Reflection & Response

Reflection:

It is always interesting to see how people define identity, but I agree that it is something that is constantly changing. I believe that any little experience can affect our identity. I'd like to broaden Murray's argument of "we become what we write" (WAW 62) to "we become what we experience." Small events in our lives can suddenly impact our decisions and our ideas. While I was growing up, I had issues with negotiating my identity to fit that with the other children. As the only Vietnamese child, I felt a small part of exclusion. This feeling faded as I started calling myself, "American" and denied any form of affiliation with Vietnam other than my appearance. My primary education had such a patriotic influence on me that when I visited Vietnam, I felt a feeling of superiority towards other Vietnamese just because I was "American." My bigotry ended when I met a Bulgarian-Vietnamese man who pointed out my arrogance. Here was a man who was only a quarter-Vietnamese but showed more appreciation to Vietnam than I ever had by ten fold. I was pure Vietnamese. I could speak the language and I had been exposed to Buddhism. However, the Bulgarian-Vietnamese could not speak Vietnamese (although he was learning) and only have been to the country twice--and yet he considered his identity to be more Vietnamese than Bulgarian. My experience with him forced me to have a reflection over my identity, and after self-evaluation, I gradually accepted my Vietnamese identity. It is not just the environment you grew up in that makes the identity, but also the events outside of the environment. Some events may not affect the identity at all, but all events still have the potential.

Response:

Social networks give people the power to expose themselves in a certain way. I'd like to think that people's virtual identities can differ from the offline identities. The three social networks I use are Facebook, Twitter, and Instagram. I use Twitter in order to communicate with an online singing community that covers various music made by amateur producers who are also part of the community. It is also a place for ranting internal thoughts that might not be appropriate for Facebook. To me, I use Facebook as a site to save pictures and share with others. This is the only social network site where I have more details saved such as date of birth, school I go to, where I work, etc. Facebook is more convenient than Instagram in the way that one can upload multiple pictures at the same time. It is more time-efficient in that manner, so pictures of trips and events are often posted there. I also use it to collect information about school events since the clubs often use Facebook in order to update and discuss. I usually never post any status updates since I don't believe it's necessary. Instagram is something I have just started to use. It's mainly just to make specific pictures look nicer. As a result, my identity on Facebook is mainly based on the info page, my identity on Twitter is that of a sarcastic, ranting high school boy, and my identity on instagram is based on the pictures I post and my choices of filter.

Brandt Summary

In this article, Brandt argues that people can only obtain their literacies through sponsor. Sponsors are pedagogues who help guide and clear the road for the sponsored. Usually, scholars have something to gain from teaching the sponsored as well. It could range from financial gains to professional recognition, but no matter the purpose, the sponsor must grant the sponsored the same kind of access to the knowledge that they have. Brandt defines sponsors as, "any agents, local or distant, concrete or abstract, who enable, support, teach, model, as well as recruit, regulate, suppress, or withhold literacy - and gain advantage by it in some way" (334). Brandt states that the sponsor may also regulate the knowledge of the sponsored and restrict some information. An example is that high school language teachers discourage students from learning grammar on their own by giving them a failing grade on an assignment if the student presents a grammar structure or form that they were not taught from the teacher. This is because language teachers accuse this as a form of plagiarism. Brandt also pursues the notion that the economic and political background of an individual can heavily affect his or her literacies. Poor and working-class families often find themselves with restrictions to information and opportunities, while wealthy and successful families have more connections and access to information and technology. There are three key issues that Brandt addresses: "(1) how, despite ostensible democracy in educational chances, stratification of opportunity continues to organize access and reward in literacy learning; (2) how sponsors contribute to what is called "the literacy crisis," that is the perceived gap between rising standards for achievement and people's ability to meet them; and (3) how encounters with literacy sponsors, especially as they are configured at the end of the 20th century, can be sites for the innovative rerouting of resources into projects of self-development and social change" (336). Brandt interviews several people who address these issues for example: Lowery who at first struggled with education, developed his adult literacy through classes and workshops on union and law language. Brandt ends her argument by stating that she is not advocating that teachers should better prepare students for the job market, but she is arguing that literacy is in a constant pursuit of individuals and that we should raise an awareness for that.

