Ahh, delivery. Now that’s a topic I can sink my teeth into! As an individual with a broad media background, delivery is of the utmost importance. This is even more true in broadcast mediums like radio and television, where the delivery of the message tends to create the personality of the media figure in question. When public orators came to prominence, they were individuals who understood the nature of events in many contexts and were able to deliver their messages in a fashion that people could understand and relate to. They “…recommended that speakers use a modulated tone and speak slowly and clearly” (409). This style of delivery is still used frequently, but it is mainly relegated to those who are more polished, educated, and pandering to a higher-brow audience than others. Those others, however, still exist in great prominence, especially on cable “news” programs and talk radio. In these mediums, it is commonplace to have a pundit or “expert” sharing his or her opinion, but doing so in a very different fashion. They will likely talk over others, raise their voices for no apparent reason, and often outright attack those who don’t agree with them.
Some might say this has to do with the type of audiences these types are pandering to. These audiences are more likely lower-brow, lower-class, less educated and less refined than the audience of polished orators and broadcasters. So what does education have to do with media literacy, or literacy as a whole? Yes, ancients would have been surprised that education and literacy are currently linked in our society (406), but that is more a commentary on the scarcity of both literate individuals and common written languages in ancient times than anything else. I would think the invention of the printing press made writing much more accessible for the masses, thus both inviting and forcing more members of the population to become literate. Today, with the ease of electronic language translation and the borderless communication opportunities that exist for many people, there is almost no way literacy and education could not be linked, at least in civilized areas.
The fact that this form of oration and broadcasting is not only considered acceptable, but also encouraged by networks that portray themselves as bastions of journalism and news-media is absurd. This is clearly not what the ancients envisioned when they were practicing public oration. Yes, they took a great many cues from actors and the theater in general to enhance their ability to project their thoughts and feelings to their audience, but again, this was prior to the advent of media that could accomplish such goals. Today’s orators need not be as theatrical as those that preceded them. There are many cues they could take from ancient public speakers, but theatrics and pandering to those who are less literate and educated are hardly the correct ones.
Lastly, how could I not mention Cicero’s perception that rhetorical delivery and sporting activities overlap? The competitive nature and cultural significance of both for the Ancients does make for a natural connection, as Crowley & Hawhee point out on page 407. I really had nothing to add on this, but given the nature of a great deal of my comments in class, I certainly couldn’t pass up mentioning that factoid. See everyone tonight!
Thursday, November 18, 2010
Delivery: Rhetoric Across Media and Languages
For the ancient rhetors spoken word was much more powerful and persuasive than written word (406). However, as Crowley and Hawhee state at the end of the chapter, modern rhetors have many possibilities from where to choose when composing an argument. The rules, correctness and appropriateness of the usage will vary depending on the language we choose to deliver our argument. As we have seen throughout the development of the class and our text books, in modern times, we can find rhetoric in movies, memorials, and even cities. And in this chapter of delivery I see that fact especially highlighted.
In our time, we can choose to give a speech, write a blog, record a video and post it on youtube, or write a post on facebook. We have the choice to say, “Should I talk about this face-to-face? Or is it better to send a letter or an email?” When we make this decision, we are assessing the best form of delivery we should use. In this order of ideas we can see that kairos also has its role in relation to delivery. The decision we make when choosing one form of delivery or the other takes into account the message we want to convey, the place, as well as the audience. This decision is based on kairos, the “right time, opportunity or occasion” (433).
A good example of these possibilities that the theory of delivery opens up for us is Michael Moore. Michael Moore chose the language of moving images to argue his position about the legality of carrying guns in the U.S. He chose to make documentaries, while he could have chosen to write a book or an article in a magazine to make his point. Thus, the theory of delivery can be applied to other media different from the written or spoken word.
We can then apply the rules of delivery to the language of cinema. In movies, though, the language is much more complex and requires the work of many people. But the person that makes the decisions, in an independent film at least, is the director. The director, then, should make every effort to apply correct and appropriate use of the language because that will build his ethos as a cinematographer. I found this fact very interesting. Indeed, choosing the most adequate delivery, the proper and correct use of the rules of each language says a lot about the character and reputation of the rhetor, about his knowledge of the subject and his ethics.
