Observations in Obvious Advantages to Reading and Applying What is Learned

Chapters four and five in They Say I Say provided templates that give writers an advantage. One the difficulties I have with writing, or that I often doubt I am doing correctly, is stating my argument in a manner that is not so obvious as “This is what I am arguing.” While we may not like the templates (as I have been arguing even in my first blog) they serve as a starting point or at least a reference point. And that is exactly what the examples in the section on voice markers do. We are given choices and options, instead of limiting ourselves with what we are used to doing in our own writing, at least in my case, and then we are given examples on how to use those options to get our point across in an academic manner.

Now to ride the soapbox.

I just wanted to say how helpful the four C’s, context, conversation, components and contribution, have been in reading. I find myself reading the text and being able to pull out each of these items. The advantage lies in that when I do this I have a better understanding of what the author is trying to accomplish. (Surprise, surprise). And like Jackie explained this happens in the beginning and then as I am reading I go back constantly when I am confused about what is going on.
Has anyone else found this helpful in their reading? Just curious.

Quote on

Unlike the Oxford Guide to Library Research, They Say, I Say is much more accessible. While the OGLR is equally as resourceful and helpful, Graff and Bernstein's little book is less dry and easier to read.

The section on quoting is helpful because it provides a refresher on how to use quotes more efficiently in our writing. Quoting, as we learned in high school, makes our writing stronger and more credible. But sometimes, even as graduate students, we can get a little carried away with quoting. I have had the problem before where there are so many good quotes that I want to integrate in my writing that I have used more than is necessary and it makes my paper seem weak because I use a lot of what "they say" instead of what "I say". Part of my problem is as Graff points out, "lack of confidence"(39) in my ability to comment on what I am quoting. This is an issue I must address if I want to be taken as a serious scholar.

The OGLR, as I said, is equally as resourceful. I am not used to researching on-line or in general and, while I am having trouble getting through all the text I find the OGLR useful when I am looking up articles or books in the library catalogs or in last weeks class assignment. This is a book that I will be taking to the library whenever I am doing research and the Graff and Birkenstein book is a good companion on those dark and lonely nights when I need to work on a paper.

A Comparison

Throughout the three essays in ISMLL the one thing that stuck out to was the constant posing of questions. Jarrat offers several definitions rhetoric. "[R]hetoric concerns itself with the ways human beings use speech to influence one another's attitudes and behavior" (74); "Here is a utopian vision of rhetoric: a political practice enabling free and open exchange of views by competent and authorized speakers for efficacious collective action" (74); "rhetoric's typical scene-a single person addressing an audience of quiet listeners" (74); "The speech itself is, both its oral performance and its written version is referred to as rhetoric, a composition crafted to fit a particular situation" (76). These varied definitions or meanings are linked together by the fact that they all describe rhetoric as a type of speech act. Speech acts, according to Austin's theory (as we have discussed and as I have understood in my Discourse Analysis class) is how we do things with utterances (Parastou's definition). Utterances, which do not necessarily have to be complete sentences, perform the task of changing the way of the world by following a set of rules. Rhetoric does this very thing. Rhetoric uses language to persuade or dissuade or change or in some instances maintain the status quo. I agree with Jarrat that understanding the "violent potential of language...[but also having] a sense that language can help us contain or master violent forces" (Jarrat 75), is necessary. She mentions the fact that new voices are emerging in the field of rhetoric, women and people of color; if these writers also view language in the same manner then we will continue to have the change that Bartholomae writes about when it comes to teaching composition. The rhetoric in composition teaching will ultimately change and there will be a more elevated (for lack of a better word) perception of what composition actually is and what comp teachers actually do. With this rhetoric change perhaps will come the answers to the questions that Bartholomae poses at the end of his essay, "What is a good student paper?What genres of writing are appropriate for the college classroom? Can we establish a corpus of student writing for common reference? Are there emerging or possible genres that we have not yet given appropriate attention? What are best practices for courses with varied goals and in varied settings?" (120).

To Template or Not To Template

Templates offer a sense of comfort to novice academic writers (i.e me). Sure, they seem to stifle creativity and personal voice, even though Graff negates this in the introduction on page 14, but even then, they give us a starting point and simple directions on how to get to the end of our writing journey.

Already in our first reading assignment I have realized many a thing. While academic writing often, or usually presents new ideas they are often presented following some sort of template. If I recall the readings from 612 many of the articles, while they introduced different concepts and were enjoyable reads, did seem to come from the same starting point; a formula. This does not mean that we must stick to it or never deviate but templates do provide a safety net.

One of the most interesting sections of the reading was the idea of entering a conversation already in progress. I had never thought of academic writing as a way to create new discourse, but only as a way to contribute to the already existing. This may seem as obvious, but I never thought of my writing of having the potential to change the direction of a conversation. Somehow though the knowledge of academic writing having some sort of common formula makes it seem plausible.