W. Ross Winterowd provides a clear basic platform of the
understanding of the rhetorical force in sentences. We can use his ideas to
explore the use of sentences in other contexts and analyze what makes a
rhetorical argument.
Winterowd states that the idea of intention is the driving
force behind all rhetorical sentences. We have seen this repeatedly in the
study of rhetoric, even from the early philosophers like Aristotle. In order to
be considered a sentence it must serve a purpose, an intention. This prevents a
sentence from being overly ambiguous, especially if the context the sentence is
used in does not give away its intention on its own. In order to portray
intention, Winterowd states there are certain verbs that are used to specify
the purpose of your sentence. These verbs are considered performatives, “words
with which the saying is the doing.”
A sentence can be a performative sentence when it states its
own doing, and this can become so when the adverb hereby is used. When
performatives are not used, a sentence is considered nonperformative.
For example:
Nonperformative: They appoint you chairman.
Performative: I hereby appoint you chairman.
It is evident that the latter example states its own doing.
Winterowd believes that the point of these performative
propositions is to state the benefaction of one or more of the people involved
in the sentence intention. This means that in order to be a sentence, the
intention should be beneficiary for either the speaker or the receiver.
We can use Winterowd’s basics of sentence structure to
analyze an article that compares the before and after of a Wikipedia article
written by Carra Leah Hood. Wikipedia is
a medium with the idea of intention vastly present in its construction. It is a
medium that intends to inform the public on a wide range of topics, after all.
However, the controversial use of Wikipedia in academics has been challenged
due to the uncertainty of its credibility with resources and factual
information. As Winterowd might say, the context provides the content
ambiguity.
But Carra Leah Hood argues for the opposing side of the
Wikipedia debate in her online website “Editing Out Obscenity: Wikipedia andWriting Pedgagogy.” She says the collaborative, constructive nature of
Wikipedia is part of the social web process and that the intention of Wikipedia
is to help students in their research, not necessarily be the entire research
component.
Her experience with Wikipedia comes in editing the
Thermodynamics entry where she claims she edited out an obscene sentence from
the article. The original sentence stated “Physicists also postulate the
existence of a quantity named entropy, which can be defined for any system.”
The edited sentence reads, “The starting point for most thermodynamic
considerations are the laws of thermodynamics, which postulate that energy can
be exchanged between physical systems as heat or work.”
The performative verb “postulate” in the original sentence
was misused, misattributed to physicists while the new sentence states that the
laws of thermodynamics guide physicists. In the first sentence, the benefaction
is given to the physicists while in the second action the benefaction is given
to the laws that guide physics. Hood considers this attribution an “obscene”
sentence, which is why she worked to eradicate it from the article.
In the edited article, a sentence follows it that rounds out
its purpose. “They also postulate the existence of a quantity named entropy,
which can be defined for any system.”
The author then did not have an issue with the construction
of the original sentence, just that its intention was “obscene” because it did
not present the entire truth. By including the newly revised sentence in
addition to the previous one, the audience is given a more inclusive view of
the word. It is no longer obscene because it matches the intention to inform
the audience of the factual information. It Is now attributing the claim to the
law of thermodynamics and not just the physicists who study them.
Hood continues her argument by admitting that in her
classroom she asks that students read and edit the Wikipedia entries that they
are writing about, even if they do not cite the article itself in their
research work. Her purpose in doing so is to teach the students not only to
consume the information, but to contribute to the history and future of a text
since Wikipeda is such a constantly changing and collaborative space.
I enjoyed the relationship you constructed between the two assigned readings in your analysis “Wikipedia is a stage we are just performing in it”. The title clearly resonates what both authors try to achieve in their articles by explaining the use of intentionality and legitimacy. Although Winterowd does not go into complete detail about the public forum Wikipedia, his article poses the question of what makes a statement intentional? This investigation of what makes a sentence just a mere sentence or an intentional statement in a rhetorical argument can closely relate to Hood’s article, which identifies an author’s intention and editing process for a Wikipedia page. Your analysis showed the comparisons of public conversation and the key factors that are needed for those statements to be reliable and beneficial to an audience. I also took away some insightful thoughts regarding your article. For example did Winterowd believe their is a ever-changing concept of audience? Did he believe that an author must intentionally convey their stance in tone and language to attract a new audience that is ever-changing because knowledge is ever-changing?
ReplyDeleteI definitely agree with the connections you made between the two sources, though I wish you would've addressed and discussed Hood's view of pedagogy. I definitely think your in-depth analysis of editing obscenities supports Hood's claim that process is much more important than product. In Wikipedia especially, an article will never be a finished product; it can always be edited, thus creating a new product.
ReplyDeleteCatalina,
ReplyDeleteThe connections you drew with performatives from Winterowd's article and Hood's claims was very well written; along with the connections you drew from both sources. Winterowd's argument about the importance of using performatives, especially when utilizing rhetoric, makes it even clearer as a reader to know where the speaker or writer is coming from when stating any sort of fact or claim or statement. It can be argued to which quality is most important in rhetoric, however, delivery is known to be one that rhetoric cannot live without. Without the correct use of delivery how can performatives come to play? Winterowd gave his audience the historical/factual side of his claims but, Hood emphasizes what Winterowd had been stressing in his article, in her article. Hood wanted to argue of the difference between a finish product and one that is not- "process oriented vs. product oriented." But what connected both articles together was the stress of delivery. With Wikipedia, there will never be a final product, on the other hand, there will always be a constant view of discourse and delivery. Which is why Hood stresses to focus on the factual side of things rather than the detailed conclusion or fail to conclude your article.
I think your ideas about using performative sentences in Wikipedia articles are very beneficial and valid. I believe Wikipedia editors would also probably agree with you. Saying that performative verbs “state the benefaction of one or more of the people involved in the sentence intention” makes the sentence active and engaging. It kind of reminds me how one of the first things I learned in my high school AP English class was to not use the passive voice. It seems as if Winterowd’s theory of performative verbs kind of builds on this more foundational principle of not using the passive voice. Both of these principles are very beneficial in public and private writing especially in the public discourse of Wikipedia.
ReplyDeleteHood’s idea of editing out obscenity and contributing to articles that are never fully finished is a very postmodernist idea. Andy Warhol actually termed this idea “pastiche” when he was creating his artwork in the 20th century. He claimed that a text was never completely finished, and there were always multiple readings of a text. This idea of pastiche seems to build a foundation for Wikipedia’s collaborative and constantly changing environment. Both Winterowd and Hood’s theories were definitely beneficial when I created my section of the Wikipedia article, and I hope everyone else took them into account.