I'll take a stab at Modes of Discourse since the D'Angelo essay we read this week spoke about this. I think of modes of discourse and forms of discourse, which D'Angelo argues are not the same thing despite being treated as such since the 19th century. In addition, traditional ideas of forms/modes of discourse seem to be based off of an understanding of aims using the Laws of Association. The 19th century forms/modes of discourse were: description, narration, exposition, and argumentation. Forms, D'Angelo says, contain categories like prose, poetry, oratory, but also subcategories like letters, biographies, obituaries, etc. Google defines "modes" as ways in which something is done/expressed/experienced. Synonym with process or method. By this logic, perhaps forms of discourse are more closely related to genres of writing (the product) and modes of discourse are related to composing (the process). Does that make sense with your ideas of modes of discourse? I'm just trying to work through this week's reading.
We haven't studied Stephen North yet, but here's what I've researched about his book, "The Making of Knowledge in Composition: Portrait of An Emerging Field."
Instead of focusing on what people claim to know about teaching writing, he concerns himself primarily with how they claim to know it. Eight groups of knowledge-makers are treated in separate chapters: Practitioners, Historians, Philosophers, Critics, Experimentalists, Clinicians, Formalists, and Ethnographers.North explores the first instances where these modes are used. He also explores what composition is now (as of 1987) and what is its future.
I'll take a stab at Modes of Discourse since the D'Angelo essay we read this week spoke about this. I think of modes of discourse and forms of discourse, which D'Angelo argues are not the same thing despite being treated as such since the 19th century. In addition, traditional ideas of forms/modes of discourse seem to be based off of an understanding of aims using the Laws of Association. The 19th century forms/modes of discourse were: description, narration, exposition, and argumentation. Forms, D'Angelo says, contain categories like prose, poetry, oratory, but also subcategories like letters, biographies, obituaries, etc. Google defines "modes" as ways in which something is done/expressed/experienced. Synonym with process or method. By this logic, perhaps forms of discourse are more closely related to genres of writing (the product) and modes of discourse are related to composing (the process). Does that make sense with your ideas of modes of discourse? I'm just trying to work through this week's reading.
ReplyDeleteHi Kevin!
ReplyDeleteWe haven't studied Stephen North yet, but here's what I've researched about his book, "The Making of Knowledge in Composition: Portrait of An Emerging Field."
Instead of focusing on what people claim to know about teaching writing, he concerns himself primarily with how they claim to know it. Eight groups of knowledge-makers are treated in separate chapters: Practitioners, Historians, Philosophers, Critics, Experimentalists, Clinicians, Formalists, and Ethnographers.North explores the first instances where these modes are used. He also explores what composition is now (as of 1987) and what is its future.