In Doris Sommer’s article “Language, Culture and Society” we get an argument of whether it is better to be monolingual or bilingual and whether it is better to leave behind your first language and culture for one that you move to. I would like to look at this in relation to degrees.
In her article Sommer talks about W.E.B. DuBois’s complaints “against double consciousness” by refusing to “cure it by ‘bleaching’ his black soul” (14). I think this is the extreme degree of this argument. It is possible to be a part of the culture you live in while still holding onto your cultural identity. Sommer brings into her argument others who show that it is better to be bilingual than monolingual. She brings in several philosophers and theorists that show that being bilingual shows a persons ability to solve problems as greater than those who are monolingual. I personally am monolingual and find that those who are bilingual are not limited by their bilingualism as I am by my monolingualism. However Sommer points out that those who are bilingual do not always find it easier to communicate because they do not always know all of the “nuts and bolts” of one particular language. So it depends on the degree to which a person knows one particular language on their degree of communication. If someone knows all the nuts and bolts of English but also all the nuts and bolts of Spanish then they can communicate with most of the residents of San Diego for instance. Someone who lives in Montreal would be able to communicate with most of the residents of Canada if they know French thoroughly and English thoroughly.
I think that if I moved to a country other than the United States that I would absolutely need to learn what their standard language is whether it was Spanish or French or German in order to be successful in that country. So the degree to which I know Standard English would not be helpful to me if I moved to Italy. In order for me to be successful in Italy I would need to learn standard Italian. I would also need to learn the dialect of Italy depending on where I lived in Italy. Just as an Italian who moved to New York would need to learn Standard English as well as the dialect of English depending on whether they moved to Brooklyn or Manhattan, in order to be successful. I believe that I as an immigrant to Italy would need to assimilate to the culture of Italy that I moved to. I have a friend who moved to Milan to be a model. For her to be successful she needed to learn not only Standard Italian so that she could communicate with all Italians but she also has to learn the dialect of Italian spoken in Milan. She did this and became a successful ramp model as well as being used in Italian commercials in which she had to speak Standard Italian for these commercials so that they could be shown nationally. I guess this is the point that Sommer is making when she discusses Universalism.
It will not be possible in our world with the effects of globalization to return to a world where “England was English, German was German, France French, Spain Spanish” (3). Our world is global and each country is more diverse than it was, it is not possible to remain too monolingual any more and expect to be able to communicate with everyone in the country to the same degree that was once possible.
Saturday, October 25, 2008
Yes/No/Okay, But and Yet-Whole/Parts
I chose to use the Aristotelian topoi of Whole/Parts to write about the TSIS reading because I think that this is what they are saying. The whole of the argument is that we as writers need to identify what we are arguing, whether we agree, disagree or both. We as writers need to make our positions known by making sure that we use proper voice markers, which is to me the part of the whole of the argument that Graff and Birkenstein are making.
In the writings that I have done I have always tried to make clear what my position is whether it is to agree or to disagree. I think where I have failed at times is in making clear voice markers in my writing. I had heard for years not to use “I” in my works, however how I make sure readers know my position without using “I” or statements like “my belief is”, etc. I was really glad to see that Graff and Birkenstein agree with this process.
Their overall argument is that we need to make our positions known for our readers. How we go about that is making sure that we are clear on what our voice is and what the “other”, that we are writing to or about, what their voice is. Confusion comes into the readers mind when these demarcations are not made clearly.
In the writings that I have done I have always tried to make clear what my position is whether it is to agree or to disagree. I think where I have failed at times is in making clear voice markers in my writing. I had heard for years not to use “I” in my works, however how I make sure readers know my position without using “I” or statements like “my belief is”, etc. I was really glad to see that Graff and Birkenstein agree with this process.
Their overall argument is that we need to make our positions known for our readers. How we go about that is making sure that we are clear on what our voice is and what the “other”, that we are writing to or about, what their voice is. Confusion comes into the readers mind when these demarcations are not made clearly.
