Post 12

In Swales conversation, he believes that there are six defining characteristics that are necessary and sufficient for identifying a group of individuals as a discourse community. He feels that if these six characteristics are no met, then this group cannot be considered a discourse community. Gee believes that there are two different types of discourse. Discourse with a “D” and discourse with a “d.” The difference between the two, is that Discourse is the rights, values, beliefs of a group and that once you learn these from your family, friends, or church, one cannot leave the discourse community. Those rights, values, and beliefs of the group are instilled in the member from a young age, and do not always change. Gee said that while one cannot change their Discourse community, there are secondary Discourse categories for things like sports teams, groups for class, and many other things, but your values, beliefs, and rights will not change when you join these types of groups. Swales and Gee ideas of discourse communities differ, because while Swales analyzed the groups that one joins itself as a discourse community, Gee analyzes how life molds ones discourse community.

Johns extends the conversation of discourse communities, because her idea of a discourse community includes the six defining characteristics of a discourse community, but she states that one can choose to be members of one or a variety of communities, groups with whom they share social, political, professional, or recreational interests. Johns also mentions that these genres are not, in all cases, sophisticated or intellectual, literary or high browed. They represent the values, needs, and practices of the community that produces them. Community membership may be concentrated or diluted; it may be central to a person’s life or peripheral.  These people can be musicians, lawyers, athletes, and physicians can all be apart of a discourse community. 

Post 11

Through the six defining characteristics of a discourse community that Swale provides, I evaluated my sorority, Tau Beta Sigma. The first of the six defining characteristics according to Swale, is that a discourse community has a broadly agreed set of common public goals. A set of common public goals that my sorority follows, is to help better the community through volunteer work and to better Ohio University’s bands, such as the Marching 110 and various concert bands. The second defining characteristic is that a discourse community has mechanisms of intercommunication among its members. The ways we communicate in the sorority are through chapter meetings. In the chapter meetings the Executive Board members and the President mostly talk about current or future service work that we could partake in and fundraising opportunities. The third characteristic is that a discourse community uses its participatory mechanisms primarily to provide information and feedback. We do this through having yearly dues to belong to our sorority, as well as having prospective members receive bids to join. The fourth characteristic utilizes and hence possesses one or more genres in the communicative furtherance of its aims. Tau Beta Sigma does this by having agendas at each chapter meeting to discuss current and future ideas, problems, and solutions to keep the meetings on track. The fifth defining characteristic is a discourse community has acquired some specific lexis, which we have achieved this through having a secret language and signs to acknowledge your membership in Tau Beta Sigma. Finally the sixth defining characteristic is that a discourse community has a threshold level of members with a suitable degree of relevant content and discoursal expertise. To join Tau Beta Sigma, one must first receive a bid to join the sorority and then once the perspective member accepts the bid they have to complete three degrees to officially become an active member of Tau Beta Sigma. I believe that my sorority meets all of the six requirements that Swale has stated to be a discourse community. 

Post 10

After reading “From Pencils to Pixels,” I think that it would be difficult to imagine where literacy practices will be in 12 years. I believe that it will be difficult to know where literacy practices will be, because while the evolution from using the pencil, to the type writer, and to the telephone had be somewhat slower that the evolution of technology in today’s society, the computer is ever changing and there is not really a way to know where the computer will go next. I believe within the next 12 years, the computer will be an even bigger part of society, but I also think that using phones and physically writing will still be a part of our generation.

Technology has shaped my literacy, because I grew up using a computer. From some of the earliest points in my life I remember having the opportunity to use a computer. My family got a computer when I was younger and I would constantly go on to write stories that I had come up with earlier that day. I was also interested in illustrating these stories that I had invented. Technology has also shaped my literacy, because I almost would rather communicate via text message or through facebook than to communicate face to face.

The types of “composing” that I use besides alphabetic writing are social media sites, pictures, and websites that show my interests to others, like Pinterest. These types of “composing” that I use, are to help convey meanings to specific audiences in specific settings. I use websites like Pinterest to show my different interests to friends and family as well as finding other things on the Internet that I might like or want to share with other people. I also use facebook to share my interests with friends and family, share music that I like, as well as pictures to help keep my family and friends updated.

Post 9

A literacy event, as defined by Heath, is “a conceptual tool useful in examining within particular communities of modern society the actual forms and functions of oral and literate traditions and co-existing relationships between spoken and written language.”  She also states that a literacy event “is any occasion in which a piece of writing is integral to the nature of the participants’ interactions and their interpretive processes.” Some of the literacy events she identifies in Trackton that are necessary to show literacy skills are important, are in the church life and at work. These events are deemed important to integrate both oral and written language, because learning to read is judged in their daily lives and these people had to grow accustomed to participating in literacy events in ways that are appropriate to their community’s norms.

