Returning to the articles
What goes without saying
Before we leave our five articles, at least temporarily, I want to invite you to go back and look at yours with something different (although, as you'll see, related) in mind.
Almost all human utterances are based on the assumption that some things are already shared between the person speaking (or writing) and the listener (or, of course, reader). Other things are new. Most of the time this works. It works so well that as readers or listeners we don't notice how much knowledge, and how many values, we're already sharing with the person we're communicating with.
Sometimes we don't actually share something important, but don't stop and notice -- we just go ahead as though we did. And sometimes we stop the conversation and attend to that. It's hard to do that, though -- if you're talking it's as though you were changing the subject; if you're reading you've often gone past the assumption before you notice, or wait to have the information explained later.
That's all pretty theoretical. Let's consider some examples. Someone says,
Teaching creationism in RE is no more acceptable than teaching it in science, as pupils who are taught one thing in one subject and then the opposite in another are going to end up confused.There are a number of assumptions there about what a reader already knows (for instance, what RE is). There are
Or take another.
Since completing his research last year, Muller has been vociferously speaking out on the reality of human-caused climate change, including in testimony before CongressThis assumes you know what you've been told earlier in the article, of course; it also assumes, though, that you believe there is pressure on Muller not to speak on this subject ("speaking out" is an important phrase here). It also assumes that you believe climate change is human cause ("on the reality of" does that). It also relies on your acceptance that "testimony before Congress" is a special kind of language, where casual opinions won't simply be thrown around. If you thought Muller was simply under the influence of a climate change conspiracy, you would be very uncomfortable reading that sentence.
Here's a more obvious one.
Various prelates, archbishops, monsignors, popes, over the years, we know have equated high taxes and activist government with charity.This assumes not only that you know all those offices are in the Catholic Church, you also are expected to see them as more evidence of a complicated Church hierarchy (otherwise why list them? why not just say "The Roman Catholic Church"?). Further, it assumes that "high taxes and activist government" go together, and that they are not equivalent to charity.
Here's another.
The event is titled "Canadians united against terror." It will include a memorial for U.S. Cpl. Chris Speer, who was killed by Omar Khadr.This one's a bit more complicated; the writer assumes not only that you know who Speer and Khadr are, but also that you understand that there is a serious disagreement among observers about whether Omar Khadr, who was 15 at the time he threw a hand grenade and killed a soldier, was actually engaging in terrorism. So the writer expects you to see that the event will be an anti-Islam occasion, but won't explicitly say so.
And finally, a classic:
Lawyers for Fisher, a 22-year-old Texan who claims she was denied admission in 2008 because she was white, argue that the university's two-tiered system of racial preferences goes too far.Here, the writer assumes we believe that it's not likely she was actually denied admission because she was white (she "claims" this, it says; imagine if it said "who was denied admission" or even "who points out she was denied admission"). It also assumes we agree that the university system is really one of "racial preferences."
Here's your assignment for Thursday afternoon: find in your article another sentence where you can identify something the text assumes we already accept (this should probably be a belief rather than a fact, although some facts, as we've noticed, can be pretty close to beliefs).
Write out the sentence, and your explanation, and bring it to class Thursday.