“Recently, composition and rhetoric scholars have argued for an ontological turn in the field…” (96). OMFG… Seriously? another “turn”? Let’s see… We have a “genre turn” (Barwashi & Reiff 2010), an “affective turn” (Nelson 2016), “the digital turn” (Dyehouse, Shamoon, Pennell 2009), “the multimodal turn”… of course… (Palmeri, etc. 2012), the famous “social turn” of Faigley’s 80s, the “archival turn” (Hayden 2017)… It’s difficult at this point to take any talk of “turns” seriously for me. Our “turns” are not helpful, I’d argue (with Yancey), particularly in forming a disciplinary identity. Ah, yes, of course, there’s “The Posthuman Turn in Composition” (Lucia 2018). Actually, I could take just about any term, plug it into Google scholar with a “Rhetoric and Composition” “…. turn” and “voila!” This on-the-brink ness is akin to Booth’s charge of “novomania”… We still got it.

For Chapter 5: “Learning seen as disposition to form structures and an understanding of limits as enabling: why aren’t these ideas guiding our practice” (TLS 75).

(TLS 63) “… dialectic ad dialogue are consonant ad cognate simultaneous and correlative.”