Sunday, October 19, 2008
Textual Scholarship-Definition
To say that I was unaware of the fact that I ever thought that Textual Scholarship was "dry-as-dust" (143) was not even on the radar for me, because this field was not even on the radar for me I am embarrassed to say. I guess being fairly new to the scholarly study of English studies I never knew that texts are not always what the author of origin intended. I guess I am a bit naive to think that along the way people would change words in classical texts because someone thinks there is no way that author could have really meant what they wrote. I was very aware that authors would change parts of their texts because their readers felt that key issues in the text needed to be changed.
There were a few areas that really excited me were the fact that there is an "attempt to disentangle cases of literary collaboration in which a woman author's contribution may have been eclipsed or reshaped by the man's" (152). One of the examples that Marcus uses is Mary Shelley's Frankenstein, which is always overshadowed by how much did Percy Shelley really help because she wrote the novel at a time when women were finding it difficult to even get published.
The other area that really excited me is the book historian, I could really get into that. I love books and would love to look at the traditional aspects of book history like the descriptive ans analytic bibliography and about its publishing history as well as the history of the copyright. But the ideas of studying the theory part of it as it is set out by Foucault. I can see the importance of all of this in the great example that Marcus gives us of the Mayflower Bible, thought for years to be authentic only to find out that it really was not.
This is a field that was unknown to me until I read this chapter and it is just one more reason to love the field that I am studying.
There were a few areas that really excited me were the fact that there is an "attempt to disentangle cases of literary collaboration in which a woman author's contribution may have been eclipsed or reshaped by the man's" (152). One of the examples that Marcus uses is Mary Shelley's Frankenstein, which is always overshadowed by how much did Percy Shelley really help because she wrote the novel at a time when women were finding it difficult to even get published.
The other area that really excited me is the book historian, I could really get into that. I love books and would love to look at the traditional aspects of book history like the descriptive ans analytic bibliography and about its publishing history as well as the history of the copyright. But the ideas of studying the theory part of it as it is set out by Foucault. I can see the importance of all of this in the great example that Marcus gives us of the Mayflower Bible, thought for years to be authentic only to find out that it really was not.
This is a field that was unknown to me until I read this chapter and it is just one more reason to love the field that I am studying.
Browsing-Advantages and Disadvantages
Once again the book that should put me to sleep is just enlightening me so much. I guess in the past work I have done it has been easy to find information that I have needed on the Internet or else I have just been doing rotten research, which is possible. I was very surprised at how much could be missed by just doing a general browse on an on-line catalog. I have found myself doing a focused browse in the book stacks but I really did not know that was what I was doing, I was just looking. The advantages of book stack browsing when you have a focused browse seem to far out weigh the disadvantages of just having to physically go to the library to find what you are looking for.
I really like that Mann has included information on different search engines for journals. In his inclusion of these items he lets us know what the advantages and disadvantages to each is. He also makes it clear that we have to be careful with our subject heading searches, because not every database is going to include the same subject headings.
I am learning a lot from this book, not only resources but I am really learning a lot about how to research.
I really like that Mann has included information on different search engines for journals. In his inclusion of these items he lets us know what the advantages and disadvantages to each is. He also makes it clear that we have to be careful with our subject heading searches, because not every database is going to include the same subject headings.
I am learning a lot from this book, not only resources but I am really learning a lot about how to research.
Wednesday, October 15, 2008
Rhetoric-Cause and Effect
In Susan Jarratt's article about rhetoric she points out that quite often rhetoric is misunderstood because of the effect it has. Quite often rhetoric is seen just as Plato did in ancient times as the insubstantial or deceptive language covering over reality or substance (77). Instead of being seen as an "art" it is seen as something used to deceive people using fancy language to move forward an agenda.
Jarratt discusses the beginnings of rhetoric she mentions that the effect of rhetorical studies moving away from recitation to a more performance based genre was that it lost some of its credibility. Along with the effects of the rise of writing studies rhetoric in the Universities declined steadily in the 19th century. She also addresses the effect that the development of a separate speech communication department at many schools helped rhetorical studies decline even further.
