• View
• Edit
• History
• Print

Winifred Bryan Horner Articles and Chapters

Articles and Chapters

During my academic career, I have published over fifty articles and chapters in scholarly books and give over thirty lectures in the United States. I have also lectured internationally at the Universities of Aberdeen and Edinburgh, Scotland; Oxford University; University of Amsterdam, the University at Tours; and the University Gottingen.

Through a concise examination of the Speech-Act Theory, which is “based on the premise that communication is a series of actions or interactions between a speaker (writer) and a hearer (reader), Horner aligns the necessary qualities of oral communication with those of “written acts of communication” (96, 97). Using several examples of spoken statements, Horner shows that a statement such as, “That dog is dangerous” can be intended to both “inform” and “warn” the hearer (96). The importance of this binary is located with the speaker’s intention, thus making meaning “highly dependent on the relationship between [speaker] and [hearer] ( 96). Horner asserts that because context is vital to understanding, a writer must work with his audience in mind in order to avoid misunderstanding. In the absence of visual signifiers, such as body language, and facial expressions, a writer must make certain that his “voice and purpose” are established “early in the discourse” (97). Citing Wayne Booth, Horner aruges that “every effective piece of writing must [address] ‘the available arguments about the subject itself, the interests and pecularities of the audience, and the voice, the implied character, of the speaker’” (98 Booth, 141)

This essay, the first in a three-part series, lays the groundwork for Horner’s exploration of the “history of Scottish rhetoric and its influence on American education” during the nineteenth-century. Horner asserts that unlike their colleagues of the eighteenth-century, nineteenth-century rhetoricians have not received appropriate recognition for their contributions to the field of English language studies. She attributes this to the fact that unlike their predecessors, the nineteenth-century scholars did not “publish their lectures, and as a result, we are largely ignorant of their important influence” (365). While it may seem that the classrooms and curriculum of this period are lost, much can be gleaned from the tediously transcribed student notes of this period. Unlike student notes of the twenty-first century, nineteenth-century students “dictates” were often verbatim transcriptions of a professors lecture and provide much in the way of researchable material. Annotations include, but are not limited to William Edmondstoune Aytoun, who was responsible for the legitimization of English Literature in Scottish academia, George Moor, William Spalding, and David Masson. Reading this well-researched article offers a historical, biographical, and academic insight into the work, people, and academics of the nineteenth-century.

This article, the second of a three-part series, further addresses the lack of available information regarding the history of rhetoric in the nineteenth-century. Due to the fact that many of the scholars were not publishing their lectures, historians are typically met with a frustrating process of research. In an effort to alleviate this situation, Horner offers a concise archival bibliography containing student notes which offer a lens into the nineteenth-century university classrooms, university calendars (providing courses offered and professors), as well as Royal Commission Reports. That the nineteenth-century “remains unexplored territory, […] and stands as a tantalizing missing link” prompted this research in an effort to document the ways in which “rhetoric connects with twentieth century composition and speech courses” (Horner 174). Through her rich annotations and painstaking research, Horner dispels the myth that “composition theory is sprung up new in the twentieth century” by revealing its genesis in “the tradition of rhetoric” and makes research of the archival materials more accessible for future study. A historical review of the University of Glasgow provides the reader/researcher much in the way of nineteenth-century mindset and regional demographics. Horner notes that the Scottish system of education required all professional disciplines to first complete a liberal arts study, which seems to suggest their recognized need of communication skills, both oral and written. Archival material in this article pertains specifically to George Jardine, Robert Buchanan, John Veitch, Robert Adamson, and John Nichol.

This, the third article in a series of three examining nineteenth-century rhetoric via archived student notes, specifically addresses the Universities of Aberdeen and St. Andrews. Horner continues her extensive research of Nineteenth-century rhetoric by examining the similarities and differences of these two universities as compared to those of Glasgow and Edinburgh. Demographics reveal that the average student in attendance was thirteen years old, poor, and from rural communities provided education by parish schools. Although the “Royal Commission ordered that rhetoric be added to the logic course in all Scottish Universities in 1861” the northern universities were “slow in adding belles letters since they were concerned with a different kind of student” (288). Of primary concern was the “rusticisms” inherent to the northern Scottish student in order to make them more “acceptable” in the “British world of the English south governed by the London standard of culture and speech” (288). However, by 1897 both Aberdeen and St. Andrews had established chairs of English Literature. Through her examination of rural northern universities Dr. Horner elucidates the social, political, and academic environment inherent to nineteenth century rhetoric.

This reprinting of Dr. Horner’s luncheon address at the 1996 meeting of the Rhetoric Society of American is both a charming, creative exploration of Rhetoric’s family tree, as well as an academic mapping of the figurative marriages and divorces within the Rhetoric/English family. While this article reads much like a modern day soap opera (a veritable who’s living with whom), it eloquently addresses “rhetoric’s inclination to get taken over, absorbed, raped, prostituted, hypothesized, and abandoned” (8).

