CCR 720: Miller (1986) "MLK Borrows a Revolution"

Miller, Keith D. "Martin Luther King, Jr. Borrows a Revolution: Argument, Audience, and Implications of a Secondhand Universe." College English 48.3 (Mar. 1986): 247-265.

Miller performs a rhetorical analysis of some of the works of MLK Jr., arguing that one of King’s rhetorical strategies was to borrow already effective streams of argument, religious themes, and literary and biblical quotations that his imagined audience presumably already considered persuasive. Thus, Miller outlines four themed assumptions drawn upon by King (“Love,” “Need for Nonconformity,” “Inadequacy of Materialism and Humanism,” and “Interdependence”), analyzing in each theme King’s borrowing practices by providing comparable quotations from both King and his borrowed sources. By placing King’s words next to the words of other black preachers (which King often did not cite),Miller illustrates that King was practicing—what Miller doesn’t name but what we’d call today—“patchwriting” (Howard), what Miller calls “secondhand language”. He further demonstrates how not only did King consistently borrow and rephrase the sermons of others, but King also substantially repeated these themes, phrases, and quotes in his own work over and over. Instead of condemning King for his borrowing and patchwriting practices and for King not citing his sources, Miller informs readers that such approaches to sermon and speech writing were common for ministers and preachers. In fact, Miller attributes King’s success in persuading audiences to his ability to place borrowed and already widely accepted themed assumptions into his own writing as well as King’s strategy for acknowledging white sources, while suppressing black sources:

By adapting and readapting sermonic boilerplate and by refining and retesting his best original material, King successfully placed the strands of his homiletic arguments against segregation into a web of ideas and phrases that the moderate and liberal white Protestant community had already approved….Systematically suppressing his ties to homiletic traditions elevated King’s status as a rhetor, even as he was shrewdly flattering his audiences by telling them what they already believed with words they had already heard. (256)

After acknowledging that “While the appearance of originality was necessary for King’s persuasiveness, skillful borrowing was equally as necessary,” Miller concludes his essay by drawing some implications about teaching composition based on his argument. First, King’s borrowing helps to illustrate how discourse is intertextual and helps us to reconsider our assumptions about generalizations, clichés, and plagiarism. Second, we should teach students the rhetorical power in knowing commonplaces and clichés, in the form of already accepted assumptions, and help our students practice using such commonplaces effectively. Third, instead of teaching invention as being an individual’s exploration, we should focus our students’ attentions toward keeping their audience in mind during all stages of the invention and writing process.

CCR 601: Howard, Serviss, Rodrigue (new and improved)

Howard, Serviss, and Rodrigue (2009) present findings from their preliminary inquiry regarding students’ practices of summary, paraphrasing, patchwriting, and copying in source-based writing. Their method consisted of collecting a sample of 18 students’ texts, each written for one source-based research writing project in a sophomore composition course. Every cited source within the students’ texts were found, collected, read, and compared against the language used by the student in order to qualitatively code where and how students used sources. Results indicated that (a) most students’ texts had at least one instance each of patchwriting, paraphrase, direct copying with quotations, and direct copying without quotations; (b) not a single incidence of summary arose in the sample; (c) most used un-cited “non-common knowledge information”; and (d) most inaccurately attributed information to sources. From these results, they conclude that “students are not writing from sources; they are writing from sentences selected from sources” (14). Since their results may not be representative of larger populations of student writers Howard, Serivss, and Rodrigue call for additional research to be developed on this important topic—an endeavor they reveal they have already initiated.

CCR 601: Howard, Serviss, Rodrigue (2009) "Writing from Sources, Writing From Sentences"

Howard, Rebecca Moore; Serviss, Trish; and Rodrigue, Tanya. “Writing from Sources, Writing from Sentences.” In print. 2009.

Executive Summary:

Since writing with sources is a fundamental and commonly practiced composition activity assigned across disciplines in the university and since composition research has for the most part ignored research on student writing with sources, Howard, Serviss, and Rodrigue (2009) present findings from their preliminary inquiry regarding students’ practices of summary, paraphrasing, patchwriting, and copying in source-based writing. Their method consisted of collecting a sample of 18 students’ texts, each written for one source-based research writing project in a sophomore composition course. All cited sources of students’ texts were found, collected, read, and compared against the language used by the student. Following research procedures as regulated by IRB, the researchers analyzed students’ texts by qualitatively assessing and coding where and how students used sources (this coding being done by two of the researchers). Results indicated that a majority (72-100%) of students’ texts had at least one instance each of patchwriting, paraphrase, direct copying with quotations, and direct copying without quotations. Additionally, results showed not a single incidence of summary from students and showed that 94% of the papers used un-cited “non-common knowledge information” and 78% inaccurately attributed information to sources. After exemplifying some of these findings, the authors discuss how, collectively, this research suggests that “students are not writing from sources; they are writing from sentences selected from sources” (14, italics in original). Acknowledging that as a pilot study based on a small sample in a single university, results may not be representative of larger populations of student writers, and suggesting that more research is needed to investigate questions raised in this investigation of student practices in source-based writing, Howard, Serivss, and Rodrigue call for addition research to be developed on this important topic—an endeavor they reveal they have already initiated.

Quotable Quotes:

· “[O]ur primary concern throughout our analysis of these eighteen papers [was that] they cite sentences rather than sources, and one must then ask not only whether they understood the source itself but also whether they even read it” (12).

· “Our observations also raise questions about problems students may have with source-based writing, problems that are both prior to and foundational to their correct citation for sources. Citation counts for little if what is being cited is a fragmentary representation of the source, Plagiarism is difficult to avoid if one is constructing an argument from isolated sentences pulled from sources” (15).

· The authors show how paraphrasing, patchwriting, and copying “are issues with which all writers seem to struggle. However, despite the accumulating body of research on writers’ intertextual struggles with their sources, these are not widely recognized as global issues; instead, they are widely regarded as malfeasance committed by ignorant, indifferent, or unethical writers” (16).

Seemingly Important Cited Citations:

· Howard, (1993); Keck, C. (2006); Pecorari, D. (2003, 2006, 2008)

Tags:

· (2010), 601, authorship, Howard, Keck, Pecorari, pedagogy, plagiarism, Rodrigue, Serviss, source-based writing, citation, summary, research writing, paraphrase, qualitative, patchwriting, student writing,