Littguisrics and Rhetorical Studies

the juciicial review of performance evaluations, intnv event further than United States law. wherecourts hate been reluctant to conduct reviervs in thisare:r other than from the standpoints of malice, badfairh, manifest abuse of discretion, or arbitrary orunlawf ul action:

In matters of scholarship, the schools are uniquely quali-fied by training and expertise to judge the qualificationsof a student, and efficiency of instruction depends in nosmall degree upon the school faculty's freedom frominterference from other non-educational tribunals. (Con-elly vs. University of Vermont, 244 F. Supp. i56 [D. Vt.1e6sl)

One can only hope that this trust by the judicialsystem in pedagology is well justified.

See a/so: Academic Freedom; Access to Higher Learning;Academic Labor Marketsl Faculty Recruitment,Promotion. and Tenure; Accreditation; InstitutionalAutonomY

Bibliography

Alexander K. Solomon E 1972 College and Uniuersity Law.lvlichie Company, Charlottesville, Virginia

Birch J, Richter | 1990 Comparariue School Law, Perga-mon. Oxford

Bou:dieu C 1964 Les Htritiers. Editions de Minuit. ParisBurdeau G 1961 Les Libertis Publiques. Pichon et Durand-

Auzias, ParisCarnegie Council on Policy Studies in Higher Education

l91l Selectiue Adnrissions in Higher Education. Jossey-Bass, San Erancisco, California

Cowley W H 1980 Presidents, Professors and Trtutees.Jossey-Bass, San Francisco. California

Cox 1971 Academic freedom. In: MacCallum S J (ed.)1971 Uniuersity Independence, The Main Question. RexCullinss. London. o. 70

Denningir E (ed.) i981 l-lochschulrahmengesetz. Beck,Munich

Dentler R, Baltzell D C, Sullivan D 1983 {Jniuersity onTrial, The Case of the Uniuersiry of North Carolina.' AbrBooks, Cambridee, Massachusitti

Dutile F, McGlynn-Gaffney Jr E 1984 Srate and Campus.Srate Regulations of Religiotuly A[fliated Higher Educa-lion. Universitv of Notre Dame Press. Notre Dame

Fliimig C (ed.) 6t al. 1982 Handbuch des Wbsenschafrs-' rechls. Sorinser-Verlae. BerlinJoughin L lgO{,qcoae^i Freedom and 7'enure. University..of Wisconsin Press, Madison. Wisconsin(aneko M 1974 Education law, Science Council of Japan.

taDan Ann. Law Pol. 17Ka-piin W A 1986 The Law of Higher Educarion.2nd edn.,,Jossey-Bass. San Francisco, Ciliforniatrarpen U 1988 Access to Higher Education in the Federal,,.Republic of Germany. Laig. Frankfurtturp D L. Yudof M G 1982 Educarional Policy and the..Law, Znd edn. McCutchan. Berkeley, CaliforniaKuhn T H S 1970 The Srrucrure of Scientific Reuolutions,..2nd edn. University of Chicago-Press, Chicago. IllinoisMac_Catlum S J (ed.j l97l IJniuersity Ind.epenZence, The

Main Question. Rex Cullings. London

Millet J D l98J Confiict in Higher Education. Jossey-Bass,San Francisco. California

Nlilman D l9E6 Etlucationul Conflict and the Law. CroomHelm. London

NIooCie C. Eustace R 1971 Pover and Authoriry in BritishI nLt'er.sttir. Ccl)r(c All('n and Unrvin. London

Niehues N l9E3 ScArrl- und Prtit'ungsrecht,Znd edn. Beck,NI u nich

Plouvin J Y l9il0 Le Rigime luridique des Uniuersitisdepuis la Loi d'Orienration. Economica, Paris

Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Devel-opment 1975 Policy fo, Stimulating Industriallruto u atio tt. oEcD, Paris

Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Devel-opment 1972 Management of Research and Deoelopment.oECD, Paris

Redondi P 1983 Galileo Eretico. Einaudi, TorinoRichrer I 1988 Selection and reform in higher education in

\\'estern Europe. Comp. Educ. 53Schelsky H 1963 Einsamkeit und Freiheit. Rowohlt, Ham-

burgTeichler U 1975 Geschichte und Strttktur des japanischen

Hoc hsc hulvve sens. Klett, StuttgartToulmin S 1960 l/re Philosophy of Science,2nd edn. New

