Mary and Carina's trace

Looking at question #3, tracing Genung, Young, Manly/Rickert, Strunk.

Textbooks showed either a strong lean toward correctness, grammar, arrangement (Strunk) OR toward invention and personal/self-expression (M/R). We saw both of these tendencies as present in Genung: "The study of rhetoric contemplates presentation: in pursuing it the student's mind, though equally occupied with facts, principles, discipline, is set predominantly in the attitude of construction, creation" (BR 135).

This narrative, then, presents Genung as a bridge, both as in Brereton between German and American models of academic rhetorical instruction, and between the practical/personal rhetorical pedagogies that developed in the American model during the early twentieth century.

If Genung is a theoretical bridge between these two models, Young is a contemporary bridge based in practice. Young, as an administrator, is trying to get as many students as possible through the university. He suggests that students need more training in oratory and interdisciplinary writing, but we wonder if he was also concerned with workload in a valuation of highly structural pedagogy.