Gina L. Vallis-Reason to Write_ Applying Critical Thinking to Academic Writing -Kona Publishing and Media Group (2011)

but cumulatively, with one insight building on the next. At some point,
all these insights begin to cohere, we recognize the directions of our
thoughts, a direction that writing itself has revealed. We write and then
we see where our writing has taken us. Only then are we in a position
to convey our discoveries to others in a well-crafted presentation. (xvii)

In other words, there’s no way to offer students a pre-mixed “formula” for thinking,
and writing is linked to thinking. An instructor can only endeavor to provide the best
map, the best tools, and the best guard-rail for the tricky bits. The critical question
is the first step.

When asked to come up with a critical question, students often feel daunted, because
they know that there is specialized knowledge out there that people have been study-
ing for years. For example, a writer would need specialized knowledge within a given
field to ask the question:

If the Second Law of Thermodynamics introduces the concept of fric-
tion, to what degree would reducing the relative mass of an object
decrease entropic forces?

…or…

How does the pictographic quality of sign language usage impact upon
Ferdinand de Saussure’s rejection of the onomatopoeic quality of words
in his postulation of the arbitrariness of the sign?

No doubt about it—academics get interested in strange topics. However, the thing
that divides “students” from “scholars” is not class standing (freshmen vs. senior, or
undergraduate vs. graduate student), or even whether a writer has, or doesn’t have,
an advanced degree.

Rather, it is that students tend to assume that all the answers are already out there.
In other words, they assume that the conversation is over, and they’re just showing up
to “listen in” to the record. Scholars tend to know that the conversation is still open,
and any good question can lead to a new way of looking at something, and therefore
can produce new knowledge in any given field.

Specialized knowledge gives a writer an edge, because the writer knows the termi-
nology, and can move confidently through the writing that has been done in that
field, by other thinkers. However, nobody can write critically merely based upon the
accumulation of specialized knowledge, because he or she would merely be repeat-
ing known information. A person with specialized knowledge, but without curiosity,

32 REASON TO WRITE

or the ability to make critical leaps between kinds of information, cannot create new
knowledge. He or she is merely a walking encyclopedia. We have computers and
libraries for that kind of storage.

A person who is curious, but who may not yet have a huge amount of specialized
knowledge, has all the makings of a critical writer. A writer does not have to have a
Mathematics Ph.D. to wonder about the paradox of the concept of zero. A writer does
not have to have a Sociolinguistics Ph.D. to wonder how and why the word “ghetto”
has moved from a noun to an adjective. A writer does not have to have a Ph.D. in
Political Science or Geography to wonder about how topography affects politics in
the Middle East. A writer does not have to have a Ph.D. in Media Studies to wonder
how and why television animation has moved from children’s entertainment to adult
social satire. A writer does not have to have a Ph.D. in Anthropology to wonder how
the Internet has changed how we think about our identities within groups.

In responding to the difficulty in producing a critical question, this student illus-
trated one of the benefits of the critical question. He became genuinely curious about
why coming up with a critical question was so difficult, and concluded his response,
at the end of the course, with a level of honesty in his writing that was missing from
what he initially perceived as a “copout” for the work:

When the time came for me to present my critical question, I received
laughs for questioning the actual assignment in itself. I, myself, did
not see the question as being a very good one until I began writing the
actual paper.

However, I was able to understand for myself a question that at first did
not make sense to me. Through analyzing the idea of critical thinking
and critical questions, I was able to attain this skill for myself, and gain a
better understanding of why it can be difficult for people to do.

By no means is thinking critically easy to do, and it is, from my own
experience, one of the hardest things I have ever had to do. It involves
a long thought process that not only challenges an individual to see the
other side of an argument, but to question assumptions and beliefs.
Critical thinking is not just an approach to finding answers to difficult
questions, but also a method of retaining one’s individuality.

The last statement in this response not only demonstrates the way in which this student
answered the question, but the manner in which his exploration of the issue extended
his own understanding of his role as a student in the university, as a participant.

SECTION I • CHAPTER 2 Critical Thinking 33

The purpose of this book is, in part, to help you to rehearse how you would work
from a question, through an analysis, to an answer, on paper, for a reader. This pro-
cess provides generalized skills that are applicable in both the public and private sec-
tor, in all academic fields of specialization, as well as in professional life.
The more you look at the world critically, the more you will notice; the more you
notice, the more you will question what you see; the more you question what you
see, the better you will become at producing answers about the world, and join in the
conversation that furthers our knowledge of it.
In other words, if you can do it here, you can do it there.

8 review

CHAPTER REVIEW

The information to take from this chapter is that there are different ways of creating
knowledge. The questions that we ask help, in part, to determine the answers that
we receive. Critical thinking is not about generating answers. Rather, it’s about pay-
ing attention to the way in which one questions in order to get to an answer. Doing
so requires intellectual self-regulation, which can become a habit-of-mind that one
develops, and that can be applied to other contexts.

GRAMMAR REVIEW

Signal Phrase

A “signal phrase” is a way for you to indicate the person/s from whom you are quoting,
instead of just putting that person’s name in a citation or footnote. It’s often required,
and even if it was not, it’s the polite thing to do. Your reader will appreciate it, because
she or he may recognize the name of the other writer, and better understand your use
of the quotation.

VOCABULARY REVIEW

cognitive bias
From cognitive science, refers to the many ways in which our chain of thinking can
become flawed, and lead to erroneous conclusions, actions, and decisions

34 REASON TO WRITE

ideology
This is a difficult term that is used in a variety of ways in different disciplines and by
different theorists. For our purposes, it indicates the shared worldview that gives
order or structure or meaning to the communication in which we engage, because
we share a common social group or a common language. This ideology is often a
source of cognitive bias

epistemology
Closely related to critical thinking, refers to a branch of knowledge that studies
knowledge itself: the history of knowledge, how we produce it, what pressures
to which it is subject, who has control over that production, and how it affects
people’s perceptions over time

existent
From philosophy, this simply means that producing knowledge is a human activity—
the “real world” doesn’t particularly care, nor is it affected, except to the degree that
we apply that knowledge (e.g.: the production of fossil fuels). In other words, we
are the ones who wonder, and experience, and speculate, and question. In doing so,
we engage in an activity alongside the world, not with it. We record our means of
understanding and experiencing the world. We do not record the world, itself

narrative drive
One of the strange things about people is our ability to get excited about things
that not only don’t exist, but that we know don’t exist—like fictional characters.
People love them, or hate them, or cheer for them, or mourn for them

Our ability to do so has to do with empathy and imagination. Empathy is the ability
to imagine oneself in the position of another, and feel emotionally invested. It’s an
important part of being human. If one couldn’t empathize, one not only wouldn’t
care if Romeo jumped off a cliff in the middle of the play, one probably wouldn’t
care if a real person jumped off of a cliff

A good portion of the human brain is devoted to empathy—that’s why people are
social. That’s also why people without empathy are called sociopaths

Narrative drive is the emotion we experience when our empathy is engaged
through a process of plot production, which involves putting someone or
something (a person, a character, a country, an animal, a tree—we’re pretty
versatile) into conflict, and then briefly withholding the resolution of that conflict

That’s what gets us to the theater, to the sports arena, and to the newscast

SECTION I • CHAPTER 2 Critical Thinking 35

9 The critical Question

STEP 1: CRITICAL QUESTION GUIDE

For the first step, write a Critical Question:

________________________________________________________________________

________________________________________________________________________

________________________________________________________________________

Make sure that this question follows the eight critical question guidelines listed
below. Check each one. If the question does not fit a guideline, find a way to revise it,
or choose a new question.

Guideline True

˝

1. The question is not a question that can be answered by “yes” or “no” ____

2. The question does not have the word “should,” nor is it phrased as a ____
“should” question

3. The question may be one around which you have some ideas, but it is

not a question to which you already have the answer ____

4. The question is not a question that someone else has already answered

in the same way, or that requires extensive secondary sources, or an

advanced degree, to answer ____

5. The question does not require you to generalize groups of people, as in

“Men like sports” ____

6. The question does not require you to “speak for others.” A good way to

check this is to ask yourself if the only reasonable answer is: “It depends

upon whom you ask” ____

7. The question should be as specific as you can make it, because general

questions such as “What is the meaning of life?” would probably not be

something you could answer comprehensively within the length of an

essay ____

8. The question should not require you to imagine future events ____

36 REASON TO WRITE

SAMPLE CRITICAL QUESTIONS
• How is fashion a medium of communication?
• How have two political parties in the United States generated “packaged”
values?
• What is the tension between truth, falsehood, and art, in photography?
• How do public spaces structure human experience?
• What determines the details that are “left out” of a given historical narrative?
• What kind of identity stakes are involved in online gaming?
• What are the consequences of the new positioning of the university as a transi-
tion between high school and work?
• How has the web changed the possibilities for accessing, owning, and exchang-
ing information?
• What are the similarities and differences between health, fitness, and beauty?
• How did the “culture wars” change the face of democracy and debate in U.S.
discourse?
• In what ways has the image of the vampire in popular culture become roman-
tic, moving into the teen-pic flick genre?
• How much of human perceptual experience is attention-based, and how much
is spent in a state of distraction?
• What is the history of persuasive strategies used within the “anti-drug” cam-
paign in the United States?
• How do theme parks structure experience, and what message does that experi-
ence provide?
• When a celebrity’s life is given the status of “real news,” what does this say
about a kind of national “gossip”?
• What is the current popular image of Christianity in the U.S.?
• In what way is there a double standard for male and female promiscuity?

