Symbolism from Coriolanus

Coriolanus is a tragic play written by William Shakespeare from 1605 to 1608. People who study this masterpiece by Shakespeare never reduce their passion in analyzing the symbolism from this play through hundreds of years. Different Shakespeareans will have various interpretations towards the same symbols. Crunelle Vanrigh Anny, from the University of Paris Ouest, writes "Coriolanus": The Smiling Belly and the Parliament Fart. The author discusses the symbolism of the “smiling belly” and the “parliament fart” in Corolianus. I will be focused on the language usage in how the author interprets the symbolism of “smiling belly” and “parliament fart”.

This essay is found on Academic Research Complete, and it is published in ANQ: A Quarterly Journal of Short Articles, Notes and Reviews, in 2009. Through the essay, the author asserts that the fable of the belly combines political and literature images. He also suggests that the Roman senate refers to the belly and other Roman citizens are the members of the body.

"Coriolanus": The Smiling Belly and the Parliament Fart, is for Shakespeareans or the readers who like to study the significance of Coriolanus. For the first glance of this text, it gives the impression of creditability. The author uses at least two quotes from other Coriolanus essays in each paragraph. In reading this four page essay, readers can benefit from about 31 scholars’ research. However, the author seems to be using too many quotes in this text, and less of his personal analyzes towards the topic. Thus, readers may find out half of this essay is collecting the most tremendous results from other researchers, and the rest of it combines the author’s individual research achievements.

Here is the first paragraph of this essay:



The first sentence starts with “commenting”, which is a participial phrase according to sentence-combining strategies. Also, the author writes “noted how apt it sounded” in official style. “Apt it sounded” means “appropriate for the situation”, but the author uses the euphemistic way rather than expressing straightforward meaning. According to the statistics of this paragraph from a readability calculator, the score of Flesch-Kincaid Reading Ease is 28.3, Words per Sentence is 20.0 and Average Grade Level is 14.1. This paragraph only has five sentences, but it has quoted five different authors’ research. The euphemistic expression helps the reader to distinct the quotes and author’s personal thinking. 

Anny likes to use the passive voice in writing. Here is the passive voice sample, “However, the anal metaphor surfaces when the belly is dubbed “the sink o’ th’ body” (119)… This reading is supported by the considerable number of scatological double entendres in the opening lines of Menenius’s speech” (12). He writes “the anal metaphor surfaces when the belly is dubbed ‘the sink o' th' body.’” In this case, [d]ubbed is passive in this sentence. Moreover, “This reading is supported by the considerable number of scatological double entendres in the opening lines of Menenius’s speech”. “Supported” shows this sentence is in passive voice. The passive voice stops the reader from getting the author’s meaning directly, and instead the author takes the reader to a confusing way. The writer uses the passive voice which weakens his clarity of writing. 

The author also uses slow sentence opening to slow down the readers’ reading speed. “Among the questions discussed in James’s first Parliament was whether those born in Scotland after the Union of March 1603 (the post nati) were English subjects, a notion which met with the opposition of the Commons” (13). At the beginning of the sentence, the author introduces the background information of the “question”. Then he points out the main point of the sentence is about if James’s first Parliament born in Scotland. Readers won’t have a specific idea at the beginning until they read the key word—“born”. In this case, it is not an effective way in official style, because the reader will have feeling of the former part of the sentence isn’t necessary to repeat again. 

Generally, official style articles use as complex sentences as possible. Here is the example sentence of the complex one, “Audiences keeping abreast of the affairs of state--a not inconsiderable proportion, presumably--would have been prepared for a loud emission at some point in the course of Menenius’s speech” (14). This sentence can be simplified as “the audience is prepared to listen to Menenius’ speech.” In the original sentence, the author tries to use phrases of “affairs of state”, “inconsiderable proportion” and “a loud emission” to support his theory of political images. These phrases reflect a serious tone of politics, and seem formal. The complex structure builds an impression of professional criticism, and allows reader to think deeply, relating the political image to the body image.

 Back to the topic of this article, the author’s goal is to analyze the symbolism of “smiling belly” and “parliament fart” which seems is a humorous topic. However, he needs to use the “belly” and “fart” concept in politics. From my own perspective, the author uses the effective way of official style in half of this essay. One on hand, using official styles helps his essay be more earnest and have less amusing elements. In this case, this essay will be more professional and credible. On the other hand, some ineffective official style sentences are cumbersome that they contain unnecessary phrases.


 Source:
http://web.ebscohost.com/ehost/detail?sid=c4c825b2-0d77-4680-947f-ada5cc2e81c3%40sessionmgr10&vid=1&hid=8&bdata=JnNpdGU9ZWhvc3QtbGl2ZQ%3d%3d

http://www.google.com/imgres?q=Crunelle+Vanrigh+Ann&um=1&hl=en&noj=1&tbm=isch&tbnid=8j6UFf_da1TzoM:&imgrefurl=http://shakespeare.palomar.edu/playcriticism.htm&docid=g47zyZM7Po_c8M&imgurl=http://shakespeare.palomar.edu/images/criticism.gif&w=430&h=125&ei=DviKUNGbGaig2QXy0YHIDg&zoom=1&iact=hc&vpx=981&vpy=199&dur=78&hovh=100&hovw=344&tx=160&ty=24&sig=104818945516111470515&page=1&tbnh=81&tbnw=280&start=0&ndsp=22&ved=1t:429,r:7,s:0,i:92&biw=1366&bih=643

