1. • The purpose of this chapter is to “contribute to the development of understandings and policies that build more respect and recognition for service workers to help ensure it does not become equated with servitude.”
   • To be literate of the menu at Lou’s, you must have a literal interpretation of the words in the menu and also a knowledge of specific practices, such as how the food is made.
   • In order to “get the jump” on customers, waiters will use long and overly-complicated descriptions of food or use magic words (ones that will confuse the customer). Waiters do this to gain control and authority over the customer in the conversation.
2. • The author is Tony Mirabelli and his intention is to “contribute to the development of understandings and policies that build more respect and recognition for service workers to help ensure it does not become equated with servitude.”
     • the secondary purpose is to contribute to the argument that literacy extends beyond reading and writing to include communication and situations of any socially meaningful group that involves language being used in multiple ways
   • The intended readers for this text is the other members of Mirabelli’s academic community.
     • the use of very specific terms that are familiar to this academic community shows that there is no other intended audience because they would not be able to understand these terms
   • The subject matter is literacy in restaurant work
     • the author uses examples from his time at Lou’s Diner, such as specific menu items, the author shows events by describing specific conversations with customers, and the author explains his methods of research which involved field notes, tape recordings, and historical literature
     • The author starts by describing the widely accepted definition of “literate” and then moves in towards arguing for a more extensive definition that involves adding communication, as well as understanding text, to the definition of “literate”
   • The author appeals to reason by using arguments like “waiters can’t be stupid or illiterate if they can understand this complex menu”
   • The author does invoke emotion by showing bad reviews from customers, which make the audience feel bad for servers
   • The author relies on his reputation as a server to prove that he is trustworthy and knowledgable about working in a restaurant
   • The text is structured like an academic article and the genre would be informative/academic
   • This text does succeed in accomplishing the author’s purpose
     • This text persuaded me to view literacy as more than just understanding a text
     • I believe that this text will convince others that waiters deserve more respect because it shows that their jobs are harder than most people imagine
3. • The writer is Tony Mirabelli
   • The issue is the view of server image
   • The gap is the literacies involved in being a waiter/waitress
   • The intended readers are academics
4. • The lexis of this piece is accessible and down-to-earth
   • The discourse community is academics in English studies
   • The author’s qualifications are that he has a Ph.D. in Education in Language, Literacy, and Culture and works at the University of California-Berkeley
   • The mechanisms of communications: an essay in an academic anthology
   • Feedback: response papers, book reviews, emails, citations, and journal responses
5. • This is written discourse because it forces interaction through writing by creating an argument

• blue-collar service workers are multi literate because they not only read texts, but also people and situations
• purpose: to contribute to the development of understandings and policies that build more respect and recognition for service work to make sure that it does to become confused with servitude
• literate:
  • having control of a socially accepted association among ways of using language, of thinking, and of acting that can be used to identify oneself as a member of a socially meaningful group
  • a range of practices specific to groups and individuals of different cultures, races, classes, and genders
• literacy extends beyond individual experiences of reading and writing to include various modes of communication and situations of any socially meaningful group or network where language is used in multiple ways
• purpose: to explain that literate acts extend beyond reading a printed text to involve other modes of communication
• describing something to an individual customer to satisfy their private appetite requires the ability to read the menu and the customer
• the menu functions as a boundary object: it coordinates the perspectives of various constituencies for a similar purpose
• waiters use long descriptions and “magic words” to gain control of the conversation between them and the customer
• not being able to describe a menu item usually results in that item not being ordered
• waiters need to be able to interact with customers in a way that reflects the desired mood of the restaurant
• emotional labor: requires one to induce or suppress feeling in order to sustain the outward countenance that produces the proper state of mind in others
• literacy practices in a restaurant involve interacting with texts and participants in rapid succession in small chunks

Text Questions

1. speech communities are centripetal because they tend to absorb people into the general fabric and gain members through birth, accident, or adoption, discourse communities are centrifugal because they tend to separate people into occupational or speciality-interest groups and gain members through persuasion, training, or qualification
2. according to Swales, the six defining characteristics of a discourse community are:
   1. having a broadly agreed set of common public goals
   2. having mechanisms of intercommunication among its members
   3. using its participatory mechanisms primarily to provide information and feedback
   4. utilizing and possessing one or more genres in the communicative furtherance of its aims
   5. having some specific lexis
   6. having a threshold level of members with a suitable degree of relevant content and discoursal expertise
3. Swales says that discourse communities often have tensions, discontinuities, and conflicts in the sort of talk and writing between members, which makes his definition of a discourse community sort of removed from reality because it does not take these issues in to account

Video Questions

1. Swales sees a gap in how people define discourse community as different from speech communities because there is not a definition of discourse community that is clear or specific enough
2. this piece fills this gap by proposing a set of six specific characteristics to define a discourse community
3. the audience for this text is the other members of Swales’s academic community because he is trying to put forth his opinion on an ongoing argument within that academic community that is trying to define discourse communities
4. the danger of an article like this is that strict characteristics like this can be used to refuse to acknowledge certain groups as discourse communities

Discourse Communities: How Do Communities Shape Writing?

