Larson, Richard L. “Classifying Discourse:Rhetoric and Modern

Larson, Richard L. “Classifying Discourse: Limitations and Alternatives” Essays on Classical Rhetoric and Modern Discourse. Southern Illinois UP: Carbondale. 1984.

“Cicero and Quintilian accepted and elaborated in their own way the division of rhetorical discourse into kinds, and further divided into classes the various questions that rhetorical discourse treats) = B

“A recent inquirty into one effort to categorize discourse is Rober Connors’ ‘The Rise and Fall of the Modes of Discourse. Connors locates the beginnings of the theory of ‘modes’ narration, description, exposition, argument—“ (204). =B

“But whether or not one agrees with Connors that the ‘modes’ are dead or moribund, the impulse to organize thinking and discussion about discourse by finding systems of classification are very much alive” (204). =B

“But probably the best plan known today for dividing up the members of the universe of discourse was advanced by James Kinneavy in A Theory of Discourse” (205). =B

*communications triangle—James Kinneavy

Apex-writer Second apex—the audience Third apex—subject of discourse. (206).

“The ‘modes’ as Frank D’Angelo observed in A Conceptual Theory of Rhetoric, arise from the recognition that writers do ineed sometimes describe, theydo sometime narrate, they do sometimes explain, and they do sometimes hope to persuade—“ (206).

“topi (procedures for generating or arranging data for use in discourse) (205). =B

“The limitations in these categories of discourse do not emerge, then, from theorists’ derivations of the categories. Rather, they emerge from the inferences and conclusions drawn from those origins: that a finished piece of discourse can be classified into a box on a taxonomic chart; that in so classifying, a theorist has made a useful statement about that piece of discourse; and –even more significant—that one can employ these categories to erect a structure for teaching others to produce discourse” (207). = B & M

“Placing pieces of discourse into boxes on taxonomies, I would argue, fairls to respond to a reader’s experience of the piece as read. And for those who teach composing, the advantage offered by these taxonomies—the advantage of helping to formulate a neat convenient curriculum—is an illusory advantage” (209).

“Moffett identifies two dimensions along which any discourse can be defined: 1) the distance of writer from reader and the relative familiarity of writer with reader (the closest audience ot the writer is the writer himself or herself; the most distant is a large variegated audience whose members are unknown to the writer0; 2) the degree to which the materials of discourse are abstracted from immediate experience—what Mofftt calls their ‘abstractive altitude’ (210).

“But devising one or two scales is not a self-evidently preferable replacement for building taxonomies of discourse. The points ona single scale can too easily become the boxes in a taxonomy” (211). =B

“I think I can identify seven dimensions of discourse, each capable of being described as a scale or continuum along which a piece can be located.

1) The occasion or stimulous for writing
2) Readers’ expectations.
3) The distance, character, and attitudes of the audience.
4) The writer’s goal—the reaction or response desired in the readers by the writer.
5) The abstractive altitude of the subject matter; (direct sensory experience to statements about events that might or ought to occur later).
6) The density of detail required.
7) The extent to which the individual writer’s idiosyncratic perceptions, comments, and feelings permeate, or can permeate the discourse.