Journal - 7

The author of this article , Jocelyn Bisaillon, is trying to figure out how editors actually improve the pieces they work on. In this article, the author describes the process used to revise and edit text. In her writing, she asks some basic questions - "how do people edit works?" and "how to professional editors do their job?"

Usually for research, the article says that researchers will create practice tasks by using a text they have either created themselves or have previously edited themselves. Then, the researcher will give this text to participants to edit, and collect the edited texts to obtain the results of the study. In editing, it is hard to study because there are many factors that contribute to how a person edits, including time and the target audience. These factors will alter how editors will revise a certain text.

Students generally will have to read to grasp the entire context of the document before any editing can occur. However, professional editors do not have to read or understand the concept of the work to be able to edit. Usually, professional editors will receive the concept of the text by word of mouth of the author of the text, the editor's client. The idea of an editor's job is not to search for correct information in terms of validation of material; but, their job is to read, comprehend, evaluate, solve problems, and make checks within the writing.

Journal - 6

A "rhetorical situation", according to Bitzer, is not an idle one. As well, he does not believe that "a rhetorical discourse must be embedded in historic context...". Some people felt that studying "rhetoric and composition" from the past should focus on the works of Sophists, such as Plato and Aristotle. However, others feel that looking at the works of women and minorities should be studied to find new perspectives on the field. Today, the field of rhetoric focuses on: "whether writing constructs or only transmits knowledge, whether writing is social or individual, what the province of rhetoric is, who can be a writer or rhetor, and what the relative importance of ethos, pathos, adn logos today."

When Blitzer speaks of a "rhetorical situation", he wants to know how the speaker or writer is creating rhetoric in his or her work. If a writer or speaker is using rhetoric in his or her work, then there must be a "rhetorical situation". There can be a rhetorical situation if the rhetorical content comes as a comment or response to a situation; if a speech is given with significance to the use of rhetoric in the work; if there is any sign of "rhetorical discrouse" apparent in a given situation; as well, the situation can control the use of or need for rhetoric, leaving the possibility of any situation becoming a "rhetorical" one.

As Bitzer says, "...there are three constituents of any rhetorical situation: the first is the exigence; the second and third are elements of the complex, namely the audience to be constrained in decision and action, and the constraints which influence the rhetor and can be brought to bear upon the audience. Any exigence is an imperfection marked by urgency; it is a defect, an obstacle, something waiting to be done, a thing which is other than it should be." He tells us that exigence is when there is a glitch in the author's speech or writing, some information that is wrongly presented due to the author's lack of time spent writing or creating his or her work. For example, if someone is teaching a math problem and accidentally tries to multiply two numbers in his/her head quickly, creating a wrong answer, we would have an example of exigence. The teacher, in trying to get through the minute steps of a problem quickly, has given wrong information.

Journal - 5

While reading English Studies: An Introduction to the Discipline(s), I came across an argument I found interesting: the debate over the problem of specialization. While some scholars feel that it is more important to have people specialize in and gain a great deal of knowledge of certain areas, others feel that it detracts from the general learning of subjects. David Easton, author of "The Division, Transfer, and Integration of Knowledge", disagrees with such specialization in subject. He feels that "...today the basic disciplines have not only clearly identified themselves but have subdivided internally into many subfields; and often, even with these, specialization continues apace."

Some of the problems of specialization are categorized under the name of "the Humpty Dumpty problem". Used as a metaphor, Easton says that our world of knowledge is becoming like Humpty Dumpty - we keep breaking down learning into all these little pieces and subfields, but we can't take all the pieces and make them one whole piece of knowledge again. Easton claims that we are losing part of our knowledge base b studying specific subjects, and I have mixed feelings about it. On one hand, I agree that we may not be getting as much of a knowledge base only because we focus on it in the early years of education, and switch to specialization in the later years. On the other hand, I still insist that people who can become extremely familiar with one specific area of interest they choose are extremely useful to society. Think about a doctor who specializes in neurosurgery. Since there is so much to learn about that one specific part of the body, it makes sense to let a student study entirely on that one subject until he or she becomes fully knowledgeable in the area.

