“This thing called “analysis & rhetorical situation awareness. What is that?”
And you know what – that’s a great question.
The assessment you filled in uses some really highfalutin’ words. It kind of reminds me of this (bear with me as you read, and rest assured, there’s more where this came from):
Recent research into the role of first-year writing reveals that first-year writing courses are best used to encourage meta-awareness of the genres, contexts, and audiences that writers encounter in college (see Anne Beaufort, Writing in College and Beyond). English 101, which the great majority of incoming students take their first or second semester in college, serves as an important introduction to the culture of the academy—its habits of mind, conventions, and responsibilities. Its central purpose is to immerse students in the writing, reading, and thinking practices of their most immediate community: the university. Students explore how literacy works, both within the academic and without, through extensive inquiry-based writing.
When I first read this a few years ago, my reaction – after seven years of college, ten years as a journalist and about eight years as a technical writer – was “Huh?”
What is “meta-awareness”? What is “the culture of the academy,” let alone the academy’s “habits of mind”? And does literacy really function all that differently “within the academy” as it does “without”?
One thing should stand out in that paragraph: English 101.
This is a real introduction to a real English 101 course, just like the one you’re taking. Now, I’m not going to say that BYU-Idaho’s English 101 course introduction is all that clear and helpful (as many of you have expressed already). But this? It hurts to read it. Because its writers aren’t fully aware of the rhetorical situation they’re in.
There’s that scary phrase again: Rhetorical situation awareness.
So what is rhetorical situation awareness?
Simply put, it’s an agreement between readers and writers.
Readers agree to read the entire text, to work to understand it – by looking up words they don’t understand, like “meta-awareness” – and by considering in what situation the text and information provided by the author is best understood.
Writers agree to consider who their readers are most likely to be and to write to those readers. That does not mean writers need to dumb things down or make themselves sound smart – but it does mean different readers have different expectations and willingness to comprehend, so not all readers will like or understand what they read.
The important thing to remember about rhetorical situation awareness as a writer is to know who your readers are most likely to be and what information they’re going to need to understand what you write.
Had this English 101 introduction been written with students in mind, it might have sounded like this:
English 101, which most incoming students take in their first or second semester in college, is an important introduction to writing. By taking this course, students will gain a greater understanding of various types of writing and the types of readers they’ll encounter both in college and in the world beyond.
So what does this all mean to you?
It means if you’re writing about the National Football League, you take a few brief moments to define the jargon you use, identify who plays for which team as you mention people, and in other ways offer little bits of context and hints to your readers so they don’t get so lost in trying to remember who Colin Kaepernick is or what down by contact means (my son, the resident football nut, says that means if a player catches a ball and stumbles to the ground but is touched by another player, the player who catches the ball can’t get up and continue running CONTRASTED with the same situation except the player isn’t touched, so he can get up and continue running). (My son also corrected my spelling of Kaepernick.)
It means if I’m writing about the Boy Scouts of America and whether the LDS Church should continue using Scouting as the activity arm of the Aaronic Priesthood, I don’t take it for granted that all of my readers know what Eagle palms are, what takes place at Scout Camp, or how the commemoration of the restoration of the priesthood is part of Scouting in the LDS Church.
But it goes beyond explaining jargon.
If, for example, I knew my readers were primarily NFL nuts like my son, I could leave the jargon intact. I might introduce even more jargon. Or if I knew my readers were going to be primarily LDS Scouters, I wouldn’t have to “slow things down” with explanations – because if I did, my readers would get impatient with me.
Ever read something and found yourself thinking, “I already KNOW this. Get on with it”? That’s a sign that for you, the rhetorical situation the writer conceived when he or she wrote what you’re reading isn’t working for you.
Do you stop reading? Not if you’re a determined reader. But you begin to read the signs. If the writer begins to explain something you already know, you skim. Sometimes skimming pays off and you get to the stuff you want to know. Other times, you skim right past what might have been valuable, because it’s buried in stuff that’s not.
Rhetorical situation awareness is a complicated thing. That’s why we need a phrase like “rhetorical situation awareness” to describe it.
I know it’s a lot to throw at you. But it’s part of becoming a better writer.
Now, analysis.
Which is what we’ve done here for a while. We looked at that English 101 syllabus, explored why it’s important to what we’re talking about here, and then provided other examples of how that importance translates to other topics.
What does that mean to you?
It means when you quote Colin Kaepernick, or an LDS general authority talking about Scouting, you don’t just offer the quote and keep on writing. You analyze for your reader why you included that quote, that statistic, that bit of information, so your readers can see the connection you’re making.
If you don’t explain to your readers why you’re including the information you are, they’ll guess. And they might come to different conclusions than you intended, miss your point entirely, and decide your conclusions, like Dr. Venkman’s are highly questionable.
Dean Yeager certainly made it clear in his analysis of the Ghostbusters where they stood in his eyes – there was no room for interpretation.
No comments:
Post a Comment