Maker of Meaning

Texts Get Their Meaning From Other Texts

Roozen discusses the concept of understanding a text based on other texts we have previously read. Reading this made complete sense, although it is interesting and worth noting that we do not always realize this at the time we are engaging with some kind of text. The whole point of research is filling in a gap that other scholars have left for someone else to fill, so of course all texts (well, maybe not all) relate to each other in some way. The most interesting part, in my opinion, were the other ways in which we make connections to things that are not necessarily texts (“nonwritten texts”). Roozen uses the example of the student’s notes that include a comment another student made, thus inherently creating a connection between the two students, and whatever was being compared in the first place. This is what interests me the most because all of the knowledge one possesses (that was learned in school, at the very least) is because of connections made in the past and have continued to evolve into the present and what we know now. Weird to think about, yet helps us remember that we did not get here all on our own, but rather with the help of several generations before us. 

Writing is a Way of Enacting Disciplinarity

Lerner goes on to discuss the paradigm-like relationship between a discipline and the writing composed within that discipline; both help shape the other. The example he uses is the difference in citation formatting between styles, in which he states that because MLA style citations do not require the date in which the referred-to text, then the disciplines that use said style view sources to be timeless. This, aside from the major threshold idea he is describing, is what I found most interesting, because, at least in my experience, professors of all disciplines do not want decades old sources. Aside from this, I do agree that every person who is actively participating in whatever their discipline brings their own histories and intentions which affects how the writing for said discipline grows and changes overtime. This connects to Roozen in a way, as both texts discuss the evolving nature of disciplinary writing, and what exactly (or should I say who), moves such practices along. 

Genres are Enacted by Writers and Readers

Hart-Davidson grabbed my attention with his comparison of discursive patterns to fossil records. I truly enjoy pondering about exactly what writers had witnessed and experienced for them to write something down. Any kind of writing, from stories to scholarly text, will live on so long as people are reading it. I enjoy the idea that no one text is itself an example of genre, but only because of the context is it a part of such a group. This allows for whatever the text may be to live as in its most basic, untouched, original form. It is not until a reader, or even the writer, brings the thought of labelling it for it to be considered “one of something”. My overarching thought here is why must we label everything? By doing this, we prematurely put ideas into a box when they should live freely. Though, this thought somewhat contradicts what I had previously written about understanding texts based on other texts we have previously read. If this is something we should do, not place texts into a box, then would we still make the same connections we otherwise would have if we did genre-ize? Trippy. 

Generalizing about Genre: New Conceptions of an Old Concept

Devitt somewhat breaks my brain a little bit. There is one thing that I felt true certainty of when reading the article, though. She quotes Todorov’s thought of, “We do not know just how many types of discourse there are, but we shall readily agree that there are more than one”. This is, in part, because the concept of genre is not one that is static… it is always changing. This relates back to how I’ve been discussing writing as something that is constantly evolving. Though, what I have missed before was the aspect of response…  Writing is responding to all of the other parts of life that are dynamic, such as all the social systems in place as well as overall human behavior. As said by the social media community today, each person “original experiences”, so theoretically, no two writings, even if they are about the same topic, will be exactly the same. Response to anything and everything will always be different.

Next, I would like to point out Bakhtin’s (I remember him from ENG3080, so I feel like I know him at this point) idea of the, “wealth and diversity of speech genres” and how they are, “boundless because the various possibilities of human activity are inexhaustible”. This quote can be used as great support to the Todorov quote I previously mentioned, as it demonstrates just how unpredictable human behavior can affect larger social systems and how they, in turn, perceive certain texts and thus create or change the fate of a genre. If everything in life is ever changing and cannot be pinned down forever, as we have already realized that genres can change overtime, then why must we live by genres in the first place? Devitt asserts that genres are makers of meaning… we need them to realize what we are reading and how it benefits us, like how we understand one text based on other texts we’ve read. So we need to understand the categories we have created while we are creating them, or at the very least reflect on what previous notions we have agreed to resurface enough to create such a category? Apologies if my thoughts are too circular, but these connections, or nonconnections (making a new word here on purpose), if you can even call them that, are seeming like the funny looking lamp right about now (hopefully someone gets that reference)…