Jarratt also addresses the positive effects that some of the leading theorists of the time had on rhetorical studies. People like Nietzsche, de Saussure, Derrida, Bakhtin and Foucault. All of these theorists were top theorists in their fields and they all studied rhetorical discourse or linguistics and their effects on their fields which in turn had a grand effect on the field of Rhetoric.
While rhetorical studies have had a great comeback in the 20th century, it is always a field in flux. It is also changing with the new public sphere element that has been introduced with the Internet. Just blogging on this blog has an effect on rhetoric that was not possible just 5 or 10 years ago.
Besides the cause and effect aspect of the article I also found the historical perspectives that Jarratt gave to be very helpful!
Jarratt discusses the beginnings of rhetoric she mentions that the effect of rhetorical studies moving away from recitation to a more performance based genre was that it lost some of its credibility. Along with the effects of the rise of writing studies rhetoric in the Universities declined steadily in the 19th century. She also addresses the effect that the development of a separate speech communication department at many schools helped rhetorical studies decline even further.
Jarratt also addresses the positive effects that some of the leading theorists of the time had on rhetorical studies. People like Nietzsche, de Saussure, Derrida, Bakhtin and Foucault. All of these theorists were top theorists in their fields and they all studied rhetorical discourse or linguistics and their effects on their fields which in turn had a grand effect on the field of Rhetoric.
While rhetorical studies have had a great comeback in the 20th century, it is always a field in flux. It is also changing with the new public sphere element that has been introduced with the Internet. Just blogging on this blog has an effect on rhetoric that was not possible just 5 or 10 years ago.
Besides the cause and effect aspect of the article I also found the historical perspectives that Jarratt gave to be very helpful!
Boolean Combinations-Subject/Adjuncts
In reading Mann's description of the Boolean combinations (the subject) it is easy to see why these combinations are so important to good research (the adjunct). In reading this chapter the first part felt very much like a math class, but that is just Mann giving us the technical information that we need to understand a little about Boolean combinations. I was reading about sets and subsets just like an algebra class. All of that information was the nuts and bolts of the subject of Boolean combinations.
The outcome after reading the entire chapter is to me the adjunct effect of the subject. I now know how to go about moving around in computer databases when doing research. I really did not know that there were so many things that I needed knowledge of in order to make my searches as affective as possible. I have learned about word combinations and headings as well as how to search certain time periods and publications regarding certain areas of geography. The information about word truncation and limiting types of publications to be searched, while it may seem like information everyone already knows, was new and very helpful to me.
I really appreciate that we are reading this "dry" book because I am learning so much that will help me along the way.
The outcome after reading the entire chapter is to me the adjunct effect of the subject. I now know how to go about moving around in computer databases when doing research. I really did not know that there were so many things that I needed knowledge of in order to make my searches as affective as possible. I have learned about word combinations and headings as well as how to search certain time periods and publications regarding certain areas of geography. The information about word truncation and limiting types of publications to be searched, while it may seem like information everyone already knows, was new and very helpful to me.
I really appreciate that we are reading this "dry" book because I am learning so much that will help me along the way.
Saturday, October 4, 2008
Mann-Definition
Thomas Mann is writing a guide on how to do research. He introduces us to the concept of encyclopedias. As a student there have been many times that I have referenced an encyclopedia,especially prior to the advent of the Internet. Now with the Internet I personally have become a little lazy in my research techniques.
The specialized encyclopedia and dictionaries that Mann introduces here can be very helpful to me as a researcher. I am embarrassed to admit that I was not aware of the array of encyclopedias and dictionaries out there. The reference sites that Mann shares here for us to access to find out which encyclopedias or dictionaries to turn to can be very helpful as well.
Mann also demystifies the Library catalog. There are so many times that I am sure I have ended up with a general topic that could have been more specific for the lack of knowledge of how to search these catalogs. Also to find out that there is a Library of Congress Subject Heading reference is something that I can see will be invaluable.