AE1:

 I was born in a Vietnamese family who immigrated to the U.S. My family did not necessarily come to the U.S. in a search for a better life as we were already financially stable in Vietnam, but we did it due to the educational opportunities held in the states. My father is a mathematics professor at Ohio University whereas my mother eventually became both a math instructor and a nail technician. Due to their occupations at Ohio University, I had access to both the technology and the information at the institution. I began learning html programming at the age of 8 and I had more research sources in comparison to many of my classmates; although many of my friends also had professors as parents. In an analysis, I am much more similar to Branch than Lopez due to my economic background, but I am similar to Lopez in a way that I belong to an immigrating family. I have developed literacies in music due to my piano lessons and my participation in symphonic choir. Since my half-sister is a German citizen, I was able to learn German from her. From my parents, I learned how to speak Vietnamese and English. From the school, I learned how to speak French, and through self-instruction, I gained some fluency in Japanese. Since I've had so many opportunities to learn various things, I consider my sponsors to be very adequate. The one thing I wish I had access to is bible literacy. Since so many texts, organizations, and cultural items allude to Christianity, I find myself slower than some of my classmates in understanding various contexts.

Devitt et al. Summaries

Amy J. Devitt Summary:

Devitt uses the jury instruction as an example of a conflict between specialists and non-specialists. The jury instruction is written by lawyers and given to the juries, so that they can do their duty properly. However, the language of the instructions could use words in a different way, causing confusion among the jury. The rhetorical purposes between the ones who write the book and the ones who act according to the book are also different. In an ideal situation, both parties would want to have a just decision and verdict, but they also have other purposes. Lawyers want to build reputation and money while juries want to merely speed up the trial in order to return to their normal lives. Other examples Devitt uses are ballots and tax forms. Tax forms are designed by the IRS but people hire specialists to do them because they are so complicated. Voters do not understand how the machines work, so they may cause some sort of error that would make their vote invalid, which is why there would be a need for specialists at the voting place to correct those mistakes. Devitt argues that although genres are used as communication between specialists and non-members of the community, they can become troublesome due to difference between languages spoken between the two groups and their rhetorical purposes.

Anis Bawarshi Summary:

Bawarshi further explains the role of the genre and its purpose within the discourse community. He states that a genre "is in the sum of exchanges such as this one, exchanges constituted by the various and sometimes conflicting genres used in different settings, that individuals compose in and compose discourse communities" (552). The genre helps set up interactions between two people and establishes their roles. An example he uses is the Patient Medical History Form. The genre asks for various information of the patient. The doctor then uses this information as a way to identify how and what he should speak to the patient. Bawarshi argues, "In this way, the genre is a site for the exchange of language within which participants influence one another and identify their discourse communities" (551). A genre is a heavily important form of text that helps keep discourse communities active and communication alive.

Mary Jo Reiff Summary:

Reiff examines genres as an instruction on how students can interact within a discourse community. However, she argues that once the text is removed from the context, the real genre that should be studied is through real life interactions where the genre is applied. In addition, genres can also be used to learn. Marilyn lists three ways: "learning genres, or widening students' genre repertoires; learning about genres, or fostering awareness [. . .] and learning through genres, or using genres as tools for thinking and learning in particular situations" (555). By applying ethnography in the classroom, students become fluent in their communities. They become both observers and members of the discourse community. They also have a more in-depth understanding of the language used. In addition, by applying ethnography, students develop more advanced thinking about understanding particular situations.

Mirabelli Synthesis

In the Tony Mirabelli's article, "Learning to Serve: The Language and Literacy of Food Service Workers," unlike the other articles by Wardle, Swales, or Gee, he starts his essay in an online discussion revolving around persecution against waiters and waitresses. He then goes on a summary about these persecutions instead of talking about language as the other articles. As Swales has stated, a discourse community must have a genre of texts. For the restaurant, Lou's, the most important genre of text was the menu. Words in the menus could be considered lexis as it could have different meanings depending on the context of the restaurant. In Wardle's activity system, authority is given to members by members of higher fluency or through recognition. On the other hand, Toni Mirabelli argues that waiters and waitresses gain a bit of authority through the usage of language. He also states, "While my research has shown that waiters and waitresses can exercise some level of authority, skill, and wit through their use of language with customers, they must also interact with management and other staff where authority and control play out in different ways" (553). Waiters and waitresses have authority over the customers during a short interaction through the usage of language. By using "magic words," they can manipulate a customer to choose a food, or if they aren't too sure of the details and explain it in an unelegant way, then it may affect the customer to not choose that particular item. However, he argues that for the most part, customers have authority over the waiters and waitresses because how they experience the restaurant will affect what the waitress or waiter will do next. Managers on the other hand are not easily as manipulated by language as the customers. Instead, the waiter and waitress gains authority only through permission.

