Weekly Reflection
by Sherece Usher - Sunday, February 2, 2014, 7:20 PM
Many people of our time believe that language is spontaneous and inherently creative, from classical rhetoric you can see a blueprint of oral tradition and composition. Rhetoric defined as the use of language, written, or spoken, to inform or persuade. With the Greeks setting the stage in the 5th century focusing on prescriptive rhetoric similar to the school system up until the 20th century. Despite many changes the types of rhetorical discourse remain the same and are seen today from the law, politicians, and public figures during ceremonial speeches. One can tell the difference between the speech of a lawyer, congressman, and the president during a memorial celebration. We can also see the organization of rhetoric in all three forms. A lawyer has an opening and closing argument, the introduction and conclusions of speeches, and most public speaking begins with an appeal to emotion then establishing credibility, setting up the logical appeal and closing with pathos. This is similar to the five paragraph essay students are taught to write in school begin ins with an introduction using an anecdote or "hook"; a fact based argument; a conclusion using an emotional appeal and/ or call to action. I believe this shows that despite the great contributions to rhetoric there still is much to add and much to changes to be made. Rhetoric now being measure with composition shows evolution yet not enough change to the basic structure seen in in oration or composition.
Weekly Reflection
by Sherece Usher - Sunday, February 23, 2014, 10:12 PM
I personally found the Flower and Hayes reading very useful to guide my understanding of the process of composition. The model was categorized between the Task Environment, The Writer's Long-Term Memory, and the Writing Process. Within the categories it is explained that the writing process consists of planning, translating, reviewing, and monitoring; the task environment depends on the rhetorical problem and the text produced; the writers longterm memory consists of knowledge of the topic audience and writing plans. The authors express that these processes can occur at any time. The authors also state that these processes are rarely working independently and are constantly working together. This shows that the writing process as well as our minds do not work in isolation and the organic writing process is complicated.
I was able to see parallels in my own writing process and many others when reading this text, and seeing the visual chart I was able to analyze the writing process based on its lay out. With this foundation we then have to think of the writing process and what happens when a student does not complete all these steps? Or what steps in the writing processes works well together? Should a student even worry about these? Most importably what can we tale from these observations into the classroom?
Weekly Reflection
by Sherece Usher - Monday, March 3, 2014, 5:29 PM
In Royster's "When the First Voice You Hear Is Not Your Own" was very brilliant in my opinion. I was very impressed how Royster brought subjectivity, a term that we often shun, into relativity with this essay. She states "Subjectivity as a defining value pay attention dynamically to context, way of knowing, language abilities, and experience, and by doing so it has a consequent potential to deepen, broaden, and enrich our interpretive views in dynamic ways as well" (555). Subjectivity amplifies a topic and adds depth to the piece. Using this element Royster displays an element, according to Longinus' "On the Sublime", that is key in oratory. Roysters use of amplification "elevate the topic at hand.
Royster's essay is also an outline, like many of the greats before her, including Longinus himself, and we can assume that imitation, another element that Longinus believe was pivotal in oratory, was used. Royster brought in dense information and used organization to make this easily accessible and aesthetically pleasing for the read (though many will disagree that there is nothing pleasing about this piece at all). If you compare this piece to Quintilian's "Institiutes of Oratory" you can see that guidelines and rules have been set similarly, to give the scholar a guide to approach these difficult situations and have a positive outcome. this essay beautiful blends the elements of oratory with the ideas of subjectivity, and makes this ideal for the modern reader because the diction geared to a wide audience and it allows the reader to connect with the text. Also the examples are specific yet transferrable to any culture which wides the audience, and the understanding of the text.
by Sherece Usher - Sunday, February 2, 2014, 7:20 PM
Many people of our time believe that language is spontaneous and inherently creative, from classical rhetoric you can see a blueprint of oral tradition and composition. Rhetoric defined as the use of language, written, or spoken, to inform or persuade. With the Greeks setting the stage in the 5th century focusing on prescriptive rhetoric similar to the school system up until the 20th century. Despite many changes the types of rhetorical discourse remain the same and are seen today from the law, politicians, and public figures during ceremonial speeches. One can tell the difference between the speech of a lawyer, congressman, and the president during a memorial celebration. We can also see the organization of rhetoric in all three forms. A lawyer has an opening and closing argument, the introduction and conclusions of speeches, and most public speaking begins with an appeal to emotion then establishing credibility, setting up the logical appeal and closing with pathos. This is similar to the five paragraph essay students are taught to write in school begin ins with an introduction using an anecdote or "hook"; a fact based argument; a conclusion using an emotional appeal and/ or call to action. I believe this shows that despite the great contributions to rhetoric there still is much to add and much to changes to be made. Rhetoric now being measure with composition shows evolution yet not enough change to the basic structure seen in in oration or composition.
Weekly Reflection
by Sherece Usher - Sunday, February 23, 2014, 10:12 PM
I personally found the Flower and Hayes reading very useful to guide my understanding of the process of composition. The model was categorized between the Task Environment, The Writer's Long-Term Memory, and the Writing Process. Within the categories it is explained that the writing process consists of planning, translating, reviewing, and monitoring; the task environment depends on the rhetorical problem and the text produced; the writers longterm memory consists of knowledge of the topic audience and writing plans. The authors express that these processes can occur at any time. The authors also state that these processes are rarely working independently and are constantly working together. This shows that the writing process as well as our minds do not work in isolation and the organic writing process is complicated.
I was able to see parallels in my own writing process and many others when reading this text, and seeing the visual chart I was able to analyze the writing process based on its lay out. With this foundation we then have to think of the writing process and what happens when a student does not complete all these steps? Or what steps in the writing processes works well together? Should a student even worry about these? Most importably what can we tale from these observations into the classroom?
Weekly Reflection
by Sherece Usher - Monday, March 3, 2014, 5:29 PM
In Royster's "When the First Voice You Hear Is Not Your Own" was very brilliant in my opinion. I was very impressed how Royster brought subjectivity, a term that we often shun, into relativity with this essay. She states "Subjectivity as a defining value pay attention dynamically to context, way of knowing, language abilities, and experience, and by doing so it has a consequent potential to deepen, broaden, and enrich our interpretive views in dynamic ways as well" (555). Subjectivity amplifies a topic and adds depth to the piece. Using this element Royster displays an element, according to Longinus' "On the Sublime", that is key in oratory. Roysters use of amplification "elevate the topic at hand.
Royster's essay is also an outline, like many of the greats before her, including Longinus himself, and we can assume that imitation, another element that Longinus believe was pivotal in oratory, was used. Royster brought in dense information and used organization to make this easily accessible and aesthetically pleasing for the read (though many will disagree that there is nothing pleasing about this piece at all). If you compare this piece to Quintilian's "Institiutes of Oratory" you can see that guidelines and rules have been set similarly, to give the scholar a guide to approach these difficult situations and have a positive outcome. this essay beautiful blends the elements of oratory with the ideas of subjectivity, and makes this ideal for the modern reader because the diction geared to a wide audience and it allows the reader to connect with the text. Also the examples are specific yet transferrable to any culture which wides the audience, and the understanding of the text.