--Xiaoqi Wu

Locked Away in the Official Style

To analyze usage of the Official Style, I chose a scholarly article about issues concerning correctional rehabilitation, authored by the distinguished drug court researcher, Douglas Marlowe. Although I am a Communication major, I’ve always been interested in the life of a convicted felon, and the process of rejoining society once on parole.  Because I do not study this topic in the academic setting, I am a perfect example of how the Official style can be used in certain documents and articles to prevent readers from becoming educated about the topic. It was frustrating to read my article because Marlowe uses highly bureaucratic and jargonistic language.   Not being a part of this particular academic community, I find myself reading passages over and over again, just to make some sense of it.  Below is a passage reflecting Marlowe’s usage of bureaucratic language in the Official Style.

“Reenacting this process simply demonstrates that their jaded expectations are justified and may make them less likely to trust future overtures of assistance, which could explain why a history of previous treatment episodes has been paradoxically associated in some studies with negative outcomes in correctional rehabilitation programs”

This one complex sentence should be reconstructed into more organized and coherent ideas.  Even reading this now, after a good twenty attempts, I still struggle with what he is trying to communicate. What does “jaded” mean in this context? What does it mean to be “paradoxically associated” with something? The chosen terminology is unique to Marlowe’s field.  Conscious of it or not, Marlowe has prevented an entire group of readers who are equally interested, from learning about correctional rehabilitation. The Official style in this case acts as a wall, blocking readers from understanding the content of the message. The most disappointing part about this is the inability to learn about how our criminal justice system may be flawed and ineffective. Without getting into the politics of it all, it is important to understand how difficult it is for ordinary citizens to educate themselves about important issues with most articles on the topic (like the one I chose) being written in the Official Style.       

Another symptom of the Official Style is when the author sounds passive and impersonal.  Throughout his article, Marlowe lacks voice. I am turned off by his dry prose style and his impersonal tone. The passage below is an example of his inability to connect with the reader through is usage of the Official Style.

“Kitchen sink” interventions are usually bad practice and ill-advised policy because they place unwarranted demands on participants and on system resources. Most offenders are characteristically irresponsible and have considerable difficulty satisfying basic obligations. It defies logic to expect that increasing the dosage of ineffective treatments would improve their outcomes. This course of action would be most likely to overburden participants, interfere with their engagement in productive activities, and drain precious resources from effective programs.”

This was the part of his article when I caught myself thinking about what I was going to eat for dinner instead of focusing on what was being said.  The above passage lacks any action. It would be more effective if Marlowe used his expertise to flat out say what a better program would look like. Instead he drones on about the ineffective treatments of the program, and I start to become detached from his words.  It’s not because I lack interest in the topic. It’s because Marlowe did not write this for the general population, but rather his specific discourse community. This passage alone is written at the Average Grade Level of 17.6, and has a reading ease score of 13. Although this is not extreme Official Style, it is too complex to be understood for the average reader.  As we discussed in class, most adults read at a 7^th grade level.  It’s difficult to want to learn about things when you recognize it as above your level of understanding. Does the Official Style then discourage people from wanting to learn?

It is also important to understand how this text functions in our culture and society.  There is currently a nationwide debate on rehabilitation and correctional programs. The perceived failure of most prisons to discourage criminal behavior—(shown through high recidivism rates) has renewed an interest in brainstorming new programs to help convicted felons reintegrate back into society once released.  Project Greenlight was a short-term, prison-based reentry demonstration program, trying to do just that.  It was operated by the New York State Department of Correctional Services. The developers of the Project Greenlight program drew extensively from research and the model seemed very good in theory. However, Project Greenlight was a failed attempt. Recidivism rates did not improve.  Marlowe saw this as an opportunity to make his own research heard within this community by comparing it to the failed attempts of Project Greenlight.  As an activity system process, Marlowe is trying to persuade professionals in the field of correctional services (his targeted audience) to prevent correctional intuitions from developing programs similar to Project Green Light (the motive), resulting in what he believes to be more effective rehabilitative approaches for institutions to adapt  (the outcome).   He uses the projects failure to establish his own credibility and expertise.  He was already an established name within the criminal justice community. However, he now has the stage to put his ideas forward on why the program failed, and offer his own plan on what needs to be done to improve recidivism rates throughout our country.

Marlowe uses the Official Style to impress his target audience of professionals in the field of correctional services. He uses bureaucratic and jargonistic language to portray his professionalism and knowledge on the topic. Although his ideas are important in reshaping correctional rehabilitative programs, they are difficult to understand if you are outside of this academic and professional community.  It is hard to feel like our country is progressing in anything, if we are simply not invited to participate in the process. The Official Style often alienates us from understanding something that could be easily understood if written plainer.

