• View
• Edit
• History
• Print

James Kinneavy Annotated Bibliography Miscellaneous

Interviews

In this interview, Kinneavy describes how he believes he fits into the discipline of composition, as a historian, theorist, and, a little less so, as a taxonomer. He also explains the impetus behind his most influential text A Theory of Discourse as a desire to displace the total emphasis on modes. He further clarifies the basis of the work, the communication triangle, envisioning it as a three dimensional graphic, demonstrating how aims can and do overlap. Furthermore, Kinneavy addresses some of the critiques of his work particularly the criticism regarding the factors which determine the aim, the lack of emphasis on product in process writing, and the value of imitation. In his discussions of postmodernism and critical literacy, Kinneavy tries to find a balance eschewing the more extreme positions held by some French postmoderns and by not overemphasizing one type of aim over another while respecting the native literacy of the student.

This interview developed from a series of emails and phone conversations between Thompson and Kinneavy, culminating in the published interview. In his discussions with Kinneavy, Thompson began to understand Kinneavy’s concept of kairos as a rhetorical foundation. According to Thompson, Kinneavy claimed that he did not think “rhetoric was possible without a concept of kairos . . .” (73). Consequently in order for students to receive an ethical education, Kinneavy believes that kairos must be at the core of the composition classroom, allowing students to understand how their times coincide with history and how they can make a change through a rhetorical act. The interview itself begins with a clarification of the term kairos both historically and contemporarily and then moves into a discussion of the implementation of the term and its political nature. Though Kinneavy does not attach a transcendental nature to the concept, he does observe kairos’s universal nature across civilizations. As the term becomes more familiar, the future of kairos as a concept, according to Kinneavy, will evolve and change in its application to technology, ethics, and literature. Lastly, Kinneavy provides insights, hope, and advice for the discipline of rhetoric and composition.

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.

In Honor Of