Rhetorical Situations and Their Constituents

Author(s): Keith Grant-Davie

Source: Rhetoric Review, Vol. 15, No. 2 (Spring, 1997), pp. 264-279
Published by: Taylor & Francis, Ltd.
Stable URL: http://www.jstor.org/stable/465644
Accessed: 28-04-2015 11:45 UTC
REFERENCES
Linked references are available on JSTOR for this article:
http://www.jstor.org/stable/465644?seq=1&cid=pdf-reference#references_tab_contents
You may need to log in to JSTOR to access the linked references.

Your use of the JSTOR archive indicates your acceptance of the Terms & Conditions of Use, available at
http://www.jstor.org/page/info/about/policies/terms.jsp
JSTOR is a not-for-profit service that helps scholars, researchers, and students discover, use, and build upon a wide range of content
in a trusted digital archive. We use information technology and tools to increase productivity and facilitate new forms of scholarship.
For more information about JSTOR, please contact support@jstor.org.

Taylor & Francis, Ltd. is collaborating with JSTOR to digitize, preserve and extend access to Rhetoric Review.

http://www.jstor.org

This content downloaded from 164.41.4.26 on Tue, 28 Apr 2015 11:45:07 UTC
All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions

KEITH GRANT-DAVIE

UtahStateUniversity

RhetoricalSituationsand TheirConstituents

film,The Civil War,has mesmerizedviewers

Ken Burns'sdocumentary
are the
sinceit firstairedon PBS in 1990. Amongits moreappealingfeatures
interviews
withwritersand historianslike ShelbyFoote and BarbaraFields,
necessaryto
and interpretation
who provide the backgroundinformation
transform
battles,speeches,and lettersfromdryhistoricaldata intoa human
and limitations.
In effect,
theircommentaries
intentions,
dramaof characters,
situationsof the events,pointingout influential
factors
explainthe rhetorical
withinthe broadercontextsthathelp explainwhydecisionswere made and
situations
whythingsturnedoutas theydid. Theiranalysesoftheserhetorical
while the
show us thatsome eventsmighteasilyhave turnedout otherwise,
outcomesof othereventsseem all but inevitablewhen seen in lightof the
our firstquestion
situationsin whichtheyoccurred.When we studyhistory,
butthemoreimportant
question,thequestionwhose
maybe "whathappened?"
thepast,
answeroffershopeof learningforthefutureas well as understanding
the
level, then, understanding
is "why did it happen?"At a fundamental
rhetoricalsituationsof historicalevents helps satisfyour demand for
causality-helpsus discoverthe extentto whichtheworldis not chaoticbut
ordered,a place whereactionsfollowpatternsand thingshappenforgood
situationsas sets
reasons.Teachingourwritingstudentsto examinerhetorical
in turn
ofinteracting
influences
fromwhichrhetoric
arises,and whichrhetoric
is therefore
thingswe can do. Writers
one of the moreimportant
influences,
who knowhowto analyzethesesituationshave a bettermethodof examining
basis formakingcomposingdecisionsand are
causality.Theyhavea stronger
havemade.
to understand
thedecisionsotherwriters
betterable, as readers,
Scholarsand teachersof rhetorichave used thetermrhetoricalsituation
since Lloyd Bitzerdefinedit in 1968. However,the concepthas remained
sinceBitzer'sseminalarticleand theresponsesto it by
largelyunderexamined
RichardVatz and ScottConsignyin the 1970s. We all use theterm,butwhat
exactlydo we meanby it and do we all meanthesame thing?My purposein
ofthetermand its constituents,
thisessayis to reviewtheoriginaldefinitions
and to offera more thoroughly
developedschemefor analyzingrhetorical
situations.I will apply the conceptof a rhetoricalsituationto readingor
and to whatI
listeningsituationsas well as to writingor speakingsituations,

264

Rhetoric
Review,Vol.15,No. 2, Spring1997

This content downloaded from 164.41.4.26 on Tue, 28 Apr 2015 11:45:07 UTC
All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions

RhetoricalSituationsand TheirConstituents

265

call "compound"rhetoricalsituations-discussionsof a single subject by

andaudiences.1
multiplerhetors
Bitzerdefinesa rhetoricalsituationgenerallyas "the contextin which
speakersor writerscreaterhetoricaldiscourse"(382).2 More specificallyhe
an
definesit "a complexof persons,events,objects,and relationspresenting
or partiallyremovedif
actual or potentialexigencewhichcan be completely
intothe situation,can so constrainhumandecisionor
discourse,introduced
modification
oftheexigence"(386).3 In
actionas to bringaboutthesignificant
situationis a situation
wherea speakerorwritersees a
otherwords,a rhetorical
need to change realityand sees thatthe change may be effectedthrough
thesituation
is important
rhetorical
discourse.Bitzerarguesthatunderstanding
theformof therhetorical
becausethesituationinvitesand largelydetermines
workthatrespondsto it.He adds that"rhetorical
discoursecomesintoexistence
as a responseto situation,in the same sense that an answercomes into
existencein responseto a question,or a solutionin responseto a problem"
(385-86). Richard Vatz challenges Bitzer's assumptionthat the rhetor's
do notexist
responseis controlled
bythesituation.He contendsthatsituations
withoutrhetors,and that rhetorscreate ratherthan discover rhetorical
situations(154). In effect,Vatz argues that rhetorsnot only answer the
question,theyalso ask it.4
ScottConsigny'sreplyto Bitzerand Vatz suggeststhateach of themis
both rightand wrong,that a rhetoricalsituationis partly,but not wholly,
createdbytherhetor.
Vatz,Consignyarguesthattheartof rhetoric
Supporting
should involve"integrity"-theabilityto apply a standardset of strategies
to anysituationtherhetormayface.On theotherhand,supporting
effectively
abilityto
Bitzer,he arguesthatrhetoricshouldalso involve"receptivity"-the
respondto the conditionsand demandsof individualsituations.To draw an
has integrity
inasmuchas carpenters
analogy,we could say that carpentry
tacklemostprojectswitha limitedset of commontools.Theydo not have to
tools
buildnew toolsforeverynew task(althoughthe evolutionof traditional
is nota staticproperty).
andthedevelopment
ofnewones suggestthatintegrity
ifthelimitedsetof
Conversely,
carpentry
mightalso be said to havereceptivity
tools does not limitthe carpenter's
perception
of thetask.A good carpenter
does notreachforthehammereverytime.
we might
Lookingat thesearticlesbyBitzer,Vatz,and Consignytogether,
situationas a setofrelatedfactorswhoseinteraction
definea rhetorical
creates
and controlsa discourse. However, such a general definitionis better
if we examinethe constituents
understood
of situation.Bitzeridentifies
three:
Exigenceis "an imperfection
markedby
exigence,audience,and constraints.
waitingtobe done,a thingwhich
urgency;itis a defect,an obstacle,something
exigenceis somekindof need or
is otherthanit shouldbe" (386). A rhetorical
rhetorical
discourse.Eugene
problemthatcan be addressedand solvedthrough