-Emily Stacken     

   

            

The Love Child of the Official and Plain Styles

Image Credit: Image Credit: http://www.shellybarclay.com/2010/04/murders-at-frank-lloyd-wrights-taliesin.html

 As a senior Literature major at the University of Wisconsin-La Crosse, research for papers consumes a large portion of my free time (if you can really call it that). In one of my classes, titled “Literature and Environmental Action,” my final research paper will draw connections between Henry David Thoreau’s Walden and Frank Lloyd Wright’s style of organic architecture. Architecture is not an area I’ve studied; my interest in Frank Lloyd Wright is the only reason that this is a topic I’ve chosen to research. While looking on databases for articles containing the search terms “Thoreau” and “Frank Lloyd Wright,” I came across a scholarly article about the origins of organic architecture in the United States and how one could argue that it stems from the Romantic tradition in the United States and abroad. In other words, this article seemed to be exactly what I’ve been looking for. Mark Mumford, author of “Form Follows Nature: The Origins of American Organic Architecture,” does not consider literature and architecture to be mutually exclusive, rather, he looks to literature as a primary influence on the organic architecture of Frank Furness, Louis Sullivan, and Frank Lloyd Wright, and their buildings over the span of a hundred years or so. The article is published in Journal of Architectural Education 42.3, and in researching this publication, their website listed one step of the peer review process as “Comment on the quality, clarity, and force of the author's analyses and arguments.” This clearly highlights the importance of clarity in any work to be published by this journal. The quote I chose to focus on and analyze for the purpose of this blog contains elements of the Official Style, but blends it with the Plain Style, forming a new hybrid style.

One of the difficulties I’ve run into while doing any research that spans two or more disciplines is that any article with relevancy is often difficult to understand, due either to the writing or the content. The passage I’ve chosen to analyze for the purpose of this blog is:

Abstract lines are the most concentrated expressions of human ideas.... Distinct from the common language of Art, which contents itself with conveying merely local and individual ideas, abstract lines are recognized as the grand hieroglyphic symbolism of the aggregate of human thought.... The natural world, passing through the mind of man, is immediately interpreted and humanized by this creative power, and assumes the colors, forms, and harmonies of Painting, Sculpture and Music. But abstract lines, as we find them in Architecture...are the independent developments of this creative power, coming directly from humanity itself...Thus it is an inevitable deduction that Architecture is the most human of all arts, and its lines the most human of all lines. (Mumford 28)

When this quote was plugged into the Readability Score checker, the scores surprised me a little bit. The Flesch-Kincaid Reading Ease score was 45.3, much higher than I expected it to be. The average grade level given was 12.2, or slightly above a high school senior’s reading level. This is probably due to the fact that the average sentence length was only 17, much lower than what one would expect to find at higher reading levels. Although there were some longer words contributing to a higher reading level, the sentence structure was relatively simple when compared with some other scholarly articles that often have average grade levels into the twenties.

Looking at the readability statistics, one might think that this article could be given to a high school senior with expectations for comprehension, but due to the Activity Systems in which this article functions, I would disagree. The article was written by a professor of architecture for other scholars within the field. Without a background in, or at least a general knowledge of, architectural terminology, this article may as well be in another language. In addition to architectural knowledge, one must have a pretty expansive literary knowledge in order to follow the argument that Mumford puts forth in his paper. He cites the Greeks, Emerson, Thoreau, Whitman, and Hawthorne, just to name a few, as possible influences on this particular style of architecture. This contradicts the average grade level that the readability score checker gave, 12.2, because most high school students or college freshman would not have the background knowledge necessary to understand the article. Although the article is primarily focused on architecture, the literary references convolute things a bit. Does this article apply to both the fields of architecture and literature, or just one or the other? Does it truly span disciplines?

Mumford, in this article, puts forth some ideas that are fairly new to the communities of both architecture and literature. Most scholars would agree that the Transcendentalists and the Romantics are two groups of writers that had great influence on literature as well as life in general, but most do not link these literary traditions with architecture; in doing this, Mumford makes a connection that was begging to be made. One should not assume that people outside of the literary or architectural communities would read this article for fun. This article is purely academic and is intended for fellow professors, masters of architecture, and possibly students of architecture. I would even go so far as to argue that Mumford did not expect this article to be read by literature students, because most would not have the necessary background knowledge to understand the argument that he sets in motion. The terminology, which you could also call jargon—an element of the Official Style—is too advanced for non-architects to understand, for the most part. Unless, as a literature student, you have an interest in architecture or a ridiculous obsession with Thoreau (which, combined, is what led me to this article in the first place), this article would make no sense, but not due to what we call the Official Style.

Although the Official Style is perhaps not the prominent style of the article, it is still a scholarly article that contains elements of it—jargon, as I’ve already mentioned, and complex sentences being the most obvious. One of the main characteristics of the Official Style is the use of the passive voice. This characteristic is noticeably absent from this article. I’ve spent a lot of time speculating about why this is true, and have quite a few theories. The most likely, in my opinion, is that the writer is targeting his article at a very specific audience, probably just architects who have a vested interest in the Romantics and the Transcendentalists, whose writings sparked a new wave of organic architecture. Because the article is not likely to be read by thousands of people, writing in the Official Style seems a bit futile. Writing for clarity and credibility makes much more sense, especially since clarity is one of the judging criteria for publication. Mumford does use complex sentences in his writing, but these sentences, rather than detracting from the clarity of the piece, simply seem to reinforce his credibility as an architect and a writer. They do not seem stuffy, as a lot of the Official Style can. Instead, they seem intelligent, educated, and get his point across without lowering his intellect to serve the average American. This, again, makes a lot of sense, considering his intended audience and the Activity Systems in which he functions. Mumford does not seem to be writing merely to sound smart, which is one complaint about the Official Style, but instead to engage his audience, people who have no doubt gone on to higher education. In ignoring many aspects of the Official Style, Mumford actually appears more credible than if he were to use long-winded sentences and the passive voice. With this in mind, what exactly does this say about the Official Style? Mumford accomplishes clarity and credibility in his article, without explicitly using the Official Style; is it ever necessary?