SECTION I • CHAPTER 2 Critical Thinking 37

• How does the image of American individuality conflict with action directed
toward the common good?

• How are new forms of political expression used for profit, and then exhausted?
• What is the nature of the fan’s “fanatical” investment in sports in the U.S.?
• How do styles of music generate social groupings and self-identity?
• What is behind various representations of the “end-of-the-world,” from Y2K

to 2012?
• What appeals do recruitment posters, for different branches of the military,

make in the United States?
• To what degree is our identity shaped by the roles that we play?
• What is the role of metaphor, illustration, and/or photography in scientific or

legal or historical discourse?
• What is the shift, in sports, between direct engagement in the activity, and

spectatorship?
• What is the nature of the division between logic and faith, and what role might

faith play in logic, and logic in faith?
• In what ways is “multiculturalism” a description of American culture, and in

what ways is it a description of an individual’s experience within that culture?
• Why do our love stories in popular film often end at the altar?
• Why are toys often gendered, and what does this say about the training of

people in regard to gender roles?
• What factors go into determining the gender/age of a given voiceover for a

product in a TV commercial?

38 REASON TO WRITE

Chapter 3

Questions in context
1 40REVISING FIVE WRITING RULES . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
2 49REVIEW . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
3 52THE QUESTION MAP . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

53THREE PARTS TO THE QUESTION MAP. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
54EXAMPLE QUESTION MAP . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
57STEP 2 THE QUESTION MAP GUIDE . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

39

“I don’t know what you mean by ‘glory,’” Alice said.
Humpty Dumpty smiled contemptuously. “Of course you don’t—till I tell you.
I meant ‘there’s a nice knock-down argument for you!’”

“But ‘glory’ doesn’t mean ‘a nice knock-down argument,’” Alice objected.
“When I use a word,” Humpty Dumpty said, in rather a scornful tone, “it means
just what I choose it to mean—neither more nor less.”

“The question is,” said Alice, “whether you can make words mean so many different
things.”
“The question is,” said Humpty Dumpty, “which is to be master—that’s all.”

—Lewis Carroll
Through the Looking Glass, and What Alice Found There

1 revising five writing rules

“Perplexity is the beginning of knowledge”
—Kahlil Gibran

G eneral writing rules are often designed to accompany a formula for writing the
essay. In this section, you will have the opportunity to examine five typical writ-
ing rules, how they are designed to help, and how they might be reoriented toward
developing skills toward critical thinking and writing.
Students are often told that academic writing:

• Is for the purpose of winning an argument
• Is where one should express one’s opinion
• Involves agreeing or disagreeing on a topic
• Involves the writer choosing a topic of interest
• Tells the reader what we “should” do

40 REASON TO WRITE

In relationship to academic writing, these directions are like having assembly
instructions that are almost helpful, yet somehow fit neither the parts provided, nor
the nature of the final product. Each rule forces the writer to think a certain way, and
therefore to write a certain way. It is helpful to examine the way in which these rules
constrain the possibility of the way that writers think through a given issue, and to
examine how to revise the rule so that writers can work through a question in the
process of academic inquiry.

THE PURPOSE OF ACADEMIC WRITING IS TO WIN AN ARGUMENT

The idea that, in a paper, one is to argue that one is “right,” at all costs, is based upon a
model of adversarial debate. While academic writers often respond to other writers, an
academic article is not an editorial or a speech, and rarely adopts an adversarial tone. As
such, there are several ways in which this rule gets in the way of quality academic prose:

• Writers become more concerned with defense of a statement than curiosity
about what is so

• Writers tend to ignore any information that does not support winning the
argument, which impedes honesty

• Writers will tend to polarize a complex issue in order to take a “side”

When you write in academics, you have an obligation to your reader to be honest, and
to fully explore an idea. There is a difference between winning or losing an argument,
and persuading an audience through honest inquiry.

Most readers can sense very quickly if a writer is more invested in being “right” than
in telling the truth. Readers are persuaded by writers:

• Who are invested, but reasonable

• Who are careful and honest

• Who are fair, and look at all sides to an issue

• Who take other points of view into account

• Who endeavor to be of service to their readers

In other words, readers are best served by writers who can be trusted not to sacrifice
intellectual and personal integrity for the sake of “winning” a one-sided argument on
paper, just to prove that he or she can do so.

SECTION I • CHAPTER 3 Questions in Context 41

One of the most important features of academic writing is an attitude of genuine
curiosity that demands that you take your own writing seriously. This means taking
responsibility for the ethical dimension of writing: the responsibility, to yourself, and
to your reader, to tell the truth, and to get to the heart of the matter at hand, without
bias or agenda.

Unfortunately, the word “argument” often gives the wrong impression. The word
“argument” is not a poor description for what one does in academic writing, if one
defines it. However, in modern day language, an “argument” sounds like a “fight.” It
sounds like competition. One fights, and one fights to win.

However, the word “argument,” in this case, refers to a logical progression of ideas
that invests in the truth of a matter as opposed to “winning.” One does not persuade
by battering the opposition. One persuades by demonstrating that one is a reasonable
person. Persuasion is usually not the result of “winning,” but the result of the reader,
in encountering the writer’s prose, coming to trust in this attitude of honesty on the
part of the writer.

Old Rule: The purpose of academic writing is to win an argument

New Rule: The purpose of academic writing is to be honest, and to determine
the truth the best that you can.

ACADEMIC WRITING IS THE PLACE TO EXPRESS YOUR OPINION

Encouraging students to write about their opinions is, quite frankly, careless, and
probably stems from the underestimation of young people’s ability to think effectively,
or to have something of value to say. Critical thinking, or critical writing, is never the
place for opinion.

Yet it is also entirely understandable to ask how one can tell the difference between
when something is an “opinion” and when it’s a valid point. After all, most of us think
that our opinions are pretty reasonable.

To answer, one can employ a Dictionary Definition, which should be familiar.
A dictionary definition is useful for pointing out the general meaning of a term, when
that meaning is often misunderstood or confused. The Oxford English Dictionary
offers the following definition for opinion:

opinion: 1) a belief or assessment based on grounds failing to reach or amount to
reasonable proof.

42 REASON TO WRITE

In other words, an opinion is distinguished from other kinds of statements precisely
because:

• The statement can be argued, but is never held to any standard that would
establish its truth or accuracy

• The statement may be commonly believed, but it is not a statement that is
based upon fact, reasoning, logic, or established knowledge

If a statement fits the above, it is an opinion. One can argue it, but in doing so, one
must remember that one is arguing something that, to qualify as an opinion:

• has no proof or sound reasoning to back it up

• contradicts existing proof or sound reasoning

• is based upon personal preference, or taste

Again, this is where a misunderstanding of the term “argument” makes things confus-
ing. Just because it is possible to argue for one’s opinion, this does not make it appropri-
ate material for academic writing. Opinion and belief have no place in academic writing.

It’s not that every opinion is wrong; it is that, to qualify as an opinion, the statement
cannot allow us to reliably determine whether it is true or valid by using formal or
informal logic.

We argue our opinions all the time. People can hold long debates over whether a
hard or a soft mattress is more comfortable. People have conspiracy theories. People
hold views on politics, religion, morality, and whether one sports team is better than
another sports team.

The attempt to write academically based on an opinion almost always gets an
academic writer into trouble—not only because what he or she writes is not logically
defensible, but because it can very quickly cross genres and become an editorial.

Reasoning from opinion usually results in faulty DEFINITION
reasoning. In rhetoric, faulty reasoning is called
a fallacy. A fallacy is an unsound or unfair
way to present one’s thinking,
For example: and usually represents either an
error in reasoning (a cognitive
1. One could hold the opinion that wearing a bias), or a deliberate attempt to
lucky bracelet will cause one to do well on obscure one’s meaning in order to
a test. persuade through unfair means.

SECTION I • CHAPTER 3 Questions in Context 43

One could even argue: “I wore my lucky bracelet, and then I did well on
the test.”

This is a fallacy called False Cause. False Cause makes it look like there
is a relationship between a cause and an effect, even when there is not
a logical relationship. In other words, just because there is an effect
(doing well on the test) does not mean that you have established the
cause (wearing the bracelet). Maybe you got lucky. Maybe you studied.
Maybe the test was easy.

