Questions?
Suggestions? Send e-mail.
THE FORGOTTEN CANON: MEMORY IN A DIGITAL AGE
_______________
A University Thesis Presented to the Faculty
of
California State University, Hayward
_______________
In Partial Fulfillment
of the Requirements for the Degree
Master of Arts in English
_______________
By
Katherine E. Gossett
December, 1998
Copyright © 1998 by Katherine E. Gossett
THE FORGOTTEN CANON: MEMORY IN A DIGITAL AGE
By
Katherine E. Gossett
Approved:
Date:
Alison Warriner
11/98
E. J. Murphy
11/98
My interest in rhetoric grew out of my love of the Classical
theologians, which I credit to the excellent instruction that I received at the
hands of Professors Page du Bois and Anthony Edwards at the University of California,
San Diego. My interest in composition I credit to Mr. Pelitier at Mira Loma High
School who taught me just how difficult, and rewarding, good writing can be. My
interest in rhetoric as a tool for composition, from which this thesis grew, I
credit to Professor Alison Warriner at California State University, Hayward. In
addition, I am indebted to many authors whose work inspired my continued research
including: Jay David Bolter, Mary Carruthers, John Frederick Reynolds, and Kathleen
E. Welch.
My heartfelt thanks go to Professor Alison Warriner. Without her interest,
support, and gentle prodding this thesis would still be a figment of my memory.
I would also like to thank all the family and friends that believed I could
do this and would not let me give up. This is for you.
| Acknowledgments |
iv |
| Table of Contents |
v |
| I. The Rhetorical tradition |
1 |
| II. The Fourth Canon |
3 |
|
3 |
|
|
5 |
|
| III. Rethinking Memory in a digital age |
9 |
|
12 |
|
|
15 |
|
|
16 |
|
| IV. Memory and Hypermedia |
21 |
|
21 |
|
|
22 |
|
|
25 |
|
| V. Conclusions |
29 |
| Works Cited |
33 |
| Works Consulted |
37 |
Classical rhetoric has been called the "most complete critical system that has ever been devised for the analysis and production of discourse" (Welch, "Classical" 3). Although there is no definitive origin of rhetoric, its concepts and practices can be found in treaties from antiquity to the present. It has survived "2500 years [of] attacks and misrepresentation, accommodated the views of the strictest constructionists and most liberal interpreters, and managed to remain pertinent to Western rhetorical theory despite fundamental cultural transitions from orality to literacy to electronic technology" (Reynolds, "Issues" 1).
At the heart of classical rhetoric are the five canons: invention (inventio, heurisis), arrangement (dispositio, taxis), style (elocutio, lexis), memory (memoria, mneme), and delivery (actio, hypokrisis). If rhetoric is the discipline, then each canon is a sub-discipline. Together, they provide a structure that allows us to study, analyze and generate discourse (Welch, "Ideology" 270). Separately, each canon may be studied, expanded on, and practiced to the exclusion of the others. It is the very malleability of these canons that has allowed rhetoric to survive and flourish through the many cultural transitions of the past twenty-five centuries.
The use of rhetoric as a tool is first evidenced by the works of Korax and Teisias around 500 BCE, which was then passed down to the ancient Sophists (Ueding and Steinbrink 11). Later, this tool was taken, refined, and codified by rhetors like Aristotle, Aspasia, Cicero, and Quintillian. These rhetors used the canons to fashion great oratories for political, legal, or civic purposes. During the medieval period, rhetoric "disintegrated into highly specialized disciplines" (Vickers 238). The process of invention was relegated to scientific discovery, arrangement and style became mostly grammatical in nature (when they were addressed at all), memory became the "noblest of all these, the basis for all the rest" (Carruthers 9), and delivery all but disappeared.
As the humanists searched for knowledge and enlightenment during the Renaissance,
the canons were reunited to form a complete process of inquiry, discovery, and
creation. The reintegration of the canons lasted until the Industrial era when
the canon of invention, as the precursor to scientific theory, exerted its dominance
(Yates 369). "This disintegration," wrote Vickers in 1988, "has persisted until
our time, although we may now be seeing the beginnings of a second renaissance
in rhetoric" (215). Unfortunately, Vickers may have been a bit premature in
heralding this second renaissance.
Return to TOC
Although rhetoric remained popular as a pedagogical tool from the 17th to the 19th century, each discipline that made use of rhetorical practices continued to focus on specific canons, producing "unconscious, imbedded, implicit, partial, or oversimplified versions of the canons . . . [thus promoting] a truncated version of the five classical canons" (Reynolds, "Issues" 2). Most of the rhetorical systems that emerged during these centuries easily adapted invention, arrangement, and style, but usually deleted the more problematical canons of memory and delivery.
A standard explanation for the removal of memory and delivery from the five canons relies on a simplistic idea that the burgeoning power of writing made memory and delivery less relevant because those two canons are said to be more powerful in orally dominant cultures. (Welch, "Reconfiguring" 19)
In the mid-19th century, rhetoric found a home within the Belles Lettres movement and flourished through the end of that century. In the early 20th century, however, with the rise of the "composing-as-tool" metaphor at such institutions as Harvard and Yale, rhetoric fell into disuse and was relegated to the speech and communication departments (Grierson 22). The canons of invention and style remained prominent, arrangement and delivery received marginal treatment, if at all, and memory was dropped from the textbooks (Reynolds, "Issues" 3). Rhetoric remained in this state until Edward J. Corbett wrote his groundbreaking book Classical Rhetoric for the Modern Student in 1965.
