Irwin Weiser

Syllabus for English 591: Introduction to Composition Theory

August

Week 1

M25     Course Introduction: Overview; Purpose of the course; Reading, Writing, and Talking

W27    An Introduction to Composition Studies: Guest Lecture: Professor Emerita Janice M. Lauer

Lauer, Janice M. “Composition Studies: Dappled Discipline.” Rhetoric Review 3/1 (1984): 20-29.

Phelps, Louise Wetherbee. “Composition Studies.” In Theresa Enos, ed. Encyclopedia of Rhetoric and Composition. New York: Garland, 1996, 123-134.

Slevin, James. “Inventing and Reinventing the Discipline of Composition.”  Introducing English: Essays in the Intellectual Work of Composition. Pittsburgh, UPittsburgh Press, 2001, 37-56.

F29      Narratives about the Origins of Contemporary Composition

Brereton, John. “Introduction.” The Origins of Composition Studies in the American College, 1875-1925: A Documentary History. Pittsburgh: UPittsburgh Press, 1995, 3-25.

Adam Sherman Hill “An Answer to the Cry for More English,” 1896, rpt. in Brereton, 45-57.

North, Stephen. “composition Becomes Composition.” The Making of Knowledge in Composition. Portsmouth, NH: Boynton/Cook, 1987, 9-15.

Kitzhaber, Albert R. “4C, Freshman English, and the Future.” CCC 14.3 (1963): 129-138.

September

Week 2

M1       Labor Day, no class

W3      Rhetorical Theory and Composition: Finding Rhetorical Roots

Bitzer, Lloyd. “The Rhetorical Situation.” Philosophy and Rhetoric 1 (1968): 1-14.

Corbett, Edward P. J. From Classical Rhetoric for the Modern Student.3^rd. ed. NY: OUP, 1990, 20-31.

Gage, John. “An Adequate Epistemology of Composition: Classical and Modern Perspectives.” In Robert Connors, Lisa Ede, and Andrea Lunsford, eds. Essays on Classical Rhetoric and Modern Discourse. Carbondale, IL: SIUP, 1984.

Kinneavy, James. “Kairos: A Neglected Concept in Classical Rhetoric.” In Jean Dietz Moss, ed. Rhetoric and Praxis: The Contribution of Classical Rhetoric to Practical Reasoning. Washington, DC: Catholic U of America P, 1986.

F5        Developing Modern Theories of Discourse

*Moffett, James. Teaching the Universe of Discourse. Portsmouth, NH: Boynton/Cook Heinemann,1968, chapters 2 and 6.

Week 3

M8       *Britton, James, et al. The Development of Writing Abilities (11-18). London: Macmillan, 1975, chapters 1-2, 4-6.

W10    Kinneavy, James. A Theory of Discourse. New York: Norton, 1980 (originally published by Prentice Hall, 1971), 1-47; 60-64.

Kinneavy, James. “The Basic Aims of Discourse.” CCC 20 (1969): 297-304.

F12      Rhetorical Theories and Composition 1: Audience

Ong, Walter. “The Writer’s Audience is Always a Fiction.” PMLA 90 (1975): 9-21.

Ede, Lisa, and Andrea Lunsford. “Audience Addressed/Audience Invoked: The Role of Audience in Composition Theory and Pedagogy.” CCC 35 (1984): 155-71.

Porter, James. “Intertextuality and the Discourse Community.” Rhetoric Review 5 (1986): 34-47.

Phelps, Louise Wetherbee. “Audience and Authorship: The Disappearing Boundary.” In Gesa Kirsch and Duane Roen, eds. A Sense of Audience in Written Communication Newbury Park, CA: Sage, 1991, 153-74.

Week 4

M15     Rhetorical Theories and Composition 2: Invention

Lauer, Janice M. “Toward a Metatheory of Heuristic Procedure.” CCC 30.3 (1979): 268-69.

Lauer, Janice M. “Issues in Rhetorical Invention.” In Robert J. Connors, Lisa S. Ede, and Andrea Lunsford, eds. Essays on Classical Rhetoric and Modern Discourse. Carbondale, IL: SIUP, 1984, 127-139.