To access the article I analyzed, follow this stable URL: http://www.jstor.org/stable/1425061

--Ashley Dillard

Language and the Law

This is text from a section of the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act (PPACA), referred to in the media as Obamacare. Specifically, this section outlines the individual mandate which requires that (almost) everyone in the United States have health insurance. This bill became law in 2010, and is published as a statute, but I found the full text at healthcare.gov. The site provided not only the full text of the PPACA, but also an overview of the entire 955-page law. Rather than evaluating the law in its entirety, I have chosen just to look at only the hotly-debated individual mandate.  This is Chapter 46, Section 5000a on page 143 of the original text.

This text functions in a few different activity systems, but formally, it functions as legal code in the American Legal System. Lawmakers are the subjects of this system, but many other communities operate in it as well. Specifically, all of the lawmakers who voted in favor of this legislation were not Republicans, but Democrats and Independents, so there is a division in the subjects. These subjects divide the labor of constructing laws, and bureaucrats must enforce the law. Other communities include judges who must interpret the law. Constituents are also crucial communities to this Activity System and encompass both businesses and citizens. The norms of the system demand that constituents obey the law or will be penalized. The ultimate outcome of the system, in this case, was to pass American Health Care reform. Mediating artifacts that affect this system are numerous but include the legal text itself, medical institutions, medical professionals, insurance companies, medical infrastructure, and money. On the legal side, government buildings (such as the Capitol and White House) are involved in the system. Media who relay the outcome of Health Care Reform act as a community, but the Media infrastructure also acts as a mediating artifact.

Language acts within the activity system to portray a message and accomplish tasks. Within the American legal system, the PPACA has been highly scrutinized and remains a focal point of the 2012 presidential election. Politics aside, I argue that one reason it remains so controversial is for the lack of understanding among members of the American Legal System activity system. Though lawmakers, lawyers, and people with access to legal counsel may understand the change, many have a hard time understanding what the law means. A recent poll confirms lack of understanding about the PPACA:

Reuters/Ipsos polling reveals a remarkably high level of approval for nearly all the provisions of the act, often in the 80% range, even though respondents oppose the legislation, commonly known as "Obamacare," by 55 to 45. (Debenedetti)

Specifically, the individual mandate garners about as much confusion:

The requirement that all citizens obtain healthcare coverage was opposed by 59% of respondents…Yet more than 53% of respondents strongly agreed that all Americans have a right to healthcare. A substantial 75% support subsidies to help the poor pay for health insurance, and 64% are in favor of expanding Medicaid to families with incomes under $36,000. (Debenedetti)

Because of competing interests within the activity system, this text fails to reach some communities. Understanding this legislation becomes a privilege only to those who have the resources to understand it. For democracy to function, we need the people to understand how laws affect them. Whether or not this is good policy, the confusion around it has led to its scrutiny. But why was there not a push to explain such a difficult text? The answer is politics. First, it may not be in the best interest of politicians for people to completely understand a piece of the reform without a strong knowledge of its entirety. Secondly, there were enough votes to pass the PPACA into law on party lines—it did not require any more public support.

By evaluating the text, we get a better idea of who may and may not understand it. Here’s a short excerpt:

Any applicable individual for any month if the applicable individual’s required contribution (determined on an annual basis) for coverage for the month exceeds 8 percent of such individual’s household income for the taxable year described in section 1412(b)(1)(B) of the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act. For purposes of applying this subparagraph, the taxpayer’s household income shall be increased by any exclusion from gross income for any portion of the required contribution made through a salary reduction arrangement.

Here is a translation of the same information from the Washington Post:

4. When the individual mandate is fully phased-in, those who can afford coverage — which is defined as insurance costing less than 8 percent of their annual income — but choose to forgo it will have to pay either $695 or 2.5 percent of the annual income, whichever is greater.

In plain English, this difficult legal jargon is easier to understand. The website where I found the original PPACA text provided some clarification of the law, but also functions within its own bureaucratic activity system. Though I will not fully evaluate this system, it is important to understand that its job is to portray the legislation in a positive light—thus, it does not provide very much information about controversial pieces of the law. The site almost entirely skips over the individual mandate. Translating the law effectively for the public then becomes the media’s job. This excerpt from the Washington Post provides a great explanation of the individual mandate, but we need to consider that not every media evaluation is this thorough. The media has its own interests as well. To create viewership, it would make more sense for the media to portray the law as controversial. In an age where we report politics like we report football, entertainment, not information, has become the focus of 24-hour infotainment. Media has an interest in covering the law, but not in its entirety.

