Dramatizing Writing

Reincorporating Delivery in the Classroom

Virginia Skinner-Linnenberg

• Publisher: Routledge
• Year: 2020
• ISBN:
  9781000149272
• Edition: 1
• Topic: Languages & Linguistics
• Subtopic: Communication Studies
• Index: Languages & Linguistics

Although speech departments have "owned" delivery for the last 100 years, those who teach writing, especially English departments, can gain a great deal by reinstating delivery into their conceptions of and theories about writing. Thus, in the author's vision of "dramatizing writing" in the composition classroom, delivery can have an impact on all the composing steps, from invention to final draft. The goals of this text are to redefine delivery for writing, to reunite it with other parts of the classical rhetorical canon, and to practically apply it in contemporary writing instruction. This text is divided into three main sections. The first provides a survey of the history of delivery in rhetorical theory. A continuum is set up from a totally physical conception of delivery to a noetic one which incorporates more intellectual processes. The argument is that the tension heightened by discord over its definition eventually led to the splitting of delivery from the rhetorical canon. A separate discussion of the women's challenge to delivery is also included. The next section contains a survey of facets of delivery that exist in current theory combined with the author's own theory of delivery. It provides insight into the state of delivery in contemporary writing instruction. The author argues that since the split of delivery from the rhetorical canon has caused a modern bias against delivery in writing theory, many strategies that could aid in the teaching of writing have either been overlooked or undertheorized. Therefore, she borrows from current theoretical areas within and outside of writing in order to construct her own theory of delivery. The last section provides practical applications of delivery in writing instruction. Again borrowing from many sources inside and outside of composition, she describes the techniques teachers may use to incorporate delivery in a writing classroom. Through the use of delivery, more strategies may be developed to aid in the teaching of writing. Special features include:
* the incorporation of some practices that had been in use in the composition classroom for many years but did not have any consciously theoretical grounding;
* the discussion of women rhetoricians' theories on delivery;
* the combination of many contemporary theoretical areas including theatrical, feminist, rhetorical, and pedagogical to form the author's redefined theory of delivery; and
* the presentation of practical applications of this new theory of delivery for teachers to utilize in their own classrooms.

1

Delivery’s Place in Rhetorical History

Through rhetorical history, delivery has moved back and forth between two extremes. At one end of the continuum, delivery is conceived of as totally physical in nature, with rhetoricians proclaiming it to be an outside function of the body’s movement and voice control. Delivery is merely hand motions, head tilting, voice pitch, foot movement, body position, and nothing more. At the other end of the continuum are theories incorporating a more noetic approach. By noetic, I mean having to do with the mind or intellect as opposed to a purely physical process. These rhetoricians believe that when a speech is delivered effectively, the body functions are combined with various intellectual processes. The speaker’s thoughts control and are reflected by the physical manifestations of the speaker’s body.

Thus, over the centuries and in various cultures, theorists of rhetoric have conceived of delivery as primarily either a physical or noetic activity. This tension between the two ends of the continuum eventually distanced delivery from the other parts of the rhetorical canon and finally led to the split of Cicero’s five parts of the successful speech—invention, arrangement, and style remained with written composition, while memory and delivery were delegated to oral composition.

However, as I stated in the introduction, if any parts of the rhetorical canon are ignored or forgotten, then we damage the whole. Therefore, in this chapter, I trace existing theories of delivery through rhetorical history up to the turn of this century in order to understand the tension between the conflicting views of delivery and, ultimately, from this survey to rethink and reformulate a theory of delivery for modern written composition.

Classical Rhetoric

According to Robert Connors, the people of early Greek times possessed an “oral state of mind,” that is, their mode of consciousness was particularly susceptible to oral rhetoric, much more so than people’s minds today. Therefore, early Greek orators were able to manipulate Athenian minds, minds that were more readily receptive to any “carefully wrought oral persuasion” (“Greek Rhetoric” 40). This, of course, would have to include the way in which the speech was delivered, but we have little evidence of any sophistic theories on delivery, save descriptions of those sophists rendering their speeches. From these descriptions, we might deduce that the sophists put great store on dramatic eloquence.

One of the first texts that discusses any theory of delivery is Plato’s (428-347 BCE) Cratylus, in which he stated that a speaker’s gestures and voice should be ruled by the needs of the rhetorical situation and by the natural tendency of people to react to imitation as an educational and persuasive strategy. Such physical reaction was essential for the making of meaning (Golden 29). To this end, Plato laid out suggestions for gesture and voice control:

We should imitate the nature of the thing [subject]; the elevation of our hands to heaven would mean lightness and upwardness; heaviness and downward-ness would be expressed by letting them drop to the ground; if we were describing the running of a horse, or any other animal, we should make our bodies and their gestures as like as we could to them... .For by bodily imitation only can the body ever express any thing.... And when we want to express ourselves, either with voice, or tongue, or mouth, the expression is simply their imitation of that which we want to express, (cited in Golden 29)