• purpose: argues that literacy learning is never over because we never stop evolving and acquiring new literacies as we move among different discourse communities
• discourses: group members’ shared ways of being in the world
• discourse community: a group of people with shared goals or purposes that uses communication to achieve them
• we readjust our language, interpretations of texts, and our ways of seeing and being in the world based on what discourse community we are in at that moment
• enculturated: adept at the culture

The Concept of Discourse Communities

• purpose: to understand that discourse community is an important concept to argue about
• Swales assumes his readers are familiar with his characteristic of genre
  • Swales’s definition of genres: types of texts that are recognizable to readers and writers, and that meet the needs of the rhetorical situations in which they function
  • genres develop over time in response to recurring rhetorical needs
  • discourse communities develop their own conventions for genres based on their desired goals
• purpose: set forth a proposed set of characteristics that define discourse communities
• speech community: a community sharing knowledge of rules for the conduct and interpretation of speech where they share knowledge of at least one form of speech and knowledge of its patterns of use
  • not the same as discourse community
• characteristics of a discourse community:
  • has a broadly agreed set of common public goals
  • has mechanisms of intercommunication among members
  • uses participatory mechanisms to provide information and feedback
  • utilizes and possesses one or more genres in the communicative furtherance of its aims
  • has acquired some specific lexis
  • has a threshold level of members with a suitable degree of relevant content and discoursal expertise
• discourse communities do not only occur in academic situations
• people can belong to several discourse communities
• people vary in the number of discourse communities they belong to and hence the number of genres that they have command of
• belonging to a discourse community does not imply assimilation

Evidence

• Accurate: I believe that the author used accurate information
• Relevant: The evidence does relate directly to the claim
• Sufficient: There is enough evidence to be convincing
• Representative: The author does use typical examples rather than exceptions to the rule

Assumptions

• The author assumes that the reader is in on the joke and agrees with Stein’s politics
• This is not a valid assumption because some people might not agree or get the joke
• People could fairly challenge this
• The author has failed to realize that people with disagree with him

Questions for Rhetorical Reading

• The author’s purpose is to explain that America is not the underdog anymore, but he does this in a satirical way. His use of multiple references shows that he is knowledgable about the subject
• The text was written in 2003, right when the war in Iraq was starting. The author probably chose to release this text at this time because he wanted to make a commentary on his disdain for the war in Iraq
• I don’t know that Stein has an intended audience. He writes for TIME Magazine and has publicly said that he does not care what other people think of his writings or his opinions. I think his audience was just readers of TIME Magazine
• The author mostly works through examples. He uses a lot of examples from the Yankees baseball team.
• The text is structured like an opinion piece on the Yankees baseball team, but it is actually a satirical commentary on the beginning of the war with Iraq. The author’s tone seems angry at first, but the more you analyze the text, the more you realize that his tone is actually humorous
• I think this text accomplished its purpose with me. I really enjoyed analyzing it and looking for all of the hidden meanings. I think this article will fail to accomplish its purpose with a lot of people because it is hard to realize that it is a satire if you don’t spend a lot of time analyzing it. I also think people who were strong proponents for the war will be unimpressed by this piece

Working Thesis

• I think Stein’s thesis is something along the lines of “contrary to popular belief, America is not that great”
• I think this thesis is not an effective working thesis because it would be very difficult to contest this thesis.

Audience and Aim

• I think Stein’s aim was to persuade because he is trying to convince people that the commonly held belief that America is an underdog is not correct.
  • according to the textbook, Stein’s audience would then be people who hold a different view than his own, but I’m not sure that this article would work for them because he really does attack the opposing side’s views and does not really try to appeal to them at all. I’m not sure that Stein really cares who reads this article because, from the research that I’ve done, he seems to have that sort of personality.

Motivating the Audience

• I think that the type of evidence used by Stein is persuasive because it is something that most people can relate to and understand. For example, a lot of his evidence is based on the Yankees, and a lot Americans really love baseball. Stein also makes numerous pop culture references as evidence that were relevant at the time this text was written. He used evidence that most people would see and immediately recognize and understand.
• I think that Stein has to assume his readers are intelligent enough to understand his sense of humor and see the deeper meaning in the article, but he also attacks the reader’s beliefs a lot so indirectly he treats his reader as intelligent, but not so much directly.
• Stein is not direct about what he wants his audience to think. This piece is a satire so the direction is supposed to be hidden.

Words about Words

• Stein clearly shows that he is knowledgable about his topic through his extensive use of evidence and his clever writing, but I have read that Stein has a reputation for angering people, so I think that makes it difficult to cultivate a trustworthy ethos
• Stein does not use logos the way that our textbook describes it
• Stein uses pathos by making his audience laugh or by making them get really angry.

