• View
• Edit
• History
• Print

Frank D Angelo Annonated Bibliography Critical Reception

Critical Reception

In his critique of D’Angelo’s text, Boley determines that A Conceptual Theory of Rhetoric is invaluable for its analysis of the different aspects of composition that still need to be addressed, notably the relationship between discourse and thought at the organizational level. In his deconstruction of the terms commonly used in composition classrooms, D’Angelo is identified as innovative in his approach and willingness to move his field of study in a direction aimed to make composition development clearer for students and more accessible for professors.

Crusius’s analysis of D’Angelo’s A Conceptual Theory of Rhetoric critique’s D’Angelo’s perceived goal of making rhetoric a science, and thereby create a set series of practices that can be studied and verified. He also details a move within D’Angelo’s new rhetoric to identify a science of rhetoric with discourse science. Within this drive, Crusius finds a number of problems he seeks to address. Crusius determines that while rhetoric can be usefully studied using scientific methods, it is nevertheless an art and therefore inherently not a science. He also concludes that D’Angelo has not fully acknowledged writing as a process. He asserts that D’Angelo also needs to further develop dialectics as a separate form of conception from rhetoric. Ultimately, he perceives D’Angelo’s work as valuable in its generation of ideas within its original time period but inherently flawed within certain aspects of its development.

This article addresses A Conceptual Theory of Rhetoric as both an attempt to move studies of composition and rhetoric forward while simultaneously being limited by its own newness as a concept. Gudas argues that the brief life of this field of study requires that all of its early works should necessarily be considered as objects which must be looked back to, discussed and analyzed for their shortcomings, and then improved upon by these observations. Emphasizing D’Angelo’s use of a variety of scholars, psychological schemas and other intellectual debates, Gudas determines that D’Angelo’s text is both vital for its time and still requiring time to develop further within academic discourses.

D’Angelo’s work is critiqued as a major asset for writing instructors for helping to develop students’ writing abilities. The author addresses D’Angelo’s fundamental belief that student’s should be guided in their writing as evident in his development of their fluency with writing conventions and their comfort in exercising their knowledge. Specifically drawing attention to D’Angelo’s production of exercises for student benefit, and his analysis and definition of basic writing conventions, this article supports the use of D’Angelo’s text within the classroom setting.