|
Articles Conference Reviews |
2007C01HarbeckC.01: “Rhetorical Grammar and the Construction of a Writer’s Identity” Cornelia Paraskevas: “Linguistic Principles and Writer Identity” After explaining that she was both a linguist and taught composition theory, Paraskevas read passages from writing samples given to her by one of her students. The student’s voice comes through clearly in such phrases as “scratch scratch went the pencil” and “battle-axe of a truck.” In the next paper, however, Paraskevas was stunned to find that the student’s voice had disappeared. She explained that this was because the student was trying to emulate academic writing. We could just dismiss it, she said. However, she suggested taking another approach, that of seeing the student as an apprentice of academic writing. What we have to keep in mind, she cautioned, is that at a time when first-year students are transitioning into college they also are expected to be “master builders while still apprentices.” Often they are offered formulaic writing solutions, but this can cost them their voices. Instead, Paraskevas gives them tools they can use to create an academic voice and gain a “deeper understanding of principles that govern academic writing.” Paraskevas talked attendees through her handout on “Linguistic Principles and Writer Identity,” noting that there are three main considerations, or “dimensions of context” that come into play: field, tenor and mode. It is the combination of these that creates the register of a writer’s voice. Field consists of ideational (propositional content) choices—word class choices. In academic writing there is a “predominant use of nouns” and the “primary function of verbs is to connect noun phrases.” Tenor is determined by interpersonal choices—stance/evaluation. In academic writing this is “expressed through modals, adverbials, verbs.” Mode is created by textual choices: syntactic structure, cohesive devices, and informational structure choices. Syntactic structure includes complexity, consolidation, complex nouns phrases, nominalization, and end weight. Cohesive devices include reference, conjunctions, and substitutions. And information structure consists of theme/rheme; given/new contract (‘there’/passive); and focus (thematic prominence, end focus, and contrast). Using samples of professional texts on the handout, Paraskevas drew attention to the beginning of sentences, noting that the “opening determines how the paragraph will develop.” She pointed out how, in the mode example, the author switched from the topic to the self without alerting the reader, and that all of the sentences were roughly the same length. In the third set of examples, written by students, Paraskevas highlighted thematic development, the use of nominalizations, clause combining/consolidation/marked constructions, given/new (how the student incorporates new information), and punctuation. At the end of her handout, she included samples of her “Tools for Writers: Academic Writing Stylesheets.” These were “loosely based on” and adapted for academic writing from those published in the English Journal (“Grammar Apprenticeship” http://www.ncte.org/pubs/journals/ej/articles/124652.htm, English Journal, Volume 95, Number 5, May 2006). If we give students the necessary tools, Paraskevas concluded, they can develop the ability to write with strong voices, be in control of their writing, and know why they are writing in a certain way. Reviewer’s aside: This was a lot of information to take in, let alone digest, in one sitting. I’m grateful that this presenter and her fellow panelists graciously allowed me to include their handouts with my review. (Click on the names of the presenters to view the various handout: Cornelia Paraskevas, Loretta Gray, and Martha Kolln.) Loretta Gray: “Formulaic Expressions: Scaffolding for Fluency” In her presentation Gray focused on the use of formulaic expressions, after explaining that she teaches two section of composition. In her English 101 class, students learn to use sources in a variety of ways, including summaries, responding to information, and synthesizing. In English 102 they cover analysis, critiques & position papers. Gray noted that students often mimic, while others plagiarize, and some manage to use their own voices but then fail to convey the other writer’s information. On an overhead Gray showed:
