Bazerman's article on intertextuality explains how texts rely on other texts for reference and support. In his writings, Bazerman defines the six levels of intertextuality as well as six techniques for intertextuality. I found myself quite familiar with Bazerman's techniques through experience. When writing papers, I am often told to use direct and indirect quotation, mention people of importance to the subject, and use specific wording to relate to particular groups of people, along with other techniques to improve my writings.
Bazerman's technique of using recognizable phrasing for specific people or groups, and his technique of using language and forms that are similar to other ways of communicating, I feel are more closely related to Bitzer's idea of rhetorical situation than the other techniques. Bitzer's definition of "rhetorical situation" according to Grant-Davie is "a situation where a speaker or writer sees a need to change reality and sees that the change may be effected through rhetorical discourse" (3). While using direct and indirect quotations, or commenting on a statement, text, etc. are quite valuable techniques, without the ability to communicate with the audience, we would have no way of achieving discourse.
With discourse being an exchange of information, we as speakers and audience members need to be able to communicate with each other. That requires us to be able to change our wording, medium, and text in order to convey a message. A useful example is a patient speaking to a doctor. A doctor explaining an illness to a patient needs to change his/her language to be understandable. Medical jargon is often confusing to a patient and difficult to follows. By changing the words, and possibly adding a secondary medium (pictures, diagrams, etc.) a doctor can easily explain an illness to a patient with little knowledge about medicine. Similarly, a doctor can change his/her language to sound more knowledgeable when speaking to other doctors or medical officials.
Grant-Davie suggests that instead of asking "who is the audience?" that rhetors ask how discourse can "define and create context for readers" (9). Using the idea of the universal audience allows for varied forms of communication and multiple situations for discourse. The universal audience is an audience of "all reasonable and competent men" (9) according to the Perelman's The New Rhetoric. The universal audience allows for multiple audience allows for a rhetor to engage a more varied audience and for audiences to better understand a speaker and the message he/she is trying to present. There is a bigger opportunity for discourse as more people and groups can exchange information.
What I found interesting in your post was that you said you found yourself being familiar with Bazerman’s techniques of using intertextuality without having read the article before hand. The speaks to how inherently natural intertexuality is when we are trying to reach an audience. We naturally try to relate things to something that already makes sense to us. The psychology behind this seems very interesting. Another thing that struck me in your post was your example of the way a doctor adjusts his/her language when speaking to a patient when explaining an illness. I immediately recalled Plato’s Gorgias as Gorgias uses the same example to defend rhetoric. I don’t agree with Perelman that a universal audience is an audience of all “reasonable and competent men,” especially considering that reason and competence can not be quantified.
ReplyDelete