Factness: fact of facts.

Whom could I talk to who could provide me with information that has factness about this question?What could I read that would provide me with information that has factness about this question? What else could I do besides talk to people and read to acquire information or factness about this question? (Jolliffe 75)


What question needs factness? For in fact, a question is no fact, it is a merely the quest of answering the question, and therefor, discovering the fruitful nature of truth.

1) Anyways, I could find information regarding factness from many sources. Being that my topic is political discourse, and more specifically, rhetoric, I could ask many sources including but not limitted to: political theorists(if I could locate one), professors of politics, law makers, rhetoric instructors(English-Comp) and even philosophers. These people and more could definitely help provide the factness I need for my research.

2) Reading is a great way to learn. As I'm sure most of my peers would agree, our entire research is dependent upon what texts we can find. For my topic, I think the best types of sources would be other research papers. Ideally, I would like to draw upon research that has already been done so that I could further it with my own. I could also turn to historical documents, documents containing subliminal clues to how political discourse has evolved. I may also be inclined to dust off the archaic books of the first political philosophers and founders of rhetoric. Everyone from Plato to Aristotle to more modern names like Trimbur, Royser, and O'Rourke(shout out).

3) What else could I do to discover factness? Well, the first thing that comes to mind is to explore what is known to not be fact, or that which is known to be false. I'm not entirely sure how best to go about this without said methords, but I could try drawing information from other media sources such as radio and TV. I could also cross reference two or more sources, looking for logic, and rational congruency. If two sources are talking about the same thing, but stating different facts about both, that would be a clear signal that something is false. My objective would then be to discover which parts from which sources are wrong.

I don't know. That's all I have right now.

Collaboration is bad?

Trimbur's article critsizes collaborative learning. He notes that group think/talk supresses individualistic creations and conditions learners to conform. I think this is a very good point. Especially in the compositional field, individual thoughts and opinions are essential; stylystically- how would things be if everyone was writing about the same kinds of things, in the same kind of way? He seems to be suggesting that collaborative learning and group think debases subjectivity. Maybe not to the extent of internalized thought, but moreover, in a way that facilitates almost a 'hive' like thinking.
I have to say, this is one of the more interesting articles I've read. I think its important for academia and theorists alike to sometimes go against the grain, raising new issues and questions for others to consider. I wouldn't go as far to say that Trimbur is exactly right as his notions are more extreme predicitions than what would probably be realistic happenings. First of all, so much of the way we learn is through experience and the happenings of everyday life. This type of vivid experience is sheer fact and certainly individualistic. I think that if all learning was in fact collaborative, everything about our world around us would change. Culture would have to be collectivist in nature, and law would most likely be a product of a socialist society.

Revisiting the Inquiry Project.

When people consider my topic, the first thing that comes to their minds is probably a feeling of disgust. I don't think most people like the muddiness of political discourse. One of the biggest issues regarding it is probably corruption, or corruptability. How much of political discourse is just 'fluff', or deceitful. What techniques might one master to acheive these kinds of dark rhetoric? How and why has it come to be what we know it as?
I think these questions would differ from the scholarly discourse community. Most scholars would probably agree the political language, at its core, is in fact an art form. It's not all lies and cover-ups, and even still, it takes knowledge to master. I think it is universally accepted that political discourse is a form of rhetoric. It is a dirty discourse because once mastered, it used to woo and sway the masses for good and bad reasons, even if contradicting the principles which supported it. I think most people would say political discourse, or rhetoric, is not taught thoroughly enough even through the college level. Unless you're majoring in English, Composition, or communication, most people will never really know what it actually is.

Most of the people that produce text about my topic are politicians; be they theorists, professors, or acting party members. Objectively, I think the goal of political discourse is to persaude rather than inform. But on a much more subjective level I think writer's of political discourse are flexing their own muscles, so they themselves may be affected. Supporting such a notion may seem groundless, but when examining any political text, one is often left with the sense that it is deeply personal.

