"The Concept of Discourse Community" is an academic article written by John Swales--to contribute to "an ongoing academic argument over the social (constructed) nature of language use" (Writing About Writing, 466)--that analyzes the various definitions of discourse communities to figure out hoe much of an impact those communities truly have towards writing. Swales, a "professor of linguistics," (Writing About Writing, 466) has trouble figuring out what exactly constitutes a 'discourse community,' mentioning that the many interpretation of the concept needs "a set of criteria sufficiently narrow that it will eliminate many of the marginal, blurred and controversial." (Writing About Writing, 469) Responding to his own dilemma (and ignoring the possible connection some readers might make with both discourse and speech communities), Swales lays out six principles summed up in the first sentence of each explanation:
1. "A discourse community has a broadly agreed set of common public goals."
2. "A discourse community has mechanisms of intercommunication among its
members."
3. "A discourse community uses its participatory mechanisms primarily to provide
information and feedback."
4. "A discourse community utilizes and hence possesses one of more genres in the
communicative furtherance of its aims."
5. "In addition to owning genres, a discourse community has acquired some specific
lexis."
6. "A discourse community has a threshold level of members with a suitable degree of
relevant content and a disbursal expertise." (Writing About Writing, 471-473)
In his own words, if someone uses these principles towards an interest any party, and that interest eventually peaks (like he did as a member of the Hong Kong Study Circle), then all 6 ideas will not only be assimilated into nothing, or threaten newcomers with multiple power each community has, but will overall imply two consequences:
a. "individuals may belong to several discourse communities"
(Writing About Writing, 476)
b. "individuals will vary in the number of discourse communites they belong to and
hence in the number of genres they command." (Writing About Writing, 476)
However, as he mentions, his thinking is "somewhat removed from memory," and as such, if someone wants to read his dialogue, then they should not look at it as a final conclusion of an intertextuality concept, but simply as "a matter for future study." (Writing About Writing, 478)
This idea of forming 'discourse communities' into contexts beyond the various definitions made under academic usage goes back to Deborah Brandt's purpose of her text in "Sponsors of Literacy": as long as sponsors "deliver the ideological freight that must be borne for access to what they have," then sponsors can be anything, anyplace, or anybody at anytime, just as various 'discourse communities' could be separate itself into different groups without violating its' core. (Writing About Writing, 335) As such, it is attractive to see both articles support in favor of letting communities beyond an individual think about his writing for him, arriving at conclusions the author himself might not bother to arrive on in the first place. While appealing, Swales' article, however, presents a problem Brandt had no problems explaining. As she puts it, she wasn't planning to tie various definitions of sponsorship into a easily grasped list of principles, but thanks her research of 20th century life, she instead tries to "connect literacy as an development to literacy as an economic development." (Writing About Writing, 334) Swales, meanwhile, has to go away from "creating a false impression that such communities are only to be associated with intellectual paradigms or scholarly cliques," and as such, has to rely on his own experience and his own judgment of those scholarly articles to arrive at the principles he outlined. Of course, using such material is never a bad idea for arriving at specific conclusions, but for comparison sake, that is the big hurdle to take into consideration if one wants to make his or her own conclusion of comparing two articles of mechanical differences.
Meanwhile, as for the description of a time I've felt "out of place," I would pretty much point to some of my school years. From my view, I wasn't into a lot of things other students were passionate about, and whenever I did get into something they did, I usually didn't share their enthusiasm--always on an outside perspective--, so to prove my existence towards them, I either tried whatever I could to grab some kind of attention--rather than letting it gradually develop among a group of friends--or just forget it and leave it alone. Because of this inability to connect to those group of friends, that could protect me at any moment, I had to develop my own pathway during activities, and as such, it wouldn't be a surprise that others saw me walk around the elementary school, just by myself, not really playing with the students or saw me get really passionate on minor social activities, such as quoting cartoons that hold my interest at that time and lurking around the book fair whenever it came around. As such, when my social image was crafted beyond my control, it wasn't one out of whatever it is I did during school time , or not to easily identifiable extremes: I didn't had the energy to become a handsome athlete, I wasn't passionate about my hobbies to become a well-known nerd, and I had no interest in becoming a well-respected singer, so sitting around at home, doing nothing in particular was a regular part of my day. Instead, it was towards how I acted towards others, and as such, I felt like I was at odds with that image, so I had to either battle against that image, or forgot about it and hope it wouldn't interfere on how I saw others. Why did I feel this way? If I had to make a guess, it would probably be a decision I made long ago: if I can't interest others to what I was, what is the point of trying to see where I came from? Whenever or not I made the right decision, and whenever or not I should blame myself or my surrounding for the circumstances that lead me toward that decision, reminds to been seen.
So, to think a 'discourse community' I am in, to tie it to the last paragraph, I'm going to look at my own family and describe the six characteristics of a 'discourse community' by using them. How does it meet the characteristics? Summing it up, we look out for one another, no matter who or what we are. If I have to follow the rules the order...
1. As a family, each of us must stick together and work to the best of our abilities to
reach whatever it is we want to get done. If we can better ourselves as individuals by
doing so, and if it possible to get the job done quicker by working together, then don't
be surprised if each of us have to call each other to get by.
2. If each of us need help, then scream out someone's name and make sure they
understand what it is they want to get.
3. If one of us messes up on something, or when any of us does something stupid, then
they better know as soon as possible, or else risk embarrassment both for themselves
and the family at large.
4. No matter what it is we're into, we have to respect that it's part of who we are, and as
such, we have to go with it, accept that it happened, and let them be who they want to
be.
5. The simpler our language is towards one another, the more likely we can return to
whatever attracts us; try not to elongate your urgent pleas if it can be simplified.
Furthermore, if we get passionate about something, we are fully aware that we're
doing it, so don't remind us we're doing it. Same principal applies if we use language
that is socially unacceptable.
6. If any of us gets in trouble, the chances that one of us has already gone through with
it in the past has already happen. As such, we can offer support, no matter how out of
hand it becomes, so if we have to only communicate through new technology, do so.
If it's brand new, any of us are ready to work with it, together.
All in all, I have once again worked on an article that has allowed me to look at a literary concept and figure out on how that idea can apply to how I look at my own life. After looking into the defining characteristics of Swales' perspective of a discourse community, I realized I was using it all this time, just that I now can think about it conceivably than stumble through it clumsily with the language I previously knew. As such, I am now ready to apply it in the future if it's needed, but until then, I appreciate learning about it now, despite reading what is really part of a larger text analyzing a related subject. Either way, I am ready to return writing more of these, and if it involves learning clarification towards concepts I have really thought about in a certain way, once again, bring them on, I am ready.
Saturday, October 20, 2012
Sunday, October 7, 2012
Reading Response #13
"The Sticky Embrace of Beauty" is an article written by Ann Frances Wysocki, possibly written for a classroom that aims to learn for the basic constructions of sexuality, that attempts to figure out one central question after anger from a picture in The New Yorker: How can students learn a understanding of visual means of writing, when the per-determined mindset that everybody has known by now is limiting that understanding into concepts that make sense on a technical (or artistic) level, but not on rhetorical principles? The result is formality that depends not on the time and place--or gravity of ascetic proportions-- those principles are known for, but on this judgment of universal understanding that can change the way students think of what exactly the purpose of a suggestive piece of something--in this case, the photo for Kinsey--is truly is.
It's this search for better understanding that brings back to mind of Sherman Alexie's "Superman and Me," where his love for his father brought him into personal literacy? Why bring him up? Because both Alexie and Wysocki were both inspired by what they personally believe in eventually evolved into dedication to their craft; Alexie with his "aching devotion" (WOW 363) to his father that eventually made him a writer that believes of "trying to save our lives" (WOW 365), while Wysocki observation that "we all [...] are pushed to see women only as sexual objects, as objects serving as the means to the ends of others" (ROW 93) eventually led her to teach her students, as a teacher herself, to "learn the social and temporal expectations of visual composition" and "change some of the results" of what she learned (ROW 97). The only big difference between the two is that one managed to get personal satisfaction of what he learned and used it out of a love for writing, while the material of Wysocki's only put her into a state of determination for her and her students to understand what it is that makes social expectation of womanhood so frustrating to many.
Now, in this regularly organized Pre-Reading exercise, I'm going to do something different; if you, the reader, want to join me in looking at the following question ("Spend 10-15 minutes looking up one or more of the following: Kant, Frankenstein, and the Kinsey Institute" it says), go ahead and do what it says and look up "Kinsey Institute" on your search engine and click away for 10 minutes. If successful, you will learn on how the institute researches information for "more effective intervention programs for sexual compulsion and risk-taking that would contribute to reducing the spread of HIV/AIDS," [1] learn about the history of sexology, and discover an archive that can further reader's opinion of various sexualities. Go ahead, we got time to spare.
Okay, where were we? Oh yes, the structure of these reading responses. Well, thinking now of the relationship of Bernhardt and Wysocki, Berhardt explains that the sort of text that "display their structure, providing the reader/ viewer with a schematic representation of the divisions and hierarchies which organize the text." (ROW 35) Because of this existence, with "multiple considerations of audience and purpose functionally constrain the text, influencing its shape and structure," (ROW 39) the visual work Wysocki sets up will work for many people, but shows detriment to searching for the point for readers like myself, where, despite proving the article's purpose of seeking form that's separate from time and space, provides little to the imagination of some readers and the most benefit of the author herself. Does that make it a low-visual text? Possibly; if reader follow Bernhardlt's rule that they "can move about, settle on certain sections, read some sections lightly, some intently, some not at all, and still have a good idea of what the text is about" (ROW 41) without worrying about rhetorical context of the text itself--focusing on the form of the paragraph--then Bernhardlt's explanation apply to the article easily.
Then there is the ad work from Peek. At the least, does it has my interest? Well, it does, but not in a different way. Wysocki mentions that the body "has been made into form, has been departicularized [...] we are seeing a body only through the distant, universalized, formality," (ROW 93) meaning that the nudity within the picture is not one of purity on behalf on the women, but of the representation she stands for. As a reader, curiosity will then strike, leading to a bunch of questions Kinsley probably intended: What this representation is suppose to attract? What does this institution offers to this nudity towards The New Yorker readers? Is this picture telling me the appeals of taking such photography? Sure, the body attracts me, but as a product to arrive at an end, I can't help but ask questions about the personal context, because the motivations/question behind the product overtakes my personal feeling about the nudity itself.
So, is beauty indeed the eye of the beholder? That's a question I'm afraid to answer. See, if a thing is indeed beautiful, what are we suppose to judge it on? I would guess it would either involve my own feelings on the matter, or what someone else who tells me what is beautiful. But when that happens, then I arrive at disputation with others, and myself. What would happen if, say, someone who is really into international programming thinks [x], [y], and [z] is absolutely beautiful, and once I finally get around to seeing it for myself, and I find the beauty to be nothing but artificial, unemotional manipulation in my eyes? Maybe it's because those programming being beautiful doesn't come for the material within, but what the purity is already formed by others. Same thing applies if it applies to myself; what if I tell someone that character [x] is the most flexible construct to form stories, but once another sees the character, they just see that character at their own observation? I guess the answer would be somewhere in the middle: If I can find beauty, it's not because of what it represents, but because it appeal to my already predetermined guidelines of my own attractions; a personal subjectively that applies only to myself and others can agree or disagree at. So to answer the question, yes, but not to either argument, but towards both; the social forces of beauty is out there, and it's possible for that beauty to be inherent, but towards beauty itself, it's all subjective. Beauty in a social context has its' place, but it has to come at an universal level in order for it to work in that context, despite the arguments of what it truly is will eventually be debated into pure subjectively.
Oddly, this fits to a statement Wysocki brings up later on in her article:
"There is no question that there is a certain necessity to effective visual
composition because a design must fit a viewer's expectation if it is to
make sense… but if design it to have any sense of possibility—of
freedom—to it, then it must also push against the conventions, the
horizon, of those expectations" (ROW 97).
What does they have to do with the article? They further explain what Wysocki is angry about the picture, where she believes that, in bold, that the objectification of pictorial bodies are "as inseparable from the formal approaches we have learned for analyzing and making visual presentations of all kinds." (ROW 93) As a result of disconnected frustration over social expectations at work, she now becomes aware of this appreciation of the freedom such imagery can actually bring beyond its' aesthetic senses, so she now, instead, aims towards "its particularities" to "make visible the limitations of the forms we have been asked to grow into but [...] cannot" (ROW 94). In others words, she is not against what the image represents, but against the expression the picture isn't from the three morals she brings up from Kant: the study of nature, the study of morals, and the study of taste and aesthetics (ROW 87). It's this frustration she would probably have to deal with sometime once she goes past photo advertising and looks into the art of drawing, where the line between the purity of the artist's expression and the interpretation of its' audience is now at even greater odds, and the studies she brings up is now sustained by the rules of drawing: negative spaces, spacing, the form, and the various different tools needed. Therefore, the approaches are now even further complicated, while the rules from earlier still serving as the foundation, so the difference between a nude photo and nude drawing will all depends on whenever or not the person seeing it gets personal joy from it or not, despite the differences each brings.
All in all, the article brought up a lot of topics that's worth for my consideration, and I'm glad I got the opportunity to read it. The topic of sexuality and what exactly what it means to be to be seen as one thing by one person but can be something else entirely, which then opens up the possibility that each of their own virtues to a conclusion of a specific individual can eventually form into a even more complicated discussion of the article itself, which is this case, is how form should be treated, has this great complexity I'm eager to explore sometime in the future (what can I say, I love understanding what I think and having it confirm by others). I say bring on more like it.
1. http://www.kinseyinstitute.org/research/compulsive.html
It's this search for better understanding that brings back to mind of Sherman Alexie's "Superman and Me," where his love for his father brought him into personal literacy? Why bring him up? Because both Alexie and Wysocki were both inspired by what they personally believe in eventually evolved into dedication to their craft; Alexie with his "aching devotion" (WOW 363) to his father that eventually made him a writer that believes of "trying to save our lives" (WOW 365), while Wysocki observation that "we all [...] are pushed to see women only as sexual objects, as objects serving as the means to the ends of others" (ROW 93) eventually led her to teach her students, as a teacher herself, to "learn the social and temporal expectations of visual composition" and "change some of the results" of what she learned (ROW 97). The only big difference between the two is that one managed to get personal satisfaction of what he learned and used it out of a love for writing, while the material of Wysocki's only put her into a state of determination for her and her students to understand what it is that makes social expectation of womanhood so frustrating to many.
Now, in this regularly organized Pre-Reading exercise, I'm going to do something different; if you, the reader, want to join me in looking at the following question ("Spend 10-15 minutes looking up one or more of the following: Kant, Frankenstein, and the Kinsey Institute" it says), go ahead and do what it says and look up "Kinsey Institute" on your search engine and click away for 10 minutes. If successful, you will learn on how the institute researches information for "more effective intervention programs for sexual compulsion and risk-taking that would contribute to reducing the spread of HIV/AIDS," [1] learn about the history of sexology, and discover an archive that can further reader's opinion of various sexualities. Go ahead, we got time to spare.
Okay, where were we? Oh yes, the structure of these reading responses. Well, thinking now of the relationship of Bernhardt and Wysocki, Berhardt explains that the sort of text that "display their structure, providing the reader/ viewer with a schematic representation of the divisions and hierarchies which organize the text." (ROW 35) Because of this existence, with "multiple considerations of audience and purpose functionally constrain the text, influencing its shape and structure," (ROW 39) the visual work Wysocki sets up will work for many people, but shows detriment to searching for the point for readers like myself, where, despite proving the article's purpose of seeking form that's separate from time and space, provides little to the imagination of some readers and the most benefit of the author herself. Does that make it a low-visual text? Possibly; if reader follow Bernhardlt's rule that they "can move about, settle on certain sections, read some sections lightly, some intently, some not at all, and still have a good idea of what the text is about" (ROW 41) without worrying about rhetorical context of the text itself--focusing on the form of the paragraph--then Bernhardlt's explanation apply to the article easily.
Then there is the ad work from Peek. At the least, does it has my interest? Well, it does, but not in a different way. Wysocki mentions that the body "has been made into form, has been departicularized [...] we are seeing a body only through the distant, universalized, formality," (ROW 93) meaning that the nudity within the picture is not one of purity on behalf on the women, but of the representation she stands for. As a reader, curiosity will then strike, leading to a bunch of questions Kinsley probably intended: What this representation is suppose to attract? What does this institution offers to this nudity towards The New Yorker readers? Is this picture telling me the appeals of taking such photography? Sure, the body attracts me, but as a product to arrive at an end, I can't help but ask questions about the personal context, because the motivations/question behind the product overtakes my personal feeling about the nudity itself.
So, is beauty indeed the eye of the beholder? That's a question I'm afraid to answer. See, if a thing is indeed beautiful, what are we suppose to judge it on? I would guess it would either involve my own feelings on the matter, or what someone else who tells me what is beautiful. But when that happens, then I arrive at disputation with others, and myself. What would happen if, say, someone who is really into international programming thinks [x], [y], and [z] is absolutely beautiful, and once I finally get around to seeing it for myself, and I find the beauty to be nothing but artificial, unemotional manipulation in my eyes? Maybe it's because those programming being beautiful doesn't come for the material within, but what the purity is already formed by others. Same thing applies if it applies to myself; what if I tell someone that character [x] is the most flexible construct to form stories, but once another sees the character, they just see that character at their own observation? I guess the answer would be somewhere in the middle: If I can find beauty, it's not because of what it represents, but because it appeal to my already predetermined guidelines of my own attractions; a personal subjectively that applies only to myself and others can agree or disagree at. So to answer the question, yes, but not to either argument, but towards both; the social forces of beauty is out there, and it's possible for that beauty to be inherent, but towards beauty itself, it's all subjective. Beauty in a social context has its' place, but it has to come at an universal level in order for it to work in that context, despite the arguments of what it truly is will eventually be debated into pure subjectively.
Oddly, this fits to a statement Wysocki brings up later on in her article:
"There is no question that there is a certain necessity to effective visual
composition because a design must fit a viewer's expectation if it is to
make sense… but if design it to have any sense of possibility—of
freedom—to it, then it must also push against the conventions, the
horizon, of those expectations" (ROW 97).
What does they have to do with the article? They further explain what Wysocki is angry about the picture, where she believes that, in bold, that the objectification of pictorial bodies are "as inseparable from the formal approaches we have learned for analyzing and making visual presentations of all kinds." (ROW 93) As a result of disconnected frustration over social expectations at work, she now becomes aware of this appreciation of the freedom such imagery can actually bring beyond its' aesthetic senses, so she now, instead, aims towards "its particularities" to "make visible the limitations of the forms we have been asked to grow into but [...] cannot" (ROW 94). In others words, she is not against what the image represents, but against the expression the picture isn't from the three morals she brings up from Kant: the study of nature, the study of morals, and the study of taste and aesthetics (ROW 87). It's this frustration she would probably have to deal with sometime once she goes past photo advertising and looks into the art of drawing, where the line between the purity of the artist's expression and the interpretation of its' audience is now at even greater odds, and the studies she brings up is now sustained by the rules of drawing: negative spaces, spacing, the form, and the various different tools needed. Therefore, the approaches are now even further complicated, while the rules from earlier still serving as the foundation, so the difference between a nude photo and nude drawing will all depends on whenever or not the person seeing it gets personal joy from it or not, despite the differences each brings.
All in all, the article brought up a lot of topics that's worth for my consideration, and I'm glad I got the opportunity to read it. The topic of sexuality and what exactly what it means to be to be seen as one thing by one person but can be something else entirely, which then opens up the possibility that each of their own virtues to a conclusion of a specific individual can eventually form into a even more complicated discussion of the article itself, which is this case, is how form should be treated, has this great complexity I'm eager to explore sometime in the future (what can I say, I love understanding what I think and having it confirm by others). I say bring on more like it.
1. http://www.kinseyinstitute.org/research/compulsive.html
Thursday, October 4, 2012
Reading Response #12
"From Pencils to Pixels: The Stages of Literacy Technologies" is an article written by Dennis Baron, possibly for those who study the context of language usage (along with searching for the origins of writing itself) that talks about expanding technology beyond working on certain machines; a new and exciting writing development that takes "word processing as a given." (WAW 423). As an example, Baron looks at, from engineer Henry Petroski, the "development of the wood-cased as a paradigm of the engineering process." (WAW 426) Looking at the "paradigm of the development of literacy" caused by the pencil, he finds out that pencils went "through a number of strikingly similar stages," which consisted of "accessibility, function, and authentication" (WAW 424) once it gets past
"a restricted communication function ... available only to a small number of initiates." (WAW 424) The result is that most people will eventually see the technological breakthroughs as natural means of working, despite arguments of various educators that deem the technique ruining already established crafts, either as masters (Thoreau vs. Telegraphs) or as members of various institutions (Math Teachers against Calculators).
This method of looking as technology as objects needed for writing goes back to Deborah Brandt's purpose of "Sponsor of Literacy." In the article, Brandt mentions that "sponsors deliver the ideological freight that must be borne for access to what they have," (WAW 335) where various authorities figures provides the tools needed for someone to live, whenever it be a corporation or a person with power. Meanwhile, Baron says that his theories of technology "comes along and we are thrown into excitement and confusion as we try it on, reject it, and then adapt it to our lives," suggesting that their development is depended on how practical the objects crafted are, and if provides to be so, will go through various stages that will eventually end up be necessary in the lives of many. So, right away, the ways people approach writing is different; Brandt thinks the context of an individual, the sponsors, will influence him or her into what that person will have to do with the tool in regards to the contexts, while Baron believes that the battle for autonomic power over new technology (that will eventually become common place past those battles) and an already established methodology will eventually shape those tools into bare necessities beyond the complaints launched at those objects, resulting in tools that can be use in any sort of context. Either way these two put it, both authors seem to reach similar conclusions for writing: If writing was to remind dynamic for the years to come, the people has to adapt with the evolution of the world around them. The difference between, say, having good conversation skills and writing briefs for a local firm, or a telephone and a telegram might be grand, but the similarities beneath those difference--communication-- will continue to be the foundation of those conventions in the years to come, and the sooner they are aware of these changes, the better off the people will become.
If someone were to ask me what kind of technology I use, it would boil down to either of the following:
-My brain
-Pencil
-Pens
-Computer
-Colored Pencils
As far as I'm concerned, my brain is the main source of my writing, while any of the following is the substandard technology needed for the brain's writings to bloom beyond myself.
So does Baron point about making it "hard to imagine new technologies as fundamentally changing the shape or nature of writing," (WAW 440) or in his own words, new technology really "promises, or threatens, to change literacy practices for better or worse" (WAW 423) has any meaning to the personal nature of writing? I wouldn't have any argument against the idea, and even going beyond his point that writing itself started off with the earliest Sumerian scripting "land sales, business transactions, and tax accounts," (WAW 427) Baron has no problem asserting its' audience of the advantages literacy brings to writing. To him, despite the frustrations previous master craftsman had to the latest writing invention (as seen with Thoreau's crusade for the ruling of pencil technology throughout the text), the idea of writing the thoughts of an individual (or facts for an instructor) fundamentally remained the same of simple economics of their time period.
All in all, Baron's article proposes a topic that I never considered before: instead of treating a dull pencil as a tool as a mean to many ends, picture them as a natural step of an evolution process of writing. In other words, typing this post on a laptop might of been revolutionary radical in the past, but if viewed as one way, it's really as valuable as writing down notes with a Number 2 pencil. Such thinking reaffirms my belief that writing is simply writing; it doesn't really matter where or what someone writes their stories that'll get people's attention, but the way he uses his tools (in this case, whatever he uses to write it) to create a story that engages its' audience that does, or a conversation that grasps what the writer wants to express. But I'm sure everyone knows that, and if Baron's article anything to go by, this line of thinking will continue to be the prevailing thought of writing in the years to come. If I was to change with it to continue surviving, so be it.
"a restricted communication function ... available only to a small number of initiates." (WAW 424) The result is that most people will eventually see the technological breakthroughs as natural means of working, despite arguments of various educators that deem the technique ruining already established crafts, either as masters (Thoreau vs. Telegraphs) or as members of various institutions (Math Teachers against Calculators).
This method of looking as technology as objects needed for writing goes back to Deborah Brandt's purpose of "Sponsor of Literacy." In the article, Brandt mentions that "sponsors deliver the ideological freight that must be borne for access to what they have," (WAW 335) where various authorities figures provides the tools needed for someone to live, whenever it be a corporation or a person with power. Meanwhile, Baron says that his theories of technology "comes along and we are thrown into excitement and confusion as we try it on, reject it, and then adapt it to our lives," suggesting that their development is depended on how practical the objects crafted are, and if provides to be so, will go through various stages that will eventually end up be necessary in the lives of many. So, right away, the ways people approach writing is different; Brandt thinks the context of an individual, the sponsors, will influence him or her into what that person will have to do with the tool in regards to the contexts, while Baron believes that the battle for autonomic power over new technology (that will eventually become common place past those battles) and an already established methodology will eventually shape those tools into bare necessities beyond the complaints launched at those objects, resulting in tools that can be use in any sort of context. Either way these two put it, both authors seem to reach similar conclusions for writing: If writing was to remind dynamic for the years to come, the people has to adapt with the evolution of the world around them. The difference between, say, having good conversation skills and writing briefs for a local firm, or a telephone and a telegram might be grand, but the similarities beneath those difference--communication-- will continue to be the foundation of those conventions in the years to come, and the sooner they are aware of these changes, the better off the people will become.
If someone were to ask me what kind of technology I use, it would boil down to either of the following:
-My brain
-Pencil
-Pens
-Computer
-Colored Pencils
As far as I'm concerned, my brain is the main source of my writing, while any of the following is the substandard technology needed for the brain's writings to bloom beyond myself.
So does Baron point about making it "hard to imagine new technologies as fundamentally changing the shape or nature of writing," (WAW 440) or in his own words, new technology really "promises, or threatens, to change literacy practices for better or worse" (WAW 423) has any meaning to the personal nature of writing? I wouldn't have any argument against the idea, and even going beyond his point that writing itself started off with the earliest Sumerian scripting "land sales, business transactions, and tax accounts," (WAW 427) Baron has no problem asserting its' audience of the advantages literacy brings to writing. To him, despite the frustrations previous master craftsman had to the latest writing invention (as seen with Thoreau's crusade for the ruling of pencil technology throughout the text), the idea of writing the thoughts of an individual (or facts for an instructor) fundamentally remained the same of simple economics of their time period.
All in all, Baron's article proposes a topic that I never considered before: instead of treating a dull pencil as a tool as a mean to many ends, picture them as a natural step of an evolution process of writing. In other words, typing this post on a laptop might of been revolutionary radical in the past, but if viewed as one way, it's really as valuable as writing down notes with a Number 2 pencil. Such thinking reaffirms my belief that writing is simply writing; it doesn't really matter where or what someone writes their stories that'll get people's attention, but the way he uses his tools (in this case, whatever he uses to write it) to create a story that engages its' audience that does, or a conversation that grasps what the writer wants to express. But I'm sure everyone knows that, and if Baron's article anything to go by, this line of thinking will continue to be the prevailing thought of writing in the years to come. If I was to change with it to continue surviving, so be it.
Sunday, September 30, 2012
Reading Response #11
"Sponsors of Literacy" is an article written by Deborah
Brandt, for College Composition and Communication (possibility targeting
college students that are aiming to improve their composition), that
takes a look at the increased importance, or expectations, on the
"economic development" (334) of literacy writing throughout the 20th
century through one specific conclusion: "sponsor of literacy." (334)
To Brandt, sponsors, those who are "powerful figures who bankroll events
or smooth the way for initiates," (335) "deliver the ideological
freight that must be borne for access," (335) meaning that a person's
life--surroundings, job, sex, personality, and the social context they
live in--is depended on the sponsor's willingness to provide not only a
situational context for a moment in a person's life, but to also provide
"the most tangible aspects--material supply, explicit teaching,
institutional aegis." (348) Therefore, people in various socioeconomic
classes can be involved with any sort of these sponsors, despite their
difference of abilities and personal frustrations they might face; a
"relatively accessible economy of institutional and commercial supports"
(338) that depends on what they get themselves into at a certain place
in a certain time.
Relating to other articles, I can see some similarities in Bill Bryson's "Good English and Bad," in that compared to Brandt's point that differences in writing can trace back to a rise in literacy expectations, along with various context a person might experience, and uses interviews she conducted to provide her point, Bryson would say that the reason for those differences of writing would be because of the rules themselves, based on the Latin language, where the language "in which the parts of speech are almost entirely notional." (61) To Bryson, this problem, the inability of anybody to grasps the textuality of English, lead various authors to come up with their own writings on how to approach the language (and allowing others to apply their writings for their own theories on writing) that can eventually produce satisfying grammar for readers alike, while Brandt would point out that the battle of a person's background and the raised literacy standards beyond its' control would only make that person apply those writings to satisfy general readers alike, but to the sponsors themselves to keep whatever work that person has with what he or she can grasp with their own literacy skills. In other words, Brandt noticed that the writers she knew had "dramatic changes" based on the subject's pasts and current work conditions, while Bryson wrote that the authors from his text wrote not for a goal in mind, but to figure out a condition of English language that can satisfy many writers themselves; a concept still in debate today.
Thinking about the ways my culture (and local community) encourages--and emphasize--writing, it usually boils down to a few ideals. For the purposes of this list, the following quotes are not actually quotes, but ideals I've noticed masqueraded as quotes for general purposes:
-"Reading complicates the mind beyond where we would like to have it, so unless the text deal with [X], why bother?"
-"I want to become a writer myself, so the more I read, the better a writer I can be!"
-"These students are in danger of becoming of what they shouldn't be, so as a class, I better alert them of concepts in [X] for them to learn to become [Y]."
-"I do not like the idea of [X], so here's a proposal--[Y]--to make [X] simpler to use."
-"I have to read [X] to get a good grade/make my boss happy. If I'm lucky, I'll at least get the bare minimum."
-"this makes no sense"
-"I like what [author] did at [event in book], when it turns out [what character thought/worked/did]"
-"[X] deal with [Concept]. Therefore, [Object] symbolizes [X] because of [more info on X] [example] [concept of x] [example] [concept x] [example] [concept x] [conclusion of x]"
Going by the list, it seems like those who stress good writers/readers--authoritative figures such as teachers, professors, literate family members, and corporations bosses--empathizes thinking on behalf of the readers themselves, so that the more the student learns about the whys and hows in regards to writing, they can understand the purpose of the text. As such, various tools such as grammar, spelling, and writing constructs are taught to allow those readers reach at their conclusions in a clear, conceive matter that can satisfy everyone involved with that specific writing.
Applying and Exploring Ideas
Using the categories (race and class impact), I would say my primary literacy sponsors were the following:
-Teachers (academic)
-Parents (civic)
-Peers (social)
-Books (assigned by teachers or my own free will) (academic, social, civic)
-Internet (see above) (academic, social, civic)
So, in some way, class impact and race had some say in my literacy sponsorship, but in reality, social impact and my own free will had more of an influence. Were they adequate? Yes. Any regrets? No. Anything I wished I learned from them? Nothing's coming to mind, so. not at this moment.
From what I can recall, no literacy sponsors withheld certain kinds of literates. Yes, there were "approved reading lists in school," but I would argue that was due to a social context rather than authoritative control, where an academic setting refuses us to read certain books and read other books for their own gain. No, the "lists" were generally there for us, the students, to read for us to take away themes and subjects that we wouldn't otherwise bother reading in our spare times, and generally, the majority of students had no such interest and would try to make the best of the situation and craft something that would at least appeal to the teacher. For those students who actually took the work seriously, my assumption is that they would pace out their time spent on their own social lives and the text within, and when the time comes to work, they would pace themselves for less exhaustion on their mental capabilities. However, I do remember seeing other students reading whatever captured their interest during lunch, and despite social rumblings from my peers, I would sometimes read "certain kinds of books" during some periods of class and allow anyone who was interested share those books if curiosity strikes (and it did happen occasionally). So to answer the question, if seen in a certain way, a big literacy sponsor "forced certain kinds of literates" on me, but in a boarder sense, I never had problems with reading any kinds at all, and even then I don't see the reading lists as a withheld literacy either (it was really a "necessary evil" if anything).
All in all, the article proposed a topic I have a interest in: literacy is tied to whatever sponsor the writer has to personally satisfy, and if the circumstances around him change, then he has to change with it, or either has to change along with it, or resist that ideology and move on to a different path neither he or the sponsor expects. If Brandt intended to write the article as why these sponsors has importance in our lives that we, the people, might never notice in the first place, where our writing can actually improve under them instead of being conformed to be like them, then she had my interest throughout the entire point, and I would have no qualms of agreeing with her idea. I wish she would of tied her point and her examples in a more concise matter (I'm not sure on how literacy sponsor can create "both a sanctioning force and a reserve of ideological and material support" (347); maybe Brandt could of clarified her "statistical correlation"(336) more specially to other economic classes), but as the article stands, I enjoyed the time spent reading it.
Relating to other articles, I can see some similarities in Bill Bryson's "Good English and Bad," in that compared to Brandt's point that differences in writing can trace back to a rise in literacy expectations, along with various context a person might experience, and uses interviews she conducted to provide her point, Bryson would say that the reason for those differences of writing would be because of the rules themselves, based on the Latin language, where the language "in which the parts of speech are almost entirely notional." (61) To Bryson, this problem, the inability of anybody to grasps the textuality of English, lead various authors to come up with their own writings on how to approach the language (and allowing others to apply their writings for their own theories on writing) that can eventually produce satisfying grammar for readers alike, while Brandt would point out that the battle of a person's background and the raised literacy standards beyond its' control would only make that person apply those writings to satisfy general readers alike, but to the sponsors themselves to keep whatever work that person has with what he or she can grasp with their own literacy skills. In other words, Brandt noticed that the writers she knew had "dramatic changes" based on the subject's pasts and current work conditions, while Bryson wrote that the authors from his text wrote not for a goal in mind, but to figure out a condition of English language that can satisfy many writers themselves; a concept still in debate today.
Thinking about the ways my culture (and local community) encourages--and emphasize--writing, it usually boils down to a few ideals. For the purposes of this list, the following quotes are not actually quotes, but ideals I've noticed masqueraded as quotes for general purposes:
-"Reading complicates the mind beyond where we would like to have it, so unless the text deal with [X], why bother?"
-"I want to become a writer myself, so the more I read, the better a writer I can be!"
-"These students are in danger of becoming of what they shouldn't be, so as a class, I better alert them of concepts in [X] for them to learn to become [Y]."
-"I do not like the idea of [X], so here's a proposal--[Y]--to make [X] simpler to use."
-"I have to read [X] to get a good grade/make my boss happy. If I'm lucky, I'll at least get the bare minimum."
-"this makes no sense"
-"I like what [author] did at [event in book], when it turns out [what character thought/worked/did]"
-"[X] deal with [Concept]. Therefore, [Object] symbolizes [X] because of [more info on X] [example] [concept of x] [example] [concept x] [example] [concept x] [conclusion of x]"
Going by the list, it seems like those who stress good writers/readers--authoritative figures such as teachers, professors, literate family members, and corporations bosses--empathizes thinking on behalf of the readers themselves, so that the more the student learns about the whys and hows in regards to writing, they can understand the purpose of the text. As such, various tools such as grammar, spelling, and writing constructs are taught to allow those readers reach at their conclusions in a clear, conceive matter that can satisfy everyone involved with that specific writing.
Applying and Exploring Ideas
Using the categories (race and class impact), I would say my primary literacy sponsors were the following:
-Teachers (academic)
-Parents (civic)
-Peers (social)
-Books (assigned by teachers or my own free will) (academic, social, civic)
-Internet (see above) (academic, social, civic)
So, in some way, class impact and race had some say in my literacy sponsorship, but in reality, social impact and my own free will had more of an influence. Were they adequate? Yes. Any regrets? No. Anything I wished I learned from them? Nothing's coming to mind, so. not at this moment.
From what I can recall, no literacy sponsors withheld certain kinds of literates. Yes, there were "approved reading lists in school," but I would argue that was due to a social context rather than authoritative control, where an academic setting refuses us to read certain books and read other books for their own gain. No, the "lists" were generally there for us, the students, to read for us to take away themes and subjects that we wouldn't otherwise bother reading in our spare times, and generally, the majority of students had no such interest and would try to make the best of the situation and craft something that would at least appeal to the teacher. For those students who actually took the work seriously, my assumption is that they would pace out their time spent on their own social lives and the text within, and when the time comes to work, they would pace themselves for less exhaustion on their mental capabilities. However, I do remember seeing other students reading whatever captured their interest during lunch, and despite social rumblings from my peers, I would sometimes read "certain kinds of books" during some periods of class and allow anyone who was interested share those books if curiosity strikes (and it did happen occasionally). So to answer the question, if seen in a certain way, a big literacy sponsor "forced certain kinds of literates" on me, but in a boarder sense, I never had problems with reading any kinds at all, and even then I don't see the reading lists as a withheld literacy either (it was really a "necessary evil" if anything).
All in all, the article proposed a topic I have a interest in: literacy is tied to whatever sponsor the writer has to personally satisfy, and if the circumstances around him change, then he has to change with it, or either has to change along with it, or resist that ideology and move on to a different path neither he or the sponsor expects. If Brandt intended to write the article as why these sponsors has importance in our lives that we, the people, might never notice in the first place, where our writing can actually improve under them instead of being conformed to be like them, then she had my interest throughout the entire point, and I would have no qualms of agreeing with her idea. I wish she would of tied her point and her examples in a more concise matter (I'm not sure on how literacy sponsor can create "both a sanctioning force and a reserve of ideological and material support" (347); maybe Brandt could of clarified her "statistical correlation"(336) more specially to other economic classes), but as the article stands, I enjoyed the time spent reading it.
Sunday, September 23, 2012
Reading Response #10 (Dawkins)
"Teaching Punctuation as a Rhetorical Tool" is an article written by John Dawkins (for students who want to know about punctuation rules, or fellows who take grammar seriously) that points out the hypocrisy "manuals of style and college handbooks" (140) have in regards to punctuation rules. To Dawkins, punctuation is "one of the 'mechanics' of writing, after all," (140) and as such, good writers have no trouble breaking the rules, simply because "the punctuation rules in handbooks and style manuals are not sacred text." To response, Dawkins proposes that punctuation is really formed by its' usefulness, and writers aware of this "punctuate according to their intended meaning, their intended emphasis," (141) so the "principles" (142) really depend on how urgent the function of the each single independent clauses express themselves, which ranges from "hierarchy of functional punctuations marks" (where questions marks have a maximum "degree of separation" and commas have the minimum) (142) that can either be raised or lowered, a pattern of "pre-clausal, post-clausal, and medial" (143), or to "Degrees of Separation Between Clauses" (147) (where the use of those mark depend on how much 'meaning' can be clarified). If successful, Dawkins says that thinking punctuation of that mindset will reveal a fundamental principle to any writer: "writing is thinking." (153)
Similar to Sarah Allen's "The Inspired Writer vs. The Real Writer," Dawkins convince the reader that the preconceptions of punctuation/reading, taught in a setting that same reader might not have a particular interest in, only further frustrates the abilities to get himself to actually read and write, and instead proposes ideas that the concept in hand is about as flexible as the writer wants it to be. For Dawkins, it was about looking into the principles themselves and finding out that punctuation entirely depends on the importance of specific independent clauses, while Allen believes that the emotional resonance of the self can entirely depends on how much work that self is willing to work to arrive at writing nirvana; the writer someone wants to be against the true writer within in other words. To simplify, both writers agree that following predetermined concepts/rules will result in personal frustration, but both arrive at different conclusions to make student writers be themselves--with Dawkins in favor of textual objectively against Allen's emotional subjectivity.
To use Dawkin's principles as an example, allow me to take these two sentences:
Questions for Discussion and Journaling
According to Dawkins, "Fragments and comma splices, violations of the coordinate clause and elliptical coordinate clause rules for commas, and inconsistencies in use of the comma with introductory word, phrase, and clause--these and other failures to follow the rules are frequent enough to raise questions about the rules themselves." (140-141) Going by this sentence, I'm assuming that to Dawkins, Punctuation, under the handbook rules he's against, consists of sentences that are not only complete, but has a beginning, middle, and end, along with forming one under it own terms. This too includes commas, where two separate independent sentence cannot join under a comma, or that the structure he mentions must follow a consistent rule, or risk muddling the intent of one of the sentences.
Applying an Exploring Ideas
Using an article called "Warhol's Self-Portrait as a Toilet," let's look at three sentences from piece about Andy Warhol and why he was what he was...
Source: http://www.thedailybeast.com/articles/2012/09/18/andy-warhol-at-the-metropolitan-museum-is-the-daily-pic-by-blake-gopnik.html
Meta Moment
So why did my teacher wants me to read Dawkins' article, where punctuation is rhetorical rather than conditional? Well, as a student himself, he understands that we, as undergraduates, are under this mindset that punctuation is something that can be easily crafted; the more we use it and understand its' rules and regulations, the better "writers" we would become. Our teacher, Mr. V, knows that this way of thinking will particularity leave all of us students, especially himself, into this state of frustration, where the content of the material itself doesn't actually matter unless we, the students, learn our trade until we understand something (and that's just ignoring the different set of rules each set of writing models use). So, by using Dawkins' article, we can gain in knowledge that, quite frankly, it doesn't really amount to anything; all our favorite authors break the rules all the time, so why bother? After all, as long as we writers (like myself) can "punctuate according to their intended meaning," (141), then we shouldn't fret if we suddenly forget to put a semicolon and replace it with an ordinary comma.
All in all, I find it rather conforming that, yes, punctuation is an important tool to learn as a student, it's not necessarily the most important tool to think about. I'm not sure if I necessarily share Dawkins' annoyance with handbook rules of writing, since we would then dismiss rules that could lead into even more interesting stylistic choice of future writers (it might be interesting if there was a famous that did follow by the books, or at least, took the writings of those who created these rules seriously), but Dawkins' main argument for rhetoric grammar at least alerted me of alternative ways of approaching grammar, so I say consider that to be a small victory to my education.
Similar to Sarah Allen's "The Inspired Writer vs. The Real Writer," Dawkins convince the reader that the preconceptions of punctuation/reading, taught in a setting that same reader might not have a particular interest in, only further frustrates the abilities to get himself to actually read and write, and instead proposes ideas that the concept in hand is about as flexible as the writer wants it to be. For Dawkins, it was about looking into the principles themselves and finding out that punctuation entirely depends on the importance of specific independent clauses, while Allen believes that the emotional resonance of the self can entirely depends on how much work that self is willing to work to arrive at writing nirvana; the writer someone wants to be against the true writer within in other words. To simplify, both writers agree that following predetermined concepts/rules will result in personal frustration, but both arrive at different conclusions to make student writers be themselves--with Dawkins in favor of textual objectively against Allen's emotional subjectivity.
To use Dawkin's principles as an example, allow me to take these two sentences:
- My sister's treehouse made a great place to play with her friends.
- The treehouse was made of wood scraps and cardboard.
- Made of woodscraps and cardboard, my sister's treehouse made a great place to play with her friends.
- My sister's treehouse--made of wood scraps and cardboard--was a great place to play with her friends.
- My sister's treehouse made a great place to play with her friends, since it was made of wood scraps and cardboard.
Questions for Discussion and Journaling
According to Dawkins, "Fragments and comma splices, violations of the coordinate clause and elliptical coordinate clause rules for commas, and inconsistencies in use of the comma with introductory word, phrase, and clause--these and other failures to follow the rules are frequent enough to raise questions about the rules themselves." (140-141) Going by this sentence, I'm assuming that to Dawkins, Punctuation, under the handbook rules he's against, consists of sentences that are not only complete, but has a beginning, middle, and end, along with forming one under it own terms. This too includes commas, where two separate independent sentence cannot join under a comma, or that the structure he mentions must follow a consistent rule, or risk muddling the intent of one of the sentences.
Applying an Exploring Ideas
Using an article called "Warhol's Self-Portrait as a Toilet," let's look at three sentences from piece about Andy Warhol and why he was what he was...
- "The mysterious image gets at something important about Warhol that I didn’t quite hit on in my Newsweek review: Every object he made, and almost every action he took, was in some sense about him – but not because they reveal anything about the man himself or about his creative persona."
- "There’s no winkling out intention or meaning; Warhol’s stuff, like natural stuff, is simply there, in its ineluctable strangeness and removal from us."
- "If an umbrella and a sewing machine really were to come together on an operating table, without anyone there to arrange the meeting, you’d be faced with something truly Warholian."
- "The mysterious image gets at something important about Warhol, that I didn’t quite hit on, in my Newsweek review--Every object he made (and almost every action he took) was in some sense about him, but not because they reveal anything about the man himself, or about his creative persona."
- "There’s no winkling out intention or meaning. Warhol’s stuff--like natural stuff--is simply there; in its ineluctable strangeness and removal from us."
- "If an umbrella and a sewing machine really were to come together on an operating table--without anyone there to arrange the meeting--you’d be faced with something truly Warholian."
Source: http://www.thedailybeast.com/articles/2012/09/18/andy-warhol-at-the-metropolitan-museum-is-the-daily-pic-by-blake-gopnik.html
Meta Moment
So why did my teacher wants me to read Dawkins' article, where punctuation is rhetorical rather than conditional? Well, as a student himself, he understands that we, as undergraduates, are under this mindset that punctuation is something that can be easily crafted; the more we use it and understand its' rules and regulations, the better "writers" we would become. Our teacher, Mr. V, knows that this way of thinking will particularity leave all of us students, especially himself, into this state of frustration, where the content of the material itself doesn't actually matter unless we, the students, learn our trade until we understand something (and that's just ignoring the different set of rules each set of writing models use). So, by using Dawkins' article, we can gain in knowledge that, quite frankly, it doesn't really amount to anything; all our favorite authors break the rules all the time, so why bother? After all, as long as we writers (like myself) can "punctuate according to their intended meaning," (141), then we shouldn't fret if we suddenly forget to put a semicolon and replace it with an ordinary comma.
All in all, I find it rather conforming that, yes, punctuation is an important tool to learn as a student, it's not necessarily the most important tool to think about. I'm not sure if I necessarily share Dawkins' annoyance with handbook rules of writing, since we would then dismiss rules that could lead into even more interesting stylistic choice of future writers (it might be interesting if there was a famous that did follow by the books, or at least, took the writings of those who created these rules seriously), but Dawkins' main argument for rhetoric grammar at least alerted me of alternative ways of approaching grammar, so I say consider that to be a small victory to my education.
Thursday, September 20, 2012
Project 1 Intro/Conversation
What exactly is the purpose of grammar? Are they truly useful for anyone to take, or are they optional concepts only individuals of higher education, or social status, fully understand? These are the questions I have to ponder about whenever the time comes to write about papers, where there's this disconnect of the construction of the paper and the actual material inside the paper. If I must make an observation, it seems that to a general audience, the foundation of the idea that constructs entire essays is enough for them to hold their interest, even if it goes beyond their own thinking anyways. And yet, if I were to approach, say, English teachers of various High Schools, or writers who can actually make a living out of such constructs presented in academic, it's no longer the material that matters, but now the way I approach the material--the syntax, the wording, and most importantly, the grammar--is now a part of my consideration. In other words, the tools that crafts the expression of an author into its' own idea is critically needed, no matter how important each individual tool may actually be. The result is that the focus is now blurred on whenever or not the construction is important to the writing, or the material can stand on its' own, no matter who writes it.
So where do I go from here? In John Dawkins' "Teaching Punctuation as a Rhetorical Tool," he clues that "conventional punctuation is grammar based" (141), so whenever people notice so-call mistakes in someone's writing, the problem doesn't lie on the ignorance of the author, but is instead an intentional style based on a hierarchy of different levels (or maximum, medium, and minimum). Beyond that hierarchy lies the importance of these marks, which Dawkins suggest raising (or punctuation "higher in the hierarchy" (145)) or lowering concepts, "a natural consequence of understanding the hierarchical system." (146)
So why is it that with various authors have all these tools, never always taking advantage of such potential, getting away from them and write material that doesn't need their assistance, and the students of such authors can not? That's where the teachers themselves come in. In “Resolution on Grammar Exercises to Teach Speaking and Writing,” written by the National Council of Teachers of English, the problem lies with a gap of students that have different background, and to uniform each of their backgrounds in one, English teachers have to conform to predetermined notions of society, and as such, has to follow rules they may not agree with. As such, they would develop "English of educated speakers", who would then pass their judgement of the teachers' subjects as law, believing that he is correct and other such writing is incorrect; a superiority to dialect itself. The result is a resolution that stated that students are allowed to write on whatever heritage he is used to working with, making teachers to "respect diversity and uphold the right of students to their own language."
A similar arguments pops up in "Why Revitalize Grammar?," where Patricia A. Dunn and Kenneth Lindblom actually argue in favor for so-called grammar mistakes. To them, writing is suppose to learn through "communicating, not by memorizing rules," and yet, English teachers continue to look for grammar mistakes and grade the entire parer not by what the writer has to say on the material, but institute that the grammar can has this effect of the material. Therefore, the problem with teachers does not lie with society, but on their own dedication to the rules laid out in textbooks, and if students ever need to reach their subject, then focus at the subject, not the grammar. As they say, if popular writers continually break these rules English teachers enforce, why should they, the student, bother to do the same?
Marry Ehrenworth's "Grammar--Comma--a New Beginning" argues for the same purpose of mistaken grammar, but her approach is more practical compared to the observations of Dunn and Lindblom. By practical, I mean that instead of creating their own beliefs of how students should write and use those pointers to challenge what other teachers have done towards correcting grammar, Ehrenworth uses her eighth grade classroom to figure out on where the disconnect of common grammar rules and writer's own interest in those rules is, and she finds out that students simply don't want to write the tenses needed to clarify their writing; they understand how to use grammar, but they see no use to use it in their own writings. The result Ehrenworth tries is to use the structure of other passages (e.g. a passage from Nabokov's Lolita), craft them to be models for the students, and sees if the prompt given to the students will inspire them to write something that gives them a reason on why they should think about writing. In the end, the material all depended on what rhythm appealed to the young writers, and as Ehrenworth noticed, she, the teacher, was working at a "framework of genre choice, and genre-linked craft lessons," (96) leaving the grades of grammar usage useless to students.
Do these usage link us to a better understanding on why one prefers to learn the craft than the material? To that, I turn to an article that's in Patrick Hartwell's article "Grammar, Grammars, and the Teaching of Grammar," where he brings up an excerpt of "The Three Meanings of Grammar" from W. Nelson Francis's to "go about the business of defying grammar rather carefully." In the article, Francis talks about three different usage of "grammar," where one is aware of "'the set of formal patterns in which the words of a language are arranged in order to convey larger meanings'" (109), another as "'the branch of linguistic science which is concerned with the description, analysis, and formalization of formal language patterns'" (109), and "'linguistic etiquette'," or a way where "we say that the expression 'he ain't here' is 'bad grammar'." (109) Using these rules, Hartwell suggest that, going beyond that the first two grammar statement go beyond arguing either for control or authority, each of these meanings "forces us to posit multiple literates, used for multiple purposes, rather than a single static literacy, engraved in 'rules of grammar.'" (123) Thereby, grammar can open up more possibilities writers can go with their material, so instead of sticking by the original purpose, expansion can occur, extending the original purpose into something much more complex that can satisfy those who seek better grammar in papers.
Sources:
Conference on College Composition and Communication. “Students' Right to Their Own Language.” CCC 25 (1974): n. p. NCTE.org. Conference on College Composition and Communication. Web. 16 Nov. 2010.
Dunn, Patricia A., and Kenneth Lindblom. “Why Revitalize Grammar?” The English Journal 92.3 (2003): 43–50.
Ehrenworth, Mary. “Grammar—Comma—A New Beginning.” The English Journal 92.3 (2003): 90–96.
Hartwell, Patrick. “Grammar, Grammars, and the Teaching of Grammar.” College English 47.2 (1985): 105–27.
Wardle, Elizabeth, and Doug Downs. Writing about Writing: A College Reader. Boston: Bedford/St. Martins, 2011. Print. 140-153
So where do I go from here? In John Dawkins' "Teaching Punctuation as a Rhetorical Tool," he clues that "conventional punctuation is grammar based" (141), so whenever people notice so-call mistakes in someone's writing, the problem doesn't lie on the ignorance of the author, but is instead an intentional style based on a hierarchy of different levels (or maximum, medium, and minimum). Beyond that hierarchy lies the importance of these marks, which Dawkins suggest raising (or punctuation "higher in the hierarchy" (145)) or lowering concepts, "a natural consequence of understanding the hierarchical system." (146)
So why is it that with various authors have all these tools, never always taking advantage of such potential, getting away from them and write material that doesn't need their assistance, and the students of such authors can not? That's where the teachers themselves come in. In “Resolution on Grammar Exercises to Teach Speaking and Writing,” written by the National Council of Teachers of English, the problem lies with a gap of students that have different background, and to uniform each of their backgrounds in one, English teachers have to conform to predetermined notions of society, and as such, has to follow rules they may not agree with. As such, they would develop "English of educated speakers", who would then pass their judgement of the teachers' subjects as law, believing that he is correct and other such writing is incorrect; a superiority to dialect itself. The result is a resolution that stated that students are allowed to write on whatever heritage he is used to working with, making teachers to "respect diversity and uphold the right of students to their own language."
A similar arguments pops up in "Why Revitalize Grammar?," where Patricia A. Dunn and Kenneth Lindblom actually argue in favor for so-called grammar mistakes. To them, writing is suppose to learn through "communicating, not by memorizing rules," and yet, English teachers continue to look for grammar mistakes and grade the entire parer not by what the writer has to say on the material, but institute that the grammar can has this effect of the material. Therefore, the problem with teachers does not lie with society, but on their own dedication to the rules laid out in textbooks, and if students ever need to reach their subject, then focus at the subject, not the grammar. As they say, if popular writers continually break these rules English teachers enforce, why should they, the student, bother to do the same?
Marry Ehrenworth's "Grammar--Comma--a New Beginning" argues for the same purpose of mistaken grammar, but her approach is more practical compared to the observations of Dunn and Lindblom. By practical, I mean that instead of creating their own beliefs of how students should write and use those pointers to challenge what other teachers have done towards correcting grammar, Ehrenworth uses her eighth grade classroom to figure out on where the disconnect of common grammar rules and writer's own interest in those rules is, and she finds out that students simply don't want to write the tenses needed to clarify their writing; they understand how to use grammar, but they see no use to use it in their own writings. The result Ehrenworth tries is to use the structure of other passages (e.g. a passage from Nabokov's Lolita), craft them to be models for the students, and sees if the prompt given to the students will inspire them to write something that gives them a reason on why they should think about writing. In the end, the material all depended on what rhythm appealed to the young writers, and as Ehrenworth noticed, she, the teacher, was working at a "framework of genre choice, and genre-linked craft lessons," (96) leaving the grades of grammar usage useless to students.
Do these usage link us to a better understanding on why one prefers to learn the craft than the material? To that, I turn to an article that's in Patrick Hartwell's article "Grammar, Grammars, and the Teaching of Grammar," where he brings up an excerpt of "The Three Meanings of Grammar" from W. Nelson Francis's to "go about the business of defying grammar rather carefully." In the article, Francis talks about three different usage of "grammar," where one is aware of "'the set of formal patterns in which the words of a language are arranged in order to convey larger meanings'" (109), another as "'the branch of linguistic science which is concerned with the description, analysis, and formalization of formal language patterns'" (109), and "'linguistic etiquette'," or a way where "we say that the expression 'he ain't here' is 'bad grammar'." (109) Using these rules, Hartwell suggest that, going beyond that the first two grammar statement go beyond arguing either for control or authority, each of these meanings "forces us to posit multiple literates, used for multiple purposes, rather than a single static literacy, engraved in 'rules of grammar.'" (123) Thereby, grammar can open up more possibilities writers can go with their material, so instead of sticking by the original purpose, expansion can occur, extending the original purpose into something much more complex that can satisfy those who seek better grammar in papers.
Sources:
Conference on College Composition and Communication. “Students' Right to Their Own Language.” CCC 25 (1974): n. p. NCTE.org. Conference on College Composition and Communication. Web. 16 Nov. 2010.
Dunn, Patricia A., and Kenneth Lindblom. “Why Revitalize Grammar?” The English Journal 92.3 (2003): 43–50.
Ehrenworth, Mary. “Grammar—Comma—A New Beginning.” The English Journal 92.3 (2003): 90–96.
Hartwell, Patrick. “Grammar, Grammars, and the Teaching of Grammar.” College English 47.2 (1985): 105–27.
Wardle, Elizabeth, and Doug Downs. Writing about Writing: A College Reader. Boston: Bedford/St. Martins, 2011. Print. 140-153
Tuesday, September 18, 2012
Reading Response #9
"Seeing the Text" in an argument from Stephen A. Bernhardt that favors, or at least focuses, the importance of the way the text is seen visually, leading to a more appealing hierarchy for readers to follow and easier organization for the writer to deal with to academic writers who believe that the text itself is the main aspect of writing overall. Using this "graphic potential" (ROW, 36), papers could then be organized to whatever fits the written material, so if someone wants to create a scientific paper on a particular subject, or write a flyer for religious purpose, then the two pieces do not have to conform to each others rules so thoroughly, because as Bernhardt comments, the true purpose of such information of such work "suggests that visual perception works to pull out figures out of the background, to give them definition against the undistinguished field in which they are located." (ROW, 39) In other words, the figure compliments, or supports, the text in a way the words themselves cannot on their own.
This idea returns to Greene's "Argument As Conversation," where Green talks about on how conservations, as arguments, are meant to be communicated to a more social surrounding; bringing the material to a bigger setting beyond the writer himself. Bernhardlt's answer to bring such writing to that surrounding is to craft forms to support whatever text is needed for a specific organization, while Greene would say that the illusion of dialogue (through framing, identification, research, and the understanding of the material) is plenty to get by. However, while their forms are different, both their conclusions reach the same conclusion: to craft creative writing, the connections between the communication of readers and the author himself will entirely depend on whenever or not the author can successfully explain his position on an argument as effectively as possible through any means necessary.
To take an example, there's Monday paper for The Post. In the article "Athens voters still lean left, data shows," 10 paragraphs are created to support the headline that Athens voters still believe in a more Democratic government, and to communicate the info, the paragraphs arrive at their point through economic means, arriving at their point efficiently as possible for the reader to understand the material on a whole. Just in case the text can't communicate, an image is present, where one color overwhelms the others in a southeast corner. And to explain the colors that are communicated in the image, information and percentage on few of the counties are used to support the purpose, making sure the information reaches to the reader and doesn't come away from the article with any sort of confusion about Athens voters.
Questions for Discussion and Journaling
To Bernhardt, the biggest advantage for using partitioning is that the reader can process the materiel is any way that appeal to him (or her), reading at a non-linear pace that will eventually arrive at the overall purpose and be satisfied with the outcome, instead of following the dictation of the author and feel like there was no control towards the text. As for the writer, if used correctly, partitioning can reveal divisions for the whole passage, lending the author to focus on sublevels of the text without losing the overall purpose; the more he splits the material into a easily formed structure, the easier it will be for the purpose to come through. As such, headings without writing might be appropriate to use if its' used to reveal what the text means as quickly as possible, summarize the entire text in an effective sentence that who reads the material can understand before reading, or be the entire text for the reader to grasps the attention of the reader to learn more about the subject.
Applying and Exploring Ideas
In the article, Bernhardt summarizes on how to be "visually informative" with (visual) gestalt as such: If used correctly, gestalt will bring variation of the surface that "offers aesthetic possibilities," "attract or reader through the shape of the text," "laws of equilibrium," "good continuation," "good figure," "closure," and "similarity" (ROW 43). Knowing these terms, the article shows me that Berhandt wants me to look at text in a more visual level, where instead of judging academic writings by the structure of the text, I should really take into consideration the context of formation, where it's really the way I perceive the length of the paragraphs that will determine on whenever or not future papers will hold my interest. As for the article itself, it explains why Bernhandt argues in favor for the form of the text rather than the complexity of the material presented to me.
After You Read
Thinking back to McCloud's point that pictures, though fluid, change their meaning by appearance, leading to readers to either see either ideas, themselves or someone else, I would say that McCloud would represent Bernhardt's point by, perhaps, expressing approval of a more pictorial style, where readers can see the ideas, or themselves, much more clearly. As such, McCloud's whole purpose, his words that speak for him, is now in the forefront, despite Bernhardt's argument being aimed towards the text than a transition of words to icons. The result would probably be an amusing comic on how the form of the text means to the audience, leading to how artists will draw the pictures--along with putting the effort of corresponding the text with the images--to make audiences see themselves and make the material more appealing to them somehow.
Meta Moment
Now what do I think is most appropriate for particular visually thinking contexts? As I mentioned before, a newspaper has to communicate info to readers efficiently as possible, so if, say, a heading is needed for a reader to completely understand the forthcoming article, I have no trouble calling it necessary. There's also graphic novels, where in a primary visual business, the text has to create visuals that supports the attention of the readers, or else the whole core will have to support itself through means beyond the material based on the writings. McCloud's comic about using cartoons for the expression of the self, other, or idea brings visual thinking into a presentation of text that relates to this article, where the theory of who presents the matter is not important, but the expression of the ideals of the author that related to the ideals of the reader is could bring the presentation to a much more easily understandable aid; the reader can now see the his/the author's point instead of figuring out for itself what exactly the point is through his own imagination.
All in all, I can see why Bernhardt argues so hard for more visuals means of text. The looming rumors of the newspaper's demise are still in the air, and from my experiences, the complaints of reading book for school purposes are still as loud as they were decades ago. Even the length of any kind of work could determine on whenever or not I (and for that matter, anyone) will pace myself, so I'm guilty of visual means myself. Is that a bad thing? Does the problem lie with the predilections of television (or for my generation's taste, Netflix streaming, with Youtube videos on the side) around my area? I'm not sure, but if Bernhardlt is suggesting that text should follow in the wake of the appeal of what can be seen for text, I cannot say I blame him for thinking that way.
This idea returns to Greene's "Argument As Conversation," where Green talks about on how conservations, as arguments, are meant to be communicated to a more social surrounding; bringing the material to a bigger setting beyond the writer himself. Bernhardlt's answer to bring such writing to that surrounding is to craft forms to support whatever text is needed for a specific organization, while Greene would say that the illusion of dialogue (through framing, identification, research, and the understanding of the material) is plenty to get by. However, while their forms are different, both their conclusions reach the same conclusion: to craft creative writing, the connections between the communication of readers and the author himself will entirely depend on whenever or not the author can successfully explain his position on an argument as effectively as possible through any means necessary.
To take an example, there's Monday paper for The Post. In the article "Athens voters still lean left, data shows," 10 paragraphs are created to support the headline that Athens voters still believe in a more Democratic government, and to communicate the info, the paragraphs arrive at their point through economic means, arriving at their point efficiently as possible for the reader to understand the material on a whole. Just in case the text can't communicate, an image is present, where one color overwhelms the others in a southeast corner. And to explain the colors that are communicated in the image, information and percentage on few of the counties are used to support the purpose, making sure the information reaches to the reader and doesn't come away from the article with any sort of confusion about Athens voters.
Questions for Discussion and Journaling
To Bernhardt, the biggest advantage for using partitioning is that the reader can process the materiel is any way that appeal to him (or her), reading at a non-linear pace that will eventually arrive at the overall purpose and be satisfied with the outcome, instead of following the dictation of the author and feel like there was no control towards the text. As for the writer, if used correctly, partitioning can reveal divisions for the whole passage, lending the author to focus on sublevels of the text without losing the overall purpose; the more he splits the material into a easily formed structure, the easier it will be for the purpose to come through. As such, headings without writing might be appropriate to use if its' used to reveal what the text means as quickly as possible, summarize the entire text in an effective sentence that who reads the material can understand before reading, or be the entire text for the reader to grasps the attention of the reader to learn more about the subject.
Applying and Exploring Ideas
In the article, Bernhardt summarizes on how to be "visually informative" with (visual) gestalt as such: If used correctly, gestalt will bring variation of the surface that "offers aesthetic possibilities," "attract or reader through the shape of the text," "laws of equilibrium," "good continuation," "good figure," "closure," and "similarity" (ROW 43). Knowing these terms, the article shows me that Berhandt wants me to look at text in a more visual level, where instead of judging academic writings by the structure of the text, I should really take into consideration the context of formation, where it's really the way I perceive the length of the paragraphs that will determine on whenever or not future papers will hold my interest. As for the article itself, it explains why Bernhandt argues in favor for the form of the text rather than the complexity of the material presented to me.
After You Read
Thinking back to McCloud's point that pictures, though fluid, change their meaning by appearance, leading to readers to either see either ideas, themselves or someone else, I would say that McCloud would represent Bernhardt's point by, perhaps, expressing approval of a more pictorial style, where readers can see the ideas, or themselves, much more clearly. As such, McCloud's whole purpose, his words that speak for him, is now in the forefront, despite Bernhardt's argument being aimed towards the text than a transition of words to icons. The result would probably be an amusing comic on how the form of the text means to the audience, leading to how artists will draw the pictures--along with putting the effort of corresponding the text with the images--to make audiences see themselves and make the material more appealing to them somehow.
Meta Moment
Now what do I think is most appropriate for particular visually thinking contexts? As I mentioned before, a newspaper has to communicate info to readers efficiently as possible, so if, say, a heading is needed for a reader to completely understand the forthcoming article, I have no trouble calling it necessary. There's also graphic novels, where in a primary visual business, the text has to create visuals that supports the attention of the readers, or else the whole core will have to support itself through means beyond the material based on the writings. McCloud's comic about using cartoons for the expression of the self, other, or idea brings visual thinking into a presentation of text that relates to this article, where the theory of who presents the matter is not important, but the expression of the ideals of the author that related to the ideals of the reader is could bring the presentation to a much more easily understandable aid; the reader can now see the his/the author's point instead of figuring out for itself what exactly the point is through his own imagination.
All in all, I can see why Bernhardt argues so hard for more visuals means of text. The looming rumors of the newspaper's demise are still in the air, and from my experiences, the complaints of reading book for school purposes are still as loud as they were decades ago. Even the length of any kind of work could determine on whenever or not I (and for that matter, anyone) will pace myself, so I'm guilty of visual means myself. Is that a bad thing? Does the problem lie with the predilections of television (or for my generation's taste, Netflix streaming, with Youtube videos on the side) around my area? I'm not sure, but if Bernhardlt is suggesting that text should follow in the wake of the appeal of what can be seen for text, I cannot say I blame him for thinking that way.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)