Conversations of Thought
There are written and read conversations taking place this very moment. The written conversation is one that happens between me (ongoing thought- conversation) and what is written onto paper. The read conversation takes place when a person, other than me, picks up what I’ve written and reads it. Thought-conversation is going on in my writing to you today; there are some going on in collegiate assembly halls, and in the conscious minds of many. However, I cannot—nor can you at the moment—read (make believe you’re not reading this right now---oops, I’ve just Ong’ed you) or hear most of these arguments, debates, agreements, disagreements, assertions that carry on. If that is true we are fine for the moment. Granted, one is standing adjacent to and overhearing an English seminar that is discussing and synthesizing the views and works of a range of the most influential modern theorists of the humanities and social sciences. This confined seminar (audience) is expected to interact with, value, debate, and/ or construct opinions for or against a text—thus leading some to new thought-conversational thought processes. This, however, excludes the standby-audience member, the reader-listener, as an active participant of the dominant- authoritative discourse from that seminar. Hence, the author’s (the professor) methodology creates a specific, yet unrestrained, “aimed-towards them” discourse and not for the standby reader-listener. “His” audience (who says that an audience is his anyway?) will have to later “write”, “talk” and “think” about texts.
This notion does not stand alone—paradoxically speaking of the standby reader-listener who is standing alone and adjacent to the seminar. These “standby” reader-listeners aren’t “intentionally” or even, in this case, “fictionally” given the right to speak in this confined pre-registered, fore-planned discourse. Likewise, they aren’t fictionally thought of as potential readers.
With this analogy, I find confluence in central arguments made by Ong, Bartholomae and Foucault that are worth mentioning. I am not disputing the rhetoric of these three great thinkers/ readers. I am simply attempting to “define a position of privilege, a position that sets [me] against a ‘common’ discourse…” working “self-consciously, critically, against not only the ‘common’ code but [my] own” (Bartholomae 644). However, for now, I am suggesting that a reader doesn’t “have to play the role in which the author has cast him” (Ong 60), but that there is more to it.
In Katherine Anne Ackley’s book, “Perspectives on Contemporary Issues: Seventh Edition”, chapter one instructed the reader how to read critically. Reading critically is defined as the process of making a rhetorical analysis, or examination, of a piece of work. First, a reader must read a piece of work to understand it, then they must be able to assess, or criticize, it. To do so, the reader should examine the author’s position, and the evidence provided to support that position. They should also be able to discern between logical and illogical pieces of evidence. Reading critically can be used to write summaries, critiques, arguments, synthesis’, and research papers.
Haas and Flower created an interesting point when I read “Rhetorical Reading Strategies and the Construction of Meaning “. In the reading, Haas and Flower, provided multiple propositions to apply, however a key one certainly caught my eye. Haas and Flower proposed various arguments, yet their main idea implied that there needs to be an increase in rhetorical reading. I came to the conclusion that increasing rhetorical reading was their main point due to a statement in the text. “We would like to help extend this constructive, rhetorical view of reading, which we share with others in the field…” [Haas and Flower, 167] the following statement blandly states their intention to spread an important strategy, reading rhetorically, among community.
In the process of compiling the literary works I intended to include in this project, I began to notice a common thread that connected the works of fiction, non-fiction and poetry that I generally choose to read. That common tie that binds these books together is that they all seem to center, in one form or another, around the theme of oppression. Perhaps this is because I have some deep psychological need to diffuse the power struggles I experience within myself by gleaning insight from the pages of someone else’s experience. Or, perhaps it is merely because I have a predisposition to “root for the underdog”. Regardless of the reason, be it simple or complex, almost everything I read seems to engage a “David and Goliath” scenario.
How would you define your position as an audience member (resistant, neutral, etc.)? With your own position in mind, what kind of audience do you think the author is trying to reach? Please provide an example to support your answer.
"Any critical reading of a text will be strengthened by a knowledge of how a text is valued by readers in differing contexts."