LeFevre, Karen Burke. From Invention as a Social Act. Carbondale, IL: SIUP 1986, 33-47.

W17    Rhetorical Theories and Composition 3: Invention: Burke’s Pentad and Young, Becker and Pike’s Tagmemic Heuristic

Burke, Kenneth. “The Five Key Terms of Dramatism.” Introduction to The Grammar of Motives. Berkeley, CA:UCAP, 1969 xv-xxiii. Widely reprinted.

Kneupper, Charles W. “Dramatistic Invention: The Pentad as a Heuristic Procedure.” Rhetoric Society Quarterly 9.3 (1979): 130-136.

Young, Richard, Alton Becker, and Kenneth Pike. “Preparation: Exploring the Problem.” Chapter 6 of Rhetoric, Discovery, and Change. NY: Harcourt, 1970, 119-130.

F19      Rhetorical Theories and Composition 4: Arrangement: Modes of Discourse

Kinneavy, James, John Q. Cope, and J.W. Campbell. “An Introduction to the Modes of Discourse.” Writing—Basic Modes of Organization Dubuque, IA: Kendall/Hunt 1975, 1-18.

Connors, Robert. “The Rise and Fall of the Modes of Discourse.” CCC 32 (1981): 444-455.

Week 5

M22     Rhetorical Theories and Composition 5: Arrangement and Genre

Winterowd, W. Ross. “Dispositio: The Concept of Form in Discourse.” CCC 22.1 (1971): 39-45.

D’Angelo, Frank J. “Organizing texts: Some Classical and Modern Perspectives.” Focuses (1993): 3-15.

Miller, Carolyn. “Genre as Social Action.” Quarterly Journal of Speech 70 (1984): 152-162.

Coe, Richard M. “Teaching Genre as Social Process.” In Aviva Freedman and Peter Medway, eds. Learning and Teaching Genre. Portsmouth NH: Boynton/Cook, 1994, 157-172.

W24    Rhetorical Theories and Composition 6: Style: Revision

Faigley, Lester, and Stephen Witte. “Analyzing Revision.” CCC 32.4 (1982): 400-414.

Flower, Linda, et al. “Detection, Diagnosis and the Strategies of Revision.” CCC 37.1 (1986): 16-55.

F26      Rhetorical Theories and Composition 7: Style: Grammar and Editing

Williams, Joseph. “The Phenomenology of Error.” CCC 32 (1981): 139-152.

Hartwell, Patrick. “Grammar, Grammars, and the Teaching of Grammar.” College English 47.2 (1985): 105-127.

Week 6

M29     Rhetorical Theories and Composition 9: Delivery

Enos, Theresa. “Voice as Echo of Delivery, Ethos as Transforming Process.” In Winterowd, W. Ross and Vincent Gillespie, eds. Composition in Context: Essays in Honor of Donald C. Stewart. Carbondale, IL: SIUP 1994: 180-195.         

October

W1      Theories of Process 1—General Theories of Writing as Process

Mills, Barriss. “Writing as Process.” CE 15 (1953): 19-26.

Rohman, Gordon. “Pre-Writing: The Stage of Discovery in the Writing Process.” CCC 16 (1965): 106-112.

Harrington, David V. “Teaching Students the Art of Discovery.” CCC 19: (1968): 7-14.

Murray, Donald M. “Teaching Writing as Process Not Product.” Originally published in 1972; reprinted in Victor Villenueva, ed. Cross-Talk in Comp Theory 2^nd ed. Urbana, IL: NCTE, 2003, 3-6.

F3        Theories of Process 2—Developments and Variations

Berlin, James, and Robert Inkster. “Current-Traditional Rhetoric: Paradigm and Practice.” Freshman English News 8(1980): 1-4, 13-14.

Hairston, Maxine. “The Winds of Change: Thomas Kuhn and the Revolution in the Teaching of Writing.” CCC 33.1 (1982): 76-88.

Berlin, James. “Contemporary Composition: The Major Pedagogical Theories.” College English 44.8 (1982): 765-777.

Week 7

M6       Yom Kippur—No Class

W8      Theories of Process 3— Expressivist Theories

Elbow, Peter. “A Method for Teaching Writing.” CE 30.2 (1968): 115-125. (cont)

Murray, Donald. “Finding Your Own Voice.” CCC 20 (1969): 118-123.

