Language I believe should primarily be used to communicate and facilitate group/classroom order. I mean it can be used for other reasons. Language can be used to express emotion like poetry. We use language to get what we want. Like Ryan said, "we want to appropriate our words and terminology to our audience."
Does that mean we should dumb ourselves down when writing a paper? Trust me, I don't like the readings either. But we must understand, writing should not be confused with conversation. Conversation has two sides, two view points and a correlation between the two or more objects. Writing is a one sided view of language and it is filled with expression, grammatical and literature motifs. Writing is an art form.
My concern: is Woodford's book written for his peers? Something so wonderful and ground-breaking might be more eloquent, passionate and more emotional. And it should not be so much one plus one. Remember abstract topics are all about how you phrase them. Perhaps Woodford is deliberately being vague and wordy.
Does this mean it should be used for classroom cirriculum: the answer is no. We're getting practically nowhere. We soaked up the Block book: transformations and sparking revelations. Woodford is more like "ok so what is he saying here" and "not what are you saying to this."
So are we hating on someone's art and blaming Woodford for being a hypocrite because he does not speak to his peers in a comphrehendable language? If language is primarily about communication and facilitation and working alongside with the audience, we should give Woodford a call and have him stop by for class on cyberspace. Let's see if he can write the write and talk the talk
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
No comments:
Post a Comment