When one thinks of delivery, as it refers to rhetoric, it is likely that the first thought that comes to mind is oral discourse. We don’t often consider the ways in which written discourse demands a certain presentation in order to be deemed effective. Even the quote by Isocrates at the opening of Chapter 12 in Ancient Rhetorics for Contemporary Students suggests that because of its limitations, as far as the elements of delivery available go (as compared to oral discourse), written words “make an indifferent impression upon [their] hearers” (qtd. in Crowley and Hawhee 405). This, Crowley and Hawhee tell us, has influenced the ways in which modern rhetors approach rhetoric, virtually abandoning the known aspects of delivery and substituting a specific format for composition (406). As I read this, I could not help but think back to some of the earlier discussions of the semester when we collectively expressed frustration over the education system’s reliance on the five-paragraph essay format that has become somewhat commonplace. I believe that this is the “set format” that the authors reference. And, as we acknowledged then and would probably reiterate now, such formats do little to empower the message.
As I continued through the chapter, confirming that written discourse does have its own features to engage the senses, I began to consider where I most frequently see these features used. The answer is business writing. Writing in the business world employs, and, in fact, requires specific rules, formats and presentation elements if the message is to be well received and acted upon by the recipient. Among these features are shorter, more manageable paragraphs; a precision of words; headings or subheadings (often bolded, underlined or italicized); plenty of white space; and so on, features which Crowley and Hawhee recognize as belonging to the domain of visual rhetoric. The more reader-friendly the message and manner in which it is delivered, the more likely it is to be attended to. And yet, even in business writing, these common features sometimes seem to amount to a simple consideration of arrangement and style. How ironic then that Crowley and Hawhee wed these canons and equate them with delivery: “Under such conditions, delivery tends to collapse into arrangement and style” (406).
Later the authors suggest, “In written discourse, attending to the ‘ear’ of the audience has to do with editing a discourse so that it is accessible and pleasant to read” (412). This statement causes me to wonder if, perhaps, the choices we make that influence how the message is delivered in written discourse are more purposeful, more calculated—in other words, mightn’t one have to work a little harder with the delivery of written discourse than one does with oral discourse in which tone, volume, gestures, and body language seem more natural. For example, it seems innate to want to look a person in the eye, connect with him when giving a message through oral discourse. In the same way, at least for me, gestures and body language tend to be instinctive too. Rarely do I think too hard about what outward movements will accompany my speech. Together this eye contact and these gestures draw the listener in and create a sort of intimacy with him that encourage attention. To create a similar effect with writing seems infinitely more challenging.
Two final points in the chapter stood out to me. The first reflects the question of whether to teach grammar or not, especially at the secondary level (where it does typically remain a part of the curriculum). Crowley and Hawhee state, “Every native speaker of a language has intuited the grammar rules of her language by the time she is five years old” (416). From this perspective then it would seem such attempts to teach grammar would be rather fruitless, and based on conversations with countless English educators over the years, indeed it has been. Much of one’s understanding of the rules of grammar are grounded in one’s experience with and exposure to the rules as practiced in one’s immediate communities rather than in the classroom. This tendency to recognize appropriate grammatical constructions “by ear” rather than in written form informs my practice of having students read their writing out loud during revision sessions. What students ultimately discover when they engage in this process is that they catch such grammatical errors by hearing them much more readily than when they merely read them. Their familiarity with oral constructions enable them to create more effectively structured written discourse, which brings me to the second point.
Crowley and Hawhee address usage rules, telling the reader that understanding usage, too, is tied to one’s community; however, rhetorical situation can influence how one uses words: “Despite their manifest unfairness, usage rules exist; they are enforced by people with power; and so they must be observed in situations where they have been decreed to be important” (417). When I read this, I immediately recalled an essay I read quite a few years ago by Barbara Mellix titled “From Outside, In."
(http://facultyfiles.deanza.edu/.../MellixFromOutsideIn.doc)
In this essay, Mellix grapples with a similar issue. Like the authors, she recognizes how one’s use of language is dependent upon audience, purpose, time and place. As an African-American, she recounts using the language of her culture around her own friends and family, but she indicates that her parents enforced a “proper” use of language when she was around white folks. As an adult now, Mellix still identifies with the language of her culture and finds it appropriate to pull it out when among those who understand and value this rich literacy history of the culture. I think Crowley and Hawhee might just agree that this usage is both appropriate and useful.
No comments:
Post a Comment