This concept could be applied to Sherman Alexie’s literacy narrative, because it was necessary to partake in events such as story telling and powwows, as an Indian. The Indian children were expected to be stupid and not participate in class. On the outside, these individuals who acted “stupid” were able to tell complex stories and remember how to sing many different songs used at the powwows. This was the norm for the community, so if one wanted to be accepted, they needed to follow. Even though in his community, being a smart Indian is viewed as a dangerous person, and those that are smart, are feared and ridiculed by other Indians, as well as non-Indians.  Instead, Alexie read everything that he could read and tried to save himself from the same fate that most of his peers faced. 

The Illness of Addictions

                                                            The Illness of Addictions

Much effort and controversy surrounds arming individuals with the knowledge and skills needed to combat the battle with drug and alcohol addiction. The specific argument that this campaign supports, is the belief that drug abuse and addiction of any substance is an illness that is comparable to any other illness that needs to be treated or that already receives treatment. The argument not only supports the belief that an addiction is an illness, but endorses the continuing support to get the proper treatments for those people who are abusing substances.

In order to understand what the visual argument is trying to support, one needs to first understand who the rhetor is. The rhetor in this instance is the Partnership for A Drug Free America.  A rhetor is responsible for the discourse and its voice. This means that they are the ones who need to get a specific group of people, or their audience to follow and understand their argument.

Carroll claims, “another part of the rhetorical context is audience, those who are the (intended or unintended) recipients of the rhetorical message. The audience should be able to respond to the exigence. In other words, the audience should be able to help address the problem” (49). The audiences that The Partnership for a Drug Free America is targeting, I believe, are two different groups. First, I believe they are targeting those people who believe that addicts should get the help that they need, instead of letting the addicts continue to abuse drugs and alcohol and continue to get worse. The second audience are those who believe that drug users should not get the help that they need by using tax payers money  and using their own money to get help instead. Carroll points out, “audience can determine the type of language used, the formality of the discourse, the medium or delivery of the rhetoric, and even the types of reasons used the make the rhetor’s argument” (49). Since there is a possibility that there is more than one audience the argument is targeting, the delivery has to cut across many different beliefs and values.  The rhetor wants the audience, after “reading” this argument, to feel that those who are addicted to drugs or alcohol deserve the treatment that they need in order to overcome their illness and recover.

Another goals of the rhetor, is the exigence or an obstacle that the rhetor is trying to overcome. “Exigence is the circumstance or condition that invites a response,” Carrol states ““you can begin to understand a piece’s exigence by asking, “What is this rhetoric responding to?” “What might have happened to make the rhetor respond in this way”” (48-49). For example, in this anti-drug campaign for The Partnership for a Drug Free America, the problem, or exigence that the campaign is trying to eliminate, is the usage of drugs and alcohol. Carroll acknowledges, “understanding the exigence is important because it helps you begin to discover the purpose of the rhetoric. It helps you understand what the discourse is trying to accomplish”(49). The purpose of the campaign is also letting the audience know that addictions are illnesses, and those people who have addictions to drugs and alcohol need to get proper care in order to overcome the illness. Substance addictions to the rhetor, is as much of a problem to

individuals as if they had a brain tumor.

The final goal of the rhetor, is the beliefs and attitudes, or the constraints of the argument.

Carroll implies ““constraints have a lot to do with how the rhetoric is presented. Constraints can be “beliefs, attitudes, documents, facts, traditions, images, interests, motives,” constraints limit the way the discourse is delivered or communicated”” (49). The constraint of this rhetorical situation is that there are people who do not believe that being addicted to drugs or alcohol is a problem, and that those who are addicted can easily stop using the substance that they are addicted to. These people believe that they should not have to use their hard-earned money to help fund programs for those people who are already addicted, or even help fund alcohol and drug prevention programs. These people also believe that the addicts should use their own resources to get the help that they need. This campaign delivers the message to people who do not believe that addicts should get help, by using a disease that causes a lot of damage to the person who is diagnosed with it and is emotionally painful for (the pain that it causes) their families. This is hard hitting, because many people know others who have had cancer who have had to struggle with the pain that this disease causes. This campaign tries to connect the emotions people feel about cancer to others who know the pain addiction has caused themselves, as well as their families. 