A formulaic expression, Gray explained, quoting Allison Wray, is “a sequence, continuous or discontinuous, of words or other elements, which is, or appears to be, prefabricated: that is stored and retrieved whole from memory at the time of use, rather than being subject generation or analysis by the language grammar" (Formulaic Language and the Lexicon, Cambridge University Press, 2002, p. 9). Gray added that “lexical phrases give students scaffolding when they encounter new genres.” She suggested watching for “typical formulaic expressions” in professional writing, adding that such expressions “are a natural part of our language,” “are conventional for their rhetorical situation,” and “may help students organize their thoughts.” Gray said she had found two good exercises to help students develop their use of these expressions. In one she gives them texts and has them underline the formulaic expressions. In the other she provides them with a fill-in exercise that includes a list of formulaic expressions from which they can choose. Once students are able to identify formulaic expressions, Gray has them get into groups, compare two paragraphs, and then discuss which one is better. After students have drafted their papers, she has them ask their peers to locate formulaic expressions they’ve used in their writing and discuss them. Language is processed in two ways, Gray explained—formulaic expressions and grammar—so it’s a dual process. Her handout included examples of formulaic expressions that summarize, respond with the grain, respond against the grain, respond with and against the grain, and synthesize. She ended by asserting that, contrary to what some people might believe, using formulaic expressions does not produce form writing. Reviewer’s Aside: During the conference—I don’t recall exactly when or by whom—I heard a recommendation for a book on formulaic writing: They Say/I Say by Gerald Graff and Cathy Birkenstein (New York: Norton, 2006). I then learned that the authors had presented on the topic in Session E.03 while I was availing myself of free food and drinks at Tavern on the Green. Dashing to the Exhibit Hall the next morning, I acquitted myself by netting a desk copy of their book. The size of it calls to mind another diminutive treatise on writing. Read on. Martha Kolln: “Metadiscourse: Enhancing the Writer’s Identity” The living language is like a cowpath: it is the creation of the cows themselves, who, having created it, follow it or depart from it, or depart from it according to their whims or their needs. From daily use, the path undergoes change. A cow is under no obligation to stay in the narrow path she helped make, following the contour of the land, but she often profits by staying with it and she would be handicapped if she didn't know where it was or where it led to.
E. B. White, The New Yorker, February 23, 1957
“As you probably know,” Martha Kolln began, “he (referring to the above quote, which had been displayed on an overhead) is also the E.B. White of Strunk and White.” Pausing, she drew attendees’ attention to the fact that she had just begun her sentence with a formulaic expression. She chose “As you probably know,” she explained, to avoid sounding presumptuous (that everyone knew) or condescending (that they didn’t know). Strunk and White, she noted, had said nothing about metadiscourse—which is the discourse of discourse—because “it wasn’t identified back then.” She was, of course, referring to The Elements of Style (http://www.bartleby.com/141/), which “has so much to do with how we view writing today.” If Kolln were to sum up the main message of that “famous little book,” it would be Rule 17 (originally Rule 13): “Omit needless words.” E.B. White observed in his introduction to the book that Strunk “omitted so many needless words . . . that he often seemed in the position of having shortchanged himself—a man left with nothing more to say yet with time to fill.” No problem. “Will Strunk got out of this predicament by a simple trick: he uttered every sentence three times,” White explains. Yet, Kolln, acknowledged, formulaic expressions lack the very brevity Strunk extolled. After crediting Avon Crismor (http://www.ipfw.edu/engl/fsfaculty.htm) as a mentor, Kolln distributed a handout, which drew on the work of W. J. Vande Kopple (http://www.calvin.edu/academic/engl/vkop/). Vande Kopple noted that “many discourses have at least two levels. On one level we supply information about the subject of our text. On this level we expand prepositional content. On the other level, the level of metadiscourse, we do not add prepositional material, but help our readers organize, classify, interpret, evaluate, and react to such materials. Metadiscourse, therefore, is discourse about discourse, or communication about communication.” There are two kinds of metadiscourse—textual functions and interpersonal functions—within which Vande Kopple identified seven functions: Textual Functions
Interpersonal Functions
Referring to the metadiscourse examples on her handout, which came from her book Rhetorical Grammar (Pearson, 2007), Kolln explained that using “perhaps” and “probably” might suggest that the information should not be trusted; however, the opposite was actually true. “It’s ok to hedge.” In concluding, she asserted that metadiscourse “helps get students to think about readers.” Reviewer’s aside: E.B. White being one of my favorite essayists, I enjoyed the cowpath excerpt from an essay I now look forward to reading. Kolln’s reference to Strunk and White brought to mind a gift some friends gave me two Christmases ago in honor of my penchant for wordsmithing: A beautiful hardbound copy of the latest The Elements of Style, complete with colorful illustrations that made no sense to me. Currently it lies buried, somewhere, under a heap of paper. Comments? |