Wednesday, March 18, 2020

current-traditional rhetoric - definition and examples

current-traditional rhetoric - definition and examples Definition Current-traditional rhetoric is a  disparaging term for the textbook-based methods of composition instruction popular in the U.S. during the first two-thirds of the 20th century. Robert J. Connors (see below) has suggested that a more neutral term, composition-rhetoric, be used instead. Sharon Crowley, professor of rhetoric and composition at Arizona State University,  has observed that current-traditional rhetoric is a direct descendant of the work of the British new rhetoricians. During the greater part of the 19th century, their texts constituted a fundamental part of rhetorical instruction in American colleges (The Methodical Memory: Invention in Current-Traditional Rhetoric, 1990). The expression current-traditional rhetoric was coined by Daniel Fogarty in  Roots for a New Rhetoric  (1959) and popularized by Richard Young in the late 1970s. See Examples and Observations below. Also see: Five-Paragraph EssayModels of CompositionModes of Discourse Composition, Composition-Rhetoric, and Composition Studies New Rhetoric Rhetoric Examples and Observations In The Principles of Rhetoric and Their Application (1878), the first and most popular of his six textbooks, [Adams Sherman] Hill emphasizes features that have come to be identified with current-traditional rhetoric: formal correctness, elegance of style, and the modes of discourse: description, narration, exposition, and argument. Persuasion, for Hill, becomes only a useful adjunct to argument, invention only a system of management in a rhetoric devoted to arrangement and style.(Kimberly Harrison, Contemporary Composition Studies. Greenwood, 1999) Characteristics of Current-Traditional RhetoricCurrent-traditional rhetoric is  characterized by its emphasis on the formal features of the finished product of composing. The current-traditional essay employs a rigorous movement from general to specific. It displays a thesis sentence or paragraph, three or more paragraphs of supporting examples or data, and a paragraph each of introduction and conclusion.(Sharown Crowley, Current-Traditi onal Rhetoric.  Encyclopedia of Rhetoric and Composition: Communication from Ancient Times to the Information Age, ed. by  Theresa Enos. Routledge, 1996) A Non-RhetoricDespite the name given it by historians,  current-traditional rhetoric is  not a rhetoric at all. Current-traditional textbooks display no interest in suiting discourses to the occasions for which they are composed. Rather, they collapse every composing occasion into an ideal in which authors, readers, and messages are alike undistinguished. What matters in current-traditional rhetoric is form. Current-traditional pedagogy forces students to repeatedly display their use of institutionally sanctioned forms. Failure to master the sanctioned forms signals some sort of character flaw such as laziness or inattention. . . .Current-traditional textbooks nearly always began with consideration of the smallest units of discourse: words and sentences. This suggests that their authors, and the teachers for whom they wrote, were anxious to correct two features of students discourse: usage and grammar.(Sharon Crowley, Literature and Composition: Not Separate but Certainly Unequa l.  Composition in the University: Historical and Polemical Essays.  University of Pittsburgh Press, 1998) A Convenient Whipping BoyCurrent-traditional rhetoric became the default term for the tradition of rhetoric that appeared specifically to inform the composition courses of the latter nineteenth century and the twentieth century up through the 1960s. . . . Current-traditional rhetoric as a term seemed to indicate both the outmoded nature and the continuing power of older textbook-based writing pedagogies. . . .Current-traditional rhetoric became a convenient whipping boy, the term of choice after 1985 for describing whatever in nineteenth- and twentieth-century rhetorical or pedagogical history any given author found wanting. Got a contemporary problem? Blame it on current-traditional rhetoric. . . .What we have reified as a unified current-traditional rhetoric is in reality, not a unified or an unchanging reality.(Robert J. Connors, Composition-Rhetoric. University of Pittsburgh Press, 1997)

Monday, March 2, 2020

5 things you need to remove from your resume and CV...now!

5 things you need to remove from your resume and CV...now! When writing your CV, your main goal should be to sell yourself. Why should this particular company pick you for the job? You should be highlighting significant aspects of your experience, and skills that prove you’re qualified to the job sector you’re applying to. Engaging a recruiter by using a clear structure that highlights your marketable skills is always the best way to approach the job seeker process. However, many candidates are adding unnecessary and overused elements that are diverting from the substance of their CV, and ruining their chances of success.Here are 5 things you need to remove from your CV if you want to the job.Clichà © phrasesPhrases like â€Å"I’m a perfectionist† or â€Å"I give 110%† are overused in resumes and CVs. These are bland statements that a recruiter has read hundreds of times before. Don’t blend into the crowd by using clichà ©s that don’t tell employers anything factual about you.Instead be spec ific in your detail by including industry-specific skills, market knowledge, IT proficiency, and real measurable achievements. Avoid buzzwords that are worn-out and unoriginal. Focus on what makes you and your experiences relevant and unique.LiesBending the truth might seem like an easy option to boost your CV but lies should be avoided at all costs. It will become obvious to a recruiter you have told white lies when you’re unable to back up your claims at an interview, and if found out during the recruitment process, you could find yourself removed from the shortlist.Avoid risking your opportunity by lying. If you don’t tick all the boxes required for a role, talk about how you could enhance this position with your transferable skills and unique experiences.Big paragraphsLarge paragraphs and big blocks of text are difficult to read and can result in a recruiter becoming bored as they scan for relevant information.Structure your CV in a way that breaks up the text, hig hlighting particular sections using bold headers and bullet points. Entice the recruiter to read further by presenting your marketable skills at first glance, rather than hiding significant detail in between other information.Don’t bury the lede, let them know right from the start that you’ll be an asset to their company.Structuring your CV correctly will facilitate the ease of reading and ensure more of the information is digested.Grammar and spelling errorsSpelling and grammar errors come across as a lack of attention to detail to a recruiter, and can even divert their attention away from the actual content of your CV.You can’t rely solely on spell checker so always double check before submitting your application and even get a third party to review on your behalf to avoid any huge mistakes.Typos can break the flow of information, leading to crucial details being lost.Logos and imagesImagery isn’t necessary for a CV. While images do catch a recruiterâ⠂¬â„¢s eye, it’s to the detriment of your CV.Profile pictures are never required in a resume as the decision of your suitability for a role should never be based on your looks. Avoid adding them at all costs. Also, any company or educational institute logos shouldn’t be incorporated. You have a limited amount of CV real estate so don’t waste this precious space on unnecessary features.Andrew Fennell is an experienced recruiter and founder of CV advice center StandOut CV. He is a regular contributor to sites such as CV Library, The Guardian, and Business Insider.