In his article, "Memory Issues in Composition Studies," John Frederick Reynolds gives Edward J. Corbett the dubious honor of being "classical rhetoric's best-known and most distinguished modern advocate," as well as being one of the most instrumental scholars in wresting memory from modern rhetorical studies (4). "Ironically, in all editions of his influential book (1965, 1971, 1991) Corbett revived the canon of memory only long enough to dismiss it, defining it as 'memorizing'" (4). Corbett's only mention of memory in all of his editions is as follows:
The fourth part of rhetoric was memoria (Greek, mneme) concerned with the memorizing of speeches. Of all the five parts of rhetoric, memoria was the one that received the least attention in the rhetoric books. The reason for the neglect of this aspect of rhetoric is probably that not much can be said, in a theoretical way, about the process of memorizing; and after rhetoric came to be concerned mainly with written discourse, there was no further need to deal with memorizing . . . There will be no consideration in this book of this aspect of rhetoric. (38)
Corbett's easy dismissal of memory as "memorizing" in 1965 is a shame, but his continued dismissal of this canon in his 1971 and 1991 editions is disturbing and confusing, especially given other scholars' writings on the subject (not to mention his own later discussions on this topic).
The continued excising of memory from rhetoric, according to Welch, can be directly attributed to the success of Corbett's book and the "textbook tradition" ("Reconfiguring" 19). Most textbooks are based on tried-and-true material, not exciting or breakout theory and research. Generations of students, some of whom have become the instructors of today, have been weaned on this truncated version of the canons, and have further contributed to the emasculation of rhetoric. Contrary to this tradition, however, Welch argues that "memory [does] not wither with the growing dominance of writing; rather it changes form. With the increasing empowerment of writing, memory [simply takes] on different attributes" ("Reconfiguring" 19).
Restoring Memory to the Rhetorical Tradition
Just as scholars previously labored intensively to wrest the fourth canon from the study of rhetoric, new and emerging scholars in the field of rhetoric and composition have begun laboring to restore the canon to the fold.
"How greatly we misunderstand when we reduce ancient and medieval memoria to 'memorization'" (Carruthers 1). In The Book of Memory, Carruthers states that in ancient times, memory was the central canon upon which all the others were based. In order to have invention, you must first have thoughts, or memory. To have arrangement, you must recall, or remember, your arguments and place them in the most logical order. To add style to your argument requires a knowledge and application of stylistic and grammatical rules, and finally, to deliver your argument well, you must remember it. Carruthers is not alone in her supposition.
In 1966, Frances A. Yates wrote her masterful analysis of the fourth canon The Art of Memory, in which she traced memory from Aristotle and Cicero to Descartes and Leibniz. Beginning with Latin and Greek sources, she also showed that memory was much more than memorizing. John Frederick Reynolds summarized Yates' opening chapters in his article "Concepts of Memory in Contemporary Composition."
Yates traced complex, multiple, interrelated notions of rhetorical memory to antiquity. The classical art, she explained, had involved much more than memorizing: It had included improving the memory (2), imprinting on the memory (3), memorizing in order (3, 7), making memorable (9), holding in memory (12), retrieving from memory (34), delivering from memory (6), and preserving in memory (45). Memory, she noted, had been viewed in antiquity as being critical to invention (5, 12, 34, 45), arrangement (3, 4, 7), style (8), and delivery (6, 7). Memory was the loci of the topoi for Aristotle (31), and the connection to the divinity of the soul for Plato (36, 37). Memory was the custodian of all of the parts of rhetoric to the author of the Ad Herennium (5) . . . the "groundwork of the whole" to Plato (37). (246)
In addition, Yates provides a detailed examination of the two types of memory defined by the author of Ad Herennium: the natural memory, "that which is engrafted in our minds, born simultaneously with thought," and artificial memory, that which is "a memory strengthened or confirmed by training" (5). The Ad Herennium further states that "A good natural memory can be improved by [training the artificial memory] and persons less well endowed can have their weak memories improved by the art" (5). Yates goes on to trace the significance of training the artificial memory from antiquity to the sixteenth century, and concludes that:
The serious investigation of this forgotten art may be said to have only just begun. Such subjects do not have behind them, as yet, an apparatus of organized modern scholarship; they do not belong [in] the normal curricula and so they are left out. The art of memory is a clear case of a marginal subject, not recognized as belonging to any of the normal disciplines, having been omitted because it was no one's business. And yet it has turned out to be, in a sense, everyone's business . . . The artificial memory as part of rhetoric belongs [in] the rhetorical tradition. (389)
While both Carruthers and Yates provide thorough, insightful studies into the
art of memory, it must be said that both of their works deal clearly with the
history of the art (Carruthers with medieval scholasticism, Yates with ancient,
medieval, and renaissance scholasticism) and cultures that were predominantly
oral in nature. The need for an excellent memory is clear in cultures whose
communication is primarily oral, and whose scholarly canon was available only
to a select few. Yet in an age of literacy and secondary orality, when the cultural
and scholastic canons are made available to entire populations in millions of
books, on the Internet, and through the World Wide Web (WWW), what does memory
mean?
Return to TOC
While memory may have withered on the vine for the better part of three centuries, it seems clear that it is once again beginning to spring to life. With the works of Yates and Carruthers, the theory that writing and literacy killed the need for training and developing complex memory and storage skills has been proven wrong. In fact, they have shown that ancient discussions of the art of memory relied on writing as a metaphor for memory places. Cicero calls memory "the twin sister of written speech," and compares it to a "wax tablet" upon which loci are gathered together like letters in the tablet (Carruthers 16). Aristotle's phantasm is a mental picture which is imprinted on the memory just "as people do who seal things with signet-rings" (17). And in his Theaetetus , Plato has Socrates say the following about memory:
Imagine . . . that our minds contain a block of wax . . .and that whenever we wish to remember something we see or hear or conceive in our own minds, we hold this wax under the perceptions or ideas and imprint them on it as we might stamp the impression of a seal ring. Whatever is so imprinted we remember and know so long as the image remains. (Carruthers 21)
Clearly these references not only contradict Corbett's hasty claim that "memoria" was "concerned mainly with the memorizing of speeches" and had no use in literate applications of rhetoric (38), but they also show that classical memory was equally rooted in written and oral discourse. In fact, if we use Walter Ong's definition of "primary orality," the rhetors of ancient Greece and Rome could not be said to have lived in an "oral" culture, and, far from eschewing literacy, they used books as "memorial cues and aids" (Carruthers 16).