Wardle Synthesis

Wardle immediately starts out with a discussion about discourses involving the workforce.  In this case, the discourse she initially talks about is similar to Gee's "dominant Discourse," or a Discourse that is used to gain social goods like money. According to Wardle, it seems that there are conflicts between the identity and the discourses that adults join; however, Gee would argue that the identity is the primary Discourse. The identity that Wardle talks about can also be part of the speech community in Swales's argument as they are both initial make-ups for people's characteristics. While Gee and Porter focused on what discourses or discourse communities were, Wardles focused on what was going on after the neophyte, or novice, entered the workplace discourses. Besides identity, Wardle states that people have to negotiate their authority when one enters the discourse community as well. The authority is the accepted pronouncements that are granted by the institution but must then be maintained by the individual's speech and actions. Wardle states that in order to be a full participant of the discourse community, one would have to know when and how to talk or be silent in the same fluency as veteran participants. This kind of agreement is somewhat similar to Gee's argument of when the individual becomes fully part of the discourse community. An interesting question that Wardle brings up is what happens if the identity conflicts with the discourse institution so much that they are degraded to a tool of the institution instead of a participant? Wardle uses Alan as an example who was new to his community. His enculturation was a failure. His resistance was too high and as a result, he was not a part of the community. This example amplifies both Gee's and Wardle's point. It shows that people are either fully assimilated into the community or not and it demonstrates that people must negotiate their identity and authority in order to be a participant.

Gee Summary & Synthesis

Summary:

Gee redefines the term, "language." He argues that the term has too much of a connotation that suggests grammar. Instead, he puts focus on how the language is used instead of what it is. It is the combination of speech (writing), actions, existence, and beliefs. These combinations are also called Discourses, "ways of being in the world; they are forms of life which integrate words, acts, values, beliefs, attitudes, and social identities as well as gestures, glances, body positions, and clothes" (484). There are two different types of Discourses: the primary discourse and the secondary discourse. The primary Discourse is also known as the initial Discourse. It is what makes up our identity that we developed at home. The second Discourse is developed from social institutions outside of our homes. These Discourses allow "apprenticeships" or students achieving fluency within that particular language. Gee also redefines the definition of "literacy." He argues that it is "the mastery of or fluent control over a secondary discourse" (486). Two theorems evolve from this definition. The first theorem is that one is not able to engage in a Discourse without being fluent. The second theorem is that primary discourses can never be "liberating literacies." Gee states that for literacy to be liberating, it must be able to critique the Discourse and have a set of meta-elements including language, words, attitudes, and values. For liberation, a person must have the ability to criticize and analyze the literacy. Secondary Discourses are important because it can help the person gain a realization of his or her primary Discourse. What truly is liberation is metaknowledge. The result of classroom instructions of compositions, study skills, writing, critical thinking, etc. Students who are ill-prepared can use the metaknowledge to become "smarter" than students who are prepared. Gee proposes a big question. How can we help students gain metaknowledge and resistance and also develop their Discourse at the same time if they entered it at a later time? Gee cannot offer a solution, but what he can offer is an experiment. He hypothesizes that by "mushfaking," or making do "with something less when the real thing isn't available" (490). Gee finalizes his argument by saying that successful students can be produced by teaching them "mushfake," resistance, and metaknowledge.

