• View
• Edit
• History
• Print

Annotated Bibliography Criticism

James Kinneavy

Discourse Studies in Honor of James L. Kinneavy which provides a bibliographic listing of James Kinneavy’s work. The annotations remain my own with a few additions to the bibliography. I have kept the same format as it appears in the original work edited by Gabin with the exception of the last two entries to the “Articles and Anthologized Section” and three new sections including Interviews, Criticism, and In Honor Of.

Criticism

Fulkerson begins detailing how Kinneavy has organized his work around the four aims and his claim that these aims control everything else in the discourse, including structure, logic, and style. Faulting Kinneavy for providing no real compelling proof for his theory, Fulkerson critiques the theory for not providing a study of discourse for Kinneavy’s assertion that aim is the controlling factor of discourse. Furthermore, in making this assertion, Fulkerson believes Kinneavy is becoming prescriptive and not descriptive like he claims, leading to formulaic methods of writing. The exploratory aim is defined too narrowly while the persuasive aim because of its appeal to emotions is denigrated in the work as not being scientific.

This article finds fault with A Theory of Discourse for several reasons. First, the theory is criticized for its foundational roots in New Criticism as being too text oriented. This leads into a discussion of the complete emphasis on product with little attention to process writing, a common critique of the work. Consequently, Hunter finds that the theory is based upon a speaking-writing process and not a reading-writing process. Finally, in a more post-structuralist approach, Hunter claims that Kinneavy takes a moralist approach, leading the theory away from pluralism.

Hunter, Paul. “Paul Hunter Responds.” College English. 49.2. (Feb 1987). pp. 219–221.

This article originates from another article by Timothy Crusius, “A Comment on ‘That We Have Divided / In Three Our Kingdoms: The Communication Triangle and A Theory of Discourse’,’’ a response to Hunter’s earlier article. In this article, Hunter reasserts his position and earlier claims in a spirited academic debate with Crusius. However, Hunter does acknowledge the important contributions Kinneavy has made to the discipline of composition, making the field more substantive at a crucial point in its development. Furthermore, he notes the number of textbooks Kinneavy’s theory has spawned, one of which he has tried to adopt in his writing program. Most importantly, Hunter makes it clear that he does not find fault with the man as he has been so influential on him, but rather with the text.

In this short essay, O’Banion recognizes the influence Kinneavy has had on the discipline of composition but critiques Kinneavy for basing his theory too closely on New Criticism and for not taking into account the composing process during writing. Because Kinneavy bases his theories on discourse and not composition, he sidesteps the importance of process writing. Consequently, his pedagogical methodologies remain obscure, making his theory less practical. The communication triangle is an oversimplification of the writing process and discounts time and process. O’Banion believes that the chapter on expressive aims is the best part of the work, but Kinneavy fails to apply the insights he has gained from this chapter to the rest of the work, making the theory inconsistent. Because Kinneavy’s categories are so static, he fails to synthesize the different aims and, instead, disarms them of their fluid nature.