While the works of Carruthers and Yates have, in effect, restored the canon of memory to the rhetoric of the literate culture of the past 2500 years (or at least shown that it has always existed in some form throughout the many evolutions of rhetoric), what now? In a world of sound bytes and megabytes, where students are more apt to watch the movie than read the book, and where their access to material is determined only by modem and processing speed, what role can memory play?
One of the biggest issues facing rhetorical scholars today is that our culture and our modes of communication are in a state of continual flux. From the time that writing asserted itself until about the mid-nineteenth century, the predominant mode of communication has been print, and although the technology behind print may have advanced, the medium has stayed constant. With the advent of the telegraph, however, we moved from our literate state into a state of secondary orality (Welch, "Electrifying" 22). The subsequent development of telephones, motion pictures, video cameras, computers, graphical interfaces, etc., has continued to move us farther from the traditional modes of communication present in primary oral and literate societies into a realm that incorporates both, and which must begin to also address and incorporate the issues of visual communication as well.
Secondary orality represents a "cultural recall" of primary orality because the emphasis on speaking and hearing acquires new significance with electronic forms of communications. Crucially, the three communication-consciousness forms [aural, literate, and visual] are not mutually exclusive; rather, they are cumulative. ("Electrifying" 23)
In an effort to explain the move to return to the classical rhetorical tradition as a way to define current rhetoric, Kathleen Welch points out that we are living in a time similar to that of the classical rhetors. Rhetors such as Plato, Gorgias, and Isocrates "wrote and spoke in a world of language fluctuation" much like ours ("Electrifying" 22). As they were establishing the canons of rhetoric, speaking and writing were competing strongly with each other, just as speaking, writing, and graphics are now competing. In fact, Ong points out rather ingeniously in Orality and Literacy that the same arguments being leveled against computer-assisted instruction today are "essentially the same objections commonly urged by Plato in the Phaedrus" (79). Welch makes the valid argument that by looking at the work and struggles of these rhetors, we can begin to reconceptualize their rhetoric and find valid applications of it in our current situation.
With so many modes of discourse available to us, it is no surprise that there is, as yet, no definitive answer as to what the canon of memory is, or should be, in a digital age. Welch and many others have begun to define memory not as a singular act, but as an entire process of learning. While the body of scholarship on the issue seems to divide itself into several approaches, I will look at three: memory as mnemonics, memory as memorableness, and memory as databases (Reynolds, "Issues" 7).
Memory as Mnemonics
The use of mnemonics or mnemotechniques as a means to recall from memory images or words has a long rhetorical tradition. The author of the Ad Herennium describes a complex method of developing detailed images (loci) in the mind to remember pertinent parts of arguments or cultural knowledge. The rhetor was to start with an empty room and then begin to fill it with images to help in recalling the ideas or words associated with each image. When it was time to deliver the speech or argument, the rhetor then "walked" through the rooms they had created and recollected, or remembered, their argument. While this method seems convoluted--in fact even the author of the Ad Herennium concluded that this type of mnemotechnique took "unremitting exercise . . . industry, toil, and care" (Yates 16)--it appears to have worked and endured into the late medieval period.
Obviously, this complex type of mnemotechnique is cumbersome, and, as Yates so succinctly states, it "would only bury under a heap of rubble whatever little one does remember naturally" (19). But, as anyone who has ever had to memorize a speech or learn a complex set of terms can testify, mnemo- techniques can, and do, work.
In her book, Ancient Rhetoric for Contemporary Students, Crowley encourages students to train and organize their memories using what she calls "memory systems." She offers several suggestions, including alphabetical ("if you want to remember a list of items to buy at the grocery store, you can organize them in alphabetical order: apples, bananas, cheese, [etc.] . . . ") and visual ("another memory tactic is to organize your grocery list according to the floor plan of the store") systems (269). The purpose for these exercises she notes is that "ideas often come to rhetors when they are unable to write them down . . . You can imprint such ideas on your memory by associating them with a letter of the alphabet and placing them in memory according to alphabetical order" (269). These ideas can then be recalled later and used during the composing process.
Perhaps the most effective mnemotechinques for the modern students are visual and aural. Most children of the seventies and eighties, if asked, could tell you that the capitol of Arkansas is Little Rock by remembering the image of an ark sawing a little rock on top of a can (ark-can-saw-a-little-rock), or could sing you the preamble to the Constitution, all thanks to the Saturday morning favorite "School House Rocks" series. "If you live your entire life under the spell of television, the mental world you inherit from the TV--the supremacy of images over text . . . seems like second nature to you" (Johnson 5). Johnson goes on to tie the modern usage of images back to classical rhetoric by using the Simonides vignette as an example of visual mnemonics.
Simonides' trick relied on a quirk of the human mind: our visual memory is much more durable than our textual memory. That's why we're much more likely to forget a name than a face, and why we remember months later that a certain quote appeared on the upper-left-hand corner of a page, even if we've forgotten the wording of the quote itself . . . Simonides tapped that potential for spatial mnemonics. (12)
Johnson is not alone in recognizing the importance and possibilities of these visual capabilities. In fact, much of the current work being done in composition studies now calls for training writers and readers in visual or spatial mnemonics (Reynolds, "Issues" 8).
Instead of focusing only on the text of a given work, the advent of desktop publishing and the WWW have made it possible to look at the extra-textual features of a work to help to commit vital information to memory.
It is useful for both encoding and decoding to expand this repertoire and arsenal to include the analysis and production of headers; footers; paragraph markers; inset windows; illustrations; and font, pitch, and type layout manipulations . . . The technologies of secondary orality allow writers to deliver or present their written work with the visual features that they believe enhance their message. [Students comment] that using presentational devices . . . provides a mnemonic dimension for readers. (Reynolds, "Computer-Assisted" 104 - 5)
Clearly there are many applications of visual and spatial mnemonics in the digital age. Whether you associate information with images, made up songs and ditties, or extra-textual features of a text, the use of mnemonics or mnemotechniques is central to any theory of memory in the current rhetorical tradition.
