Modal Language

I enjoyed Robert Connors piece on modes of discourse. I especially enjoyed the wisdom of his last sentence, "we need always to be on guard against systems that seem convenient to teachers but that ignore the way writing is actually done" (455). My question is in response to Connor's assertion on page 454 that, "In our time, the modes are little more than an unofficial descriptive myth, replaced in theory by empirically-derived classifications of discourse and in practice by the 'methods of exposition' and other non-modal classes." My question is in regard to the modes, narration, description, exposition, and argument (444) and how we can say they are no longer a thing taught when very many universities around the country teach these very modes? Connors does say that "the fact that this schema did not help students learn to write better was not a concern, and even today the modes are accepted by some teachers despite their lack of basis in useful reality" (455). But knowing that, at schools such as URI and others, freshman composition is taught around four main papers, narrative, analysis, evaluation, and portfolio I am left asking is that formulation of the class not modal or are these the programs Connors is critiquing? I am curious as to my understanding of this class structure and how it fits into Connors analysis.

My only critique of Connors is that his survey of the history of composition seems to assume the reader will understand that his point is correct, but he spends little time proving it. Some well placed quotations make the point for him, but I was left questioning his conclusions in several places such as Foerster and Steadman's place as the spiritual successor of Wendell. I was unsure in this section how the theses texts Connors referred to fit in to composition theoretically. Perhaps because I didn't see enough of a difference between the pre-theses texts and the post-theses texts--at least not in such a way that was dependent solely on the theses.

I find I am haunted by Connor's words on page 454, "We do not yet know whether the paradigms will become as rigid, abstract, and useless ad did their progenitors, the modes." Understanding Connors was writing in 1981 I wonder how much of his predictions, such as the modes being on the way out, did or did not come true and how much of our current teaching methods are valid, and what has solidified, becoming rigid and abstract.

I find it particularly interesting that Kinneavy's article was written in 1969, but we are still grappling with some of the same issues today. I am thinking specifically of the literature/composition issue splitting many English departments. I appreciated his approach to the development of composition studies, and appreciate his attempt to label the different types of discourse. I also appreciate his warning that "no composition program can afford to neglect any of these basic aims of discourse" (137). All of that being said, his paragraph on examining language as a scientist seemed slightly faulty to me. While he acknowledges the rarity of language in a vacuum, he also maintains that the rarity "does not destroy the validity of the classifications" (Kinneavy, 130). This is the only thing I take issue with in this essay, but one I feel is worth noting.

I draw attention to this because it brings back to mind the science/art debate that has popped up in several of our readings, Juzwik et. al. and others. I agree with the need to study language and, even, the need to study it empirically--if we cannot test and evaluate it is difficult to measure what methods improve the teaching of writing. However, I would go so far as to say that language never exists in a vacuum; perhaps a small step past Kinneavy, but an important one I think. Kinneavy seems completely aware that language cannot be divided up neatly without disastrous consequences; however, he also seems intent on preserving the forms of different types of discourse. I am reminded of Connors here, though, not wholly. I bring Connors in because I see the possibility for misinterpretation of Kinneavy's words, specifically those on page 138: "In fact, each aim of discourse has its own logic, its own kind of references, its own communication framework, its own patterns of organization, and its own stylistic norms...Overlaps certainly occur but the ultimate conflation and confusion of any of the aims of discourse with any other is pedagogically disastrous."

I see the potential for this as a basis for "modes" and their continued teaching because while what Kinneavy says is true, the learning of language, which is what freshman composition teachers are attempting to promote, does have to straddle these overlaps. I say this because students make connections that don't fit within the purview of the book--I feel Berlin would agree with me. In their learning of language and how to navigate its discourses keeping the discourses separate is useful, but only up to a point. Kinneavy says that himself, but I feel that there is more room for overlap than he seems to. Specifically I don't believe the discourses should simply all be taught, but should be taught as they relate to each other, users, listeners, and the world. We come back to dialogism once again. I am unsure if this could be a meaning that is interpretable in Kinneavy as I will need to reread, but it appears as if he is still promoting the teaching of all discourses, but each in its place separately. If that is true, which is may not be, then I would argue that is "modes" by another name. Either way I look forward to discussing this in class and clarifying the possible theoretical implications of all of these texts.