Teaching interlocutor relationships in electronic classrooms

Abstract This article presents a pedagogy for teaching writing students a theory of interlocutor relationships in synchronous computer conferencing (SCC), also known as chat. The interlocutor relationship theory is a tool for analyzing online discourse as part of a pedagogy designed to make students more sensitive to audience issues in chat. I have constructed four major categories of interlocutor relationships along a continuum of degrees of conflict: agonistic, hierarchical, dialectical, and empathic relationships. I argue that the application of this rhetorical theory provides students and instructors with a heuristic for collaboratively analyzing and constructing interlocutor relationships throughout the composing process. The purpose of this project is to provide instructors and students with strategies for dealing with the close connections among rhetoric and ethics in chat.

[1]  A. Lunsford,et al.  On Distinctions between Classical and Modern Rhetoric. , 1982 .

[2]  Barry Brummett,et al.  Rhetorical theory as heuristic and moral: A pedagogical justification , 1984 .

[3]  Patricia R. Webb.  Narratives of Self in Networked Communications , 1997 .

[4]  Cynthia L. Selfe,et al.  Voices in College Classrooms: The Dynamics of Electronic Discussion. , 1992 .

[5]  M. Spitzer,et al.  Writing style in computer conferences , 1986, IEEE Transactions on Professional Communication.

[6]  Lloyd P. Rieber,et al.  Seriously considering play: Designing interactive learning environments based on the blending of microworlds, simulations, and games , 1996 .

[7]  Philip A. Thompsen.  A Social Influence Model of Flaming in Computer-Mediated Communication. , 1993 .

[8]  Pamela Takayoshi,et al.  Building New Networks from the Old: Women's Experiences with Electronic Communications , 1994 .

[9]  Robert J. Connors,et al.  Essays on Classical Rhetoric and Modern Discourse , 1984 .

[10]  Jeffrey T. Grabill,et al.  Computer-mediated communication in the undergraduate writing classroom: A study of the relationship of online discourse and classroom discourse in two writing classes , 1998 .

[11]  Cynthia L. Selfe,et al.  Computer Conferences and Learning: Authority, Resistance, and Internally Persuasive Discourse , 1990 .

[12]  Crawford Kilian.  The Passive-Aggressive Paradox of On-Line Discourse. , 1994 .

[13]  Susan Wells,et al.  Rogue Cops and Health Care: What Do We Want from Public Writing?. , 1996 .

[14]  J. E. Porter.  Rhetorical ethics and internetworked writing , 1998 .

[15]  D. Tannen.  You just don't understand: women and men in conversation. morrow , 1990 .

[16]  K. Welch.  The Contemporary Reception of Classical Rhetoric: Appropriations of Ancient Discourse , 1990 .

[17]  Christyne Ava Berzsenyi.  A theory of conflict and cooperation within interlocutor relationships in the discourse of synchronous computer conferencing , 1998 .

[18]  K. LeFevre,et al.  Invention as a Social Act , 1986 .

[19]  Irvin Peckham.  If it ain't broke, why fix it?: Disruptive and constructive computer-mediated response group practices , 1996 .

[20]  Margaret Daisley,et al.  The game of literacy: The meaning of Play in computer-mediated communication , 1994 .

[21]  M. Csíkszentmihályi.  Flow. The Psychology of Optimal Experience. New York (HarperPerennial) 1990. , 1990 .

[22]  Gail E. Hawisher,et al.  Re-imagining computers and composition : teaching and research in the virtual age , 1992 .

[23]  Yan Hong,et al.  Flaming: More Than a Necessary Evil for Academic Mailing Lists. , 1995 .

[24]  Chris M. Anson,et al.  A Sense of Audience in Written Communication , 1990 .

[25]  David Nicol,et al.  Teaching Tips: Strategies, Research, and Theory for College and University Teachers , 1994 .

[26]  L. Faigley.  Fragments of Rationality: Postmodernity and the Subject of Composition , 1992 .

[27]  Linda L. Bain,et al.  Ethical Issues in Teaching , 1993 .

[28]  A. Walker.  If it ain't broke, why fix it ? , 1998 .