YorkTurner S 1987 Universitiiten. In: Jeismann K E, Lundgren

P (eds.) 1987 Handbuch der deutschen Bildungsge-schichte, Vol. III. Beck, Munich, pp,22149

Velu J .1981 Bestand und Bedeutung der Grundrechte imBildungsbereich in Belgien. Europiiische Grundrechts-zeitschrift, 595

Weber lv{ 1912 lYirxchaftSiebeck, Ttibingen

und Gesellschaft Mohr und

L Richter

Linguistics and Rhetorical StudiesLinguistic and rhetorical studies of disciplinary lan-guage begin, but do not end, with the observationthat the primary product of most disciplines, and asecondary product of all, are published texts whichare taken to constitute the knowledge of the disci-plines. The study of the language and rhetoricalaction of these texts helps us understand both theprocess and product of disciplinary work. Identifyingdiffering patterns of language production, use, andform among various disciplines also helps us under-stand the differences of activity and accomplishmentamong the disciplines. Several practical consider-ations further support the general reflexive curiosityabout disciplinary language: if we understand moreabout the kinds of language used in disciplines andhow those languages are used, we can use them moreeffectively as individuals and as members of thedisciptinary groups; we can prepare students better tocommunicate within their fields; and we can provideguidance for editors and others with influence inshaping the communication system. Finally, by

t847

-Ttn discourse often appears to be divided between that forces, as well as the dynamic local concerns' that I

which recognizes unsettled c;""ii""}'a 'nii

*ttitt' bear upon it' considerations include, ar

I

presents rhe placid upp.u#..'oil.t i.r.J f."o*f- "-ttluiloin.titutional considerations include' amonc i

edse. where the contentron ili;;;;;;;r treated as otf"i-it'ingt' the agereeation of most disciplinei i

irrElevant (Girbert ,"a r,a,i["y'fs"8;,';i;;;198r. il;i" t't,.'i*n',.*or[-orine universitv as deveroped ]

One common tactic wittrii i;'r,;;;idfi;*.".i, i' in't'tt" nin"t"tnth and twentieth centuries' The edu' '

ro Dresenr theories ,ro nnain!, "r'it,ougt

they were .rt.rur and credentiallins oractices of the univer5ily '

alrladv consensually seuled-and accepled. leaving i*;;;;;;;t;*itttittorin'institutionalimperatives'1 '

the overt contention ,o fri; riiu.tr-ina .i.t.n,.J iir'* a.tpfy influenced the character of discourse in

research articles sometimes attempt in this way to 'utiout disiiplines' as we can see when we consider

bridse the contentions of ["o*l.a'g.-in-the-makini tt'e ietation 'btt*ttn various tvoes of student essav

and-the authoritative calm of kn6wledge'alreadyi ;i;h;;;i;;t";al-disciplinary'genres' Not only d6

made. rrrl ut ^rrvwre. "" ,'

'--' such essays mimic disciplinary genres by turninq

Adiscipline.sdiscourseisshapedbythe.co.n-knowledgeproductionintoformaltzedexerclsestostirution and instrtutror'rfi..ri",

t"i #cLL of the tt-t'iftiutth as. competitive displays' but in turn

communication sites in the field, the changing memi [..o..lnnr"ntial models of competent disciplinarv I

berships and constituen.;';t;h; ;;ganiziti5ns and ptitoi*untt' often reflected in the early publiiationi I

journars over trme. ,.. lir,"itu,liilii-"i'.""i."0i;e 5i';;;;;;i;*onals Locat concerns mav include

rorces at ,."., q,"".-1r'J,::':;fi","*i**:;j":: :HXgl*:":ii;:#,'[;l::iJ,!l'"[""31t1','.To.l I

:HH,,[iXl*ii:T',d;;;iii:'tr,"i-.iiJii"" of .or- cohesion and external boundanes asarnsr sroups I

sensus over the most.tt..tiu" rr. of ranguage to ;;;;gii"+t.authglitv(Giervnt983'Abbott1988)'realize rhose aims (by *.;;;;i i# g*i.i?rd.on- on-ebing ielations witii soons6rine institutions (such

I

ventions of discourse *hi#";J ,"iifi,,ii".a}.,L,iet' ;l'ffiilit'il;;il;;;;ilil;iif "rution' with the

communar recognition -o-r"tryTi.',:t#:T:#:j 3lJ::Hiiif,f,3*'llni; :ufill,l:'?,,'Jil',lXtriil

i{*'r.'u"ge:i;H':ln:;".fl:',,:x'!il.1 :,-:'n"' iilSo'?Bfr ;:'.::lTii'TiT';l#;'";;;'';;luiv British

