BLOGGING SCHEDULE

Hello, Everyone:

Here is our blogging schedule as it stands:

• 1/15 - Alex, Cassandra, Rachel C., Tyler
• 1/22 - Alex, Anneleise, Annette, Austin, Chris, Donovan, Erik, Joey, Lindsey, Nate, Rachel Y.
• 1/29 - Amanda, Brittany S., Catalina, Corey, Jenn, Jordan, Katherine, Nick, Rachel C.
• 2/12 - Brittany M., Brittany S., Donovan, Erik, Joey, Joseph, Nick, Rachel Y., Shay, Stacey
• 2/21 - Annette, Austin, Cassandra, Danae, Lindsey, Katherine, Morgan, Vanessa
• 3/21 - Anneleise, Danae, Joseph, Morgan, Nate, Shay, Tyler, Vanessa
• 4/2 - Amanda, Brittany M., Catalina, Chris, Corey, Jenn, Jordan, Stacey

If you are one of Tuesday's bloggers, be sure to read carefully through our shared <guidelines>, so that you do your very best on your post. You are, to some degree, a discussion leader through your blogging, and your blog post is, to some degree, formal writing, so your readers are willing to have you educate and engage them. If you have specific questions about the blog (e.g., genre, format, content, etc.) feel free to e-mail me.

If you are one of Tuesday's respondents, remember that the <guidelines> apply to your responses as well, since I am asking for the equivalent of a well-articulated and thoughtful post, even though you will be "commenting" to someone else's post. You should plan to have the texts at hand so you can quote specifically (if needed), cite page numbers, and get names and details as accurately as possible. These are all important aspects of communicating publicly and we're hoping to build good habits early.

And finally, remember that your first blog post should appear on your own blog, and not on the course blog. So, if you have not yet sent me the  URL for your new blog, please do so ASAP so that I can post it in the right-hand navigation bar. Otherwise, your classmates will not know where to go to read your post.

Do well, but have fun with it!

-Prof. Graban

PREPARATION FOR 1/15 (GRANT-DAVIE & BAZERMAN)

Hello, Everyone:

I thank you for an engaging discussion today, as we just scratched the surface on what it means (or can mean) to analyze and theorize a whole discourse situation, taking into account text, context, intertext, metatext, and network. Next week, the fun truly begins, as we move fairly quickly into thinking about principles underlying the various spheres we will study, and how those principles are enacted through logic, language, and other things. As you work your way through Grant-Davie's discussion of "rhetorical constituents" and Charles Bazerman's demonstration of "intertextuality," try to be mindful of how they are communicating such abstract concepts to us. They work hard at it, and I think they make them fairly accessible.

Here are some discussion questions that may help you read in advance of Tuesday's class:

1. Grant-Davie seems to be interested in something he calls "causality," or "the extent to which the world is not chaotic, but ordered, a place where actions follow patterns and things happen for good reasons" (264). He also tells us that his preference -- as a writing professor -- is to help students develop "a stronger basis for making composing decisions" and for understanding the decisions of other writers (264). How does he argue for this, i.e., what can you locate as his main claims (or evidences)?
2. Why do you think Grant-Davie uses "constituents," and not "subjects" or "agents"? I imagine terminology matters in an article like this one. So I'll be interested in seeing you identify any new terms (to you), or terms whose usage in this article is unfamiliar to you. Look them up and try to understand their purpose in this article.
3. Bazerman describes six kinds of intertextual techniques (which is a pretty good list) (88-90). Thinking deeply about other texts you have read, composed, encountered, or edited, I wonder what other techniques you might add to this list? It's possible that your own examples would still be subsumed under his six techniques, but I'm curious whether we can imagine a text situation that inspires us to name a new technique, one not already thought of, or to describe its intertextuality in different ways.
4. Now do the same of what he describes as "levels of intertextuality" (86-88). What constitutes a "level"?
5. In the final part of his article ("Further Reading"), Bazerman names the theorists who have influenced the concept of "intertext," raising some interesting concerns about origins of ideas, authorship, readership, and audience construction. In class, I'll ask us to think about how these roles (and situations) can get complicated through intertextuality.
6. Does Bazerman's "intertextuality" in any way complicate -- or clarify -- the distinctions between Grant-Davie's terms (exigence, rhetor, audience, constraint)?

-Prof. Graban

PREPARATION FOR THURSDAY 1/10

Hello, everyone.

In preparation for Thursday's class, I have asked you to take care of these small -- but important -- tasks:

• print out, fill out, and bring to class the "questionnaire" (in our Blackboard "Course Handouts" folder) -- apologies for department copier being down!;
• accept my invitation to our course blog (you'll get this in an e-mail);
• <set up> your own blog (get as far as you can, referring to the 3-minute tutorial courtesy of Ms. Spiezo);
• send me an e-mail with your top 3 preferences for <blogging> dates (see the syllabus to get a sense of what we're reading when); 
• compose a "Goals" letter (bring 2 copies to Thursday's class). 

I look forward to continuing our discussion on Thursday!

-Prof. Graban