A “text” is just the medium we use for the words you’re reading right now, yes? As it turns out, that isn’t the case. The word encompasses a wide array of mediums, with or without digital contexts. Before we get into that, we have to return to Eyman’s ever-present textbook chapter. Eyman points to a definition that pins text as a “communicative event” that fulfills a certain set of criteria.
To summarize his somewhat complex vocabulary, a text:
- Must be structurally sound
- Must make sense in a larger context, and must prove to do so
- Must have a purpose that its particular audience accepts
- Must contain information, new or otherwise
- Must relate to earlier discourse in some way, shape, or form
Eyman also points out other definitions. For example, they “have rhetorical features, originate in and propel social action, and are designed material objects.”
These say nothing of medium.
The big takeaway is that it can be just about anything. It “just” has to fulfill all or some of those criteria. Eyman acknowledges the capability for multimedia on the Web. The Web, then, has room for all manner of texts. The obvious answer is that you can type and publish words online, and convey messages this way. Everything you could possibly say has rhetorical purpose. Even the manner in which you publish says something.
What about video? Video requires a completely different set of skills, yet currently dominates the Web. Video could have absolutely no written word in it at all. Yet, it has the capability to propel social action. They are certainly designed material objects. Going by the earlier criteria, they certainly have to have a purpose, and make sense within a context (be that a platform or otherwise). Even if the purpose ends up being “put some bullshit on the screen,” you’ve probably wrought a reaction from the viewer.
Texts can be images. They can videos. They can be film, audio, etc. If it says something, anything, it fits the bill.
Leave a Reply