Additionally, the language of cinema has its own punctuation. Just as in spoken language we use the silence to mark a pause, and the volume or tone of the voice to emphasize or underscore an issue, the language of cinema has its own signs. When a director wants to emphasize a detail, event or emotion in a character he can use close up or extreme close up; or when he wants to underscore something he can adjust the focus to make it see blurry. A pause in a movie is given by a transition device called fade-to-black, it works like when we close our eyes and see everything black. The editing process determines the rhythm of a movie as well as the logical relation. As in spoken and written speech, in cinematic language the delivery is closely related to the style and arrangement. The choices the director makes about how to convey what he wants to say illustrates his own style, his unique touch.
In contrast, since for ancient rhetors spoken language was their most important mean of persuasion, they were especially concerned with oral speeches. When giving a speech, for instance, they remind us that we need to be aware of the tone of voice we use, the volume and the rhythm, the facial gestures and the movement of the body (408), especially the hands which should accompany and reinforce what we say. Our gaze is important as well in spoken speech. Are we looking at our audience in the eyes? I remember in my class on oral expression in college, they gave us a tip which was not to look people in the eyes because it could be distracting for the rhetor. Instead, we should look at the center of the forehead. That way, people will feel like you are looking at them in the eyes when you are not, and you prevent to be distracted. This requires practice, I’ve tried it and the very fact that I need to focus on not looking in their eyes distracts me… but I think it must work because it makes sense.
The passage on punctuation and grammar was invaluable for me. It was a very good summary of many rules and a great review. It clarified for me, for example, the use of dashes, which we don’t have in Spanish. And I found relieving to read that every paragraph does not have to have a topic sentence and that if I decide to, and it is appropriate, I can use fragments!
In our time, we can choose to give a speech, write a blog, record a video and post it on youtube, or write a post on facebook. We have the choice to say, “Should I talk about this face-to-face? Or is it better to send a letter or an email?” When we make this decision, we are assessing the best form of delivery we should use. In this order of ideas we can see that kairos also has its role in relation to delivery. The decision we make when choosing one form of delivery or the other takes into account the message we want to convey, the place, as well as the audience. This decision is based on kairos, the “right time, opportunity or occasion” (433).
A good example of these possibilities that the theory of delivery opens up for us is Michael Moore. Michael Moore chose the language of moving images to argue his position about the legality of carrying guns in the U.S. He chose to make documentaries, while he could have chosen to write a book or an article in a magazine to make his point. Thus, the theory of delivery can be applied to other media different from the written or spoken word.
We can then apply the rules of delivery to the language of cinema. In movies, though, the language is much more complex and requires the work of many people. But the person that makes the decisions, in an independent film at least, is the director. The director, then, should make every effort to apply correct and appropriate use of the language because that will build his ethos as a cinematographer. I found this fact very interesting. Indeed, choosing the most adequate delivery, the proper and correct use of the rules of each language says a lot about the character and reputation of the rhetor, about his knowledge of the subject and his ethics.
Additionally, the language of cinema has its own punctuation. Just as in spoken language we use the silence to mark a pause, and the volume or tone of the voice to emphasize or underscore an issue, the language of cinema has its own signs. When a director wants to emphasize a detail, event or emotion in a character he can use close up or extreme close up; or when he wants to underscore something he can adjust the focus to make it see blurry. A pause in a movie is given by a transition device called fade-to-black, it works like when we close our eyes and see everything black. The editing process determines the rhythm of a movie as well as the logical relation. As in spoken and written speech, in cinematic language the delivery is closely related to the style and arrangement. The choices the director makes about how to convey what he wants to say illustrates his own style, his unique touch.
In contrast, since for ancient rhetors spoken language was their most important mean of persuasion, they were especially concerned with oral speeches. When giving a speech, for instance, they remind us that we need to be aware of the tone of voice we use, the volume and the rhythm, the facial gestures and the movement of the body (408), especially the hands which should accompany and reinforce what we say. Our gaze is important as well in spoken speech. Are we looking at our audience in the eyes? I remember in my class on oral expression in college, they gave us a tip which was not to look people in the eyes because it could be distracting for the rhetor. Instead, we should look at the center of the forehead. That way, people will feel like you are looking at them in the eyes when you are not, and you prevent to be distracted. This requires practice, I’ve tried it and the very fact that I need to focus on not looking in their eyes distracts me… but I think it must work because it makes sense.
