How to Make Key Rhetorical and Intellectual Moves in Expert Writing

In UW20 student-writers are asked to make complex intellectual, analytical, and rhetorical moves in their thinking and writing. Often our everyday language forms are not particularly well suited to such tasks as handling multiple perspectives at once, to forging connections between abstractions and examples, synthesizing ideas from a matrix of sources.

Fortunately, discourse communities (like disciplines, professions, and fields of study) develop specialized traditions of language used to do this complex kind of communicative work. Part of what UW20 students learn is how to recognize, appropriate, and revise these specialized language forms for their own expert writing situations.

The following post provides sample language templates developed by UW20 Professors Eric Drown and Rachel Riedner (inspired by and in dialogue with Graff's and Birkenstein's They Say/I Say) to handle some of the more frequently encountered rhetorical situations that will arise in argumentative writing.

Note: Some instructors may be concerned that such templates might stifle students' originality or do too much of the hard work of thinking for them. We disagree. Professor Drown agrees that "students should think for themselves, but I don't think these templates do the thinking for the students. I'm persuaded by my experience that these templates help students in the ways described by Birkenstein and Graff: which is to help them "bring out aspects of their thought" that they wouldn't have recognized without the templates' prompt. I think these sentence-forms give order to student's ideas, invite students to question their beliefs, and to situate their ideas in relationship to the ideas of others. What the templates do is make key rhetorical moves available to students in way that enables them to develop their ideas in much the same ways more seasoned scholars do."

Professor Riedner uses these templates in her UW20 classes not as formulas but as exercises to begin the writing process. The templates get students to recognize moves of academic writing and to make explicit how they're working with the writing of other authors. Professor Riedner stresses that as students develop their ideas and develop their own language, they should move beyond the templates.

Arguing for an approach to your material and setting up an argument (that will emerge in the paper). These sentences could be worked into an introductory section of a research paper, helping you set up what the paper is doing, what your approach adds to existing knowledge on your subject, and why your approach is important. A strong argument makes a claim that requires analysis to support and evolve and offers some point about the significance of your evidence. It promotes thinking, prompts further questions and draws attention to specifics. It often tends to “push back” against a different view of the topic.

Describing your topic: I am studying __________, in order to learn/explain ___________, which is significant because _________. NOT: I’m “doing” X.

Justifying your approach: I approach [my material/object of study]___ [in this specific way] _______ to support and expand points about the significance of ________. My approach allows us to see evidence __________, prompting further questions about _________ and drawing attention to ________. As a result, my work expands/challenges/argues against _______ view of evidence, and allows us to see ________ [that may have not been considered or understood before].

Developing your ideas and claims: These strategies allow you to produce analysis and develop arguments based on your analysis. These strategies can help you work rigorously with your evidence, help you explain how you’re interpreting it, how you’re adding to existing analysis, how you’re developing key ideas and concepts, how you’re contributing to existing scholarship and knowledge on your subject.

Complication: This explanation gets us __ [only so far] __ as we try to explain [whatever it is we’re explaining]. ___ [Key pieces of evidence] __ don’t fit this explanation in ___ [this particular way] __. Consequently, [Reformulate the argument in light of this]. Repeat.

Complication: Unfortunately, what I have just said is not enough to explain _______. To adequately understand _____, we’ll have to consider ________. Or, The case isn’t so simple, rather _______.

Querying key terms: [These key terms in my argument] __ need to be queried because ___ . Having developed these terms, [reformulate the argument and retest against evidence analyzed in the new terms].

Considering argument as part of something larger: While it may appear that _________ are insignificant, when understood as________, they [significance of new understanding].

Reformulate argument by refusing to go along with the conventional wisdom: Most commentators on ______ tend towards [their understanding] ________. If we consider it in [different] _________ terms, it becomes possible to generate such new insights as _________.

Clarification: Although it might appear that I am saying ________, I really mean ________. Or, Said another way, _________.

Definition/Redefinition: Although this term is usually understood in this [simple] way __________, in the context of my work it means this [more complex, nuanced, specific, specialized thing] __________ . This more subtle meaning is important because ____________.