Another famous example of “false cause” would be: “The rooster crows
at sunrise. Therefore, the rooster causes the sun to rise.”

2. One could hold the opinion that aliens have taken over the government.

One could even argue: “Anybody who thinks aliens haven’t taken over
the government is naïve.”

This fallacy is called an ad hominim attack. In an ad hominim attack,
one ignores the issue at hand, and, instead, launches a personal attack
against any person holding an alternative view.

Another example of ad hominim attack would be: “You may have a
point, but woah—is that tie ugly!”

3. One can hold the opinion that Titanic (1997) was a great film.

One could even argue: “Women love the film Titanic”

This fallacy is called Hasty Generalization. In Hasty Generalization,
almost any opinion can appear to be supported if a person makes a
general statement meant to speak for everyone, (or a group of people).
Thus, we could say that, even though Titanic is the type of film that,
in American culture, is supposed to appeal to women, the plain fact is
that not every woman loved (or, indeed, even viewed) the film, and one
could probably find a female who saw the film, and couldn’t wait for the
ship to go down.

Another example of Hasty Generalization would be: “Men want their
sons to grow up to be baseball players.” This is false. Some men don’t
care for sports. Some men would rather their sons grew up to be doctors
or lawyers. Some men are not very concerned with their son’s eventual
employment. Some men are not fathers. Some men would rather their

44 REASON TO WRITE

sons grew up to be football players. Some men live in countries where
the sport is not even played.

Trying to offer legitimate support for an opinion is inevitably frustrating, because
opinions, by definition, don’t require proof—that’s why they’re opinions.

Opinions are almost never reasoned responses. Some have to do with personal taste
(“I like blue”). Some have to do with our personal beliefs or values. Some are the
product of conventional wisdom—hidden cultural assumptions that one acquires
by sharing a common culture or language with others, even if one is not aware of
those hidden assumptions. At times, one can make a conscious assumption, such as
a proposition (e.g.: let x=2), but it is the unconscious ones that are at issue, here.

Assumptions can hide in a lot of places. In fact, they’re impossible to avoid. Behind
all of our statements, and questions, are a series of assumptions. Often these assump-
tions are totally true, quite simple, and very obvious:

Request: “Tomorrow, when you go to the store, would you pick up
some milk?”

Assumptions: There will be a tomorrow; you will be alive; the store will be open;
the store will have milk; you know that when I say “pick up some
milk” I do not mean that you should look for some on the ground,
or that you should steal it, but that you should purchase it with
money; the store will be willing to sell you the milk for money; you
will have money to buy the milk; you will bring the milk back, and
not drink it along the way; etc.

These assumptions are simple common sense; we can’t go around questioning basic
reality every time we ask a question or make a statement. We’ve simply got to have
some kind of mutual agreements, that are unspoken, and that we all “get.”

The problem is that sometimes we “get” unspoken assumptions that have less to do
with reality-as-we-know-it (tomorrow will come), and more to do with ideology.
Sometimes we don’t question the information that we absorb through social, cul-
tural, familial, educational, and popular culture sources.

There is a riddle that illustrates hidden cultural assumptions quite effectively. If you’ve
already heard it, then you’ll get the reference. If you don’t know the answer, notice
how much time it takes for you to come up with the answer, before looking:

A man witnesses his son in a terrible bicycle accident. He scoops up his
boy, puts him in the back of his car, and races to the emergency room.

SECTION I • CHAPTER 3 Questions in Context 45

As the boy is rolled into surgery, the surgeon cries out in shock: “I can’t
operate on this boy! He’s my son!” How is this possible?1

Argument from opinion can be tempting, because it absolves one from the respon-
sibility of examining one’s assumptions. That’s why it’s very important for one to get
into the habit of avoiding statements that begin with: “I believe…” or “In my view…”
or “In my opinion. …” If the statement is sound, one can just state it.

Listen to the difference between the following statements:

Statement 1

“In my opinion, a free press is essential to a functioning democracy.”

Statement 2

“A free press is essential to a functioning democracy.”

The difference between the two statements is that Statement 1 does not require any
reasoning to back it up—we all have the “right to our opinion,” don’t we?

On the other hand, Statement 2 requires reasonable justification, such as:

“A functioning democracy relies upon citizens being able to access reliable informa-
tion upon which to make informed decisions in order to actively participate in the
political process.”

The moment one reads a piece of writing that contains the phrase, “In my opinion…”
or “I believe…” one can assume that the writer is either feeling uncertain about whether
or not the statement is true or valid, and is trying to hide that fact, or the writer would
like to assert a biased point of view, without being obligated to logically justify it.

Old Rule: Academic writing is the place to express your opinion.

New Rule: Academic writing is the place for reasoned exploration of an idea.

ACADEMIC WRITING INVOLVES AGREEING OR
DISAGREEING ON AN ISSUE

There are a series of important topics that represent controversial issues within
public discourse in the United States. They include: abortion; gun control; health
care; prayer in schools; the legalization of marijuana; assisted suicide; etc. They are

1 Answer to the riddle: The doctor is the boy’s mother.
46 REASON TO WRITE

often issues about which people feel very strongly, and unless you have been living
under a rock, you know the list.

Writing can get very personal, especially when a writer feels compelled to write
about something that the writer has experienced personally, or in regard to which
the writer feels a certain call to action.

This is often the case with binary issues. There is no reason not to feel strongly in
regard to such issues. It is rather that academic writing demands a specific response
in regard to those issues that is different from opinion writing.

Within public discourse, these kind of issues have been reduced to what is called
a “binary,” or an “either/or” argument. One is for-or-against, or one is pro-or-con.
Thus, one is pro-life or pro-choice. One is for, or against, gun control.

No matter how strongly you feel about a given side EVER WONDERED?
of an issue, the act of simply repeating, on paper,
the same arguments that are usually offered, for When referring to “a general
that side, does not in any way constitute criti- person,” a writer can use the
cal thinking, or writing. Your reader has already phrase “he or she” or “him or
heard those arguments. Your reader either doesn’t her.” Because it is one or the
agree, or you are “preaching to the converted.” other, such a pronoun is always
treated as singular, as in: “When
While it is true that it is difficult to write on polar- a person blushes, he or she is
ized issues, this does not mean that they are not embarrassed.” The writer can also
vital issues. Rather, it means that writing upon them use the pronoun “one,” which
requires a formidable degree of critical sophistication. is formal, but always refers to
There is a reason for this. Academic writing is logical; “every-single-person.” It is always
if an issue hasn’t yet been reasonably resolved within treated as singular: “When one
public discourse, several things may be going on. blushes, one is embarrassed.”

• We are missing important information or have not yet asked the right questions

• A value system or moral judgment may be the test of truth, as opposed to logic

• The issue is complicated, and cannot be resolved by only one of two answers

The impulse to agree or disagree is sometimes a very difficult habit for student writers
to shake, because they have been routinely prompted to take a side on an issue. The
reason students are often encouraged to do so is in order to rehearse rhetorical
strategies—which, while it may provide instruction in certain stylistic approaches to
persuasion, denies the student the ability to recognize the complexity and real-life
context of important issues that impact upon real people.

SECTION I • CHAPTER 3 Questions in Context 47

It is possible to write critically on a pro/con issue. However, to do so, one would have
to let go of one’s own investment in the issue, and disrupt the opposition itself. This
is the most difficult form of critical thinking. To break a binary, one would have to do
the following steps, in order, within a critical paper:

1. Re-represent the “pro” side of the argument in a way in which someone who
strongly held that view would find both reasonable and fair.

2. Re-represent the “con” side of the argument in a way in which someone who
strongly held that view would find reasonable and fair.

3. Ask a pertinent critical question of the issue in a way that breaks the binary—
in other words, that asks a question in a way that neither side has before, or
discover the single point of contention that prevents this issue from being
logically resolved, and then resolve it.

In most cases, real-life questions are simply not adequately addressed through only
two options.

For example, the answer to the question: “Does popular culture create public opin-
ion, or reflect public opinion?” is, of course: “Yes.”

Old Rule: Academic writing involves agreeing or disagreeing on a Topic.

New Rule: Academic writing involves recognizing the complexity of an
issue.

ACADEMIC WRITING INVOLVES THE WRITER CHOOSING
A TOPIC OF INTEREST

Writing about what interests you seems so reasonable. Yet it is often a real trap. There’s a
difference between being curious about something, and having an interest in something.
Imagine having an “interest” in a business—it means you’ve got something at stake.

If you feel strongly about women’s issues, and you end up writing an emotional rant
about the unfairness of it all, you’re caught in this trap. If you lean strongly toward the
left or the right side of the political spectrum, and you end up sputtering indignantly
through an essay, you’ve fallen into this trap.

Grace Paley once said: “You write from what you know, but you write in what you
don’t know.” If you’re “interested” in something, it’s probably not only because you
know something about it, but also because you hold an strong position on the matter,
often with a whole lot of emotional baggage attached.

