The place of the research paper in first-year composition (FYC) courses is often debated in composition forums. Many argue that the a-disciplinary nature of FYC doesn't allow instructors to teach the research paper in a way that will be transferable to disciplinary writing tasks, while others say that it is possible, as long as we have a thorough understanding of the kinds of writing tasks students will face in the disciplines and specifically teach writing skills that will be transferable. To identify these more generalizable writing skills to be emphasized, I interviewed 14 professors at Brigham Young University from different disciplines about the research papers they teach within their upper-division disciplinary courses and the kinds of researching and writing skills they expect students to have mastered before enrolling in these courses. I collated the results of the interviews and categorized 22 skills into four categories: writing process knowledge, genre knowledge, rhetorical knowledge, and researching knowledge, finding correlation between the 22 skills I identified with skills identified by both John Bean and Carra Leah Hood, lending credence to the value of my identified skills as worthwhile to be focused on in FYC. I draw on Amy Devitt's idea that the school genres we teach in FYC are antecedent genres to assert that teaching a research paper in FYC outside of the constraints of any one discipline can provide a viable and valuable learning experience, provided that it is taught with an emphasis on these writing skills that are most valued across the disciplines, and provided it is taught as a step along the way to later mastery of disciplinary genres.

There have always been rogues who dared to go against the traditional "intellectual" writing style of science and academia, a style that seems bent on transcending the "merely personal." Those who take this risk are embracing the rhetorical tradition of pathos, one that goes as far back as Aristotle. Current academic trends support a genre devoid of pathos and lacking true ethos—a deviation from classic rhetoric, and one that supports the Cartesian split of mind-body dualism. Neurological studies done by Antonio Damasio and others suggest that a holistic view is a more accurate picture of how a human soul functions. Philosophy and psychology support this same perspective, proving that the opposite of logic is not emotion: the opposite of logic is illogic. By the same token, there are two types of emotion: reasonable emotion and unreasonable emotion, one good, the other bad. There are dangers when emotion is left on its own, but there are equal dangers when logic is left on its own; so it is crucial that the two be united. Changing the academic super-genre and inviting pathos back will require writers to pursue, to an extent, divergent thinking.

This thesis examines the life and accomplishments of Amy Brown Lyman, particularly as they relate to charity activities and social service work of the Relief Society of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints. It considers her early life, her call to the General Board in 1909, her contributions to the creation of the Relief Society Social Services Department in 1919, her association with national and international leaders of reform, and her efforts in sponsoring and supporting social welfare legislation in Utah. Also examined are her work with the Social Services Department during the Great Depression, her mission to Europe from 1936-38 with her husband, her years as General Relief Society President, 1940-45, and her release and retirement from Relief Society leadership with attention given to her last years and legacy.Lyman was one of the most significant figures in twentieth-century Mormonism and this account sheds light on the effect of her activities on her Church and the larger community.

No description available.

No description available.

No description available.

No description available.

本篇論文主要探討1880至1930年代英國女性作家所再現的性別化空間。女性逐漸在十九世紀末倫敦的公共空間嶄露頭角，扮演各種不同的重要角色，舉凡上班族、消費者、俱樂部會員、電影迷、行善者及觀光客等都是當時女性公共形象的最佳例證。然而這些跨越公/私領域界限的女性漫遊者迄今都未獲得學界足夠的重視。女性漫遊者在世紀末文學研究中長期遭受忽視主要肇因於早期學者對於十九世紀男主外、女主內的公/私領域劃分大致認同，未能加以批判。透過檢視艾蜜‧列薇 (Amy Levy)、桃樂斯‧理察森 (Dorothy Richardson) 以及維吉尼亞‧吳爾夫 (Virginia Woolf) 等三位女作家的跨文類書寫，本篇論文指出世紀末的中產階級女性已逐漸掙脫傳統私領域以及家庭意識形態的束縛，開始在城市空間行走與觀看。在十九世紀末許多新興的大城市例如倫敦，如此的女性公共行走則又更加顯著並且和日益蓬勃發展的商品文化、大眾消費/享樂以及公共空間皆有極密切的關聯。流動 (mobility) 與觀察 (spectatorship) 因此成為中產階級女性在城市空間行走與觀看時的重要經驗，前者來自於女性在日益開放的公共領域遂行的空間探索，後者則是來自女性觀察者對於城市景觀例如商品展示、來往的人潮以及繁忙的街景所做的視覺凝視。經由書寫世紀末的女性城市漫遊，上述三位女作家明確地指出這些表面看似被動的中產階級女性其實早已跨越傳統空間限制，不斷挪用與創造新的城市公共空間。 / This study has examined the numerous roles played by women entering the public spaces of London in the half century from the 1880s to the 1930s as workers, shoppers, diners, clubbers, cinema-goers, philanthropists, and tourists, a wide spectrum of active female social actors that until recently have not attracted enough attention from scholars of late-Victorian and Edwardian literature. The neglect of these newly pubic women in the fin de siècle period, who are distinct from their home-bound Victorian predecessors, is largely ascribed to an uncritical acceptance of or surrender to the long-held, dominant assumption of separate spheres in the nineteenth century. Through examining the writings of Amy Levy, Dorothy Richardson, and Virginia Woolf, who portray the multifarious pictures of women rambling the streets of modern London, this study has demonstrated that female public visibility and mobility have at least since the fin de siècle period been commonly practiced by a conglomerate of middle-class women. Mobility and spectatorship are thus two significant tropes applicable to women’s spatial and visual explorations of the fin de siècle city, the former underscoring their meandering footsteps threading through the increasingly egalitarian public space while the latter their roving eyes casting glances at those enticing urban spectacles which are already a phantasmagoria of commodity display, jostling crowd, and bustling streetscapes. Through writing about fin de siècle female streetwalking, the three women writers have demonstrated that those seemingly passive women of the middle-class may indeed be capable, through their public presence and their incessant footsteps, of pushing at the established boundaries.

This study situates the literary works of Amy Lowell, Djuna Barnes, H.D., and Gertrude Stein in a genealogy of American modernist war writing by women that disrupts and revises patriarchal war narrative. These authors take ownership of war and war-related trauma as subjects for women writers. Combining the theories of Dominick LaCapra, Judith Butler, Elaine Scarry, and Elizabeth Grosz with close readings of primary texts, I offer feminist analyses that account for trauma and real-world materiality in literary representations of female embodiment in wartime. This framework enables an interdisciplinary discussion that focuses on representations of war and trauma in conjunction with identity politics.I examine Lowell's poetry collection Men, Women and Ghosts (1916), Barnes's novel Nightwood (1936), H.D.'s poem Trilogy (1944-1946), and Stein's novel Mrs. Reynolds (1952). The chapters highlight the progressively feminist and personal ownership of war and trauma embedded in the texts. Lowell and Barnes begin the work of deconstructing gendered binary constructions and inserting women into war narrative, and H.D. and Stein continue this trajectory through cultivation of more pronounced depictions of women and their bodies in war narrative.The strategies are distinct and specific to each author, but there are common characteristics in their literary responses to World War I and World War II. Each author protests war: war is destructive for Lowell, perverse for Barnes, traumatic for H.D., and disruptive for Stein. Additionally, each author renders female bodies as sites of contested identity and as markers of presence in war narrative. The female bodies portrayed are often traumatized and marked by the ravages of war: bodily injury and psychological and emotional distress. H.D. and Stein envision strategies for resolving (if only partially) trauma, but Lowell and Barnes do not.This project recovers alternative war narratives by important American modernist women writers, expands the definition and canon of war literature, contributes new scholarship on works by the selected authors, and constructs an original critical framework. The ramifications of this study are an increased awareness of who was writing about war and the shape that responses to it took in avant-garde literature of the early twentieth century. / Department of English

Thesis (M.A.)--Brigham Young University. Dept. of History. / Includes bibliographical references (leaves 192-198).