Page 305 - Gabrijela Kišiček and Igor Ž. Žagar (eds.), What do we know about the world? Rhetorical and argumentative perspectives, Digital Library, Educational Research Institute, Ljubljana 2013
P. 305
ching the writing of argumentative genre through imitatio:
a solid basis for the ‘beginner’ writers 305
sive act of copying stripped of all positive, assimilative characteristics.
Especially, in the writing domain rhetorical pedagogy and, consequent-
ly, imitation, are considered to be responsible for a mechanistic, prede-
termined and skill-based mode of writing. Second, the Romantic move-
ment, obsessed by the principle of personal genius, fights against the
commonly shared characteristics of imitative elaboration and produc-
tion (Starkey, 1974; Knoblauch and Brannon, 1984: 80; Welch, 1986:
167). In addition, Sullivan (1989) accuses imitation of lacking the de-
sirable scientism that should characterize every educational practice. In
contrast with the process theories of writing, imitatio insults the teach-
er’s scholarship. Fanner and Arrington (1993) point out the importance
of the new, negative theoretical orientation towards imitation insofar as
it results in its long-lasting marginalization (24).
Despite the downfall of imitatio in England, pedagogical practices
in America in the beginning of the 19th century still reflect its classical
principles as a mean for developing students’ knowledge and mental dis-
cipline. An interesting approach of the theoretical conversion towards
imitation after the American Civil War is presented by Wilson (2003),
who correlates it with racial politics. He supports the deliberate redefi-
nition of the term in pedagogy to be a constraint on the threat of black
imitation of the “dominant systems of white power” (89).
2.5. The Modern Look at Imitation
During the 20th century the value of imitation remains disputable.
Perplexity may be the term that best describes the state of whoever seeks
to research the issue. On the one hand, imitation finds theoretical ref-
uge in structural and post-modern literary theories which seem to en-
courage the use of imitatio in the teaching of writing (Minock, 1995:
492). Bakhtinian notions such as heteroglossia, polyphony and dialogism
presuppose the incessant interaction, the uninterrupted dialogue with
another’s utterances (Bakhtin, 1986). Structuralists like Kristeva and
Barthes (1981) invoke, implicitly, the act of imitation through the no-
tion of intersexuality, since every text is paralleled with a “mosaic” made
by the “absorption and transformation” of others (Kristeva, 1986: 37).
Genette (1997), also, admits its importance and talks, explicitly, about
“mimotexts” (75, 81). For post-moderns, such as Derrida (1988), a lin-
guistic sign, oral or written, acquires its identity as such due to its capac-
ity for being iterated, replicated.
On the other hand, the process theories of writing consist of the
main theoretical adversary of imitation. For Berlin (1988) the develop-
a solid basis for the ‘beginner’ writers 305
sive act of copying stripped of all positive, assimilative characteristics.
Especially, in the writing domain rhetorical pedagogy and, consequent-
ly, imitation, are considered to be responsible for a mechanistic, prede-
termined and skill-based mode of writing. Second, the Romantic move-
ment, obsessed by the principle of personal genius, fights against the
commonly shared characteristics of imitative elaboration and produc-
tion (Starkey, 1974; Knoblauch and Brannon, 1984: 80; Welch, 1986:
167). In addition, Sullivan (1989) accuses imitation of lacking the de-
sirable scientism that should characterize every educational practice. In
contrast with the process theories of writing, imitatio insults the teach-
er’s scholarship. Fanner and Arrington (1993) point out the importance
of the new, negative theoretical orientation towards imitation insofar as
it results in its long-lasting marginalization (24).
Despite the downfall of imitatio in England, pedagogical practices
in America in the beginning of the 19th century still reflect its classical
principles as a mean for developing students’ knowledge and mental dis-
cipline. An interesting approach of the theoretical conversion towards
imitation after the American Civil War is presented by Wilson (2003),
who correlates it with racial politics. He supports the deliberate redefi-
nition of the term in pedagogy to be a constraint on the threat of black
imitation of the “dominant systems of white power” (89).
2.5. The Modern Look at Imitation
During the 20th century the value of imitation remains disputable.
Perplexity may be the term that best describes the state of whoever seeks
to research the issue. On the one hand, imitation finds theoretical ref-
uge in structural and post-modern literary theories which seem to en-
courage the use of imitatio in the teaching of writing (Minock, 1995:
492). Bakhtinian notions such as heteroglossia, polyphony and dialogism
presuppose the incessant interaction, the uninterrupted dialogue with
another’s utterances (Bakhtin, 1986). Structuralists like Kristeva and
Barthes (1981) invoke, implicitly, the act of imitation through the no-
tion of intersexuality, since every text is paralleled with a “mosaic” made
by the “absorption and transformation” of others (Kristeva, 1986: 37).
Genette (1997), also, admits its importance and talks, explicitly, about
“mimotexts” (75, 81). For post-moderns, such as Derrida (1988), a lin-
guistic sign, oral or written, acquires its identity as such due to its capac-
ity for being iterated, replicated.
On the other hand, the process theories of writing consist of the
main theoretical adversary of imitation. For Berlin (1988) the develop-
