Maria Leal
Z. De Piero
MW 3-4:50 PM
February 18,
2015
Textual genres, in a way, are similar to
people, each one with a different surface appearance when compared to the next,
but often times, with a similar make up within, whether it may be rhetorical
make-up, conventional make-up, or one’s literal biological make-up[ZD2]. There are countless genres, available
to writers and readers alike, that can used to convey a message. Said genres
are categorized under two main groups[ZD3], scholarly and non-scholarly texts. Upon
research on the effects of modern technology on the music industry, despite
reporting on the same topic, Matthew Wall’s article on BBC News proved to be
superior, over Birgitte Andersen’s article in Prometheus, through his usage of rhetorical features and conventions, as well
as the “moves” utilized in his an attempt to increase the overall effectiveness
of his own article.[ZD4]
Mathew
Wall, a business reporter for BBC News, and Birgitte Andersen, a
professor at Birbeck College, both
published papers centered around the effects that modern technology possesses
over the music industry; however, regardless of the mutual topic, both articles
are very distinct in their textual make-up in regards to rhetorical features
and conventions. To
begin with[ZD5], Mathew Wall’s “Is streaming technology saving the music industry?” , is an online
newspaper article. Therefore, the way it is structured is very different than
other textual pieces out there. In terms of structure and conventions,
newspaper articles are usually written in a way that makes them “easy on the
eyes”, so to speak. Each
sentence is usually written as though it is its own individual paragraph. [ZD6]Furthermore, this sentence-per-paragraph structure [ZD7]aids in dividing what is usually dense
information: facts, figures, and interviews. It makes it easier for the reader
to follow along and understand what said article is reporting on. Andersen’s
article, however, does the complete opposite.
Both
articles are divided into different sections with bold-faced headings, but the
content in each section is what greatly differs. If Wall’s article is more
visually appealing, Andersen’s is harder on the eyes[ZD8]. Seeing as how [ZD9]Andersen’s article was published in a
scholarly journal, she does not follow the sentence-per-paragraph structure
found in newspapers. Instead, she opts for the classic paragraph structure that
essentially everyone has had to endure [ZD10]at one point or another.
Her
paragraphs are dense, not just visually, but grammatically as well. Andersen
incorporates intense, academic vocabulary that makes her article suitable for a
scholarly journal such as the Prometheus.
Additionally, simple sentences in Andersen’s article are extremely rare, if not
nonexistent, making structurally complex sentences more than abundant
throughout the entire text. Although such sentences allow more a more eloquent
article with greater fluidity, it also makes it far easier for a reader unfamiliar
with the topic or discipline to become lost and confused. [ZD11]
Both
articles possess an informative tone, however the style found within each is
what sets them apart[ZD12]. BBC’s article places an emphasis on the
effects of the increasing popularity of “streaming” music through programs such
as “Spotify, Deezer, and MixRadio”, which are now seen as the “savior[s]” of
the modern-day music industry (Wall 2014). Wall includes plenty of hard facts
in regards to statistics, however, he balances the dense and dry with the
conversational as he incorporates plenty of quotes from sources he has
interviewed. This allows for an easier and more enjoyable read. That does not
mean that Andersen’s style of writing is not enjoyable, however it does make it
a bit more time-consuming due to its length, she focuses on not just streaming
music, but also “music rights”, “globalization”, and “P2P file sharing”
(Andersen 2010). As
a result, it makes for a harder and denser read filled with an abundance of
statistics. [ZD13]Her writing is far more formal and
scholarly, thus limiting her audience due to its lack of relatability.
When
considering a genre[ZD14], it is vital to not only consider its
rhetorical features, audience, and purpose, but to also consider how effective it may be
over another genre when trying to send a message across[ZD15]. Each genre was created for a specific
purpose or area in which it was designated to shine. Depending on the
information being provided and the audience trying to be reached, perhaps a
non-academic piece would be more suitable in a certain environment as opposed
to a scholarly text. It works the other way around as well. For instance, if
someone is trying to get the word out about an upcoming national event that is
due to happen within the next few days, it is not advisable that they undergo
the long and arduous process of scholastic peer revision and journal
publications. Besides,
advertising for an event is not really considered “scholarly journal” worthy.
In said case, publishing on a non-academic platform would be far more
beneficial because not only would it be quicker to accomplish, but it would
also reach a much wider audience, scholar or not. However, it also lends for
its reliability to be compromised. [ZD16]
Non-academic
pieces are easier to be influenced by biases. When it comes to scholarly texts,
due to the intense amounts of peer revision, biases are harder to slide through
because scholarly texts, such as journals, are meant to report and inform on
facts without biases getting in the way, so as to allow the reader to formulate
their own opinions and thoughts based upon what they have read.[ZD17] Furthermore, although it may be easier
for a writer to convince the less educated masses to perhaps share the same
ideologies as them through a non-academic text, attempting to get a scholar or
any other educated person with authority to side with them would be near to
impossible. Non-academic texts are nowhere near as reliable as journals and
other scholarly pieces, which present facts and hard-hitting evidence to
support claims. Additionally, having said facts and evidence allows for writers
to get readers to swing to their side. It demonstrates that the research was
done supports their claims and that those claims were not just made in vain
without adequate information.