Thus, for example-."tJ understand cu-rrent parterns geology).

of language ,r. in .oi,!*-poruiy--pry.t',ofo!y:'i; i; " Evin more locallv we can understand the speciflc

helpful to ,na.rrtuii"t-oil;h; hJId "*.rgld'oui tt,.toii.ui nlorn"tt 6v examining the individual his'

of the discourse systems of both ptrilosophi iii ioiili.na rhetoiiialiocations olthe individualpar'

physiology, ana tnen-.-aili b.gun ro !.n.ru,i i/, J*i ;t.t;?Ii;' to t". ho* thev have been socialized into

journals and communl.uiion'iorunir, ..a"nn.i un the'discourse of tfre disciplines (Berkenkotter et al'

appropriate *uy to-iuffi'uUooinl.nirt .u.n,"r"Oir- igefJ' *f'ut positions th'ey are trying.,to advance'

tinctive from the prior models ot pt'ysiorogi Ini fy,-tltt.t:::eiui tt''t tutient state oith' discioline

philosophy. rrlor.or.i, *" *rrt ,ti hb* lai'gu.age tqlilt-t- il'il';;"i';;"t-ii!* "l-^'*'"ce iheir

use in psychology *;r';.;h;p;O tyit,. various ieig-n- p6sition,.and what they percei'e as apProDriate strat'

ing theories ""d .;i'rr.;;i[!i.;ti,h.

-d;il;hT;h lgies and

"touitt'-ioluivance theiiposiiions Thus

denned what on..ould knoriand how one "";\i;; Y3::ti;::i;;;"N;;i"; ctranging his rhetoricar

talkaboutwhatonewascomingtoknow.asriellas strategies in JJuunting-his opt'itul claims as he

(flnalty) what kind ;i ;;t.r;;;.orta upp,op.i"uiii .-r,ing?o his understandlng of th'e rhetorical forum tn

be considered knowledge. In particular.. th;'*;;i- ;'ht;f; [t 'vas.

presenting fiis theses' and as he came

tutionar dominance of 6ehavicirism ...ut,.i in"un i; p;;;:Ly. th;';;;i;;i;"i ptoutg^''t posed bv each

official rhetoric emtodied in the various p,Uiit"tl"" io'i*' ffit i";;;ti;;; i; s'iientific aigumeni(lead'

manuals of the American Psychologicuf erro.iuiiin ing to ttr" .quusi-muthematical structure of an enttre

(Bazerman rssal.'ilespite itri eitEctive .";;;;i;i tv!t.. u'ili "; i;;;;ii;; p'o*' u.t exhibited in th€

the form of co*muni.aion by the u.rlouiorirtl,'itl"i. 6-i;::!:)^::t:"tr,i-iti'rt'"f local responses to his

remained an unoei.uir.nt oi conrention urong ti,. p6rceptions_of the rhetorical problems Because

various schools of psychology, each.with their-pro- ihese'innovati;;';t;;;d '; eff!tti'e.in producin-e

i- :1ffi,fil:ii',1i"J;;*?1;^:,f:lf;;::i:h;i: [fiLilllfl f,f:Ui":;;,Xl "iin: 'Y':ii]'i:l1ilconsider how the various brancies ot pry.nffiJ i.ua.it"unO *;itt?;^th;i";k that regularization ol

discourse have interpenerrated with "urior"r'"ot'iJ, i;; dil;;;. ;;';^;i';f;;;iui l"t' in"the context ot

related discourr" ,yi[.Inr, such as cf inicaf- meO]c^iie *t'itt' *ty tt'ua1o itu*t their own new positions and

:t5JffiXti'J#TiTfi'ilfl'i',:,:h',""'J:}:f[:l,i., :ru*1fi111'Ti]:;i"'iT:r: ri^ recep'lion or

;i'i1.ml,l,li;li,tu;i'i;:"H:":Tff J:,,;f,X+lT;::",t'i;:lllm';::;?,'"Y#:i{':'#filocate rhe runguug;";J ;iit in'ii, purti.ul^r ;;;;;i vidual's perceived needs and goals wit

and understand ihe various mairoinstituti;;;';;d vidual's'pttt;;il;';iifit i'i*taiate disciplinary

Linguistics and Rhetorical Studies

^rnreXti however. that context imbeds a long insti-

iuiionut history which de!1e.s the local point of action

"-"a sets the terms in which the action is realized.

ilis overall analvsis of how each rhetorical momenti.'embedded within the evolving discourse system of a

Jiscipline provides a basis for identifying the currentlims and resources of language in a discipline. ItInrbles us to understand the particular features ofirnnure. and other symbols. how the relevant dis-

.orit.lt produced, how it is maintained' and what is

iccompliihed through its employment. Nonethel.ess.

more limited issues of language use wlthln varlous

Jisciplines have from time to time received explicit,rrerition. because of immediately perceived prob-

lems or difficulties within the discourse.

