The question opens by posing several of the definitions of “rhetoric” that we have established throughout this course, both through literature reference and in-class dialogue. The question then asks the reader to relate these established definitions to Turner’s own conceptions of rhetoric. The author of the question does not ask readers to compare or contrast definitions of rhetoric; in doing so, the author prevents the type of limited or dichotomous answers that are typically the result of compare/contrast questions. Though the question does reference Turner’s text, however, it does not offer any direct quotes from the text that might spark insight or inspiration.

Though the question asks readers to determine if Turner’s rhetoric “approximate[s] any of concepts that we have previous discussed”, readers must first develop a working definition of rhetoric(s) according to Turner. Though the phrasing in these questions may seem out-of-order to the reader initially, it is not so problematic as to prevent a thoughtful response.

Readers are asked to interpret both Turner’s work and other work encountered during the semester and then identify how Turner defines rhetoric in his own work. No new knowledge is created and it is assumed readers will accept Turner’s definition of rhetoric without question, adding their own analysis to Turner’s account.

The question does not seek a particular answer. Moreoever, given the near limitless accounts of rhetoric—referenced in this course and beyond—respondents are asked to consult outside texts in order to contribute to the multiple answers that may result.

 out of  found this valuable. Do you find this valuable?    

Grete’s question ask us to first compare North’s term “Methodological Pluralism” to Turner’s term “disciplinary boundaries.” To do so, the definitions of these terms must be articulated. It seems that Turner defines these boundaries as the “proper domain” of a specialist, but as “proper” can be contested, it might be best to define these boundaries in terms of the historical context presented in the first part of the quote (post-WWII). This is problematic in many ways, namely that one person’s historical memory might be significantly different from another’s. It would also be necessary to compare/contrast how North uses methodological” as opposed to “disciplinary” is his discussion of an actual distinct discipline (composition).

The second part of Grete’s question asks if it is important to understand these differences. This statement infers that a line can be drawn between the two, or that a line is being drawn, but drawn unreflectively. “Why or Why not” asks us to answer this question on reflectivity reflectively (haha), requiring more than a yes or no answer.

 out of  found this valuable. Do you find this valuable?