Kinneavy's Aim

James L. Kinneavy’s paper, “The Basic Aims of Discourse” proved to be a let down. In his introduction, he states that his aim is to give consideration to other aims of discourse (other than expository writing). In actuality, he espouses his own theories and pushes his agenda: making composition the “foundation stone” of liberal arts programs (Kinneavy 127-140).

Instead of simply stating and exploring the “other” aims of discourse, Kinneavy runs through a litany of scholars, their histories, and conclusions regarding their own scrutinizations of language. He confounds me more by putting this information into a confusing chart, that perhaps in a moment of clarity realizes the involvedness of his chart, and proceeds to fully explain each and every aspect of it, thereby eliminating the need for the chart all together.

What Kinneavy fails to do is emphatically make his point as to which of the four aims of discourse he finds to be the most important. In his conclusion the four become clear, but only through his seemingly out-of-nowhere rant about how programs fail when they fail to fully integrate all four aims. While not enjoying most of this paper, I did find it hard to disagree with the breakdown of the aims of discourse, but also felt that they are a bit limiting and not quite open enough to include possible future areas.

Kinneavy also draws many parallels to different areas of science and then proceeds to claim, “Scientific discourse is generally different in its logic, its level of probability, from other aims of discourse” (138). Thus disavowing all the connections he, himself, had drawn.

From reading the paper is it easy to ascertain that Kinneavy is certain well studied and well versed in his chosen topic, therefore it came as a surprise that his discourse diverged so greatly from his stated aim, but like he wrote, “To determine the aim by the authors intent is to run the risk of ‘intentionally fallacy’”.

Citation:
Kinneavy, James. "The Basic Aims of Discourse." Cross-Talk in Comp Theory: A Reader. Ed. Victor Villanueva. Urbana: National Council of Teachers of English, 2003.

Reason for writing

As I have lost my voice this weekend- due to a nasty cold- I keep hearing Julie's question echoing in my head... "What reasons do we have for writing?"

Quite frankly pen and paper (or in this case keyboard and screen) are the only "voice" I have right now. Writing (although not compositions), has become my main means of communicating. The only one having a hard time is my 4yr old, who can't read more than 3 letter words, and even that is too much sometimes. To her I whisper... and she whispers back.

So from me a big CHEERS to writing!

I did it!

Here's hoping this worked! My first time blogging- unless myspace counts. Here's to Engl 507 bringing me a bit more technological.