48 REASON TO WRITE

If you’re personally invested, it’s more difficult to step back. The bottom line is: If
you’ve got some sort of agenda before you begin to write, your ability to examine the
issue in a fair way is already compromised. It is a perfectly understandable for us to be
reluctant to question what we think we already know, or to take an objective stance
on an issue about which we feel strongly.

Old Rule: Academic writing involves the writer choosing a topic of interest.

New Rule: Academic writing involves becoming curious about a question.

THE PURPOSE OF ACADEMIC WRITING IS TO TELL THE READER WHAT WE
“SHOULD” DO

When we write academically, it is true that we intend to persuade our reader.
However, successful persuasion is actually the result of telling the truth about what
we have found, from a point of curiosity.

Telling a reader that something is so, or telling the reader what to do or think, without
telling the reader why, is just not very persuasive. As a reader, you probably recog-
nize the fact that you would resent such a maneuver, and that you would be much
more likely to become engaged if, upon reading what someone has written, you said
to yourself: “That seems reasonable” and “I never thought about it that way, before.”

At that point, the job of the academic writer is done. As for compelling someone to
action—telling the reader what he or she (or all of us) should think or do, or should
not think or do—that is not our job. In writing, we trust readers to think or act
according to their own judgment.

Old Rule: The purpose of academic writing is to tell the reader what we
“should” do.

New Rule: The purpose of academic writing is to tell the reader what we
have come to understand.

2 review

CHAPTER REVIEW
The important information to take from this chapter is:
The purpose of academic writing is not to win an argument, but to persuade by being
honest, and determining the truth the best that you can.

SECTION I • CHAPTER 3 Questions in Context 49

Academic writing is not the place to express opinion, but a place for reasoned
exploration of an idea.

Academic writing does not involve agreeing or disagreeing on a topic, but rather
involves recognizing the complexity of an issue.

Academic writing does not involve choosing to write about what “interests” you, but
about becoming curious about a question.

The purpose of academic writing is not to tell the reader what we (everyone) should
do, but, rather, what the writer has come to understand.

GRAMMAR REVIEW

Pronoun Usage: Replacing Specific Nouns

A pronoun replaces a noun, such as a person or a thing. If, instead of saying: “Clara
hits the ball,” one says: “She hits it,” then “Clara” and “ball” have been replaced by the
pronouns “She” and “it.”

Singular pronouns replace one unique thing in the world, in a specific context, as in
“Clara” (she) or “that particular ball” (it).

Plural pronouns often replace unique groups of things in the world in a specific con-
text, as in “The Johnson family has three cars” as “They have them.”

Pronoun Usage: Replacing Non-Specific Noun

The tricky thing is if a pronoun refers to a kind of non-specific “every-single-person”
(singular) or “all-people” (plural).

Singular “Every-Single-Person”
The writer can use the phrase “he or she” or “him or her.” Whether one or the
other, the pronoun is always treated as singular, as in:
“When a person blushes, he or she is embarrassed.”
The writer can also use the pronoun “one,” which is formal, but always refers
to “every-single-person.” It is always treated as singular:
“When one blushes, one is embarrassed.”

Plural “All-People”
Provided one is not referring to a specific group of people, but just “people, in
general,” a writer can use the plural. In doing so, the writer should remember

50 REASON TO WRITE

that he or she is, in that moment, speaking for all persons, and make sure that
the statement justifies that level of generality, as in:

“It’s true of all people. When we are embarrassed, we often blush.”

THREE COMMON ERRORS
1. Singular to Plural:

If what you are replacing is singular or plural, keep it singular or plural:
“When one goes to the store, one shops.”

NOT: “When one goes to the store, they shop.”
2. Pronoun Switching:

If you use a pronoun, keep using that same pronoun for what it replaces, as in:
“If one goes online, one can buy almost anything, especially if one has
the money to do so in one’s bank account because one was born wealthy.

NOT: “If one goes online, he or she can buy almost anything.”
3. “He” for “every-single-person.”

“He” can never substitute, by itself, for “every-single-person.”
One can alternate between the genders as long as it is not confusing to the
reader, as in:

“A student studies a great deal. He may stay up all night to read. She
may get up early to write a paper.”
One can use the phrase “he or she” (or “she or he”), as in:
“A student studies a great deal. He or she may stay up all night and
read. She or he may get up early to write a paper.
NOT: A student studies a great deal. He may stay up all night and read. He
may get up early to write a paper.
If you are wondering why this last rule applies, ponder the following statement:
“A human is a mammal. He breastfeeds his young.”

SECTION I • CHAPTER 3 Questions in Context 51

3 the question map

O nce you have a critical question, the next step is to prepare for analysis. Analysis
involves breaking the question down into manageable parts that will allow you
to answer the original question, or simply allow you to refine your original question
to one that is more specific.
One can refine a critical question by determining general and specific elements of
that question, outlined in the Question Map Guide that follows. It should both clarify
the complexity of your question, and also offer a specific context in which your ques-
tion operates. Once you have a specific context, you will have the material you need
in order to perform effective analysis.
The Question Map is broken into three steps.

1. Three Parts to the Question Map
2. Example Question Map
3. Step 2: The Question Map Guide

52 REASON TO WRITE

THREE PARTS TO THE QUESTION MAP

STEP 1

In Step 1, gather details by asking: Who? What? Where? How? When? Why? Each of
these could be answered in either a general way, or a specific way. You will need to use
your judgment in formulating them, in sentence form. Each will provide details that
will be separated into General or Specific information.

General details should be given only when the list is too large to give you important
patterns.

Example: “What needs air to breath?”

Obviously, it would be too much to try to offer a detailed list of living creatures that
need air to breath (e.g.: monkeys, antelope, koala bears, dogs, eagles…). Therefore,
your answer would be general in nature.

Answer: “In general, living creatures with respiratory systems need air
to breath.”

Specific examples should be given whenever possible. Your list should be specific if
there are a variety of possibilities, but it is reasonable to provide a list of them, even
if that list is somewhat incomplete.

Example: “What kinds of transportation do people use?”

This would be a manageable list of details, and therefore your answer would be specific
in nature. A response that says: “In general, people use vehicles for transportation”
would not be useful.

Answer: Specifically, people use trains, bicycles, airplanes or helicopters,
walking, cars or trucks, rocket ships, boats, wheelchairs, sleds,
horses, and buses, as transportation.

STEP 2

From all questions that you responded to with the words “In general…” construct a
single sentence that describes what you know, in general, about your question.

STEP 3

From all questions that you responded to with the words “Specifically…” begin to
combine those details into new patterns to refine your question.

SECTION I • CHAPTER 3 Questions in Context 53

EXAMPLE QUESTION MAP
Original Critical Question: “How has modern technology changed human
interaction?”

STEP 1
Gather details in whole sentences. Establish whether they are general or specific

WHO…uses modern technology? General

In general: humans in all social contexts, public and private. Corporations, institutions,
public figures, and private citizens, use it, or are subject to having it used, upon them.

WHAT…technology is used? Specific

Specifically: computers, cell phones, radar detectors, ATM machines, video games,
televisions, weapons tech, medical tech., satellites, MP3 players, scanners, X-rays,
voting machines, assembly lines, motion sensors, cameras, telescopes, filming
equipment, vehicle technology such as GPS.

WHERE…is the technologically used? General

In general: In all social contexts, including the home, workplace, places of business,
schools, hospitals, prisons, places of transit.

HOW…is the technology used? Specific

Specifically: databases (identification, taxation, immigration, voter registration,
vehicle records, legal records, social security, crime records, medical records,
census, school records, statistical data, market research, property records, credit
records), timecards, scientific and humanities research, entertainment, production
of goods, performance of services, forensic investigation, advertising, voting, testing,
medical assessment and procedures, transportation, accounting, stock trade, news,
art, navigation, polling.

WHEN…is the technology used? General

In general, in all contexts, when affordable, except as legislation for reasons of: pri-
vacy or ethics.

54 REASON TO WRITE

WHY…is this technology used? General

In general, to make efficient the management of systems handling the flow of people,
time, labor, goods, services, information.

STEP 2

In Step 2, use General details to create a single sentence that establishes what you
know, in general, about your question.

Example:

In general, technology: 1) is used by, or used upon, corporations, institutions, public
figures, and private citizens, 2) in all social contexts, including the home, workplace,
places of business, schools, hospitals, prisons, and places of transit; 3) when afford-
able, except as legislated for reason of privacy or ethics, 4) for the purpose of increasing
the efficiency of the flow of people, time, labor, goods, services, and/or information.

STEP 3

In Step 3, use Specific details, matching different details into patterns in order to form
new questions.

Examples:

In what ways have personal computers affected privacy in the United States?

What role does surveillance play in the life of the average United States citizen?

How does popular culture technology encourage the notion of the average United
States citizen as celebrity, through things such as reality TV or YouTube?

