metaphors be with you!

In describing his 4 master tropes, Burke says that “metaphor is a device for seeing something in terms of something else” (503). However, Buck says that the subject of metaphors is problematic and raises the question, "Is this figure a natural product or an artificial?" (32). I heard that metaphors, which are in the figurative language domain, originated from the literal. Therefore, my answer to her question would be that a metaphor is natural because hundreds or thousands of years ago, mankind used to use the old to describe the new. For example, when we look at furniture, chairs and tables have "legs." There is a "head" and "foot" of a bed. I think this is very logical and easier to remember when we refer to objects with terms that relate to the human body. The same goes when we learn other languages.

Buck also asks why metaphors please the readers. Again, there is that sense of novelty. For example, I use many metaphors when I teach writing. We have some pesky "circus introductions" to represent obvious introductions; "grasshoppers" to represent non-cohesive sentences; "jellyfish" to represent essays that start out strong and end up weak; "islands" to represent paragraphs that are not connected to those around them; and finally, the ever common "cuckoo sentence" in which a sentence does not belong in the paragraph in which it's placed. On the handout, I even add graphics that remind them. This helps students because they don't care to know terms like "cohesion" or "unity." Instead, these types of metaphors make writing amusing and keep its sense of novelty. Unfortunately, metaphors can indeed be problematic when students start using these esoteric metaphors in other places, and others are unaware of them.

Metaphors are interesting animals. :) Wouldn’t you agree?

readings for today

I've always been fascinated with Bakhtin ever since I wrote a paper about him relating to heteroglossia and monoglossia in the original Snow White story and the Disney version. Bakhtin says that "any instrument of production may be ideologically decorated," (B&H 1211) and this is very true.

In Dr. Ostler's contrastive rhetoric course she once asked us to tell us the first thing that comes to mind when we think of the word "flower." Each of us had different ideas. Therefore, the images we relate to mean different things to different people. When we looked at the same word, there were different images in our minds. When we looked at the same exact image, we had different words to describe them. Bakhtin's idea may be related to rhetoric. If a piece of writing is the product, then rhetoric must be the decoration employed, right?

Kinneavy described his purpose as "an attempt to show the relevance of some important concepts of classical rhetoric to modern composition" (221). This again brought me back to Villanueva's belief that we should learn about the past to understand the present and possibly the future. I've always wondered whether students would appreciate some rhetoric history in their courses. However, they might be like me: blame the Arabs for inventing math. :P I think it would be valuable for them to see why things are the way they are in composition and see the great minds who have helped us come thus far. In addition to this, I've even contemplated sharing with them the history of the English language because language is something that we tend to take for granted. Most American students know when something does not make sense, but international students can explain the rules. It's very ironic that our native English-speaking students hardly know where their own language comes from.

From Paula Gunn Allen's writings, we can see that she values language and culture. Therefore, ignorance of one's culture can be just as close as losing one's culture.
She also says that native Americans have begun to write so they don't lose record of their existence. Having studied various aspects of second language acquisition, I have been intrigued by oral cultures and I know that native American language and traditions have been primarily oral. Therefore, it's important for them to become literate in their own languages so they can pass on or inform others of their traditions. This proves that a newer tradition, writing, can help them preserve their old ones.

Writing is so important. I wish our students could see this.

late, yes, but still on the same day :P

I breezed through Bitzer, Vatz, Consigny and Mountford, but was kind of swimming through Burke. The concept of space is fascinating to me as I'm a spatial learner and carefully plan my use of space when I teach and also as I write. I don't like to be cramped up in a little room and don't think students are comfortable either. When I write or create a handout, I always make good use of the space so that not too much space is left. I save a lot of trees that way. :)

The questions of whether rhetoric controls the situation or whether the situation controls the rhetoric was also something that intrigued me. In the end, it's like the "Which comes first? The chicken or the egg?" argument as they affect one another.

The idea of pulpits is also interesting. Aren't all educators preachers in some way? Don't we refer to a main text as well? We conduct our classrooms in various ways. Some stand up on a podium; some sit on tables and talk to students that way. I think it has to do with our personalities as well and how much control we want.

I enjoyed Mountford's article because she referred to literary references. For my secret rhetoric research, Dr. Wood once said I could refer to literary references and it seemed kind of vague to me at the time. I can see now from Mountford's article that literary references in research are just as powerful as primary sources. As little has been documented about women's participation in secret coding or cryptography, I think literary sources might be my best bet.

readings for the day

I really enjoyed the readings by and on bell hooks. (Now I know why James is such a big fan). She's a really dynamic person and strives to be different. I really admire that. hooks lived an extraordinary life. She had to fight many injustices as both a minority and a woman. She published so many books to show these injustices and misconceptions to the world. Much like Villanueva, she used education to enable herself to speak freely.

As Villanueva believes, we should refer to the past to help us learn about the present and sometimes even the future. I think that in the past feminism was necessary, but today I find that things have evened out to the degree that we probably don't need much feminism anymore. What do you guys think? Males are starting to wear color and are becoming more able to express themselves without being attacked. We have gone so far in history so that women can get equal pay and don't have to face harassment for being women in the workplace. There are women who are obtaining jobs traditionally for males and vice versa.

Reading Campbell's piece about the misconceptions about women really irks me. Why did women suddenly turn masculine when they spoke in public? Why were their brains considered smaller thereby making them inferior to men? Preposterous.

This brings me back to hooks when she speaks of thinking critically about domination. Well, there are various reasons for domination. Some wish for power so they can do whatever they wish. Some dominate because they think they know better than the others. Some dominate because they truly care about their followers and want to protect them. Therefore, we need to think about these things. Regarding politics, dictators could be extreme leaders who use power for their own benefits. Most presidents or other world leaders may want power but may also care for their constituents. Power is a tricky thing that most people don’t really know how to use or manipulate. This ignorance leads to intentional or even unintentional domination.