The passage on punctuation and grammar was invaluable for me. It was a very good summary of many rules and a great review. It clarified for me, for example, the use of dashes, which we don’t have in Spanish. And I found relieving to read that every paragraph does not have to have a topic sentence and that if I decide to, and it is appropriate, I can use fragments!
On Delivery
Several thoughts/ideas occurred to me while reading this chapter on Delivery. When I was in high school and college I was very involved in the campus TV station. In high school I did the morning announcements and in college I anchored our campus news and sports shows. Also during college, I worked as a on-air personality at a local radio station. I was always aware and conscious of my delivery so I definitely understood this chapter.
When I was on TV, I relied on teleprompters and scripts to give the news. When I had to do voice overs during clips, I would often rely on the script as written by the reporter who created the individual stories. Due to deadlines, reporters would often just sloppily write their voice over and hand it in to our director who would hurriedly hand it to me while I was miking up. There were a few instances where coincidence would have it that I didn't skim over the script beforehand and the reporter made grammatical or punctuation errors. If I was in the middle of a story and a period was misplaced (or missing entirely) or some other indicator of a pause was missing, my entire flow would be thrown off and it would cause me to either have to re-read the entire sentence or just trudge along without acknowledging the mistake.
I eventually learned my lesson after a few mishaps. I would usually read the script the whole way through, marking punctuation in my own style along the way.
The same was true when I worked in radio. The station where I worked did lots of contests and so the sales team would require the DJs to make announcements about the contests and of course to mention the advertisers. Our programming staff trusted the sales staff to enter in our 10-15 second on-air readings. I knew for sure that I would have to re-write these myself with my own punctuation and pause indicators as the sales staff would just write the way they thought it should sound (which of course was always boring-sounding).
Another example of delivery from when I worked in radio. When I first started at this Top 40 station, I had come from working in a news setting where the tone tended to be a little more professional and serious-sounding. My Program Director once told me that I sounded like an old man and that people would be bored by my on-air formality. He gave me a few examples of what he wanted me to sound like and told me that he knew I could do it, I just needed to relax (he thought I was too tense) and just pretend I was talking to a room full of people in their early 20s. I worked on my delivery (I did the whole stand up and smile while you talk technique), incorporated hand motions and just acted as if I was talking to a friend who was sitting in front of me. Within a few shifts, I improved greatly and it felt awesome!
When I was on TV, I relied on teleprompters and scripts to give the news. When I had to do voice overs during clips, I would often rely on the script as written by the reporter who created the individual stories. Due to deadlines, reporters would often just sloppily write their voice over and hand it in to our director who would hurriedly hand it to me while I was miking up. There were a few instances where coincidence would have it that I didn't skim over the script beforehand and the reporter made grammatical or punctuation errors. If I was in the middle of a story and a period was misplaced (or missing entirely) or some other indicator of a pause was missing, my entire flow would be thrown off and it would cause me to either have to re-read the entire sentence or just trudge along without acknowledging the mistake.
I eventually learned my lesson after a few mishaps. I would usually read the script the whole way through, marking punctuation in my own style along the way.
The same was true when I worked in radio. The station where I worked did lots of contests and so the sales team would require the DJs to make announcements about the contests and of course to mention the advertisers. Our programming staff trusted the sales staff to enter in our 10-15 second on-air readings. I knew for sure that I would have to re-write these myself with my own punctuation and pause indicators as the sales staff would just write the way they thought it should sound (which of course was always boring-sounding).
Another example of delivery from when I worked in radio. When I first started at this Top 40 station, I had come from working in a news setting where the tone tended to be a little more professional and serious-sounding. My Program Director once told me that I sounded like an old man and that people would be bored by my on-air formality. He gave me a few examples of what he wanted me to sound like and told me that he knew I could do it, I just needed to relax (he thought I was too tense) and just pretend I was talking to a room full of people in their early 20s. I worked on my delivery (I did the whole stand up and smile while you talk technique), incorporated hand motions and just acted as if I was talking to a friend who was sitting in front of me. Within a few shifts, I improved greatly and it felt awesome!
