In reading both of these articles, a connection can be drawn between the stases and the audience and, in the case of the Killingsworth and Palmer article, the news and society/human interest. The main concern I had being how the stases can affect audience as well as the information to support the claims or argument that the stases is making. In delving into these ideas, the issue of scientific studies grabbed my attention as well. The overall validity of the news and the supporting claims they give for their arguments are in fact moot and pointless.
Fahnestock and Secor state that stases "...operate as a set of potential assumptions or reactions. Their apparent logical order does not reflect an externally imposed requirement of validity" (431). In other words as long as the stases does not need to have a valid point, rather it could be a set of logical statements that draw the read to a certain conclusion on their own. This is can be seen in the Killingswort hand Palmer article in the section about global warming in which information and statistics are given about how the earths climate is changing. The information follows a logical order due to a common theme of global warming. The reader is drawn to want to take action and stop global warming, even though the article does not state that the reader should do so.
Reading the statistics and supporting scientific studies lead me to another realization. In the Fahnestock and Secor article on pages 432 and 433, they say that the majority of studies and experiments do not have outcomes that support a thesis or provide a clear conclusion. However in the the article on global warming (and even in news today), there are all these statistics and studies that are being thrown around. Yet most of them are not valid, they are just logical. They share a common theme and are used with other studies that have no solid evidence to lead the audience to a certain conclusion, even if the conclusion isn't fully true. It isn't a new concept or idea, but when viewing the articles and ideas the news puts out as stases, it makes a bit more sense.
In conclusion I found that these articles interact with one another via the audience. The audience is what determines what is news or relevant, and what information is given to support the stases the news is making. I did see the line of questioning used in the rhetorical analysis of stases carry over into how information is given in the news, but it seemed to obvious to write about. Though I'm sure it will be a topic of discussion in the next class.
Tuesday, January 22, 2013
Thursday, January 17, 2013
Tomorrow's Text, Today's Problem
In "The Future of Reading" by Jonah Lehrer, the rhetorical situation is fairly clear and apparent to the reader. According to Grant-Davie, the rhetorical situation is made up of four constituents: exigence, rhetors, audience, and constraints. The context behind these parts are then build upon with intertextual comments to support the claim's that Lehrer is making. The main focus of these ideas would be the context these constituents are based around, and how this context shapes our (the audiences) understanding of the work.
Context seems to be a recurring theme in Grant-Davie's and Bazerman's essays. What is context though, and why is it so important? Grant-Davie states "Every situation arises within a context-a background of time, place, people, events, and so forth". This is important because the rhetorical situation would mean nothing without rhetorical discourse and the context in which it was created (Grant-Davie, 265). The context used by the rhetor to create the discourse is key in informing or persuading an audience because it is the discourse that the audience uses to draw meaning from a work. In regards to Lehrer's piece, the discourse (Also the exigence) of the work is how e-texts and technology will ruin reading and writing.
This was supported with scientific study at a college that measured brain function. They discovered that the error free e-texts made the brain more relaxed and functioned on a lower level of thought. The use of this intertext helps shape the work of Lehrer. However, he goes on to say more about the study and how they discovered that having a few larger words or even errors in an e-text can boost a readers thought process. He then states that if all e-texts should have blurs, marks, or errors. This recontextualizes the term "e-text" for the reader/audience and changes the rhetor's message. Rather than wanting to demolish technology, we should adapt it.
Unfortunately there isn't much use of intertext in this piece, but having a clear cut rhetorical situation does help make the piece understood. It would be nice to see more supportive information in Lehrer's work. Maybe if he had this submitted in a journal, rather than as an e-text, I would appreciate it more as well. He could have changed the font styling or maybe demonstrated some of the points he was discussing in the piece. Lehrer even openly admits to using this dreaded technology himself. Also, the fact I am reading complex e-texts right now makes me feel a little less that persuaded.
Context seems to be a recurring theme in Grant-Davie's and Bazerman's essays. What is context though, and why is it so important? Grant-Davie states "Every situation arises within a context-a background of time, place, people, events, and so forth". This is important because the rhetorical situation would mean nothing without rhetorical discourse and the context in which it was created (Grant-Davie, 265). The context used by the rhetor to create the discourse is key in informing or persuading an audience because it is the discourse that the audience uses to draw meaning from a work. In regards to Lehrer's piece, the discourse (Also the exigence) of the work is how e-texts and technology will ruin reading and writing.
