Question 1:
In order to construct a personality, Donald Norman uses humour in order to create a
sense of shared experience with the reader. The intended influence of Norman’s personality
construction is to defuse tension by showing the reader that the author also lacks the ability
to figure out how to use certain everyday objects due to their excessively complicated
design. Norman’s intended influence on his audience is to help them consider how and why
they experience difficulty using everyday items and to view this issue light-heartedly.
Norman uses three rhetorical appeals to create this effect: ethos, pathos, and logos.
The rhetorical appeal of ethos involves using personality and stance to reach an
audience. Cockcroft and Cockcroft say that personality is expressed through “combinations
of vocabulary, intonation, and structural organization” used by the speaker, as this individual
is trying to project his or her personality (p. 16). Stance refers to the speaker’s viewpoint or
position in relation to what is being discussed (Cockcroft & Cockcroft, 2005, p. 17). The
speaker uses personality and stance effectively when he or she responds “to the psychology
and values of the audience...” (Cockcroft & Cockcroft, 2005, p. 17). Norman projects
personality mainly through intonation, as he expresses humorous sarcasm. For example, he
states that “I do not thing that simple home appliances...should look like Hollywood’s idea of
a spaceship control room” (p. 7). The rhetorical appeal of pathos involves persuading the
audience with emotions (Cockcroft & Cockcroft, 2005, p. 17). This can involve the use of
powerful imagery and “a variety of linguistic means to achieve empathy and create
‘’’engagement’” (Cockcroft & Cockcroft, 2005, p. 17). Clouse (2006) adds that emotional
appeals focus on people beliefs and needs (p. 446). Norman (2002) achieves empathy and
engagement by admitting that despite his supposed credentials, he is often confused by
everyday items. He also acknowledges people’s need to figure out patterns and understand
the world around us. The rhetorical appeal of logos involves identifying the key issues of a
debate, using a variety of arguments to reach a conclusion, and structuring those arguments
in a deliberate way (Cockcroft & Cockcroft, 2005, p.18). Clouse (2006) adds that logical
appeals involve providing reasons or pieces of evidence that explain your beliefs (p. 439).
Norman uses this appeal by first explaining how our lives are shaped by the presence of
multitudes of “everyday things,” discussing the impact of this reality, and concluding that
better and intuitive design is one of the keys to remedying our frustrations.
In conclusion, Donald Norman uses the rhetorical appeals of ethos, pathos, and
logos in order to create humour and construct a sxense of shared experience with the
reader. His intension is to emotionally impact the audience in a way that helps them
acknowledge, understand, and think further about some of the frustrations they experience
in everyday life.
Question 2:
Beason (2001) demonstrates the design principles outlined by Sharples (1999) to
help inform readers that the process of writing involves understanding the audience’s
perception of and response to errors. Following all six of the principles outlined by Sharples
(1999), Beason (2001) also follows Clouse’s principle of supporting claims by using reasons
and evidence from a variety of sources and experience and observation (p. 439).
Sharples (1999) claims that writers are bound by design principles (p. 165). Sharples
(1999) outlines six basic principles that writers should follow: (1) Do not “present
unwarranted belief as fact; (2) “...provide justification for assertions...,”; (3) “references the
sources of ideas,”; (4) do not “selectively ignore facts, but offer all the information that is
relevant to an argument,”; (5) “acknowledge the limitations of an argument,”; and (6)
“present the text in a form that is designed to assist, not mislead, the reader” (p. 165). The
overall goal of these principles, according to Sharple (1999), is to promote understanding for
the reader (p. 176)
Beason (2001) demonstrates the first of Sharples’ principles by avoiding outright
“facts” and instead warranting claims. For example, Beason (2001) uses evidence taken
from interviewing fourteen study subjects rather than making generalizations based on
personal observations. This method also helps Beason (2001) “provide justifications for
assertions” (the second of Sharples’ principles) as he engages subjects “who engaged in
both daily reading of business documents and frequent...writing in connection with their
organization” (p. 36). Beason (2001) demonstrates the third of Sharples’ principles by
referring to the sources of his ideas, particularly the limitations of his methods. Beacon
(2001) then follows the fourth principle by pointing out that key facts need to be considered
while trying to understand the nature of ethos and error. For example, Beason (2001)
discusses what should be avoided during writing, such as looking for an “easy way out” (p.
59-60). Beason (2002) demonstrates the fifth principle by pointing out the limitations of his
chosen method. For example, he states that his goal was to “avoid generating data that
might be misconstrued as indicating that certain ethnic groups respond one way, others
another way” (p. 36). Finally, Beason (2001) strives to assist rather than mislead the reader
by offering guidelines for help, such as helping students “understand the depth and
significance of this all-too-human response to errors” (p. 60).
In conclusion, Beason’s intended effect of following these six principles is to help the
audience understand the nature of errors in writing, including how errors are judged
subjectively by other professionals. In other words, Beason (2001) is trying to help the
reader understand that his or her audience interpret and respond to “errors” so that the
reader can reach that audience through his or her writing style. In regards to the appeals
explained by Clouse (2006), Beason (2001) relies on personal observations backed by
evidence. For example, Beason (2001) states his belief that “...students [cannot] understand
error unless they and teachers alike better comprehend error in terms of its impact...” (p. 34).