Exploration Appropriation

1: Political Discourse as a discipline
2. I often find myself motivated by good politics, and it keeps my involved. I want to know why- what makes this kind of discouse different than typical rhetorical messages ect.
3. I believe Political Language is different than regular discourse. Although it uses aspects of pathos, ethos, and logos- there is some other kind of intangible aspect that goes into a good political message, be it a canidacy speech to a state of the union adress. I believe that some politicians are endowed with this special kind of voice that connects with his/her audience.
4. What knowledge do you already have about this topic? Not much. I know that it uses pathos, ethos, and logos. I know that there is a special articulation used, a special way words, voice, and audience are selected.
5. What are your main questions about this topic? What are you most curious about?
I'm interested in the way Political Discourse is interpreted by audiences. How does Political language channel messages? What makes for good political composition, how is it evaluated? What is it about this kind of discipline that influence people and ideas? What connects one idea to entire societies? What is the relationship between this discipline and political awareness in general?
6. How might composition theorists and researchers approach or study this topic? Does this approach differ from those of other related disciplines (such as communication studies)?
I think the best research for this kind of topic is both in historical documents and contemperary observations. By comparing what has been done and what is being done, enough knowledge can be gained to answer some questions. I think it is important to specifically examine notorious documents and speeches to see what parallels can be drawn from them. I think the findings are best analyzed via comp theory, comm theory, and political theory methods; because in this case they are intertwined.
7. How could you research this topic outside the library (for example, through interviews and/or observations)? I could interview people from the world around me, asking them about what makes a good political message: Why do they come to support/believe the things they do? I could observe political debates, the feedback, and the professional analysis that follows suit.

Part II: FocusingWrite an initial claim, or an open-ended question, to guide your research on this topic. Make it specific but exploratory. Remember that a good claim opens up an area of inquiry about a topic; a claim should invite evidence, support, and debate.

Political Discourse is a means of rhetorical langauge. It is a unique kind of language because it's meaningmight often be assigned after the message is already delivered; via how it is interpreted by audiences from a wide variety of backgrounds and beliefs. What makes political discourse a discipline in terms of three elements: composition, communication, and politics.



if ANYONE has any ideas, thoughts, or feedback please let me know. I know I want to explore this topic, but im not entirely sure on what I want to specifically focus on. As of right now, I just have general ideas. Your opinions would be appreciated!

in class writing: 10/17/07

I can't really think of anything specific which would illustrate Royster's point. Ihave never been involved in such a discourse which crosses communal boundaries. Instead, I can say that my only subjective violations in the academic setting have occured when my morality has been challenged. So I guess in some small way, this eludes to what Royster is getting at. I have never left America and therefore, am not myself a minority here. My ethnic roots can be traced back to Ireland and Germany, but what is to say about that? Not much. I know that many of my relatives may have probably experienced what Royster refers to, but this still does not put me into a posture in which I can empathetically understand. Although I thought her article was at times counter-productive,I understand what her point is. No, I have never experienced the kind of violation she refers to, suffice to say that I do someday wish to experience it.

To answer your questions, I think her experiences reveal the obvious for me. That people can always be subdivided into different vocal communities, by which discourse outside of the communities may go misunderstood. Conversely, the community itself will be subjected to academic shelling. That difference however, I believe, should not be discarded as wasteful. Despite the subjective harm that may come from such a violation, I think it is what makes society great. I believe that this is how we learn to understand each other, and in doing so, human nature. This is what is to be gained. It is only lost if we neglect the things we experience or the stories were hear- this is what we all have to contribute to the "academic discourse community".

It's a Royster thing.

From what I Gathered, Jacqueline Jones Royster’s “When the First Voice You Hear is Not Your Own,” was more about communication than writing. Specifically, she addresses the problems and broken chords that exist between cross cultural discourse; the communities in which we live. She questions the validity of people who do not belong to a particular community writing about others that are within that community, or the community as a whole. This is not only something that exists(or doesn't) between borders of country, but other things that separate people from one another such as race and religion. I found this part of article to be controversial in that she exemplifies being African-American, and goes on to say that she doesn't really consider what Caucasians have to say about her race. She feels their interpretations will be suspect and fallacious because they do not exist with-in her community. Although she has a point, I thought it was ironic because it is exactly this kind of thought which seems to divide us; as it totally ignores the broader perspective. The broader perspective being; that although one may be African American- that person is still American, and belongs too a much larger community. She fails to clarify these kinds of things, I found this part of her article to be less than professional.
She does go on to say that there are possible ways to make discourse universal. She describes how communications styles are all but too specific, and to be generalized for a broader community. She seems occupied with the notion that people are incompetent communicators, that too often people are speaking and not listening. This creates poor understanding between people of different discourse communities and thus is why there exists broken discourse.


I don't know. I didn't really like her article. She made some interesting points, but I thought a lot of them go without saying. The cultural boundaries, invisible borders, and language barriers that divide communities are not the reason for poor communication. Poor communication exists because people in general are too often ignorant and self centralized to understand the realms of foreign communities. It is the same reason why segregations have existed since the dawn of man. This is what I thought she was trying to say many times, but instead, just beat around the bush.

Bloggng Bizzel*

Bizzel's Cognition, Convention, Certainty has to do with how writing relates to thinking. In this sense, the focus of the article is an exploration into how thinking is related to writing- not so much as to why or what writing is(as we have been previously studying).