Icing on the Cake
A few days ago, a colleague and I were discussing the content of Crowley and Hawhee’s chapter on delivery. (No, I don’t normally discuss this textbook over coffee, but she teaches our gifted education program at school, so I often pass along information I feel would be helpful to her in developing her program …) I explained to her how Greek writing initially had no punctuation, and passed along the authors’ advice of “waiting to put in larger marks of punctuation, like paragraphs and headers, until you’ve drafted the entire discourse at least once. Then outline it and use indentations and headers to mark the divisions of the discourse.” (p 413) She found this interesting, and we went off into other topics of discussion. When speaking with her yesterday, she thanked me for talking with her about the text, and said it had “freed” her to complete her written assignment for her graduate class. As she has always been a reluctant writer, she found the authors’ advice helpful in changing her mindset about writing. This, naturally, led me to consider how I teach writing to my fourth graders. Could this be an effective strategy in getting them to “open up” when it comes to writing?
Until recently, my own main purpose for writing has been academic: writing papers for school, work, professional communication, etc. Had I read the sections of this chapter pertaining to the above conversation without having read the preceding eleven chapters, I may have found them ridiculous. After all, isn’t it the job of classroom teachers to make sure that our students have a strong command of the English language, both verbal and written? However, in the scheme of things, and depending on the author’s purpose, it seems to make perfect sense. As an elementary teacher, I fully support the idea that students must learn the correct (or at least socially accepted) rules of grammar. This levels the playing field, so to speak, for effective communication to occur, both in verbal and written discourse. Once students understand the rules, they can figure out how to effectively break them, again depending on their purpose.
It seems to be a question of balance. How do we teach the students to write within the parameters of school expectations, while freeing them to express themselves without the confines of grammar and usage rules? Perhaps we can brainstorm an answer in tonight’s class discussion.
Finally, I refer back to the original topic of delivery. (By the way, I originally wrote the preceding sentence as, “Finally, back to the original topic of delivery.” But because it lacked a subject, I went back to edit. Here we go again with rules! I liked the sentence better in it’s original form.) Delivery, to me, seems to be the icing on the cake. It doesn’t matter how much time and energy one expends on the first four rhetorical canons; without effective delivery, whether it be oral, written, or visual, the discourse means little. It’s the power punch that appeals to the audience’s “eyes and ears” and gets them to pay attention to the message. Without it, you’ve wasted your time.
Delivery
**Please excuse the issues with spacing and font style in my post. For some reason, I can't correct them*
When the authors mention page the concepts of page literacy vs. electronic literacy, I immediately thought of Lynne Truss’ punctuation guide, Eats, Shoot & Leaves. In her final chapter, entitled “Merely Conventional Signs,” she talks about the same concept; she just uses different terminology.
When the authors mention page the concepts of page literacy vs. electronic literacy, I immediately thought of Lynne Truss’ punctuation guide, Eats, Shoot & Leaves. In her final chapter, entitled “Merely Conventional Signs,” she talks about the same concept; she just uses different terminology.
“I blame all the emails and text messages,” people say, when you talk about the decline in punctuation standards [and in our case aspects of page literacy]. Truss continues-“ Well, yes. The effect on language of the electronic age is obvious to all, even though the process is only just begun, and its ultimate impact is unimaginable (151).
And image all that has changed since Truss made that statement, seeing that the book was published in 2003. She later comments that the written word is adapting to “the most immediate, universal and democratic written medium that has ever existed” (152).
And image all that has changed since Truss made that statement, seeing that the book was published in 2003. She later comments that the written word is adapting to “the most immediate, universal and democratic written medium that has ever existed” (152).
What resonates with me about this whole idea of two types of literacy, is how quickly many people (not all) have thrown “standard” and “traditional” conventions to the wind and are accepting less than standard writing. The have your ideas printed to the “Almighty Page” requires careful construction, proofreading, and usually some type of funding. If non-standard language makes it to the page, it usually has a purpose or is a sign of artistic license. The electronic sphere, on the other hand, is filled with writings and rants by the artists and literate types, but it is also filled with writings and rants of people who truly don’t know the difference between its and it’s or two, to, and too. It’s frustrating to see that what I, and many others, are trying to teach and reinforce as being important is deemed worthless in parts of the electronic world.
