Voice(s) in writing : pedagogical implications of exploring multiple definitions /

Abstract

The idea of voice in writing is difficult to use in a classroom because of the many different definitions of voice evident in composition theory history. This thesis asserts that written voice is better used in composition pedagogy as a heuristic device to discuss philosophies of how written communication works, than as a useful tool to facilitate student writing. To begin the analysis, the thesis charts the discussion of voice. After organizing the discussion of voice into categories based on five of the first articles on written voice by Walker Gibson, Taylor Stoehr, Robert Zoellner, Donald Murray, and John Hawkes and then analyzing Peter Elbow's, Kathleen Blake Yancey's and Darsie Bowden's three modern attempts to chart the history of discussion on written voice, it is concluded each compositionist's understanding of voice is framed according to a personal philosophy of how communication functions. Voice calls into question the importance of individual and social influences on the reader's sense of a person behind the text: a person expressing craftsmanship and/or individuality and/or orality and/or political force. As written voices become as much about other influences on writing as they are about the author, this thesis examines Elbow's and Yancey's two compilations of essays on voice to show the possibility and implications of the idea of editorial voice. Finally, pedagogical implications of the body of theory on written voice are explored and found lacking due to their inconsistency. The thesis, then, introduces and explains a new pedagogy of voice(s). This new pedagogy takes the form of a senior level undergraduate course design using voice as a heuristic tool to uncover and critically examine personal philosophies of how written communication works.