Should we leave it to the general public to translate this law for themselves? We could, but this could also prove challenging. The law’s average grade level score is 11.9. To comprehend this piece of writing, based on the formula alone, someone would have to be almost finished with high school and be reading at grade level. This is not a far stretch, but it is fairly difficult when we consider that only half of Americans read at the 7^th grade level, or that the average congress person speaks at 10^th grade level (according to the Flesch-Kincaid grade level, which evaluates this text at a 12.7 grade level) (NPR). Additionally, each sentence contains an astounding average of 22.9 characters. The text is also littered with legal jargon and references to other sections and statutes that makes it very difficult, I would argue even above a 12^th grade level, to comprehend. Here is an example of a sentence from the text:

IN GENERAL.—The amount of the penalty imposed by this section on any taxpayer for any taxable year with respect to failures described in subsection (b)(1) shall be equal to the lesser of—the sum of the monthly penalty amounts determined under paragraph (2) for months in the taxable year during which 1 or more such failures occurred, or an amount equal to the national average premium for qualified health plans which have a bronze level of coverage, provide coverage for the applicable family size involved, and are offered through Exchanges for plan years beginning in the calendar year with or within which the taxable year ends.

Not only is this a hard read, but this paragraph is only one sentence. Note that none of the clauses could stand alone. Additionally, I have highlighted some of the high grade level sentence combining strategies that make it possible to have a paragraph-long sentence.

Relative clauses—in this case, each relative clause is joined with “which” and I have bolded the words that link the relative clauses. 

Noun substitutes—each italicized phrase could be replaced simply with “it,” “this,” or “that.”

When we understand that this sentence is constructed of relative clauses, we recognize that if a reader doesn’t understand the first clause, it is nearly impossible to include the relative clause that build of the first clause’s thought.

Another property that makes this text difficult to understand it that it is a prime example of what Richard Lanham calls the official style. Lamham himself even says the official style is derived from the language of bureaucracy. Lanham describes the official style as “iterative; it wants to include, iterate, every possible case.” A law is a prime example of this, and when it gets bogged down in hypotheticals and details, it becomes hard to understand. Beyond the iterative qualities of this text, it also contains other elements of the official style that make comprehending it tough. I will examine just this sentence which opens the section:

REQUIREMENT TO MAINTAIN MINIMUM ESSENTIAL COVERAGE.—An applicable individual shall for each month beginning after 2013 ensure that the individual, and any dependent of the individual who is an applicable individual, is covered under minimum essential coverage for such month.

This text is both distant and passive. It could (and does) apply to any individual. When writers document situations in the official style, it often sounds like this, even though the writing is not meant to apply to everyone. The text is also repetitive, but in a slightly different way, to remain all-encompassing. Instead of saying “everyone and their child,” it says “the individual, and any dependent of the individual who is an applicable individual.” For as painstakingly clear as the text is, it is so broad that it is hard to even visualize this situation. The law, as Lanham states, is the epitome of the official style.

Yet, there is justification for why this text must be so complicated. It would be easy to say, “Every American must have health insurance,” in fact, that is what many interpret the individual mandate to mean. Rather, this chart shows that some will still not be insured, even with the enactment of the law:

(Kline, Washington Post)

This chart is a visual example of why we can’t be simple in language when writing laws. There are obvious reasons for why laws are so complex, all-encompassing, and difficult to comprehend. Yet, when the text of a law is the only artifact which exists to help consumers understand it, key actors in the activity system are neglected. Lawyer, judges, and lawmakers understand the text. Most insurance companies that will be affected by the law also have legal counsel. But what about small businesses and individuals who need to understand how the law affects them? They are left to either get their information from the media (which may have different outcomes and motives), or to receive it from this difficult text.

Why aren't there more resources for the public to understand? The simple act of passing a law only requires certain actors. The public elect their officials, but the public doesn’t get a direct vote on the law’s passage. Elected lawmakers vote to pass laws. In this situation, where the law could be passed on a party-line vote, it took little public persuasion to make the bill a law. Not because the law was bad public policy, but because it was not marketed in a way the electorate could understand, there will be ramifications. It’s hard for the public to support a text they do not understand, and that is one reason the PPACA has becomes such a focal part of the 2012 presidential election. Even though the law was passed without a very thorough public education campaign, the electorate will cast ballots this November to elect the people who vote on laws. When the public re-enters the activity system, this time with a role that directly affects the system’s outcomes, we will be able to better understand how their lack of understanding of this text shapes the outcomes of the system. 

By Karin

Research or Restate? An “Official” Look at a Research Results Article

 

Research or Restate? An “Official” Look at a Research Results Article

In light of the recent Jennifer Livingston fiasco I found an article related to bullying. It is titled “Bullying and Suicide: Detection and Prevention”. Though I found it online, it was originally published in 2011 in a journal called The Psychiatric Times. After a little research I found they have an extensive member’s only website in addition to the journal. In 2011 bullying was taking center stage in the media after the suicides of many teens as a result of bullying and the introduction of cyber-bullying. The breadth of cyber-bullying was beginning to be more fully understood as more and more reports flooded in. As Jennifer Livingston and the article pointed out, “bullying has become a major public health problem in the Western world” (Klomek et al., 2011). However, the article being written at a grade level of 15.0 was not meant for the general population to read.

                Since the article was written for a journal called The Psychiatric Times it is easy to speculate that its readership is fairly narrow. The main audience would be doctors, psychologists, psychiatrists, and other health care professionals. With the access to the internet some schools or parents may also want to read it. The article was authored by Anat Brunstein Klomek, PhD, Andre Sourander, MD and Madelyn S. Gould, PhD, MPH. In all consideration that it is a report done on a study, I assumed its reading level would be higher than 15.0. However, the authors kept the jargon light and kept the article mainly to the results of the study, rather than elaborating on causes. With this being said the information was very redundant. This six page article could have been summed up in a much shorter frame. Granted, that is official style for you. The sentence structure was very repetitive as well. This is among one of many reasons I felt that the official style was not all that effective in this piece.

