Ch. 10 (Berkenkotter)
I agree with Berkenkotter's natural approach with the unspecified timeframe. I, like Emig, felt that the last assignment involved much "context stripping." It did afford us greater flexibility with regard to environment and written subject, but it was still extremely limited in alotted time. Like Murray, I felt too much pressure to produce in a given amount of time instead of producing at my own rate. I would really like to see more studies like Berkenkotter's take place on larger scales.
Ch. 14 (Flynn)
In Flynn's piece, there was a statement that we should not presume that "males and females use language in identical ways." I find this idea of gender in writing very interesting. It was brought up briefly in class and has been brought up briefly in other classes of mine, but it never seems to garner much discussion. I suppose there is not much to say other than some pieces sound like the voice of a female, and other sound like the voice of a male. I wonder if there is a way to survey readers (experienced and inexperienced), have them read different pieces, and then have them guess the sex of the pieces' writers. If a correllation of correct guesses resulted from such a survey, it would be neat to see what stylistic, rhetorical, grammatical, etc. elements shape such a presence of gender identity in writing.
Ch. 17 (Murray)
First of all, isn't it cool how we read a study of an individual, and in the same reading bundle we get to read the work of the very individual that was studied? Second, this was the most pleasurable reading I have had in this course to date. Though it was somewhat self-congratulatory, I really liked the many examples of his creative works because it turns out that I really like the way he writes. Okay, onto responding to his notion that everything we write is autobiographical. I completely agree with this. I believe, in fact, that this autobiographical presence within everything that we write goes back to the voice discussion. Everything Murray used to prove writing as autobiographical seems to fall onto the pallate of voice. Our voice in writing, I think, is really just our personal history of experiences. Every facet of that through which we have lived leaves a mark on us and shapes who we are and what we do. And all of that shaping in turn affects our thinking and then our writing. It is our voice that one hears in our writing because it is our autobiographic history.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
1 comment:
Hi everybody! I have a huge favor to ask! I am working on a paper concerning gender differences in written communication. If you could bring, or e-mail me a copy of a conversation you had with someone of the opposite sex, I would greatly appreciate it! It could be about anything! You could print out an IM conversation, or provide a copy of a letter- anything in writing that implies conversation, even if it is not an actual conversation (like the text of a card someone gave you, etc.). If you have time, could you briefly describe your interpretations of or intentions for the conversation, and tell if you think it was successful- why or why not? But if you don’t have time, the text will do just fine! Thanks for your help! Even two responses would be a lifesaver! You can email me at erika6@umbc.edu or you can reach me on my blog page. If you can get the text to me before Sunday that would be awesome! I owe you one! :)
Post a Comment