• View
• Edit
• History
• Print

Contributions

James Kinneavy

disarray. Now designated a “service” course, rhetoric suffered a slow decline (Berlin 529). Furthermore, composition and rhetoric textbooks became prescriptive in form and many untrained composition teachers found themselves placed in a classroom (Connors 189–90). Though changes to rectify the situation in the field started by the late 30s and 40s, James Kinneavy, who published his groundbreaking A Theory of Discourse: The Aims of Discourse in 1971, notes that “Composition is so clearly the stepchild of the English department that it is not a legitimate area of concern in graduate studies . . .” (Kinneavy 1).

the discipline, he develops a discourse theory rooted in Aristotle’s communication triangle. This work has been so influential that it has been the basis for the development of a dozen or so textbooks. In the first chapter, Kinneavy claims that he wants to bring cohesion to a chaotic field. Relying on the notable scientific historian Thomas Kuhn, Kinneavy explains that the discipline suffers from a preparadigmatic state, “That is, there has not yet been erected a comprehensive system of the discipline which has received some general acceptance and which could serve as a framework for research, further speculation, innovation, even repudiation” (Kinneavy 2). By detailing the history of rhetoric, Kinneavy synthesizes many theories and approaches, dating from Greek and Roman antiquities to modern rhetorical theories and practices of his time. The last four chapters focus on the four aims, reference, persuasive, literary, and expressive, and their history, definitions, and applications. The expressive aim has more contemporary roots, dating back to the seventeenth century, as opposed to the other three which develop from the different approaches of Isocrates, Plato, Aristotle, and Cicero . Supporting Kinneavy’s four aims and the communication triangle is the idea of “situational context” or kairos, which he defines as the right discourse fitted to the appropriate situation. His approach decenters the modes and ran contrary to the formulaic pedagogical approach common in many composition courses before and during the 60s and early 70s. Ultimately, Kinneavy’s approach situates itself in the New Critical movement, the literary philosophy which dominated English studies in Kinneavy’s early professorial years.

approaches, Kinneavy’s theory does not remain without its critics. Richard Fulkerson’s article “Kinneavy on Referential and Persuasive Discourses: A Critique” questions the claim that only aim dictates the traits of the discourse. Furthermore, Fulkerson argues that the work becomes prescriptive and formulaic and less descriptive as Kinneavy claims. The persuasive aim, Fulkerson feels, is denigrated because it is based on an emotional appeal. However, throughout Kinneavy’s body of published work, Kinneavy argues that the persuasive aim needs to be taught, and, ultimately, he consistently argues for the reattachment of rhetoric or persuasive discourse to English studies in the form of a traditional liberal arts education. Other critics like Paul Hunter in his article “That We Have Divided / In Three our Kingdom’s”: The Communication Triangle and a Theory of Discourse” find fault with Kinneavy’s New Critical approach which emphasizes product over process, and the theory’s basis on a speaking-listening process instead of a reading-writing process (Hunter “Divided” 280). As most post-structuralists might contend, Hunter also finds fault with Kinneavy’s moralist approach suggesting that it leads away from pluralism. However, Hunter does note in a later article, that Kinneavy helps make the composition field substantive, not just methodological, at a crucial time in the 70s, leading to good textbooks which Hunter himself has tried to adopt.(Hunter “Responds” 221). As he explains, his critique rests with the text but not with the man whom Hunter credits as “one of the most helpful and influential teachers of my undergraduate career” (221). Other critics claim that Kinneavy’s taxonomy is too static and tied too closely to the literary criticism to be useful and that his theory fails to account for rhetorical choices and the composing process (O’Banion 196).

ideals of aesthetic value. He would rewrite the literary chapter and “give a more Heideggerian and Hegelian base to the expressive chapters” (Balester et al xi). Furthermore, he would add a great deal to the ethical consideration in each chapter and de-emphasize the structuralist elements in favor of some post-structuralist positions. The idea of situational concept would find reinforcement with Kinneavy’s conception of kairos, and he would pay more attention to metaphor and to the Derridean idea of supplementarity. Yet despite these changes, Kinneavy would retain the basic structure of his theory, the Aristotelian communication triangle (xi).

concept is also used by post-structuralists though some define it differently. In practice, Kinneavy also advocates a WAC approach which he tried to implement in his home university, the University of Texas at Austin. He envisioned a writing program that would encompass all four levels, freshman to senior years, including introductory courses, a discipline specific writing course, and a general audience writing course. Due to some administrative problems, Kinneavy’s writing program was not implemented though it would have been the most comprehensive writing course in a university at that time (xvii ). Kinneavy really wanted universities to develop a “university language,” one in which all disciplines could share. In the spirit of a less fragmented university, Kinneavy consistently advocated for the return of a traditional liberal arts program in which persuasion returns as classical rhetoric, helping students prepare for the approaching media world.

Works Cited

A Theory of Discourse: The Aims of Discourse. Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice-Hall, 1971. 2nd ed. New York: Norton, 1980.