This content downloaded from 164.41.4.26 on Tue, 28 Apr 2015 11:45:07 UTC
All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions

Review
Rhetoric

266

Whitehas pointedout thatexigenceneed not arise froma problembut may

insteadbe cause for celebration(291). Happy eventsmay create exigence,
callingforepideicticrhetoric.Bitzerdefinesthe audienceas thosewho can
helpresolvetheexigence:"thosepersonswho are capable of beinginfluenced
are
by discourseand of beingmediatorsof change"(387), while constraints
"persons,events,objects,and relationswhichare partsof thesituationbecause
theyhave the powerto constraindecisionand action needed to modifythe
exigence"(388).
situations
has beenvaluable,butto
divisionof rhetorical
Bitzer'sthree-way
I thinkwe need to develop
of rhetoricalsituations,
revealthe fullcomplexity
I proposethreeamendments.
First,I believeexigence,as
his schemefurther.
the motivatingforcebehind a discourse,demands a more comprehensive
analysis.Second,I thinkwe need to recognizethatrhetorsare as mucha part
of a rhetoricalsituationas the audienceis. Bitzermentionsin passing that
of
whena speechis made,bothit and therhetorbecomeadditionalconstituents
thesituation(388), buthe does notappearto includetherhetorin thesituation
thatexistsbeforethespeechis made.And third,we needto recognizethatany
of the constituents
may be plural.Bitzerincludesthe possibilityof multiple
buthe seemsto assumea solitaryrhetorand a single
exigencesandconstraints,
including
theremaybe severalrhetors,
situations,
audience.In manyrhetorical
and the discoursemay addressor encounter
groupsof peopleor institutions,
several audiences with various purposes for reading. The often complex
ofthesemultiplerhetorsand audiencesshouldbe considered.What
interaction
I see in
and discussionsof thefourconstituents
follows,then,are definitions
audiences,andconstraints.
exigence,rhetors,
situations:
rhetorical
EXIGENCE-The

Matterand MotivationoftheDiscourse

sensethata situationboth
Bitzerdefinesrhetorical
exigenceas therhetor's
calls for discourseand mightbe resolvedby discourse.Accordingto this
theessentialquestionaddressingthe exigenceof a situationwould
definition,
be "Whyis thediscourseneeded?"However,in myschemeI proposethatthis
what the discourseis
questionbe the second of threethatask, respectively,
about,whyit is needed,and whatit shouldaccomplish.I derivethe logic for
thisorderof questionsfromthe versionof stasistheoryexplainedby Jeanne
Fahnestockand Marie Secor, who argue that the stases providea natural
a subject.This sequence proceedsfrom
sequence of steps for interrogating
questionsof fact and definition(establishingthat the subject exists and
thesource
it) throughquestionsof cause and effect(identifying
characterizing
of the subjectand its consequences)and questionsof value (examiningits
or quality)to questionsof policyor procedure(consideringwhat
importance
shouldbe done about it) ("The Stases in Scientificand LiteraryArgument"

This content downloaded from 164.41.4.26 on Tue, 28 Apr 2015 11:45:07 UTC
All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions

Rhetorical
Situationsand TheirConstituents

267

428-31; "The Rhetoric

of Literary
Criticism"78-80). SharonCrowley,too,has
suggestedstasistheory
as a good toolforanalyzingrhetorical
situations
(33).
What is thediscourseabout? This questionaddressesthefirsttwostases,
factanddefinition,
by askingwhatthediscourseconcerns.The questionmaybe
the mostapparenttopic.A
answeredat quitea concretelevel by identifying
speechby a politicianduringan electionyearmaybe aboutmandatory
school
or anyof
uniforms,
Medicare,an antipollution
bill,thefightagainstterrorism,
a hostof othertopics.However,whatthe discourseis aboutbecomesa more
and important
interesting
question,and a sourceof exigence,if askedat more
abstractlevels-in otherwords,if the questionbecomes "Whatfundamental
issues are represented
by the topicof the discourse?"or "Whatvalues are at
stake?"Politicalspeechesoftenuse specifictopicsto representlarger,more
enduringissuessuchas questionsof civil rights,publicsafety,freeenterprise,
constitutionality,
separationof church and state, morality,familyvalues,
progress,equality,fairness,and so forth.These larger issues, values, or
principlesmotivatepeople and can be invokedto lead audiencesin certain
on morespecifictopics.A speechon the topicof requiringschool
directions
in publicschools may engage the largerissue of how muchstates
uniforms
shouldbe freefromfederalintervention-anissue thatunderliesmanyother
In thefirstepisodeof The Civil War,historian
topicsbesidesschooluniforms.
BarbaraFields drawsa distinction
betweenthe superficialmatterof the war
and what she sees as the more important,
underlyingissues that gave it
meaning:
is
For me, thepictureof the Civil War as a historicphenomenon
noton thebattlefield.
It'snotaboutweapons,it'snotaboutsoldiers,
except to the extentthat weapons and soldiersat that crucial
momentjoined a discussion about somethinghigher, about
abouthumanfreedom.
humanity,
abouthumandignity,
On thebattlefield,
one side's abilityto selectthe groundto be contestedhas
In thesame way,rhetors
oftenbeencriticalto the outcomeoftheengagement.
who can definethe fundamentalissues represented
by a superficialsubject
matter-andpersuadeaudiencesto engage those issues-is in a positionto
maintain
decisivecontroloverthefieldofdebate.A presidential
candidatemay
be able to convincethe electoratethatthe moreimportant
issues in a debate
abouta rival'sactionsare notthelegalityofthosespecificactionsbutquestions
as leader of the nation("He mayhave
theyraise aboutthe rival's credibility
in a courtof law,butwhatdoes thescandalsuggestabouthis
beenexonerated
do the same kind of thingin a courtroom,
character?").Attorneys
tryingto
inducethejurytosee thecase in termsof issuesthatfavortheirclient.Granted,
these examples all representtraditional,manipulativerhetoric-theverbal

This content downloaded from 164.41.4.26 on Tue, 28 Apr 2015 11:45:07 UTC
All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions

268

Review
Rhetoric

equivalentof a physicalcontest-butI believethesame principleis criticalto

thesuccessof thekindof ethicalargument
TheresaEnos describes,
wherethe
aim is notvictoryovertheopponentbuta stateof identification,
wherewriter
and readerare able to meetin the audienceidentitythe writerhas created
within the discourse (106-08). In these kinds of argument,establishing
acceptableissueswouldseemto be an essentialstage,creatingan agendathat
readerscan agreeto discuss.
I am proposingstasistheorybe used as an analytictool,an organizing
principlein thesequenceof questionsthatexplorethe exigenceof a situation,
butdefiningtheissuesof a discoursealso involvesdetermining
thestasesthat
will be contestedin the discourseitself.The presidentialcandidatein the
and choosing
examplementionedabove is abandoningthestasisof definition
insteadto takea standat thestasisofvalue.Askingwhatthediscourseis about,
thesubjectmatteror topicat themostobviouslevel,
then,involvesidentifying
but also determining
issues thatunderlieit and the stases that should be
addressed-in short,asking "whatquestionsneed to be resolvedby this
discourse?"
Why is the discourse needed? The second questionabout exigence
stases(cause and value). It addressescause
addressesboththethirdand fourth
thediscourse,andwhynowis therighttimeforit
by askingwhathas prompted
to be delivered.This aspectof exigenceis related,as Bill Covinoand David
Jolliffe
haveobserved,totheconceptofkairos-"the rightoropportune
timeto
speak or write"(11, 62). Exigencemay have been createdby eventsthat
precedethediscourseandact as a catalystforit;and thetiming
ofthediscourse
mayalso havebeen triggered
byan occasion,suchas an invitation
to speak.A
presidentialspeech on terrorism
may be promptedbothby a recentact of
terrorism
but also by a timelyopportunity
to make a speech.In the case of
lettersto the editorof a newspaper,the forumis alwaysthere-a standing
invitationto addressthe newspaper'sreadership.However,letterwritersare
usuallypromptedby a recenteventor by the need to replyto someoneelse's
letter.
While addressingthe stasisof cause, the question"whyis the discourse
needed?" also addressesthe value stasis in the sense thatit asks why the
andwhythequestionsit raises
discoursematters-whytheissuesareimportant
reallyneed to be resolved.The answerto thisquestionmaybe thattheissues
theanswer
areintrinsically
important,
perhapsformoralreasons.Alternatively,
maylie in thesituation'simplications.
Exigencemayresultnotfromwhathas
already happened but fromsomethingthat is about to happen, or from
somethingthatmighthappenif actionis not taken-as in the case of many
speechesabouttheenvironment.
What is the discoursetryingto accomplish? Finally,exigencecan be
Whatare the
revealedbyaskingquestionsat thestasisof policyor procedure.

This content downloaded from 164.41.4.26 on Tue, 28 Apr 2015 11:45:07 UTC
All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions

RhetoricalSituationsand TheirConstituents

269

goals ofthediscourse?How is theaudiencesupposedtoreacttothediscourse?I

includeobjectivesas partof theexigencefora discoursebecauseresolvingthe
exigenceprovidespowerful
motivation
fortherhetor.
The rhetor's
agendamay
also includeprimaryand secondaryobjectives,some of whichmightnot be
statedin the discourse.The immediateobjectiveof a presidential
campaign
speech mightbe to rebutaccusationsmade by a rival, while a secondary
objectivemightbe to clarifythecandidate'sstanceon one oftheissuesor help
shape his image,and thebroaderobjectivewould alwaysbe to persuadethe
audienceto voteforthecandidatewhenthetimecomes.
RHETOR(S)-Those
People, Real or Imagined, Responsible for the
Discourseand Its AuthorialVoice
Bitzerdoes notincludetherhetor
as a constituent
of therhetorical
situation
beforethe discourseis produced,althoughhe includesaspectsof the rhetor
underthe categoryof constraints.
Vatz only pointsout the rhetor'srole in
definingthesituation,
yetit seemsto me thatrhetors
are as muchconstituents
of theirrhetoricalsituationsas are theiraudiences.Theirroles,like thoseof
or
but usuallyopen to some definition
audiences,are partlypredetermined
redefinition.
Rhetorsneedto considerwhotheyare in a particular
situationand
be awarethattheiridentity
to situation.NeitherBitzer
mayvaryfromsituation
norVatz explorestheroleofrhetorin muchdepth,and an exhaustiveanalysis
of possible roles would be beyondthe scope of this essay,too; but in the
I willtouchon somepossiblevariations.
followingparagraphs,
First,althoughforsyntacticconvenienceI oftenreferto the rhetoras
singular in this essay, situations often involve multiple rhetors.An
advertisement
written
and designedby an
maybe sponsoredby a corporation,
advertisingagency,and deliveredby an actorplayingthe role of corporate
spokesperson.Well-knownactorsor athletesmay lend the ethos theyhave
establishedthroughtheirwork,while unknownactorsmayplay the roles of
or even audience membersoffering
corporaterepresentatives
testimonyin
thosewho originated
thediscourse,
supportof theproduct.We can distinguish
and who mightbe held legallyresponsibleforthe truthof its content,from
thosewho are hiredto shapeand deliverthemessage,butarguablyall ofthem
involvedin thesales pitchsharetheroleof rhetor,
as a rhetorical
team.
Second,evenwhena rhetoraddressesa situationalone,theanswerto the
we mayspeakin
question"Whois therhetor?"
maynotbe simple.As rhetors
some professional
capacity,in a volunteerrole,as a parent,or in some other
role that may be less readilyidentifiable-something,
perhaps,like Wayne
Booth's"impliedauthor"or "secondself"-the authorialidentity
thatreaders
can inferfroman author'swriting(70-71). RogerCherrymakes a contrast
betweenthe ethosof the historicalauthorand any personacreatedby that

This content downloaded from 164.41.4.26 on Tue, 28 Apr 2015 11:45:07 UTC
All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions

270

RhetoricReview

author(260-68). Cherry'sdistinction
mightbe illustrated
by the speechof a
presidential
candidatewhobringsto it theethoshe has establishedthrough
his
politicalcareerand usesthespeechto createa personaforhimselfas president
in thefuture.
Thenagain,a rhetor's
ethoswill notbe thesameforall audiences.
It will dependon whattheyknowand thinkof therhetor's
pastactions,so the
"real"or "historical"
authoris not a stable"foundation"
identity
but depends
partlyon theaudiencein a particular
rhetorical
situation.Like exigence,then,
oftherhetor.
audiencecan influence
theidentity
Rhetorsmayplayseveralrolesat once,and evenwhentheytryto playjust
one role,theiraudiencemay be aware of theirotherroles.A LittleLeague
baseball umpiremight,dependingon his relationshipwith local residents,
receivefewerchallengesfromparentsat thegame if he happensalso to be the
local police chief.The range of roleswe can play at any given momentis
constrained
oftherhetorical
certainly
bytheotherconstituents
situationand by
the identitieswe bringto the situation.However,new rhetoricalsituations
changeus andcan lead us to add newrolesto ourrepertoire.
To use Consigny's
createethospartlythrough
terms,rhetors
integrity-ameasureof consistency
theytake fromsituationto situationinsteadof puttingon a completelynew
maskto suittheneedsofeverynewaudienceand situation;and theyalso need
receptivity-the
abilityto adaptto newsituationsand notrigidlyplaythesame
rolein everyone.
AUDIENCE-Those People, Real or Imagined, with Whom Rhetors
NegotiatethroughDiscourseto Achievethe RhetoricalObjectives
Audienceas a rhetorical
theidea of a homogenous
concepthastranscended
and are assembledin therhetor's
bodyofpeoplewhohavestablecharacteristics
and secondaryaudiences,audiences
presence.A discoursemay have primary
that are presentand those that have yet to form,audiences that act
or as individuals,
audiencesaboutwhomtherhetorknowslittle,
collaboratively
or audiencesthatexistonlyin therhetor'smind.ChaimPerelmanand Lucie
Olbrechts-Tyteca
pointoutthatunlikespeakers,writerscannotbe certainwho
their audiences are, and that rhetorsoften face "composite"audiences
eitherof severalfactionsorofindividualswhoeachrepresent
consisting
several
different
groups(214-17).
In Bitzer'sschemeaudienceexistsfairlysimplyas a groupof real people
withina situationexternalto boththerhetorand the discourse.Douglas Park
fourspecificmeaningsof audience:
has broadenedthisperspective
byoffering
(1) anypeoplewho happento hearor read a discourse,(2) a set of readersor
whoformpartofan externalrhetorical
situation
listeners
(equivalentto Bitzer's
of audience),(3) the audiencethatthe writerseems to have in
interpretation
mind,and (4) theaudiencerolessuggestedbythediscourseitself.The firsttwo

This content downloaded from 164.41.4.26 on Tue, 28 Apr 2015 11:45:07 UTC
All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions

RhetoricalSituations
and TheirConstituents

271

meaningsassumethattheaudienceconsistsof actualpeople and correspond

to
whatLisa Ede andAndreaLunsfordhavecalled "audienceaddressed"(Ede and
Lunsford156-65). Park's third and fourthmeanings are more abstract,
corresponding
to Ede and Lunsford's"audienceinvoked."Park locates both
thosemeaningsof audiencewithinthetext,butI would suggestthatthethird
residesnotso muchin thetextas in thewriterbeforeand duringcomposing,
while the fourthis derivedfromthe textby readers.Since writersare also
readersof theirown texts,theycan alternatebetweenthe thirdand fourth
meaningsofaudiencewhilecomposingand rereading;
so theymightdraftwith
a sense of audiencein mind,then rereadto see what sense of audienceis
reflected
in thetexttheyhave created.In some instanceswritersmaybe their
own intendedaudiences.One example would be personaljournals,which
writersmaywriteforthemselves
as readersin thefuture,or forthemselvesin
thepresentwithno moreawarenessofaudienceas separatefromselfthanthey
havewhenengagingin internal
dialogue.
Insteadofasking"Whois theaudience?",Parkrecommends
we ask howa
discourse"definesand createscontextsforreaders"(250). As an exampleof
such a context,he offersChaim Perelman'snotionof the universalaudience,
whichPerelmandefinesin TheNewRhetoricas an audience"encompassing
all
reasonableand competentmen" (157). Appealingto the universalaudience
createsa forumin whichdebatecan be conducted.Likewise,Park argues,a
particular
publicationcan createa contextthatpartlydetermines
the natureof
theaudiencefora discoursethatappearsin it.
Like theotherconstituents
of rhetorical
the rolesof rhetorand
situations,
audience are dynamicand interdependent.
As a numberof theoristshave
observed,readerscan play a varietyof roles duringthe act of readinga
discourse,rolesthatare notnecessarilyplayedeitherbeforeor afterreading.
These rolesare negotiated
withtherhetorthrough
thediscourse,and theymay
changeduringtheprocessofreading(Ede and Lunsford166-67;Long 73, 80;
Park249; Perelmanand Olbrechts-Tyteca
216; Phelps 156-57; Roth182-83).
Negotiationis thekeytermhere.Rhetors'conceptionsof audiencesmaylead
themto createnew roles forthemselves-oradaptexistingroles-to address
those audiences.Rhetorsmay inviteaudiencesto accept new identitiesfor
readersa visionnotofwhotheyare butofwho theycould
themselves,
offering
be. Readerswhobeginthediscoursein one rolemayfindthemselves
persuaded
to adopta newrole,or theymayrefusetherolessuggestedbythediscourse.I
mayopen a letterfroma charityand read it notas a potentialdonorbutas a
rhetorician,
analyzingtherhetorical
strategies
usedbythe letterwriter.In that
case I would see my exigencefor readingthe letter,and my role in the
as quite different
negotiation,
fromwhatthe writerappearedto have had in
mindforme.5

This content downloaded from 164.41.4.26 on Tue, 28 Apr 2015 11:45:07 UTC
All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions

272

Rhetoric
Review

Rhetoricalsituations,then, are not phenomenaexperiencedonly by

rhetors.As StephenKucer and MartinNystrandhave argued,readingand
writingmay be seen as parallel activitiesinvolvingnegotiationof meaning
Ifreadingis a rhetorical
activity
too,thenithas its
betweenreadersandwriters.
own rhetoricalsituations.So, if we preferto use writingsituationas a more
accessibletermthan rhetoricalsituationwhen we teach (as some textbooks
have-e.g., Pattowand Wresch18-22; Reep 12-13),we shouldnotneglectto
teach studentsalso about "readingsituations,"which may have theirown
exigences,roles,and constraints.
CONSTRAINTS-Factors in the Situation'sContextThat May Affectthe
Achievementof the RhetoricalObjectives
components
to define
are thehardestoftherhetorical
situation
Constraints
things.Bitzerdevotesjust
neatlybecause theycan includeso manydifferent
themas "persons,events,objects,andrelations
to them,defining
one paragraph
which are parts of the situationbecause theyhave the power to constrain
decisionand action neededto modifythe exigence."Since he assumesthat
and sincehe observes"thepowerof
by situations
rhetors
are largelycontrolled
response"(390), his use of thetermconstraints
situationto constraina fitting
to meanlimitations
or
on therhetor-prescriptions
has usuallybeen interpreted
whatcan be said, or how it can be said, in a given
proscriptions
controlling
situation.A rhetoris said to workwithinthe constraintsof the situation.
as obstaclesor restrictions
However,thiscommonlyheld view of constraints
moreas aids to therhetor
has obscuredthe factthatBitzerdefinesconstraints
themso as to constraintheaudience
thanas handicaps.The rhetor"harnesses"
seems
to take the desiredactionor pointof view. This view of constraints
useful,so I see themas workingeitherforor againsttherhetor'sobjectives.I
or assets,
referto thekindthatsupporta rhetor'scase as positiveconstraints,
or liabilities.
andthosethatmighthinderitas negativeconstraints,
Bitzergoes on to divideconstraints
along anotheraxis. Some,whichhe
equateswithAristotle'sinartisticproofs,are "givenby the situation."These
mightbe "beliefs,attitudes,documents,facts,traditions,images, interests,
heldbythe
motivesand the like"-presumablyincludingbeliefsand attitudes
audience. Other constraints,equivalentto Aristotle'sartisticproofs,are
developedby the rhetor:"his personalcharacter,his logical proofs,and his
verybroadlyas all
style"(388). To paraphrase,Bitzer definesconstraints
factorsthatmaymovethe audience(or disinclinethe audienceto be moved),
includingfactorsin the audience,the rhetor,and the rhetoric.Such an allthe usefulnessof constraints
as a
wouldseem to threaten
inclusivedefinition
of rhetoricalsituations,
so I proposeexcludingtherhetor
distinctconstituent
and makingexplicitthepossibility
of
and theaudienceas separateconstituents

This content downloaded from 164.41.4.26 on Tue, 28 Apr 2015 11:45:07 UTC
All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions

RhetoricalSituationsand TheirConstituents

273

I woulddefineconstraints,
bothpositiveand negativeconstraints.
then,as all
factorsin thesituation,aside fromtherhetorand the audience,thatmaylead
theaudienceto be eithermoreor less sympathetic
to thediscourse,and that
may therefore
influencethe rhetor'sresponseto the situation-stilla loose
definition,
butconstraints
defyanything
tighter.
With the rhetor and the audience excluded from the categoryof
it is temptingto exclude the otherartisticproofstoo, thereby
constraints,
simplifying
thecategoryfurther
bydrawinga distinction
betweentherhetorical
situationand the discoursethatarises fromit. However,clearlythe situation
continuesafterthepointat whichthediscoursebeginsto addressit. A rhetor
continuesto define,shape,reconsider,
and respondto therhetorical
situation
thecomposingprocess,and at anygivenpointduringthatprocess,
throughout
therhetormaybe highlyconstrained
discourse.Ifwe are to be
bytheemerging
whatwe havealreadywritten
mustconstrain
whatwe writenext.
coherent,
If constraints
are thoseotherfactorsin rhetorical
besidesrhetors
situations,
and audiences,thatcould help or hinderthediscourse,whatmighttheybe? I
have alreadyincludedthe emergingtextof the discourseas a constraint
on
whata rhetorcan add to it. To thiswe can add linguisticconstraints
imposed
of languageuse dictatedbythe
bythegenreof the textor bytheconventions
situation.Other constraintscould arise fromthe immediateand broader
contextsof the discourse,perhapsincludingits geographicaland historical
Such constraints
eventsthatthe
couldincluderecentor imminent
background.
discoursemightcall to readers'minds,otherdiscoursesthatrelateto it, other
people, or factorsin the cultural,moral, religious,political,or economic
climate-both local and global-that might make readersmore or less
receptiveto thediscourse.Foreigntradenegotiations,
a domesticrecession,a
hardwinter,civil disturbances,
a sensationalcrimeor accident-eventslike
these might act as constraintson the rhetoricalsituationof an election
campaignspeech,suggesting
appealsto makeor avoidmaking.Everysituation
of time,place, people,events,and so
ariseswithina context-a background
forth.
Not all ofthecontextis directly
relevantto thesituation,
butrhetorsand
audiencesmay be aware of certainevents,people, or conditionswithinthe
contextthatare relevantand shouldbe consideredpartofthesituation
because
theyhave the potentialto act as positiveor negativeconstraintson the
discourse.The challengefortherhetoris to decidewhichpartsof the context
bearon thesituationenoughto be consideredconstraints,
andwhatto do about
them-for instance,whetherthe best rhetoricalstrategyfor a negative
wouldbe to addressit directlyand tryto disarmit-or even tryto
constraint
turnit intoa positiveconstraint-orto say nothingaboutit and hope thatthe
audienceoverlooksittoo.
Some of myexampleshave complicatedtherolesof rhetorand audience,
butall so farhavelookedat discoursesin isolationand assumedthatsituations

This content downloaded from 164.41.4.26 on Tue, 28 Apr 2015 11:45:07 UTC
All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions

274

Rhetoric
Review

are finite.It seemsclearthata situationbeginswiththerhetors perception

of
exigence,butwhencan itbe saidto haveended?Does itendwhentheexigence
has beenresolvedor simplywhenthediscoursehas beendelivered?I favorthe
latterbecauseit establishesa simplerboundary
to markand it limitsrhetorical
and deliveryof discourses,ratherthanextending
situationsto thepreparation
themto theirreception,
whichI considerto be partof theaudience'srhetorical
situation.Also, as I havetriedto show,exigencecan be quitecomplexand the
The
pointat whichitcanbe said to havebeenresolvedmaybe hardto identify.
same exigencemay motivatediscoursesin many,quite different
situations
withouteverbeingfullyresolved.Major sourcesof exigence,like civil rights,
can continueto motivate
of rhetors.
generations
To say that a rhetoricalsituationends when the discoursehas been
deliveredstill leaves us withthe questionof how to describediscoursein a
discussion.Dialogue challengesthe idea of rhetoricalsituationshavingneat
meetarounda tableand taketurnsplayingthe
boundaries.Whenparticipants
rolesof rhetorandaudience,arethereas manyrhetorical
situations
as thereare
rhetors-or turns?Or should we look at the whole meetingas a single
And whathappenswhenthe participants
in a discussion
rhetoricalsituation?
are notgatheredtogether
at one place and time,engagedin thequickgive and
takeoforal discussion,
butinsteaddebatea topicwitheach otherovera period
of weeks-for example,by sendingand replyingto lettersto the editorof a
newspaper?
To lookat a meetingas a singlerhetorical
situationrecognizesthat
manyoftheconstituents
werecommonto all participants,
and it
of thesituation
emphasizesBitzer'sview thatsituationsare externalto therhetor;whereasto
look at each personinvolvedin the discussionas having his or her own
rhetoricalsituation-or each contribution
to the discussionhavingits own
situation-wouldseemto lean towardVatz's viewthatrhetorical
are
situations
constructed
by rhetors.Both views,of course,are right.Each rhetorhas a
different
and entersthedebateat a different
time(especiallyin the
perspective
case of a debatecarriedon througha newspaper'seditorialpages), so each
addresses a slightlydifferent
rhetoricalsituation;but the situationsmay
withthoseaddressedby otherrhetorsin the
interlaceor overlapextensively
discussion.It may be useful,then,to thinkof an entirediscussionas a
madeup ofa groupof closelyrelatedindividual
compoundrhetorical
situation,
situations.Analyzing a compound situation involves examining which
constituents
werecommonto all participants
and whichwerespecificto one or
two. For example, some sources of exigence may have motivatedall
and in these commonfactorsmay lie the hope of resolution,
participants,
On the otherhand,the divisiveheat of a debate
or compromise.
agreement,
may be traced to a fundamentalconflict of values-and thus of
exigence-amongtheparticipants.