As
everything in life, there pros and cons to using a non-academic piece as
opposed to a scholarly text, when attempting to convey a message, and vice
versa. The biggest concern is audience. Practically everyone has access to
non-academic texts from social media, to magazines, to newspapers, and even
something as simple as flyers. As a result, reaching a huge audience is far
easier to do with non-academic pieces because they are easier to access both
online and offline and are also easier to put out. As for scholastic papers,
their audience is far more limited. Scholarly writing does not appeal to
everyone but a select few groups. Not just that, but access to academic
journals is a lot harder for the everyday person if they do not possess a
subscription or have access to a database. Most people would rather have
subscriptions to entertainment magazines than scholarly journals. In other
words, one is more appealing than the other, making one’s message reach a
farther and wider audience than the other.
Everything
a writer does, is not simply done in vain, but in an attempt to increase the
effectiveness of their paper, “moves” included. Writers do not simply compose
first drafts and call it a day, in fact, almost all serious writers continuously
revise and create draft upon draft until they have arrived at the most
effective way to convey their intended message. One of Matthew Wall’s more
notable “moves” in his BBC article is his rare but carefully chosen sentence
length variation. Wall is consistent in his use of complex sentences. However,
when discussing the shift among music listeners from willingly wanting to
solely own music to their new preference of streaming, he also goes on to point
out the constant disputes regarding money loss that many music companies
possess. Among all the financial dilemma that the music industries are claiming
to face, Wall notes that some artists have banded together and created the
Featured Artists Coalition, an organization that is fighting for “fairness and
equality for artists in the music industry”, however, he is quick to state that
in regards to music access via streaming, the FAC “is also very supportive”
(Wall 2014). The sentence regarding the support of the FAC is very short and
straight to the point. It is one of the most notable moves Wall utilizes[ZD18]. Among all the chaos and complex
sentences, this short sentence stands out, thus, making it obvious and notable
that there is support for new technology and not everyone in the music business
is against that technological change. By using short sentences sparingly, when
they are used, they stand out to the reader, along with their ideas. In away,
it is also a “move” that can be used to highlight important facts and ideas,
seeing as how the said information is not hidden among all the “fancy
sugarcoating” that is commonly seen in English writing.
Although the
“moves” Wall uses aid him in the newspaper genre, it is important to remember
that “techniques that are effective for one genre may not work well in another”
(Bunn 77). [ZD19]In other words, Wall’s article is more
effective than Andersen’s because he does not overuse the “jargon” common to
the music industry that Andersen does, which ultimately, “can alienate readers”
(“Style and Presentation In Arguments” 310). However, had Andersen not utilized
the jargon available to her, the chance of her paper getting published in Prometheus would have significantly
decreased. Her paper may not appeal to as wide of an audience as Wall’s, but it
definitely appeals to those within the scholar community.
Ultimately,
messages and information can be conveyed in a multitude of ways and through numerous
different genres. However, simply because a message can be reported in one
genre effectively, does not mean that there is not an even more effective genre
out there that is ready to use. Furthermore, it is not just the genre that
measure the effectiveness of a textual pieces, but also all the small aspects
that make up said piece whether it may be rhetorical features, conventions, and
even the author’s “moves”. All those things can and should be used in order to
really get the most out of a textual piece and convey a message as effectively
as possible.
[ZD1]Maria,
a few quick things:
1, pick an interesting title! J
2, in college, 99% of your papers will require 1-inch
margins. Yours are off.
[ZD3]Are
these the two main groups? I never
thought of it this way… You might want to hedge this a bit and write—two of the
main groups…
[ZD4]I
like how you’re clearly stating X>Y, but I’d like more specificity in
here. What are you going to be basing
this argument on?
[ZD5]This
is a bit too casual imo.
[ZD6]Do
you think it’s worth evaluating this—ie, this likely has a
positive/negative impact on a reader
because…
[ZD8]I
want to caution you here: sprinkling in some casual/colloquial language is OK,
but you don’t want to overdo it for a formal/academically-tailored paper.
[ZD9]Try
to think of a different way to phrase this conection.
[ZD10]Ha.
[ZD11]This
is very solid analysis, Maria. Think
about taking this one step further and tackling: what kind of audience
doesn/n’t value this, and why? Remember:
this “evaluate the differences in scholarly vs non-academic genres” stuff
ultimately comes down to audience… and there are a bunch of different audiences
out there.
[ZD12]Great
topic sentence.
[ZD13]Good
follow-up analysis.
[ZD15]Bigtime.
[ZD16]Yes
ma’am.
[ZD17]I’m
looking for more textual evidence here, Maria.
Also: where’s your analysis of “moves”? And what about our course readings?
[ZD19]Open-ended
q here: is it worth incorporating this into your argument earlier on? Could that enhance your paper?
No comments:
Post a Comment