• View
• Edit
• History
• Print

James Kinneavy Annotated Bibliography Articles and Anthologized Third Page

Articles and Anthologized

By examining the use of kairos, as conceived in Sophist, Platonic, and Cicero’s rhetorical theories, Kinneavy argues for its importance in contemporary composition theory. Though kairos can trace its origins back to Pythagoras, the Stoics, the Sophists, and Plato, its emphasis in rhetorical theory and practice diminished throughout history with the rise of Aristotle. Kairos essentially means adapting the appropriate discourse to the particular circumstance, place, speaker, and audience. Kinneavy pushes this concept into the contemporary composition classroom suggesting that these courses need to become more relevant to students’ lives, involving them in ethical, epistemological, rhetorical, and aesthetic and political dimensions. Using a WAC approach, Kinneavy envisions a writing program that spans four years and additionally requires students to address personal and social ethics in their discipline. Through the implementation of this program, including publishing student work in local, state, or national forums, Kinneavy hopes to make rhetoric more relevant to students’ lives and link humanities to the average person.

“New Rules for Readywriting Contests.” The Leaguer (Nov 1986).

This essay lists useful resources in the understanding of the WAC movement. In the first section, “Terminology and Definitions,” Kinneavy names several of the major proponents involved in WAC and briefly sketches the varying definitions as the movement took shape. In “Bibliographies and Collections,” the essay notes that no real comprehensive bibliography for the movement has been completed, but it does point to individuals who have generated varying bibliographies, including more specific bibliographies in technical writing. Finally, the section includes anthologies which provide a general view of WAC. Though short, the “Textbook” section includes textbooks specifically designed for the movement, including textbooks which address case report method of writing. Examining the movement as it has been implemented in France, Italy, the United States, and Great Britain, the section “Spread of the Movement and Typical Programs” provides different resources tracing WAC’s evolving nature in other countries and more explicitly how it has been applied in the United States, in particular to four different college and university programs. In “Theoretical Foundations,” the section addresses two major concerns, the question of audience and the different functions of language. Finally, the last section “Effects of Writing Across the Curriculum” lists a few studies which have collected empirical data on the success and/or failure of the programs.

“William Grimaldi: Reinterpreting Aristotle.” Philosophy and Rhetoric. XX, 3 (1987), 183–200.

While noting the revolutionary impact of process writing and its emphasis on student centered learning, Kinneavy argues that one problematical side of it consists in the lack of concern by some on product at all. Furthermore, often process only concerns itself with the moment a writer puts pen to paper. Kinneavy finds this definition too narrow and cites methods, such as research, writers use before writing anything down. Outlining Heidegger’s theory of “forestructure,” Kinneavy believes that process writing’s definition needs to be more comprehensive in nature. He argues that writing is not a linear process, but a process with incursions, recursions, and transformations which continue throughout the whole performance of writing. By applying this kind of approach, writing will resist formulaic styles and become more flexible and pluralistic.

This essay, designed for high school and elementary teachers, begins with different definitions of the term rhetoric. Kinneavy, for the purpose of this essay, refers to rhetoric as the study of discourse in teaching language arts. This study includes the aims and modes and also reading, writing, speaking and listening. In the beginning, rhetoric, meaning persuasion, generally referred to legal and political convictions and found its historical roots in Greek antiquity; however, today persuasion covers any subject matter or topic. Providing a good explanation of the communication triangle, the essay covers the four appeals, the ethical, emotional, logical, and stylistic. In “Rhetoric and the Other Aims of Language,” the other three aims, expository, creative, and expressive, are identified and defined. The modes in discourse have a subordinate role to the aims though sometimes historically the modes dominated the theory of composition. Currently, composition writing in language arts has moved to a more “content area” subject matter approach (also synonymous with the WAC approach). Furthermore, studies on reading, listening, writing, and speaking ultimately show that the emphasis may be placed too much on reading and not enough on listening. Consequently, educational programs are trying to shift their writing programs to take these studies into account. The essay finally concludes with a definition of grammar as it applies to rhetoric. Over time, this definition has developed into one that considers only the structure of language; however, Kinneavy citing different studies notes that the formalized teaching of grammar does little to improve writing.

The obvious admiration Kinneavy has for Corbett expresses itself in this review of Corbett’s work. Kinneavy divides the selected essays into three different groups: historical, theoretical, and analytical. He notes the skill in which Corbett adapts historical texts, making them relevant in current times. Among some of the historical figures Corbett contemporizes are Newman, Swift, Locke, Isocrates, and Blair. Though Kinneavy does not criticize the book, he credits Corbett’s larger corpus, and in particular Kinneavy mentions articles Corbett has written for the NCTE, several textbooks addressed to students, and his addresses to the populace in popular weekly or monthly publications.