This content downloaded from 164.41.4.26 on Tue, 28 Apr 2015 11:45:07 UTC
All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions

RhetoricalSituationsand TheirConstituents

275

Examples of this kind of compoundrhetoricalsituationcan be found

in theeditorialpagesof a local
wheneverpublicdebatearises,as it did recently
in the RockyMountains.The debate was
newspaperin a ruralcommunity
storyabouta nearbyresort
sparkedwhenthenewspaperprinteda front-page
hotel,SherwoodHills, thathad erecteda 46-foot,illuminatedBest Western
highwaywould
Such a signon a four-lane
to itsproperty.
signat theentrance
not normallybe remarkable,but the settingmade this one controversial.
SherwoodHills lies hiddenin trees at the end of a long driveway,offa
scenic stretchof the highway.There are no otherresidencesor
particularly
a forest-recreation
and thearea is officially
zone,
designated
businessesnearby,
businessesand theirsigns.Severalmonthsearlier,the
whichusuallyprohibits
resortownershad appliedto thecountycouncilfora permitand beentoldthat
some kind of sign on the road mightbe allowed,butthe applicationhad not
beenresolvedwhenthesignwentup.
the resortowners'rationale
The newspaperran severalstoriesreporting
(theyfelttheyhad applied in good faithand waitedlong enough)and the
thattheownershad floutedthe
councilmembers'reaction(theyfeltindignant
The newspaper
ratherthanpermission).
law and werenowseekingforgiveness
also beratedtheresortowners'actionsin an editorial.Whatmighthave beena
matterresolvedbehindclosed doors turnedinto a town
minorbureaucratic
debate,withat least15 lettersto theeditorprintedin theweeksthatfollowed.
I thinkthe interesting
questionis why the
From a rhetoricalperspective,
of publicopinion,sincenotall controversial
incidentsparkedsucha brushfire
to theeditor.Looking
incidentscoveredbythenewspaperelicitso manyletters
situationand examiningitsconstituents
at thedebateas a compoundrhetorical
helpsanswerthatquestion.
The rhetorsand audiencesincludedtheresortowners,thecountycouncil,
the newspaper
the countyplanningcommission,the Zoning Administrator,
staff,and assortedlocal citizens. Their debate was nominallyabout the
and what
sign-whetherit was illegal (a questionat the stasisof definition)
shouldbe done aboutit (a questionat thepolicystasis).These questionswere
in the debate.However,even
sourcesof exigencesharedby all participants
greaterexigence seems to have come from questions at the stasis of
precedentmightthe sign createfor otherbusinessesto
cause/effect-what
ignorelocal ordinances?-andat thestasisofvalue-were thesignand theact
of erectingit withouta permit(and theordinancethatmade thatact illegal)
thedebaterevolvedaroundtheissue
good orbad? Formostoftheletterwriters,
issuesin thewestern
andhotlycontested
oflanduse,one ofthemorefrequently
use ofbothpublicand privateland is very
UnitedStates,wheretheappropriate
muchopento argument.
Criticsof thesigngenerally
placed a highvalue on unspoiledwilderness.
of naturalbeauty
For themthe sign symbolizedthe commercialdevelopment

This content downloaded from 164.41.4.26 on Tue, 28 Apr 2015 11:45:07 UTC
All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions

276

RhetoricReview

and challengedlaws protecting

theappearanceof otherforest-recreation
zones
in the area. Those in favorof the sign,on the otherhand,saw it not as an
eyesorebutas a welcomesymbolof prosperity
erectedin a bold and justified
challengeto slow-moving
bureaucracy
and unfairlaws,andas a blow struckfor
privateproperty
rights.Underlying
theissue of land use in this debate,then,
and providing
powerful
exigence,was theissue of individualor local freedom
versusgovernment
interference-another
issue witha strongtraditionin the
westernUS (as in thecase ofthe"sagebrush
attempts
rebellions"-unsuccessful
to establishlocal controloverpubliclands). The tradition
of justified-or at
leastrationalized-rebellion
againstan oppressiveestablishment
can of course
be tracedbackto theAmericanRevolution,
and in the 1990s we have seen it
sourceof exigencein a numberof antigovernment
appear as a fundamental
disputesinvariouspartsofthenation.
Exigenceandconstraints
can be closelyrelated.Forthecriticsof Sherwood
Hills, thebreakingof the law was a sourceof exigence,motivating
themto
protest,
butthelaw itselfwas also a positiveconstraint
in thesituation,giving
them a reason to argue for the removal of the sign. Certainlythe law
constrained
thecouncil'sresponseto thesituation.On theotherhand,thelaw
was apparently
a less powerful
constraint
fortheownersofSherwoodHills and
formanyof theirsupporters
who feltthatthe law, not the sign, shouldbe
changed.For manyon thatside ofthedebate,thetradition
ofrebellingagainst
whatareperceivedto be unfairgovernment
restrictions
providedbothexigence
and a positiveconstraint.
The feelingthatprivateproperty
owners'rightshad
beenviolatedwas whatmotivated
themto join thediscussion,butit also gave
theman appeal to make in theirargument.The rhetor'ssense of exigence,
when communicatedsuccessfullyto the audience, can become a positive
a factorthathelpsmovetheaudiencetowardtherhetor's
constraint,
position.
Precedents
In theSherwoodHills debate,several
alwayscreateconstraints.
participantsmentionedcomparablebusiness signs, includingone recently
erectedat anotherlocal resort,also in a forest-recreation
area. The existenceof
thatsignwas a positiveconstraint
forsupporters
of theSherwoodHills sign.
since theotherresorthad followed
However,it was also a negativeconstraint
thecorrect
and receiveda permitforitssign,and sincethesignwas
procedure
smallerand lowerthantheSherwoodHills sign,had no illumination,
and had
beendesignedto harmonize
withthelandscape.
Otherconstraints
The highwaypast Sherwood
emergedfromlocal history.
Hills had recentlybeen widened,and the dust had not yetsettledfromthe
disputebetweendevelopersand environmentalists
overthatthree-year
project.
Even beforethe road construction,
which had disruptedtrafficand limited
accessto SherwoodHills,theresorthad struggled
to stayin business,changing
hands severaltimesbeforethe presentowners acquiredit. The sign, some
was neededto ensurethe newowners'success,on which
supporters
suggested,