Memory as Memorableness
One of the most important goals of memory, is, of course, to make the message memorable to the rhetor as well as the reader. This idea can also be traced back to the Ad Herennium.
Now nature herself teaches us what we should do. When we see in everyday life things that are petty, ordinary, and banal, we generally fail to remember them, because the mind is not being stirred by anything novel or marvelous. But if we see or hear something exceptionally base, dishonorable, unusual, great, unbelievable, or ridiculous, that we are likely to remember for a long time . . . ordinary things easily slip from the memory while the striking and the novel stay longer in the mind . . . Thus nature shows that she is not aroused by the common ordinary event, but is moved by a new or striking occurrence. Let art, then, imitate nature. (Yates, 9 - 10)
In applying the idea that art imitates life in the computer age, we are drawn again to the need for visual and spatial mnemonics. In his article, "Actio: A Rhetoric of Written Delivery," Connors urges rhetors to use typeface and layout considerations in making their text memorable for the reader. As we will see later, this concept can also be applied to hypermedia documents as well.
Another aspect of memory as memorableness is in the message of the text itself. Many of today's college handbooks advise writers to think and write memorably. Reynolds points out that the popular St. Martin's Guide to Writing by Axelrod and Cooper advises students to always include memorable details, phrases, and language in their writing ("Issues" 10). In addition, students can be taught to use stylistic features such as repetition, parallelism, and tropes to make their writing more memorable. Of course, implicit in the idea of writing memorably, is the assumption that the idea or thought will make such an impression on the writer or reader that it will be remembered and stored somewhere in the memory for future reference; somewhere like a database.
Memory as Databases
There are two types of memory databases: internal and external. The internal database can be traced back to ancient and medieval times, and involves a complex process of encoding, storage, and manipulation. In addition to the trained memory, the modern rhetor has several external databases available for their use including books, libraries, and computers.
In The Book of Memory, Mary Carruthers spends many pages describing the exact way in which ancient and medieval scholars developed their mental databases.
The fundamental principle [of a memory database] is to divide the material to be remembered into pieces short enough to be recalled in single units and to key these into some sort of rigid, easily reconstructable order. This provides one with a "random-access" memory system, by means of which one can immediately and securely find a particular bit of information rather than having to start from the beginning each time in order laboriously to reconstruct the whole system, or--worse--relying on simple chance to fish what one wants out from the murky pool of one's undifferentiated and disorganized memory. (7)
Anybody familiar with current technology can see the parallelism to many database software programs available for today's computer.
The medieval memory was more than just a place to store bits of information. The act of manipulating text, not simple verbatim recollection, defined a good memory. "The ability to move [information] about instantly, directly, and securely [was] admired" (19). Not just a database then, but a relational database.
Authors like Linda Flowers and Sharon Crowley encourage modern-day students to build similar databases. They guide students through a process of "memory networks" (Flowers 68 - 69), stressing that as they compose, writers should reconstruct their research in their memories looking for connections and meaning before beginning to write (Crowley, "Classical" 269).
Memory is associative, global; it privileges disquisition, repetition, digression, allusion, allegory. In memorial composition, revision does not require ink and paper, but only another visit to the appropriate mental places. Composers working from memory may be led down intersecting byways as they mentally walk the paths of their carefully organized memories, and their compositions may be the richer for it. (Crowley, "Modern" 43)
Crowley encourages students to train their memories in order to avoid the chaotic and disjointed thoughts that plague an untrained memory, and to utilize external databases as well ("Classical" 269).
New technologies and advances in current technologies are assisting students in creating complex networks of external databases. At the touch of a button, students can access library electronic card catalogs that enable multiple search types: by author, by subject, by keyword, etc. By accessing the electronic card catalog at one university, most students are able to search libraries all over the country for the material they need. And, with the click of a mouse, students can now go on-line and access powerful search engines that provide access to the largest database of all: the World Wide Web.
Computers and advanced technologies are also making it possible for rhetors to create their own external databases. Incredibly large hard drives (the size of which were unimaginable just five years ago), high density floppy disks, writeable CD ROMs, ZIP drives, and portable computers, scanners, and printers all give modern rhetors the ability to compile individualized databases. In addition, simple as well as complicated software storage and retrieval systems that enable users to organize and codify their data are available for every type of computer. And with the easy accessibility of Web publishing, many of these individual databases are being "published" on WWW servers around the world in the public domain to be used by others.
The use of the WWW as an external database, or memory place, has exploded in the past three years. Current research shows that there are approximately 100 million users world-wide (Moran and Hawisher 81). During the early 1990s, the Internet was the domain of the technologically elite (those rich enough to afford PCs and MACs and knowledgeable enough to hook them up to phone lines). Now, in 1998, with access at public schools growing and the price of hardware dropping, more and more people are joining the WWW community. It may still have a long way to go to reach the utopian ideal expressed by Ted Nelson's Xanadu project, which calls for a place to "create, access and manipulate information cheaply, reliably, securely [and indefinitely] from anywhere around the world . . . guaranteeing that the owner of any information will be paid their chosen royalties" (Avatar 1), but the WWW has the potential to become the biggest external database of all, and therefore, the closest example in our modern culture to the ancient idea of communal or cultural memory.
The question remains, of course: as technology advances will this communal
domain continue to grow and thrive, or as many opponents argue, will it broaden
the gap between socioeconomic groups? Will this technology bring us closer to
understanding each other and reapropriating the idea of common places and memory
loci, or will it widen the gap between those who have and can afford
technology, on both local and global levels, and those who cannot? Only the
future will decide.
Return to TOC
We read that hypertext is replacing linear writing in an evolutionary step toward perfect communication technology; that the mere act of linking multiple interpretations and voices results automatically in better communication; and that hypertext is transforming society and education systems, democratizing the academy, and promoting the breakdown of artificial divisions between the disciplines. [Some] claim that it may influence intellectual development as profoundly as did the invention of alphabetic writing in the thirteenth century BC or the printed book in the fifteenth century AD. (Snyder 128)
What is Hypermedia?
