominent authors in this field. Links are organized by author's last name.

== A-D ==
* [[Aristotle, Poetics]]
* [[Aristotle, Rhetoric]]
:
:
* [[Bakhtin, Mikhail "Toward a Methodology for the Human Sciences"]]
* [[Baron, Dennis "From Pencils to Pixels: The Stages of Literacy Technology"]]
* [[Barthes, Roland "Death of the Author"]]
* [[Blythe, Stuart "Coding Digital Texts and Multimedia"]]
* [[Bitzer, Lloyd "The Rhetorical Situation"]]
* [[Bormann, Ernest G. "Symbolic Convergence Theory"]]
* [[Brent, Douglas "Rogerian Rhetoric: An Alternative to Traditional Rhetoric"]]
* [[Bryant, Donald C. "Rhetoric: Its Functions and Its Scope"]]
* [[Burke, Kenneth "Definition of Man"]]
:
:
* [[Corder, Jim W. "Argument as Emergence, Rhetoric as Love"]]
* [["CCCC Position Statement"]]
* [[Cope, Bill and Kalantzis, Mary. "A Grammar of Multimodality"]]
:
:
* [[Delagrange, Susan "When Reflection is Re-Design: Key Questions for Digital Scholarship"]]
* [[DePew, Kevin Eric “Through the Eyes of Researchers, Rhetors, and Audiences”]]
* [[Downs, Douglas and Elizabeth Wardle “Teaching About Writing, Righting Misconceptions: (Re)Envisioning 'First Year Composition' as 'Introduction to Writing Studies'”]]

== E-H ==
* [[Ede, Lisa S. and Andrea A. Lunsford "On Distinctions between Classical and Modern Rhetoric"]]
* [[Ehninger, Douglas "On Systems of Rhetoric"]]
:
:
* [[Fisher, Walter "Narration as a Human Communication Paradigm"]]
* [[Foucault, Michel "What Is an Author?"]]
:
* [[Hea, Amy C. Kimme "Riding The Wave"]]
* [[Halloran, Michael S. "On the End of Rhetoric: Classical and Modern"]]
* [[Hart-Davidson, Bill and Steven D. Krause “Re: The Future of Computers and Writing: A Multivocal Textumentary”]]

== I-L ==
* [[Jenkins, Henry "Eight Traits of the New Media Landscape"]]
* [[Johnson-Eilola, Johndan “Negative Spaces: From Production to Connection in Composition”]]
:
:
* [[Logie, John “Champing at the Bits: Computers, Copyright, ad the Composition Classroom”]]
* [[Lunsford, Andrea and Lisa Ede "On Distinctions between Classical and Modern Rhetoric"]]

== M-P ==
* [[McIntire-Strasburg, Janice "Multimedia Research"]]
* [[McKeon, Richard “The Uses of Rhetoric in a Technological Age: Architectonic Productive Arts”]]
* [[Moeller, Ryan and David Christensen "System Mapping: A Genre Field Analysis of the National Science Foundation's Grant Proposal and Funding Process"]]
:
:
* [[Ohmann, Richard “In Lieu of a New Rhetoric”]]
:
:
* [[Palmquist, Mike, Kate Kiefer, James Hartvigsen, and Barbara Goodlew "Contrasts: Teaching and Learning about Writing in Traditional and Computer Classrooms"]]
* [[Perelman, Chaïm "The New Rhetoric: A Theory of Practical Reasoning"]]
== Q-T ==
* [[Richards, I.A. "How to Read a Page"]]
* [[Rickly, Rebecca "Messy Contexts: Research as a Rhetorical Situation"]]
:
:
* [[Saussure, Ferdinand de "Nature of the Linguistic Sign"]]
* [[Scott, Robert L. "On Viewing Rhetoric as Epistemic"]]
* [[Sidler, Michelle "Playing Scavenger and Gazer with Scientific Discourse: Opportunities and Ethics for Online Research"]]
* [[Selfe, Cynthia L. & Richard J. Selfe Jr. "The Politics of the Interface: Power and Its Exercise in Electronic Contact Zones"]]
* [[Slatin, John M. "Reading Hypertext: Order and Coherence in a New Medium"]]
* [[Sorapure, Madeleine, Pamela Inglesby, and George Yatchisin "Web Literacy: Challenges and Opportunities for Research in a New Medium"]]
:
:
* [[Toulmin, Stephen "The Layout of Arguments"]]
== U-X ==
* [[Vatz, Richard "The Myth of the Rhetorical Situation]]
:
:
* [[Wardle, Elizabeth and Douglas Downs “Teaching About Writing, Righting Misconceptions: (Re)Envisioning 'First Year Composition' as 'Introduction to Writing Studies'”]]
* [[Weaver, Richard "The Cultural Role of Rhetoric]]
* [[Williams, Sean D. "Part 2: Toward an Integrated Composition Pedagogy in Hypertext"]]
== Y & Z ==
* [[Yancey, Kathleen Blake "Looking for Sources of Coherence in a Fragmented World: Notes toward a New Assessment Design"]]
* [[Yancey, Kathleen Blake "Made Not Only in Words: Composition in a New Key"]]