Reading Summary 1
In his “Political Arguments,” Fish argues that facts are not a fact but concepts fashioned into arguments that attempt to defend their believed “fact.” More specifically, he states that Politicians and Public figures are particularly good at arguments as they use facts that bolster their opinions -even if the facts are more subjective than objective. Because each party uses their facts to defend their side, the “back and forth” represents what the author coins as talking points. These argumentative tools are “designed to score points” in an almost tennis-like fashion. Politicians go back and forth with their issues until the debate is exhausted. This may prompt one to ask if facts are reliable and possibly if they exist, given that Fish sheds light on their subjectivity and bias. Therefore, one might be prompted to believe that the ability to argue through rhetoric and persuasion tactics is more useful in Politics than the facts themselves. As Fish states, “you are entitled to your facts if you can make them stick.”
Furthermore, Fish’s “Political Arguments” features other argumentative strategies such as the “spin,” which is “the pronouncing on things from an interested angle.” Through spins, Politicians can effectively warp specific comments and data to be in favor of their opinions. Interestingly, Politicians are not the only ones employing this maneuver, as many news outlets such as Fox, CNN, and Politico interpret the same event in divergent ways that support and favor the beliefs of their audience. Essentially, political arguments focus more on how to get the audience on the “correct” side of a story. How the story is told is up to the debater.
Works Cited
Fish, Stanley Eugene. Winning Arguments: What Works and Doesnt Work in Politics, the Bedroom, the Courtroom, and the Classroom. Harper Paperbacks, 2017.
“Political Arguments”
Reading Summary 2
In her Ted Talk “What Makes a Word Real,” Anne Curzan makes compelling arguments on how dictionaries are subject to human decision-making. She states: “Usage notes involve very human decisions, and I think as dictionary users, we are often not as aware of these decisions as we should be.” In stating this, Curzan unveils how although dictionaries are thought to be concrete and objective, they are actually a result of human decision making, which are ultimately subjective and biased. While acknowledging that she is part of the dictionary word choice process, Curzan emphatically underscores that students must challenge the status quo with its basic and dated conventional rules. By doing so, new words such as “emoji” and “hangry,” as highlighted by Curzan, can be discovered and defined in official matters. The rise of new words highlights the importance of being creative and going beyond, because words can be found and created anywhere.
Furthermore, dictionaries are vital resources in both academic and personal spheres, but as Curzan asserts, “they are human, not timeless.” In this statement, she figures that people tend to use dictionaries as an all-encompassing authority figure of the English language and forget that they are authored. She combats this idea with how words are chosen to be in the Dictionary, which is a process that is very much human. For example, Dictionary editors create dictionaries in the American Dialect Society that gamble and see what words, or parts, get to make it, therefore, they depend on human decision making.
Works Cited
Curzan, Anne. TED, www.ted.com/talks/anne_curzan_what_makes_a_word_real.
Reading Summary 3
Internal debates between analytic and nonanalytic philosophies, as well as disputes among analytic philosophers, according to Rorty’s “Universalist Grandeur and Analytic Philosophy,” are not just alternative explanations, but existential fights over the correct modern philosophy. In discussing the differences between analytic and “continental” philosophies, the author divides the discipline between Russell and his followers who believe that “logical structure” and “theory of descriptions” are crucial to answering Plato’s long-standing question. To put it another way, the argument between analytics and non-analytics is solely about Kant’s philosophy of science and human imagination.
Rorty also adds his own take on the Platonic issue of what makes humans special, as well as Neitzsche’s response of self-creation and redefinition. He goes on to say that humans “do not have a position in a universal scheme of things, nor a special connection to the governing forces of the universe,” which he admires. However, they are becoming increasingly capable of rich and creative self-descriptions.” To put it another way, we are not the core of the universe. However, they are becoming increasingly capable of rich and creative self-descriptions.” To put it another way, we are not the core of the universe. He assumes that we are finite beings who are constantly redefining ourselves across history.