How does the technology in institutions (schools, prisons, hospitals) aid the flow of
people through systems, and what does it say about the individual?

In what ways does the instantaneous quality of communication (e.g.: texting) result
in a shift in the way that time is treated in cultural discourse?

How has the Internet shifted language usage in regard to the perception of space?

If the acquisition of information is no longer a question of access, what other factors
now affect its transmission?

SECTION I • CHAPTER 3 Questions in Context 55

How does access to technology affect social mobility?
How do “virtual selves” complicate the division between appearance and “personality”?
How does the means of communication affect the message that is conveyed?
How has the cellphone changed adolescent/parent relationships in the United States?
What significance does the “keyword” play in accessing information?

56 REASON TO WRITE

STEP 2: THE QUESTION MAP GUIDE
STEP 1

In relationship to your question, answer the following, in as much detail as possible.
Indicate whether it is a general or a specific answer:
Who? _________________________________________________________________
________________________________________________________________________
________________________________________________________________________
________________________________________________________________________
What? _________________________________________________________________
________________________________________________________________________
________________________________________________________________________
________________________________________________________________________
Where? _______________________________________________________________
________________________________________________________________________
________________________________________________________________________
________________________________________________________________________
How? _________________________________________________________________
________________________________________________________________________
________________________________________________________________________
________________________________________________________________________
When? ________________________________________________________________
________________________________________________________________________
________________________________________________________________________
________________________________________________________________________

SECTION I • CHAPTER 3 Questions in Context 57

Why? _________________________________________________________________
________________________________________________________________________
________________________________________________________________________
________________________________________________________________________

STEP 2
From the list in Step 1, being as inclusive as possible, answer the question: “What can
I say, IN GENERAL, about this question?” In general,__________________________
________________________________________________________________________
________________________________________________________________________
________________________________________________________________________
________________________________________________________________________
________________________________________________________________________
________________________________________________________________________

STEP 3
From the list in Step 1, being as inclusive as possible, match specific details to other
specific details to create a new list of related questions:
________________________________________________________________________
________________________________________________________________________
________________________________________________________________________
________________________________________________________________________
________________________________________________________________________
________________________________________________________________________
________________________________________________________________________
________________________________________________________________________
________________________________________________________________________
________________________________________________________________________
58 REASON TO WRITE

Chapter 4

Saying what we mean-meaning
what we say

1 60WRITING HAS WORDS IN IT . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
2 61LANGUAGE AND ASSOCIATES . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
3 67METAPHOR: WORDS ARE SLITHY TOVES . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
4 69GUARD RAILS FOR THE TRICKY BITS . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
5 76REVIEW . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
6 77WAYS TO DEFINE . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

Types of Definitions/Examples . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 78
80STEP 3 WAYS TO DEFINE GUIDE . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
Example Completed Ways to Define Guide . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 82
7 87THE SHORTCUT . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

59

1 writing has words in it

Does it trouble you that…
They call what doctors do “practice”?
People who invest your money are called “brokers”?
You board an airplane from something called a “terminal”?
The time when traffic is slowest is called “rush hour”?

To write well is not just about organizing ideas; writing is a product of the use of
language. Exploring the nature of words—what they mean, how they mean, why they
mean, and any difference between those elements and what we intend to say, when
we use them—seems like important information to have, when writing.

The fact is, no matter how erudite, nobody knows all the words in a given language.
Nor are all the words in a given language in the dictionary. Language is in use, all
around us, every day. The whole of a language is actually held collectively by all per-
sons who speak it.

We choose which words to speak or write at any given moment. However, our power
over language is limited. Let’s say that I were suddenly to decide that I was tired of
using the word “door” for describing that swinging thing that lets us in and out of
buildings. Let’s say that I dislike the word “door,” and believe that the word “snart”
would be entirely more pleasant. That does not mean that when I went to work in the
morning, someone would say: “Here, let me get that snart for you.”

DEFINITION Family members and friends, and even secret soci-
eties, may have private words they trade with one
vernacular: More than just another, but it is rare for those words to travel into
“language,” this term indicates the general vernacular. When a word does become
what is spoken in a given country a part of general usage, its origin is often obscured.
or region, as it is used, whether Who was the first person to use the word “cool” to
“proper” or not. This is also mean “really good in a particularly new way”? It is
different from dialect, which can almost impossible (unless one is a large corpora-
indicate a variety of distinct forms tion with a talented advertising team) to introduce
of that language spoken within a a new word into general usage, on purpose.
given country or region.

This means three things. First, language is always changing, but it is also, at any given
moment, complete. Second, people use the words that are available to them—if they
want others to understand their meaning. Third, our choices—the particular words

60 REASON TO WRITE

we use when we speak or write—profoundly affect meaning in ways that have nothing
to do with the dictionary definition of the words that we use.

2 language and associates

L anguage is powerful. People are persuaded by language. Religious texts, political
speeches, philosophical treatise, laws, contracts, and constitutions have com-
pelled people to all sorts of actions and beliefs. Despite our protestations that only
sticks and stones have the ability to do so, such things as profanity or racial slurs can
offend or hurt people.

In turn, even how one uses language can reflect one’s origin, one’s class, and one’s
level of education. People judge others based upon the way that that they speak. Even
a person’s name, which usually won’t be found in a typical dictionary, can provide
huge amounts of information to others about a person. Yet, as so many people have
pointed out, these are just words.

One of the things that gets in the way of understanding why these are not “just”
words is our reliance upon the dictionary to define what language is, for us. A dic-
tionary gives people the impression that language is merely a bunch of unrelated
words organized in an alphabetical list.

In our use of language, however, it is quite the opposite. All language is what could
be described as associational: each word is linked to words to which it is alike, to
words in which it is in opposition, and to words to which it is in some other kind of
relationship. Those associations are often not so much logical as much as categorical,
or even based simply on how the word sounds. Each word shares a variety of things
in common with other words, and those relationships impact upon the way that we
perceive the world, which is determined, to a large degree, by language.

This is why one could pick practically any word and begin to create an associational
“web” of related words, even if the relationship has nothing to do with the definition
of the words, themselves. Let’s take a simple example: the word boat.

From a dictionary, “boat” would probably be listed following a word such as “boast-
ful,” to which it has little relationship besides sharing the first few letters. The word
boat, in general, would probably be defined as a noun and a verb. It would probably
be described as a man-made means of transportation that travels on the water, that

SECTION I • CHAPTER 4 Saying What We Mean-Meaning What We Say 61

is propelled by sails, or an engine, or oars, and that is somewhat synonymous to such
words as “ship.”

If one accepts the way that the dictionary structures language, then one can imagine
that boat refers to those objects in the world that fit that definition, and leave it at
that. However, its true associational relationships are much more complex than that:

Chips Sad 8 Clown
5 7
Fish
3 2 Blue
6
Boat 1 Water
4 Yellow Son
Air 9
Sun
Fig. 1: Associational Map
10

Obviously, this map could get a lot more complex. Even with the simple diagram,
here, if each number represents a certain kind of associational relationship, we could
catalogue them as follows:

1. boat/water: purpose association
A boat travels on water, and not air or land

2. water/blue: cultural association
Water is often represented as blue, and can look blue or green in certain
light, although, unadulterated, it is a clear liquid.

3. water/fish: purpose association
Fish live in water, and not on land or air

4. water/air: categorical association
The four elements: fire, air, water, land

62 REASON TO WRITE

5. fish/chips: cultural association
“Fish and Chips” is a common food pairing

6. blue/yellow: categorical association
Blue and Yellow are Colors

7. blue/sad: metaphorical association
Blue is Sad

8. sad/clown: cultural association
Clown faces are often painted in a Sad expression

9. yellow/sun: cultural association
The Sun is often represented as Yellow, although light provided by the sun
is actually a spectrum.

10. sun/son: homonym or homophone association
Sun and Son sound the same, although they have different spellings and
different meanings.

Shakespeare made good use of the last associative link in his famous line from the
play “Richard III”: “Now is the winter of our discontent/Made glorious summer by
this sun of York” (1.1.712). In these lines in the play, “sun” has a double meaning,
because it also refers to the newly crowned eldest “son” of the Duke of York. Puns
also rely upon these kinds of associations, which is one of the reasons they can be so
painful, as in: “A man sent ten different puns to friends, thinking at least one of the
puns would make them laugh. No pun in ten did.”

In the associative map that is drawn, here, it is easy to see why “Boat” is associated
with “Water” (a boat floats on the water), and “Water” associated with “Blue” (water
is often perceived, and represented, as blue), and “Blue” is associated with “Sad” (to
be blue) and “Blue” is associated with “Yellow” (they are both colors), but it’s harder
to see the associational relationship between “Boat” and “Clown.” That’s because the
associational relationship depends upon proximity: the further away on the web two
words get, the weaker the association.

In the dictionary, words are alphabetized, with neat definitions. However, that’s not
the way that words are organized in our heads. When we respond to language, we
respond to its syntagmatic and paradigmatic quality.

