All semester we've been engaging with unfamiliar terms in the world of comp/rhet. Here's a few I still don't know how to define. And I think it's worth noting - I'm just as interested in what you recall that we've discussed SURROUNDING these terms in class as I am a definition of them:
1. Intertextuality
Google tells me this is the relationship between texts.
2. Knowledge
3. Social construction
4. Style
How do y'all define style? Is it related to voice?
5. Self/Subject
Leah (H.) was kind enough to make a Google Doc that we've been contributing to throughout the semester. Rich has also linked it in the top of his syllabus. For those of you who haven't yet, please contribute to the Google Doc! We need all of your brilliance to fill in these terms.
Google Doc Link
Self/Subject: me. I am the reader. I am the writer. I am the idea. I am the topic. I am the subject. I am myself. (I am Meghan Self :) )
ReplyDeleteAhaha, I should have anticipated this!
DeleteSocial construction is the idea that knowledge exists "outside" the knower, in dialogues and relationships. (Bruffee? A little Berlin?)
ReplyDeleteSocial construction is also the idea that the written language is a reflection of the historical/social/political narrative of the time.
DeleteGonna try and tackle intertextuality!
ReplyDeleteSo, I've only studied the term as it relates to hypertextuality (yeah, another one), which is looking at how webpages interconnect/inform one another. For example, think of a Wikipedia page, I will use the one for turnips as a starting point. Hypertextuality would be looking at what links are included in the turnip page (e.g. root vegetable, rapini, temperate climates) and how clicking those links would contribute to the understanding of turnip. Basically, how does understanding one text (let's go with "root vegetables") inform our understanding of another ("turnip" ... ah, a turnip is a root vegetable. Fascinating.)
A better idea would be looking at lit and film I think. So like, we know Harry Potter's main meanings because it evokes a lot of Lord of the Rings themes/motifs/characters. Just like we can understand Lord of the Rings a little better because we know that Harry Potter is a stand-in for Frodo, Dumbledore for Gandolf, etc.
Or if we look at Star Wars and Joe Campbell's Hero's Journey and US Western movies together.
Or Ulysses and The Odyssey.
Uh, basically if we compare/contrast/parallel texts, we have a better idea of both. Kind of like a dialectic, but for artifacts.
For Style (I might be wrong on this), but I think we can connect it to different styles of writing like writing in Standard American English or inviting the mother tongue like Elbow suggests.
ReplyDeleteIt can also apply to the positivist/current-traditional group of ideology which values rhetoric as having a particular arrangement and style that connects with the audience.
It can also apply to grammar and a standard set of rules you have to follow to achieve a certain style.
I hope this helps!