In the early 1980s, some of the first complex networks were developed that allowed users, mostly government employees, to send and share information across long distances. Gradually, as this technology evolved, so too did the ability to link documents together to form large groups of easily cross-referenced material. Eventually, the ability to jump from one document to another within the cross-referenced group was developed and hypertext, or linking, was born.
Hypertext is an information medium that exists only on-line, in electronic space. Eventually, the ability to electronically link documents together was appropriated by private companies, and as more companies took advantage of this technology, the WWW was born.
For several years, the WWW remained a black and white world of linked documents used primarily by large companies to share information across geographic regions. Then gradually, as enterprising engineers began to discover how to add color, movement, and graphics to the WWW, hypermedia emerged. Today, you can read, "surf," watch video clips, listen to music, play games, chat IRT (in real time), and shop on the WWW. Some proponents of "cyberspace" go so far as to claim that it is no longer necessary to leave your house--everything is available at the click of a mouse.
The WWW is obviously a place for entertainment, but is it a place for learning? The answer is a qualified yes.
Hyperreading, Cognition, and Memory
Hyperreading, a term coined by Nicholas Burbles, is the active and critical reading of hypertext or hypermedia. Hyperreading can only be done in an electronic environment where linking occurs. Whereas "conventions of reading, like those of writing, have grown out of the structure of sentences flowing into paragraphs flowing into pages, pages followed by other pages" resulting in linear thought, hyperreading is non-linear, or lateral, and can flow in any direction within, or without, a document. This type of reading is being heralded as a breakthrough in the learning, or memory, process for two reasons: hyperreading more closely resembles the natural human thought processes, and linking actively engages the reader/writer resulting in a more enduring type of learning.
Until recently, the argument that the act of reading hypertext was more associative and better for learning was based on cognition theories and educated guesses, but very little empirical evidence. While there is still no real model available of the cognitive processes involved in reading hypertext, several studies which compared reading linear, conventional texts to reading the same information presented in non-linear, hypertext fashion have yielded some interesting results (Rouet and Levonen 12).
In a 1992 study, researchers Dee-Lucas and Larkin prepared three versions of the same text: one in linear print (with an alphabetic table of contents), one in unstructured hypertext, and one in structured hypertext (the structured hypertext was programmed with a hierarchical index). The results showed that both hypertext versions produced a larger breadth of recall in both the long and short term. Between the hypertext versions, the students using the hierarchically structured version made selections faster and had better recall of both the content and organization of the text. A similar study done in 1990 by Simpson and McKnight yielded the same results and led the researchers to conclude that "Subjects using the hierarchical index had more efficient navigation patterns. They also gave better answers to content questions and were better at reconstructing the hypertext structure. Hierarchical representations may help readers build up mental maps of hypertext structures" (Rouet and Levonen 18).
These two studies provide some of the first empirical evidence that hyperreading may improve cognition and memory. In addition, their findings that students responded better to hierarchically arranged material and were able to build mental maps validates the medieval concept of building mental databases.
In his article "Myths, Misconceptions, and an Alternative Perspective on Information Usage and Electronic Medium," however, Andrew Dillion offers up a cautionary to research like that of Simpson and McKnight. He points out that it is the process of reading associatively, not necessarily the medium, that produces beneficial results. A study of sophisticated readers by Dillion, Richardson, and McKnight, showed that of three dominant reading styles, only one was linear, while the "other two involved rapid browsing and jumping throughout the text depending on the task goal at the time" (Dillon 30). Similarly, when linear hypertext was compared to linear books, the resulting levels of recall were equal. It appears, then, that hyperreading can be an acquired skill and can assist in memory and cognition no matter what the medium.
Color, Hypermedia, and Memory
One of the biggest advantages of hypermedia is the ability to use color and text together. The use of color and graphics as a mnemotechnique has a long history. Writing in the early twelfth century, Hugh of St. Victor instructs his students in the art of memory:
It is a great value for fixing a memory-image that when we read books, we study to impress on our memory . . . the color, shape, position, and placement of the letters . . . in what location (at the top, the middle or bottom) we saw [something] positioned . . . in what color we observed the trace of the letter or the ornamented surface of the parchment. Indeed I consider nothing so useful for stimulating the memory as this. (Carruthers 9)
And later, in a fifteenth century ars memorativa, we find similar advice:
Wherefore one best learns by studying from illuminated books, for the different colors bestow remembrance of the different lines and consequently of that thing which on wants to get by heart. (9)
Even though the usefulness of color and graphics (to use a more modern term) in memory and learning has been recognized for centuries, the use of these mnemonic devices disappeared from text for centuries. While the printing press and other such devices led to the increase of literacy and availability of the written word, it also reduced those words to flat, black marks on white paper. When illustrations were included in books prepared for mass production, they were also printed in black and white; it would be centuries before color and color graphics were introduced back into text.
During the 1960s and 70s, the use of color was gradually added back into communication devices. Movies began to appear in color, televisions began to receive color, and magazines and newspapers began to use color on their pages, although this was done sparingly due to the excessive cost of color production. Then, in the late 1980s, the first color computer screen or CRT was developed, and color again began to infuse our text.
When the WWW was first being developed, the coding used to produce a hypertext document did not allow for the use of color. But with the advent of the browser, and the public rush to the WWW, developers quickly found ways to include not only color, but graphics, movement, and sound which have all blended together to produce hypermedia.