                “The association between bullying behavior at age 8 years and later suicide attempts and completed suicides varied by sex. Among boys, bullying behavior at age 8 years was not associated with later suicide attempts and completed suicides, after controlling for both childhood conduct and depression symptoms. Frequent victimization among girls at age 8 years, however, was associated with later suicide attempts and completed suicides, even after controlling for childhood conduct and depression symptoms. These findings indicate that suicidal behavior among boys who frequently bully others may be a function of psychopathology rather than of the bullying behavior per se.”

                The most monotonous part of the article was the word choice. While I understand that the authors stayed true to the topic of the paper, the sentences offered very little variety. Even in the paragraph above the words bullying and suicide were used eleven times. While in the true nature of official style the sentences are long winded, they lack a verbose quality that makes them a bad combination of lengthy and dull. The sentence structure was varied at times, but overall not enough to keep things interesting. The article’s readability score came to 28.8 with a SMOG index of 12.5. These statistics are not overwhelmingly high, but the characters per word came back at 5.6 which are higher than I would have expected. The words per sentence averaged out to be 18.8; a bit short for official style, but longer than the average Joe sentence. Overall, it seems that the authors are attempting to be plain in their speech, but still writing in a way that is partially into official style. With the article being scientific in nature the authors would have been better off writing more plainly. The other option would have been to make the piece more official style. Either option would have been fine as long as they stuck to one specific type of writing rather than this in between area.

                With the writing as is, the article functions only partially within the assumed activity system. Given the presumed audience of the article, the authors failed to write in a way that would best benefit their readers. The authors wrote that they had written previous work on the topic. While this may add to their credibility it made me wonder why they were writing the article in the first place. The most likely answers would be that they wanted to inform the public or their colleagues about their research and findings, that they wanted to raise awareness about this particular problem, or that they were asked to do a write up on their research. However, I had to wonder if they were only writing the article to benefit themselves. By putting out more current research or by simply writing another article they would get more recognition in their field. What led me to believe this is the fact that the article had little new information throughout it and it cited many other similar studies on the same topic. Why bother writing an article that has little novel findings and merely regurgitates other studies? While it is not stated outright in the article, it could be an underlying drive. Also, the article does not fit the norm for scientific articles. Normally, articles such as this are much more in depth, filled with scientific jargon, and include much more detail and statistics. The piece did not measure up the norm. The authors were describing the results of an experiment they did, while failing to explain the procedure. The readers would have no clue as to how things were measured, over what time period, and the general demographics of the group being studied. This conflicts with the layout of most all scientific articles.

                With their implied audience being generally that of highly educated medical professionals they do not use the type of language I would normally expect. The lack of jargon makes this piece not fit within its given activity system. Without technical jargon the piece does not speak to its audience on a level that would be the most helpful for them. By failing to use appropriate jargon the article is not detailed enough to give the readers the information they really need. In addition to jargon they lack any real data to support their claims. Their claims that any type of suicidal ideation or depression has increased due to any type of bullying is not backed up by actual data. They do not indicate any numbers, statistics, or other information to back up their claims. Considering it is a paper written to state their research findings they do not live up to the norms of a research paper.

                All of this completely violates the activity system the document should be functioning in. The article is not functioning as a normal scientific paper should. It does not serve its audience as it should. The paper does not serve its community as it should since it does not actually give any information valuable to its readers. The intentions of the paper were not fulfilled unless the authors planned to just write something to publish an article for attention or to further their professional careers. Even the title of the article is not particularly true to the content. The title of Bullying and Suicide: Detention and Prevention. There is no real information on detection or prevention of bullying or suicide. The title is misleading to readers who want that type of information since there is not really any information on detection or prevention.       

                Overall, while the article used the official style it did not use it in an effective way. The lack of jargon and real information makes this piece not function as it is intended to. The repetitive nature of the word choice and sentences made the article boring and much longer than necessary. If they had any information that could validate their claims it would have made the article more valuable and credible. The authors should really think about what they are going to write before they write a report just for kicks.
-Kirsten Olson

Comedy Done Official

It’s another election year. What exactly does that mean for the citizens of the United States? Instead of tempting ads promoting fresh Toppers sticks, you’ve been changing the channel, possibly even pressing the mute button on the President of the United States for the past three months. It also means, shows like Saturday Night Live and the Daily Show have an excellent new array of material to work with. The article I choose to analyze on the Official Style fits right in with this. My text, “Political Comedy Shows and Knowledge About Primary Campaigns: The Moderating Effects of Age and Education,” translation: How Comedy Shows are Changing What People Think About Politics and Who is Learning the Most, uses the Official Style to make the argument that shows dealing with comedy and politics, like Saturday Night Live and The Daily Show, have a political impact on viewers.

I chose this article, because I love satire in writing. I love comedy shows and cunning jokes. I was surprised when I searched Saturday Night Live in a scholarly journal, and actual results came up. This show and others like it deal with fun writing, and the Official Style seems so serious. I was curious, so I did a Readability Test of an SNL script. I tested the opening monologue of an Obama, Romney debate. The writing grade level was 7.9. Xiaoxia Cao, the author of “Political Comedy Shows and Knowledge About Primary Campaigns”, wrote it at a 19.9 grade level. Why is a subject like this being discussed in a style like that?

