Veronica Anzaldua
ENG 6323.01
May 13, 2015
ISSUE TRACE—ARRANGEMENT
In high-school and college classrooms across the United States, students learn how to
write essays and term papers according to a certain order: 1) Introduction; 2) Thesis; 3)
Evidence; and 4) Conclusion. As we will see shortly, this sample argument model, far from
being a modern concept, actually dates back to Ancient Greece. In addition, we will explore
arrangement’s revision during the Renaissance, its revival and further development in the late
20th century, and finally, its diversification in the first decades of the 21st century. Arrangement,
as a rhetorical concept, has a long, complicated history but continues to evolve to meet the needs
of today’s students.
Origins
Arrangement, known in Ancient Greek as dispositio, was the second of the five canons of
rhetoric and was concerned with effectively organizing discourse. The manner through which
this discourse is organized varied among rhetoricians. For example, Aristotle, in Book III of
Rhetoric, proclaimed that arrangement consisted of only two parts: statement and proof (Corbett
36). Despite Aristotle’s assertion, however, he was, according to Edward P. J. Corbett, “ready to
concede that in practice, orators added two more parts: an introduction and a conclusion (36).
The Latin text, Rhetorica Ad Herennium, by contrast, called for an arrangement that consisted of
six parts: introduction (exordium); statement or exposition of the case under discussion
(narratio); outline of the points or steps in the argument (divisio); proof of the case
(confirmatio); refutation of the closing arguments (confutatio); and the conclusion (peroratio)
(Corbett 36). The first part, exordium, or introduction, served to introduce the reader to the topic
or argument. In an introduction a writer could use a hypothetical question or a quote. The
1
Veronica Anzaldua
ENG 6323.01
May 13, 2015
utilization of either of these could be an effective tool to draw the reader into the topic. Indeed,
according to Edward P. J. Corbett, “without this kind of ‘ornamental’ introduction, the discourse
would have an abrupt, negligent, unfinished air about it” (304). The second part of arrangement,
narratio, or statement of the facts, was concerned with the introduction of the facts that
established an argument. Originally, narratio “figured principally in forensic oratory” (Corbett
314), as stating facts was necessary in establishment of the case. The third part, divisio, or
outline of the argument, was the operation “throughout the whole discourse” (Porter 192).
Essentially, this part of arrangement was concerned with the proper order and listing of the facts
presented in written discourse. The fourth part, confirmatio, or confirmation, established proof
of the facts. This part of arrangement could be considered as the core, since it established what a
speaker set out to do with the facts (Corbett 321).
The penultimate part of arrangement,
refutatio, or refutation of the facts, dealt with the opposite side of an argument; in this part, the
presenter had to anticipate and to be prepared to defend an argument to the opposing side. The
final part of arrangement, peroratio, or the conclusion, provided the closing of the argument.
This final part of arrangement could be important because, according to Edward P. J. Corbett,
“without a conclusion, the discourse strikes us as merely stopping rather than ending” (328). Put
simply, an argument needed a proper ending by recapping the main points and providing one’s
final thoughts on the subject.
One fact must be kept in mind about arrangement in Ancient Greece, however: its use
during this era was concerned with oral discourse and was used, according to Erika Lindemann,
to enable “politicians, lawyers, and statesmen to argue court cases, shape political decisions
about the nation’s future, or make speeches of praise or blame on ceremonial occasions” (41).
Indeed, Corax first formulated arrangement as method that enabled effective argumentation in a
2
Veronica Anzaldua
ENG 6323.01
May 13, 2015
court of law, which he, according Edward P. J. Corbett, “proposed for the parts of a judicial
speech” (595). In another instance of the importance of arrangement, Corbett cites the case of
Athenian orators Aeschines and Demosthenes. In an oratorical contest, Aeschines declared that
Demosthenes’s speech conform to a certain arrangement pattern (Corbett 302).
However,
Demosthenes asked that he be allowed to use the form of arrangement of his choice, as that could
determine the outcome of the contest (Corbett 302). As important as arrangement was to the
early rhetoricians, it would encounter challenges in the years to follow.
Turning Point
As a concept, arrangement would encounter a serious challenge with the onset of the
Renaissance. By this time, university students were routinely studying the trivium, a set of
courses that consisted of three disciplines: grammar, logic, and rhetoric, what was considered a
classic liberal education. It was believed that university students would benefit greatly from
these courses in that they made the students better-prepared for argumentation. Indeed, the
overall goal, according to Nedra Reynolds, Jay Dolmage, Patricia Bizzell, and Bruce Herzberg,
was preparing “the beginning student for the serious business of the university. . .which offered
practice in oral argumentation on historical, religious, or legal issues” (2). As important as
university professors considered the trivium to educating students, however, Peter Ramus saw a
need to make changes to this course of study. Ramus, a French rhetorician, set about reforming
the trivium by separating the three subjects; in the process, he relegated arrangement to the realm
of logic. His reason for this separation, according to Reynolds, Dolmage, Bizzell, and Herzberg,
was to “define a logical scientific discourse. . .that would win assent from the rational audience
by virtue of rationality alone” (2). In other words, Ramus believed arrangement to be antithetical
to a discourse that, in his view, was increasingly in need of “nonlogical appeals” (Reynolds,
3
Veronica Anzaldua
ENG 6323.01
May 13, 2015
Dolmage, Bizzell, Herzberg 2). As a result, arrangement was relegated to the margins of rhetoric
and remained a relatively unimportant part of written discourse right up through the mid-20th
century. At the beginning of the 1960s, however, composition specialists began looking to the
classical texts, which contained the five-stage process (invention, arrangement, style, memory,
and delivery) in an effort to revive writing as a process (Reynolds, Dolmage, Bizzell, Herzberg
6-7). Incidentally, arrangement “began to be reclaimed for composition studies as preliminary
stages in the writing process” (Reynolds, Dolmage, Bizzell, Herzberg 7). In short, this second
canon of classical rhetoric, first created as an effective method of discourse in Ancient Greece,
was increasingly viewed in a different, more modern era as an important part of the writing
process and a crucial component in composition studies.
