Rhetorical Grammar
Covino and Jolliffe write that “rhetorical theory in the past three decades has revived the teaching of composition as a challenging exploratory intellectual exercise, not one dominated simply by rote and drill” (714). (For an overview of rhetoric see Chapter 2.) What does a rhetorical mindset toward grammar mean? Laura R. Micciche argues, “I believe that the examinations of language made possible through rhetorical grammar pedagogy encourage students to view writing as a material social practice in which meaning is actively made, rather than passively related or effortlessly produced” (719). Growing as a writer on the sentence level, therefore—like all of your learning—requires active, intellectual engagement.
Recall earlier in this chapter how one part of Fish’s definition of a sentence includes the idea of relationships. Micciche echoes this concept when she claims that focusing on grammar rhetorically is connected more broadly to thinking because creating sentences—and a number of sentences together to form paragraphs—demands “a conceptual ability to envision relationships between ideas”:
Such relationships involve processes of identification with an imagined or real reader and reflection on the way our language invites and/or alienates readers. The grammatical choices we make— including pronoun use, active or passive verb constructions, and sentence patterns—represent relations between writers and the world they live in. Word choice and sentence structure are an expression of the way we attend to the words of others, the way we position ourselves in relation to others. In this sense, writing involves cognitive skills at the level of idea development and at the sentence level. How we put our ideas into words and comprehensible forms is a dynamic process rather than one with clear boundaries between what we say and how we say it. (719)
In short, throughout your writing process of a project, at the sentence level you are experimenting with relationships—with the ideas and concepts you are writing about, as well as with actual and potential readers of your work, let alone the discourse communities and genres within which you and those readers are subsumed. Furthermore, recall from Chapter 2 that discourse—expressed at the sentence level—is connected with identity and power. Micciche quotes theorist Michel Foucault “[e]xplaining how discursive practices signify more than technical skill”: “Discursive practices are not purely and simply ways of producing discourse. They are embodied in technical processes, in institutions, in patterns for general behavior, in forms for transmission and diffusion, and in pedagogical forms which, at once, impose and maintain them” (Foucault qtd. in Micciche 722-23).
The following are some examples to help you understand what is meant by thinking rhetorically about grammar.
Passive vs. Active Voice - for various discourse communities
Maybe one of the “red” comments you have received on a draft of your writing mentioned that you should avoid passive voice.
Active voice: The supervisor edited the document.
Passive voice: The document was edited by the supervisor.
Passive voice: The document was edited.
Recall from earlier in the chapter Fish’s explanation of the basic sentence structure doer, doing, done to in sentences (subject, verb, object). In the active voice construction above, the doer (the supervisor) clearly did the action (edited) to the done to (the document). In the passive construction, the same thing happened, but the emphasis changes from the doer (the supervisor) to the done to (the document). The third sentence even omits the doer; from that sentence alone readers would not know who edited the document.
What is the rhetorical effect of each sentence construction? The active voice construction is clear and direct, isn’t it, while the passive voice is a little wimpy and even sneaky (in the third example). Therefore, active voice is generally preferred.
Remember though, there is no such thing as writing in general, and in some specific contexts passive voice is actually more effective. There are a number of rhetorical situations where as a writer you may wish to de-emphasize or hide the doer or subject in a sentence. Consider the following examples.
Active: The researcher injected the mice with the medication.
Passive: The mice were injected with the medication.
In lab reports in discourse communities like the biological and physical sciences readers may expect passive voice constructions because they are more interested in the what and how of an experiment rather than who.
Passive voice constructions can also be used to avoid casting blame, de-emphasizing the who in order to emphasize the what and move toward solving a problem, for example, in a business communication message to a customer:
Active: You did not send me a check for the t-shirt order I filled for you.
Passive: A check was not received for the t-shirt order.
Maybe the check was lost in the mail. If the business used the active voice example, which is quite accusatory, then it may lose a customer. The passive construction, omitting the doer, breaks the bad news to the reader in a gentler way.
Notice how the pronouns were removed in the final passive construction above to help achieve this rhetorical effect. Effective use of pronouns is part of passive and active voice constructions, and pronoun use (and other diction matters) overall can be tricky for college student writers. Don’t forget about the now-appropriate singular use of they. Style guides also provide instructions for pronoun usage such as APA’s pronoun guidelines.
Coordination and Subordination – to show relationships
Doer, doing, done to (subject-verb-object) is a fundamental sentence structure, but there are a number of ways to structure your sentences to show relationships among ideas (i.e. syntax). These include avoiding short, choppy sentences by combining sentences through coordination and subordination.
Note that you can use coordination structures to link ideas in your sentences of equal importance, while you can use subordination structures to emphasize one idea over the other. Consider the following example.
Let’s say your idea—what you want to say—is the following:
The problem with our government is the citizens. Not enough people get involved and vote. This needs to change for things to improve.
Great idea, but the way it’s expressed is not particularly effective for academic discourse communities in college, for example. The sentences are short and choppy, even redundant. You realize coordination or subordination sentence structure would make clearer the relationships among your ideas—in a single sentence. Therefore, you try five different examples of each:
Coordinating using conjunctions, correlative conjunctions, conjunctive adverbs:
1) Either more citizens need to vote, or our country will continue to have problems.
2) Not only do people need to vote, but also they need to get involved in government.
3) Citizens need to get involved and vote, and then things in our country will improve.
4) Citizens need to get involved and vote; otherwise, things in our country will not improve.
5) The problem with our government is that not enough citizens get involved and vote; however, this can be improved.
Subordinating using dependent words and clauses:
6) If more citizens don’t get involved and vote, then our country’s problems will only get worse.
7) If more citizens get involved and vote, then our government will improve.
8) Although our government has many problems, citizens can get involved and vote to improve things.
9) Rather than not getting involved in government, citizens can help improve our country by voting.
10) Despite the problems with our government, for anything to improve citizens need to get involved and vote.
The next step is to read through the ten different sentences and choose which one you like best. It doesn’t matter what you use—each sentence has the same general meaning and effectively shows the relationships among your ideas. For example, notice the style distinction in numbers six and seven above: six emphasizes the negative, seven the positive. This is your choice rhetorically as a writer which you wish to emphasize for your audience and purpose.
Key sentences in your draft in which to experiment with such coordination and subordination structures include your thesis, topic sentences, and transitions. Such experimentation will cause you to make additional errors in your academic writing, as Lunsford and Lunsford noted, which include sentence boundary errors like comma splices and fused sentences. However, don’t get discouraged—these are good errors to make while drafting as they show you’re growing as a writer. Just work on editing them out of your final drafts.
Note in these examples of active vs. passive voice and sentence structures using coordination and subordination the thought processes for writers. Rhetorical grammar is not about memorizing arbitrary rules from a handbook or style guide (e.g. never use passive voice). Rather it’s about thinking through the rhetorical situation for each writing project you are working on in any context, even on the sentence level. Play with words (diction) and sentence structures (syntax) in early stages of your writing process to come up with ideas and determine what you want to say, and then in later stages of your writing process to achieve the best rhetorical effect for the audience, context, and your purpose. Don’t be afraid of mistakes, but rather practice strategies for editing your sentences when errors inevitably occur.