Academic Rhetoric

RWS 600, October 28, 2013

From Social Class and the Hidden Curriculum of Work – Jean Anyon

In this paper, according to the Create-a-Research-Space (or CARS) model, three moves are found. In the first paragraph of the introduction section, first two sentences consist of the Move 1. The author highlights a recent issue in the beginning to establish a research territory. In the next two sentences, the author introduces two examples of previous research in the area. The previous research explained that not only classroom behavior but also knowledge and skills are closely linked with social class of students. Soon afterwards, the author states that “While there has been considerable argumentation of these points regarding education in England, France, and North America, there has been little or no attempt to investigate these ideas empirically in elementary or secondary schools and classrooms in this country.” This strikes me as being a Move 2 because it shows a gap in the research. In other words, a niche is used to investigate ideas of the previous research empirically in real schools. In the final paragraph of the introduction, Move 3 is provided. The author employs a descriptive style rather than a purposive style in occupying the niche. This can be found in the following example: “This article offers tentative empirical support . . . The examples were gathered . . . This article attempts a theoretical contribution as well as assess student work . . .” In addition, the author completes the introduction by announcing principal findings as follows: “It will be suggested that there is a ‘hidden curriculum’ in schoolwork that has profound implications for the theory . . .”

Models of American Ethnic Relations: A Historical Perspective – George M. Fredrickson

The introduction section of this essay consists of three paragraphs. In the first paragraph, the author explains the historical background in order to reach the subject matter that he tries to provide. Basically, throughout the first two paragraphs, the author does not disclose a research territory explicitly. Nonetheless, the first and second paragraphs can be regarded as a Move 1 because they introduce two previous researches such as D’Souza 1995 and Fredrickson 1997. Interestingly, the author does not explicitly mention a gap in the previous research. He does not even raise a question about the previous research. However, a Move 3, especially a Move 3-a is definitely exposed in the last paragraph. The author indicates the main feature of his research in descriptive style as follows: “This [essay] provides a broad outline of the historical career of each of these models of intergroup relations, noting some of the changes in how various groups have defined themselves or been defined by others.”

Constitutive Rhetoric: the Case of the Peuple Quebecois – Maurice Charland

Out of four paragraphs in the introduction, the first and second paragraphs correspond with a Move 1. The author develops the discourse about the rhetorical process by presenting a few different opinions of some scholars such as Kenneth Burke, Louis Althusser, and Grossberg. This can be interpreted as establishing a research territory because it introduces and reviews items of previous research results in the related area. In the first sentence of the third paragraph, the author points out some problems in the previous viewpoint as follows: “Ultimately then, theories of rhetoric as persuasion cannot account for the audiences that rhetoric addresses.” This shows a Move 2 and notifies the main purpose of this essay implicitly. In the middle of the third paragraph, the author explicitly provides a Move 3-a by stating, “What I propose to develop in this essay is a theory of constitutive rhetoric that would account for this process.” Subsequently, the author explains how he develops and supports his argument as follows: “I will elaborate this theory of constitutive rhetoric through an examination of a case where the identity of the audience is clearly problematic: the independence movement in Quebec, Canada’s French-speaking province.” Also, the last paragraph is a part of a Move 3, but a Move 3-c is not found. On the other hand, the author employs a Move 3-b by indicating principal findings by stating that “From this perspective, a subject is not ‘persuaded’ to support sovereignty. Support for sovereignty is inherent to the subject position addressed by souverainiste (pro-sovereignty) rhetoric because of what we will see to be a series of narrative ideological effects.”