The authors go on to argue that breaking up literature and English into small subjects does not help. The book explains that specialization can create many different problems. These problems are listed as: (1) specialization ruins the "coverage model" for English curriculum; (2) "unbalanced structure causes logistical problems"; (3) if a department focuses on one area of literature specialization, it will only give a narrowed scope of different works through a certain viewpoint; (4) when people focus specifically on one section, they are unable to present it in terms of a broader view to share with other scholars and teachers; (5) new areas of specialization are branching out every year, making it hard to pinpoint what to focus on; (6) the more focused we are on an area of specialization, the less we are in-tune with the entire academic world; and, (7) when we become so engrossed in our areas of specialization, we can no longer speak with peers or other scholars in terms of what we are learning, because we all speak with different terms about different areas of specialization. With all that said, I still personally believe that it can help give students a greater understanding of the subject they are interested in. The only thing we need to do is constantly update and refresh our general knowledges of the subject, as well as knowledge of the subdivisions of each subject.

Journal - 4

In the Introduction to They Say/I Say: The Moves That Matter in Academic Writing, Gerald Graff and Cathy Birkenstein provide templates designed for student's use right away to structure his/her writing; to generate writing; to help the writer successfully enter the world of academic thinking and writing, of civic discourse and work; to help put abstract models principles of writing into practice; to give the writer an immediate sense of how to engage in these kinds of critical thinking required at a college-level and beyond; and to represent simple, but crucial, writing moves.

Specifically, Graff and Birkenstein argue that the types of writing templates they offer help present the writer's ideas as a response to some other person or group. As the authors themselves put it, “Broadly speaking, academic writing is argumentative writing, and we believe that to argue well you need to do more than assert your own ideas. You need to enter a conversation, using what others say (or might say) as a launching pad or sounding board for your own ideas.” Although some people believe "...in order to succeed academically you need to play it safe and avoid controversy in your writing, making statements that nobody can possibly disagree with", Graff and Birkenstein insist that this type of writing "... is actually a recipe for flat, lifeless writing, and for writing that fails to answer what we call the 'so what?' and 'who cares?' questions." In sum, hen, their view is that a writer needs to mix a little bit of argument in with their writing, something that not everyone can agree with, to make their writing interesting. As well, they feel that the writer needs to speak not only their own viewpoints, but use points from other's arguments and works as a base for the writer's own work.

I agree with the authors. In my view, the types of templates that the authors recommend would work well for for almost all pieces, though I have already used numerous templates they suggested for my writing. For instance, "I've always believed that..." is a template that I know I have used in different essays throughout my educational career thus far. The authors give these templates, though some of them seem to be common sense. Perhaps I just had the luck of going to a public school with an excellent Literature and English Department. In addition, some of the templates in their "Templates for Introducing 'Standard Views'" section seem to be common sense as well. Some might object, of course, on the grounds that templates are very straightforward and they have problems recognizing that the templates can be formed to be used in almost any writing situation necessary. Yet I would argue that, with a little bit of though put into the process, a student can store these templates in their memory as a guideline for whenever they need to be used. Overall, then, I believe Graff and Birkenstein have created a book that will make it easier for students to write well-presented arguments and more interesting papers—an important point to make, given that our Composition 2000 class is based on writing argumentative and interesting pieces.