Question 3:
Sharples (1999) uses the example of “Black English” to help the reader understand
Bakhtin’s theory that language is fleeting, contradiction-ridden and tension filled. Using this
concept, Sharples (1999) illustrates that when writers try to produce an argument, they
employ multiple “languages”, such as Black English and Standard English. Sharples’ point is
that writers need to make “rhetorical decisions” about how and when to use these different
forms of language, depending on their audience of peers and policy makers (p. 160).
As Sharples (1999) explains, the term “Black English” refers to the form of English
used by inner-city teenagers in their everyday lives. This term was coined by Linda Flowers
whose goal was to introduce these youth to strategies for writing (Sharples, 1999, p. 160).
She used the term “Black English” to refer to daily speech which is different than “Standard
English” commonly used in persuasive writing (Sharples, 1999, p. 160). Her goal was to
illustrate what while Black English is valued, students need to know when to use this type of
language and when to use Standard Written English. Referring to the theories of Bakhtin,
Cockcroft and Cockcroft (2005) refer to this use of multiple languages as a “double-voiced”
discourse or a discourse of “many voices” containing both dominant and subordinate
languages (p. 20).
Sharples’ explanation of the term “Black English” represents Bakhtin’s argument that
language is fleeting, contradiction-ridden and tension filled; in other words, language is never
neutral or objective. Rather, our language is shaped by “...the co-existence of socioideological contradictions between the present and the past, between differing epochs of the
past, between different socio-ideological groups in the present...and so forth...” (Bakhtin,
1981, p. 291). The tern “Black English” illustrates this point by the fact that it represents the
language of a group of youth whose language is shaped by a certain social, political, and
economic atmosphere. Bakhtin (1981) also claims that the language of “today” and
“yesterday” are quite different and often contradictory, as people’s socio-ideological positions
change (p. 291). Bakhtin (1981) refers to this phenomenon as a “heteroglossia” of language,
or the interrelation of different forms of language. In the case of those who speak Black
English, the tension is between their own language and the Standard English of the
audience they are trying to persuade. Clouse (2006) helps illustrate Sharples’ point by
claiming that in order to support an argument, writers need to incorporate a variety of
“languages,” such as the language of personal experience, the language of class lectures,
and the language of authorities (p. 439).
In conclusion, Sharples (1999) uses the example of “Black English” to help the
reader understand Bakhtin’s theory that language is fleeting, contradiction-ridden and
tension filled. Sharples (1999) makes this point by explaining how writers have multiple
“languages” with which to make their argument. As Bakhtin (1981) discusses, these
languages are shaped according to one’s socio-ideological position in society; a position
determined by history and other important social factors.
Question 4:
Beason’s
article
can
help
college
and
university
teachers
prepare
their
undergraduate students for research writing by revealing how writing errors are judged
subjectively rather than objectively. With this attitude in mind, teachers can examine their
personal definition of “error” and how this impacts students in terms of their writing. Beason
(2001) uses a variety of writing strategies explained and mentioned in Clouse’s text, such as
using background information to illustrate the importance of his argument, using statistics to
statistics to illustrate relevant patterns, and using supporting detail.
Beason (2001) points out the subjective nature of error by discussing how teachers
often associate “errors” with the shortcomings of the writer rather than the readability of the
text. Beason (2001) is implying that the readability of a text does not depend solely on the
writer and his or her ability to avoid “errors”. Instead, readability includes the writing itself and
our reactions to what we perceive as errors. Beason (2001) illustrates this point with the
claim that “the severity of error is shaped by the reader’s context...” (p. 34). In other words,
Beason (2001) is saying that interpretation of a piece of writing varies from one reader to the
next, which is why it can be difficult for teachers to prepare students. In response to this
challenge Beason (2001) recommends that teachers “keep in mind that errors involve more
than perceived flaws in a text” (p. 35). Beason (2001) suggests that by taking this approach,
teachers can gain an understanding of how students’ “mental events” shape their writing. In
turn, teachers can avoid using the word “wrong” and instead concentrate on helping the
student do what he or she can do to strengthen an argument by way of evidence, clarity, and
other important aspects of writing.
In terms of how Beason’s article is written, this author makes his key points by using
several of the research writing strategies explained and demonstrated in Clouse’s text. First,
Beason (2001) relies on background information by discussing how previous researchers
“have examined how business professionals react to errors...” (p. 34). This helps put
Beason’s points into a “real life” context. Second, Beason (2001) uses statistics to illustrate
that business professionals exhibit certain patterns in the ways they perceive error in writing.
Finally, Beason (2001) relies on a great deal of supporting detail, such as the different types
of errors that commonly occur in writing like misspelling, sentence fragments, and
grammatical problems (p. 37-9).
In conclusion, Beason’s article can help college and university teachers prepare their
undergraduate students for research writing by explaining how writing errors are judged
differently from one reader to the next. Bearing in mind this nature of errors, teachers can
examine how their perceptions of “error” are subjective.