F10      Theories of Process 4— Cognitive and Socio-Cognitive Theories

            Emig, Janet. “The Composing Process: Mode of Learning.” Chapter 3 of The Composing Processes of Twelfth Graders. Urbana, IL: NCTE, 1971, 33-44.

Flower, Linda, and John Hayes. “A Cognitive Process Theory of Writing.” CCC 32 (1981): 365-387.

            Carter, Michael. “The Idea of Expertise: An Exploration of Cognitive and Social Dimensions of Writing.” CCC 41.3 (1990): 265-86.

            Hayes, John R. “A New Framework for Understanding Cognition and Affect in Writing.” In C. Michael Levy and Sarah Ransdell, eds. The Science of Writing. Mahwah, NJ: Erlbaum, 1996, 1-27.

Week 8

M13     October Break—No Class

W15    Course Project Plans: Brief oral presentation and 2-4 page proposal

F17      Rhetorical Theories 1—Classical and Rogerian Argument

*Fahnestock, Jeanne, and Marie Secor. “Classical Rhetoric: The Art of Argumentation.” In Barbara Emmel, Paula Resch, and Deborah Tenney, eds., Argument Revisited: Argument Redefined: Negotiating Meaning the Composition Classroom. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage, 1996, 97-126.

*Brent, Doug. “Rogerian Rhetoric: Ethical Growth Through Alternative Forms of Argumentation.” In Barbara Emmel, Paula Resch, and Deborah Tenney, eds., Argument Revisited: Argument Redefined: Negotiating Meaning the Composition Classroom. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage, 1996, 73-96.

Week 9

M20     Rhetorical Theories 2—Toulmin’s Model of Argument

*Toulmin, Stephen. The Uses of Argument. Cambridge, Cambridge UP, 1969, 94-118.

*Fulkerson, Richard. “The Toulmin Model of Argument and the Teaching of Composition.” In Barbara Emmel, Paula Resch, and Deborah Tenney, eds., Argument Revisited: Argument Redefined: Negotiating Meaning the Composition Classroom. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage, 1996, 45-72.

W22    Rhetorical Theories 3—Rhetoric as Epistemic

Emig, Janet. “Writing as a Mode of Learning.” CCC 28.2 (1977): 122-28.

Lauer, Janice M. “Writing as Inquiry.” CCC 33.1 (1982): 89-93.

Francesconi, Robert and Charles W. Kneupper. “Invention and Epistemic Rhetoric: The Knowing/Knowledge Interaction.” In Kneupper, Charles W., ed. Visions of Rhetoric: History, Theory, and Criticism. Arlington, TX: Rhetoric Society of America 1987, 106-118.

F24      No Class

Week 10

M27     Rhetorical Theories 4—Social Construction

Bruffee, Kenneth. “Social Construction, Language, and the Authority of Knowledge: A Bibliographical Essay.” College English 48.8 (1986): 773-790.

Harris, Joseph. “The Idea of Community in the Study of Writing.” CCC 40.1 (1989): 11-22.

W29    Rhetorical Theories 5—Collaboration

Bruffee, Kenneth. “Collaborative Learning and the ‘Conversation of Mankind’.” College English 46.7 (1984): 635-652.

Lunsford, Andrea and Lisa Ede. “Why Write . . . Together: A Research Update.” Rhetoric Review 5.1 (1986): 71-81.

Trimbur, John. “Consensus and Difference in Collaborative Learning.” College English 51.6 (1989): 602-616.

Ashton-Jones, Evelyn. “Conversation, Collaboration, and the Politics of Gender.” In Louise Wetherbee Phelps and Janet Emig, eds. Feminine Principles and Women’s Experience in American Rhetoric and Composition. Pittsburgh, University of Pittsburgh Press, 1995, 5-26.

F31      Literacy Theories and Composition 1: Literacy Theories

            Phelps, Louise Wetherbee. “Literacy and the Limits of the Natural Attitude.” Composition as a Human Science. New York: Oxford UP, 1988, 108-130.

