With Ramus, last week, we saw a need to reclassify and separate (invention as part of dialectic, etc.), and, this week, we see this same theme carried along as Eramus tries to divide Copia into an "expression" component and a "subject-matter-expertise" component (see page 598 in Bizzell and Herzberg, 2001). I like the idea of thinking about the two separately from an analysis standpoint, but, when it comes to execution/delivery, I think they both go hand-in-hand and influence one another in real-time as the speech/writing unfolds. In looking at his second piece, the subject-matter component, I am somewhat surprised in the organizational approach he takes---I read them as independent methods with specific goals, which is, perhaps, how they were intended.
But, as I thought about the methods more, I began to see ways to reclassify his explanations, thereby carrying on the reorganization theme of Ramus and Eramus. For me, many of the methods could, perhaps, be combined under the umbrella of purposes. For example, I would combine Method 10 (see page 613) and Method 11 (see page 614) under the umbrella of/idea of ways to increase “rigor.” Method 1 (see page 609) and Method 2 (see page 611), for me, deal with “clarity.” So, in seeing those connections, I began to mentally reframe how I would reorganize his methods to fit under ideas of specific purpose. To me, this would make his instructions more usable because when I look for ideas for revisions, I generally have a goal in mind, like “clarity” or “brevity,” and what I need is a “method” that will help me accomplish that; so, for me, if the methods would be reordered under themes of purpose first (i.e., “what the method can accomplish” as opposed to “what the method is”) and then “how the method works” second, they would make more sense. So, in continuing the traditions of Ramus and Eramus, I am now thinking about how I can take existing ideas and reorganize them in a way that is fresh and of use to authors.
Would you say that classification of style is dependent on the method, genre, and time period? Could it be true, or at the very least useful, to classify something some ways at some points in time while classifying it differently in other ages?
ReplyDeleteIn my post this week, I discussed the changing face of rhetoric and communication. I believe that as the technology has changed, our style (and the exact way we express the message) has adapted. Hence, the genre-over-time can be an interesting study. Even in short amounts of time, the best way to express something may change. Or the white paper, for example, may need to go to a different audience. (Despite their definition and face value, white papers do get tweaking too.)
Clay Spinuzzi wrote an entire book on this topic. I think it is called Tracing Genres.
Rhetoric requires intense attentiveness to context.
I have a couple other thoughts:
ReplyDeleteI looked up the book. It is called Tracing Genres through Organizations. The premise is much like tracing artifacts, especially as genres aid in the production of artifacts. Knowing how artifacts come into existence contributes to user-centered design and to the future designers, developers, and users of the envisioned technology (Johnson, 1998). So to understand the written rhetoric of a company, one would go through company communication artifacts such as letters, policies, manuals, brochures, website content, and photos (Campbell, 1999). “What an organization produces and how it certifies certain kinds of activities (e.g., a license or a deed), categorizes events or people (e.g., a membership list), codifies procedures and policies (e.g., rules for using equipment), instructs a readership (e.g., an operating manual), explains past or future actions (e.g., memoranda), and tracks its own activities (e.g., minutes of meetings)” reflects the foundation of the organizations operating principles (Lindoff, 1995). I think we are performing a parallel investigation as we go through conventions and genres over time during this course.
Think about the differences between dialectic and rhetoric, as well, and think about the beginning of the refocusing of style in significant ways. Style becomes a priori with elocutio.
ReplyDelete