Benjamin Hojem and Rhiannon Scharnhorst
Assignments & Activities Archive
Activity Description
From Aristotle’s correctness to Quintilian’s purity to Campbell’s nationality, rhetorical instruction in the formal qualities of writing has long emphasized stylistic “virtues” that serve to exclude language variants and their speakers. With this history in mind, how should we understand the capabilities and affordances of generative AI (GAI) and natural language processing? Do these digital tools serve to further exclude the languages and voices of those marginalized “missing people” (Owusu-Ansah), or are they akin to a universal translator, enabling all writers to present their ideas in a standardized English? Rather than lecture our students on the xenophobia of Ancient Greece, this activity invites students to draw their own conclusions on how these programs affect their writing. The activity will begin with a look at how technology, like Microsoft Word’s grammar check, has historically impacted writing styles. This discussion primes us to consider the ethics and influence of modern editors. Students will then experiment with popular style tools that emphasize different “virtues” like the Hemingway Editor (conciseness), Helen Sword’s “Writer’s Diet” (clarity and active voice), Grammarly (grammar conventions and tone), and Google’s generative AI tool Gemini. By submitting their own work to the tools and reflecting on the suggested changes, they’ll gain firsthand experience of how these editors influence stylistic choices (positively and negatively). This comparative approach will reveal the limitations and pitfalls of these tools as well allow students to consider their responsible implementation. By experimenting with these editors, students will gain a deeper understanding of style, and the role technology plays in the writing process. Our overall objective is for students to see that human judgment and confidence in one’s writing voice(s) are crucial. While editors can ensure grammatical correctness, we must be critical of their potential to homogenize writing. These tools have a tendency to edit towards a plain, standardized style rather than provide the range of styles that classical rhetoricians associated with eloquence. Nor do they encourage the intentional deviation from convention that John Genung and Donna Gorrell define as the essence of style. Thus, we hope this activity empowers writers to invest in their own distinct and flexible style. This activity could be used to introduce students to GAI or revision strategies; as an activity to precede or follow lessons in rhetorical grammar, rhetorical figures, or other approaches to describing formal constructions; or as part of a dedicated course on style.