Later, Plato’s student Aristotle (384-322 BCE) downplayed delivery, subordinating it to style. In his Rhetoric, Book III, Aristotle viewed delivery as akin to acting, something that he despised. As he wrote, “...delivery is—very properly—not regarded as an elevated subject of inquiry” (165). Nonetheless, he realized that the rhetor must pay attention to the subject, “unworthy as it is,” because he cannot afford to ignore it. For him, in fairness, a case should stand alone; nothing should matter beyond the bare facts. However, owing to the “defects of the hearers,” the result of a case is considerably affected by other things, such as delivery. In fact, Aristotle believed language used in the speech should actually reflect the points the speaker is trying to make. “The aptness of language is one thing that makes people believe in the truth of your story...” (178). As an example, he stated that to express emotion, the rhetor should employ the language of anger in speaking of outrage. When addressing impiety or foulness, he should use the language of disgust and discreet reluctance to utter a word. The language of exultation should be employed for a tale of glory, and “that of humiliation for a tale of pity...” (178). He instructs the rhetor not to use his voice or countenance in harshness but to allow the words to be harsh. If the rhetor does employ a harsh voice, then “the artificial character of each detail becomes apparent; whereas if you adopt one device and not another, you are using art all the same and yet nobody notices it” (179).

Aristotle surmised that, up to his time, no systematic treatise on the rules of delivery had been composed, so he developed such a treatise. He theorized that delivery should consist of volume of sound, modulation of pitch, and rhythm. Delivery is “a matter of the right management of the voice to express the various emotions” (165). According to the effect needed, the rhetor should speak loudly, softly, or in between, with high, low, or intermediate pitch and with various rhythms to suit various subjects. When these principles of delivery are used appropriately, they produce the same effects as on the theatrical stage (166).

For Aristotle, dramatic ability is a natural gift that cannot be systematically taught. The principles of good diction, however, can be. He theorizes that written, or literary, speeches “owe more of their effect to their diction than to their thought” (166). As an example, he cites the poets who have the human voice at their disposal, the voice being the organ that can “best represent other things.” Thus, by systematically categorizing the particular aspects or rules that speakers should follow for a successful speech, Aristotle laid the foundation for future theories about delivery. On the same note, due to his bias against delivery, Aristotle’s views also influenced later conceptions of it as undesirable, leading to further tension between theorists of rhetoric.

Following on the heels of Aristotle was Theophrastus (ca. 370-285 BCE), whose greatest influence on rhetorical theory was in the areas of style and delivery (Kennedy, Persuasion 273). However, he took delivery in a different direction than his predecessors. According to Athanasius, the philosopher Theophrastus considered delivery to be “the greatest factor an orator has for persuasion” (Kennedy, Persuasion 283). Along with elevating the status of delivery in persuasive speaking, Theophrastus gave delivery a more noetic perception. He seemed to believe that physical movement is inspired by the mental act of speaking; he referred “...delivery to first principles and the passions of the soul and the knowledge of these so that the movement of the body and the tone of the voice may be in accordance with the whole science of delivery” (cited in Kennedy, Persuasion 283). That is, a speaker must make use of his or her noetic abilities in order to recognize the “passions of the soul” and to be able to use the appropriate motions to reflect those “passions.” Knowledge is key for the correct delivery. Thus, Theophrastus established the noetic end of the delivery continuum.

The first major Roman orator who wrote on delivery, Cicero (106-43 BCE), also gave us the five canons of speech. In De Inventione, Book I, Cicero defined the five canons of the rhetorical composing process as invention, arrangement, style, memory, and delivery. He stated that delivery is “the control of voice and body in a manner suitable to the dignity of the subject matter and the style” (21). Like Aristotle, Cicero concluded that delivery concerns gesture and voice, but Cicero’s theories do not include the more noetic aspects of Theophrastus. In his Of Oratory, Cicero wrote that delivery “has the sole and supreme power in oratory; without it, a speaker of the highest mental capacity can be held in no esteem; while one of the moderate abilities, with this qualification, may surpass even those of the highest talent” (255). He believed that each human emotion is accompanied by a unique look, tone, and gesture, and that the whole body, countenance, and voice are moved by affectations of the mind. All the gestures, tones, and looks are “presented to the orator, as colors to the painter, to produce variety” (257). In using these accoutrements, the orator should use full, emphatic force. Cicero continued by giving more explicit instructions to speakers in where, when, and how to use the arms, feet, eyes, and voice.

On the other hand, Cicero also thought, as did Aristotle, that delivery should not enslave the rhetor; he should not “toil like actors at the study of gesture” or become “a slave to his voice, after the manner of Greek tragedians...” (“From Of Oratory” 229). However, Cicero did feel that gesture is a great help to the orator and that intonation is the singular and unrivaled recommendation and prop of eloquence.

