1The research upon which this article is based was supported by a grant from the East Texas State University Office of Organized Research in the summer of 1976. The author wishes to thank Professor H. M. Lafferty, Chairman, and the Committee on Organized Research for their support. 2M. H. Abrams, The Mirror and the Lamp: Romantic Theory and the Critical Tradition (New York: Norton, 1953), pp. 2-29. fect, Abrams labels pragmatic. When the universe shared by artist and auditor becomes the primary element and measure of success, then, Abrams says, we have a mimetic theory, such as that of Pope and the Neo-Classical period. Emphasis on the personal views of the ar ist, such as in the Romantic period, Abrams labels the expressive position. And finally, theories emphasizing only the internal relationships within the artifact, Abrams calls objective criticism. Abrams's analysis made me wonder whether a parallel set of four philosophies of composition might exist, each one stressing a different element in the communicative transaction. If so, each would provide-as do the philosophies Abrams outlined-both a description of the composition process and a method of evaluating the composed product. Furthermore, the existence of four such philosophies might help to explain both he widely recognized variations in English teachers' evaluations and (perhaps) what Kitzhaber in Thomas, Theories, and Therapy referred to as the bewildering variety of freshman composition courses. For application to composition, I prefer to make two shifts in Abrams's ter-
Read full abstract7-days of FREE Audio papers, translation & more with Prime
7-days of FREE Prime access