Journal - 3

They have to adapt their styles of writing and reading for the areas of academic interest according to each different University. A student needs to be able to change their work styles according to the area they are working within. A student in a Liberal Arts University will have a different environment than a student working in a Sciences University. Students need to be able change their style of writing according to the University and type of material they are learning. You have to know the history of the field and know people to be able to fake knowing information about certain academic areas, and have know the right “lingo” used and the different ways people act in certain areas of expertise. The students also have to realize that they are understanding material, not being original in gaining knowledge of each different field. You have to act like you know the material well and present your audience with a sense of ease and comfort in the subject.
The football player feels that his creativity is shown through wearing white socks instead of black socks. As well, he feels that everyone else follows him in changing their sock color and that the creativity of wearing white socks instead of black should be credited to the person who changed first - him. The musician seems to be a bit more creative and energetic in the way she told about her musical experiences. Personally, it seems incredibly more unique and creative to me that this girl composed her own music pieces despite how people may have reacted to her. It is a lot easier for someone to change the color of their socks rather than creating a musical composition. Moreover, the boy with the white socks only give one meek definition of "creativity", while the musician girl gives a complex, various definition of the same word.

Articles About Cell Phone Usage While Driving

http://www.webmd.com/news/20000224/cell-phone-use-while-driving-increases-crash-risk

http://www.iii.org/media/hottopics/insurance/cellphones/

http://mobileoffice.about.com/cs/traveladvice/qt/usingcellphone.htm

http://www.ghsa.org/html/stateinfo/laws/cellphone_laws.html

Workshop 1 - Expertise and Interests

Expertise in:

• Rowing
• Exercising/Working Out
• Reading
• Cooking
• Driving
• Music - Singing
• Piano
• Restaurants
• Fishing
• Making String Bracelets
• Painting Nails
• Spanish
• Beachgoing
• Camping

Interested in:

• Music
• Working
• Psychology
• The Holocaust
• Animals
• Books
• Surfing
• Skating

Toulmin Analysis of an Argument

The Case Against the Death Penalty - Hugo Adam Bedau

CLAIM: the death penalty is wrong

DATA: executions cost more than life in prison, does not make crime rates decrease, violates international human rights laws

WARRANT: innocent people may be wrongly accused, against some religions, killing is wrong, not practiced in many sophisticated societies, promotes killing as an OK solution to difficult problems, death sentences are not handled in a fair manner

GROUNDS: many death-row inmates do not have proper lawyers, inmates may be found innocent after death

BACKING: same as above (certain statistics provided on website, as well as factual information to back up the grounds and warrant)

QUALIFIER: none given

CONDITIONS OF REBUTTAL: factual information, statistics, and court cases are all referred to, giving the argument a stronger background against rebuttal; different cases are given where people who had extreme mental illnesses or were already dying received the death penalty, as opposed to other cases where people openly admitted to killing many people and still only received life in prison; this page lists all the reasons why people should be against the death penalty

http://www.antideathpenalty.org/reasons.html

Journal Entry - 1

The claim of this argument is that gay and lesbian couples should not be able to marry. This claim, presented by author Eddie Thompson, is a claim of value. As a claim of value, it expresses disapproval of the idea of gay and lesbian marriage as well as the author's opinion that this type of marriage is wrong.
Evidence used to support this claim includes opinions mixed with facts. Thompson uses the idea that there are restrictions on marriage for everyone - polygamy, incest, age restrictions, etc. He uses this to support his point that restrictions on marriage do not accommodate everyone and are put in place for a reason. Moreover, Thompson says that gay and lesbian couple have exactly the same rights as everyone else, due to the fact that they have the same opportunity to marry a person of the opposite sex. If they are granted the right to marry each other, he says that they are earning extra rights over everyone else. He also says that the idea of marriage of same-sex couples is wrong in all religions, in the eyes of almost all of society, and in the evolutionary course of nature itself.
While there are a few more "facts" that Eddie Thompson uses to support his claim that same-sex couples should not be allowed the right to marry. The evidence used to support the claim does not seem to be the strongest, however. Many of the points that Thompson used could be argued very easily, or seem to be based on opinion with a small amount of factual information.

http://www.authorsden.com/categories/article_top.asp?catid=23&id=13199