I guess my rant further supports the authors claim “usage allows Americans to discriminate” (417). Put please understand that I’m not discriminating against a particular group of people, I’m criticizing society’s acceptance of certain behavior. If people can break the rules with impunity, the more power to them. I realize that it’s not a black/white issue, but I can’t help but feel frustrated that what I do for a living is not being enforced or supported by the ever-growing electronic world.
The idea that strong delivery requires volume, stability, and flexibility is a valid point. I witness the results of poor delivery in my classroom. In some cases, my students, who fail to engage their peers with their speeches, presentations, and anecdotes, commit it. Other times, I hear the moans and groans of students as the criticize other teachers’ delivery systems – “He’s so boring,” “ The way she laughs ruins my mornings,” or “I can’t believe he lectures from his desk”! And once in a while, because I work hard to see it doesn’t happen, I notice that my delivery fails. I’m the one who misses, because I’m lacking one of these three. If it’s not a matter of volume, stability, or flexibility, then it’s probably a matter of me not having practice with a particular subject. The authors comment that comedians and newscasters lie on opposite ends of the delivery spectrum, Comedians are expected to and are almost required to use gestures in their delivery, while newscaster are expected to remain still and expressionless. When these two stray from the norm, the effects can be memorable. For example, when our class discussed our 9/11 memories, many of us reflected on what we remember about the news anchors: the tears, fear, and language. It was unusual and therefore, effective. On the other hand, some of us find that the funniest people are the people who can tell a joke or do something funny without reacting in the way we expect them to. Dry humor, sarcasm, dark humor, etc.; work well, while others prefer slapstick behavior and punch line humor. Most days, I find myself in the middle of this spectrum. I have to be part comedian, part newscaster. I must say, some days it’s much more difficult to be the newscaster when I’m in a room full of energetic and silly teenagers.
Before reading this chapter, I immediately associated delivery with the oral aspect, although, written delivery is just as important. For some reason, I didn’t consider the written part to be delivery, but it obviously is. Combining the two types comes into play a lot. I used to write for ABC 27 News. It was interesting because I felt as if most of the formal writing training that I had in school, totally went out the window. Writing for television news is quite different from formal writing for class. I had to transition from trying to write creative, elaborate styled sentences to summarizing the main facts. These facts are written at a sixth grade level because you don’t want to speak above the viewer. It is also imperative to write a story that takes approximately thirty seconds to read because there is a lot of news to cover in a short period of time. As a writer, I quickly learned which anchors spoke fast and could handle more words per story and who delivered stories at a slower pace. The anchors have to make important delivery decisions as well. They need to consider their pacing, pausing, inflection, and tone. They need to make professional delivery choices as well. It would obviously not be appropriate to deliver a story about murder with a smile. They need to keep the viewer engaged by a talking head.
On another note, I am a sucker for the picture theory. When I am browsing books, I judge by a cover. If a color, font, or image jumps out at me, I will totally pick up that book and read the back. When I am searching for shampoo, I’m always drawn to the visually appealing bottle along with the words chosen to depict the product (ex. full volume, or sleek). If there is a picture on a menu and the item looks appetizing, then I will order that item. It is always disappointing when the food that is delivered does not look like the picture. For example, they always put little water droplets on the lettuce and have big slices of deep red tomatoes on a juicy burger. This is not always what is brought to the table. I am also somewhat of a layout snob. I hate when a particular font or image is used that does not accurately portray the intended message. The use of white space and bolding/italicizing/underlining need to be considered as well.
Overall, I feel that this is quite an interesting topic and is more diverse than I initially realized. I think that we will definitely have some intriguing conversations that will be sparked from this chapter. I am looking forward to class tonight.
On another note, I am a sucker for the picture theory. When I am browsing books, I judge by a cover. If a color, font, or image jumps out at me, I will totally pick up that book and read the back. When I am searching for shampoo, I’m always drawn to the visually appealing bottle along with the words chosen to depict the product (ex. full volume, or sleek). If there is a picture on a menu and the item looks appetizing, then I will order that item. It is always disappointing when the food that is delivered does not look like the picture. For example, they always put little water droplets on the lettuce and have big slices of deep red tomatoes on a juicy burger. This is not always what is brought to the table. I am also somewhat of a layout snob. I hate when a particular font or image is used that does not accurately portray the intended message. The use of white space and bolding/italicizing/underlining need to be considered as well.