Mann's reading while dry was quite the page turner for me, because I am being introduced to some things that I probably should have known about by now but did not.
The specialized encyclopedia and dictionaries that Mann introduces here can be very helpful to me as a researcher. I am embarrassed to admit that I was not aware of the array of encyclopedias and dictionaries out there. The reference sites that Mann shares here for us to access to find out which encyclopedias or dictionaries to turn to can be very helpful as well.
Mann also demystifies the Library catalog. There are so many times that I am sure I have ended up with a general topic that could have been more specific for the lack of knowledge of how to search these catalogs. Also to find out that there is a Library of Congress Subject Heading reference is something that I can see will be invaluable.
Mann's reading while dry was quite the page turner for me, because I am being introduced to some things that I probably should have known about by now but did not.
Graff-Whole/Parts
Graff and Birkenstein's overall text discusses the ways in which a writer must enter into a conversation with a "they" when they write in order to convey their own argument. It is their belief that an argument is more believable and credible if it is in response to the assertions or findings of some "other" person or group. To be engaged with another persons views while stating your own gives an academic paper a much better grounding than one in which the writer just states his or her own views.
The idea of writing in response to another persons argument that is different from your own, while not a new idea, is a good one to remember and hear more about. I like the example that Graff and Birkenstein give of the speaker they heard that went on and on about a topic that others agreed with but they had no idea why he went on and on as he did. It was not until the question and answer time that they found out who he was responding to. I believe this is an important aspect of writing an academic paper and one that I need to remember. I need to remember that it will be important for me to make sure that I do not just state my views and findings without first discussing the views of others that I disagree with.
Graff and Birkenstein offer suggestions as well on how to go about introducing my argument in response to another. When summarizing remember to make sure that the summary is fair and equitable to the person whom I am summarizing. While also remembering not to make it all about the summary of the other persons views. In other words I need to learn how to summarize another person's work while interjecting my voice and not losing my voice through summarizing. They also discuss the interweaving of the summary of the other viewpoint while also speaking to your own views. This seems obvious but how many times have I personally written a paper in which I have summarized too much and then stuck my views on at the bottom and not intertwined them in a coherent manner.
Now to the templates. I at first had the responses that Graff addressed in his introduction. Why do we need templates isn't this graduate school? Yet as I read about the templates and the way that Graff and Birkenstein discussed using them as guides and building on them to make them fit into what you are writing I could then see the merit to using them.
This little book seems to be big on information and I am willing to try some of the things that it suggests to improve my writing. I think that I have to try things that are suggested to see what works for me and take what I like out of it and use it.
The idea of writing in response to another persons argument that is different from your own, while not a new idea, is a good one to remember and hear more about. I like the example that Graff and Birkenstein give of the speaker they heard that went on and on about a topic that others agreed with but they had no idea why he went on and on as he did. It was not until the question and answer time that they found out who he was responding to. I believe this is an important aspect of writing an academic paper and one that I need to remember. I need to remember that it will be important for me to make sure that I do not just state my views and findings without first discussing the views of others that I disagree with.
Graff and Birkenstein offer suggestions as well on how to go about introducing my argument in response to another. When summarizing remember to make sure that the summary is fair and equitable to the person whom I am summarizing. While also remembering not to make it all about the summary of the other persons views. In other words I need to learn how to summarize another person's work while interjecting my voice and not losing my voice through summarizing. They also discuss the interweaving of the summary of the other viewpoint while also speaking to your own views. This seems obvious but how many times have I personally written a paper in which I have summarized too much and then stuck my views on at the bottom and not intertwined them in a coherent manner.
Now to the templates. I at first had the responses that Graff addressed in his introduction. Why do we need templates isn't this graduate school? Yet as I read about the templates and the way that Graff and Birkenstein discussed using them as guides and building on them to make them fit into what you are writing I could then see the merit to using them.
This little book seems to be big on information and I am willing to try some of the things that it suggests to improve my writing. I think that I have to try things that are suggested to see what works for me and take what I like out of it and use it.
Subscribe to:
Comments (Atom)