The rhetor uses the three artistic appeals: logos, pathos, and ethos to get a reaction out of the audience and to try and get their message across. Carroll states, “logos is commonly defined as argument from reason, and it usually appeals to an audience’s intellectual side”(52). We can see logos being used in this anti-drug campaign, because it appeals to the scientific aspect that we already know after many experiments, that drugs and alcohol are harmful to the body and can cause many problems. Pathos deals with emotion, and according to Carroll, “appeals (as rhetoric that draws on pathos is called) used alone without logos and ethos can come across as emotionally manipulative or overly sentimental, but are very powerful when used in conjunction with the other two appeals”(52).  Pathos comes into play in this campaign because people fear if they or someone close to them were to be diagnosed with a brain tumor and they usually pity anyone with this illness. People usually feel sad or guilty when someone is sick, but they do not often feel the same way when someone is addicted to drugs, because they feel addicts brought the addiction upon themselves.

Finally, Carroll refers to ethos as the

credibility of the rhetor—which can be a person or an organization. A rhetor can develop credibility in many ways. The tone of the writing and whether that tone is appropriate for the context helps build a writer’s ethos, as does the accuracy of the information or the visual presentation of the rhetoric (54).

The Partnership for a Drug Free America is a credible source, because they are a group of professional scientists and communication professionals who devote their time to helping parents prevent, intervene, or find treatment for their children who are suffering from abusing drugs or alcohol.

After reading Backpack vs. Briefcase and analyzing this visual argument, I believe that this piece is very effective in communicating that drug and alcohol addictions could be treated like other diseases. I believe this visual piece is effective because it targets something that most people have had to deal with, which is knowing someone who has had cancer, or targeting someone who has had cancer themselves. The piece appeals to our emotions and calls the audience to take a deeper look into a matter that may not typically affect them and to give serious thought to something they may not necessarily think about every day.

Work Cited:

"About Us." The Partnership for a Drug Free America. N.p., n.d. Web. 7 Feb.

     2012. <http://www.drugfree.org/about>.

Carroll, Laura Bolin. "Writing Spaces." Backpacks vs. Briefcases. Parlor Press, n.d. Web. 6 Feb 2012. <http://writingspaces.org/sites/default/files/carroll--backpacks-vs-briefcases.pdf>

Partnership For a Drug Free America. 10 June 2009. Ms Rodgers' Blog. Word Press,

     n.d. Web. 7 Feb. 2012. <http://msrodgers.wordpress.com/2009/06/10/

     anti-drug-campaign-samples/>.

Post 8

The definition that I got from reading “Sponsors of Literacy,” is that a sponsor is a figure or figures who have turned up typically in a person’s memories of learning through literature. These sponsors were sometimes older relatives, teachers, priests, supervisors, military officers, editors, and other influential members of society. The sponsors of literacy according to Brandt, were “powerful figures who were usually richer, more knowledgeable, and more entrenched than the sponsored, sponsors nevertheless enter a reciprocal relationship with those they underwrite, but also stand to gain benefits from their success.” When Malcolm X was in prison, he turned to members of society that were influential in furthering the rights of African Americans, and seeking social justice for the years of hardships that the white man had put colored peoples through.

Malcolm X’s sponsors were Elijah Muhammad, the Norfolk Prison Colony, and Bimbi. His access to sponsors were determined by socioeconomic conditions contingent upon race and class, because he became interested in reading about black history, or non-whitened history. Slavery shocked him, and made the greatest impact upon him in the search for information and history on colored people. Most of the history that was reported during that time was from the white man and does not describe the hardships that many Africans, African Americans, and other colored peoples had to go through. This made him want to go further in to history and found sponsors who were also interested in reporting the hardships that colored peoples have had to go through, as well as being activists for the equality of colored people. One can argue that Malcolm X’s literacy sponsors “constrained” his literacy acquisition, because much of his focus in literature became reading only stories based on white peoples oppressing colored peoples. I also feel that one of his constraints could be that he was trying to please Mr. Muhammad with what he was reading. I feel like this could have been one of the constraints, because I felt that in the beginning Malcolm was only focusing on certain topics that Mr. Muhammad was interested in. 

Project 2 Draft

There is a lot of effort and controversy in getting people the knowledge and skills needed to combat the battle with drug and alcohol addictions. The specific argument that this campaign supports, is the belief that drug abuse and addiction of any substance is an illness that is comparable to any other illness that needs to be treated or that already receives treatment. The argument not only supports the belief that an addiction is an illness, but for the continuing support to get the proper treatments for those people who are abusing substances.