SECTION I • CHAPTER 4 Saying What We Mean-Meaning What We Say 63

Syntagmatic Axis

The dog caught the ball Paradigmatic Axis

A cat missed that bat

His mouse longed for a belfry Fig 2.

The horizontal, left-to-right sequence is called the syntagmatic axis. You can think of
this as syntax: the order of words as they appear in a sentence, and that indicates the
word’s potential function (eg.: a verb). The English language tends to follow an S/V/O
pattern, as in: “John (Subject) walked (Verb) the dog (Object).”

Because we tend to pattern our sentences in this way, we are often able to ascertain
the function of words simply by the order in which they are placed, in the sentence,
even if we don’t know their meaning.

For example, Lewis Carroll’s famous poem “The Jabberwocky” begins with the line:
“`Twas brillig, and the slithy toves/Did gyre and gimble in the wabe” (1.1.22). None of
this should make any sense; most of these words don’t exist in the English language.
Yet we know that “brillig” and “slithy” are probably adjectives, and “toves” and “wabe”
are probably nouns, and “gire” and “gimble” are probably verbs. Why? Because of the
syntagmatic axis: the position of the words in the sentence.

The up-and-down lines make up the paradigmatic axis; this is where the earlier map
comes into play, because each association would create the potential for a new asso-
ciation. The paradigmatic axis in language is the relational quality of words—the way
we categorize meaning. It offers the connotative quality of words.

On the one hand, there is what a word denotes. (dictionary definition)

On the other hand, there is what a word connotes. (association)

Denotation: Rose: A type of flowering bush.

Connotation: Rose: Romantic love, poetry, beauty, etc.

So what does all of this have to do with writing? Everything. Although we can’t antici-
pate what personal association a reader may have with a word (maybe your reader

64 REASON TO WRITE

was attacked by a rose bush), we are responsible, as writers, for accounting for our
shared associations of a word, especially when writing to those with whom we share
a common language.

Connotation is simply the associations of a word that give a word a certain “slant”
that we all recognize, but don’t always notice, while we’re writing. That connotation
can change the meaning of what we really intend to say in using a given word.

Let’s take the word individual. This term has connotations of rugged indepen-
dence, the rebel, innovation and invention, entrepreneurship, and refusal to relin-
quish one’s moral fortitude. These connotations are what we transmit when we
use the term, not the standard dictionary definition of “related to a single person
or thing.”

To define the term in a conscious manner is take control of connotation. If one were,
for example, to read Erving Goffman, one would find that society always offers its
members a prefabricated role to play within the group context. That role can be posi-
tive or negative (a jock, a prison guard, a police officer, a student, a drug dealer, a
celebrity, etc.).

These roles have scripted lines (“Step out of the car, please, ma’am”), a uniform or
costume (one goes to the prom in a dress or suit), and expected behaviors (a preppie
is supposed to drive a certain car, have certain friends and love interests, etc.)

These roles exist before a particular individual steps into them, and continue to exist
after a particular individual is gone. An individual playing a certain role may stretch
the boundaries of that role (come to class in pajamas), but only so far. Cross a certain
line that has any societal stakes (a male jock fights when challenged) and one may
quickly find one’s ability to play the role in jeopardy.

In addition, these roles include ways in which we form our identities at a given time
in our lives: if one is a white male firefighter in the middle class who is the father of
two children, the underlined words give specific guidelines concerning what to do in
given situations, and how to act, but also make up a large portion of how others think
of us, as well as how we think of ourselves.

On the other end of the extreme, one can find persons who refuse to conform to
established social roles. Such people are outcasts, living on the edges of society—the
extremists, the hermits, the criminals, or the insane. In this sense, occupying estab-
lished social roles has nothing to do with being individualistic, but with conforming
to what is expected.

SECTION I • CHAPTER 4 Saying What We Mean-Meaning What We Say 65

Therefore, an individual could be defined, in this sense, as a person who does not
conform: one who forms his or her primary identity outside of the predetermined
roles provided by the social context. It would also not necessarily represent a desirable
or comfortable role.

Here are three sets of words. Their denotation is the same (they are synonyms, in the
dictionary), but the words carry different connotations.

The best evidence that we communicate in language primarily at an associational
level is the fact that if there were no real differences between these words, we wouldn’t
have come up with several versions of them. Language is economical—no two words
are exactly the same. We use different words because we need them to convey slightly
different connotations, even if their denotations are too similar to  notice a real
difference.

Positive Negative Neutral Really Negative
public servant bureaucrat government employee pencil-pusher
detainee convict prisoner criminal
believer zealout religious person fanatic

Now let’s see how this works in language usage. The following sentences say the same
thing, but the associations produce a different connotation:

1. Former prisoners are spied upon even after they return home.

2. Ex-cons are closely monitored after release from prison.

3. Former inmates are observed after release from penal institutions.

4. Criminals, when released into the civilian population, are placed under close
surveillance.

In writing, there is no innocent use of language: all words are guilty by association.

Words and their combination are the stuff of writing, and a portion of the meaningful
communication we do with one another. The most powerful tool that you have in
crafting prose is to make the relationship between your intended meaning, and the
associative quality of the word or phrase you use to express that meaning, as close
as possible. This is what instructors mean when they talk about creating precision in
your writing.

66 REASON TO WRITE

3 metaphor: words are slithy toves

“Everything is vague to a degree you do not realize until you have tried to
make it precise.”
—Bertrand Russell

EVER WONDERED? M ost language is associational because it is
fundamentally metaphorical. A metaphor
The Latin “e.g.” and “i.e.” are often is a situation in language wherein one thing is
used to list thing/s that refers described in terms of another. Often we use a
to the statement that is made. concrete term (e.g.: “rose”) to describe an abstract
The difference between the two

is that “e.g.” means, basically, concept (e.g.: “love”). In doing so, we make a

“for example.” Use it to list one comparison.
or more items when there is a

range of examples you could have Metaphor: A = B

given, as in: “There were toys in Metaphor: Love (A) is a Rose (B)
the room (e.g.: blocks, crayons,

and picture books).” In contrast, If you’ll notice, this statement is profoundly illogi-
“i.e.” is used when you mean “this cal. Love is not a rose. Love is an emotion. A rose
or these, specifically,” as in “The is a plant.
toys were for young children

(i.e.: two—five years old).” However, we all understand that what we are

really saying is that love, like a rose, is beautiful,

transient, can hurt, etc. One could blame this on that darned literature stuff—poetry,

and the like—which tends to mix up logic. However, it’s not that simple.

Think about the following statement:

Whenever I make it home, my brother can’t stop going on about how I really got my
act together this last year, but my sister never stops talking about ancient history.

Seems pretty straightforward.

Yet every word that is underlined is metaphorical. How does one “make it” home,
beyond actually constructing a building, and what’s the difference between “home”
and “it”? How can someone “go on” regarding a topic—ice skates? Is the speaker in a
play, so that he or she has to “act,” and what is he or she bringing “together” in doing
so? If the speaker’s sister “never stops talking,” how does she sleep? And what does
the Neolithic Period have to do with anything?

SECTION I • CHAPTER 4 Saying What We Mean-Meaning What We Say 67

Although metaphor is so common in language that it is nearly impossible to avoid its
use, metaphor is a blunt tool—it always leaves things out. Love may be beautiful, like
a rose, but we do not usually mean that love is long-stemmed or may have aphids.
Metaphor offers the gist of meaning through comparison. To use an “extended meta-
phor,” if you want to be clear in writing, you’ve got to “sharpen” the meaning of a term
to a more “precise point.”

Most metaphor in language is already in usage. We know the meanings because the
metaphors are idiomatic. When a statement is idiomatic, it means that we are rely-
ing on something other than the dictionary definitions of the words to understand
their meaning. Instead, we’re relying on context and on associational links, including
things such as shared cultural understanding.

When we say what we don’t actually mean, we rely upon a shared understanding or
context, to prevent misunderstanding. If someone were to ask you: “Were you born
in a barn?” you would not respond with the answer “No, I was born in a hospital,”
unless you were profoundly oblivious to the idiomatic quality of the question—which
is not actually a question. Rather, it is a request with emotive kick, often meaning
something like: “Close the door.”

In writing, we lack our full arsenal of contextual clues to allow our audience to “get”
statements that are not to be taken literally—we don’t have gestures, or a particular
timeframe, or even a physical context, to help us avoid such mishaps. To compensate
for the possibility of misunderstanding—and to say what we really mean—we must
define any ambiguous terms for a reader.

Let’s take the word “love,” as we understand it. In the context of the English language,
at this time in history, in places such as the United States, this word will refer to,
(depending on when and how and where we use it, and who we are), the feelings
we have, among others, for a parent, a friend, a child, a sexual partner or spouse, a
hometown, a country, objects, a pet, states of mind, and, potentially, chocolate.