Synthesis:

Gee's theory on Discourse contrasts quite a bit from Swales's opinion on a discourse community. First, the reader must identify Gee's term of Discourse. It has two main types: the primary and the secondary. The primary Discourse revolves around the member's identity and that it is developed at home. We can argue that it is actually similar to Swales's initiation of the speech community. In the speech community, people are entered by birth. The second Discourse is developed through social interactions and institutions outside of the home such as churches, schools, clubs, etc. which resembles more of Swales's discourse community. The difference between these two discourses, however, is that Swales believe that a spy can become a part of the community while Gee's discourse is harder to enter. A spy cannot be a part of Gee's discourse because he or she would not be completely fluent. Swales's requirements for a discourse to be a discourse community is also more numerous, but he insists that a discourse community does not affect the identity of the person. Gee disagrees. He believes that the identity of a person is made up of his or her Discourses.

Summary: "The Concept of Discourse Community" by John Swales

Summary:

In this article, John Swales talks about the concepts and the differences between the discourse and the speech communities. His goal is to clarify the differences between them and identify a need for a discourse community. The first difference between the two is the medium: speech communities rely on the vocal interactions between the participants while discourse communities rely on the writing (470). The second difference is that speech communities are sociolinguistic while discourse communities are sociorhetorical. That means that speech communities are determined by a social group, and in contrast, a discourse community is determined by a group of people with a common goal or interest. The final difference is that a speech community is centripetal (people are absorbed into the general fabric) and a discourse community is centrifugal (people tend to be separated by into occupation or special-interest groups). In a speech community, people are admitted by birth or accident, while in a discourse community, people are admitted by persuasion, training, or qualification. There are six characteristics of a discourse community: "a discourse community has a broadly agreed set of common public goals, has mechanisms of intercommunication among
its members, uses its participatory mechanisms primarily to 14 provide information and feedback, utilizes and hence possesses one or more genres in the communicative furtherance of its aims, has acquired some 16 specific lexis in addition to owning genres, has a threshold level of members with a suitable 17 degree of relevant content and discoursal expertise" (472-473). Swales argues that a discourse community is convenient because it does not include the same tensions as a speech community, liberating the writer and giving him or her freedoms.

AW2:

Dear student,

A discourse community is a group of people with a common interest or goal and achieves this through communication. In this community, there is a common theme and language that the individuals must follow if they want to participate. Discourse communities can be both professional and unprofessional. A discourse community I partake in is the Athens High School Archery team. In this community, we communicate through facebook, emails, and text messages. We share information on how to improve our skills and abilities, regulations and rules that have changed, and how to hold fundraisers for our trip to the national and state tournaments. This is a discourse community because we have a common interest and goal, and we preserve this community through communication. Without it, it would not exist.

Sincerely,
William Vu.

Porter Summary

Adso of Melk puts together a puzzle using the remnants and fragments of the great libraries found in a burned abbey. This man represents us, the writers, and our writing processes; but none of these fragments are purely original. They whisper voices of other fragments and when Adso puts them together, he creates potentially new material for a discourse. Porter argues that all texts are interdependent. This theory is known as "intertextuality, the principle that all writing and speech - indeed, all signs - arise from a single network" (88). In the average English course, Porter states that the individuality and freedom of the writer are taught to the students; however, he believes that all writers are a part of a discourse community and a member of a team. This meant that the intertext "constrains writing" (88). There are two types of intertextuality: iterability and presupposition. Iterability is the repetition of specific textual pieces and the citations of every obscure thing mentioned. Presupposition is the assumptions made from a text about its audience. Porter uses Jefferson's Declaration of Independence as an example of presupposition. It is a compilation of pieces from multiple authors' books, articles, popular phrases, and famous passages. In short, Jefferson would be accused of plagiarism in today's community. Although, this does not mean that Jefferson lacked creativity. Porter defines creativity by not the invention of new sentences but the invention of new meanings. A creative writer knows how to borrow creatively, and by doing so, he becomes socialized into his or her discourse community: "a community built of groups of individuals bound by a common interest and who communicate through appropriate channels" (91). But one does not enter or contribute to the community successfully by emphasizing the individuality of the writer. In a classical view, the writer thinks about how he or she influences the audiences, but in a post-structualist view, the writer thinks about how the audience will influence his text (by expectations and standards). Although intertextuality and the rules of a discourse community may constrain the writer, the writer does have some freedoms. The writer has the freedom within immediate rhetorical context. Every text that is entered in the community could change other texts. The true struggle of the writer is not finding the individuality, but rather, it is to work in between the constrains. Porter strongly believes that "the effective writer works to assert the will against those community constraints to effect change" (96). The writer should not write in order to influence the readers or to find the inspired writing individual, but the writer should write for discourse community.