David Foster Wallace, author of the essay “Authority and American Usage*,” praises and advocates for “good” writers who have a strong rhetorical ability, which he defines as “the persuasive use of language to influence the thoughts and actions of an audience” (Wallace 628). To have a strong rhetorical ability, an author needs to be aware of whom their audience is, in order to present their information in a way that will be influential on their audience. Wallace recognizes that an author who applies a strong rhetorical ability will be able to connect with the audience so that they respond “not just to [their] utterance but also to [them]” (Wallace 641). An author needs to take into consideration not just content, syntax and grammatical structure (their “utterance”) but also how their character will be perceived by their audience. A positive tone will make the author seem more pleasant and relatable, whereas a negative tone connotes arrogance and pretentiousness. That is why it is crucial for an author to recognize that an audience will respond to “them” and not just their “utterance,” as an author’s appearance to their readers can also shape how impactful their writing is.
To unpack this we need to look at how literary precedents express the relationship between player and character—creator and creation—and the extent to which a creator and the society in which s/he lives prescribes the creation’s role. We also need to investigate how one’s role—and concomitantly, one’s creator and one’s society—limit our opportunities, or to put it in other terms, our personal plotlines and narrative possibi...
I decided to explore the effect that a white male audience has on the tone of a writer who primarily caters to a non-white audience when the speaker, subject, and context remain the same. I questioned how audience and purpose affect a text’s structure and content and found that by changing the audience, I was forced to go into descriptive detail to explain the oppression imposed upon African Americans to white men. By writing a speech, Toni Morrison’s serious and passionate tone towards both race and gender equity are not erased. I refer to the audience as “you” and bring up that they’re in a position of power to force a separation between Toni, an African American woman, and the audience, white men, because the point is not to establish a
According to Dr. Bean’s class syllabus, the primary goal for this course is to, “help you develop the literacy skills you’ll need during your academic career”. In other words, this class was designed to teach students to write like professionals in an academic discourse community. Through several writing and research assignments, we acted as researchers on a quest to examine “how discourse—written, spoken, and digital—is shaped by social practice”. Although I felt I was a decent enough writer, I had doubts that I could accomplish such a tall order of directives. In the end, I found that I could do it, and I did it rather well, thus giving me the boost I needed to continue to move forward on my dream of obtaining a college degree.
Graff, Gerald, Cathy Birkenstein, and Russel K. Durst. "They Say/I Say": The Moves That Matter in Academic Writing: With Readings. Vol. 2e. New York: W.W. Norton &, 2012. Print.
This analysis will examine an interaction ritual between two colleagues using a qualitative approach. This meaningless interaction is an example of how conversations build the foundation for a social bond, producing and reproducing the epistemology around social interactions in everyday life. The interaction between two people actively produces social interactions through a process of internalisation, which is socially constructed. The social construction of the rules around interaction rituals forms the basis for common sense knowledge. In turn, a sense of social structure is created in which members perceive the world as a naturalistic entity independent of perception. For this interaction is it appropriate to use
In today’s society, Technology is the main player in the way we communicate. Cell phones and social media made the communication easier for people to contact each other. It extends time less to connect between long distance friends. Also, it helps people to spread and enlarge circle of friendships around the world. However, people are losing the way of face-to-face conversation. Sherry Turkle is an expert on culture and therapy, mobile technology, social networking, and sociable robotics argued in her article “the flight from conversation” how using technology can affect our behavior in conversation.
VAN DIJK, TEUN A. “18 Critical Discourse Analysis”. discourses.org. Website Teun A. van Dijk. 20 December 2011.
Critical thinking is a significant and essential topic in recent education. The strategy of critical thinking skills helps identify areas in one's courses as the suitable place to highlight, expand and use some problems in exams that test students' critical thinking skills.
In their essay, ‘The Intentional Fallacy’ (1946), William K. Wimsatt Jr. and Monroe C. Beardsley, two of the most eminent figures of the New Criticism school of thought of Literary Criticism, argue that the ‘intention’ of the author is not a necessary factor in the reading of a text.