Brandt, Deborah. “Accumulating Literacy: Writing and Learning to Write in the Twentieth Century.” CE 57 (1995): 649-668.

November

Week 11

M3       Literacy Theories and Composition 2: Basic Writing

Shaughnessey, Mina. “Diving In: An Introduction to Basic Writing.” CCC 27 (1976): 234-39.

Rose, Mike. “The Language of Exclusion: Writing Instruction at the University.” CE 47 (1985): 341-59.

Bartholomae, David. “Inventing the University.” In Mike Rose, ed., When a Writer Can’t Write New York, Guilford Press, 1985. 134-65.

W5      Literacy Theories and Composition 3: Dialect(s)

“Students’ Rights to Their Own Language.” CCC 25 (1974). Special Issue. Downloaded from http://www.ncte.org/positions/language.shtml 7/7/2003.

D’Eloia, Sarah. “Teaching Standard Written English.” Journal of Basic Writing 1.1 (1975): 5-13.

Hartwell, Patrick. “Dialect Interference in Writing: A Critical View.” RTE 14.2 (1980): 101-118.

F7        Literacy Theories and Composition 4: English as a Second Language

Matsuda, Paul Kei, et al. “CCCC Statement on Second-Language Writing and Writers.” CCC 52.4 (2001): 669-674. Downloaded from http://www.ncte.org/positions/second-language.shtml 7/7/2003

Matsuda, Paul Kei. “Second Language Writing in the Twentieth Century.” In B. Kroll, ed. Exploring the Dynamics of Second Language Writing New York: Cambridge UP, 2003, 15-34.

Week 12

M10     Literacy Theories and Composition 5: Academic Literacies

            Russell, David. “American Origins of the Writing-Across-the-Curriculum Movement.” In Charles Bazerman and David Russell, eds. Landmark Essays in Writing Across the Curriculum. Davis, CA: Hermagoras P, 1994, 3-22.

            Thaiss, Christopher. “Theory in WAC: Where Have We Been? Where Are We Going?” In Susan H. McLeod, et al., eds. WAC for the New Millenium. Urbana, IL: NCTE, 2001, 299-325. (cont)

            Bizzell, Patricia. “Hybrid Academic Discourses: What, Why, How?” Composition Studies 27.2 (1999): 7-22.

W12    Political Theories and Composition 1

Berlin, James. “Rhetoric and Ideology in the Writing Class.” College English 50 (1988): 477-494.

Hairston, Maxine. “Diversity, Ideology, and Teaching Writing.” CCC 43 (1992): 179-93; also in Composition in Four Keys, 530-40.

Trimbur, John. “The Politics of Radical Pedagogy: A Plea for ‘A Dose of Vulgar Marxism’.” College English 56.2 (1994): 194-206

F14      Political Theories and Composition 2: Race

Smitherman, Geneva. “From Africa to the New World and into the Space Age,” Talkin and Testifyin: The Language of Black America. Detroit: Wayne State UP, 1996: 1-15 (rpt. Originally published Boston: Houghton Mifflin, 1977).

Villenueva, Victor. “Of Color, Classes, and Classrooms.” From Bootstraps: From an American Academic of Color. Urbana, IL: NCTE, 1993, 91-118.

Keating, AnnLouise. “Interrogating ‘Whiteness,’ (De)Constructing “Race’.” College English 57 (1995): 901-918.

Holmes, David G. “Fighting Back by Writing Black.” In Race, Rhetoric, and Composition, Keith Gilyard, ed. Portsmouth, NH: Boynton/Cook Heinemann, 1999, 53-66.

Week 13

M17     Political Theories and Composition 3: Class

            Bernstein, Basil. “Elaborated and Restricted Codes: Their Social Origins and Some Consequences.” American Anthropologist 66.2 (1964): 55-69.

            Ohmann, Richard. “Reflections on Class and Language.” CE 44.1 (1983):1-17.

            Adler-Kassner, Linda. “The Shape of Form: Working-class Students and the Academic Essay.” In Linkon, Sherry Lee, Ed. Teaching Working Class Amherst, MA: U MA P, 1999, 85-105.

