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.