Multimedia hypertext is closer in spirit to the medieval illuminated codex than it is either to the ancient speech or to the modern printed book. In an illuminated manuscript the decorated letters created a subtle space in which verbal text and image were perfectly merged. Meaning was conveyed visually as well as orally; the codex had to be seen to be understood. In hypertext too an image can become part of the text. (Bolter, "Hypertext" 110)
Most books on hypermedia design include sections on the use of color and graphics and their purpose. For example, in Click Here, Raymond Pirouz writes, "A fundamental principle associated with drawing attention and compelling users to click is the use of color . . . color is a powerful tool in your electronic tool box" (37). A section of the "mutlimedia bible," Web Page Design by Mary Morris and Randy Hinrichs, is devoted to cognitive design and offers designers tips on stimulating readers' memory including using color, white space and rhythm (76), using the foreground to capture interest and the middle ground to deliver a memorable message (83), and how to avoid cognitive overload (95). While cognitive overload is a growing concern, the fact remains that the use of color and graphics with text can function as a mnemotechnique and assist in the later recall of information.
In the spring of 1998, I taught a developmental writing course that I entitled "Issues in Cyberspace." My goal in the class was to use the WWW and the issues surrounding it to help stimulate my students' interest in current events and the writing process. Each of the texts I selected had Web page equivalents, and since we were in a computer lab, I took advantage of the ability to use hypermedia in the classroom. Gradually, as the students became familiar with this new medium, it became the focal point of class. Over the course of the quarter I noticed that more students were referring to the Web versions of the texts than the written versions. They began to reference graphics, pictures, and HTTP addresses more often than page numbers.
As I assisted students in using the WWW for research, I found that although frustration sometimes ran high because of the volatility of the medium ("'Error 404: Address cannot be found?' What does that mean? It was there yesterday!"), I was more apt to get a visual reference to information than a written reference. I got comments such as "You know, it was on that purple page," or I would overhear students sharing information by referencing particular graphics or icons on a page, "No, scroll down, it's by the picture of the guy kicking the soccer ball." I also observed students drawing mental maps of sites that they visited and recreating them, and occasionally, if a bookmark disappeared, being able to start at a gateway (such as a Yahoo! search results page) and quickly navigate the colored links through several sites until they relocated their particular information.
Although this class was not set up to function as a formal study, I found that
students' ability to recall information appeared to be better than previous
quarters, and that the students' were much more actively engaged in their reading
and writing when doing it in an electronic format. Clearly, they benefited from
using color and graphics to orient themselves, and were fairly successful at
using these tools as mnemonic devices.
Return to TOC
In the introduction to Rhetorical Memory and Delivery, Winifred Horner writes that there can be no complete rhetoric without the study of all five of its canons: invention, arrangement, style, memory, and delivery. In particular, she says, "In order to look at the new electronic media, we need to reinterpret the canon of memory in the historical documents. At best we have misinterpreted that history; at worst, we have ignored it" (xi). Many scholars are now beginning to take up that investigation and are finding that as a means of producing and understanding electronic discourse, memory is again becoming "the noblest" of all the canons, "the basis for the rest" (Carruthers 9); memory can now be seen as being an integral part of all the canons.
Memory is intimately linked with invention. As composers begin to write, they must first visit the places of memory to recall their research and fashion their arguments. The training of a tiered or layered memory is essential in writing and in the world of hypermedia (Bolter, "Writing" 215) In hypermedia, both the reader and the writer become inventors. As the writer invents, they must plan and insert logical links, color, graphics, and even sound. As the reader visits these unique sites, they too become an inventor as they decide which path to take through the site. The reader determines in which order they will read arguments, which links they will follow, and what colors they associate with the parts of the argument. As this invention occurs, so too does memory, building databases full of mnemonic clues for future use. When the reader, in turn, becomes the writer, these places of memory will be visited and accessed and sorted. Writers at this point will use their memory to arrange their arguments.
It is perhaps significant that the Greek word for arrangement (taxis) was also used in reference to the drawing up or arranging of a battle plan or army. The decision of how to construct an argument is central to the art of rhetoric. In order to make the right choices, rhetors must have at their fingertips (or in their memory) the type of audience they will be addressing, as well as the arguments, proofs and refutations that they will use. Before they begin writing, they should visit their memory places and, drawing on past experience, decide what type of argument will be most memorable. They should remember the rules they have been taught for setting out a successful argument, and then they should consider the most effective way to introduce that argument. They should consider each statement of fact, review the proofs they have gathered, as well as their possible refutations, and then draw them all together in a memorable conclusion.
When using hypermedia to arrange an argument, rhetors have even more to consider. While they should still visit their places of memory to construct a valid and memorable argument, in a hypermedia document, they must also consider the memory process of the reader. How will they attract the attention of the reader? What colors, graphics, or links can they use to enhance the message and help the reader to develop mnemonic maps of the argument? How can the medium be used to enhance the memorableness of the message?
The third canon, style, also requires the use of memory. Regardless of how the rhetor decides to arrange the argument, it is always necessary to go back and look at the details of the argument. Even a memorable, well-planned argument can fail when the attention to detail is lacking. The proper use of spelling, punctuation, and grammar are important considerations in any argument, and the writer should visit their memory databases, both internal and external, to assure proper usage.
Finally, memory plays a large role in the method of delivery. In electronic discourse, delivery and arrangement often overlap. As I previously mentioned, as writers plan out their argument, they need to consider such delivery methods as color, design, graphics, and sound. In a hypermedia presentation, delivery is especially concerned with making the argument, and the site, memorable. In addition to planning their site, however, the writer must be able to build and design it. This requires extensive databases of hypertext mark-up language (HTML), hexadecimal color codes, URLs to form links, and programming languages to write applets (small applications) to enable the site with video or sound. The more complex the argument and method of delivery, the larger the memory databases must be.
While memory clearly has a place in each of the canons, and appears to be implicit
in the use of hypermedia, we cannot assume that students will inherently know
how to use this type of memory. In her CCCC address in April, 1998, Kathleen
Welch pointed out that although many rhetorical canons can be seen in use in
all of today's types of media, including hypermedia, we cannot assume that students
know how to actively interact with this media. For too long, we have passively
watched images flash by on our television and computer screens. Building mnemotechniques
and databases take active attention. Making a message memorable in this world
of thirty-second sound bytes has become a great challenge. It can be done, but
it must be taught. While many scholars have worked hard to restore memory to
the rhetorical canon, it is not enough. Methods must be developed, or rediscovered,
to aid teachers of rhetoric and writing in training twenty-first century, channel
and web surfers to actively engage in the media around them. They must be taught
how to develop mnemotechniques, discover memorable arguments, and build internal
and external databases. Only when we use and develop our memory places will
the fourth canon truly be restored to the rhetorical tradition.