This was supported with scientific study at a college that measured brain function. They discovered that the error free e-texts made the brain more relaxed and functioned on a lower level of thought. The use of this intertext helps shape the work of Lehrer. However, he goes on to say more about the study and how they discovered that having a few larger words or even errors in an e-text can boost a readers thought process. He then states that if all e-texts should have blurs, marks, or errors. This recontextualizes the term "e-text" for the reader/audience and changes the rhetor's message. Rather than wanting to demolish technology, we should adapt it.
Unfortunately there isn't much use of intertext in this piece, but having a clear cut rhetorical situation does help make the piece understood. It would be nice to see more supportive information in Lehrer's work. Maybe if he had this submitted in a journal, rather than as an e-text, I would appreciate it more as well. He could have changed the font styling or maybe demonstrated some of the points he was discussing in the piece. Lehrer even openly admits to using this dreaded technology himself. Also, the fact I am reading complex e-texts right now makes me feel a little less that persuaded.
Tuesday, January 15, 2013
Intertextuality: Shaping a Text's Meaning
Of the reading assignments for today, Bazerman's essay on intertextuality peaked my interests the most. In his work he describes intertextuality as the relation a text has to each text surrounding it. Bazerman goes on to explain how learning to analyze intertextuality can help us identify ideas, research, and knowledge behind documents and anything else textual. He seems to focus heavily on how a written text evokes a certain representation of the discourse situation and how that situation draws on other textual resources. As Bazerman sees it, no text can exist outside of, or independently from, other texts.
Bazerman then tries capturing the different aspects of intertextuality breaking it down into categories; levels of intertextuality, techniques of intertextual representation, intertextual distance or reach, and translation across contexts/recontextualization. The first two sections are explicit and easily understood (i.e. direct quotes, citation, etc), so I'll skip that and will move on to 'intertextual reach' and 'recontextualization'. Both of these are more implicit and require a bit more thought. They do, however, seem to go hand in hand with one another.
Recontextualization is when a reference or word is used in a work, then brought up multiple times throughout the work. Each time the word or phase is brought up, the meaning changes, giving new context. This concept can be used in philosophical works, having a specific term recur to further explain its meaning, or even have a metaphor recur to help explain different aspects of something. For example, explaining to someone how to properly write by making connections to baseball. If you have the same theme of viewing writing baseball reappear, then the message will change and become stronger and more clear.
Intertextual reach is how far a text travels for its intertextual relations, for instance (using a sports example again), if a newspaper stated that the president of the U.S. was "stepping up to the plate", we would know they didn't mean he was playing baseball, but rather, was dealing with something himself. The reach of the phase, "stepping up to the plate", transcends just sports casters commenting on a game. This is also an example of intermediality, or when a reference or resource moves from one media to another, i.e. talk radio, movies, or music is alluded to in written text.
When I originally saw the topic of the reading excepts, I was thrilled. However, as soon as I started reading I realized that intertextuality isn't what I had originally thought it was. I had anticipated the reading to pertain more to intermediality more so than to purely writing. The mixed media aspect came from how the word 'text' was defined in my other classes. This article was intertextual itself, in the sense that it built upon the word 'intertextuality' to change and further explain its own meaning for me.
Bazerman then tries capturing the different aspects of intertextuality breaking it down into categories; levels of intertextuality, techniques of intertextual representation, intertextual distance or reach, and translation across contexts/recontextualization. The first two sections are explicit and easily understood (i.e. direct quotes, citation, etc), so I'll skip that and will move on to 'intertextual reach' and 'recontextualization'. Both of these are more implicit and require a bit more thought. They do, however, seem to go hand in hand with one another.
Recontextualization is when a reference or word is used in a work, then brought up multiple times throughout the work. Each time the word or phase is brought up, the meaning changes, giving new context. This concept can be used in philosophical works, having a specific term recur to further explain its meaning, or even have a metaphor recur to help explain different aspects of something. For example, explaining to someone how to properly write by making connections to baseball. If you have the same theme of viewing writing baseball reappear, then the message will change and become stronger and more clear.
Intertextual reach is how far a text travels for its intertextual relations, for instance (using a sports example again), if a newspaper stated that the president of the U.S. was "stepping up to the plate", we would know they didn't mean he was playing baseball, but rather, was dealing with something himself. The reach of the phase, "stepping up to the plate", transcends just sports casters commenting on a game. This is also an example of intermediality, or when a reference or resource moves from one media to another, i.e. talk radio, movies, or music is alluded to in written text.
When I originally saw the topic of the reading excepts, I was thrilled. However, as soon as I started reading I realized that intertextuality isn't what I had originally thought it was. I had anticipated the reading to pertain more to intermediality more so than to purely writing. The mixed media aspect came from how the word 'text' was defined in my other classes. This article was intertextual itself, in the sense that it built upon the word 'intertextuality' to change and further explain its own meaning for me.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)