Extra Credit: Blog Layout Rearrangement

This is actually the second time I have re-adjusted my blog, so I will be addressing both of the rearrangements. The first time I changed the layout of my blog, it was because the text was hard to see. It had a busy background with white text. It was both hard to see, and it was visually unappealing. After reading the "Norton Field Guide to Writing" on media design, I decided to change the color scheme a little bit. Instead of blue, it is now green because it blends more with the header. The changes I made also agree with Norton's advice on using "color and contrast carefully" (585). Since I do not have training in web design, I decided to use one of the templates provided to me from the blogger. After considering my rhetorical situation, I realized that I should change my font to something that is both visually appealing and respectful. In order to achieve this, I changed my text font to Calibri and my header font to Times New Roman. I also re-organized the placement of my profile info and my archives. Instead of putting on top of each other, I decided to place one on the left and one on the right, making it easier to navigate and see without scrolling. Having my blog posts full on center also puts more focus onto my texts, which fits my purpose. As a result of all my changes, the blog is easy to read, the text is both respectful and visually appealing, and the blog is easy to navigate.

Murray Summary

An autobiography is a non-fiction written account of the author's life. Murray, however, argues that everything a writer writes, is autobiographical. That is not to say that the paper itself is an autobiography but it has its nature. Murray argues that the writer is selective with his or her writing. Which parts are in details, which parts are removed; all of those are selections that we make based on our individuality. Writers put pieces of themselves into their writing, and in response, what we write becomes part of ourselves. He states that we start believing what we write. An example he gives is that in one of his poems, he wrote about a boy named Alex. At first, people believed that Alex was his brother because he wrote it that way, but the author was a single child. He later explained that because he wrote it, he now believed it. "We become what we write" (62). Murray disagreed with today's academic curriculum. He does not think that students should write a diversity of genres, but rather, a few set of genres with which students are obsessed. At the end, Murray comments about how his autobiography can be dangerous. The poems he write can subconsciously cause people to write poems of their own. These are poems that are created within their minds; and thus, they become what they read.

Bernhardt Summary

In Bernhardt’s essay, he describes two different texts: a non-visual and a visual text. He encourages that a writer should learn how to add visuals. “Instead of attempting to base teaching practice on scant and tentative results, we may find it more expedient to view the rhetorical of visual design as an evolving art” (75). Benhardt argues that teachers must teach students how to adjust their text visually. By doing this, students would learn how to organize the structure of their papers more efficiently. Visual texts may contain pictures and be defined by the choices of its words, space, paragraph separations, and margins. Benhardt explains that visual texts and non-visual texts have their own rhetorical purpose. An example he used was a fact sheet of the wetlands. This is a visual text. He states the paper “insured attention through the use of high quality, heavy weight paper, and crisp, well-defined print, qualities chosen to encourage the reader to notice it and keep the sheet” (71). Benhardt emphasizes that the appearance and structure is important when considering the rhetorical situation of a paper and that writers can more efficiently capture the attention of the reader by doing so. Students can learn rhetorical organization and become “creative composers” if teachers encourage visual aspects of a text.

Dawkins and Bryson Synthesis

Dawkins and Bryson are both against against handbooks for grammar. While Bryson argues in more general terms for the fluidity of a language, Dawkins argues for the usage of punctuation for the rhetorical purpose. Bryson believes that English is too fluid in order to follow strict rules. He says that there are too many exceptions, or too many situations, for a handbook to cover. Joseph M. Williams states that the handbooks do not even follow their own rules shortly after stating them. Although, perhaps the grammarians, who wrote the handbooks, subconsciously did not follow them because the rhetorical situation at the time called for that kind of usage. Dawkins states that different ideas would call for specific emphasis and intended meanings. Nonetheless, the handbooks do contradict themselves, but it's because they contradict themselves that make Dawkins's argument even stronger. Bryson and Williams both agree that the only reason why grammarians stick to different rules is because one grammarian centuries ago or even a couple years ago said that it's "ugly" or "unprofessional." But to add regulations would only make English not the fluid language that it is supposed to be. Bryson contributes to the discourse that many of the grammar rules come from Latin, but unfortunately, Latin is not compatible as a base for English. English usage is too broad in order to apply the same rules. In comparison, Bryson and Dawkins both agree that the handbooks can not teach writers how to write; however, the difference is that Bryson believes that these rules, even though they are futile, can test the worth of the new usages and the constantly changing language.

