This week's reading gave me a little bit of a headache at first. I found myself saying, "ok so, what is it already??" a lot while I read the article. But once I stopped yelling at Reddick, I began to really get a feel for what exposition is for the first time all semester. Finally!! Exposition is not meant to be defined. I think its purpose is to challenge and invoke conversation and debate among its readers( which we've all witnessed during class discussions).
The reason that we have these discussions is because all readers interpret a text differently. Of course, writers naturally assume that all of their readers are somehow mind readers. But as Reddick puts it, "Since lay readers do not already posses the concept, they could understand it from a mere assertion of it if only language functions like a conduit; that is, only if what is in the mind of the composer can be transported to the mind of the reader via the language of the text...Of course they do not, for as Reddy and Sperber and Wilson have shown, language cannot function like a conduit' (218). In other words, we cannot always assume what a writer is trying to tell us- but we can always play around with different conclusions and theories about their intentions. This is what drives our creative minds to analyze and research (all that stuff good students are supposed to do).
So, this brings me to my question. Is there ever an 'explanation' for anything, or we all just theorizing? Do you find that often when you read an article for a specific answer you never actually get it? Reddick says, "Because the examples are conventional and because they are presumed to contain an explanation, the question of what counts as an explanation does not get addressed'(219). What do you make of this quote?
That is interesting! I think we do theorize about a lot of stuff we read, unless it's something straightforward and easy that could be explained. Everything that we have read in class up until this point has been theorizing, because we as the reader can come up with a thousand different interpretations.
ReplyDelete"What is it already?"
ReplyDeleteI know, right? I'm actually not too sure but here is my best guess. Whenever you are reading something and you think to your self, "this is pretty easy to read" that is exposition.
The big challenge with exposition is the consistency in, what should be, non-biased textbooks. We should all learn the same American history. The lesson should be implemented to each student the same way. That is what academia struggles with. For the most part we do a good job of this but there's always some variation. Learning from a text will never be an exact thing.
I believe there is good and bad exposition. We are learning this because as professional writers we should be able to grasp a good written exposition.
The idea that we can never truly get an answer as opposed to a theory is a bit daunting. It turns so much of our “knowledge” on its ears. But when you put this in terms of constructing knowledge, as we have been discussing in class, it is a little less frustrating. I like to think that we can truly know some things, because they have been validated through science and the like. Then again, as seen in the Lehrer article, sometimes what we accept as scientific truth does not hold up over time.
ReplyDeleteWe are a people who like our absolute truths- or at the very least relative truths that can appear to be absolute in the right light. We like to be able to say that something is “proven”, or that something is true to all exclusion. Yet very little in this world is really absolute. We talk in terms of relativity and rough equivalents, and tell ourselves that it is true enough. “Close enough for government work.”
Does this mean that we should not still strive for the truth? I think that we should always be striving for truth, or at least for knowledge that can serve as truth. Nietzsche says that “truths are illusions which we have forgotten are illusions.” I think that this applies very well to the idea that truth can never be absolute, because it is an illusion. An illusion would equate to our theories. An illusion can simulate something that is real to the point that you may not be able to tell from a distance that it is not the thing itself. Perhaps that is that our theories are. They are illusions that are sometimes so fitting and so resemblant of the truth that they can serve in its place.
If I read an article to find an answer about something, I feel like I usually find it. But did the author of the article intend for me to extract that answer? Sometimes I'm not sure. Just like a writer creates a text with a specific agenda, a reader often comes to a text with an agenda. Based on that agenda, readers are likely to interpret the text to suit their needs. This is not to say a reader would choose a random, general text on a topic and really stretch it to find an answer. All of the information at our fingertips today via the Internet and research databases makes it easy for us to quickly narrow our searches for texts likely containing the answers we want.
ReplyDeleteplucky publisher - I agree that the thought of not having a true answer is unsettling. And I like that you brought up knowledge construction and truth here. You say "I think that we should always be striving for truth, or at least for knowledge that can serve as truth." I really like this statement. It's fascinating to think that each of us as a reader/interpreter is on a journey to define our own personal truths.
Therein lies one of the key points to this article. According to Reddick, "It is not the presence of an explanation that allows interpreters to recognize expository discourse as expository, but it is the perception that the assertions being made constitute an answer to some question that has arisen within some intellectual space. That perception, in turn, requires that the interpreter occupy, at least partially, the same intellectual space that gave rise to the question. Otherwise the discourse will be unintelligible" (219-220). So to answer your question, I believe we do theorize through the use of our perceptions (or past experiences) when attempting to "answer" or "explain" a question we come across. We can't necessarily give a definitive answer because there are so many other ways to approach a topic or answer a question. For example, each of our peers within the classroom has a similar, but varying approach to each of the readings discussed in class.
ReplyDeleteAs to looking for a specific answer never received within an article read, it depends on the type of article. News articles usually do a pretty good job in covering the main questions of who, what, where, when, why (five "w"s), and how within the first couple of paragraphs to explain the situation that a headline brings to attention. However, when it comes to academic articles such as Reddick's on expository discourse, as you said earlier in your post, "what is it already" is a question that gets answered with a non-answer of it being impossible to define because of each individual's perspective answer on the question. In other words, the answer is there is no single answer.
As to your last quote, it sounds like Reddick is saying that there is a disconnect between the people answering (textbook writers, publishers, teachers) and the people questioning (the student audience). He suggests that while the writers may find the examples to be well-explained and conventional, the readers do not because they didn't "bring the set of questions that the assertions with in the textbooks answer" (219). Reddick poses the idea that perception is key to recognizing exposition. If the writers want their readers to understand and ask the right questions, the writers need to keep their readers' general perceptions in mind (at least in the case of students who are new to the written topic at hand).