Presentation on theme: "Going deep Ceresta Smith, NBCT. Expressive writing is focused on the writer and her/his experiences, memories, inspirations, creative voice, etc. Argument."— Presentation transcript:
Going deep Ceresta Smith, NBCT
Expressive writing is focused on the writer and her/his experiences, memories, inspirations, creative voice, etc. Argument focuses on the reader, attempting to convince her of something. Analysis, focuses on the issue or topic at hand, seeking to understand it better.
Although there is substantial overlap between expressive, analytical, and argumentative writing, each form has a distinct focus, purpose, and tools. One way to think about it is in terms of the rhetorical triangle. Writer –Centered (expressive writing) Subject- Centered (summary and analysis) Reader-Centered (argument/persuasion)
AnalyticalArgumentativeExpressive Topic-centered LogosReader-centered PathosWriter-centered Ethos Offer evidence, make claims about it, and supply reasons that explain and justify the claims. Aimed at understanding evidence. Makes claims about what evidence means. Aimed at using evidence to influence readers. Makes claims about what should be done or believed. Aimed at understanding oneself. Makes personal associations with evidence. Often uses forms other than essay form: poetry, fiction, drama Define, explain, interpretPersuade, evaluateNarrate, describe, express Asks what, why or how questions; “What does x mean?” “How does x do y?” “Why is x the way it is?” “What are the similarities, differences?” Asks should questions: “What should readers believe about x?” Writer is uncertain: begins with something s/he seeks to understand. Writer is relatively certain: begins with something s/he already knows. Writer is inspired Usually begins by laying out the data or details; focuses on a thought process. Usually begins with a position on an issue; focuses on conclusions.
How else can we characterize analysis? The word literally means to take something apart in order to understand it; Aristotle described it as “illumination through disaggregation.” In this sense, analysis is the opposite of synthesis. It is the search for a meaningful pattern in data or evidence. It’s a kind of detective work a writer does about something that s/he finds puzzling. It begins with something one seeks to understand rather than something one already knows or believes. It focuses primarily on logic. It is exploratory, tentative and dispassionate. It encourages readers to think collaboratively with the writer; thus it takes a collegial, non-adversarial tone. It does not focus on the writer (beliefs, personal associations, feelings, or reactions) but rather on the topic. The author remains in the background. The claims it makes are carefully qualified rather than overstated or emphatic. It involves making interpretive leaps about evidence that are supported by logic.
What does X mean? What is the significance of X? What conditions, influences or events caused X to be as it is? How or why did it become what it is? What is the process that led to X? What were the steps in the process? How did that process take place? How could it have happened differently, and what might be the effects of changes to the process? What is the significance of this process? Who is the audience for X? What is that audience’s expectations, and how are those expectations addressed? How does the word “X” work in the text? Does it convey meanings other than its literal definition? Does it mean different things to different audiences? How would the text change if “X” were replaced with a synonym? What caused x event to happen as it did? Where did it happen, who was involved and what was the outcome? What might have caused it to happen differently? What controversies surround the event? What is the effect of X text/film/visual? How does it achieve that effect? What details contribute to the overall effect? Might it have different effects on different audiences? What choices did the author/artist make in order to achieve that effect? What are the various opinions about X? What do they disagree about? Do they share any common assumptions? Is there any overlap between positions? What are the reasons for each opinion? What are the similarities or differences between X and Y?
Focusing on the common central idea, analyze the diversity in technique and voice used in the following texts.
The Dinner Party by Mona Gardner The country is India. A colonial official and his wife are giving a large dinner party. They are seated with their guests—army officers and government attachés and their wives, and a visiting American naturalist—in their spacious dining room, which has a bare marble floor, open rafters and wide glass doors opening onto a veranda.* A spirited discussion springs up between a young girl who insists that women have outgrown the jumping-on-a-chair-at-the-sight-of-a-mouse era and a colonel who says that they haven’t. “A woman’s unfailing reaction in any crisis,” the colonel says, “is to scream. And while a man may feel like it, he has that ounce more of nerve control than a woman has. And that last ounce is what counts.” The American does not join in the argument but watches the other guests. As he looks, he sees a strange expression come over the face of the hostess. She is staring straight ahead, her muscles contracting slightly. With a slight gesture she summons the native boy standing behind her chair and whispers to him. The boy’s eyes widen: he quickly leaves the room. Of the guests, none except the American notices this or sees the boy place a bowl of milk on the veranda just outside the open doors.
The American comes to with a start. In India, milk in a bowl means only one thing— bait for a snake. He realizes there must be a cobra in the room. He looks up at the rafters—the likeliest place—but they are bare. Three corners of the room are empty, and in the fourth the servants are waiting to serve the next course. There is only one place left—under the table. His first impulse is to jump back and warn the others, but he knows the commotion would frighten the cobra into striking. He speaks quickly, the tone of his voice so arresting that it sobers everyone. “I want to know just what control everyone at this table has. I will count to three hundred—that’s five minutes—and not one of you is to move a muscle. Those who move will forfeit fifty rupees. Ready!” The twenty people sit like stone images while he counts. He is saying “... two hundred and eighty...” when, out of the corner of his eye, he sees the cobra emerge and make for the bowl of milk. Screams ring out as he jumps to slam the veranda doors safely shut. “You were right, Colonel!” the host exclaims. “A man has just shown us an example of perfect control.” “Just a minute,” the American says, turning to his hostess. “Mrs. Wynnes, how did you know that cobra was in the room?” A faint smile lights up the woman’s face as she replies: “Because it was crawling across my foot.”