Overall, I feel that this is quite an interesting topic and is more diverse than I initially realized. I think that we will definitely have some intriguing conversations that will be sparked from this chapter. I am looking forward to class tonight.
Disappointment or Misunderstanding
I was somewhat disappointed by this chapter. In reflecting on the reading, I gravitated towards the opening of the section on Delivery of Written Discourse on page 411:
“Are rhythm and physicality confirmed to the spoken word? Does written discourse extend to the eyes and ears of the audience? Certainly it is impossible to stomp one’s feet in written prose, yet there are ways in which written discourse nevertheless attends to the ears and eyes of the audience” (411).
After reading this, I think I mentally uttered a resounding—Yes! This is the stuff that I live for! Being an English teacher to a population of significantly apathetic teenagers who see words and writing as solely a utilitarian means to get a grade, I had hoped that this would provide some epiphany as to how to encourage them to be as powerful and animated in their writing as they are orally.
And then discussion of punctuation, spelling, and grammar followed.
Some of this discussion, as a teacher, I disagreed with namely because this is the very advice that provided my students with misconceptions about things like comma placement that causes their written, academic writing to be incorrect. An example being the advice to “read your writing aloud, like the ancients did, and mark the places where you pause. Put punctuation in these places” (413). Grammatically this is incorrect; when students do this, they end up separating subjects from verbs or further complicating the clarity of their message.
Another section that caused me pause was the section on page 416 on Correct Rules II: Traditional Grammar and Usage. Here, I found the writing to be greatly biased against certain approaches to grammar that have been and are currently taught in our education system. The authors even admit these biases, “A more biased and yet more accurate definition is this: usage rules are the conventions of written English that allow Americans to discriminate against one another” (417). The fact that the authors admit their bias, but then depict this bias as more accurate, left me with a negative outlook on this whole section.
This is not to say that I disagree with some of the philosophies in this section, but the strong, overt opinions that came across from the authors distracted me from the content that I typically would have agreed with. I think that this was an odd choice to end the book in this manner. So much of the earlier chapters allowed for the authors to show their biases. Which they probably did, yet not in such an overt manner; and I appreciate that. In material that is meant to be an educational source, in particular a textbook, personally I like to see as little influence from the authors’ personality and opinions as possible.
However, after my experiences in this class, I realize that in searching for a work free from personal input and bias, I might just be searching for the impossible. Everything is based in rhetoric and it is nearly impossible to find a piece of writing, art, architecture, or the like that does not present its crafter’s views in some manner. Yet, why make your views so apparent and risk offending in a textbook about rhetoric and the chapter on delivery in the section on grammar, nonetheless.
Coming full circle to my original point, I think that my initial negativity in approaching this chapter was because I wished for it to be more like the chapter on style. Style in my view is how figuratively to make feet stomp in your writing. Tropes such as repetition, figurative language, figures of thought and the like accomplish this task. So then delivery must be simply how you make your arguments look and sound.
Ahhh! Hence why much of the chapter focused on appealing to the eye and ear in both oral, written, and digital discourse, “All delivery is concerned with two different things, namely voice and gesture, of which one appeals to the eye and the other to the ear, the two senses by which all emotion reaches the soul” (409).
So in approaching the canon of delivery, it is necessary when dealing with rhetoric to appeal more to the spoken word or how your writing rhythmically flows than how it serves a grammatically correct purpose:
“The early origins of punctuation were therefore rhetorical, and while punctuation functions these days to mark more than pauses for breathing, it is nonetheless important to bear in mind the rhetorical value of punctuation. It seems to us that practitioners of modern rhetoric sometimes forget the rhetoric of punctuation in favor of rules about sentence structures” (412).
In reflecting back on this statement, I whole heartedly agree with its premise. Yet, the fact that the discussion on these sentence structures was biasedly delivered consumed so much of my energy in reading this chapter, that had it not been for this blog post—perhaps I would have never came to this realization.