So how do we know what someone means when they use that word? Sometimes we
rely upon context. Terry Eagleton gives the following example:

Imagine that far into the future, all that is left are the ruins of our cur-
rent civilization. Even the simplest of signs might be confusing. How
would someone from that time, for example, interpret a sign that said:
“Dogs Must be Carried on Elevators.” Does this mean that, if one has
a dog, the dog must be carried while on the elevator? Or, does it mean
that, in order to get on the elevator, one must be carrying a dog? (6)

68 REASON TO WRITE

Without the context, things get ambiguous, quickly. The other way to make our
meaning clear is to choose our words carefully, and to use definitions in our prose.
There’s no way of getting away from this slippery quality in language, but it is good
to know that it is slippery. This means paying attention to what you are really saying,
and not just what you think you mean.
Get the picture? Good–as Scott McCLoud says, “I’d like a copy.”

4 guard rails for the tricky bits

B eing careful with language is more than just avoiding being careless. If you do
not define your terms, language will happily take over and speak for you, either
obscuring your meaning, or hurting your credibility as someone capable of objective
analysis. Some typical examples include:

Emotional Language
Adjectivitis
Wine-Bottle-Label Language
Glidge
Generalities

Emotional Language
You probably could figure out that calling a religious person a “zealot” is not going
to result in writing that sounds objective. An essay is not an editorial, and emotional
language has no place in academic writing. For example, neither of these statements
sounds particularly objective:
“Those no-good garbage-sorting atheistic latté-guzzling intellectual tree-hugging
environmentalists are ruining the country”
“Those no-good intolerant anti-civil-rights pro-business religious zealots are ruining
the country.”
Any word that is “loaded”—that is, value-laden or biased—will immediately signal to
a reader that a writer’s ability to be fair and honest may be in question. While there is

SECTION I • CHAPTER 4 Saying What We Mean-Meaning What We Say 69

no need to be stiff, academic writing, across all disciplines, is a discourse that strikes
a tone of logical objectivity.

Adjectivitis

Most writers get into trouble in this area when they employ abstract adjectives—
descriptive words that are left undefined. An abstract term refers to something that
is not concrete, and therefore cannot be experienced in the world. If one were to walk
into a room and describe it, the difference would be the following:

Abstract: A beautiful, cozy room with a delightful and welcoming ambience
designed to make people feel comfortable and relaxed.

Do you know what the room looks like? Probably not. Could a lot of rooms fit such a
description? Probably.

Concrete: A small room with low lighting and dark blue walls with three over-
sized velvet armchairs placed in front of a warm fireplace.

This description is much more specific. It’s not that a writer can’t use abstract terms—
writers must use abstract terms, in fact—but rather that abstract terms don’t convey
much meaning until they are defined for the reader.

Glidge, or Wine-Bottle Labels

Some descriptive phrases are so overused that you can create the impression of being
an untrustworthy writer, even if the rest of your reasoning is entirely valid, and you
intended to be fair. They are common phrases that we hear people use around us,
and that sometimes enter our keyboards, through our fingers, without being filtered
through our thought processes.

This can be called “Wine-Bottle-Label-Language” because it sounds great, but means
nothing, as in: “A generous bouquet, yielding its darker hints to the soothing tones of
a sweet afterglow.” Some examples of these phrases would include:

Law and order Military-industrial complex

Crime in the streets White power structure

Law-abiding citizen Hardened criminal

True Self Corporate greed

70 REASON TO WRITE

The reason that the people who read our writing tend to see us as biased when we
use words with these kinds of connotations is because, frankly, we usually tend to use
those words because we do have a certain bias.

Such phrases can even be used to deliberately obscure what is actually being
described. There is a term for the deliberate use of these kinds of phrases to persuade
an audience, and it’s the same in the academic world as in the real world. It’s called
lying—deliberately obscuring the truth of a thing by making it sound different than
what it is. George Orwell points out a few of the following examples in his essay
“Politics and the English Language”:

elimination of unreliable elements
Shooting people who oppose your political viewpoint

collateral damage
Bombing the school when you were aiming for the airbase

final solution
Genocide

transfer of populations
Removing a group of people from an area, against their will

These are obvious examples. However, some connotations are harder for us to spot,
and can even indicate a bias we may not know that we have.

Glidge

Most abstract terms are tricky—they include such words such as freedom, natural,
human, love, smart, evil, or personality. If a writer does not define these kinds of terms,
the associative quality of words will simply act on their own to control the meaning
conveyed. Why? For the same reason people climb mountains—because they can.

If one were to write: “It is natural for people to fear snakes,” what one could mean
is that: “It is understandable for people to fear snakes,” or “It is common for people
to fear snakes.” That is because “natural” and “understandable” and “common” are
associated terms.

Yet despite what one might have meant, that is not what one has said. What one has
said is that people are biologically predisposed to fear snakes. That is not a true state-
ment. It is not “natural” to fear snakes—there are plenty of people who find snakes
quite delightful creatures, and who study them, and even have them as pets.

SECTION I • CHAPTER 4 Saying What We Mean-Meaning What We Say 71

To elaborate, here is the word “natural” used in a series of statements:

1. It is natural for poor people to commit crime.

2. Men and women can’t be friends. It’s not natural.

3. Religious people are more naturally moral than atheists.

There are a lot of things that a writer could mean by the word “natural” in these state-
ments. The writer could mean:

1. Poor people might have more incentive to steal than wealthy people.

2. Cultural norms in the United States tend to treat close friendships between
men and women as insincere, and secretly indicative of sexual desire.

3. People who have religious beliefs usually have a moral code that is clearly
communicated to them from a pre-existing value system within that religion,
and that is therefore more carefully defined than those who do not follow a
religious system of belief.

However, until the writer clearly indicates that this was his or her meaning, what the
writer has said is:

1. People who do not have money were born with the biological impulse to
commit crime.

2. Men and women are born biologically incapable of forming friendships with
one another.

3. People become religious because they are born with a biological
predisposition toward a sense of morality that is missing in those who do not
become religious.

Whatever your response to the second set of statements, the third set is much more
difficult to defend, logically. Use of the word “natural” in order to cover a bias on the
part of a writer or speaker is very common—but it is not “natural,” and, therefore, it
is very much so avoidable.

Defining an abstract term forces the writer to figure out what, exactly, he or she is say-
ing. Sometimes the writer does not even know what he or she means until he or she
is forced to define a term. A lot of terms are “covers” for unrefined thinking, meaning
simply, in general, positive, or negative. Freedom sounds good; Oppression sounds
bad. Democracy sounds good; Fascism sounds bad. However, unless one defines the
terms, one might as well use “good” or “bad,” instead.

72 REASON TO WRITE

Generalities

Defining terms addresses the tendency to generalize. We all do it. Generalization is a
habit; it helps us to group things in our minds in comfortable ways.

It helps to imagine generalities as a kind of “default.” For example, if you grew up in the
United States, and you were asked to quickly visualize a “police officer,” you would be
more likely to visualize a person who is male, white, and in uniform. It’s not that we
are sexist or racist, or that there are not female officers, or officers of color. It’s simply
that we draw the “default” from the repetition of certain qualities within the images to
which we are repeatedly exposed within social systems. There’s no getting away from
the default; the problem is when we mistake it for something that refers to real people.

A default is a kind of generalization. Unconscious generalization inhibits critical
thinking; it is a cognitive bias. It’s not just that it leads to the kind of thinking that
creates unfair stereotypes (“Asians are smart”), but also that it creates a lack of preci-
sion in our thinking. In each case, the test is always: “What can I say that is true?”

1. Is the statement “Americans love football” true?
No.
Some Americans hate football, some love it, and some are indifferent.

2. Is the statement: “In the United States, football is a popular sport” true?
Yes. A sizeable portion of the citizenry shows an interest in playing,
watching, discussing, betting upon, and/or emotionally investing in the game.

One of the ways that we generalize is the tendency to take our own way of under-
standing the world, and letting it cover everyone’s experiences. However, critical
writing functions beyond the limitations of what a given writer has experienced, and
is offered within the context of a larger world. Consider the following:

3. Is the statement: “Almost everyone uses the Internet” true?

To answer, here is a breakdown that illustrates a small picture of that
larger world:

If The Whole World Were a Village with 100 People

60 would be “Asians” [Presumably, those people residing on the Eastern
side of the Caucasus—a mountain range—on the
continent of Eurasia]

SECTION I • CHAPTER 4 Saying What We Mean-Meaning What We Say 73

12 would be “Europeans” [Presumably, those people residing on the Western
side of the Caucuses—a mountain range—on the
continent of Eurasia, including islands, often referred
to as “Caucasians”]

15 would be from America [Presumably, those residing on the land masses that
compose the Americas]

Of those 15:

9 would be from Latin America and Caribbean

5 would be from North America, including the U.S./Canada

1 would be from Islands surrounding the Americas

13 would be from Africa

51 would be men

48 would be women

18 would be “white” [Whatever that means]

82 would be [Whatever that means]
“non-white”

EVER WONDERED? 33 would be [Presumably, this would
Christian include all Christian
Brackets, [which open and close denominations]
like this], are different than
parentheses, (which open and 67 would be [Presumably, this would
close like this). “non-Christian” include Muslims, Buddhists,
Jews, Pyrrhomists, Hindus,
Brackets indicate the interruption, as well as Atheists and
into a quotation from an external Agnostics, etc.]
source, of the writer’s voice. In
other words, it is not a part of the 90 would be malnourished
original quotation, but something
the writer has inserted into the 1 would be dying of starvation
original quotation.
1 would be dying of HIV
In the above example, the brackets
indicate this writer’s misgivings
concerning the way in which the
terms of this list are being defined.