3. Particular Disciplinary Concerns

Currently a number of disciplines have entered intorhetorical self'examination organized around issues

ind concepts of particular interest to each. Such

,or.ntt of self-examination indicate dynamics ofchanse that can lead to major restructuring of the

disco-urse field. The focus is oflen on particular fea-

tures of standard textual genres which are seen as

inadequate or problematic in some sense-a Par-dcular way of rvriting or speaking is perceived as animmediat6 irritant. Underiying such discomforts withtextual form, one may detect significant issues aboutthe organization of the discipline and its work.

In anthrooologv. the current debate over the genreof ethnoeraohv-ii reallv a debate about the entiresocial politi6ning of anihropological discourse: whospeakJ for whoir before whicli forums for. whichoumoses? Such ouestioning evokes a re-examinationbf ihe sociopoliiical origi-ns and regularization ofanthropology as a discourse field of professionals ina dominaniculture reporting back to the intellectualand politicat elites on the character of subordinatecultuies. Anthropology is today seeking new way-s ofcarrying out its task of cultural representation' freeof the -patterns of cultural domination in authors,audiences, and subjects (Clifford and Marcus 1986,Geertz 1988).

Similarly. gender studies have begun to examinethe extent'to which alt disciplinary discourses embedgender assumptions which may appe,ar questionable.and have begun to offer proposals about new modesof discipliniry discourse that either eliminate orrearrange such assumptions (Bradley 1987)-

In economics. an attempt to demonstrate that com-plex arguments are buried beneath an apparentlyuncontentious statistical demonstration is motivated

sists only of technical description and prediction ofidealized economic systems.

History has undergone a number of rhetorical self-examinaiions, stemming from such issues as therefl ection of political ideology in historical narratives,the cultural embeddedness of historical accounts ver-sus the possibilities of transcultural scientific history,the inevitable specificity of historical evidence versusthe possibilities of determining larger generaliz-ations, and most recently and fundamentally thereliance.of history on the constructs of language forboth primary historical data and secondary historicalaccounts. All these are questions about what kindsof stories historians should tell, and what are themeaninss and functions of these stories both withinthe proiession and within the encompassing culture.

Rhetorical reflexivity in psychology, sociology,political science, philosophy, literary studies,.andbther fields is siniilarly framed within local disci-plinary concerns and concepts, although each set ofissues'can also be placed within a more fundamentalsystemic context.

4. Implications for Practice

The practical importance of rhetorical and linguisticstudies of disciplines, however, extends beyond pro-viding a conteit for addressing immediately salientproblems of textual form brought to light by disci-plinary issues. By making possible an.overall.graspbf didciplinary discourse systems, rhetorical andlinguistii studies offer an insight into the constitutionof ihe disciplines, enabling fu-ndamental choices (andaccidents) imbedded in the discourse system to bebrought f'orward for fresh questioning. For example,studiEs of the dominance of English language use ininternational journal publication in a number of fields(Baldauf 1986, Baldauf and Jernudd 1983) revealbarriers to the development of international scienceand intercultural social science. Such studies providethe tools for rethinking the future of the disciplinarydiscourses in light of new goals, new assumptions,and new disciplinarY structures.

For each individual writer within a disciplinarycontext. a rhetorical understanding of the relevantdiscourse field can promote a clearer appreciation.ofthe rhetorical problem he or she is addressing, therhetorical resources available, and the goals appro-priate to the discourse. An understanding of. theconventions of writing in the field that reveals themas more than arbitrary will allow for their moreeffective use, as well as flexibility in response to newcircumstances and goals which call for rhetoricalinnovation.

For teachers of writing as well as teachers of disci-plines, an understanding of the system of discourseinto which the student is being socialized wiil helpeffective initiation into the use of language within

by the sense that important issues and conflictingassumptions have simply been submerged, -rallr.er

c6nfronted and resoived (McCIoskey i986). Theerlvins ouestion is whether the work of the fieldud6s a?dressing these issues, or whether it con-

1851