In order to understand what the visual argument is trying to support, one needs to first understand the who the rhetor is. The rhetor in this instance is the Partnership for A Drug Free America.  A rhetor is responsible for the discourse and its voice. This means that they are the ones who need to get a specific group of people, or their audience to follow and understand their argument. Carroll claims, “another part of the rhetorical context is audience, those who are the (intended or unintended) recipients of the rhetorical message. The audience should be able to respond to the exigence. In other words, the audience should be able to help address the problem” (49). The audiences that The Partnership for a Drug Free America I believe is targeting are two different groups. First, I believe they are targeting those people who believe that addicts should get the help that they need, instead of letting the addicts continue to abuse drugs and alcohol and continue to get worse. Then the second audience, are those people who believe that drug users should not get the help that they need by using tax payers money, and instead use their own money to get help. Carroll points out, “audience can determine the type of language used, the formality of the discourse, the medium or delivery of the rhetoric, and even the types of reasons used the make the rhetor’s argument” (49). Since there is a possibility that there is more than one audience the argument is targeting, the delivery has to cut across many different beliefs and values.  The rhetor wants the audience after “reading” this argument to feel that those who are addicted to drugs or alcohol to deserve the treatment that they need in order to overcome their illness and get better.

Another goals of the rhetor, is the exigence or an obstacle that the rhetor is trying to overcome. “Exigence is the circumstance or condition that invites a response,” Carrol states ““you can begin to understand a piece’s exigence by asking, “What is this rhetoric responding to?” “What might have happened to make the rhetor respond in this way”” (48-49). For example, in this anti-drug campaign for The Partnership for a Drug Free America, the problem, or exigence that the campaign is trying to eliminate, is the usage of drugs and alcohol. Carroll acknowledges, “understanding the exigence is important because it helps you begin to discover the purpose of the rhetoric. It helps you understand what the discourse is trying to accomplish”(49). The purpose of the campaign is also letting the audience know that addictions are illnesses, and those people who have addictions to drugs and alcohol need to get proper care in order to overcome the illness. This to the rhetor, is just like someone who has a brain tumor.

The final goal of the rhetor, is the beliefs and attitudes, or the constraints of the argument.

Carroll implies ““constraints have a lot to do with how the rhetoric is presented. Constraints can be “beliefs, attitudes, documents, facts, traditions, images, interests, motives,” constraints limit the way the discourse is delivered or communicated”” (49). The constraint of this rhetorical situation is that there are people who do not believe that being addicted to drugs or alcohol is a problem, and that those who are addicted can easily stop using the substance that they are addicted to. These people believe that they should not have to use their hard earned money to help fund programs for those people who are already addicted, or even help fund alcohol and drug prevention programs. These people also believe that the addicts should use their own money to get the help that they need. This campaign delivers the message to the people who do not believe that addicts should get help, by using a disease that causes a lot of damage to the person who is diagnosed with it and the pain that it causes their families. This is hard hitting, because many people know others who have had cancer who have had to struggle with the pain that this disease causes. This campaign tries to connect these emotions people feel about cancer to others who know the pain addiction has caused themselves, as well as their families. 

The rhetor uses the three artistic appeals, logos, pathos, and ethos to get a reaction out of the audience and to try and get their message across. Carroll states, “logos is commonly defined as argument from reason, and it usually appeals to an audience’s intellectual side”(52). We can see logos being used in this anti-drug campaign, because it appeals to the scientific aspect that we already know after many experiments, that drugs and alcohol are harmful to the body and can cause many problems. Pathos deals with emotion, and according to Carroll, “appeals (as rhetoric that draws on pathos is called) used alone without logos and ethos can come across as emotionally manipulative or overly sentimental, but are very powerful when used in conjunction with the other two appeals”(52). The emotional aspect of this campaign is using having a brain tumor would be better than being addicted to drugs, because then the person who has a tumor could get the help that they need. People feel sad or guilty when someone is sick, but they do not feel the same way when someone is addicted to drugs, because those people who are addicts brought the addiction upon themselves.

Finally, Carroll refers to ethos as the

credibility of the rhetor—which can be a person or an organization. A rhetor can develop credibility in many ways. The tone of the writing and whether that tone is appropriate for the context helps build a writer’s ethos, as does the accuracy of the information or the visual presentation of the rhetoric (54).

The Partnership for a Drug Free America is a credible source, because they are a group of professional scientists and communication professionals who devote their time to helping parents prevent, intervene, or find treatment for their children who are suffering from abusing drugs or alcohol.

After reading Backpack vs. Briefcase and analyzing this visual argument, I believe that this piece is very effective in communicating that drug and alcohol addictions should be treated like any other disease. I believe that this is effective, because it targets something that most people have had to deal with, which is knowing someone who has had cancer, or targeting someone who has had cancer themselves. This targets our emotions and wanting to take a deeper look into things that we do not necessarily think about every day, because these things typically do not affect us.