On an ending note, a highlight of this chapter for me was the commentary on font types affecting ethos, “some fonts, like the ones designed to resemble the type used in comics, are not really appropriate for serious matters” (421). Comic Sans is probably the most hotly debated font in society today. I instantly remembered the ridicule of the Dan Gilbert, owner of the Cavaliers, in writing a letter which featured the font dominantly:
Cavs owner's letter mocked for Comic Sans font
Clearly illustrating the point that Crowley and Hawhee make in this section about the importance of how you present you information, and it also confirms how delivery, as the fifth canon, is not any less important in exposing your thoughts and opinions than the earlier four.
Tuesday, November 16, 2010
Delivery: Last But Not Least
When one thinks of delivery, as it refers to rhetoric, it is likely that the first thought that comes to mind is oral discourse. We don’t often consider the ways in which written discourse demands a certain presentation in order to be deemed effective. Even the quote by Isocrates at the opening of Chapter 12 in Ancient Rhetorics for Contemporary Students suggests that because of its limitations, as far as the elements of delivery available go (as compared to oral discourse), written words “make an indifferent impression upon [their] hearers” (qtd. in Crowley and Hawhee 405). This, Crowley and Hawhee tell us, has influenced the ways in which modern rhetors approach rhetoric, virtually abandoning the known aspects of delivery and substituting a specific format for composition (406). As I read this, I could not help but think back to some of the earlier discussions of the semester when we collectively expressed frustration over the education system’s reliance on the five-paragraph essay format that has become somewhat commonplace. I believe that this is the “set format” that the authors reference. And, as we acknowledged then and would probably reiterate now, such formats do little to empower the message.
As I continued through the chapter, confirming that written discourse does have its own features to engage the senses, I began to consider where I most frequently see these features used. The answer is business writing. Writing in the business world employs, and, in fact, requires specific rules, formats and presentation elements if the message is to be well received and acted upon by the recipient. Among these features are shorter, more manageable paragraphs; a precision of words; headings or subheadings (often bolded, underlined or italicized); plenty of white space; and so on, features which Crowley and Hawhee recognize as belonging to the domain of visual rhetoric. The more reader-friendly the message and manner in which it is delivered, the more likely it is to be attended to. And yet, even in business writing, these common features sometimes seem to amount to a simple consideration of arrangement and style. How ironic then that Crowley and Hawhee wed these canons and equate them with delivery: “Under such conditions, delivery tends to collapse into arrangement and style” (406).
Later the authors suggest, “In written discourse, attending to the ‘ear’ of the audience has to do with editing a discourse so that it is accessible and pleasant to read” (412). This statement causes me to wonder if, perhaps, the choices we make that influence how the message is delivered in written discourse are more purposeful, more calculated—in other words, mightn’t one have to work a little harder with the delivery of written discourse than one does with oral discourse in which tone, volume, gestures, and body language seem more natural. For example, it seems innate to want to look a person in the eye, connect with him when giving a message through oral discourse. In the same way, at least for me, gestures and body language tend to be instinctive too. Rarely do I think too hard about what outward movements will accompany my speech. Together this eye contact and these gestures draw the listener in and create a sort of intimacy with him that encourage attention. To create a similar effect with writing seems infinitely more challenging.
Two final points in the chapter stood out to me. The first reflects the question of whether to teach grammar or not, especially at the secondary level (where it does typically remain a part of the curriculum). Crowley and Hawhee state, “Every native speaker of a language has intuited the grammar rules of her language by the time she is five years old” (416). From this perspective then it would seem such attempts to teach grammar would be rather fruitless, and based on conversations with countless English educators over the years, indeed it has been. Much of one’s understanding of the rules of grammar are grounded in one’s experience with and exposure to the rules as practiced in one’s immediate communities rather than in the classroom. This tendency to recognize appropriate grammatical constructions “by ear” rather than in written form informs my practice of having students read their writing out loud during revision sessions. What students ultimately discover when they engage in this process is that they catch such grammatical errors by hearing them much more readily than when they merely read them. Their familiarity with oral constructions enable them to create more effectively structured written discourse, which brings me to the second point.
Crowley and Hawhee address usage rules, telling the reader that understanding usage, too, is tied to one’s community; however, rhetorical situation can influence how one uses words: “Despite their manifest unfairness, usage rules exist; they are enforced by people with power; and so they must be observed in situations where they have been decreed to be important” (417). When I read this, I immediately recalled an essay I read quite a few years ago by Barbara Mellix titled “From Outside, In."