            O’Dair, Sharon. “Class Work: Site of Egalitarian Activism or Site of Embourgeoisement?” College English 65.6 (2003): 593-605.

W19    Political Theories and Composition 4: Gender

            Flynn, Elizabeth. “Composing as a Woman.” CCC 39.4 (1988): 423-35. (cont)

            Ritchie, Joy. “Confronting the ‘Essential’ Problem: Reconnecting Feminist Theory and Pedagogy.” JAC 10.2 (1990): 240-73.

            Phelps, Louise Wetherbee, with Janet Emig. “Editors’ Reflections: Vision and Interpretation.” In Louise Wetherbee Phelps and Janet Emig, eds. Feminine Principles and Women’s Experience in American Rhetoric and Composition. Pittsburgh, University of Pittsburgh Press, 1995, 407-425.

F21      Political Theories and Composition 5: Labor Issues

            Wykoff, George S. “Toward Achieving the Objectives of Freshman Composition.” College English 10.6 (1949): 319-323.

Robertson, Linda R., Sharon Crowley, and Frank Lentricchia. “Opinion: The Wyoming Conference Resolution Opposing Unfair Salaries and Working Conditions for Post-Secondary Teachers of Writing,” College English 49.3 (1987): 274-280.

            “Statement of Principles and Standards for the Postsecondary Teaching of Writing.” CCCC 40.3 (1989): 329-336. Downloaded from http://www.ncte.org/positions/postsecondary.shtml 7/7-2003.

Week 14

M24     Political Theories and Composition 6: Institutional Politics and the Abolitionist Movement

            Connors, Robert J. “The New Abolitionism: Toward a Historical Background.” In Lynn Z. Bloom, Donald A. Daiker, and Edward M. White, eds. Composition in the Twenty-first Century. Carbondale: SIUP, 1996, 47-63.

Crowley, Sharon. “A Personal Essay on Freshman English,” in Composition in the University: Historical and Polemical Essays. Pittsburgh: University of Pittsburgh P, 1998, 228-249.

W26    Thanksgiving

F28      Thanksgiving

December

Week 15

M1       Post-structuralist/Postmodern Theories and Composition 1:

Berlin, James. “Poststructuralism, Cultural Studies, and the Composition Classroom.” Rhetoric Review 11.1 (1992): 16-33. (cont)

Faigley, Lester. “Introduction.” Fragments of Rationality. Pittsburgh: UPittsburghP, 1993, 3-22.

W3      Post-Process Theories of Composition

            Kent, Thomas. “Introduction.” Post-Process Theory: Beyond the Writing Process Paradigm. Carbondale, SIUP, 1999, 1-6.

            McComiskey, Bruce. “The Post-Process Movement in Composition Studies.” In Ray Wallace, Alan Jackson, and Susan Lewis Wallace, eds. Reforming College Composition: Writing the Wrongs. Westport, CT: Greenwood, 2000, 37-53.

F5        Theories and Practices of Response

Sommers, Nancy. “Responding to Student Writing.” CCC 38 (1982): 148-156.

Phelps, Louise Wetherbee. “Images of Student Writing: The Deep Structure of Response.” In Chris M. Anson, ed. Writing and Response: Theory, Practice, and Research. Urbana, IL: NCTE, 1989, 37-67.

Week 16

M8       Assessment Theories and Practices

Yancey, Kathleen Blake. “Looking Back as We Look Forward: Historicizing Writing Assessment.” CCC 50.3 (1999): 430-437.

CCCC Committee on Assessment. “Writing Assessment: A Position Statement.” CCC 46.3 (1995): 430-37.

W10    Technology and Composition

            Selfe, Cynthia. “Redefining Literacy: The Multilayered Grammars of Computers.” In Gail Hawisher and Cynthia Selfe, eds. Critical Perspectives on Computers and Composition Instruction. NY: Teachers’ College P, 1989, 3-15.

            Sullivan, Patricia. “Taking Control of the Page: Electronic Writing and Word Publishing.” In Gail Hawisher and Cynthia Selfe, eds. Evolving Perspectives on Computers and Composition. Urbana, IL: NCTE, 1991, 434-61.

F12      Last Day of Classes—Wrap-up and Course Evaluation. Final Project Due