For any student/scholar who is unaware of the significance of Horner’s work and its influence upon the field of Rhetoric and Composition, Ratcliffe’s article clearly delineates both Horner’s impressive work and contributions to academia. That Horner’s voice is heard through the interspersed quotations adds a sense of presence not found in general overviews of a scholar’s life and work. With such additions as “The story is I used to get into the playpen and write while the children ran around the house,” readers intuit a sense of both Horner’s personality: seriously dedicated to the field of writing, yet “real” as well. Ratcliffe’s work provides much in the way of Horner’s scholarly journey and her achievements, and serves as both a touchstone for the beginning researcher of Dr. Horner, as well as a warm tribute to a remarkable researcher/scholar/academian/teacher/woman.

Beginning with the assertion that the “freshman composition course is a peculiarly American institution not shared by modern British or European universities,” Horner investigates the educational environments of eighteenth- and nineteenth-century British universities in order to “examine writing instruction” and to determine why “composition as an English course failed to develop” (322). Using a historical approach, Horner circumnavigates the social, political, and economic divides within Britain that “shaped where and how writing was taught” (322). Of particular importance to the variances of education standards between the classic universities of England, and the more democratic Scottish was the rise of the middle/merchant class of Scotland. Much of this article deals with the ways in which “education began to have a more utilitarian end” becoming the way and means of assuring prosperity (324), and examines the reasons why, unlike the modern mode of writing instruction, Scottish universities required that “writing assignments and writing instruction were a part of every course” (335). Horner asserts that during the eighteenth and nineteenth centuries, writing instruction changed due to “the gradual abandonment of Latin as the language of education and culture, [with] the shift from an oral culture to a basically literate culture, [and] …the proliferation of books and periodicals,” inherent to the rise of the middle class (324), and tracks these changes through the influential teaching methods of Edward Aytoung (Edinburgh University), Alexander Bain (Aberdeen University), and George Jardine (Glasgow University). Dr. Horner’s close examination of eighteenth- and nineteenth-century textbooks, published lectures (when available), and student notes supports her assertion that “instruction in writing was never confined to any single course” (340). Rather, composition was part of every Scottish University course, and held as an imperative tool in a world that required (and still does) a person to not only think, but to be able to communicate thought.

Defining the purpose of a liberal arts education as a “form of education [that] produces the informed citizenry deemed essential to the health of democratic nations,” Horner begins her review of the nineteenth-century Scottish universities that aligns important academic similarities and differences with the education controversies of present day (85). While nineteenth-century Scotland held to the belief that a liberal arts education should be available to everyone and provide individuals the skills necessary for success, England held firm to their classical, elitist doctrine. Disputes, not unlike today, regarding the “validity of the lecture system versus a program of instruction in philosophy and rhetoric” raged large (85). However, in the classrooms of Scottish universities instructors such as George Jardine, Professor of Logic and Rhetoric at the University of Glasgow (1774 to 1827) “rhetoric, discussion, and writing as a way of learning,” was the standard (94). An exploration of historical data, which includes textbooks, published lectures, and student notes reveals the ways in which Jardine implemented writing instruction. Rather than being a separate course, as is now the standard, Jardine, as well as other Scottish educators believed writing to be an inherent part of all courses. Aligning current American education values with those of the nineteenth-century Scottish universities through a shared “deep concern for democratic and humanistic values” (85), Horner works to show that the when humanists “fail to see rhetoric as the heart of the arts education, they abrogate their commitment to democracy” (94). With the realization that “the ability to reason, to read, to write, and to communicate [is] a skill vital to a democratic society,” (87).

In this article, Horner makes a strong case for the rethinking of teaching freshman composition, and argues that many of the problems now present in composition classrooms come from “basic ignorance about the nature and goals of rhetoric and composition” (3). That most universities relegate the teaching of composition to English Literature Graduate students, who are “inadequately prepared” highlights the diminishment of rhetoric and composition as a “long and proud tradition,” a field of impressive history (5). The fact that no one can agree on how composition should be taught helps matters little. Horner advises that this “lack of direction [arises] from basic ignorance about the nature and goals of rhetoric and composition” (3). In response to this, she offers that an “English teacher and scholar who knows rhetoric and sees it as a two thousand year-old tradition […] is a more effective teacher of writing and literature” (9). An informed teacher, one well versed in the field of rhetoric, is able to draw on a multitude of approaches to teaching rather than simply relying on a singular textbook. Horner asserts that “seeing composition as part of a cultural heritage that goes back to Plato,” and predates the study of literature, helps to remedy the feeling of “second-class” citizenry often afforded composition and its instructors. However, knowing the history of composition is only part of her argument, the true change, according to Horner, will arise when the scholarly community recognizes that both the world and its inhabitants are defined by words, and unless we know how to “use” that language, we are destined to be used by it.

This essay provides a historical, political, and social exploration of eighteenth- and nineteenth-century Britain and the change in teaching of rhetoric and writing. Dr. Horner provides an insightful survey of the factors leading up to the emergence of English as the language of academia. Attributing the shift from Latin to English to the rise in nationalism, Horner examines the changing demographics which accounted for the significant changes in the way writing and rhetoric were taught. She traces the changes through an interest in a national language, a shift from oral to written language, and the increase in literacy. Her precise exploration of university classrooms provides insightful information into the operation dynamics in place during the eighteenth- and nineteenth-century, and readily documents the fact that writing was a part of every course. Covering such topics as pedagogy, textbooks, theme-writing, and responses to student writings reveals interesting links to current writing-across-curriculum programs. This essay should be a must-read for all teachers of writing.