Return to TOC
Bolter, Jay David. "Hypertext and the Rhetorical Canons." Rhetorical Memory and Delivery: Classical Concepts for Contemporary Composition and Communication. Ed. John Frederick Reynolds. Hillsdale, NJ: Lawerence Earlbaum Associates, 1993. 97 - 112.
_____. Writing Space: The Computer, Hypertext, and the History of Writing. Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates, 1991.
Burbles, Nicholas C. "Rhetorics of the Web: Hyperreading and Critical Literacy." Page to Screen. Ed. Ilana Snyder. London: Routledge, 1998. 102 – 122.
Carruthers, Mary. The Book of Memory. Malta: Cambridge University Press, 1990.
Connor, Robert J. "Actio: A Rhetoric of Written Delivery (Iteration Two)." Rhetorical Memory and Delivery: Classical Concepts for Contemporary Composition and Communication. Ed. John Frederick Reynolds. Hillsdale, NJ: Lawerence Earlbaum Associates, 1993. 65 - 78.
Corbett, Edward P. J. Classical Rhetoric for the Modern Student. 3rd ed. New York: Oxford, UP, 1991.
Crowley, Sharon. "Modern Rhetoric and Memory." Rhetorical Memory and Delivery: Classical Concepts for Contemporary Composition and Communication. Ed. John Frederick Reynolds. Hillsdale, NJ: Lawerence Earlbaum Associates, 1993. 31 - 44.
Crowley, Sharon and Debra Hawhee. Ancient Rhetorics for Contemporary Writers. 2nd Ed. Boston: Allyn and Bacon, 1999.
Dillion, Andrew. "Myths, Misconceptions, and an Alternative Perspective on Information Usage and the Electronic Medium." Hypertext and Cognition. Ed. Jean-François Rouet, Jarmo J. Levonen, Andrew Dillion and Rand J. Spiro. Mahwah, NJ: 1996. 25 - 42.
Flowers, Linda. Problem-Solving Strategies for Writing. 3rd ed. San Diego: HBJ, 1989.
Grierson, Herbert J. C. Rhetoric and English Composition. London: Oliver and Boyd, Ltd., 1951.
Horner, Winifred. "Introduction." Rhetorical Memory and Delivery: Classical Concepts for Contemporary Composition and Communication. Ed. John Frederick Reynolds. Hillsdale, NJ: Lawerence Earlbaum Associates, 1993. v - x.
Johnson, Steven. Interface Culture. San Francisco: Harper Edge Publishing, 1997.
Morris, Mary and Randy Hinrichs. Web Page Design: A Different Multimedia. Mountain View: SunSoft Press, 1996.
Ong, Walter J. Orality and Literacy: The Technologizing of the Word. New York: Methuen, 1982.
Pirouz, Raymond. Click Here. Indianapolis: New Riders Publishing, 1997.
Reynolds, John Frederick. "Classical Rhetoric and Computer-Assisted Composition: Extra-Textual Features as 'Delivery.'" Computer-Assisted Composition Journal 3 (1989): 101 - 07.
_____. "Concepts of Memory in Contemporary Composition." Rhetoric Society Quarterly 19 (1989): 245 - 52.
_____. "Memory Issues in Composition Studies." Rhetorical Memory and Delivery: Classical Concepts for Contemporary Composition and Communication. Ed. John Frederick Reynolds. Hillsdale, NJ: Lawerence Earlbaum Associates, 1993. 1 - 16.
Rouet, Jean-François and Jarmo J. Levonen. "Studying and Learning from Hypertext: Empirical Studies and Their Implications." Hypertext and Cognition. Ed. Jean-François Rouet, Jarmo J. Levonen, Andrew Dillion and Rand J. Spiro. Mahwah, NJ: 1996. 9 - 23.
Snyder, Ilana. "Beyond the Hype: Reassessing Hypertext." Page to Screen. Ed. Ilana Snyder. London: Routledge, 1998. 125 – 143.
Ueding and Steinbrink. Grundriss der Rhetorik. Stuttgart: J B Metzlersche Verlagsbuchhandlung, 1986.
Vickers, Brian. In Defense of Rhetoric. Oxford: Clarendon Press, 1988.
Welch, Kathleen E. "Electrifying Classical Rhetoric: Ancient Media, Modern Technology, and Contemporary Composition." Journal of Advanced Composition 10 (1990): 22 - 38.
_____. "Electronic Rhetoric and Screen Literacy: HUTS and the New Logos Performance." Conference on College Composition and Communication, Chicago, April 1998.
_____. "Ideology and Freshman Textbook Production: The Place of Theory in Writing Pedagogy." Journal of Advanced Composition 10 (1990): 22 - 38.
_____. "Reconfiguring Writing and Delivery in Secondary Orality." Rhetorical Memory and Delivery: Classical Concepts for Contemporary Composition and Communication. Ed. John Frederick Reynolds. Hillsdale, NJ: Lawerence Earlbaum Associates, 1993. 17 - 30.
Yates, Frances A. The Art of Memory. Chicago: University
of Chicago Press, 1966.
Return to TOC
Allen, Virginia. "The Faculty of Memory." Rhetorical Memory and Delivery: Classical Concepts for Contemporary Composition and Communication. Ed. John Frederick Reynolds. Hillsdale, NJ: Lawerence Earlbaum Associates, 1993. 45 - 64.
Aristotle. The Art of Rhetoric. New York: Oxford University Press, 1991.
Bizzell, Patricia and Bruce Herzberg. The Rhetorical Tradition. Boston: Bedford Books, 1990.
Bolter, Jay David. "The Computer as New Writing Space." CyberReader. Ed. Victor Vitanza. Boston, MA: Allyn and Bacon, 1996. 215 - 231.