                

These shows don’t have any other purpose than to be funny. They are making fun of debates, and speeches written in the official style. I find it ironic that a piece like this, written so officially, dealing with research and interviews would be about a group of entertainers making fun of an exact society that has created the Official Style. I also think it’s funny that a paper written to be seen by only certain groups of people is analyzing information available to everybody. The paper is very encouraging of political comedy shows being accessible to anyone, but the journal in which it was written is only accessible to a small group of people.

Xiaoxia Cao uses different writing strategies. to make the article sound more formal. In this sentence she uses prepositional phrases. “In a similar vein, Brewer and Marquardt (2007) found that The Daily Show offered a substantial amount of coverage on public affairs even in a nonelection year.” She also uses subordination. “Although political comedy shows have the potential to inform viewers, they may not exert the same impact across different subgroups of audience members.” I found infinitive phrases in throughout the text as well. “To answer this question, I examine how age, race, gender, education, and income are related to watching political comedy shows.”

The article, like others written in the Official Style, is very repetitive. The number of times Cao makes the same argument is unnecessary. “...political comedy shows are more likely to present political humor in an information-rich format and to tackle political issues.” “...allow political comedy shows to spend more time dealing with political issues and events” “In short, the formats of political comedy shows should enable them to offer more political information” These three sentences all making the same argument come one after another spread out in just two paragraphs.

One of Cao’s main arguments is the importance that anybody can watch political comedy shows. You don’t have to be an expert on world news to get a laugh from Seth Meyers. However, the paper in which Cao is saying this can only be seen by scholars. Mass Communication and Society, the journal in which this article was written can only be read by professors, students, and librarians. It’s ironic that a journal so inaccessible is writing about the importance of accessibility to all.

The Official Style is commonly used. It can be found in legal documents, research papers, advertisements, and many other forms of writing. Shows like Saturday Night Live and The Daily Show serve the purpose to make people laugh. They make fun of speeches written by candidates using the Official Style and advertisements trying to trick you with fancy wording to buy the product. I find it ironic that an article like this would be written on a subject like that , not only because the serious tone given to something meant to be a laugh, but also, the stress the text puts on the importance of reaching everybody when it can be seen by few. I’m not an expert on the Official Style and some people could probably argue that this blog post is too official, but after reading this “Political Comedy and Knowledge About Primary Campaigns,” I can say, comedy television and the Official Style do not go well together.

-Melissa Koch

Sources:
http://snltranscripts.jt.org/12/12cdebate.phtml
http://web.ebscohost.com/ehost/pdfviewer/pdfviewer?sid=83521c3f-22cf-400f-8a08-2937f1fa6d09%40sessionmgr14&vid=2&hid=18

Officially Confused

 

          Literary analysis is a task done at a professional level by literary scholars. The scholar dissects a poem, book, or author and explains through writing or speech their thoughts on the motivations, aims, and meaning of the work(s) or individual. Many scholars and others in the art community assume that the audience for such pieces comprises of people who have a long history in literature and pre-existing knowledge of literary concepts. It can be argued, however, that literature is a more accessible and understandable than scientific journals (which assume much about the knowledge of the reader). Gregory Lynall is an English studies professor at the University of Liverpool who, in this case, is writing about Jonathan Swift. This article was obtained via Academic Research Complete on the UW- La Crosse website. The official style was instantly recognizable.

It would seem that Lynall prescribes to the belief that scholarly writing is written for scholarly readers. The abstract itself is enough to make an English major furrow their brow. Here’s a taste:

“Swift began writing poetry at a time when the occult doctrines of the Renaissance had in general lost their philosophical and cultural power, yet he still chose to infuse some of his verse with allusions to these increasingly marginalized traditions”.

The stuffy tone is appropriate. After all, if you don’t use uncommon terms that have vague meaning, then you must not know what you’re talking about. That’s sarcasm, of course, nothing is lost with this, simpler, translation:

Though Swift began writing after the heyday of the Renaissance, he still used literary techniques of that age in some of his works.

This translation is not as simply stated as possible, but it is significantly easier to understand. It allows for more clarity without the loss of meaning. In another example, Lynall says, “Furthermore, the image of the bubble also evokes the poem’s general anxiety about the moral vacuity in contemporary life”, which could be more simply said: The bubble reminds us of the moral emptiness in current times. It keeps the message and gains the understanding of readers who have never come across the rare term “vacuity”. Those readers may be equally as interested as a fellow critic, but won’t be able to draw out the meaning of the criticism without a dictionary.

            The reason this article is particularly interesting to me is my future work. If I am to dissect a piece of literature and write on how it applies to our world, it should be understood by the vast majority of those who read it. The activity system of literary analysis has the goal of helping anyone interested to more deeply understand the subject matter at hand. The game that Lynall and writers like him play (knowingly or unknowingly) makes literary analysis more about appearing to make good points than actually making good points. The value of articles like Lynall’s become more focused on entertainment than information with each rare word used. They are only blocking the highway of understanding with their unnecessary use of near-dead words. A good analysis should communicate its message clearly, not shows the reader how large the author’s vocabulary is.  

                                                                                                                                          -Ryan Churchill 

Publishing and the Intellectual System: A Question of Relevance?

