Spinning like a Kite: A Closer Look at the Pseudotransactional Function of Writing.

Abstract

A quarter of a century ago, Lloyd Bitzer initiated what would become a critical conversation in rhetoric with his description of a situation. Embedded in this conversation was the issue of a situation's and its relationship to genuine rhetoricality, for in setting out the parameters that define a real situation, Bitzer makes reference to unreal situations that only appear to be and argued that neither the fictive situation nor the discourse generated by it is rhetorical (11). A few years later, Richard Vatz's well-known response to Bitzer countered that no situation can have a nature independent of the perception of its inter preter ... and that the reality of a situation is not objective but rather depends on the rhetor's desire and ability to create it (154). The debate has recessed, but in this paper I wish to argue that the issue of what constitutes a genuine exigence continues to pose a vital challenge to fields such as writing. I will begin with the premise that the ubiquitous rhetorical-writing classroom encourages unauthentic writing.1 Given certain commonsense constraints on writing instruction, writing curricula invite what has been called pseudotransactionality or the illusion of transaction (Tamor and Bond). I then broadly sketch two ways in which the writing field has reacted to the issue of pseudotransactionality. The first type of reaction, which I label denial, either presumes that students are engaged in genuine transactions or else trivializes the obstacles to transactionality engendered by classroom exigen

Cite this work

No public copy is stored for this record, so only the metadata is cited.

Stored only when both papers are in the corpus — 26 citations exist upstream.

Papers that cite the same references — the relational fallback while embeddings are still backfilling.