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.
Swales, John. "The Concept of Discourse Community." Wardle, Elizabeth and Doug Downs. Writing about Writing a College Reader. Boston: Bedford/St.Martin's, 2011. 466-480. Print.
Through concepts and principles which we studied in the “dialogic communication studies”, “Dialogue” is a special form of communication that creates positive results for individuals, group, organization and communities. This concept has become a central of various theoretical perspectives in humanity and social sciences studies by looking at social relation and interaction as dialogue.
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.
Academics concentrate their emphasis on reading and less time on writing, but Elbow writes more in order to “coach” his students to approach their writing with “various concrete practices and techniques” (74). Students should be given a variety of texts to read including work from their peers, however, significant texts in the classroom should not be treated like “pieces behind glass”, but rather be used as tools to talk about or “borrow off of” because it engages the students with the text (74). The conflict of control over a text is a common issue between the writer and the reader because they both have their own perspectives. He points out how teachers take away the ownership of their students’ writing by determining meaning of the texts, even though, as academics they keep the ownership of their own writing as teacher, academic, and lecturer. As the teacher, it is important to understand that the student writer knows more than they can articulate (77). He attempts to show a trusting attitude towards language so that the students will focus their energy on their own thoughts and what they are trying to convey in their writing, instead of thinking language is unclear, political, and one-sided. Elbow wants his students to view their writing as “dialogic-parts” of a conversation by including their writing in peer discussions, which allows for both “monologic and dialogic discourse” (79). Student writers should be encouraged to write with more “authority” rather than an “Is this okay?” approach to their writing because it gives them more freedom to write with their own creativity and knowledge (81). The role of academics and writing go beyond the first year students’ classroom because both are important roles in
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.
Conversation analysis was developed as a systematic study of discourse. This was established by the American pioneers in this sector, Harvey Sacks, Emanuel A. Schegloff, and Gail Jefferson. This was further labeled as the 'systematic analysis of the talk produced in everyday situations of human interaction: talk-in-interaction' (Hutchby and Wooffitt, 1998: 13). The study of conversational analysis is an approach to understand how individuals create and understand conversations, looking into investigating the elements of turn-taking, overlapping, pauses within a piece of discourse. The early development of conversational analysis has been deep rooted within sociology, as Harvey Sacks was mainly concerned with creating a way that 'sociology could become a naturalistic, observational science” (Hutchby and Wooffitt, 1998: 25).' The critical analysist's within Conversational analysis are concerned with any discourse, being informal or formal. The most important aspect of...
The conversation between both Wes's was one of open honesty about when they each felt like they'd become a man. Wes1 said, "I think it was when I first felt accountable to people other than myself. When I first cared that my actions mattered to people other than just me." Wes 2 said, But if the situation or the context where you make the decisions don't change, then second chances don't mean too much, huh?" Then Wes 1 responded to Wes 2, "I guess it's hard sometimes to distinguish between second chances and last chances."
He too quickly dismisses the idea of reading on your own to find meaning and think critically about a book. For him, Graff states that “It was through exposure to such critical reading and discussion over a period of time that I came to catch the literary bug.” (26) While this may have worked for Graff, not all students will “experience a personal reaction” (27) through the use of critical discussion.
Standpoint theory centres on the “inversion hypothesis,” suggesting that those who are oppressed or marginalized by structures of systematic domination may have epistemological privilege. This privilege, Wylie explains, could manifest itself in the marginalized understanding things that the dominant group may be unaware of, or as a deeper understanding of the situation around them, stemming from their ability to relate to the powerful while having experienced being powerless (Wylie, 26). Wylie attempts to disassociate standpoint theory from two of its common criticisms, one of which is the assumption of automatic epistemic privilege for marginalized groups (28). Wylie suggests that it is instead positions that “put the critically conscious knower in a position to grasp the effects of power relations” which offer the epistemic privilege (34). However, this response leads to two unworkable interpretations. If Wylie's adjustment i...
In the Think Introduction the author, Simon Blackburn , attempts to provide us with a brief overview of the contents of the the novel. He also gives a base explanation for philosophy and its foundations. Blackburn begins by explaining the main purpose of the book. He wants both men and women to be able to understand “big themes”. These are subjects such as autonomy, certitudes, and morality. Blackburn believes that by reading this text, if done correctly, the audience will have a clear understanding of these “big themes” and be quite able digest complicated philosophy texts at their leisure. (Blackburn 1) I believe that Blackburn accomplishes his goal.
She begins the chapter by explaining the importance of invisibility in the classroom. “Don’t be too noticeable is the rule” that is commonly known by most students (91). She elaborates by explaining that a student should not add new information into a conversation yet ask a question that would concern all students about upcoming work or tests. Later in the chapter, she highlights that the instructor 's main role in the classroom is “getting [students] to say something” because students felt pressured into remaining silent (94). This pressure came from personal self-doubt and the desire to not be defined as unintelligent. In conclusion to these points, Nathan states that “despite official assertions about the university as a free marketplace of ideas, the classroom doesn’t often work that way in practice” (95). In addition to in class discussions being intellectually weak, conversations outside of class rarely involved academics, but when academics were mentioned, there was a limited set of a few questions like “‘Did you do the reading for today?’ and ‘Did we have anything due today?’” (96). She explains that no students ever asked question about how interesting assignments were because they “weren’t acceptable or normative topics to introduce” while outside the classroom (96). Based on the lack of intellectual discussions in and out of class, Nathan concluded that academics play a minor role in the life of
"Any critical reading of a text will be strengthened by a knowledge of how a text is valued by readers in differing contexts."
Throughout Gerald Graff’s own personal struggle with reading books, he learned that reading critically while also engaging in critical and intellectual discussion could open a whole new world of personal connections he was never able to make before.
The conversation I chose to analyze was the third conversation between two participants about a classmate they go to school with. After reading and analyzing the conversation I would have to personally find it unsuccessful. The reason is because only one participant is actually successful in communicating their point to the other person.
Such views influence both L1 and L2 reading studies. Kern (2000) explains the importance of the social and personal interpretation of reading, he says that readers have the freedom to interpret texts in any way they like if they do not deviate from the so-called interpretive constraints. In terms of fo...