English 1006
Prompt #13
26 September 2013


Another step along the road

Application

One way -- maybe the best way -- to know whether you've actually understood a new concept or strategy is to attempt apply it in a new situation. Let's try this. You'll probably remember that the second- and third-place stories in our poll about which articles we thought worth discussing were these:

Read (or reread) both articles. Then go back through them and look for a sentence that you could ask the rest of us a question about that would identify the same sorts of issues that my questions on the courtroom veil article focused on. In other words, find a sentence that you think you can see a way to rephrase which would convey (and expect in the reader) a different value than the one the writer of the article intended, without actually changing the meaning.  The questions I used, you may remember, were these:
  1. The article says, "The judge's ruling means that if the woman, who started wearing a veil in May 2012, refuses to comply during her trial she could be jailed for contempt of court." Do you think it would make any difference to your reading of the article if it left out that relative clause, "who started wearing a veil in May 2012," so that it would read this way: "The judge's ruling means that if the woman refuses to comply during her trial she could be jailed for contempt of court." Does the clause evoke a reaction from you? What? Do you think it suggests something about what the writer of the article might believe? What?
  2. One paragraph of the article says, "The woman's defence barrister Susan Meek had argued the woman's human right to express her faith through her attire would be breached if she was ordered to remove her veil." Does the phrase "express her faith through her attire" invite you to a reaction? Can you think of a different way to say the same thing that might evoke a different response -- in you or in other people? Do you think the defence barrister intended you to have the reaction you have, and do you think she might have used a different phrase if she were not making an argument in court?
  3. One paragraph of the article says, "Keith Porteous Wood, executive director of the National Secular Society, said he believed it was 'vital' defendants' faces were visible at 'all times' and said he 'regretted' the judge's decision." No circumstance in which this was said is offered; we must guess whether the writer specifically went and asked Wood for a comment, or if Wood found some other occasion to say this. Do you have a reaction to the choice to include this quote in the story? Do you think the writer of the story anticipated your reaction? And do you have any thoughts about the "National Secular Society" (without, of course, actually knowing anything about it)?
Write out your question, including the sentence, as above, and post it in either of the forums that will be available by Friday morning on the course Moodle site. Do this by Sunday night.

After Monday morning, and before noon on Tuesday, answer any two of the questions (to either article) by replying to the forum posting. Try to pick questions which you think most interesting and important to answer, as we try to understand how the language in the article works to show us the writer's values and to invite us to form, or change, our own.

Go to the previous prompt
Go to the next prompt
Go to the list of prompts
Go to the main working site for English 1006G