Cicero classified three kinds of orator, each having a different delivery style. In the Orator, he explained that the “Attic” orator, plain and restrained in his language use, will have a rather subdued voice. “His delivery is not that of tragedy nor of the stage; he will employ only slight movements of the body, but will trust a great deal to his expression” (369). The second style of orator, more robust and fuller in voice than the Attic, speaks in a more highly polished style. The third type of orator, who has the greatest power, is “magnificent, opulent, stately and ornate” (375-77). Yet, these orators must beware: if they have the natural ability to be fiery, impetuous and grand, or if they devote energies only to this delivery, then they can be misunderstood or they can lose their audience. If a speaker does not prepare the audience, but simply tries to whip them into a fiery passion without saying anything calmly and mildly, paying no attention to arrangement, precision, clarity or pleasantry, then “he seems to be a raving madman among the sane...” (379). Although Cicero addressed delivery to a greater extent than any other theorist so far, he still had some reservations about delivery, as did Aristotle before him.

By Quintilian’s time (35-96 CE), we still see the warning that delivery cannot take the place of attention to language and clarity. He wrote in Institutes of Oratory that “unlearned pleaders” try to fain a reputation of speaking well, with energy, through delivery only. “...They bawl on every occasion and bellow out every thing with uplifted hand, as they call it, raging like madmen with incessant action, panting and swaggering, and with every kind of gesture and movement of the head” (cited in Bizzell and Herzberg 315). However, all of these outrageous gestures and voicings make a good impression only on an audience of the “lower order.” On the other hand, a “polished speaker” can modulate his voice and arrange the parts of his speech effectively and so use delivery adapted to the needs of the speech. He will always keep in mind that modesty is essential in delivery, not the “violence” used by unlearned speakers.

For rhetorical education, Quintilian believed that the best student is the one who can write and speak the best (Smail xxxvi). Therefore, “expression is the main object of instruction” and delivery is a form of that expression. In chapter 11 of Book I, Quintilian described exactly what speech and gesture should consist of: correct voice, hand movement, enunciation, facial expressions, and overall poise. For instance, the student’s voice should not be shrill, nor trembling, nor “be imbued with the insolence of a familiar slave” (Smail 60). Letters should be pronounced clearly and sharply. The speaker’s lips should not be twisted, nor shall the head be thrown back too far nor bent to either side. The arms should be held straight with the hands at rest, the pose graceful, and the head and eyes must be in harmony with the whole poise of the body. “All men agree that these things belong to the art of delivery, and associate delivery with the orator” (63). He even went so far as to suggest that students should practice dancing as an exercise to learn grace in movement. “For I would not have an orator’s gestures as studied as a dancer’s movements: all I desire is that something should remain from this youthful training to give us, though we are unconscious of it, that grace of action which learners consciously acquire” (63). Like Aristotle, he feared the artificiality of dramatic performance, but recognized the values of graceful motion.

After Quintilian’s time, the Roman Senate lost its power, and dictatorial emperors reigned for three centuries until the fall of the Roman Empire in 410 CE. According to James Murphy, freedom of speech was also lost. This period is termed the Second Sophistic by historians, a time of oratorical excesses when attention to subject matter gave way to less controversial matters such as the externals of speech, especially delivery. In the first Sophistic period, eloquence had not been an end unto itself; serious matters, such as the role of truth, the welfare of states, civic issues and so on, took precedence. During the second Sophistic period, with its network of secret police and the unpredictability of the Roman leaders, Murphy argues that no orator felt safe delivering a deliberative or political speech (Synoptic History 177-78). Then, it is no wonder that Eunapius, in Lives of the Sophists, regaled us with the details of Prohaeresius’s vehement delivery but did not report the subject on which he spoke. Clearly, the sophists of that period were interested in the way a thing was said, not in what was said (Murphy, Middle Ages 37-38). Thus, delivery took on those flourishes that the early Greeks had despised. Orators became more like actors with their grand fiery emotions, prancing about before the audience. Language, even truth and substance itself, had lost out in favor of physicality, Aristotle’s worst nightmare. However, delivery soon took on negative connotations, and eventually, procedures in court barred full-scale opening addresses or summations like those of the previous era. Thus, by the end of the Roman Empire, we see a decline in interest in delivery (Kennedy, Classical Rhetoric 105), and a greater emphasis placed on the other elements of Cicero’s theory—invention, arrangement, style, and memory—causing delivery to suffer a distancing from the rhetorical canon.

Medieval and Renaissance Rhetoric

The concepts of Cicero survived this onslaught on rhetoric and continued through the Middle Ages as the guiding light of rhetoricians. (Examples of rhetoricians who used Cicero’s concepts as their foundations include Boethius, 480-524; Robert of Basevorn, fl. 1322; and George of Trebizond, 13...

Table of contents

• Cover
• Half Title
• Title Page
• Copyright Page
• Table of Contents
• Preface
• Introduction: Reintegrating Delivery to Writing
• Chapter 1 Delivery’s Place in Rhetorical History
• Chapter 2 Defining and Redefining Delivery
• Chapter 3 Dramatizing Writing
• Chapter 4 The Whole Restored With Delivery
• Appendix A Lesson Plan Two Handouts
• Appendix B Examples for Role-Playing
• Appendix C Types of Roles for Debate
• Appendix D “Happening” Activities
• References
• Suggested Readings
• Author Index
• Subject Index