80 would live in substandard housing

74 REASON TO WRITE

67 would be unable to read

***7 would have access to the Internet***

89 would be heterosexual

11 would be “gay”

1 would have a college education.1

So, if only an average of 7 out of 100 people has access to the Internet, is the state-
ment: “Almost everyone has access to the internet,” true?

No.

What the writer probably means is that “Almost everyone I know has access to the
Internet.”

In academic writing, statements must be explicit (the truth is out in the open) as
opposed to being implicit (the meaning is indirect). In another kind of writing, you
can get away with such generalities. In academic writing, you have an obligation to
clarify the meanings of the terms you are using by making their definitions clear. The
failure to define terms generates mushy thinking, because they paint people and situ-
ations in broad, sloppy strokes.

You may have noticed, in this chapter, that DEFINITION
“word” and “term” have been used interchange-
ably. To define the difference, a term is a word stipulate: to control the conditions
for which the definition is in question. You will of something, or to have authority
not find this distinction in the dictionary; it is a over the rules that govern it.
distinction that the writer of this text has cho-
sen, in order to make a point. In doing so, the
writer stipulates the meaning.

1 I have read numerous versions of this breakdown that offer a variety of statistics, but they all
fall into basically the same range. I have averaged them across sources, including the original
“State of the Village Report” from the Donella Meadows Archive (http://www.sustainer.org/
dhm_archive/index.php?display_article=vn33villageed), copyright Sustainability Institute,
Vermont; http://www.100people.org/statistics_detailed_statistics.php; as well as various
online and print sources that contest and revise the numbers. Statistically, the original study
is based upon an unrepresentative sampling of 1,000 people. However, the interest that it
generated and the subsequent duplication and reduplication of the study in various forums
means that it likely represent a the general state of things. The problem becomes the matter of
reduction: Who is being left out? Doesn’t anybody live in Australia?

SECTION I • CHAPTER 4 Saying What We Mean-Meaning What We Say 75

5 review

CHAPTER REVIEW

The information to take from this chapter is that writing involves language, and
language functions in a complex manner involving more than the denotative quality
of words as they are found in a dictionary.

This requires awareness, as a writer, of the quality of language that can distort mean-
ing when terms remained undefined. Since this distortion of meaning creates cogni-
tive bias, critical thinking involves remaining conscious, while writing, of elements
of language that can generate this distortion of meaning. These elements include
emotional language, unintended connotation, undefined abstract terms and phrases,
and generalities.

GRAMMAR REVIEW

e.g. and i.e.

Used to list an example that refers to the statement that is made. The difference
between the two is that “e.g.” means, basically, “for example.” Use it to list one or more
items when there is a range of examples you could have given, as in: “There were
toys in the room (e.g.: blocks, crayons, and picture books).” In contrast, “i.e.” is used
when you mean “this example, specifically,” as in “The toys were for young children
(i.e.: two—five years old).”

Brackets

Brackets indicate the interruption, into a quotation from an external source, of the
writer’s voice. In other words, it is not a part of the original quotation, but something
the writer has inserted into the original quotation.

There may be a variety of reasons to do this. If a writer were to quote from a source
in which there was a grammatical error, and the writer wanted to indicate that it
was not his or her goof-up, but in the original source, the writer would use brack-
ets,  as in “He was bigger then [sic] her.” Since “then” should be “than,” the term
“sic,” in brackets, indicates that the writer is aware that the word is being used
incorrectly.

76 REASON TO WRITE

VOCABULARY REVIEW

vernacular
Language spoken in a given country or region, as it is used, whether “proper”
or not
dialect
A variety of distinct forms of a language spoken within a given country or region.
For example, what is commonly called “Standard English,” or sometimes “GA,” is the
dialect of newscasters, and commonly used in formal education. It comes from a
regional Midland dialect. The Midland dialect is one of three to eight major dialects
spoken in the United States, (there is some disagreement on this), which are in turn
broken into various sub-dialects
stipulate
To control the conditions of something, or have authority over the rules that
govern it. As long as it is a plausible definition, one is free to stipulate the mean-
ing of a word for the purpose of clarifying one’s meaning within one’s own writing.
In academic writing, one can even create a new word (such as adjectivitis, which
you will not find in the dictionary), on the condition that: one is willing to explain
one’s definition; that the creation of the word is needful (it does not yet exist in
another form); that its creation serves a purpose. Such a term is called a neologism:
that which results from the creation of a new word or expression

6 ways to define

On the following pages, you will find:
1. Types of Definitions and Examples.
2. Step 3 Ways to Define Guide for use in defining the terms of your critical
question in a manner that stipulates a clear definition of what you mean by
that word, in the context of your own writing.
3. Example completed Definition Guide.

SECTION I • CHAPTER 4 Saying What We Mean-Meaning What We Say 77

TYPES OF DEFINITIONS/EXAMPLES

WAY TO DEFINE EXAMPLE SAMPLE WORD
JUSTICE
DICTIONARY The Oxford English justice: 1) fairness
Dictionary defines or reasonableness,
Defining a term by all tramp as especially in the ways
possible meanings of a 1) v. walk heavily or people are treated or
term, in general noisily, or for a long decisions made;
distance; 2) the legal system,
2) n. a person who trav- or the act of applying
els in search of work, a or or upholding the
vagrant; law; 3) validity in law;
3) n. the sound of foot- 4) sound or good reason;
steps; 5) a judge, especially in a
4) n. a long way, on foot; high court.
5) adj. a cargo boat that
travels on an unfixed justice: conviction of a
route (tramp steamer); guilty person
6) n. a promiscuous
woman; justice: a balancing of
7) n. a metal plate the scales
protecting the sole of a
boot. justice: fairness

EXEMPLAR bird: a canary, hawk, or
pidgeon
Defining a term by
example

ANALOGICAL

Defining a term by com- child: a blank page
parison to something else

SYNONYMOUS wisdom: clever, smart

Defining a term by other
words

78 REASON TO WRITE

WAY TO DEFINE EXAMPLE SAMPLE WORD

NEGATIVE apple: an apple is not justice is not revenge,
Defining a term by what an orange, a peach, or a because revenge is
it not banana personal

ETYMOLOGICAL deadline: a line at a justice: purity;
Defining a word by its prison past which, if an righteousness
roots inmate were to step, the
inmate would be shot
STIPULATIVE
Defining a term by “For the purpose of this “For the purpose this
stipulating its meaning essay, dream means essay, justice means to
in a way that is clear the way in which an establish the motive
within the context of individual imagines, and behind an illegal act,
your writing. may take action toward, and to determine a
a desirable future.” consequence based
upon that motive.”

SECTION I • CHAPTER 4 Saying What We Mean-Meaning What We Say 79

STEP 3: WAYS TO DEFINE GUIDE

STEP 1

Write your question, as it is now.

STEP 2

Delimitation of Question.

Can I, or do I want to, answer for all time? Yes/No

Rephrase ____________________________

Can I, or do I want to, answer for all places? Yes/No

Rephrase ____________________________

Can I, or do I want to, answer for all people? Yes/No

Rephrase ____________________________

Can I, or do I want to, answer for all instances? Yes/No

Rephrase ____________________________

STEP 3

Rewrite your question with the rephrased delimitation.

STEP 4

List any terms whose definition are in question, especially those that are abstract.
Treat all phrases as terms (e.g.: “fashion sense” would be treated as a whole term,
instead of defining “fashion” and “sense,” separately).

STEP 5

Define each term as each type of definition, except for Dictionary.

Exemplar: Define all terms by giving an example of that term.

Analogical Define all terms by analogy: by comparison to something else

Synonymous Define all terms through words that are similar in meaning.

Negative Define all terms by what they are not.

80 REASON TO WRITE

Etymological Define all term by an origin.

Stipulative Stipulate your terms by defining what you mean by them, as
clearly as possible, within the context of your question.

STEP 6

Rewrite your critical question, in which you stipulate each of your terms/phrases.
The result will be lengthy, but will situate your question both within a context, and to
help you, as writer, to have a solid sense of what, exactly, you are asking.

SECTION I • CHAPTER 4 Saying What We Mean-Meaning What We Say 81