“On Women’s Right to Vote” Susan B. Anthony Friends and fellow citizens: I stand before you tonight under indictment for the alleged crime of having voted at the last presidential election, without having a lawful right to vote. It shall be my work this evening to prove to you that in thus voting, I not only committed no crime, but, instead, simply exercised my citizen's rights, guaranteed to me and all United States citizens by the National Constitution, beyond the power of any state to deny. The preamble of the Federal Constitution says: "We, the people of the United States, in order to form a more perfect union, establish justice, insure domestic tranquility, provide for the common defense, promote the general welfare, and secure the blessings of liberty to ourselves and our posterity, do ordain and establish this Constitution for the United States of America." It was we, the people; not we, the white male citizens; nor yet we, the male citizens; but we, the whole people, who formed the Union. And we formed it, not to give the blessings of liberty, but to secure them; not to the half of ourselves and the half of our posterity, but to the whole people - women as well as men. And it is a downright mockery to talk to women of their enjoyment of the blessings of liberty while they are denied the use of the only means of securing them provided by this democratic-republican government - the ballot. For any state to make sex a qualification that must ever result in the disfranchisement of one entire half of the people, is to pass a bill of attainder, or, an ex post facto law, and is therefore a violation of the supreme law of the land. By it the blessings of liberty are forever withheld from women and their female posterity..
To them this government has no just powers derived from the consent of the governed. To them this government is not a democracy. It is not a republic. It is an odious aristocracy; a hateful oligarchy of sex; the most hateful aristocracy ever established on the face of the globe; an oligarchy of wealth, where the rich govern the poor. An oligarchy of learning, where the educated govern the ignorant, or even an oligarchy of race, where the Saxon rules the African, might be endured; but this oligarchy of sex, which makes father, brothers, husband, sons, the oligarchs over the mother and sisters, the wife and daughters, of every household - which ordains all men sovereigns, all women subjects, carries dissension, discord, and rebellion into every home of the nation. Webster, Worcester, and Bouvier all define a citizen to be a person in the United States, entitled to vote and hold office. The only question left to be settled now is: Are women persons? And I hardly believe any of our opponents will have the hardihood to say they are not. Being persons, then, women are citizens; and no state has a right to make any law, or to enforce any old law, that shall abridge their privileges or immunities. Hence, every discrimination against women in the constitutions and laws of the several states is today null and void, precisely as is every one against Negroes
How else can we characterize argument? Aristotle, perhaps the most famous arguer, described three routes to change the mind of the other person. Ethos (ethical) Ethos uses trust, and focuses first on the speaker. showing the speaker as a person of integrity and good character. Pathos (emotional) Pathos appeals to the emotions of the listener, seeking to excite them or otherwise arouse their interest. Logos (logical) Logos focuses first on the argument, using cool logic and rational explanation, as well as demonstrable evidence The argumentative essay is a genre of writing that requires the student to investigate a topic; collect, generate, and evaluate evidence; and establish a position on the topic in a concise manner.
Argumentative essay assignments generally call for extensive research of literature or previously published material. Argumentative assignments may also require empirical research where the student collects data through interviews, surveys, observations, or experiments. Detailed research allows the student to learn about the topic and to understand different points of view regarding the topic so that she/he may choose a position and support it with the evidence collected during research. Regardless of the amount or type of research involved, argumentative essays must establish a clear thesis and follow sound reasoning. Moreover, they include a nice balance of logos, ethos, and pathos. The structure of the argumentative essay is held together by the following: A clear, concise, and defined thesis statement (claim or position) that occurs in the first paragraph of the essay. Clear and logical transitions between the introduction, body, and conclusion. Body paragraphs that include evidential support for the claim. (Note: A successful and well-rounded argumentative essay will also discuss opinions not aligning with the thesis. It is unethical to exclude evidence that may not support the thesis. It is not the student’s job to point out how other positions are wrong outright, but rather to explain how other positions may not be well informed or up to date on the topic.). A conclusion that does not simply restate the thesis, but readdresses it in light of the evidence provided.
What is it, and how do we avoid it?
“Fighting plagiarism “Fighting plagiarism is serious business. From brainchild-snatching to wholly quotables, plagiarists have plenty of wily ways to pass others' work off as their own -- and all of them are threats to original thinking. Melissa Huseman D'Annunzio imagines what would happen if a Department of Plagiarism Investigation were on the case.” ( Click on purple type to view video.)
We avoid setting students up to plagiarize by ensuring the following: Students have ample background knowledge and understanding of the topic. They have adequate time to write. They have appropriate understanding and the technical know-how to cite sources when using direct quotes and when paraphrasing the ideas and examples of others.
FYI MLA and APA Templates are available in Microsoft Word by clicking on the following: File, New, and writing in APA or MLA in the space named “Search office.com for templates” on the Available Template page.
Expressive writing is anything you want it to be: a poem, a short story, a play script, a game plan, etc. While there are often set forms for expressive writing, it can also be free to go where imagination takes it!
D'Annunzio, Melissa H. "The Punishable Perils of Plagiarism - Melissa Huseman D'Annunzio." YouTube. YouTube, 14 June 2013. Web. Rosenwasser, David, Doug Babington, and Jill Stephen. Writing Analytically: With Readings. Toronto: Nelson, 2 nd edition, 2012. Print. “The Dinner Party” by Mona Gardner from The Saturday Review of Literature, vol. 25, no. 5, January 31, 1941. "The History Place - Great Speeches Collection: Susan B. Anthony Speech - Women's Right to Vote." The History Place - Great Speeches Collection: Susan B. Anthony Speech - Women's Right to Vote. N.p., n.d. Web. "Welcome to the Purdue OWL." Purdue OWL: Essay Writing. N.p., 10 Mar. 2013. Web.