Williams Summary

An error is a mistake of the syntax, mechanics, and conventions of writing that writers make. That is how many people define what error is. In Williams's essay, he compares an error of usage and a social error. A social error is an invasion of personal space that would require an apology or an excuse. An error of usage is the violation of the rules of writing. He makes those comparisons because he is confused about the similar reactions of an error of usage and a social error. He notes that there are some people who see error of usage as "atrocious" or "horrendous." However, an error of usage does not require an apology despite being "atrocious." Ironically, though, he also marks that the same people, such as William Zinnser, makes some errors of usage himself. He continues to list people who addressed the rules of grammar and syntax, but violated these same rules themselves. He does not condemn them for it, though. He is merely interested at how many readers do not realize these errors themselves and that teachers continue to use these handbooks of grammar usage without ever questioning it. He concludes that errors are spotted much more easily when people look for them and that when a reader reads freely for the sake of reading rather than editing, there are less errors found. He then makes a chart between the interaction of the reader and the text. The chart is composed of four categories: a violation is made and the reader notices it, a violation is made and the reader doesn't notice it, a violation isn't made and the reader doesn't notice it, and a violation that isn't made and the reader assumes it is a violation. He then does the same way with if the sentence is favorable or not favorable. At the end, from using these charts, he argues that we should judge error based on if other people sees it as error and if other people notices it. He then invites us to make a list of errors within his own essay. Examples of his errors could include the phrases, "most obviousest" or "we not have." However, the reader would have probably only noticed about ten or fifteen errors at most if they do not go back to purposefully search for them. He proves his point by stating that there are actually more than 100 errors in his essay.

Kantz Summary

Kantz Summary:

Shirley is an example of Kantz's average college student. She can paraphrase, summarize, and quickly pick out main ideas within a text. However, what she does lack is being able to rhetorically read and analyze a text. Kantz argues that the reason why students have issues finding an argument is because they do not want to find faults within facts and if they do, they just see it as some sort of error rather than a tool that might have served a purpose. She also states that students do not understand that facts and opinions are both claims and that the only difference between them is that facts are claims that are widely accepted by the audience without proof and that an opinion is a claim of which an audience asks for some proof. However, finding an argument within certain texts can be difficult. The more difficult the task is, the more likely the student will try to find shortcuts and simplify the assignment in a way that it may still match the requirements. Such actions, though, may result in an unorganized paper without any analysis but a bland compilation of previous arguments put together. In her essay, she uses Kinneavy's triangle that consists of three parts: the encoder or the writer, the decoder or the audience, and the reality or the topic. By asking and answering questions that transitioned between the parts, she says that the student could find or create an argument within their sources and synthesize them. Such techniques may be difficult to learn which is why the teacher must guide them on how to do so; to teach them how to do rhetorical reading. By doing so, the student learns to become creative in his or her paper.

AE 2:

During my years in high school, my English teachers seemed to contradict each other. My first teacher, Mrs. Shaw said that in our research papers, we are not allowed to state our opinion; however, my second English teacher, Mrs. Wryst, said that our thesis was supposed to have our opinion. Confused, I simply tried my best to write according to how my teachers wanted me to write. My first research paper was just spitting out information and trying to prove it. My second research paper was even worse and it really had no argument. My third research paper, the one where I was supposed to express my opinion, got the best grade out of all my research papers, but it might have been because that teacher was more lenient in her grading. It wasn't until my final English teacher, Mrs. Hall, when I learned that I was supposed to make an argument and a synthesis between the sources. Although, even then, my technique was a bit shaky. Being able to create an argument is definitely hard, especially when the topic seems too bland. Properly finding an argument and analyzing a text thoroughly seems like a technique that can only be mastered after a couple years of attempt. I do agree that creating an argument is plenty more interesting than just regurgitating information. Perhaps teachers should have more activities that ask the student to create arguments out of texts and to have exercises that ask for the students to create questions between the different parts of the triangle. 

