2. Dialogic Discourse through an Audience Involved
Throughout his article “Paralogic Hermeneutics and the Possibilities of Rhetoric,” Thomas Kent makes an argument for a new perspective of rhetoric and discourse analysis and production, a perspective that emphasizes hermeneutic strategies as dialogic activities that cannot be reduced to a systemic process. Kent explains that when we engage in the production or analysis of discourse, “we always guess at the hermeneutic strategy employed by someone else, and when we guess, we engage the other in a kind og dialogue in the sense that we continually interpret the other’s language code” (31). This dialogic perspective of discourse production has a strong pedagogical implication: teaching variable elements of discourse does not ensure that students will have the background know-how (Vorhabe) to go on to produce effective discourse. Kent argues that this essential know-how cannot be learned through conventional rules.*
Like Ashleigh, this implication leaves me wondering what exactly we should be teaching technical communication students. If we buy into Kent’s argument that students must already have the background know-how to benefit from process-oriented pedagogical approaches to reading and writing, our natural reaction should be to shift our pedagogical focus, as Kent also suggests. Kent explains that this shift must focus on students’ interactions with others’ interpretive strategies and must include dialogic, rather than monologic, reading and writing. He explains, “Dialogic writing in the humanities classroom would require the student to enter the collaborative interactions or . . . the ‘conversation’ that occurs within a discipline” (38).
After reflecting upon Kent’s argument, I found myself wondering about practical strategies for accommodating that pedagogical shift in technical writing classrooms. How could we bring dialogic reading and writing into the technical communication curriculum? While Kent gives us a general framework for dialogic pedagogy (the students should actively engage the audience of their work, they should respond to others in the field in order to keep the conversation alive, instructors must act as a collaborator rather than a phantom grader, etc), he doesn’t necessarily provide specific pedagogical strategies for a dialogic technical communication classroom. I found that Robert R. Johnson’s article “Audience Involved: Toward a Participatory Model of Writing” did just that.
Johnson provides us with concrete examples of how students can actively engage their audiences in collaborative discourse production. I appreciate Johnson’s goal in this audience involvement; I absolutely see the benefit of teaching students that audience in technical communication is much more than a fictional constraint of a text. He explains, “these actively sought out and valued members of the discourse production community engage students directly in the public sphere,” an involvement that accommodates the paralogic dimension of the production and analysis of discourse. It seems to me that Johnson’s idea of the audience involved is perfectly situated within Kent’s description of dialogic discourse. We talked a lot in class last week about how technical communication is so much more than writing (it is problem solving, collaboration, translation, critical thinking, negotiation, civic engagement, etc); I think a project focusing on the audience involved would absolutely demonstrate that idea to the students of a technical writing course.
*Kent argues, “Although specially designed composition and literature courses can sharpen and expand a student’s writing and reading know-how, no course can teach the acts of either writing or reading” (37). Although my main response to this week’s readings is a reaction to this argument, I actually question this entire notion altogether. Is all of the time and effort we put into teaching introductory writing courses useless unless our students come in to our class with the background “know-how” of reading and writing? That idea is totally discouraging to me as a composition instructor. I’m interested in hearing others’ reactions to this argument.
Jillian,
To tell you the truth, I actually agree with Kent’s argument that “no course can teach the acts of either writing or reading” (37) (italics added for emphasis). I think the main line from Kent’s article that led me to agree with him is this doozy: “the hermeneutic guessing required in all discourse production and analysis can be only refined; it cannot be codified and then taught” (39) (again, with italics added for emphasis).
There’s really only so much a teacher/instructor/professor can do for their students. Those students who have made it to college are not communicating for the first time, so it’s a little crazy to insist that teachers/instructors/professors teach their students how to read and write. All we can do is refine what they already know how to do; we can attempt to improve upon their Vorhabe. We do that by showing that we are experts already, and that it is the students’ job to fit their discourse production and analysis methods within our disciplines.
That’s probably why Kent include these lines:
No quiz, no examination, no paper, no dialogic interaction of any kind could be employed in any course without the instructor first talking about her (interjection here: I love that Thomas Kent, a male, always says “she” – why is that?) own hermeneutic strategy for interpreting the discourse employed in her course… In this scenario writing and reading instructors would become the new Sophists; they would assume the pragmatic responsibility for helping students adapt their discourses to the discourses of others. 40
Academic disciplines are already set in their ways, so we, as instructors, can only show students how to communicate within the bounds of those disciplines. Students also come in with their own ideologies and belief systems. We, as instructors, might show them, as Smith asks everyone to, why asking the question “why” is important (116), but we probably won’t be able to force students to analyze texts according to a codified standard. Not with language the way it is.