Introducing and exiting a quote: According to X, a scholar of [source of authority], ________ [paraphrase of the larger argument of the quoted piece]. In “___title___” she writes: _____________. What she means in the context of this paper is _______. If X is right about ______, then __[return to your own ideas considered in light of the quote or as a way to redirect the insights of the quote] ___.

Attributing Sources: According to X, ________. In historian X’s view, ________. In “title of piece,” essayist X argues that “__________.”

Revealing an implication: [Following a discussion of specific details in a writer’s piece] These details add up to the unstated assumption that _________. Or, Although X doesn’t say so explicitly, she appears to mean that ___________.

Revealing a questionable assumption: X’s claim that _____ rests on the questionable assumption that _______.
Contextualizing a specific insight: [This specific thing I’m talking about] is best understood as part of _______ . Or, [This specific thing I’m talking about] is specific example of ___[this larger pattern] ___. By seeing this thing in context, we discover that _______.

Specific insights confirm a more general claim: So as we can see from these aspects of _________, that X more generally tends to ________.

Moving from a general claim to a specific piece of support: [After making the general claim]. For instance, ________. To take a case in point, ________.

Representing the state of dialogue in a field: Such scholars as X and Y have argued recently that ______. This view stands as an important correction to that of Z who classically argued that ______. This shift has enabled the field to ______, producing a better understanding of _______. In light of my own research, ________.

Extending and developing a point of agreement: I agree that _________, and would even add ________. This extension of this idea is productive because ________.
Using summary of someone else’s work to develop a point: In light of what I’ve been arguing, it’s instructive to consider what X has to say about a similar topic: _______. As s/he argues __________. If X is right/wrong about ______, then my ideas __[need to develop; should alter what X thinks…]__.

Allow a counter-argument to develop your point: Some people object that ______. Although I concede __________, I ________[reformulate my point to account for the apt criticism]______.

Conclusion
Getting at the significance of your work [NOT just summarizing what you’ve already said]: At stake in this argument is _______. Or, While most other scholars have argued _______, my work reveals ______. This new insight is significant because _______.

*Developed in response to Gerald Graff’s and Cathy Birkenstein’s work in They Say/I Say: The Moves that Matter in Academic Writing (NY: W. W. Norton, 2006).

Read More...

Summary only...

Student Lecture Series Event: Change and Motion: Place, Space & Rhetoric in the Urban Space

UW20 Alumns Jennifer Nguyen, Matt Bevilacqua, and Alex Pazuchanics will present a panel entitled "Change and Motion: Place, Space, and Rhetoric in the Urban Space." Elizabeth Chacko, Associate Professor of Geography, will provide a faculty response. Discussion will follow the presentations.

When & Where
Friday, March 27
4:00 - 5:30 PM
Gelman Library 207

Change and Motion: Place, Space, and Rhetoric in the Urban Space

This panel explores the interactions between location and culture. Drawing from examples in New York, Washington, and Pittsburgh, the panel hopes to expose the discourse that develops around the urban experience in America.

Speakers will focus on the way in which their personal experiences and academic research in the metropolis contribute to an understanding of leisure, movement, and hegemonic identity. Pulling from discourses of geography, political theory, critical race theory, and the study of class, the panelists will engage the issues of homelessness, income inequality, and uneven geographic development.

"Beggars Can't Be Choosers: The Discursive Creation of Habituated Homelessness in Washington D.C."

Jennifer Nguyen examines the phenomenon of habituated homelessness in Washington D.C and argues that this apathetic behavior towards the homeless is deeply rooted to both cultural and class struggle. She argues that this generally dismissive view of homelessness is critically linked to our view of national identity and the moral statutes that accompany such a national identity. To assume any definition of "American morality" as it is often used in political discourse, as well as everyday rhetoric, is to assume both cultural homogeneity and hegemony.

