LITMIR.BIZ

Скачать книгу

implicitly endorses rhetoric’s reduction to mere figuration. This anxiety extends to the place of style in composition more generally, because one reason for style’s marginalizatin is that style-centered approaches to composition are suspected of being reductive, overly focused on surface features of texts, too pedantic—in other words, not cool. (See Keith Rhodes’ essay “Styling.”) “Go Figure” was conceived as a “gut check” to see if there is sufficient heft in the figures to call for deeper engagement with them in other courses. I conclude from my efforts that there is more than enough substance—perhaps too much.

      Bringing this account to a close, several points remain open to speculation. First, given that “Go Figure” is an upper-division elective and not a composition course per se, what possibilities exist for integrating its approach into composition courses, including in the first year of college ? On the whole, I believe this approach to the figures travels well. A seminar model for composition might well choose style, including the figures, as a focus and employ many of the practices of analysis and writing outlined here. This is especially the case if the figures are brought into dialogue with other elements of style, including the virtues of clarity, correctness and appropriateness or the various levels of style. When offering the course a second time, I was conscious of the recent turn in composition to writing about writing as addressed in Doug Downs and Elizabeth Wardle’s “Teaching about Writing, Righting Misconceptions: (Re) envisioning ‘First-Year Composition’ as ‘Introduction to Writing Studies’” (2007). Much as other efforts to make writing itself the topic of exploration in a composition course, writing with and about the figures fosters crucial meta-cognition and rhetorical sensibility. It also provides concrete benchmarks for students to measure their own development as practitioners of the craft of composition.

      An entire semester in rhetorical figures is not really necessary, of course. The figures can be productively integrated into writing courses through judicious selection of, say, a half-dozen key figures to be introduced and practiced with each major unit or writing assignment. Building off exercises in copia and imitation, students can practice employing figures of substitution, omission, balance and repetition in their texts as they develop and revise drafts. One assignment might encourage anaphora, another zeugma. One unit of a composition course might feature the use of gradatio to reinforce chained reasoning across clauses or sentences or the use of antonomasia to refer to things by other than a proper name. Another might ask students to experiment with one or more figures of thought such as adynaton, the expression of inexpressibility, or correction, a strategic correcting of oneself. Indeed, students can be invited to highlight, interrogate, even celebrate, their use of specific figures when submitting or revising drafts.

      Alternatively, students can embellish texts produced by peers and justify their choice of ornamentation. By such means of systematic exposure to, and practice with, the figures students may come to see speech and writing as performance in ways that other approaches to style do not allow. As the classical treatment of the figures long ago emphasized, rhetorical style pedagogy must foreground the performative dimension of discourse through hands-on experience with ornamentation as rhetorical force.

      Finally, a figurative approach to composition that foreground performance opens onto different modes of communication and their interaction. As others in this volume observe, including Moe Folk (“Multimodal Style”), writing is but one mode of performance in a digital age. While figures are located in texts at the level of word, sentence and passage, as performative moves they structure information as well as shape interaction between rhetors and audiences. They are not restricted to verbal modes of speech or text. In addition, there are visual tropes and schemes that parallel their verbal counterparts to manage effects of balance, contrast, progression, etc. A figure is not in the words (or image), but the words (or image) in the figure (to use an antimetabole).

      A figure-rich pedagogy for today must span performative modes and prepare students to communicate ornamentally across those modes. In this respect, the figures are an untapped resource—a working vocabulary (not an antiquarian catalog) for twenty-first century communication. To be clear: there remains great value in attaching names to the tools we use. That is the point of learning the names, not to remember them, but to use them. My experience teaching the figures is that they bring a level of energy and a sense of agency to the composition classroom like few other elements of style.

      This is not to say that sentence-based pedagogies focused on matters other than the figures should cease to be a focus of the composition course. Far from it. Renewed attention to the sentence in response to the risk of its “erasure” (Connors) and the possibilities for its “remembering” (Myers) is consistent with my call for a return of the figures. A figure-rich pedagogy serves as an excellent and necessary complement to rhetorically-attuned sentence-level pedagogies, such as those represented in Nora Bacon’s The Well-Crafted Sentence: A Writer’s Guide to Style (2009). This, finally, is the point. The classical tradition developed a fully articulated theory of style, one that recognized an assemblage of virtues at work—or at play—in any rhetorical performance. To the extent that the figures remain marginalized, stylistic pedagogy will never be as robust as it could, and should, be. A modest investment in figuration—composition’s bucket and spade—has the potential for equipping our students to build some impressive sandcastles. Go figure.

      References

      Aristotle. (1992). On rhetoric: A theory of civic discourse. (Kennedy, G., Trans.). Oxford: Oxford University Press.

      Bacon, N. (2009). The well-crafted sentence. New York: Bedford/St. Martins.

      Brummett, B. (2008). A rhetoric of style. Carbondale IL: Southern Illinois University Press.

      Burton, G. O. (n.d.) Silva rhetoricae: The forest of rhetoric. Retrieved from http://rhetoric.byu.edu

      Butler, P. (Ed.) (2010). Style in rhetoric and composition: A critical sourcebook. Boston, MA: Bedford/St. Martin’s.

      Butler, P. (2008). Out of style: Reanimating stylistics in composition and rhetoric. Logan: Utah State University Press.

      Burke, K. (1941). Four master tropes. The Kenyon Review 3(4), 421-38.

      Cicero. (1954). Rhetorica ad Herennium. (Caplan, H., Trans.). Harvard: Loeb Classical Library. Retrieved from http://penelope.uchicago.edu/Thayer/E/Roman/Texts/Rhetorica_ad_Herennium/home.html

      Connors, R. J. (2000). The erasure of the sentence. College Composition and Communication 52(1), 96-128. Retrieved from http://www.jstor.org/stable/358546

      Crowley, S. & Hawhee, D. (2008). Ancient rhetorics for contemporary students (4th ed.). New York: Longman.

      Downs, D. & Wardle, E. (2007). Teaching about writing, righting misconceptions: (Re)Envisioning “first-year composition” as “introduction to writing studies.” College of Composition and Communication 58(4), 552-584.

      Erasmus, D. (1978). Copia: Foundations of the abundant style: De duplici copia verborum ac rerum Commentarii duo (Knott, B. I., Trans. and Ed.). In C. R. Thompson (Ed.), Collected works of Erasmus: Literary and educational writings (2nd ed., vol. 28) (pp. 279-660). Toronto: University of Toronto Press.

      Fahnestock, J. (1999). Rhetorical figures in science. New York: Oxford University Press.

      Fahnestock, J. (2000). Aristotle and theories of figuration. In Gross, A. G. & Walzer, A. (Eds.), Rereading Aristotle’s Rhetoric (pp. 166-184). Carbondale IL: Southern Illinois University Press.

      Harris, R. A. (2011). Virtual salt. Retrieved from http://www.virtualsalt.com/rhetoric.htm

      Heinrich, J. (2005). It figures. Retrieved from. http://www.figarospeech.com/

      Holcomb, C. (2007). “Anyone can be president”: Figures of speech, cultural forms, and performance. Rhetoric Society Quarterly 37(4), 71-96. doi:10.1080/02773940600865305.

      Holcomb, C. & Killingsworth, M. J. (2010). Performing Prose: The study and practice of style in composition. Carbondale, IL: Southern Illinois University Press.

      Johnson, T. R. (2003). A rhetoric of pleasure: Prose style in today’s composition classroom. Portsmouth, NH: Boynton/Cook, 2003.

      Johnson, T.

Скачать книгу