According to Bizzel, composition and cognition are binded by three seperate but related capacities. Cognition says that we all have the capability to learn language-that it is innate, convention says this our social usage of this langauge leads to group conventions, and lastly certainity is reached because this social and cognitive langauge brings all discourse together.
For me, the most interesting part of the article came about when she discussed the two ways of thinking in terms of how this social discourse is related to writing and composition.
The inner-directed theory suggeststhe earliest stage, cognition, is the only developmental aspect in composition that is innate; and because of this, all students must have developed this process before they can move on to more complex things-such as addressing the audience.
The outer-directed way of thinking says that all language learning is sharpened in a social context; that all learning is collaborative. They say the most important thing a compsotion teacher can teach his students is that writing is discourse, and that both exist in social communities for the worthy.

Bizzel does not specifically say what theory, inner or outer is better suited for compositional education and theory. Rather, she seems to suggest that elements of both idea camps can be extracted to benefit one another- and the process as a whole. Conversely, she does go as far to criticize the inner-directed mode for being "insensitive to poor writers" because as Flower and Haye's suggest, writing problems exist because of student's cognitive deficiances. Bizzel believes that because the cognition aspect is innate, writing problems can be pinned to the learned aspect of discourse itself.

I found this article somewhat comfusing because of its complex nature. I did however, understand the core concepts which she discussed, and more applicably, related to the nature of writing. Cognition, Convention, and Certainity is an interesting way to approach writing because of its broad and inner-connected way of explaining how cognitive processes lead to composition. But how does this process happen? Bizzel would say that it is an innate process started in the cognition phase, and leads to her social communities. But why? Bizzel has already addressed how, but why or what motivates this innate developement? What brings us to the discouse convention, what goals motivate us to shape our compositional motors.

Flower and Hayes: Cognitive Theory explorations

I found The floower and Hayes' article to be enriching because it specifically addresses a cognitive process. Although it is a personal view, its clearly defined concepts were easy for me make sense of. In summary, Flower and Hayes have theorized the process through 4 main principles, these being: the process of writing is best understood as a set of distinctive thinking processes which writers organize during the act of composing, these processes have a hierarchical organization in which any given process can be contained in any other, the act of composing itself is a goal-directed process determined by the author, writers create their own goals two different way: by generating high-level goals and supporting goals, and by changing/remaking goals based on what has been learned .(thanks to Katie for the specifics, I looked at her post!). Moreover, these points seem to exist in realm of three core foundations, as I like to think of them. The task environment, which is the where it happens; the writer's long-term memory, and the writing process; which is the closest thing to what we have been studying lately. A closer looks at these foundations reveals several important assumption(not proofs!):
First, every successive word used in writing, will help determine what word comes next. Obviously, in terms of what is pertinent and practical. Secondly, the writer stores knowledge of audience and writing plans in his long term-memory. This helps the writer improve upon what he/she has already written, both in content and the way it is addressed. Flower and Hayes take up two main issues with long-term memory. Finally, Flower and Hayes say that planning, translating, and teviewing is all apart of one process of which writers internalize all the arbitary symbols by which they will communicate their thoughts . Furthermore, during the writing process, writers are constantly monitoring and revising their works, as to decide when and how themes should be transitioned etc.

I thought the article was interesting and specific, which helped me understand what they were trying to depict. I did only read it once, so I also bounced from my classmate's blogs too. It seems the general consensus is that everybody understands. I see this article as applicable enough to most writers, both basic and advanced because it revolves includes elements that all writers have or have had. As Flower and Hayes seem to suggest, there seems to be specific ways that all writers go about their cognitive process; yet these ways are certainly up to interpretation; because after all, we're talking about theory.

Invoked thought: bastard discours and more

Beginning writers usually encounter an obstacle in their composition in that they are not entirely sure in which voice to speak in. In Bartholomae's article, he states that beginning writers must in a way, mimic the voice of experienced writers- but most can not do this. Instead, in creates an akward and imbalanced sense or tone for the reader, which makes no inferences to who or what is being invoked, and how the reader should interpret such. He says that many new writers have problems being assertive and taking a voice of their own, especially in argumentive or persausive papers- which may often times go against the voice of the professor or the class opinion. They don't feel compftorable lecturing. Like I noted before, Bartholamae says that this inexperience can be compensated by simply faking or mimicing a voice.
I agree with this notion. Often times before I have written, I find myself examining similiar compositions. Not only because I am seeking information but also checking to see if the voice I have written in or the the voice I seekto write in is in harmony with something I know is already a successful mode to address the audience, while keeping it a voice of my own.