Berkenkotter & Murray Synthesis

For the sake of the improvement of efficient and better writing, researchers had been experimenting on unskilled writers in a laboratory setting with an unrealistic amount of time. Unfortunately, the results differed from what goes on in writing during a natural setting, when writers are not stressed for time and can make observations that could lead to discovery. Berkenkotter decided to create a new way of researching the process of a writer. This time, she chose a professional writer and put him in a natural, comfortable setting. She also put him in a one-hour period where he was forced to write on a subject of which he was unfamiliar. The results of an unrealistic setting and a natural setting differed. There were multiple reasons why they differed. Berkenkotter stated that he was not able to "reconceive" or "to scan and rescan in the perspective of the other reader" (223). Murray also expressed his feelings on the whole situation. He said, "I have rarely felt so completely trapped and so inadequate. I have gone through other research experiences, but in this case I felt stronger than I ever had the need to perform" (231). It could be that during this time, he shared the same fear as Lore Allen of the "Inspired Writer." The interesting part was that after the experiment, his fear of the "Inspired Writer" became different. He now feared that he was going to become the "Inspired Writer." In his lines, he expressed the words, "I worry that the experienced writer can become too glib, too slick, too professional, too polished---- can, in effect, write too well" (233). He feared that he would lose his ability of "discovery" or to lose "introspection." Berkenkotter explained that introspection occurred during pauses of composition, and in effect, discovered new insights on the writer's topic. Murray later responded to the term as "bathroom epiphanies" and he believed they should be further researched. These "discoveries" or "writing to learn" were identified by Kleine but he said that usually people who wrote for rhetorical purposes rather than to provide information were the ones who used such techniques. In Berkenkotter's analysis, it showed that he spent most of his time planning and barely any in revisions. Murray argued back that part of revisions were done in his time of planning. Lammott, however, showed to be the exact opposite. She did very little planning (by writing her first draft like a "child") and relied mostly on her revisions. The process of writers' compositions and discovery differ from writer to writer and it is too complex for a static, laboratory setting. Rather than understanding the composition of writers, Berkenkotter's experiment showed how to research a writer.

Allen and Lamott Synthesis and Reflection

Synthesis: Allen

In Allen's essay, "Shitty First Drafts," she stated her experience while writing. When she wrote rough drafts, she released her inner-childish thoughts and poured out everything she felt and could think of. She stated, "There may be something in the very last line of the very last paragraph on page six that you just love, that is so beautiful or wild that you now know what you're supposed to be writing about..." (WAW 302). This was a form of discovery done by Lore Allen. By writing, she discovered ideas that may had never been found if she approached it in a "grown-up" way. She then picked out all the useless phrases as much as she could and utilized the important ones. Kleine argued something similar. He insisted that in order to make a good research paper, one would have to become a gatherer, or someone who "discovered" what could be of use to them (25). He also talked about how one could "learn" from writing. Lore Allen did not have the core ideas of her paper before she wrote them. She "learned" what it was by writing. She also had her "hunting" moment when she cleared out her thoughts and isolated one of the voices in her head (304). This was similar to Kleine's idea of writing with a purpose. 

Reflection: Allen

Although the reason may be absurd, Allen's essay probably captured my attention the most out of all the articles and essays I had to read for my English classes. The reason is, as immature people can guess, is because she titled it, "Shitty First Drafts." Besides the profanity, her humor was also very amusing. Admittedly, though, I had always tried to approach my papers in a more "grown up" fashion, which would explain why my papers had always been so terrible or bland. Maybe next time, I will approach my paper in a child-like behavior and discover something brilliant in the process.

Synthesis: Lamott

In Lamott's paper, she talked about the struggles of many writers. These struggles ranged from writer's block to "bad writing" to the lack of inspiration. For her, it is the ghost of the Inspired Writer. This ghost caused her to feel that if good writing did not come easily to her, then she was not a good writer. Allen also talked about her struggle. She was also someone who did not start out with good writing. However, she believed that all good writing came from bad writing; terrible drafts that would be embarrassing to show in front of the public. In general, both Lamott and Allen could agree on one thing: that good writing comes from the process of trial and error.

