The Modes - in relationship to the object over time:
1. Narration: dynamic
2. descriptive: static
3. Classificatory: static
4. evaluation: dynamic
I believe Kinneavy aims for "aims." Of course all good discourse needs to involve each mode, but well-composed discussions should 'aim' towards one of the four
(4) evaluation of the readings
Garrett: reading is clearly classifying elements. There are touches of narration (histories, hypertext, peeps) as well as descriptions (definitions), and evaluations (the future 'powers' of the web and larger claims). But, the objective was to classify elements - to deconstruct the architecture of an eCommerce site.
Miller: though beneath the surface and into the skeletal plane of this work, I find the aim to be an evaluation of practical rhetoric. But, the aim of the paper is classificatory. Of course, one could deconstruct the paper and find bits and pieces of all the modes, but the paper is static. It is about a stative description/evaluation of a subject over time. The descriptions of "procedural rhetoric [could, would, may, be]" are not-nonstative. Thus, the category can neither be considered argumentative nor an evaluation.
Plato: First, my favorite quote: "Every speech must be put together like a living creature, with a body of its own; it must be neither without head nor without legs; and it must have a middle and extremities that are fitting both to one another and to the whole work."
This clearly identifies the message of the story - at first a narrative (surface), but the intent is to classify rhetoric as the art of persuasion. Again, to classify.
Hackos and Redish: from start to finish, this is clearly an act of classificatory taxonomy. Answering in a static sense 'what is the object' over time. This is one scary document - the idea of creating a workflow evaluation on tasks seems to undermine human existence.
All the readings are classificatory. After the read-relatings, I found that Garrett provides an excellent description to Kinneavy's taxonomy. Surface/skeleton can be seen as narrative, structure as description, scope as classification and strategy as evaluation. All are required, but each discourse aims to promote an idea (for example why lecturers should not be fired @ Clemson)
1. Narrative: the story/histories of the lecture. Their role (dynamically, over time)
2. description: a stream on conscience concerning the lecturer (as in outside the "professor's window). How the department's rigamarole is typically deposited on the lecturer...almost a skeletal backbone of the university.
3. Classifying the importance of a lecturer - the need, the idea of 'intermittent faculty' or non-tenure track teaching. How a lecture fits into the breath of specialization and importance to each department.
4. evaluation: best put, the 'practical rhetoric' of a lecturer. a case for the position.