One of Rose’s most significant contributions is his profound reappraisal of cognitive analysis and thinking processes. His work suggests that writing is an in-depth mental process that applies thoughtful consideration of word choice and the connotation one is trying to convey. His thought is actively traced throughout the article Hard Rules, Inflexible Plans and the Stifling of Language. The author writes in a rather coherent way, including personal observations and real-life examples. For example, at the very beginning, he cites the instance of Ruth, one of the ten students at the University of California, Los Angeles, with whom he discussed the components of the sufficient writing process. Rose first gives a live example of a non-fictional situation and then lectures about the process of solving it, involving reflections of diverse valid perspectives. The author says: “In the third section, I will let the students speak for themselves (Rose 390).” Then he contains the students’ names and actively describes their personal experiences, making the study more comprehensive and multifaceted. The inclusion of rhetorical questions captures the reader’s attention, makes them suppose, and offers alternative prospects for consideration.
James Paul Gee writes Literacy, Discussion, and Linguistics: Introduction in a form convenient for the reader. The narrative of the concept is quite linear, illustrated in uncomplicated phrases that even readers with no academic linguistic background can comprehend. He repeatedly highlights central terms and concepts in italics and gives comprehensive definitions for the main terminology, such as “language”, “discourse”, “literature”, and so on. It helps to focus on the leading message of the work and sharpen attention to certain things and ideas. The article includes many rhetorical questions, which are designed to drive the attention and make the text more dynamic. The author himself gives a straightforward answer to some rhetorical questions as if drawing a conclusion and showing it as a potential truth. For example: “Besides changing the social structure, is there much hope? No, there is not (Gee 12).” Gee often uses first-person pronouns, so the work has a strong personal character. The reader feels involved in the process of analysis and make-up findings.
James Porter’s Intertextuality and the Discursive Community is written more academically and formally than in previous works. There are good idea transitions and dynamics in the text, but there are not enough explicit expressive examples. Most often, the paper offers a precise analysis of passages and quotes. The article uses a large amount of terminology (“cognito”, “ethos”, “logos”, and so on), which is not explained comprehensively and can not be understood by the reader without academic linguistic schooling (Porter). The level of complexity of the article may not be suitable for schoolchildren or first-year students without proper background knowledge.
I do not underestimate the professionalism and talents of James Porter, but the style of works of Mike Rose and James Paul Gee is more relative to me. They are written in a straightforward, dynamic language, instantly grab the reader’s attention, and offer clear, concise conclusions. Such types of writing have the great potential to attract a large audience of professional linguists and people interested in text and writing. Rose and Gee’s articles can be aimed at a wider audience as a teaching aid or self-development material. Vivid examples and situations from the life of the authors or their students create the effect of a high degree of involvement of specialists and increase the level of trust.
Works Cited
Gee, J. P. “Literacy, Discussion, and Linguistics: Introduction.” The Journal of Education, vol. 171, no. 1, 1989, pp. 5-176. Web.
Porter, J. E. “Intertextuality and the Discourse Community.” Rhetoric Review, vol. 5, no. 1, 1986, pp. 34-47. Web.
Rose, M. “Rigid Rules, Inflexible Plans, and the Stifling of Language: A Cognitivist Analysis of Writer’s Block.” College Composition and Communication, vol. 31, no. 4, 1980, pp. 389-401. Web.