various guises, playing a role in the redefinition of English as a school subject. To keep the focus on
Moffett for the purposes of the present article, a further dimension of rhetoric that he does not
develop sufficiently (and acknowledges as much) is the aesthetic dimension: the arts of discourse.
This term also has the benefit (and, some might argue, the disadvantages) of an emphasis on the
techne (technique as art, craft) of contemporary communication, as well as on the political nature of
rhetoric. In addition, rhetoric can deal with communication in any language or combination of
languages; in a number and combination of modes; and it can handle the difference between the
fictive worlds and the real world or worlds; and it links itself to a long but varied tradition of public
discourse.
But Moffett’s position, as well as fundamentally arguing the case for speech and drama (in practice
and as dialogic principles) at the centre of discourse in a renewed English curriculum, prepares the
ground for such a wider conception of rhetoric. Rhetoric’s concerns are essentially simple: it is
interested in who is speaking to or with (writing for, composing for) whom; why; what are they
communicating about; and when and how are they doing it? These simple questions have complex
and wide-ranging answers. Moffett’s conviction - that the interchange of speech or drama (an
interesting coupling that is not fully exploited for its real world/fictive world potential) realizes a
principle that applies to all communication - is deeply rhetorical. From the vantage point of the early
twenty-first century, when growth-based, literary and/or skills-based models of English or literacy no
longer seem to convey the excitement or range of contemporary communication, Moffett’s
contribution as one of the first to challenge the orthodoxy of the written product at the heart of the
English curriculum now looks prescient.
In partial conclusion, we could also say that Moffett’s contribution to contemporary rhetoric needed
further development: in relation to framing theory, dialogism, multimodality and the fiction/non-
fiction divide. What the discussion is this article hardly touches on, but what is so inspiring about
Teaching the Universe of Discourse, is that it continues to be a tonic to any English teacher who is
wondering what sequence of types of text to use in the classroom and why; how those types of text
are related to each other; and how to engage and negotiate with his or her students.
References
Andrews, R. 2008. The Case for a National Writing Project for Teachers. Reading: Centre for British
Teachers (CfBT) Educational Trust.
Andrews R., Torgerson C., Beverton S., Locke T., Low G., Robinson A., Zhu D. 2004a.The effect of
grammar teaching (syntax) in English on 5 to 16 year olds’ accuracy and quality in written
composition. In: Research Evidence in Education Library. London: EPPI-Centre, Social Science
Research Unit, Institute of Education.
Andrews R., Torgerson C., Beverton S., Freeman A., Locke T., Low G., Robinson A., Zhu D. 2004b. The
effect of grammar teaching (sentence combining) in English on 5 to 16 year olds’ accuracy and
quality in written composition. In: Research Evidence in Education Library. London: EPPI-Centre,
Social Science Research Unit, Institute of Education.
Abrahamson R.F. 1977. The Effects of Formal Grammar Instruction vs the Effects