Eyman in this reading introduced the depths of text. Now, my initial definition for the term was simply words, words whether it was written or typed. Text is connected to digital rhetoric, when looking at it we must view it in an expansive light. It can be viewed as the container that stores persuasive words. When trying to understand the term text, I learned to have an open mindset about it being more than just written words. With digital rhetoric, a video, image, or audio could be considered text.
I was introduced to a criteria of seven characteristics that make up text as a communicative event of intertextuality. They are cohesion, coherence, intentionality, acceptability, informality, situationality, and intertextuality. Each of these have the ability to confirm whether something is considered text, based on if they meet these standards.
Is Text Just Written?
Within defining text, there are many layers to be considered. The audience, persuasion, information, quantity, and more all matter. How the text appears also plays a big role. The way it’s structured affects its meaning. For example, say you see a poster hanging up but the font size of the text is tiny and unnoticeable. If someone were to come across that do you think it would matter much to them since they are unable to read it? There’s not much importance or meaning to it because it wasn’t intentionally designed to be informational.
If there’s anything I learned about text, it’s that there are a lot of factors to consider when creating and interpreting it. That’s where text and rhetoric come in. Seeing that text is the way of communicating and rhetoric is its ability to influence the audience. Text is what’s being said. Whereas rhetoric is knowing how to deliver the message to create meaning and influence the audience.
Leave a Reply