Ms Nguyen critically examines the disparity between the stereotypical heroic image of the "American Moral Duty" and the behavior towards homelessness in our nation's capital. Moreover, the speaker posits that homelessness is an issue that is often ignored or left unaccounted for because the stigmatized associations of homelessness do not fit into the generally accepted homogenized view of the American dream. The homeless are essentially ex iled from this idealized imagery and thus are not included cultural identity. In the same way that America exercises political hegemony towards other regimes it feels are inferior, the homeless suffer a cultural hegemony that perpetuates their struggle to find themselves at home in their own country

"Omnibus No More: Deconstructing the Culture of Mass Transit"

Alex Pazuchanics analyzes the major trends that affect urban mass transportation systems, with a particular focus on transit systems in Washington DC and Pittsburgh. Using the works of several cultural theorists and radical geographers, he makes connections between who people are, where they live, and how they move. The paper examines structural and socioeconomic issues that face American transit systems. It details and critiques the two-tiered system that develops between buses and light rail. It details the institutional and social factors that contribute to the culture of automobility. The presentation closes with making the case for transportation studies as an interdisciplinary study of American culture. This work draws from discourses of race, poverty, class, and location to paint a picture of the way that transit systems work, and are perceived by both their riders and their non-riders.

"Renewal in Coney Island: What it Means for a Class of People Often Forgotten"

As of last month, Astroland, one of the two popular theme parks that compromise the commercial amusement portion of Coney Island, permanently shut its doors after more than forty-five years of operation. Its closing marks the latest development in a campaign to renew the area, undertaken by a powerful real estate development company with considerable support from the local city government. Matt Bevilacqua examines the history of Coney Island with regards to its cultural image as a social space of leisure reserved for the working class, and how the existence and availability of such an "urban populist" entertainment space can provide identity for a people often forsaken in a city's development plans. The paper also analyzes the history of gentrification as it occurred in Times Square and Las Vegas , the former of which held a similar image of working class identity prior to its renewal, and the latter or which has been invoked by the company in question as influence in its plans for the future of Coney Island. Examining the gentrification of these two neighborhoods exposes what is in store for Coney Island should it undergo renewal. It is ultimately concluded that, if the current plans for Coney's renewal come to fruition, then the neighborhood will lose its longstanding image as a space for the working class, and will instead adopt one of a luxury resort for members of the upper classes. This will generate more profits for the company and city hall, but leaves legions of blue collar New Yorkers at a loss, for without a substantial social space of entertainment, there is no space in which to find an adequate identity.

The Student Lecture Series is an ongoing public event sponsored by the Student Lecture Series Editorial Collective and the Capstone Committee of the University Writing Program. The Student Lecture Series features the research-based writing of UW20 students. The series features students who are identified by their professors as doing original, compelling writing and research. For current UWP students and the GW community, the lecture series is an opportunity to experience writing as a public event and writers as public intellectuals. Each student lecture includes a faculty respondent who has expertise or interest in the fields that the paper addresses who provides a 10 minute response that highlights the contributions of the paper. Conversation with the audience follows the presentation.

The Student Lecture Series is open to all members of the UW20 community and beyond, especially current faculty, students, and librarians. A special thanks to Cathy Eisenhower and Dolsy Smith for securing a room in the library for this presentation. And, a special thanks to the members of the Editorial Collective of the SLS for providing review and feedback for all paper submissions.

Read More...

Summary only...

How to Revise (NOT JUST EDIT!) Your Writing and Get Better Results

Every section of UW20 requires students to substantively revise between 25 and 30 pages of writing each semester. We place so much emphasis on revision because of our own experiences with using writing to begin to grasp dimly perceived ideas and to wrestle them into shape. Revision, the process of assessing, developing, and exploring ideas produced in generative drafts, is a crucial step in producing pieces of writing worth reading.

In this article First-Year Writing Professors Christy Zink, Rachel Riedner, Philip Troutman, and Phyllis Ryder teach you what you need to know to revise (NOT JUST EDIT!) like a pro!

1. It’s crucial to make a mental adjustment and see revision as a normal part of the writing process of even the best writers. Prof. Zink tells her students to “let go of the deeply held notion that if you were a better, smarter, more adept, savvier, more intellectual writer you wouldn't have to revise so much. Just Let. It. Go. The most brilliant writers in the world are the ones who don't doubt for a moment that any piece worth anything is going to take rewriting. In fact, the better, smarter, more adept, savvier, more intellectual a writer you are, the more likely you are to build in time both for drafting and the craft of revision.”

2. You need to make a distinction between editing and revision. Both Prof. Riedner and Prof. Troutman draw from the work of Joseph Harris (Rewriting: How to Do Things with Texts) to making clear the difference between editing and revision.

