“Autism and Rhetoric,” Paul Heilker and Melanie Yergeu

IWA: 4/12/13

Summary: In their article, “Autism and Rhetoric,” Paul Heilker and Melanie Yergeu attempt to tell their audience, mainly English professors and scholars, that autism can be considered a form of rhetoric. They argue that autism has enough of its own way of speaking and therefore can be considered its own form of rhetoric.

Synthesis: This article is a lot like the Smitherman and Flynn articles because it discusses a more ignored community and the way they communicate. Although autism is not a race or gender it is still consists of its own group of people and all three of these articles discuss the language patterns within these groups.

Afterthoughts: I enjoyed this article mainly because it was our last one and I was very motivated. On a different note it was nice to relate it to my other classes. In my CSD class we discussed autism and the different ways people with autism communicate. It was cool to be able to semi link it back to this class and the article I was reading.

“Composing as a Woman” and “Contextualizing ‘Composing as a Woman,’” Elizabeth Flynn

IWA: 4/10/13

Summary: In her articles, “Composing as a Woman” and “Contextualizing ‘Composing as a Woman,’” Elizabeth Flynn attempts to tell her audience, probably teachers, that males and females have different writing styles because of the differences in their genders and the way they are raised. She argues this through the use of students’ writings. Her second article, however, sort of argues against her first article since it is written several years later. She argues these different writing styles are not as prevalent today because of the differences in society and the way males and females are raised.

Synthesis: I would say this article is a lot like Alexander’s piece because they both look at gender roles and how they affect the way students write. In addition you could possibly relate it to Bryson. Both talk about how language and writing have changed over time and people grow to accept it.

QD 1: I honestly have mixed feelings about it. I think it could make her seem more credible because she admits that what she writes is open to change and not 100% accurate but at the same time it could take away her credibility because most people would believe a scholarly article is supposed to be 100% accurate and the writer must know everything they’re writing about.

QD 3: To me this basically means people have wanted women to write more like men because it makes everyone’s writings more alike and in doing so their viewpoints are neglected and no longer do they have their own style. This relates to other minorities in a way like Smitherman discussed. In trying to universalize the way people write we lose a lot of their voice and culture.

QD 5: I agree with her view to some point. I think it all is relative to your own experiences and the way you were raised. I think generally she is write that males are raised more-so to deny relationships than females are but again it depends on the way you were raised and your personality. I think overall it’s kind of a touchy subject.

QD 6: Okay I can see this in multiple ways. She discusses in the article how a ladder means achievement and the web means interconnections. I could see it being this way where males are focused more on success and women are focused more on intermingling with one another. However I also think it suggests that men want to reach a higher point in their life and try to take the quickest route towards it while women may not take as quick of a route but they use the connections they have to achieve what they want.

AE 2: The historical context that prompted Flynn to write this piece was that, at the time, women were viewed more as dainty and belonging in the kitchen while their husbands brought home the bacon, so to speak.

AE 3: If I’m understanding this correctly I might say Bernherdt because he’s discussing layout of a paper and the process to go through to get the perfect paper layout and analyzes the audience to understand what would work best for them.

AE 4: I don’t think her generalizations add any limitations to her article. Generalizations to me are kind of like stereotypes where everybody recognizes them but may not necessarily agree with them. I think if anything it would benefit the article because people are able to better relate to it.

MM: I think we could possibly look at numerous article because several of them were written in a time very few of us experienced so they don’t seem as relevant. I know in class when we talked about discourse communities and class none of us (from the same generation) agreed that the way people speak proves what social class they’re from while the instructor felt it did. It shows that times change and we don’t always understand the viewpoints writers are talking about.

Afterthoughts: I think this article was pretty interesting. For the first time an author questioned her own writings years later and proved that time always marches on and what we write now may not be relevant 15 years from now.

“The Politics of Teaching Literate Discourse,” Lisa Delpit

IWA: 4/3/13

Summary: In her article, “The Politics of Teaching Literate Discourse,” Lisa Delpit attempts to tell her audience, probably students and other scholars, that, in contrast to Gee, it is in fact possible to belong to more than one discourse community. She argues through the use of many success stories that we can keep our dominate discourse that we learn at home but throughout our lives our experiences help to mold other discourses.

Synthesis: This article obviously reminds me of every article we read recently but, to be more creative, it reminded me of Brandt’s piece from the beginning of the semester. Both used real life examples to demonstrate their argument which helped their piece seem more credible. Also the way she discussed how other discourses are formed reminded me of our literacy sponsors.

QD 1: To me I don’t think it matters whether she identifies her race or not. I also don’t think she should address it. Honestly I believe it’s better if she remains a “figment of my imagination” so to speak because it means she becomes less biased in her writing.

QD 3: I agree with Delpitt’s argument and think she argued it in a good way by using several different examples of people who became successful. Using several different examples really helps support what she’s arguing. However it does, in a way, make her seem bias. Every good argument needs to show the other side as well so if she had included other, minor examples of how people failed it would make her seem more reliable.

AE 2: I think she started off her argument in a good way by saying that she first agreed with him but upon further inspection found trouble with his argument. It proves that she really thought about the subject and that it’s okay to argue with other sources. I’m not sure if we could use this in our own work but it definitely helps to know that we don’t have to agree with everyone in our projects.

AE 4: I think there are certainly people who enter college without the proper skills. I believe some lack the responsibility to attend class and study and sometimes even the social skills to be willing to break out of their bubble and meet new people. However I do not think we should judge these people any less. Everyone develops at their own rate and are trying their best. Eventually they may catch up. I believe we should judge them based upon whether they’re actually trying to change or not and how well they accomplish this change.

Afterthoughts: I thought this article was really nice because it showed me that it’s totally okay to properly argue with another scholar in my own work. It also showed me that sometimes to appear more credible you can argue others’ works.