With the rise of the “Apple Empire” and a burgeoning fascination with all things digital, it is easy to recognize the profound impact technology holds over our daily lives. Traditional forms of communication—maps, letters, even the telephone—have been swiftly dominated by an age of digital technology, seeping into most every system and institution. A former professor of Higher Education who has taught at Harvard University and the University of Wisconsin, Philip G. Altbach, in his article “Publishing and the Intellectual System,” explores how the publishing industry functions within the greater intellectual community. In simpler terms, it explores how they contribute to complex activity systems such as newspapers, journals, magazines, radio, television, and virtually any system linked with publishing. These lengthy explanations, though, reach beyond the scope of this article.

So, is there a successful, relevant synergy between the modern technological world and traditional publishing, or could the future give rise to the inevitable death of books? For the scope of this article, I will focus mainly on how the publishing industry—and printed media itself—function not only within intellectual systems outside academia, but also (primarily) within the educational activity systems.

First, the more general point to note is how Altbach’s text aims to show how traditional publishing and printed media are important to any intellectual system. By the way, it did take me a bit of reading to decode what an intellectual system was, since the text functions within the context of other "scholarly" readers: it is any network concerning the relationship of cultural and educational matters. This phrase, in itself, is scholarly and academic. To analyze its formal elements, this scholarly article is most suited for those within the academic discourse; its diction fits within the fields of academic studies. Particularly in this excerpt, though, these elements can become somewhat difficult to decipher:

“Books are not the only means of advancing the so-called high culture of a society.  Indeed, traditional printed media are being supplemented increasingly by television and other forms of mass communications as educational and cultural media. Many cultural figures argue that novels and poetry have moved from the center of the creative arts and have been replaced, in part, by film as a medium of expression. Although books no longer hold a monopoly on cultural diffusion, they remain central to the development and distribution of knowledge” (2). 

At a reading ease of 35.5 and with 20.7 words per sentence, this excerpt fits a reading grade level of 14.1, a college sophomore. Though this isn’t unmanageable by scholarly article standards, it still includes a considerable amount of “Official Style” elements that can be difficult for any audience to read. Its use of abstraction is seen first with passive voice, stating “traditional printed media are being supplemented”. Further, its use of lengthy sentences and frequent commas are apparent throughout, and the use of upper-level diction is scholarly, such as the phrase: “indeed, traditional printed media...” We also see some nominalizations, with "communications," "expression," "diffusion," and "distribution." In short, these sentence combining strategies immediately place the text at a higher reader level, perhaps making it more credible but less clear.

The importance of publishing and printed media is more apparent and clear further in the article when it addresses educational activity systems themselves. Here, it specifically explains—with less abstractions—how print plays a social function within educational activity systems:

“The educational system is a key consumer of printed materials. In the United States, at least 30 percent of all books sold are textbooks. An additional 11 percent go to libraries, and many libraries are connected with schools and colleges. Elementary and secondary school texts alone account for 16 percent of book sales. In many developing countries, the proportion of books sold to educational institutions  is even higher, because relatively few individuals can afford to  purchase books, and channels of retail book distribution are generally  inadequate. It has been estimated that more than 90 percent of book sales in India are made to institutions—mostly schools, colleges and libraries. In recent years, as university enrollments have risen dramatically in most countries, the market for textbooks at the post-secondary level has also become an important aspect of the publishing equation” (3). 

This second excerpt of the article explains how, despite speedy technological advances, publishing and print are still vital to the educational system because the systems are key consumers of print. For the purposes of the article,  it is far more concrete and has less elements of the “Official Style.” Clocking in at a reading grade level of 13.0, this portion is more accessible and sets a clearer framework of the importance of print in these systems. Further, by precisely connecting book/traditional print production and sales with specific educational systems like libraries and universities, it shows relevance. It even explains how relevant print is to any grade level, not merely university systems. The excerpt raises another relevant point: with the rise of university enrollment in recent decades, there is a certain need for books and traditional print in the educational system. It is an interesting notion because it goes against the assumption that print no longer plays an active role in the system. By addressing these educational systems, this excerpt functions well.

Altbach’s text functions within educational systems in terms of libraries as well. Take this third excerpt: “Libraries are particularly important for certain types of books. For example, about 80 percent of the children's books published in the United States are purchased by libraries. Scholarly books are also very dependent on libraries” (5). The need for books in the intellectual community is imperative within the context of this article, and the text functions as an additional element to Altbach’s argument, with even less abstractions and elements of "Official Style"—on the contrary, actually. At a reading grade level of 10.7, this excerpt seems to be written more in "Plain Style;" that is, with less "scholarly" jargon and more accessible language. Though it does include some passive voice, the facts are apparent. Here, Altbach's argument seems to be at its strongest because it suggests a sense of urgency; phrases like "particularly important" and "very dependent" perpetuate this. This overall tone works well within the context of his article. As a result, the excerpt appears both credible and clear.

So, as the witty—and a bit depressing—above drawing shows, is technology truly fueling the fire for the bleak future of print?  Perhaps... but are books dead? Through its key excerpts and its ability to address educational activity systems, the article seems to suggest otherwise, and goes against the assumption that technology should reign supreme. Above all, the article functions in the sense that it shows the relevance print holds, even in modern, technologically driven intellectual systems. Especially as university students, it is interesting to note how this text functions within the educational system.

By: Jessica Haugen

For more information on Philip G. Altbach's article, click here.