Forgot to cite my sources!
Johnson, Robert. “Audience Involved: Toward a Participatory Model of Writing.” Central Works in Technical Communication. Eds. Johndan Johnson-Eilola and Stuart A. Selber. New York: Oxford University Press, 2004. 91-103. Print.
Kent, Thomas. “Paralogic Hermeneutics and the Possibilities of Rhetoric.” Rhetoric Review 8.1 (1989): 24-42. JSTOR. Web. 27 Aug. 2012. PDF.
Smith, Tania. “What Connection Does Rhetorical Theory Have to Technical and Professional Communication?’ Readings for Technical Communication. Ed. Jennifer MacLennan. New York: Oxford University Press, 2007. 114-121. PDF
Although I agree with Kent’s assertion that writing and reading cannot really be taught, and only refined, as Will points out in his comment, I do think that acting on Kent’s suggestion to shift pedagogical techniques from focusing on monologic writing to dialogic writing will require quite a bit of creativity from composition instructors. I do agree that Johnson’s piece, “Audience Involved: Toward a Participatory Model of Writing,” provides a starting place for instructors who are looking to introduce dialogic writing to their classroom.
I also think that creative writing classes have often embraced dialogic writing, especially through workshops. When students share their work with one another, they are able to hear, first hand, how people are interpreting the stories that they’ve written. They can then draw on this feedback as they are revising their stories, keeping in mind how their audience interpreted symbols, setting, and dialogue in their pieces.
A similar technique might be used in a composition class, or in a technical writing class. An instructor could ask students to write for one another, and use workshops as a way of encouraging dialogue between writer and audience.
On a different note, I’m not entirely convinced that Kent’s call for instructors to present their own hermeneutic strategies before giving exams or assigning papers is as radical as he makes it seem. I believe that observant students already “study” their professors, in an attempt to discover what their professors are looking for. This is actually a hermeneutic act; the student tries to interpret the instructor’s hermeneutic strategy.
Sources:
Johnson, Robert. “Audience Involved: Toward a Participatory Model of Writing.” Central Works in Technical Communication. Eds. Johndan Johnson-Eilola and Stuart A. Selber. New York: Oxford University Press, 2004. 91-103. Print.
Kent, Thomas. “Paralogic Hermeneutics and the Possibilities of Rhetoric.” Rhetoric Review 8.1 (1989): 24-42. JSTOR. Web. 27 Aug. 2012. PDF.
First, I’m still just totally on the fence about Kent’s argument that skill in reading and writing can only be refined, not taught. I’m sure all of us in this graduate-level professional writing course would agree that we’ve always had some innate aptitude for reading and writing, an aptitude that has only been “refined” with further education; looking at the debate through that perspective allows me to buy Kent’s argument a bit. I’m still a bit disheartened to think that my students, many of whom I am sure do not have Vorhabe, will not benefit from my instruction; if my teaching can only refine the skills that they already have, what am I supposed to do with the students who have very little skill to begin with? I like to think I can teach them a thing or two, but, according to Kent, I can’t.
Next, Courtney, I absolutely agree that writing workshops and peer editing are excellent ways for students to engage in dialogic discourse and to feel as through their writing is, in fact, in conversation with a real, meaningful audience. I tend to think that we already do many things in the classroom that allow our students to engage in dialogic discourse (conferences, peer review, group work, etc), yet I’m not sure that our students always see those activities as meaningful because the activities are still taking place inside the classroom in which a certain authenticity is impossible.
Last, I think it’s very interesting that you both mentioned that fact that students are constantly engaging in hermeneutics/interpretation in discovering their professors’ expectations and standard of work. Will, you said, “We do that by showing that we are experts already, and that it is the students’ job to fit their discourse production and analysis methods within our disciplines,” and Courtney said, “I believe that observant students already ‘study’ their professors, in an attempt to discover what their professors are looking for.” I think that’s a very interesting perspective on the act of interpretation in the classroom setting that Kent seems to ignore entirely.