(http://facultyfiles.deanza.edu/.../MellixFromOutsideIn.doc)
In this essay, Mellix grapples with a similar issue. Like the authors, she recognizes how one’s use of language is dependent upon audience, purpose, time and place. As an African-American, she recounts using the language of her culture around her own friends and family, but she indicates that her parents enforced a “proper” use of language when she was around white folks. As an adult now, Mellix still identifies with the language of her culture and finds it appropriate to pull it out when among those who understand and value this rich literacy history of the culture. I think Crowley and Hawhee might just agree that this usage is both appropriate and useful.
As I continued through the chapter, confirming that written discourse does have its own features to engage the senses, I began to consider where I most frequently see these features used. The answer is business writing. Writing in the business world employs, and, in fact, requires specific rules, formats and presentation elements if the message is to be well received and acted upon by the recipient. Among these features are shorter, more manageable paragraphs; a precision of words; headings or subheadings (often bolded, underlined or italicized); plenty of white space; and so on, features which Crowley and Hawhee recognize as belonging to the domain of visual rhetoric. The more reader-friendly the message and manner in which it is delivered, the more likely it is to be attended to. And yet, even in business writing, these common features sometimes seem to amount to a simple consideration of arrangement and style. How ironic then that Crowley and Hawhee wed these canons and equate them with delivery: “Under such conditions, delivery tends to collapse into arrangement and style” (406).
Later the authors suggest, “In written discourse, attending to the ‘ear’ of the audience has to do with editing a discourse so that it is accessible and pleasant to read” (412). This statement causes me to wonder if, perhaps, the choices we make that influence how the message is delivered in written discourse are more purposeful, more calculated—in other words, mightn’t one have to work a little harder with the delivery of written discourse than one does with oral discourse in which tone, volume, gestures, and body language seem more natural. For example, it seems innate to want to look a person in the eye, connect with him when giving a message through oral discourse. In the same way, at least for me, gestures and body language tend to be instinctive too. Rarely do I think too hard about what outward movements will accompany my speech. Together this eye contact and these gestures draw the listener in and create a sort of intimacy with him that encourage attention. To create a similar effect with writing seems infinitely more challenging.
Two final points in the chapter stood out to me. The first reflects the question of whether to teach grammar or not, especially at the secondary level (where it does typically remain a part of the curriculum). Crowley and Hawhee state, “Every native speaker of a language has intuited the grammar rules of her language by the time she is five years old” (416). From this perspective then it would seem such attempts to teach grammar would be rather fruitless, and based on conversations with countless English educators over the years, indeed it has been. Much of one’s understanding of the rules of grammar are grounded in one’s experience with and exposure to the rules as practiced in one’s immediate communities rather than in the classroom. This tendency to recognize appropriate grammatical constructions “by ear” rather than in written form informs my practice of having students read their writing out loud during revision sessions. What students ultimately discover when they engage in this process is that they catch such grammatical errors by hearing them much more readily than when they merely read them. Their familiarity with oral constructions enable them to create more effectively structured written discourse, which brings me to the second point.
Crowley and Hawhee address usage rules, telling the reader that understanding usage, too, is tied to one’s community; however, rhetorical situation can influence how one uses words: “Despite their manifest unfairness, usage rules exist; they are enforced by people with power; and so they must be observed in situations where they have been decreed to be important” (417). When I read this, I immediately recalled an essay I read quite a few years ago by Barbara Mellix titled “From Outside, In."
(http://facultyfiles.deanza.edu/.../MellixFromOutsideIn.doc)
In this essay, Mellix grapples with a similar issue. Like the authors, she recognizes how one’s use of language is dependent upon audience, purpose, time and place. As an African-American, she recounts using the language of her culture around her own friends and family, but she indicates that her parents enforced a “proper” use of language when she was around white folks. As an adult now, Mellix still identifies with the language of her culture and finds it appropriate to pull it out when among those who understand and value this rich literacy history of the culture. I think Crowley and Hawhee might just agree that this usage is both appropriate and useful.
Subscribe to:
Comments (Atom)