_____. "The Electronic Book." CyberReader. Ed. Victor Vitanza. Boston, MA: Allyn and Bacon, 1996. 273 - 293.
Crowley, Sharon. The Methodical Memory: Invention in Current-Traditional Rhetoric. Carbondale: Southern Illinois UP, 1990.
Cypert, Rick. "Memory: A Step Toward Invention." Conference on College Composition and Communication, Atlanta, March 1987.
Dee-Lucas, Diana. "Effects of Overview Structure on Study Strategies and Text Representations for Instructional Hypertext." Hypertext and Cognition. Ed. Jean-François Rouet, Jarmo J. Levonen, Andrew Dillion and Rand J. Spiro. Mahwah, NJ: 1996. 73 - 108.
Dragga, Sam. "The Ethics of Delivery." Rhetorical Memory and Delivery: Classical Concepts for Contemporary Composition and Communication. Ed. John Frederick Reynolds. Hillsdale, NJ: Lawerence Earlbaum Associates, 1993. 79 - 96.
Esperet, Eric. "Notes on Hypertext, Cognition, and Language." Hypertext and Cognition. Ed. Jean-François Rouet, Jarmo J. Levonen, Andrew Dillion and Rand J. Spiro. Mahwah, NJ: 1996. 149 - 156.
Folz, Peter W. "Comprehension, Coherence, and Strategies in Hypertext and Linear Text." Hypertext and Cognition. Ed. Jean-François Rouet, Jarmo J. Levonen, Andrew Dillion and Rand J. Spiro. Mahwah, NJ: 1996. 109 - 136.
Gronbeck, Bruce. "The Spoken and the Seen: The Phonocentric and Ocularcentric Dimensions of Rhetorical Discourse." Rhetorical Memory and Delivery: Classical Concepts for Contemporary Composition and Communication. Ed. John Frederick Reynolds. Hillsdale, NJ: Lawerence Earlbaum Associates, 1993. 139 - 156.
Hutton, Patrick H. "The Art of Memory Reconceived: From Rhetoric to Psychoanalysis." Journal of the History of Ideas 48 (1987): 371 - 92.
Klem, Elizabeth and Charles Moran. "Computers and Instructional Strategies in the Teaching of Writing." Evolving Perspectives on Computers and Composition Studies: Question for the 1990s. Eds. Gail E. Hawisher and Cynthia L. Selfe. Urbana: NCTE, 1991. 132 - 149.
Knoblauch, C. H., and Lil Brannon. Rhetorical Traditions and the Teaching of Writing. Upper Montclair: Boynton/Cook, 1984.
Kurzweil, Raymond. "The Future of Libraries." CyberReader. Ed. Victor Vitanza. Boston, MA: Allyn and Bacon, 1996. 260 - 272.
Landow, George P. Hypertext: The Convergence of Contemporary Theory and Technology. Baltimore: Johns Hopkins UP, 1992.
Lanham, Richard A. "Digital Rhetoric: Theory, Practice, and Property." Literacy Online: The Promise (and Peril) of Reading and Writing with Computers. Ed. Myron C. Tuman. Pittsburgh: U of Pittsburgh Press, 1992. 221- 43.
_____. "The Electronic Word: Literacy Study and the Digital Revolution." New Literacy History 20 (1989). 265 - 289.
Magnotto, Joyce N. "Literacy Among Undergraduates: How We Represent Students as Writers and What It Means When We Don't." Rhetoric, Cultural Studies, and Literacy. Ed. John Frederick Reynolds. Hillsdale: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates, 1995. 169 - 175.
Marc, David. "Mass Memory: The Past in the Age of Television." Rhetorical Memory and Delivery: Classical Concepts for Contemporary Composition and Communication. Ed. John Frederick Reynolds. Hillsdale, NJ: Lawerence Earlbaum Associates, 1993. 125 - 138.
Moran, Charles and Gail E. Hawisher. "The Rhetoric and Languages of Electronic Mail." Page to Screen. Ed. Ilana Snyder. London: Routledge, 1998. 80 – 101.
Moulthrop, Stuart. "The Politics of Hypertext." Evolving Perspectives on Computers and Composition Studies: Question for the 1990s. Eds. Gail E. Hawisher and Cynthia L. Selfe. Urbana: NCTE, 1991. 253 - 271.
Murphy, James. A Short History of Writing Instruction: From Ancient Greece to Twentieth-Century America. Davis: Hermagoras, 1990.
Perfetti, Charles A. "Text and Hypertext." Hypertext and Cognition. Ed. Jean-François Rouet, Jarmo J. Levonen, Andrew Dillion and Rand J. Spiro. Mahwah, NJ: 1996. 157 - 162.
Postman, Neil and Camille Paglia. "She Wants Her TV! He Wants His Book!" CyberReader. Ed. Victor Vitanza. Boston, MA: Allyn and Bacon, 1996. 187 - 202.
Rouet, Jean-François, Jarmo J. Levonen, Andrew Dillion and Rand J. Spiro. "An Introduction to Hypertext and Cognition." Hypertext and Cognition. Ed. Jean-François Rouet, Jarmo J. Levonen, Andrew Dillion and Rand J. Spiro. Mahwah, NJ: 1996. 3 - 9.
Smith, Catherine F. "Reconceiving Hypertext." Evolving Perspectives on Computers and Composition Studies: Question for the 1990s. Eds. Gail E. Hawisher and Cynthia L. Selfe. Urbana: NCTE, 1991. 224 - 252.
Sullivan, Patricia. "Taking Control of the Page: Electronic Writing and Word Publishing." Evolving Perspectives on Computers and Composition Studies: Question for the 1990s. Eds. Gail E. Hawisher and Cynthia L. Selfe. Urbana: NCTE, 1991. 43 - 64.
Welch, Kathleen E. The Contemporary Reception of Classical Rhetoric: Appropriations of Ancient Discourse. Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates, 1990.
Questions?
Suggestions? Send e-mail.