Reading Summary 4
Bell hooks, “Language: Teaching New Worlds /New Words ” (167-177)
In his “Language: Teaching New Worlds /New Words, ” Bell Hooks expresses the purpose of language and the strength that words hold over us, how they struck a chord that and remain forever ingrained in our memory against our will. He explains how language and oppression are linked, and how particular languages can reflect decades of oppression. Hooks reflects on the racism and dominance that Standard English has established -and continues to define- in suppressing colored peoples in this chapter. While recognizing the allure of Standard English, Hooks focuses on how it is used to trick and obscure the “loss of so many tongues.” When African slaves were forcibly relocated to a new land with a foreign language, their identities were tragically lost. Hook captures the terror that Africans aboard ships must have felt upon hearing English, their oppressor’s language, for the first time.
The oppressed, on the other hand, may learn the “oppressor’s language” and give it new meaning, intent, or weapon in order to resist those who have stolen their identities. Hooks considers the shortcomings of ruptured English, which can “tribalize” black culture, while stressing its meaning and how it empowers black people to forge their own identities. Hooks uses language as a means of emancipation by rejecting the allure of Standard English and adopting black vernacular.
Works Cited
HOOKS, B. (2017). TEACHING TO TRANSGRESS. Place of publication not identified: DEV & DISTRIBU.
Reading Summary 5
In his “INTRODUCTION, OR WHAT THIS BOOK PROMISES TO DO,” Stanley Fish argues that the only thing humans know is our ability to argue. More specifically, because each of us views life from our own perspective, we only know what we know, therefore, can only explain our side of our “truth.” Arguments are therefore subjective, as data can be used either direction to skew one’s audience. For example, Fish writes that any statement we make is an argument and not Reality -with a capital R- because there is no universal Reality if we each have our own perception of it. He hints towards the idea that no one knows the truth or what is actually “real” because it was humans -beings that are biased and create their own arguments- who discovered it. In other words, the only thing left to do is argue for our own “reality.”
Furthermore, many would raise the question of science and if data and facts are indeed real. The book touches upon this idea, explaining how although something might be real between you and me, there is no certainty that it is real universally. In that same vein, many research companies who make studies and come to conclusions based on research can be coined biased. This is because oftentimes, these research companies have a certain goal to meet about a certain outcome, and because of this, the research is targeted and becomes tainted. In sum, then, Fish suggests in this life, humans must face the reality that there is no “Real” and must learn to “live with what we have.”
Reading Summary 6
In her “Says Who? Teaching and Questioning the Rules of Grammar,” Anne Curzan argues that Grammar is not a set in stone concept, that it is ever-changing, and teachers must come around to this fact. Curzan distinguishes between descriptive grammar, which aids writers and speakers in developing coherent concepts, and prescriptive grammar, which “[tells] writers (and speakers) what they should and should not do.” Curzan goes on to say that the Rules of Grammar Panel of educators are only offering recommendations and templates for how sentences can be organized, not how they must be structured. Prescriptive grammar, in Curzan’s opinion, often requires needless rules and restrictions on use, while descriptive grammar “allows speakers to interact systematically and meaningfully.”
She criticizes teachers, for example, who immediately cross out sentences if they do not obey standard grammar rules. To put it another way, educators must learn to be accessible to new grammatical constructs created by students because they often differentiate their writing style. She claims that instead of blindly following the rules without question, “all speakers have the right to make educated judgments on when [prescriptive grammar] rules are suitable for their writing.” To summarize, Curzan challenges outdated Grammar Rules and celebrates a modern teaching style that encourages students to write in more innovative and diverse ways.
Works Cited
Curzan, Anne. “Says Who? Teaching and Questioning the Rules of Grammar.” PMLA, vol. 124, no. 3, 2009, pp. 870–879. JSTOR, www.jstor.org/stable/25614330. Accessed 11 May 2021.
Reading Summary Reflection
Writing summaries is no easy task. When it comes to condensing the main idea, it can be difficult formulating the perfect topic sentence with so many nuanced thoughts on the reading. Reading Summaries has allowed me to stray away from linear writing and use a holistic approach to not simply summarize the text but also interconnect ideas from other texts and compare them. In doing so, my reading comprehension becomes more in-depth as I can relate the reading and apply its purpose to other writing forms. For example, in making reading summaries, I wrote more succinctly and straight to the point in my Final Essay. The essay was around five pages long, which would have proved challenging for me to stick to the topic if I did not have the skills I garnered from writing reading summaries.