According to Prof. Riedner, “When you edit, you work at the surface level of a paper. You fix errors, tinker with sentences, and fine tune a document. Editingcan improve the design and ‘flow’ of a document. Revision, on the other hand, revisits writing in order to rethink its aims, how it works with material it interprets, how it develops ideas, etc.... Revision“rethink[s] the ideas and examples that drive your thinking in an essay.”

Prof. Troutman points out that “In revising, you are changing your mind, shifting your claim, anticipating new counter-claims, bringing in new evidence, re-ordering your major points; you are engaging your text, perhaps even struggling with it, wrestling it into a new shape. In editing, you are fixing your text, both in terms of correcting errors (syntax, citation format, etc.) and in terms of giving it final form (font choice, wordsmithing for style, etc.); you are now treating it like an object, a beautiful thing you can now show.

3. You need a functioning process for making revision systematic. This will probably vary according to your needs, but here are some suggestions. All of our experts suggest starting by analyzing your draft.

Prof. Zink advises beginning revision by “Figuring out where you are most stuck. Once you've identified this idea, section, passage, or even sentence, find someone who will listen to you--peer from the class, roommate, paramour, random-person-muttering-to-self-in-local-park, or professor--sit that person down in front of you, and talk about what the trouble is. Let that partner know all he or she has to do is listen. Explain what's not working and why you're confused and why all of this is giving you a terrific headache. Let the person nod obligingly as you stammer through your confusion. Chances are, in just a few minutes of talking about the issue out loud, you'll come to some degree of clarity and even a solution.”

Prof. Ryder offers a three-step process: A. “Go through your draft and ‘chunk’ it--identify the main sections of the paper. Look at each big chunk and treat it like a mini-essay: Does it have a cohesive purpose? Will readers know what it's doing in the essay? How might you clarify the purpose and argument as you move into that section?

After analyzing your chunks (sounds gross I know!), B. “Go through the draft and write answers to the following questions in the margins for each paragraph: What is my main point? What is the purpose of this paragraph (is it making an argument, providing an illustration for something already said, introducing a new section of the paper, describing my method?).

C. Then look at the overall structure. Are things in the right order? Could sections be combined? Is there a logical progression? Finally, be critical about "flow." Anything can flow into anything else, but that doesn't mean it should. Can you describe the logic of why each part goes where it goes?

Like Prof. Zink, Prof. Troutman urges you to get someone to help you analyze your draft, but has your interlocutor play a more active role. “Peer responses are key, since you can't always see what other readers will. But you must train your readers; otherwise they will probably focus only on grammar and spelling, and that's editing, not revision.” Ask your peer to read the draft with any of the following purposes—borrowed from Peter Elbow’s & Pat Belanoff’s Sharing & Responding—in mind (only one at time, though). After they've read your draft, ask them to:

A. Write a descriptive outline of the paper, two sentences for each paragraph in the paper: One sentence summarizing precisely what the paragraph says. One sentence describing what the paragraph does and why--what its role is at that moment in the paper (e.g., establishing other scholarly views, laying out the paper's agenda, presenting evidence, discussing a counter-claim, connecting two major sub-claims, speculating about possible implications of the claim, etc.). This lets you find out how your reader perceives not only all the things you are saying, but also why you are saying those things in the order you do. Does your reader see alternate ways to organize it? Do you, based on how he or she outlined it?

B. Restate your central claim, but only in the form of questions: E.g., Okay, so are you trying to argue that ... ? or is it more about the question of ... ? This gives you the chance to reflect on your claims--and the question of whether your reader saw them as you intended--rather than simply to defend them. Your peer might even see a more interesting claim you could be making.

C. Believe everything about the draft: its central claim, its evidence, its use of scholars' work, its organization, its style, its word choices, its title, etc. Respond with ideas to further what is already going on with these things.

D. Doubt everything about the draft: its central claim, its evidence, its use of scholars' work, its organization, its style, its word choices, its title, etc. Respond with ideas for addressing the objections that arise out of this doubt.

Change your mindset about revision and try out some of these techniques. You’re writing will be richer, smarter, more disciplined, and more interesting. You’ll have learned more and so will have your readers!

Let us know what you think!

Read More...

Summary only...