Into this revival of arrangement as part of the writing process came an organization
model that changed the course of composition studies. Stephen Toulmin was a British educator
and philosopher who outlined a multi-step model of argumentation, a model that closely
resembled the models of arrangement that were first outlined by Corax, Tisias, and other
rhetoricians centuries earlier. In his 1958 book, The Uses of Argument, Toulmin asserted that
“we must ask what features a logically candid layout of arguments will need to have” (95). In
other words, Toulmin believed that in order for an argument to be sound, it must be organized in
a more nuanced, complex structure; to this end, he was critical of the simpler model of
arrangement proposed by Aristotle. Indeed, Toulmin questioned “whether this standard form is
sufficiently elaborate or candid” (96).
To this end, Toulmin outlined a six-step model of
argument: 1) data; 2) claim; 3) warrants; 4) qualifiers; 5) rebuttals; and 6) backing. As we will
see shortly, in addition to its structure resembling the arrangement models of the early
rhetoricians, his model placed extra importance on the proving of its data, claims, and warrants.
4
Veronica Anzaldua
ENG 6323.01
May 13, 2015
In a sample of Toulmin’s argument model, the introduction serves as the beginning, during
which the claim, or thesis, is first established. Toulmin’s model then moved on to the most
important parts: the data, the warrants, and the backing, where the writer would then attempt to
prove his/her argument. Toulmin began by describing the data. In his book, he described data as
“the facts we appeal to as a foundation for the claim” (97). The data were, simply, the facts cited
to initially support the original argument. However, data by themselves were not enough to
prove a thesis. As Toulmin asserted, “We may now be required. . .to indicate the bearing on our
conclusion of the data already produced” (98). To further prove the claims made by the data,
Toulmin proposed the use of warrants. Warrants, Toulmin said, were “general, hypothetical
statements, which can act as bridges, and authorise (sic) the sort of step to which our particular
argument commits us” (98). A claim could be proven with a statement that would quell any
disputes about its truth; in other words, assumed knowledge would prove the claim. Claims and
warrants, however, still could not be sufficient to make one’s argument. Even if one believes
he/she has constructed a sound argument, another person may still need further proof. In short,
this person wants the rhetor to back up his/her claims. According to Toulmin, backing consisted
of the “other assurances, without which the warrants themselves would possess neither authority
nor currency” (103). These “other assurances” that Toulmin referred to were solid, well-known
facts by which claims and warrants could be further proven. Toulmin’s model not only provided
a structure for making sound arguments but also provided a model for written discourse that
many composition studies classes have come to use.
Arrangement Today
Since the late 1950s, Stephen Toulmin’s method of organization has served as the model
for modern written discourse and continues to be utilized in English composition classes today.
5
Veronica Anzaldua
ENG 6323.01
May 13, 2015
However, the courses in which the model is taught have evolved, particularly in the increasing
influence of ESL instruction. For example, Purdue University professor Irwin Weiser remarked
on the increase in international students in English composition classes: “Over the past decade
alone, the number of international students studying in the United States has increased by 40
percent” (Weiser 515). Weiser was referring to the number of Chinese students who had arrived
in the United States in recent years. Additionally, he commented on the identification of and
need for second-language instruction in the field of rhetoric and composition: “. . .scholars in
rhetoric and composition, often with backgrounds in ESL, have identified a specific field of
scholarship and research in second language learning” (Weiser 515). In a similar vein, Paul Kei
Matsuda also acknowledges the need for ESL instruction in composition studies courses. He
focuses particularly on the separation of ESL instruction from English composition and on the
history that brought about this separation. However, while Matsuda does advocate the need for
ESL instruction to help second-language learners in composition, he does not necessarily call for
the merger of ESL and composition studies, since the two disciplines “have established their
institutional identities and practices over the last three decades” (Matsuda 715). Instead, he
believes that “second-language writing should be seen as an integral part of both composition
studies and second-language studies” (Matsuda 715). To this end, he proposes the following
solutions for English composition instructors: they should “ begin learning about ESL writing
and writers by reading relevant literature and by attending presentations, workshops, and special
interest (sic) meetings on ESL-related topics at professional conferences” (Matsuda 716). In
addition, Matsuda suggests that “graduate programs in composition studies should also try to
incorporate second-language learning. . .because graduate school is where institutional values are
instilled in new members of the profession” (Matsuda 716).
6
Veronica Anzaldua
ENG 6323.01
May 13, 2015
Conclusion
Arrangement as a rhetorical concept has played an important role in both oral and written
discourse.
It has evolved from a model of spoken discourse designed to assist people in
defending themselves to an organizational structure that facilitates the writing process in English
composition courses. As new technologies and social trends come into being, arrangement will
continue to evolve to become a richer, more diversified concept, while also continuing to fulfill
its purpose of persuading and proving arguments.
7