Workshopping Argument
The very first thing to speak to when commenting on someone's writing is to address WHAT WORKS. Focusing on what you think is wrong with someone's writing will more often than not lead to an unpleasant workshop experience. After sharing what you found to be valuable in someone's piece, you can then reveal elements that need work through these topics meant to guide your written and spoken commentary:
|
Global Topics
Step 1: attempt to write out the network of controlling values (see background document, “Controlling Value,” for a more elaborate explanation).
After reading through a given text, attempt to articulate the dominant controlling value operative in the piece. This will always be in two hypothetical statements, the first of which is:
Then attempt to articulate the opposing controlling idea, or value, that is, the value against which the dominant value (from step 1) struggles. Again, this will be in two hypothetical statements, though inverted in relation to the dominant value.
Note that there is not necessarily a single “correct” way to state a controlling value. Different perspectives may see different controlling values at work. IMPORTANT: if you cannot come up with an opposing controlling value, one of two things may be true: There is still a gap for you to cross in your practice of discerning and articulating networks of controlling values, or The piece of writing lacks a claim controversial enough to allow for diverging controlling values to emerge in conflict there. |
Step 2: Textual grounds (PIE: Point, Illustration, Explanation)
In academic writing, a general principle to navigate when developing an argument is to make a claim about how a text does what (the “point” of PIE). This then requires that you display particular evidence from the text that relates in some way to your claim (the “illustration” of PIE). Then you must draw out and make explicit the value of your point in relation to the illustration (the “explanation” of PIE). Lastly, you need to make these three moves for a particular audience. Pitfalls (all of these interlock and conspire together):
|
|
Useful verbs to use in signal phrases:
|
Local TopicsStep 3: Argumentative strategies (and fallacies)
Locate and identify specific argumentative strategies. While there may be a dominant argumentative strategy at work, there may be several other strategies assisting the larger strategy.
Step 4: Arrangement
Does the argument progress, that is, grow by degrees and with reversals? Where are the key moments of reversal? How do these reversals affect the addressee’s mood and understanding, moving it from what mood to what mood? Are the reversals effective and are they progressive? How could the piece be rearranged effectively to generate shifts in how the addressee understands? Step 5: Rhythm of sentences that hang together
Are the sentences varied and yet cohesive? Do the paragraphs have coherence? Do “characters” perform “actions” (active versus passive voice)? Some excellent diagnostic questions include:
See the background document “Copy and Compose” for examples of various sentence types to attempt. Lastly, read Joseph Williams’ book Style.
Also use this grammar reference guide. |