This content downloaded from 164.41.4.26 on Tue, 28 Apr 2015 11:45:07 UTC
All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions

RhetoricalSituations
and TheirConstituents

277

theprosperity
ofothersin thecommunity
dependedtoo. The ownerswerealso
praised as upstandingmembersof the community,
having employedlocal
peopleand contributed
to local charities.Two letterwritersarguedfromthis
constraint
thatthecommunity
shouldnotbitethehandthatfeeds.
This analysisof the SherwoodHills sign debateas a compoundsituation
onlyscratches
thesurface,butunderstanding
eventhismuchaboutthesituation
goes a longwaytowardexplainingwhytheincidentgeneratedsuchan unusual
waveofpublicopinion.The conclusionofa compoundrhetorical
situationmay
be harderto determine
thantheend of a single-discourse
situation,
particularly
ifthesubjectofdiscussionis perennial.This particular
disputeendedwhenthe
exchange of lettersstopped and the Sherwood Hills owners reached a
compromise
withthecountycouncil:Boththesignand theordinanceremained
in place,butthesignwas loweredbytenfeet.
As mydiscussionand exampleshave shown,exigence,rhetor,audience,
and constraints
can interlacewitheach other,and thefurther
one delvesintoa
situationthe moreconnectionsbetweenthemare likelyto appear. However,
whiletheboundariesbetweentheconstituents
will seldombe clearand stable,I
do thinkthatpursuingtheminitiallyas iftheywerediscreteconstituents
helps
a rhetoror a rhetorician
lookat a situationfroma varietyof perspectives.
My
in theprecedingpageshave beento discussthepossiblecomplexities
efforts
of
rhetoricalsituations.Teachingstudentwritersand readersto ask the same
questions,andto understand
whytheyare askingthem,will help themrealize
theiroptions,choose rhetoricalstrategiesand stancesforgood reasons,and
each other'sroles.6
beginto understand
Notes
1 thankRhetoric
Reviewreaders
JohnGageandRobertL. Scott,whosecarefulreviewsofearlier
drafts
ofthisessayhelpedme improve
itgreatly.
2
Bitzer'sdefinition
does notdistinguish
situationfromcontext.The two termsmaybe used
but I preferto use contextto describethe broaderbackgroundagainstwhicha
interchangeably,
rhetorical
situation
developsandfrom
whichitgathers
someofitsparts.I see situation,
then,as a subset
ofcontext.
3 In "The Rhetorical
Situation?
and "Rhetoricand Public Knowledge,"Bitzeruses theterms
I haveused exigencein thisessaymostlyforreasonsof habit
exigenceand exigency
synonymously.
and consistency
withtheoriginalBitzer/Vatz/Consigny
I considerit an abstractnounlike
discussion.
or coherence.Whilecohesioncan be locatedin textualfeatures,
diligence,influence,
coherence
is a
perception
in thereader.In thesameway,exigenceseemsto me to describenotso muchan external
circumstance
as a senseofurgency
or motivation
withinrhetors
or audiences.It is theywho recognize
(or failto recognize)
exigencein a situation
and so theexigence,likethe meaningin literary
works,
mustresidein therhetor
or audienceas theresultofinteraction
withexternalcircumstances.
Although
Bitzercallsthosecircumstances
I prefer
exigences,
tothink
ofthemas sourcesofexigence.
4 This fundamental
betweenBitzerand Vatz parallelsthe debatewithinliterary
disagreement
theory
overthelocationof meaning:
whether
meaningexistsin thetext,independent
of thereader,or
itis largely
orentirely
whether
brought
bythereaderto thetext.Bitzer'sviewlookstowardformalism,
Vatz'stowardreader-response
and minetowardthepositionthatmeaningis a perception
theories,
that
occursinthereader
butis (orshouldbe) quitehighly
constrained
bythetext.

This content downloaded from 164.41.4.26 on Tue, 28 Apr 2015 11:45:07 UTC
All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions

278

Rhetoric
Review

5 Takingpoststructuralist
approaches
totherolesofrhetor
andaudience,
LouiseWetherbee
Phelps
and RobertRothfurther
challengeany assumption
of a static,dividedrelationship
betweenthetwo.
Phelpsuses MikhailBakhtin'sidea of heteroglossia
to deconstruct
theidea of a boundary
between
authorand audience.She arguesthatthe othervoices an authorengagesthroughreadingand
conversation
whilecomposingare inevitably
present
in thetext,inextricably
wovenwiththeauthor's
voice,andthatthisintertextuality
ofthetextandtheauthor
makesa simpleseparation
oftextandauthor
fromaudienceimpossible(158-59). Rothsuggests
thattherelationship
between
writers
andreadersis
notadversarial
senseofaudiencetakestheform
oftencooperative,
ofa shifting
(175), andthata writer's
setofpossiblereadingrolesthatthewriter
maytryon (180-82).Neither
PhelpsnorRotharguethatwe
shouldabandonthetermsrhetorandaudience.Phelpsacknowledges
thatalthough
authorandaudience
thatwe shouldretainthe
maynotbe divisible,
we routinely
actas iftheywere(163), andsheconcludes
conceptof audience for its heuristicvalue "as a usefullyloose correlatefor an authorial
or whatever
an utterance
turnstoward"(171). LikePhelps,Rothrecognizes
that
orientation-whoever
thefreeplay of rolesneedsto be grounded."Whatwe reallyneed,"he concludes,"is a continual
ofopposites,
readersanda monitoring
interms
balancing
bothopennesstoa widerangeofpotential
ofa
orphaseinthecomposing
particular
senseofaudienceatanyonemoment
process"(186).
6 1 havesummarized
thatmight
be usedbywriters
myanalysisina listofquestions
(oradaptedfor
use byaudiences)toguidethemas theyexaminea rhetorical
situation.
Spacedoes notallowthislistto
be includedhere,butI willsenda copytoanyonewhomailsmea request.