Reflection: Lamott

Lamott gave a new perspective to me. She gave me a scapegoat of whom I could blame all my frustrations: the ghost of the Inspired Writer. Even writing blog posts like these, I struggled. Writer's blocks would always last longer than the "writing spree." That was what frustrated me the most. But it is nice to see that I am not the only one. That even people who are considered "good writers," can also have the same struggles.

Kleine Summary

Michael Kleine, an English professor of the University of Arkansas, wanted to improve the process and quality of his students' research papers. He believed that the process should be both heuristic and strategic. As a result, academic papers would be epistemic (or referential as Kinneavy would put it) and rhetoric. In order to help his students, he built a model that involved eight cells, four columns and two rows. This model was split into four stages: collecting, rhetorical sifting, pattern seeking, and translation. In each stage, there were two categories, hunting and gathering. Hunting was a method of having a strong sense of purpose and direction, while gathering was the process of "discovering." He then used this model during interviews with eight different professors of varied fields. He found out that the natural and social sciences were focused on researching before writing, however, the people who worked in the departments of humanities immersed themselves in reading and writing. They used writing as a tool in order to learn and discover. He concluded that all academic papers ended up being both rhetoric and epistemic, although specific fields may lean more towards one or the other. What separated professional researchers and students was that professional researchers wrote papers due to an interest, a question, or a gap. Students usually researched because of an external source of compulsion. Kleine argued that the student should write research papers for the purpose of sharing information and bringing something new, not for the sake of reciprocating already shared knowledge. For this purpose, Michael Kleine aimed to absorb his students into the constantly expanding discourse that he and his colleagues participate.

Swales and Greene: Summary and Response

In Swales's "Create a Research Space' (CARS) Model of Research Introductions," he argues that one can improve his or her writing of a research paper by filling the gap of a topic known as "niche." There are three different moves that one could use: to establish a territory, to establish a niche, and to occupy a niche. In establishing a territory, he talks about claiming centrality, making topic generalizations, or reviewing previous items of research. He also states that one can establish a niche by counter-claiming, indicating a gap on the topic, raising questions, or presenting the research as a useful extension of currently existing research (also known as the "traditional" method). In order to conclude and occupy the niche, he talks about how one has to outline their purposes, announce their research or principal findings, and indicate the structure of the research article.

Swales's article was intriguing, yet also concise and to the point. When it comes to guiding research papers, many has trouble with figuring out ways to improve their writing abilities. Swales provides a step-by-step research paper that provides the reader a structure on how a research paper should look like in order to convey their message and be persuasive on their topic. What is interesting is that he redefines the word, "niche." According to dictionary.com, the meaning of niche is, "a place or position suitable or appropriate for a person or thing." Swales tells the reader that the niche of a subject is a space that needs to filled in with further research. Swales's instructions are easy to read and descriptive. It is an efficient guide to writing a proper research paper.

In Greene's "Argument as Conversation," he states that argument is progressive in our academic environment and that arguments are the same as conversations. He believes it is important to prepare and learn about the subjects of the argument by listening and researching before one joins the argument. He also declares that all arguments are interconnected and that it is continuous. He brings up that the way we position ourselves depend on three things: which previously stated arguments we share, which previously stated arguments we want to refute, and what new opinions and supporting information we will add to the discussion. He argues one must understand the conflict of both sides and not just look for details to support one's own ideas. Details and positions may not always invalidate the other's ideas. By forming a good question that can be answered through further research, one learns for whom the argument is for. Framing is important as one wants the readers to understand his or her perspective. Research then becomes a social process as one must learn to know how to enter a conversation.

It is fascinating how Greene reshapes the word, "framing." People know the word to mean as a border that fits around a picture. In this case, he describes it as "a metaphor for describing the lends, or perspective, from which writers present their arguments" (Greene 14). Greene makes interesting points for using framing as a strategy of writing, reading, and doing research. By including framing in the argument, one would obtain further conversation on the subject. The topic then becomes more engaging as a result. He also used Kenneth Burke's passage as a comparison of how arguments are conversations. It is interesting to know that whether or not one is not a part of the argument, the conversation lives on, but one can help contribute to it. No matter how many details one tries to use against his or her opponent, the discussion remains interminable.