Read Online A Theory of Contemporary Rhetoric by Richard Andrews - Free Book Online Page B
Authors: Richard Andrews
Ads: Link
of the English language, in all its hybrid color, but we will be also interested, as a result, in world Englishes and how they are being owned and developed in the twenty-first century. And by “English” we will certainly be interested in fictional, dramatic, and lyrical genres, but also in real-world documentaries, manuals, reports, spoken genres,and other transactional forms of language that go under the broad and strangely negative title of “non-fiction.” We will
not
be interested in a narrowly England-based notion of a national literature: there is too much confusion about whether Irish, Welsh, and Scottish writers are included and whether we are referring to “literature written in England,” “literature written in English,” and/or “literature written as part of a ‘national’ heritage activity.” Equally, as much of world literature in English is composed in the United States, Canada, India, Australia, and elsewhere, and as English as a world language is in the hands of many countries (see Brutt-Griffler 2002), the notion of a narrowly England-based English is out of date by many centuries.
In short, when we use the term
English
are we referring to a language, a country (or nation—and if so, what kind of nation?), or a subject (or discipline)?
The theoretical potential of rhetoric is much needed right now. Its value is clear. First, rhetoric has a long history because every generation has to work out the dynamics of the why and how of who is speaking to whom about what. Second, the re-emergence of rhetoric as a unifying theory for English (and other subjects/disciplines) is much to do with provisionality, democratic pluralism, and socio-economic pressures requiring people to communicate with each other. It does not thrive in an autocracy, other than through propaganda. Third, any remaking of rhetoric has to take into account multimodality and contemporary digital communication in the twenty-first century. We cannot go back to Athenian rhetoric, as Edward Corbett did in the 1960s with
Classical Rhetoric for the Modern Student
(1998) for the undergraduate American market, even though there are some generic truths we would want to apply to our current situation. What we need is
contemporary
rhetoric for the modern student, whether he or she is at primary, secondary, or tertiary levels in the education system. Fourth, we need a theory that will unite fiction and the documentary genres, makes sense of and utilizes the relationship between speaking and writing, acknowledges the reciprocity of writing and reading as well as that of speaking and listening, embraces the other modes and is clear about the affordances of each, and accepts digitization and electronic media.
“English” as we know it will be in decline from about 2020 onwards— as a world language (overtaken by Mandarin) and as a suitable name for the field we are all engaged in. As Bergonzi states in
Exploding English
(1990), it could go on like this for a long time (i.e., in terminal decline), not unified by any theory, fissured, and shard-like … and yet still with an assured place in the school and university curriculum. There is an advantage in such looseness of identity. But perhaps more advantageous would be to remake the subject at school and at university levels, underpinned by a foundation of contemporary rhetoric, and called somethinglike “communication arts.” Then we could work more closely with filmmakers, website designers, artists, typographers, theatre directors, singers, and musicians—as well as with those who teach other languages—to fashion a subject that truly reflects contemporary culture and that students of all ages will find to be irresistibly engaging, diverse, and empowering … because it is about the means of finding one's identities and exploring one's possibilities socially and politically.
In terms of remaking the subject at school level, the work of Moffett is worth reconsidering as it appears to be
not
be interested in a narrowly England-based notion of a national literature: there is too much confusion about whether Irish, Welsh, and Scottish writers are included and whether we are referring to “literature written in England,” “literature written in English,” and/or “literature written as part of a ‘national’ heritage activity.” Equally, as much of world literature in English is composed in the United States, Canada, India, Australia, and elsewhere, and as English as a world language is in the hands of many countries (see Brutt-Griffler 2002), the notion of a narrowly England-based English is out of date by many centuries.
In short, when we use the term
English
are we referring to a language, a country (or nation—and if so, what kind of nation?), or a subject (or discipline)?
The theoretical potential of rhetoric is much needed right now. Its value is clear. First, rhetoric has a long history because every generation has to work out the dynamics of the why and how of who is speaking to whom about what. Second, the re-emergence of rhetoric as a unifying theory for English (and other subjects/disciplines) is much to do with provisionality, democratic pluralism, and socio-economic pressures requiring people to communicate with each other. It does not thrive in an autocracy, other than through propaganda. Third, any remaking of rhetoric has to take into account multimodality and contemporary digital communication in the twenty-first century. We cannot go back to Athenian rhetoric, as Edward Corbett did in the 1960s with
Classical Rhetoric for the Modern Student
(1998) for the undergraduate American market, even though there are some generic truths we would want to apply to our current situation. What we need is
contemporary
rhetoric for the modern student, whether he or she is at primary, secondary, or tertiary levels in the education system. Fourth, we need a theory that will unite fiction and the documentary genres, makes sense of and utilizes the relationship between speaking and writing, acknowledges the reciprocity of writing and reading as well as that of speaking and listening, embraces the other modes and is clear about the affordances of each, and accepts digitization and electronic media.
“English” as we know it will be in decline from about 2020 onwards— as a world language (overtaken by Mandarin) and as a suitable name for the field we are all engaged in. As Bergonzi states in
Exploding English
(1990), it could go on like this for a long time (i.e., in terminal decline), not unified by any theory, fissured, and shard-like … and yet still with an assured place in the school and university curriculum. There is an advantage in such looseness of identity. But perhaps more advantageous would be to remake the subject at school and at university levels, underpinned by a foundation of contemporary rhetoric, and called somethinglike “communication arts.” Then we could work more closely with filmmakers, website designers, artists, typographers, theatre directors, singers, and musicians—as well as with those who teach other languages—to fashion a subject that truly reflects contemporary culture and that students of all ages will find to be irresistibly engaging, diverse, and empowering … because it is about the means of finding one's identities and exploring one's possibilities socially and politically.
In terms of remaking the subject at school level, the work of Moffett is worth reconsidering as it appears to be
Similar Books