WorksCited
Bitzer,Lloyd F. "The RhetoricalSituation."Philosophyand Rhetoric1 (1968): 1-14. Rpt.
NewYork:
Contemporary
TheoriesofRhetoric:SelectedReadings.Ed. RichardL. Johannesen.
Harper,1971.381-93.
Ed.
. "Rhetoric
and PublicKnowledge."
Rhetoric,
Philosophy,
and Literature:
An Exploration.
Don M. Burks.WestLafayette,
IN: PurdueUP, 1978.67-93.
Booth,WayneC. TheRhetoricofFiction.2nded. Chicago:U ofChicagoP, 1983.
in WrittenDiscourse."Written
Cherry,Roger D. "Ethos Versus Persona: Self-Representation
Communication
5 (1988): 251-76.
Consigny,
Scott."Rhetoric
andItsSituations."
Philosophy
andRhetoric7 (1974): 175-86.
Covino,WilliamA., and David A. Jolliffe.
Rhetoric:Concepts,Definitions,
Boundaries.Boston:
Allyn,1995.
Crowley,
Sharon.
AncientRhetorics
forContemporary
Students.
New York:Macmillan,
1994.
"AudienceAddressed/Audience
Invoked:The Role of Audiencein
Ede, Lisa, and AndreaLunsford.
Composition
Theoryand Pedagogy."College Composition
and Communication
35 (1984): 15571.
Audienceas Rhetor."
KirschandRoen
Enos,Theresa."AnEternalGoldenBraid: Rhetoras Audience,
99-114.
Criticism."
of Literary
TextualDynamicsof the
Fahnestock,
Jeanne,and MarieSecor."TheRhetoric
Professions.
Ed. CharlesBazermanandJamesParadis.Madison:U ofWisconsinP, 1991.76-96.
. "TheStasesinScientific
andLiterary
Argument."
Written
Communication
5 (1988): 427-43.
Fields,Barbara.Interview.
TheCivilWar.Dir.KenBurns.Florentine
Films,1990.
Communication.
Kirsch,Gesa, and Duane H. Roen,eds.A Sense ofAudiencein Written
Newbury
Park,CA: Sage, 1990.
Kucer,StephenL. "The Makingof Meaning:Readingand Writingas ParallelProcesses."Written
2 (1985): 317-36.
Communication
Long,RussellC. "TheWriter's
Audience:FactorFiction?"KirschandRoen73-84.
and theChallenger
Accident."
Moore,Patrick."WhenPolitenessis Fatal: TechnicalCommunication
JournalofBusinessand TechnicalCommunication
6 (1992): 269-92.
Written
Martin."A Social-Interactive
ModelofWriting."
Communication
6 (1988): 66-85.
Nystrand,
Park,Douglas."TheMeaningsof'Audience."'
CollegeEnglish44 (1982): 247-57.
A Guidefor the
TechnicalInformation:
Pattow,Donald, and WilliamWresch.Communicating
NJ:Prentice,
1993.
Electronic
Age. EnglewoodCliffs,

This content downloaded from 164.41.4.26 on Tue, 28 Apr 2015 11:45:07 UTC
All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions

RhetoricalSituationsand TheirConstituents

279

Perelman,
Chaim.TheNewRhetoric:A TheoryofPracticalReasoning.Trans.E. Griffin-Collart
and
0. Bird. The GreatIdeas Today.Chicago:Encyclopedia
Britannica,
Inc.,1970. Rpt.Professing
NJ:
theNew Rhetorics:A Sourcebook.Ed. TheresaEnos andStuartC. Brown.EnglewoodCliffs,
1994. 145-77.
Prentice,
TheNew Rhetoric.Trans.JohnWilkinsonand Purcell
Perelman,Chaim,and L. Olbrechts-Tyteca.
Weaver.U. of NotreDame P, 1969: 1-26. Rpt.Contemporary
Theoriesof Rhetoric:Selected
NewYork:Harper,1971. 199-221.
Readings.Ed. RichardL. Johannesen.
Phelps,Louise Wetherbee.
Audienceand Authorship:
TheDisappearingBoundary.KirschandRoen
153-74.
andReadings.2nded. Boston:Allyn,1994.
Reep,Diana C. TechnicalWriting:
Principles,
Strategies,
A Post-Structuralist
Roth,RobertG. DeconstructingAudience:
Rereading.KirschandRoen175-87.
Vatz,Richard."TheMythoftheRhetorical
Situation."
PhilosophyandRhetoric6 (1973): 154-61.
White,Eugene E. The Contextof Human Discourse: A Configurational
Criticismof Rhetoric.
Columbia:U ofSouthCarolinaP, 1992.

at UtahStateUniversity,
KeithGrant-Davie
is an assistant
professor
wherehe hastaughtrhetoric,
readingtheory,
and technical
writing.
His articleshave appearedinJAC:A Journalof Composition
and Reader. His current
Theory,The Journalof TechnicalWriting
research
and Communication,
and styleanalysissoftware,
projectsincludetherhetoric
ofsilence,grammar
and theprocessofgrant
writing
andreviewinbiologicalresearch.

RhetoricReviewBack IssuesAvailable
Thefollowing
issuesofRR areavailableatthesinglecopypriceof$10.00,including
mailing:2.1,2.2,
3.1, 3.2, 4.1, 4.2, 5.1, 6.1, 6.2, 7.1,7.2,8.1, 8.2,9.1, 10.1,10.2,11.1,11.2,12.1,12.2,13.1,13.2,
as a groupforonly$99.00,,
backissuesmaybe purchased
14.1,14.2,and 15.1.All twenty-four
including
mailing.Volumes1.1 & 2, 3.1,5.1 & 2, 6.1,and9.2 areavailableonlyas photocopies.
The
priceforeach is $11.00,including
mailing.
Orders
forindividual
backissuesmustbe prepaid.Orders
andlibraries
fromdepartments
maybe billed.Pleasewritetotheaddressbelow,e-mail
orfax(520/621-7397),
(rhetrev@ccit.arizona.edu),
indicating
whichbackissue(s)youwouldlike:
ofEnglish,
Rhetoric
Review,TheresaEnos,Editor,
Department
ofArizona,Tucson,AZ
University
85721.

This content downloaded from 164.41.4.26 on Tue, 28 Apr 2015 11:45:07 UTC
All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions