The contemporary rhetors from this week's readings place a premium on flux, instability, and process. Foucault explored the source of power which he describes as fluid, flowing from discourse. Herrick states that for Foucault, "power is a matter of which ideas prevail at the moment" (247). Just looking at our country's politics, this seems like a simple matter--whoever wins owns all the marbles, but it's not that simple with Foucault. Where power comes from still isn't entirely clear for me. I know that Foucault believes it originates in discourse, but then institutions are the means by which this power is dispersed. But even though "institutions are subject to power just as individuals are" (251), it seems that they often take on an identity of their own making them at least appear to have the power.
What Foucault and Derrida may have in common is the idea of hidden ideas or discourse. Foucault talks about excluded discourse, the idea that not all knowledge is available at all times: "knowledge is largely a 'set of rules (neither grammatical nor logical) to which speakers unwittingly conform'" (250). Depending on context or historical setting, some ideas are inappropriate or excluded--the knowledge is hidden. Derrida discusses this concept with his unstable meanings. He analyzed ideas that most people would see as fixed and juxtaposed them with their opposites, challenging meaning. He believed that words merely create the idea of stability, but other meanings lie beneath the surface--some unintended, but others may have an agenda. Creating meaning, for Derrida, is never finished; it revolves around the idea of social collaboration or negotiation. So as the composition of the society changes, so does the meaning attached to language.
Friday, November 19, 2010
Friday, November 12, 2010
Rhetoric: The Struggle between Identification and Division
"Rhetoric is concerned with the state of Babel after the Fall."
(Burke, in B&H, p. 1327)
I find myself very drawn to Burke's statement as we try to sort out the "who's on first," "what's on second" characteristics of rhetoric. Although each era we have discussed has added its own twist and emphasis to the foundations of classical rhetoric, I love that the 20th century adds the concept on context. All of the rhetoricians we have read deal with audience to some degree--some, like Cicero, with more fervency than others. But, I believe that Burke's concepts of consubstantiality and identification introduce the importance of relationships.
This idea of consubstantiality is important because it forces us to recognize that "we have in common certain substances including physical embodiment, common aspirations, and language itself" (Herrick, p. 224). These commonalities lead us to compare (and contrast) who we are and what we think and measure those judgments against others in our own communities and cultures. Burke labels this desire to bridge the gap as identification. Seems simple enough, but why do we feel the need to identify, to bring our aspirations more in line with others? Because we're different. Something about us as individuals, groups, and cultures sets us apart from others. So rhetoric becomes the tool we use to deal with people, groups, or ideas with which we may be at odds.
I've been mulling this idea over, trying to place it in the context of a classroom. Initially, I was thinking in terms of an "us" versus "them," "professors" versus "students" dialectic. But in reality, I believe what we have is an archipelago of islands--lots of individuals with different backgrounds, aspirations, and languages (whether formal second language or informal social dialect) loosely grouped by the confines of the four classroom walls. Part of the difficulty we have as instructors is creating, modeling, portraying an identity that will motivate students to want to emulate what the academic environment has to offer. In Herrick, Burke states, "You persuade a man only insofar as you can talk his language by speech, gesture, tonality, order, image, attitude, idea, identifying your was with his" (p. 223). The classroom can be perceived as its own culture where dialogic exchange creates a cooperative environment--a place where words can act as "bridges" between instructors and students (Bakhtin paraphrased, Herrick, p. 222).
Friday, November 5, 2010
Online Instruction and Social Media
Nothing earth-shattering here, but I thought this was an interesting article that posed questions about social networking and on-line instruction. I think that the newest trends and all of the "bells and whistles" that technology puts at our fingertips provide creative options for presentation, but I also think we have to acknowledge that it's not technology that drives education, it's simply finding the best way to help our students achieve the learning outcomes for the course.
When Social Media is Irrelevant
When Social Media is Irrelevant
Thursday, November 4, 2010
Echoes of Old
Reading Bain and Hill this week felt as though I was reading an introduction or background information in our composition texts--and in essence, I was. Although it was very interesting to trace some of our current pedagogical "roots" to these rhetoricians, some of the foundations that have carried over are a bit stifling--or maybe we have interpreted or implemented the ideology so that it is stifling.
On one hand, I like Bain's modes: description, narration, exposition, oratory, and poetry. I think they are valuable tools to help students examine the variety of ways they can express themselves within one medium. Certainly, writing purely in only one of these rhetorical modes at a time is not practical, but choosing the form that may best showcase an idea or argument is a skill (or maybe art) that students can learn. On the other hand, some of Bain's ideas appear to lead to a more skill and drill mentality. He points out that one purpose of English teachers is to "obtain suitable exercises for practice in writing English" (B&H, p. 1146). He continues praising how the "sustained practice . . . or applying of the designations, principles, and rules of Rhetoric . . . would eventually form, in the mind of the pupil, an abiding ideal of good composition" (B&H, p. 1146). Despite the amount of research proving otherwise, this apparent traditional constructivist approach still reigns in many English classrooms--especially those grooming developmental writers.
Dovetailing with Bain, Hill cites four requirements for efficient communication: Grammatical Purity, Clearness, Force, and Elegance (B&H, p. 1149). His explanations appear to focus more on the current Clarity-Brevity-Sincerity approach to style in writing. Hill, though, anticipates the need for the criteria to meet his terms to evolve as the audience changes. In describing Grammatical Purity (Correctness), Hill explains that these expressions must meet the criteria that "are accepted by the consentient practice of the speakers or writers of the present time who enjoy the best national reputation" (B&H, p. 1149). This concept reminds me of Hume's touchstones, which in his definition are "works of art [that] are clearly better than others, a judgment about which nobody would disagree" (p. 829). So the rules are there, but they are iterative in the sense that they may change as the audience's taste changes.
Someone brought up the 5 paragraph essay in class last night, and there is clearly an audience that still sees its merit, but its criteria certainly no longer meets the touchstone standard. Composition is definitely still evolving. The relatively predictable pendulum swing from oral to written expression and back will somehow have to adapt to what technology offers as alternative forms of expression. I wonder what we will first judge as stifling or "traditional constructivist" in the technological realm (or is PowerPoint already there?)
On one hand, I like Bain's modes: description, narration, exposition, oratory, and poetry. I think they are valuable tools to help students examine the variety of ways they can express themselves within one medium. Certainly, writing purely in only one of these rhetorical modes at a time is not practical, but choosing the form that may best showcase an idea or argument is a skill (or maybe art) that students can learn. On the other hand, some of Bain's ideas appear to lead to a more skill and drill mentality. He points out that one purpose of English teachers is to "obtain suitable exercises for practice in writing English" (B&H, p. 1146). He continues praising how the "sustained practice . . . or applying of the designations, principles, and rules of Rhetoric . . . would eventually form, in the mind of the pupil, an abiding ideal of good composition" (B&H, p. 1146). Despite the amount of research proving otherwise, this apparent traditional constructivist approach still reigns in many English classrooms--especially those grooming developmental writers.
Dovetailing with Bain, Hill cites four requirements for efficient communication: Grammatical Purity, Clearness, Force, and Elegance (B&H, p. 1149). His explanations appear to focus more on the current Clarity-Brevity-Sincerity approach to style in writing. Hill, though, anticipates the need for the criteria to meet his terms to evolve as the audience changes. In describing Grammatical Purity (Correctness), Hill explains that these expressions must meet the criteria that "are accepted by the consentient practice of the speakers or writers of the present time who enjoy the best national reputation" (B&H, p. 1149). This concept reminds me of Hume's touchstones, which in his definition are "works of art [that] are clearly better than others, a judgment about which nobody would disagree" (p. 829). So the rules are there, but they are iterative in the sense that they may change as the audience's taste changes.
Someone brought up the 5 paragraph essay in class last night, and there is clearly an audience that still sees its merit, but its criteria certainly no longer meets the touchstone standard. Composition is definitely still evolving. The relatively predictable pendulum swing from oral to written expression and back will somehow have to adapt to what technology offers as alternative forms of expression. I wonder what we will first judge as stifling or "traditional constructivist" in the technological realm (or is PowerPoint already there?)
Saturday, October 30, 2010
The Enlightenment
The Enlightenment seems to bring about a shift in rhetoric's purpose from that of civil discourse to more private interests and communication. Where traditional doctrines of knowledge-making or discovering truth stem from innate or received divination, the rhetoricians and philosophers of the Enlightenment emphasized that the ability to discover knowledge resided in perception.
Locke extends Bacon's tenets that truth could be discovered in the physical world with knowledge being possible if we understood the discovery process. He puts forth the idea that words are signs of ideas and the act of reflection, relating ideas to one another, is how we acquire knowledge. Not a fan of style and delivery, Locke represents a more philosophical and introspective approach to rhetoric and knowledge-making.
Hume and Sheridan, on the other hand, approach knowledge acquisition from a more relativistic view. Both emphasize the importance of style, although Sheridan takes presentation a bit far with his emphasis on elocution. Hume tries to temper an extreme relativistic view with touchstones--claiming some things (art in particular) are simply clearly better than others--and taste--believing some people are simply "more sensitive and knowledgeable" than others. The parameters that Hume employs on rhetoric relate the importance he places on knowing the tolerances of the audience, an idea that reflects back to Cicero.
Blair's quote, which opens Chapter 8, blends the strategies of both Locke's and Hume's philosophies. Language is best served when we "convey our ideas clearly to the minds of others . . . in such a dress, as by pleasing and interesting them" (p. 174).
Locke extends Bacon's tenets that truth could be discovered in the physical world with knowledge being possible if we understood the discovery process. He puts forth the idea that words are signs of ideas and the act of reflection, relating ideas to one another, is how we acquire knowledge. Not a fan of style and delivery, Locke represents a more philosophical and introspective approach to rhetoric and knowledge-making.
Hume and Sheridan, on the other hand, approach knowledge acquisition from a more relativistic view. Both emphasize the importance of style, although Sheridan takes presentation a bit far with his emphasis on elocution. Hume tries to temper an extreme relativistic view with touchstones--claiming some things (art in particular) are simply clearly better than others--and taste--believing some people are simply "more sensitive and knowledgeable" than others. The parameters that Hume employs on rhetoric relate the importance he places on knowing the tolerances of the audience, an idea that reflects back to Cicero.
Blair's quote, which opens Chapter 8, blends the strategies of both Locke's and Hume's philosophies. Language is best served when we "convey our ideas clearly to the minds of others . . . in such a dress, as by pleasing and interesting them" (p. 174).
Thursday, October 21, 2010
Erasmus
I had not read Erasmus before this class, but I feel like I am very familiar with his philosophy. The emphasis on the creation of both (quality) words and ideas is the foundation of most composition classes. His development of the idea of copie--"an abundantly varied flow of speech that impresses with its energy and inventiveness" (Bizzell, 583)--seems to be the goal of all composition instructors.
Erasmus reaches back to classical rhetoric in his reference (and deference) to Quintilian suggesting that if Quintilian had had the opportunity to "set out his recommendations in full" (598), he would not need to have written Copia. His suggestions, however, are well-stated. Book I reminds me a bit of Joseph Williams' Style in his call to "compress and abridge" what is being said. The idea of clarity-brevity-sincerity seems to have its foundations here. Also, the expression of the richness of both expression and subject matter are still prevalent in current theory.
What most caught my attention, however, was the pedagogy that he describes. In "Exercises to Develop the Powers of Expression," he explains the need for deliberate practice of expressing ideas in a variety of sentence structures, but what most surprised me was his insightful observation that this activity is best accomplished within a group--peer teaching. It reminded me of the video we watched at the end of class last week, where students were most curious, driven, and successful in learning when left to their own devices. His emphasis on practice has also made its way into today's pedagogy as students are continually reminded that if they do not practice the sentence variety, vocabulary, and word choice they're taught--if they only "learn" it for the lesson--the style will not present itself when they need it. I also like his cautionary note, something we again share with students, that word choice is important, but it must fit the occasion. How many of us had thesaurus-laden papers from students who thought it would be "clever" to choose two or three new words in each sentence from the first entry in the thesaurus? Although a bit overdone, his practical demonstration is one of the "best practices" for almost any classroom. Modeling expectations and examples provides a specific goal for students and helps clearly establish the criteria the instructor is looking for.
Erasmus also expresses the importance of arrangement--reaching back to Aristotle advising to "take care not to throw the proper order of the various parts into confusion by mixing everything up in an indiscriminate chaos of utterances" (610). The advice to "prevent tedium in the reader or hearer by skillful arrangement, appropriate allocation, and elegant disposition" (610) is still to be heeded today.
Erasmus reaches back to classical rhetoric in his reference (and deference) to Quintilian suggesting that if Quintilian had had the opportunity to "set out his recommendations in full" (598), he would not need to have written Copia. His suggestions, however, are well-stated. Book I reminds me a bit of Joseph Williams' Style in his call to "compress and abridge" what is being said. The idea of clarity-brevity-sincerity seems to have its foundations here. Also, the expression of the richness of both expression and subject matter are still prevalent in current theory.
What most caught my attention, however, was the pedagogy that he describes. In "Exercises to Develop the Powers of Expression," he explains the need for deliberate practice of expressing ideas in a variety of sentence structures, but what most surprised me was his insightful observation that this activity is best accomplished within a group--peer teaching. It reminded me of the video we watched at the end of class last week, where students were most curious, driven, and successful in learning when left to their own devices. His emphasis on practice has also made its way into today's pedagogy as students are continually reminded that if they do not practice the sentence variety, vocabulary, and word choice they're taught--if they only "learn" it for the lesson--the style will not present itself when they need it. I also like his cautionary note, something we again share with students, that word choice is important, but it must fit the occasion. How many of us had thesaurus-laden papers from students who thought it would be "clever" to choose two or three new words in each sentence from the first entry in the thesaurus? Although a bit overdone, his practical demonstration is one of the "best practices" for almost any classroom. Modeling expectations and examples provides a specific goal for students and helps clearly establish the criteria the instructor is looking for.
Erasmus also expresses the importance of arrangement--reaching back to Aristotle advising to "take care not to throw the proper order of the various parts into confusion by mixing everything up in an indiscriminate chaos of utterances" (610). The advice to "prevent tedium in the reader or hearer by skillful arrangement, appropriate allocation, and elegant disposition" (610) is still to be heeded today.
Saturday, October 16, 2010
I like the quote that Herrick uses to open his chapter on Renaissance Rhetoric:
Petrarch sums up rhetoric's return to a more social, more interactive role than it had been relegated to during the middle ages. Scholasticism emphasized an authoritarian and closed approach to learning, and although instruction was rational and orderly (something unlike the MOO, I imagine), much of the content used for instruction was taken out of context, therefore, losing its original meaning. Where the Middle Ages valued rhetoric for sermons and letter writing--again emphasizing one-sided forms of persuasion--rhetoric gains status in the Renaissance as "an aid to moral contemplation and personal refinement" (p. 156) as well as "a means of winning political power through argument and persuasion" (p. 157).
Rhetoric, in fact, becomes a tool for the responsible citizen as many humanists believed that one had a responsibility for civic involvement, the idea of vita activa. In terms of today's politics, I would like to think we are more humanistic in our approach to civic duty, but watching the many of the news programs, we see examples from all affiliations that seem to exemplify more of the scholastic approach--senteniae taken out of context (without the excuse of centuries separating the original text from the portrayed snippet).
Another part of the reading I noted this week was the humanist's ability to use rhetoric as a tool to discover truth or knowledge and still maintain a religious belief. Valla, in particular, rejects the middle ages' approach to religion which was to "correct error" in the corrupt mind. Conversely, he saw rhetoric as a means to make religion more public and active, creating a belief system, like that of the responsible citizen where one was expected to engage.
There is nothing more pleasing to God who governs the world than men united by social bonds. . . .
---Petrarch
Petrarch sums up rhetoric's return to a more social, more interactive role than it had been relegated to during the middle ages. Scholasticism emphasized an authoritarian and closed approach to learning, and although instruction was rational and orderly (something unlike the MOO, I imagine), much of the content used for instruction was taken out of context, therefore, losing its original meaning. Where the Middle Ages valued rhetoric for sermons and letter writing--again emphasizing one-sided forms of persuasion--rhetoric gains status in the Renaissance as "an aid to moral contemplation and personal refinement" (p. 156) as well as "a means of winning political power through argument and persuasion" (p. 157).
Rhetoric, in fact, becomes a tool for the responsible citizen as many humanists believed that one had a responsibility for civic involvement, the idea of vita activa. In terms of today's politics, I would like to think we are more humanistic in our approach to civic duty, but watching the many of the news programs, we see examples from all affiliations that seem to exemplify more of the scholastic approach--senteniae taken out of context (without the excuse of centuries separating the original text from the portrayed snippet).
Another part of the reading I noted this week was the humanist's ability to use rhetoric as a tool to discover truth or knowledge and still maintain a religious belief. Valla, in particular, rejects the middle ages' approach to religion which was to "correct error" in the corrupt mind. Conversely, he saw rhetoric as a means to make religion more public and active, creating a belief system, like that of the responsible citizen where one was expected to engage.
Thursday, October 7, 2010
Elaborate, yet Exact
This week's readings reminded me of an odd mix of the late Baroque/Rocco period and Calvinism. Since I am an expert in neither area, my connections may be flawed, but reading about letter writing conventions during the Medieval period brought to mind largesse and overdone characteristics of Baroque and Rocco art.
The initial definition of a letter or epistle seems straight forward enough:
However, in a matter of about eight lines, although structure is still clearly defined, the flourishes overtake the greeting. The simple number of "appropriate" salutations is overdone, much like the art of the later period. Salutations are almost colossal in their introductions. My favorite is "A Pupil to His Teacher":
On the other hand, sermons take on an incredibly tight structure with little room for deviation. "Indeed it is considered incorrect if one puts in his theme a quotation from another translation than the one commonly used" (p. 532). The preacher becomes a horse with blinders, limited to pre-approved ideas he is permitted to use to share with his parishioners.
I thought, however, element's of Cicero's rhetor might still emerge from the preacher in the 2nd ornament of preaching--winning over the audience. But only one technique appears to attempt a genuine connection with the audience--opening with something subtle and interesting. The remaining techniques induce fear tactics and deceit--if you "hear the word of God" from the preacher, you're predestined--one of the elect.
I can see some connections with sermons and letter writing to our earlier rhetors, but much of the content and style seem to be gone.
The initial definition of a letter or epistle seems straight forward enough:
a suitable arrangement of words set forth to express the intended meaning of its sender. (Anonymous, B&H, p. 497)Even the parts of a letter seem to roughly coincide with the style of rhetoric we have discussed thus far. I was even trying to make the connection of "the Securing of Goodwill" (B&H, p. 497) to Cicero's insistence that the rhetor connect with his audience.
However, in a matter of about eight lines, although structure is still clearly defined, the flourishes overtake the greeting. The simple number of "appropriate" salutations is overdone, much like the art of the later period. Salutations are almost colossal in their introductions. My favorite is "A Pupil to His Teacher":
To Mrs. Fontaine, by divine grace resplendent in Ciceronian Charm, John, inferior to his devoted learning, expresses the servitude of a sincere heart." (p. 501)It might be interesting to trace the evolution of the above to "Hey, Ms. F."
On the other hand, sermons take on an incredibly tight structure with little room for deviation. "Indeed it is considered incorrect if one puts in his theme a quotation from another translation than the one commonly used" (p. 532). The preacher becomes a horse with blinders, limited to pre-approved ideas he is permitted to use to share with his parishioners.
I thought, however, element's of Cicero's rhetor might still emerge from the preacher in the 2nd ornament of preaching--winning over the audience. But only one technique appears to attempt a genuine connection with the audience--opening with something subtle and interesting. The remaining techniques induce fear tactics and deceit--if you "hear the word of God" from the preacher, you're predestined--one of the elect.
I can see some connections with sermons and letter writing to our earlier rhetors, but much of the content and style seem to be gone.
Sunday, October 3, 2010
St. Augustine and Reconciliation
During the middle ages, rhetorical studies seemed to take on two extremes. First, those trained in the scholastic method, using senteniae to build arguments, appeared to be playing a rhetorical form of "Russian roulette." Maybe the arguments they crafted were insightful or led to new ideas, but the grounds on which the arguments were formed were, at best, questionable. Since the premises used for debate were removed from their original context, the value of the information gleaned would seem doubtful.
On the other hand, St. Augustine approached rhetoric with very unique insight. Despite being predominately Sophistic in my own philosophy, I miss the "one" "true" answer that Plato's philosophy provides. St. Augustine, however, rectifies this dilemma. His re-creation and ownership of rhetoric's purpose and method incorporates the best of both worlds. I also like the fact that he incorporates Cicero's addition to rhetoric, "to teach, to delight, and to move" the audience towards the truth.
However, the potential problem in St. Augustine's rhetorical philosophy is still the issue of power and control. St. Augustine takes the selfishness of the Sophists and Plato's pagan idea of truth and cleverly crafts it into a tool to spread Christianity. His main premise is that "[t]he happiness of all people can be achieved if all can e brought to understand and accept the truth of the gospel" (Herrick, p. 128) . Rhetoric is the technique through which a preacher "corrects . . . the errors of the mind" of those who do not accept the gospel and prepares "truthful messages for maintaining the health of souls now put into a receptive attitude" (p. 127). Being a Christian, I do see this strategy as clever, but a non-Christian may rightfully use a different adjective.
So with St. Augustine, I like how he has seemingly reconciled two diametrically opposed sides of rhetoric. But what is still a concern is the audience's ability to discern the premises and arguments that are presented. Until the rise of the educated populace, it seems even more important that character, stressed by most of the rhetoricians we've studied thus far, be a necessary characteristic of the preacher, speaker, or rhetorician
On the other hand, St. Augustine approached rhetoric with very unique insight. Despite being predominately Sophistic in my own philosophy, I miss the "one" "true" answer that Plato's philosophy provides. St. Augustine, however, rectifies this dilemma. His re-creation and ownership of rhetoric's purpose and method incorporates the best of both worlds. I also like the fact that he incorporates Cicero's addition to rhetoric, "to teach, to delight, and to move" the audience towards the truth.
However, the potential problem in St. Augustine's rhetorical philosophy is still the issue of power and control. St. Augustine takes the selfishness of the Sophists and Plato's pagan idea of truth and cleverly crafts it into a tool to spread Christianity. His main premise is that "[t]he happiness of all people can be achieved if all can e brought to understand and accept the truth of the gospel" (Herrick, p. 128) . Rhetoric is the technique through which a preacher "corrects . . . the errors of the mind" of those who do not accept the gospel and prepares "truthful messages for maintaining the health of souls now put into a receptive attitude" (p. 127). Being a Christian, I do see this strategy as clever, but a non-Christian may rightfully use a different adjective.
So with St. Augustine, I like how he has seemingly reconciled two diametrically opposed sides of rhetoric. But what is still a concern is the audience's ability to discern the premises and arguments that are presented. Until the rise of the educated populace, it seems even more important that character, stressed by most of the rhetoricians we've studied thus far, be a necessary characteristic of the preacher, speaker, or rhetorician
Friday, September 24, 2010
Assignment #1 Musings
As I live near the Gulf Coast, I've seen a considerable number of texts dealing with the Gulf Oil Crisis. This oil spill clearly created significant economic and environmental problems that will affect these areas to varying degrees for some time; as a result, BP's response has been met with considerable criticism. There are times, however, I wonder if any reponse would be met without considerable attack.
So for my first project, I thought I would try to analyze some of the responses BP has put forth and the foundations in which they base their responses to assure the government (at all levels), business owners, and "locals" that the company is acting responsibly to the accident. In particular, one commercial (which is also run in a print form) seems to root its rhetorical basis in Cicero with his strong emphasis on knowing the audience (I think more so than Aristotle) and eloquent delivery.
http://bp.concerts.com/gom/Communities_20082010.htm
I'm not so sure that they meet Cicero's moral and ethical requirements, yet, but hopefully the project will help sort that out. Additionally, I think much of what BP puts forth is based on enthymeme--they presume the audience starts from the same premise as they do or assume that we will make the jump to the same conclusion with them. At Dr. Rice's suggestion, I'm also exploring how the Toulmin Model may help to illustrate the basis for BP's claims.
If this project goes well, I hope to build a dialogue between competing opinions on the handling of the crisis. BP obviously views this as an accident--unfortunate, but a risk of the type of business they conduct. Others view this as an act of irresponsibility. So, tentatively, if the first assignment survives, I'd like to create a diagloue between these two opposing views.
So for my first project, I thought I would try to analyze some of the responses BP has put forth and the foundations in which they base their responses to assure the government (at all levels), business owners, and "locals" that the company is acting responsibly to the accident. In particular, one commercial (which is also run in a print form) seems to root its rhetorical basis in Cicero with his strong emphasis on knowing the audience (I think more so than Aristotle) and eloquent delivery.
http://bp.concerts.com/gom/Communities_20082010.htm
I'm not so sure that they meet Cicero's moral and ethical requirements, yet, but hopefully the project will help sort that out. Additionally, I think much of what BP puts forth is based on enthymeme--they presume the audience starts from the same premise as they do or assume that we will make the jump to the same conclusion with them. At Dr. Rice's suggestion, I'm also exploring how the Toulmin Model may help to illustrate the basis for BP's claims.
If this project goes well, I hope to build a dialogue between competing opinions on the handling of the crisis. BP obviously views this as an accident--unfortunate, but a risk of the type of business they conduct. Others view this as an act of irresponsibility. So, tentatively, if the first assignment survives, I'd like to create a diagloue between these two opposing views.
Friday, September 17, 2010
Rhetoric and Audience
I’m struggling this week trying to define what “good” rhetoric is versus “bad” rhetoric (“cookery” for Plato).
- 1) all things equal, truth will prevail, but since all things are not equal, rhetors are important to "advocate" true and just ideas
- 2) knowledge of audience is crucial as even true and just ideas will not be received if the audience's frame of mind does not match that of the rhetor
When the rhetor begins an argument, he or she has a goal-- to persuade the audience--and it seems to me that Aristotle sees the audience as less enlightened; it can't see what is "true and just" without guidance. Additionally, Aristotle's second point, that the message must match the mood, implies how easily an audience can be persuaded when the rhetor is in tune with his or her listeners. I suppose this should be obvious as only an elite few were trained rhetoricians in Aristotle's day, but I keep thinking about how we use rhetoric today and how the audience, in many circumstances, is as empty as many of our contemporary rhetors. But maybe it is not because people have become less “engaged” or less “enlightened;” from Aristotle’s viewpoint, the audience has always needed to be shown the way.
Friday, September 10, 2010
Are you more platonic or sophistic in the context of your belief systems and professional practices?
Tough question. When I was a master's student, I had an incredibly dynamic Shakespeare professor who was simply immersed in Plato. In everything we read, we saw the "Allegory of the Cave," and "The Myth of the Charioteer" could be applied to any protagonist's struggle with his soul. And I have to admit, I loved it. The idea of perfect forms and philosopher-kings was very appealing. However, the more removed I became from Dr. Warr, the harder it was to maintain the level of excitement and, quite frankly, buy-in of the Platonic ideals.
Today I have to say that I find myself much more pragmatic. Although I still like the ideas Plato puts forth in the "Allegory" and "Charioteer," I don't think that the Forms and perfect control are attainable, nor something worth striving for to the level Plato would approve. I guess I'm much more caught up in the practical--I think we need to do the best we can with what we've got.
In Plato's discussion of the four true arts of health, he states that the healthy soul resides in the people (or legislators for him) who have true knowledge of virtue and vice while the "unhealthy" soul resides in sophists, or people who are only concerned about themselves or their own interest groups. But I think Plato paints this picture too black and white; there's a middle ground that may not make us saints, but it does not make us self-serving either. This middle ground is determined through interaction and response to our audience.
As an instructor, if I followed Plato's teachings and only sought out his Truth, Forms, and Dialectic, I'd be talking to myself. By responding to my students and making adjustments for both their needs and the standards and benchmarks to which I am held accountable, I think we do okay. Do I adjust my teaching to be self-serving? I do like my job and I want to keep it--but I like to think that on most days, I make adjustments and accommodations because I like teaching, I enjoy students, and I want to make a difference. I wouldn't exactly call it virtuous, but I don't think that I need to be "restored" to health either.
So, although I am drawn to Plato, I have abandoned my infatuation with his ideals for a philosophy that can make a practical difference in the real world.
Today I have to say that I find myself much more pragmatic. Although I still like the ideas Plato puts forth in the "Allegory" and "Charioteer," I don't think that the Forms and perfect control are attainable, nor something worth striving for to the level Plato would approve. I guess I'm much more caught up in the practical--I think we need to do the best we can with what we've got.
In Plato's discussion of the four true arts of health, he states that the healthy soul resides in the people (or legislators for him) who have true knowledge of virtue and vice while the "unhealthy" soul resides in sophists, or people who are only concerned about themselves or their own interest groups. But I think Plato paints this picture too black and white; there's a middle ground that may not make us saints, but it does not make us self-serving either. This middle ground is determined through interaction and response to our audience.
As an instructor, if I followed Plato's teachings and only sought out his Truth, Forms, and Dialectic, I'd be talking to myself. By responding to my students and making adjustments for both their needs and the standards and benchmarks to which I am held accountable, I think we do okay. Do I adjust my teaching to be self-serving? I do like my job and I want to keep it--but I like to think that on most days, I make adjustments and accommodations because I like teaching, I enjoy students, and I want to make a difference. I wouldn't exactly call it virtuous, but I don't think that I need to be "restored" to health either.
So, although I am drawn to Plato, I have abandoned my infatuation with his ideals for a philosophy that can make a practical difference in the real world.
Friday, September 3, 2010
Rhetoric and Responsibility
This week's readings provided a framework for terminology and ideas that we will cover this semester. Even after a great class discussion, it's taking a bit of time to digest all we covered, but I think we did lay a solid foundation for future discussion. In addition to discussing the origins of rhetoric (or maybe acknowledgment or recognition of rhetoric) and the quick outline of rhetoric's evolution, one idea that stuck with me is how we use rhetoric and why the concept has such a negative connotation at times.
Just this morning while watching a news program, the talking heads were critiquing a politician's view as "empty rhetoric." They felt that his message had no real content, no value, yet the politician was successful. Is it the politician's fault that he knows what his constituents want to hear, and relying on ethos (but more likely pathos) delivers a message he has crafted to be well-received? On one level, the politician may be "abusing" rhetoric--turning it into the "foul and ugly" craft Plato describes. But our reading in Herrick points out the importance of looking at rhetoric as more than one-sided. He cites Perelman and Olbrechts-Tyteca who believe that
This idea of responsibility and rhetoric may be a little too narrow-minded considering the vast amount of information we flew through this week, but I've always thought that the creator, the rhetor was the one in control of the message. Clearly he or she is the one who selects many aspects of a message, but the audience has (or should have) a much larger role than I would have thought. Rhetoric is clearly not a solitary endeavor.
Just this morning while watching a news program, the talking heads were critiquing a politician's view as "empty rhetoric." They felt that his message had no real content, no value, yet the politician was successful. Is it the politician's fault that he knows what his constituents want to hear, and relying on ethos (but more likely pathos) delivers a message he has crafted to be well-received? On one level, the politician may be "abusing" rhetoric--turning it into the "foul and ugly" craft Plato describes. But our reading in Herrick points out the importance of looking at rhetoric as more than one-sided. He cites Perelman and Olbrechts-Tyteca who believe that
"audience has the major role in determining the quality of argument and the behavior of orators." That is to say, an ignorant or noncritical audience can be one cause of weak or unethical rhetoric, while a well-informed and critically minded audience demands that the rhetoric addressed to it be well reasoned and honestly presented (10).So, although we may dislike the politician, if he is unchallenged and the audience is either ignorant, accepting, or indifferent, it should be held as responsible for the poor content as the rhetor. The audience, therefore, must have an active role in determining the content of the message, and, in the case of a politician, direction in which it wishes to be led or how it wishes to be represented.
This idea of responsibility and rhetoric may be a little too narrow-minded considering the vast amount of information we flew through this week, but I've always thought that the creator, the rhetor was the one in control of the message. Clearly he or she is the one who selects many aspects of a message, but the audience has (or should have) a much larger role than I would have thought. Rhetoric is clearly not a solitary endeavor.
Friday, August 27, 2010
5361 Assignment Suggestions
Lots of great assignment ideas were suggested in class last night. I'm afraid that I don't have much original to offer, but I'd like to throw in my support for a few that we discussed.
I like the idea of working on a larger project and reporting in stages--one that may have multimodal attributes. The first part of the project could reflect researched rhetorical foundations, possibly a traditional brief paper of sorts. The final project may inlcude a Prezi presentation or a document that would fit the guidelines for a Kairos-style project. Another approach for this type of project may be to create a website which would showcase the content.
Another assignment that interested me was creating a profile of one rhetorician, documenting his or her contribution or effect on contemporary rhetoric. Then, we could analyze an artifact(s) through the lens of the particular rhetorician.
A third possibility might compare or contrast similar content delivered in different media. How are the rhetorical situations different? How are persuasive strategies are used? What is the impact of the medium on the content and its efficacy?
Again, there were many good ideas generated in class last night. I look forward to the upcoming projects--whatever they may be!
I like the idea of working on a larger project and reporting in stages--one that may have multimodal attributes. The first part of the project could reflect researched rhetorical foundations, possibly a traditional brief paper of sorts. The final project may inlcude a Prezi presentation or a document that would fit the guidelines for a Kairos-style project. Another approach for this type of project may be to create a website which would showcase the content.
Another assignment that interested me was creating a profile of one rhetorician, documenting his or her contribution or effect on contemporary rhetoric. Then, we could analyze an artifact(s) through the lens of the particular rhetorician.
A third possibility might compare or contrast similar content delivered in different media. How are the rhetorical situations different? How are persuasive strategies are used? What is the impact of the medium on the content and its efficacy?
Again, there were many good ideas generated in class last night. I look forward to the upcoming projects--whatever they may be!
Wednesday, April 14, 2010
Style Revisited
I am still trying to create that "perfect" definition of style for my paper. This go-round replaces sprawl with a few nominalizations, but it is getting more concise.
Still not happy, but working on it!
Style is developed through a writer's effective selection and arrangement of ideas utilizing the appropriate technology to communicate effectively with a specific audience.
Still not happy, but working on it!
Sunday, April 4, 2010
Refer to high, middle, and low styles with what you read/worked on from the edited collection.
Lanham's chapter "High, Medium, and Low Styles" proved simultaneously enlightening and frustrating (at least for someone longing for just one concrete definition). As with much of what we have read this semester, Lanham provides guidelines, general rules, to assist readers in determining categories of style. He does provide a somewhat concrete list of characteristics of high and low style on page 164; however, the application of these traits is not nearly as neat as the columns in which they appear often causing the reader to struggle deciding which category a prose piece should fit. From Lanham's viewpoint, the fact that prose doesn't always fall easily into one category or the other may be good as he states that "it is generally agreed that the middle is the essential prose style. . . " (183).
The criteria Lanham puts forth to assess these three style categories provides a rough rubric with which to determine levels of style, but an equally important consideration is who applies the rubric. If we consider the characteristics of high and low style and strive for "the essential prose style," how do we recognize it when we see it? Lanham, again, provides subjective criteria for identifying middle style: "The middleness of the middle style will lie, for such a reader, in the expectedness of the style. . . . We must talk about the social substance that surrounds it, the historical pattern of expectation which renders it transparent" (185). So style can clearly change, or how we view the style, based on the audience and their situation.
If I apply Lanham's criteria to Whithaus's "ePortfolio" article from our collection, I would have to place his style between middle and high. He has clearly written his article expecting an academic audience with familiarity with writing programs. Although his writing style is comfortable, I wouldn't say that it is transparent. I know I am reading an academic article; there is no getting "lulled" into the content. The presentation is clearly formal, but cannot be characterized as artificial. I believe he is self-conscious in that he presents himself as an academician, yet the vocabulary and sentence structures are "natural" for someone in that role. He also approaches the topic from an emotional perspective in that he argues for the benefits of ePortfolios not only in writing programs but in the assessment of general education and upper division programs as well. He is obviously, then, writing for a public audience hoping for their approval or even adoption of his program. Whithaus, overall, does a good job in predicting his audience and presenting his argument.
The criteria Lanham puts forth to assess these three style categories provides a rough rubric with which to determine levels of style, but an equally important consideration is who applies the rubric. If we consider the characteristics of high and low style and strive for "the essential prose style," how do we recognize it when we see it? Lanham, again, provides subjective criteria for identifying middle style: "The middleness of the middle style will lie, for such a reader, in the expectedness of the style. . . . We must talk about the social substance that surrounds it, the historical pattern of expectation which renders it transparent" (185). So style can clearly change, or how we view the style, based on the audience and their situation.
If I apply Lanham's criteria to Whithaus's "ePortfolio" article from our collection, I would have to place his style between middle and high. He has clearly written his article expecting an academic audience with familiarity with writing programs. Although his writing style is comfortable, I wouldn't say that it is transparent. I know I am reading an academic article; there is no getting "lulled" into the content. The presentation is clearly formal, but cannot be characterized as artificial. I believe he is self-conscious in that he presents himself as an academician, yet the vocabulary and sentence structures are "natural" for someone in that role. He also approaches the topic from an emotional perspective in that he argues for the benefits of ePortfolios not only in writing programs but in the assessment of general education and upper division programs as well. He is obviously, then, writing for a public audience hoping for their approval or even adoption of his program. Whithaus, overall, does a good job in predicting his audience and presenting his argument.
Tuesday, March 30, 2010
What is the dark side of the Web, and how does it play into your paper about style and technology?
Baron describes several drawbacks to the Web, including misrepresentation of information, misrepresentation of self, and censorship. The issue he addresses that is most closely associated with my topic though has to do with information overload.
When students look at a 500-600 page text dealing with grammar, usage, style, and documentation rules, it's no wonder they don't read it. They don't have a need for all of the information (at least not all at one time), and even if they did, they could never learn everything contained in the text in a semester.
In the past 10 years or so, the cultural embrace of the Web, its technology, and its visual components have caused grammar handbooks to gradually change, to mimic the Web's display or design style as best print can, assisting the reader with "sorting" important or relevant information. Baron continues, "The trick to dealing with too much information is filtering out what to ignore. To do that, we invent ways to organize reading matter, index it, and search it" (218).
The organization in these print texts follows similar designs students seem more familiar with on the Web. The introduction of tabs (similar to Windows tabs), graphics, and weblinks (like hyperlinks) allows students to quickly find the information they need without wading through pages of (what students deem) unnecessary material. "Chunking" text and creating something other than a linear layout also follows from the Web environment. These design tools assist students in the creation of a more direct and efficient path to the information they require.
Critics object . . . that there's too much to read in cyberspace, because so many people are filling our screens with too much text. Even if the web can't or shouldn't be censored, they argue, someone needs to sort and catalog it so that users can more easily visit the places they want to and avoid the ones they don't. (Baron 217)
When students look at a 500-600 page text dealing with grammar, usage, style, and documentation rules, it's no wonder they don't read it. They don't have a need for all of the information (at least not all at one time), and even if they did, they could never learn everything contained in the text in a semester.
In the past 10 years or so, the cultural embrace of the Web, its technology, and its visual components have caused grammar handbooks to gradually change, to mimic the Web's display or design style as best print can, assisting the reader with "sorting" important or relevant information. Baron continues, "The trick to dealing with too much information is filtering out what to ignore. To do that, we invent ways to organize reading matter, index it, and search it" (218).
The organization in these print texts follows similar designs students seem more familiar with on the Web. The introduction of tabs (similar to Windows tabs), graphics, and weblinks (like hyperlinks) allows students to quickly find the information they need without wading through pages of (what students deem) unnecessary material. "Chunking" text and creating something other than a linear layout also follows from the Web environment. These design tools assist students in the creation of a more direct and efficient path to the information they require.
Thesis Attempt
This is proving to be a very challenging task for me!
For the purposes of this paper, I plan to review a selection of grammar handbooks from the 1960s to current editions (at this point, in print format only) to assess the design and layout changes afforded through computer technology and how these changes affect the reader's approach the text. I will select two or three chapters that contain similar content across time to assess the changes that occur in text structure, layout or page design, as well as the incorporation of the visual elements.My audience would be primarily composition instructors or authors considering writing a grammar handbook.
My thesis is still rough, but here's another stab:
For the purposes of this paper, I plan to review a selection of grammar handbooks from the 1960s to current editions (at this point, in print format only) to assess the design and layout changes afforded through computer technology and how these changes affect the reader's approach the text. I will select two or three chapters that contain similar content across time to assess the changes that occur in text structure, layout or page design, as well as the incorporation of the visual elements.My audience would be primarily composition instructors or authors considering writing a grammar handbook.
My thesis is still rough, but here's another stab:
Technology has allowed (or even encouraged) a shift in the design of grammar handbooks so that they are no longer a strictly linear, text-based medium. This evolution in design has encouraged both transformation (changes within one mode of expression, i.e. text) and transduction (transference of meaning from one mode of expression to another, i.e. text to visual) in the presentation of content within these texts providing the author with a variety of tools to create varied paths to intended meaning and readers with the power to choose their own strategies to attain the necessary information.Any feedback would be greatly appreciated!!
Monday, March 15, 2010
Think about what you have read in Baron, Lanham, and Williams--as well as the presentations and discussions you've seen. Define style (again).
Looking back, I believe my first attempt at defining style was vague and inadequate: "Style is the form we choose or create in order to clearly present our ideas to others." Form is clearly an important aspect to style, but I think I attributed too many characteristics to what "form" entails.
Part of the reason for hedging a definition of style comes from the inherent difficulty in defining a concept that incorporates both tangible and intangible qualities. Applicable rules can be assessed: does the author's artifact conform to the audience's accepted grammatical standards or not? Other characteristics such as word choice (and the connotations conveyed), sentence structure, and voice are not so black and white. To compound matters, the application of these characteristics shifts, even with the same content, as the author's purpose and audience changes. With that said, here's my second attempt at a definition:
Contrast this with Encarta Dictionary's definition:
Once audience is determined, the technology authors choose to frame their work will also affect style choices. Baron emphasizes how a writer's tools force choices in how ideas are presented. With computers, authors can produce and revise indefinitely; however, when papyrus and clay were the "advanced" technologies, content and format had to be more concise and carefully planned before ideas could be written. Technologies, then, can also affect what content (or how much content) authors select and the visual layout in which to frame the content.
With these "pre-writing" decisions made, the author must then determine the importance of following convention, most closely illustrated through the clarity-brevity-sincerity approach. Although this theory can seem limiting, I think it is important to understand the basic principles put forth by Williams and others aligned with this philosophy. In Style, Williams briefly presents some rules, which are hard-fast, but focuses more on malleable characteristics or principles which lead to clarity, brevity, and sincerity in writing.
Lanham contrasts this C-B-S approach with his guiding principles of motive, play and competition, and purpose, but I do not see these approaches as exclusionary. Lanham states that "the difference between the C-B-S theory of style and the larger mixed-motive one . . . . is really the difference between being well-informed and being wise" (8). I think Williams would agree with this interpretation as he claims that "the more clearly we write, the more clearly we see and feel and think. Rules help no one do that, but some principles can" (10). Rules are important to know so authors can make informed choices about the presentation of their writing. If they opt to deviate from convention, the divergence should be both intentional and meaningful.
Despite the decisions authors must make to create their work, the effort required must not be apparent to the reader. In her first blog on style, Rhonda states that "style is a combination of the many choices we make as we write that are usually invisible to the reader." The choices authors make in structuring sentence shape, cohesion, coherence, and balance should cause the reader to "look through" (Lanham) the "artful" prose to the content.
In the end, the quality of style is judged based on the level of a thoughtful audience's engagement in the author's ideas.
Part of the reason for hedging a definition of style comes from the inherent difficulty in defining a concept that incorporates both tangible and intangible qualities. Applicable rules can be assessed: does the author's artifact conform to the audience's accepted grammatical standards or not? Other characteristics such as word choice (and the connotations conveyed), sentence structure, and voice are not so black and white. To compound matters, the application of these characteristics shifts, even with the same content, as the author's purpose and audience changes. With that said, here's my second attempt at a definition:
Style encompasses the selection of appropriate word choice and arrangement of ideas in order to relate an author's intended meaning in an accepted format to a specific audience in the clearest manner without sacrificing individuality.Assuming an author has already selected the content to be communicated, the most important aspect pertaining to style is audience. For whom is the message intended? Jessica identified the importance of audience when she noted that style was "dictated by the field in which an author is trained or in which that author wishes to publish." While reading Eats, Shoots and Leaves, I found one of Truss's definitions of the apostrophe quite entertaining:
. . . . the apostrophe is the frantically multi-taking female, dotting hither and yon, and succumbing to burn-out from all the thankless effort. (51, illus. ed.)
Contrast this with Encarta Dictionary's definition:
the punctuation mark (') used to show where letters are omitted from a word, to mark the possessive, and sometimes to form the plural of numbers, letters, and symbols. (Web)Clearly these definitions are intended for different audiences.
Once audience is determined, the technology authors choose to frame their work will also affect style choices. Baron emphasizes how a writer's tools force choices in how ideas are presented. With computers, authors can produce and revise indefinitely; however, when papyrus and clay were the "advanced" technologies, content and format had to be more concise and carefully planned before ideas could be written. Technologies, then, can also affect what content (or how much content) authors select and the visual layout in which to frame the content.
With these "pre-writing" decisions made, the author must then determine the importance of following convention, most closely illustrated through the clarity-brevity-sincerity approach. Although this theory can seem limiting, I think it is important to understand the basic principles put forth by Williams and others aligned with this philosophy. In Style, Williams briefly presents some rules, which are hard-fast, but focuses more on malleable characteristics or principles which lead to clarity, brevity, and sincerity in writing.
Lanham contrasts this C-B-S approach with his guiding principles of motive, play and competition, and purpose, but I do not see these approaches as exclusionary. Lanham states that "the difference between the C-B-S theory of style and the larger mixed-motive one . . . . is really the difference between being well-informed and being wise" (8). I think Williams would agree with this interpretation as he claims that "the more clearly we write, the more clearly we see and feel and think. Rules help no one do that, but some principles can" (10). Rules are important to know so authors can make informed choices about the presentation of their writing. If they opt to deviate from convention, the divergence should be both intentional and meaningful.
Despite the decisions authors must make to create their work, the effort required must not be apparent to the reader. In her first blog on style, Rhonda states that "style is a combination of the many choices we make as we write that are usually invisible to the reader." The choices authors make in structuring sentence shape, cohesion, coherence, and balance should cause the reader to "look through" (Lanham) the "artful" prose to the content.
In the end, the quality of style is judged based on the level of a thoughtful audience's engagement in the author's ideas.
Tuesday, March 2, 2010
What does Baron mean by the concept of "a better pencil" and how might that impact style?
Baron's discussion of "a better pencil" is simply his exploration of how different technologies have affected writing. Before reading Baron, I had not thought of the pencil as an instrument of technology, but placing it in perspective historically, it's interesting to note the different reactions brought about by technological advances in writing tools.
Although referring specifically to the pencil, Dixon Ticonderoga's mission statement lays a foundation for how people are able to express themselves through the use of the pencil and almost any other current technological tool. People are empowered "to take conscious and subliminal thoughts--facts, ideas, dreams--and preserve them using tools that are extension of themselves" (42). It's hard to imagine the freedom and the ease people experienced when they were able to make their writing "portable," no longer tethered to a desk.
As far as how these technologies affect style, I'm not so sure. Do they making writing easier? Certainly. Computers, laptops, writing tablets, even trendy phones, all provide tools to make the generation and dissemination of ideas convenient. But ease and convenience don't always equate to better. We certainly have the means to be more prolific, but as Thoreau points out of Maine and Texas, we "may have nothing important to communicate" (33). So although technology does democratize the creation and publication of thought, it also means there is probably a considerable amount of information generated that provides limited value.
Regardless of our assessment of the content's quality, the tools we choose with which to express our thoughts definitely affect the style of our communication. Pencil and paper, even typewritten, printed text bring with it a set of conventional expectations, I think. William's principles of style seem to fit more comfortably in this setting. Moving to computers, Kindles, and iPhones with variable screen sizes and almost infinite design options, I think more goes into style than just well constructed sentences. Clarity and coherence will always be important, but they may be expressed in different ways depending on audience needs and the technology accessible to the community. Visual elements, bullets, highlighting, and hyperlinks, can aid in organization, balance, emphasis, and clarity. So, I think whatever technology we use to create and share our thoughts can't help but shape our style.
Although referring specifically to the pencil, Dixon Ticonderoga's mission statement lays a foundation for how people are able to express themselves through the use of the pencil and almost any other current technological tool. People are empowered "to take conscious and subliminal thoughts--facts, ideas, dreams--and preserve them using tools that are extension of themselves" (42). It's hard to imagine the freedom and the ease people experienced when they were able to make their writing "portable," no longer tethered to a desk.
As far as how these technologies affect style, I'm not so sure. Do they making writing easier? Certainly. Computers, laptops, writing tablets, even trendy phones, all provide tools to make the generation and dissemination of ideas convenient. But ease and convenience don't always equate to better. We certainly have the means to be more prolific, but as Thoreau points out of Maine and Texas, we "may have nothing important to communicate" (33). So although technology does democratize the creation and publication of thought, it also means there is probably a considerable amount of information generated that provides limited value.
Regardless of our assessment of the content's quality, the tools we choose with which to express our thoughts definitely affect the style of our communication. Pencil and paper, even typewritten, printed text bring with it a set of conventional expectations, I think. William's principles of style seem to fit more comfortably in this setting. Moving to computers, Kindles, and iPhones with variable screen sizes and almost infinite design options, I think more goes into style than just well constructed sentences. Clarity and coherence will always be important, but they may be expressed in different ways depending on audience needs and the technology accessible to the community. Visual elements, bullets, highlighting, and hyperlinks, can aid in organization, balance, emphasis, and clarity. So, I think whatever technology we use to create and share our thoughts can't help but shape our style.
Monday, March 1, 2010
What is elegant to a technical communicator? Is that something different than what your current profession subscribes to?
I have never worked as a technical communicator, so my assessment of elegance in technical writing comes more from a consumer standpoint than that of the creator.
The difference I see between elegance in technical communication and more traditional literary or composition fields stems from the purpose of the work. Technical communicators are tasked to provide information or instruction concisely and clearly in a useful and understandable format for a user or consumer. Their task is utilitarian, for the most part. So elegance for the technical communicator is achieved through their ability to make information easily accessible to the user.
To attain this goal, tcers have a variety of tools available in addition to simple text. Where traditional academic texts use a linear format with standards fonts, point, and formatting, tcers can more easily adjust these design elements to suit the purpose of the text. In addition to creating text that conforms to William's principles, emphasis and balance can be aided through the use of color, different fonts, bullets, and other visual elements. In many documents, tcers are not confined to linear text, so graphics, charts, and tables can be incorporated to emphasize content.
Constrastingly, traditional academic writing in the composition and literature fields have a different emphasis. Although writers still have a purpose to communicate to the reader, I think nuanced writing and metaphor have more of a place here. Where a sentence like William's quotes from Mailer's stream of consciousness on page 176 may be stylistically artistic in prose, I suspect it would be unacceptable in technical writing.
In general, I think that elegance can be found in all types of writing, but the writing's purpose and the audience's needs define what is elegant for that genre.
The difference I see between elegance in technical communication and more traditional literary or composition fields stems from the purpose of the work. Technical communicators are tasked to provide information or instruction concisely and clearly in a useful and understandable format for a user or consumer. Their task is utilitarian, for the most part. So elegance for the technical communicator is achieved through their ability to make information easily accessible to the user.
To attain this goal, tcers have a variety of tools available in addition to simple text. Where traditional academic texts use a linear format with standards fonts, point, and formatting, tcers can more easily adjust these design elements to suit the purpose of the text. In addition to creating text that conforms to William's principles, emphasis and balance can be aided through the use of color, different fonts, bullets, and other visual elements. In many documents, tcers are not confined to linear text, so graphics, charts, and tables can be incorporated to emphasize content.
Constrastingly, traditional academic writing in the composition and literature fields have a different emphasis. Although writers still have a purpose to communicate to the reader, I think nuanced writing and metaphor have more of a place here. Where a sentence like William's quotes from Mailer's stream of consciousness on page 176 may be stylistically artistic in prose, I suspect it would be unacceptable in technical writing.
In general, I think that elegance can be found in all types of writing, but the writing's purpose and the audience's needs define what is elegant for that genre.
Tuesday, February 16, 2010
Commentary Comments
What are the most valuable types or strategies of commentary you've seen?
For most academic assignments, I prefer direct and specific comments that clearly illustrate the strengths and weaknesses of my writing--what Lanham describes as comments that look "at" the text. That doesn't always translate into liking the comments themselves, and sometimes they are hard to read from a "feelings" standpoint, but I know that the negative feedback ("constructive criticism"??) highlights areas I need to address and weaknesses I must overcome. On the other hand, I take pride in the occasional "well written" notation and strive to model those structures or that style in future assignments. Conversational comments about the content of the text, feedback gleaned from the reader's ability to look "through" the text, are also helpful. These comments may not be as directed or specific, but notes, questions, and dialogue can still yield pragmatic and thought-provoking direction.
From a teaching standpoint, I try to provide more "looking through the text" comments with my students, but I am not always successful. The pull to the "dark side" of marking errors and making sentence level comments is sometimes difficult to overcome! Additionally, I find that many students get overwhelmed when they see a lot of writing from their instructor on the page. Many simply choose not to read feedback. In the end, I suppose I vacillate on my approach based on feedback from classes or even individual students.
As a side note, I think technology has made a difference in how I create and perceive feedback. I don't use electronic feedback frequently yet, but I like the MSWord mark-up tool. I do not know all of the intricacies of this tool, but I like how the program allows the editor to pinpoint areas and create legible comments. For me, there is something about typing the comment that seems more formal and maybe encourages me to look at a document differently. Seeing the document in print, providing feedback that will be saved electronically, knowing that no matter how many times the "delete" key is struck the comments are permanently archived somewhere makes me weigh my words more carefully. (Terrible sentence opener, I know! Maybe I'll play with it later). From the writer's standpoint, the editor's comments seem more objective and detached in some regards, and for the writer, maybe that makes them easier to read. I know they are neither detached nor mechanical, but their neat, orderly presentation seems to lend more authority than opinion. If it's in print, it must be true??
What worked or didn't work on comments offered by Dr. Rice?
I appreciate the comments that Dr. Rice offered and the format in which they were presented. He provided some good direction for sentence level revision as well as questions and statements that will aid in content revision. The questions clearly require addressing changes in content. "Can't journals be for external audiences though?" points to an obvious void in my text. But even statements provide cause for reflection (and revision): "Perhaps; or, perhaps it is a trademark of the writer's ability to meet the needs of an audience, which is anti-individuality." I'm going to have to ponder that one!
For most academic assignments, I prefer direct and specific comments that clearly illustrate the strengths and weaknesses of my writing--what Lanham describes as comments that look "at" the text. That doesn't always translate into liking the comments themselves, and sometimes they are hard to read from a "feelings" standpoint, but I know that the negative feedback ("constructive criticism"??) highlights areas I need to address and weaknesses I must overcome. On the other hand, I take pride in the occasional "well written" notation and strive to model those structures or that style in future assignments. Conversational comments about the content of the text, feedback gleaned from the reader's ability to look "through" the text, are also helpful. These comments may not be as directed or specific, but notes, questions, and dialogue can still yield pragmatic and thought-provoking direction.
From a teaching standpoint, I try to provide more "looking through the text" comments with my students, but I am not always successful. The pull to the "dark side" of marking errors and making sentence level comments is sometimes difficult to overcome! Additionally, I find that many students get overwhelmed when they see a lot of writing from their instructor on the page. Many simply choose not to read feedback. In the end, I suppose I vacillate on my approach based on feedback from classes or even individual students.
As a side note, I think technology has made a difference in how I create and perceive feedback. I don't use electronic feedback frequently yet, but I like the MSWord mark-up tool. I do not know all of the intricacies of this tool, but I like how the program allows the editor to pinpoint areas and create legible comments. For me, there is something about typing the comment that seems more formal and maybe encourages me to look at a document differently. Seeing the document in print, providing feedback that will be saved electronically, knowing that no matter how many times the "delete" key is struck the comments are permanently archived somewhere makes me weigh my words more carefully. (Terrible sentence opener, I know! Maybe I'll play with it later). From the writer's standpoint, the editor's comments seem more objective and detached in some regards, and for the writer, maybe that makes them easier to read. I know they are neither detached nor mechanical, but their neat, orderly presentation seems to lend more authority than opinion. If it's in print, it must be true??
What worked or didn't work on comments offered by Dr. Rice?
I appreciate the comments that Dr. Rice offered and the format in which they were presented. He provided some good direction for sentence level revision as well as questions and statements that will aid in content revision. The questions clearly require addressing changes in content. "Can't journals be for external audiences though?" points to an obvious void in my text. But even statements provide cause for reflection (and revision): "Perhaps; or, perhaps it is a trademark of the writer's ability to meet the needs of an audience, which is anti-individuality." I'm going to have to ponder that one!
Friday, February 12, 2010
The Importance of Style
I believe we are living in an age without style, virtue, dignity or honor. And worse than that, one in which the new is equated with the excellent…. I believe that a creator’s obligation is to filter and reflect and present in an orderly, disciplined fashion his own being. (italics mine)
Alec Wider, Letters I Never Mailed
As a developmental English instructor, I sometimes feel that the first half of Wider’s quote is accurate, but thankfully my classroom is rarely that bleak. However, his “creator’s obligation” assertion establishes a pliable framework from which to teach students how to develop and control a style of their own creation. We need for our students to understand that the style they create should be within their own control, but initially they cannot create what they do not comprehend. I purposefully chose the word “comprehend” here as I consider style a very individual and malleable entity that shifts and conforms to individual originators and their audiences; it is not a static skill to be mindlessly drilled and practiced until “mastery” is achieved. Students need a framework which acts both as a safety net and a springboard from which to leap to experiment with a variety of expressions. This allows for scaffolding, which can be constructed in various shapes, to present their ideas to their audience. Style, then, becomes a trademark of a writer’s individuality and is achieved through the successful delivery of a carefully crafted plan to specific audiences through the use of selected grammatical and rhetorical tools.
Style is not a static, private skill created and posted for the world to see. For style to have any importance to writers, we must first have formulated thoughts about something important enough for us to desire to share and affect some sort of connection with an audience. So, the first step to creating our own style is to sort out our ideas, decide what content is important, and create a framework from which to pull and sort those ideas.
Writers with the most effective sense of style are able to accomplish this through the evaluation of their audience. Who have we selected to deliver the message? What background information do they already possess, and what gaps must we fill? Even personal journal writing establishes an audience between the solitary “writers,” past and present. In The Diary of Anne Frank, Anne carries on one such conversation with herself as she relates a decision, aided by her conversation with herself within her text:
I have often been downcast, but never in despair; I regard our hiding as a dangerous adventure, romantic and interesting at the same time. In my diary I treat all the privations as amusing. I have made up my mind now to lead a different life from other girls and, later on, different from ordinary housewives. My start has been so very full of interest, and that is the sole reason why I have to laugh at the humorous side of the most dangerous moments. (Frank)Through previous written conversations with herself, Anne demonstrates that what many students perceive as a solitary act is actually discourse, a conversation in which she engages to sort out her thoughts and beliefs.
In journal writing, audience and discourse may be easier to ascertain, but when addressing an external audience, assessing background knowledge becomes a trickier test. The most common error writers make is to give their audiences more credit than they deserve. As Benjamin Franklin is quoted in Williams’ Style (2007):
If he would inform, he must advance regularly form Things know to things unknown, distinctly without Confusion, and the lower he begins the better. It is a common Fault in Writers, to allow their Readers too much knowledge: They begin with that which should be in the Middle. . . . (p.74).
Student writers frequently make faulty assumptions in which they expect their reader to have a background and familiarity with the subject similar to their own. The inability to see the void between the audience and the subject at hand results from their own intimate relationship with the material. Encouraging students to “question” themselves as they write helps them to anticipate additional information the reader may need to make the necessary connections from the writer’s ideas to the audience’s comprehension. So another necessary aspect of style is the understanding that the selection of content must anticipate the discourse between the creator and the audience.
Next, we must devise a plan which relates our thoughts effectively to our audience. In consideration of this task, we must address both correctness and clarity. For burgeoning writers, these concepts can be difficult to balance. Correctness is a touchy characteristic, which given its overwhelming authority in most classrooms, has given it a bad name. However, correctness does have a place in defining good writing style—if kept in its place—and students need to be aware of the rules that govern their given or chosen writing environment. Before we can express style by deviating from whatever norm our audience anticipates, we must first know the norms of the community. Knowing the boundaries of what the audience considers good writing lends to both our confidence and authority as writers. Good writers who demonstrate any intentional style apply the rules of grammar—subject/verb agreement, pronoun/antecedent agreement, semi-colons—correctly which helps to demonstrate both our confidence and competence in our abilities and our knowledge of form.
But intentional deviation from some rules, the invented rules as Williams (p. 12) refers to them, does not violate any sense of good style in most audiences. We choose what form, what rules or shape, works best for the content we choose to relate, and splitting an infinitive or ending a sentence in a preposition may add more effect and deliver the material more clearly than the “correct” version of the sentence. An excerpt from William’s “Phenomenology” (1981) illustrates this point: “It may be that to fully account for the contempt that some errors of usage around, we will have to understand better than we do the relationship between language, order, and those deep psychic forces that perceived linguistic violations seem to arouse in otherwise amiable people” (p. 153). Although Williams uses the split infinitive intentionally is this article, he does this to prove the point that many, if not most readers will “miss” or “overlook” the error because they are engaged in the content—not the correctness. The difference between writers with good style and poor style though is this intentionality. Good writers choose to bend or ignore a rule when it impedes the delivery of their content.
Clarity, however, can soften the potential rigidness of correctness, but recognizing and teaching clarity has been a challenge since Aristotle’s time. He defines good prose as the following: “Let the virtue of linguistic form be defined as being clear, for since the logos is a sign, it would fail to bring about its proper function, whenever it does not make clear (whatever it is the sign of, sc.)—and neither banal/mean/flat nor above the deserved dignity, but appropriate” (Rhet. III.2, 1404b1-4, in Stanford). Aristotle, then, believed that good prose was neither “banal” nor “above the deserved dignity, but appropriate.” Simple. Maybe for Aristotle and Plato, but their attempt to create a neutral environment for communication then and today is untenable. Writing is always charged somehow because no matter what we say, our choices in content, audience, correctness, and clarity are made with a purpose.
Although this reflection on style may seem too structured to some, that the creator makes a conscious choice concerning structure is the ultimate outcome—control is ultimately in the hands of the writer. Lanham (2007) states that prose style is best when it is generated internally, when it “provides the students with a gyroscope, a compass, a map of human motive, rather than a totally planned guided tour” (p. 8). For most students, a “guided tour” is a necessary starting point. Once they discover important landmarks, however, they take side trips, both planned and unplanned based on their own interests and talents, trying different venues in which to express themselves.
For students to develop a style that will be meaningful and effective for them, they must take an active role in its creation. We, as instructors, are responsible for providing the basis from which students can make their choices, but the iterative process of planning, selecting, reflecting, and finally presenting takes a considerable amount of perseverance on the student’s part. The payoff, though, offers a style and expression all their own.
Tuesday, February 2, 2010
Provide an example of action or character of something you've read and how that might be improved according to Williams.
Although I have run across many dense articles in my own research, reading through Williams has motivated me to create "fresh" assignments for my developmental writers. In my search for a "ready-made" example of weak writing which included nominalizations, I stumbled across this excerpt of an actual parts recall letter from an automaker:
A defect which involves the possible failure of a frame support plate may exist on your vehicle. This plate (front suspension pivot bar support plate) connects a portion of the front suspension to the vehicle frame, and its failure could affect directional control, particularly during heavy break application. In addition, your vehicle may require adjustment service to the hood secondary catch system. The secondary catch may be misaligned so that the hood may not be adequately restrained to prevent hood fly-up in the event the primary catch in inadvertently left unengaged. Sudden hood fly-up beyond the secondary catch while driving could impair driver visibility. In certain circumstances, occurrence of either of the above conditions could result in vehicle crash without prior warning.The purpose of this letter, I suspect, dictates its intentional style--the lawyers involved in its crafting were most likely pleased with their result. However, when students mimic this style, I try to explain that their message is frequently muddled or lost. To correct or improve this sample, in addition to their text's suggestions, I also include a brief synopsis of Lanham's Paramedic Method which provides a more concise approach for this exercise. Although Lanham's process incorporates additional aspects of revision, like Williams, he encourages replacing nominalizations as well as placing the agent (character) in the subject position. Following his method, a revision of this paragraph may look like this:
Your vehicle may contain a defective front suspension pivot bar support plate. This plate connects part of the front suspension to the vehicle frame, and if you apply the brakes heavily, the plate may fail, causing you to lose control of the vehicle. Additionally, you may need to adjust the hood's secondary catch system. If the primary catch breaks, your car's hood may fly-up as a result of a misaligned secondary catch. Consequently, if the hood flys-up while you are driving, your vision could be impaired. Either of these deficiencies may cause an unexpected accident.I'm certain this isn't a perfect revision either, but it is difficult to revise and include the intended legal style from the original version. I do, however, think this is a valuable exercise for students, and Lanham's method makes the revision process more sequential and accessible.
Sunday, January 24, 2010
What is style, why do we write things down, and in what ways does technology influence style?
Style is the form we choose or create in order to clearly present our ideas to others. I think that for most people style has to do with correctness. Williams, although trying to soften the boundaries between "correct" and "incorrect" style, emphasizes this as he develops the clarity, brevity, and sincerity approach to writing. He stresses the importance of form and rules stating that "[w]hen you are under close scrutiny, you might choose to observe all of these optional rules," (23) indicating we are often judged more for how we may say something than for the quality of the ideas presented. Lahnam, on the other hand, purports a slightly more flexible approach emphasizing the importance of the author's motive or purpose over artificial structures. His idea that style is best created from internal motivations as opposed to external rules changes the site where style is created. Allowing style to emanate from the inside, from an internal "gyroscope" or "compass" (Lanham 9), can allow writers to create works which are more sincere and creative and less formulaic in their approach.
I think we chose to write things down for at least two reasons: to communicate our ideas and to remember. First, I believe that writing down our thoughts helps us to focus and clarify our beliefs. I have a short essay my students read during the first week of class that illustrates a variety of reasons they need to take English classes despite the fact that none of them will major in English, and one of the reasons illustrated is the fact that writing their thoughts down improves their thinking skills. It takes a little persuasion at first, but they usually get it--if not that day, then after a few assignments when they've had to revise to clarify what they mean. I also agree with Baron (8) that writing things down helps us to remember what we think or dream or say. These writings can be about mundane, daily issues, but more often they are about things that are important to us, whether academic or personal. I think we've all had the experience where we've had a wonderful idea or insight and didn't take the time to write it down because the thought was so good we knew we would certainly remember it later, only for it to escape to some illusive crevice in our mind. Writing our thoughts down, whether on paper or electronically, allows us to remind ourselves of what we were thinking at a particular moment in time. In essence, it allows us to interact with earlier versions of ourselves and our ideas.
Technology has had a tremendous effect on what we call style. First, technology has given voice to people who may never have been heard outside their geographic, economic, or social circles. With the advent of Web 2.0 technologies, people can author and communicate ideas in a number of ways that reach a much wider audience. Not only is the audience different, but so are the styles that are acceptable. Part of the draw to texting is the ability to communicate messages and ideas quickly--without applying the rules of conventional style. Twitter can't even support what we would recognize as SAE because of its character limit, so acceptable style etiquette in the Twitter environment is entirely different. Even in more traditional writing on the computer, technology provides us with an abundance of creativity to choose fonts, pictures, links, etc. that we would never have been able to use before allowing us more choices in creating our own style.
I think we chose to write things down for at least two reasons: to communicate our ideas and to remember. First, I believe that writing down our thoughts helps us to focus and clarify our beliefs. I have a short essay my students read during the first week of class that illustrates a variety of reasons they need to take English classes despite the fact that none of them will major in English, and one of the reasons illustrated is the fact that writing their thoughts down improves their thinking skills. It takes a little persuasion at first, but they usually get it--if not that day, then after a few assignments when they've had to revise to clarify what they mean. I also agree with Baron (8) that writing things down helps us to remember what we think or dream or say. These writings can be about mundane, daily issues, but more often they are about things that are important to us, whether academic or personal. I think we've all had the experience where we've had a wonderful idea or insight and didn't take the time to write it down because the thought was so good we knew we would certainly remember it later, only for it to escape to some illusive crevice in our mind. Writing our thoughts down, whether on paper or electronically, allows us to remind ourselves of what we were thinking at a particular moment in time. In essence, it allows us to interact with earlier versions of ourselves and our ideas.
Technology has had a tremendous effect on what we call style. First, technology has given voice to people who may never have been heard outside their geographic, economic, or social circles. With the advent of Web 2.0 technologies, people can author and communicate ideas in a number of ways that reach a much wider audience. Not only is the audience different, but so are the styles that are acceptable. Part of the draw to texting is the ability to communicate messages and ideas quickly--without applying the rules of conventional style. Twitter can't even support what we would recognize as SAE because of its character limit, so acceptable style etiquette in the Twitter environment is entirely different. Even in more traditional writing on the computer, technology provides us with an abundance of creativity to choose fonts, pictures, links, etc. that we would never have been able to use before allowing us more choices in creating our own style.
Tuesday, January 19, 2010
Why is style important in my current and/or future workplace?
From a fundamental standpoint, style is important to my profession because I am expected to teach "it" to my students. As a professor of developmental English, I encounter a population with a vast array of styles which I am expected to reign in and shape into Standard American English. Since accepted style stems more from economic strength and geographic location (Williams 13), this goal can be lofty as this population typically lacks financial prosperity and resides in areas where traditionally accepted language is infrequently used. The ultimate educational goal is that by the time they leave my classroom, they should know the rules of SAE and readily apply them to their future writing assignments. But a traditional approach to style can lead to dry, formulaic writing.
A more crucial reason for style's importance in the classroom is to assist students in finding their voice within the confines of the rules of academic style. Most of my students realize they lack the ability to "fit" or "blend in" to an academic or business environment resulting from non-standard verbal and writing skills. Although certain conventions are required for acceptance into most professional settings (and I don't have a problem with these conventions), I think it is imperative that these students understand that another part of style is intangible; it is their essence--their ideas. Sentence structure, punctuation, and usage are important, but how students use these tools to express their own unique ideas is at least equally important, if not more so.
So my personal understanding of style and its importance to writing and individual expression is central to providing my students with the maximum opportunity for growth and success.
A more crucial reason for style's importance in the classroom is to assist students in finding their voice within the confines of the rules of academic style. Most of my students realize they lack the ability to "fit" or "blend in" to an academic or business environment resulting from non-standard verbal and writing skills. Although certain conventions are required for acceptance into most professional settings (and I don't have a problem with these conventions), I think it is imperative that these students understand that another part of style is intangible; it is their essence--their ideas. Sentence structure, punctuation, and usage are important, but how students use these tools to express their own unique ideas is at least equally important, if not more so.
So my personal understanding of style and its importance to writing and individual expression is central to providing my students with the maximum opportunity for growth and success.
Subscribe to:
Comments (Atom)