Visual rhetoric: Definitions, debates, and disciplinarity.

摘要

This project (Visual Rhetoric: Definitions, Debates, and Disciplinarity ) seeks to analyze the disciplinary formation of visual rhetoric by examining contested definitions and conceptions of visual rhetoric among composition and rhetoric scholars. Its methodology is adapted from Stephen North's The Making of Knowledge in Composition (1987), as it attempts to distinguish the modes of inquiry and methodological communities specific to the still-emerging discourses of visual rhetoric (1).;I suggest that the identification and examination of these modes of inquiry and their corresponding methodological communities is crucial to the continuing development of visual rhetoric as a subject area and the creation of effective disciplinary boundaries for visual rhetoric within composition and rhetoric, if such disciplinary boundaries are even possible or desirable.;In Chapter 1 ("Stephen North and Disciplinary Formation"), I take Stephen North's modes of inquiry and methodological communities as a basis for a disciplinary taxonomy of visual rhetoric and a careful analysis of competing definitions of visual rhetoric. I situate his model among other readings of composition's disciplinary dialogue, such as James L. Kinneavy's discourse-based system. Defending the need to revise North's model of disciplinary formation away from a methodological basis and toward a theoretical basis, I also argue that we need to retain his insistence on the communally constructed nature of such definitions. Finally, I contend that conceptions of multimodality and overlapping disciplinary and theoretical bases characterize visual rhetoric far better than North's largely autonomous and mutually exclusive methodological communities.;In Chapter 2 ("The Definitional Debate"), I trace a brief history of visual rhetoric as a recognized field of composition, including a consideration of visual rhetoric before its historical recognition. After arguing that visual rhetoric is in an established crisis, with several competing definitions of the discipline and a consensus that disciplinary boundaries have not yet been established, I present arguments for and against a consensus definition of the field.;In Chapter 3 ("Methodological Communities in Visual Rhetoric"), I outline a revised canon of writers in visual rhetoric. Characterizing these groups according to their theoretical affiliations (semiotics, film studies, etc.), including a discussion of differences between visual rhetoric in composition and visual rhetoric in technical/professional writing, I problematize this schema by returning to the issue of theoretical overlaps and borrowings. By contrasting North's taxonomy of methodological communities within composition with this new grouping, I show some important conceptual and theoretical shifts in composition and rhetoric which might have contributed to these splits.;In Chapter 4 ("Methodological Communities in Action"), I return to the issue of conflicts and competing definitions among these methodological communities and suggest ways in which the communities can become more self-aware and self-critical. Additionally, I suggest ways in which the communities might be seen as complementary and mutually beneficial rather than simply agonistic by returning to the concept of multimodality and the intentional combination of multiple modes of communication.;In Chapter 5 ("Pedagogical Implications of Definitional Debates"), I extend this discussion of the possible benefits of multimodality as an approach to definitional debates to the classroom by examining contemporary textbooks and handbooks in composition and technical writing. Finally, I conclude with a consideration of the positive and negative effects of the current definitional confusion in the discipline by reviewing North's predictions for the disciplinary future of composition and comparing them to the contemporary state of visual rhetoric.