The article,
“Reconsidering the Hypothetical Adolescent in Evaluating and Teaching Young
Adult Literature,” deliberately uses the official style. More or less, the
official style is a formal and complicated way of writing. Writers use
rhetorical strategies to obtain the official style. This article contains a
study in which researchers reconsider or reassess young adult literature and
the rhetorical strategies used to evaluate it. Determining the underlying
reasons for using the official is difficult, especially without background
information. This critique relies on basic information about the article, so
speculations are limited to this brief information. Both the text and
background present possible speculations for using the official style. Of
course, the authors cannot confirm nor deny why they used the official style
for their article. This makes it fairly difficult to decide the author’s
intentions. However, the text contains evidence which supports that the official
style is being used. Strategies used in the article include ambiguous terminology,
complex vocabulary and lengthy sentences. Overall, the official style
affects readers’ understanding of texts and authors have various reasons for
using the style.
Scores given
by a readability calculator demonstrate that the text is written in the
official style. “READABLE.IO,” indicates the text contains the official style.
Each score clearly represents that the article is dense and difficult to read.
The average grade level yielded by the readability calculator was 20.3, which
is well beyond any undergraduate degree. In addition to grade levels, the
readability scores included a SMOG index of 19.9, a Flesch Reading Ease
score of 14.5 and a rating of E. Each of these have different meanings, but
more or less, they all demonstrate that the article is difficult to read. The
vast majority of the population would not be able to read and comprehend the
contents of this article.
Clearly, the
authors intended to use the official style, as they use countless official
style strategies. For example, the sentences are incredibly long and complex. The article contains an
average of 31.5 words per sentence. It’s long enough to confuse readers or
cause them to misunderstand. This concept can be
seen in this sentence, “These strategies led participants to interpret
the quality of a YAL text in terms of its ability to match the assumed social,
cultural, and developmental needs of prototypical adolescents (i.e., in our
study, those who are implicitly middle class, abled, heterosexual, white U.S.
citizens of European heritage) or to be salvaged for a selective audience of
adolescents or a constrained pedagogical purpose that avoids mismatches between
presumed adolescent needs and the content, genre, or style of the text” (163).
This sentence alone has 80 words and begins with a readable idea. By the time
the reader makes it to the end of the sentence, it loses the meaning. Rather than getting to the point, the authors,
Mark A. Sulzer and Amanda Haertling Thein, write complicated words and
expand their ideas a lot. Additionally, they use terminology that only members
of their field would understand such as “a rhetorical expedient for monolithic
thinking” or “mobilizing dominant developmental and biological
conceptualizations” (163). An average reader or adult misinterprets this text
and members of the field might as well. So the question then is posed, why use
such dense and complex language in the first place?
Of course, these authors have
reasons for using the official style and over-complicated language. The context
must be considered. Both authors work as professors at universities within the
departments of education or teaching and learning. They published their article
in a journal entitled, the Journal of Adolescent & Adult Literacy,
more specifically in Vol. 60 No. 2 pp. 163–171 in September/October of 2016. On
the website for the Journal of Adolescent & Adult Literacy, the
journal is described as “highlight[ing]
innovative, peer-reviewed, research-based practices aimed at improving
engagement and achievement among literacy learners ages 12 and older.”
Submission requirements include: “4,000 to 6,000
words in length, including all references, figures, tables, and elements” and
that they “should focus on practical applications.” Perhaps more importantly,
submissions state that texts will be “evaluated on their originality,
significance, scholarship, clearly articulated relationship between theory and
practice, audience appeal, organization, and clarity of writing” and
“familiarize yourself with the voice, tone, and format typical of JAAL
articles.” However, the authors’ reasons way for using official style. The
authors make themselves appear more credible, or sound more intelligent with
the official style. They intentionally use obscure language, excluding a
certain audience or discluding a portion of the population. Due to the article’s suggestion of familiarizing
oneself with the style of typical JAAL articles, authors’ reasons for
using the official style may be related to that specific requirement. When
investigating “typical JAAL articles” it becomes evident that many of
the articles were written similarly to “Reconsidering the Hypothetical
Adolescent in Evaluating and Teaching Young Adult Literature.” Therefore, one
of the reasons that the article was written in the official style was likely
due to the style requirements of the journal.
The sphere of activities
revolved around the article present reasons that the authors may have used the
official style. One must consider where this
article could be found or be most useful. One sphere of activity where this
text might be expected is within schools or a classroom. This seems like the
obvious place for such an article to be useful. Teachers who are trying to
learn more about young adult literature could read the text and improve their
teaching methods or strategies. The article presents language and
rhetorical strategies not typically found in an average classroom. A teacher doesn’t speak like this to their students
and likely not even their peers or fellow teachers. Why would the article be
written in such a dense way when it doesn’t need to be? If teachers don’t use
or practice the official style in their classrooms, why is the article written
in the official style? For a potential reason, consider another sphere
of activity. Research drove the article’s focus, so one sphere must include
researchers. Perhaps it is more common for
researchers to use the official style. Oftentimes, teachers and other
school staff members do not agree with those who are doing research. On the other hand, researchers misinterpret how
classrooms truly operate. These disagreements of ideas create tensions between
the spheres of activity. Tensions between spheres of activity are a reason that
the official style is used. Teachers do not use the style as often, but
researchers commonly do. It is possible that the official style was intentional
to make the language more difficult for educators to access. While this
seems like an unjustified use of the official style, excluding a specific
audience appears common. Whether or not leaving out certain audiences depicts
the author’s true intentions, they have done so in their article.
Overall, it
is clear that “Reconsidering the Hypothetical Adolescent in Evaluating and
Teaching Young Adult Literature,” contains official style, but the reason it
was created this way could be for multiple reasons. The official style neglects
readability and creates troublesome language. Analyzing the strategies and the
context of the specific articles allows readers to understand why authors use
the style. Considering strategies and context
are useful in discovering reasons for using the official style. Aspects
of tension exist within the spheres of activity provoking researchers to use
the style. Questions about this fancy style
still remain. Are there other unknown reasons for the authors using the
official style? Is it really fair to use language in such a complex way? Truly,
these questions require further investigation. Using the official style
can both have strengths and weaknesses, and authors have very specific reasons
for choosing to use this style.
Emily Guenther
No comments:
Post a Comment