Organization and Rhetorical Moves

Organization of discourse occurs on many levels. Broadly speaking, we could say this happens on macro levels and micro levels, or what we've referred to earlier in this course as "global" and "local" areas of discourse. Organization belongs to that "rule" or canon of rhetoric known as arrangment, which means, as you might expect, where you put all the stuff you've come up with to make this discussion in the first place. Rhetorical scholars Patricia Bizzell and Bruce Herzberg define arrangement in this way: "the organization of the parts of a [discourse] to ensure that all the means of persuasion are present and properly disposed" (3, emphasis added). It's one thing to have all of your useful information before you; it is quite another to make sure that it is placed in such a way as to make its presentation rhetorically effective. Indeed, how one arranges and organizes one's content (the "stuff" your paper is about) can have great persuasive potential. If you are building an argument with many facets, for example, you would be making those presentations the clearest (and therefore more compelling) if you deal with each aspect in turn rather than in a hodgepodge fashion. Separating and classifying information in this way is one way in which material is organized for effective communication. Indeed, all organization might boil down to this question: when should information be dealt with separately, and when should it be handled together?

Rhetorical Moves

We would do well to speak of organization with reference to what we've called rhetorical moves; basically, rhetorical moves (or "maneuvers") are those ways in which we "move" through our discourse in order to achieve our rhetorical goal. It is what we "do" from place to place in our discourse, thought of in terms of strategic motion. So conceived, we have to think of discourse as having a point A and a point B, point A being raising the issue and point B being arriving at a conclusion. Of course, there is an entire range of possible "routes" we might take from those two points, but whatever way we choose, each "move" must serve the purpose of "taking us there."

Like organization, rhetorical moves takes place on many levels—macro and micro, global and local. Not to overstate the case, an entire paper can constitute one large rhetorical move, say, to argue for one position on a controversial issue. Breaking up a paper into larger sections, we could equate each section with a rhetorical move: to establish relevant background, to make and defend claims, to depart from the discussion with closing remarks (=introduction, discussion section, conclusion). Still more locally, we could speak of the rhetorical moves in a section, or even with paragraphs and sentences. Such localized rhetorical moves could be things like making a thesis statement, establishing credibility, refuting an opposing claim, providing examples, introducing an expert, citing a source, preparing a reader for upcoming content, defining a specialized term, etc., etc. What we have then are global and local rhetorical moves, and moves within moves within moves. All discourses can be examined along these lines (even this one).

Organization and rhetorical moves go hand in hand. How one organizes a paper is inextricably linked to the rhetorical moves one uses to reach the rhetorical goal. When you are considering how to organize your paper, ask yourself: "What is it that I want to do here? How do I need to proceed, and what rhetorical moves would best accomplish my goals?"

Organization at Different Levels of Localization

When considering organizing your paper, consider the following strategies for creating organization, beginning with the global levels and working down to the local levels.

[Global]

Discussion Sections. Consider using topical headings to separate sections. You may find that this gives your paper a more readily discernible structure and helps you compose your paper in manageable portions.

Paragraphs. Make use of topic sentences, or sentences in which the "basic idea" of a paragraph is contained. Then, as always, take the time to unfold sub-topics.

Sentences. Here is the place to begin establishing broader claims by making more specific claims. Again, the macro-micro nature of discourse is illustrated here.

Phrases. Phrases, of course, constitute sentences and are the locus for even more specific data and information.

Words. As a self-conscious communicator, every word should be precious to you. Every word is there because it serves the overall purpose of the paper. Sometimes, should you choose to quote an expert's word in isolation can have the effect of creating emphasis, and can jar a reader out of complacency or rekindle interest. Whether you choose another's words or your own, however, the rule remains the same: the smallest word is placed just so (i.e., is organized) to serve the rhetorical agenda. There are no "throw-away" words.

[Local]

As mentioned in two previous blogs ("On Metadiscourse" and "More Metadiscourse"), using various kinds of metadiscursive cues are effective ways of organizing discourse. Metadiscursive cues are versatile in that they can help control rhetorical moves at virtually any level, macro or micro. They can help to introduce larger sections, or they can help to establish sentence-to-sentence or phrase-to-phrase connections. As such, they are invaluable tools for organization. Sometimes, they make the rhetorical moves explicit rather than implied (e.g., "To state this another way," "It is first important to examine," etc.)

Other Places to Look

As you know, any sample research paper in either The Tarleton Writer, Research Writing Simplified, or those scholarly papers you are using as sources may also serve as potential models for organization. Note how the authors use the various possible techniques and rhetorical moves mentioned above. Note how their organizational strategies are effective. Why did they structure their respective arguments as they did? Would other ways have been as effective? As an unfamiliar academic reader yourself, did you feel the organization was a help rather than a hindrance to your information-gathering?