In Doug Eymans “Defining and Locating Digital Rhetoric”, he taught us the meaning of text. Before reading this chapter, I defined text as written or printed words. But of course with Eyman, nothing is simple. He makes the claim that “any object, collection of objects, or contexts can be ‘read’ by tracing and retracing the slipping, contradictory network of connections, disconnections, presences, absences, and assemblages that occupy problematic spaces”. Text is connected to digital rhetoric, as it seems everything is. But because of that is why we have to look at it from another perspective through multiple layers.
Robert de Beaugrande & Wolfgang Dressler
Eyman also mentions Robert de Beaugrande and Wolfgang Dressler’s approach to text. They see it as more of a communication event that meets seven specific criteria of textuality. This includes: cohesion, coherence, intentionality, acceptability, informativity, situationality, and intertextuality. They have the ability to confirm whether something is considered a text or not. All of these criterias are important in their own way. However, Eyman also brings up the fact that they mainly focus on only successful texts rather than all texts in general regardless of how well it was written.
Ali Darwish
Continuing on, Eyman also introduces us to Ali Darwish. He argues that text is made up of six different layers: textual, contextual, cultural, temporal, intentionality, and intertextuality. Each one can be experienced with various degrees of transparency. Of course, depending on how well the reader is able to understand the author’s information in the way that it was intended to be written and read.
Ugh My Brain
What I learned from this chapter is that there are a lot of factors to consider when interpreting or creating text. Way more than I thought. And it makes sense for rhetoric to be involved because that is how to influence an audience and the text is the message being portrayed. I am sick of Eyman.
Leave a Reply