Purpose

• The idea is to encourage the audience to think about the arguments on their own

Making Arguments in Academic Contexts

• arguments vary in form and content across fields of practice
  • claim and support: an argument should include a claim about a contested issue and and support for the claim in the form of good reasons, examples, expert knowledge, and verbal and visual evidence
  • a claim is made in the thesis statement
  • most issues worth writing an argument about are disputed by people for reasonable reasons

Choosing A Topic

• pick a contested issue that reasonable people have different opinions about
• pick an issue that you care about
• pick an issue that is limited enough in terms of the amount of research that needs to be done and how many pages it will make to cover the topic thoroughly

Developing a Working Thesis

• a thesis is composed of two parts
  • the topic
  • your claim about the topic
    • the claim is what your paper will support with reasons and evidence

Understanding Multiple Viewpoints

• it is important to understand people who are opposing your position so that you can write a more effective argument
  • know what arguments they make to each other and which arguments from the other side they distrust

Considering Your Audience and Aims

• develop an argument: take subject matter into account in great detail
• shape an argument: consider audience and purpose to decide what is relevant and useful
• present an argument: consider style, diction, and tone
• effective writers refine subject matter to fit their audience

Arguing to Inquire

• Rogerian argument: find as much common ground as possible to create a harmonious condition for peaceful debating

Arguing to Persuade

• the classical form of an argument
  • introduction: puts the reader in the right frame of mind
  • narration: provides background information on the issue
  • partition: lists points to be proven or divides points into ones that are agreed on vs. disputed
  • confirmation: the proof
  • refutation: shows why the other side doesn’t doesn’t hold up
  • conclusion: summary

Appealing to Readers

• logos: appeal to reason
  • induction: reasoning from experience and examples around us
  • deduction: argue from established truths
    • syllogism: has a major premise, a minor premise, and a conclusion
    • enthymeme (claim): suppresses premises because the audience is more likely to accept them
• ethos: cultivating trust by showing the reader that you are knowledgable of the subject
• pathos: appealing to emotions

Toulmin Method

• arguments proceed from data or grounds that support a claim
• claims are based on warrants that require backing
• qualifiers soften the claim
• rebuttals challenge the claim or invalidate the warrant

Identifying Fallacies

• a fallacy is an error in reasoning
  • fallacies of relevance: use of unrelated evidence
  • fallacies of ambiguity: use of unclear terms

Conceding and Refuting

• concede: give credence to opposing perspectives
• refute: demonstrate why the opposing view is not correct

Predictions:

• Title
  • The title does not remind me of any other texts
  • The title gives a brief idea of the author’s argument on why rooting for the most privileged team makes sense
• Context
  • The historical context of this article is clearly shown through the author’s referencing of events from 2004, such as Alex Rodriguez joining the Yankees
• Prior Knowledge
  • I don’t have any prior knowledge on this subject because I don’t watch baseball
• Genre and Purpose
  • I think the purpose of this article will be to argue against rooting for the underdog, and to then put that argument in to a larger context, such as using it to say something about society as a whole

After First Reading:

• This text is an argument against rooting for the underdog, and using that argument to make a critique of society as a whole
• This text made me feel angry because I felt that the author was angry when he wrote it
• This text does not remind me of any other texts
• The most important part of the text are the last two paragraphs where the author summarizes his main argument by saying that the Yankees teach the true story of America and that there is nothing righteous about rooting for the under dog
• It could be argued that the not so obvious purpose is the way that the main argument is used to critique society because it is slightly hidden by the baseball analogy
• The text could have mentioned the opposite argument fairly because there are real underdogs that have been successful

Evaluating Evidence and Assumptions:

• The evidence used is not accurate
• The evidence is relevant because it does relate to the subject
• There is enough evidence to be convincing
• The evidence is not representative because it fails to include real underdogs who have risen up to become successful
• The author assumes that America is not the underdog anymore, and society does not relate to the underdog anymore
• These assumptions are valid but the assumption that society does not relate to the underdog could be fairly challenged
• I do not see any assumptions that have been missed

• College students should be active readers
  • make predictions about the text
  • argue with the author
  • ask questions
  • write down thoughts and feeling about the text
• Make predictions about the text
  • title
    • does the title remind you of other texts?
    • does the title summarize the text?
  • contents
    • what do the chapter titles lead you to believe?
    • what do the headings suggest?
    • what is the function of any graphics?
  • context
    • what does the book jacket, abstract, or headnote suggest?
    • what information is given about the author?
    • what is the social, political, or historical context?
  • prior knowledge
    • what do you already know about the author or subject?
    • what experiences have you had that relate to the subject?
    • what other texts does this remind you of?
  • genre and purpose
    • what is the genre?
    • what do you think the purpose is?
    • How does this text relate to the genre?
    • why are you reading this?
    • how can you use the text in your own writing?
  • write a summary
    • what do you think the text is about?
    • how will it start?
    • how will it end?
    • what should you take away from this text?
• Read the text first
  • read for the gist: read to get the central idea questions after the first reading
    • what it the text about?
    • what did the text make you feel?
    • what other experiences are you reminded of?
    • what is the most important part?
    • what is it really about?
    • are there hidden purposes?
    • what else should the text have mentioned?
  • rereading for depth: reading carefully to reflect on your previous predictions
• Annotating
  • annotating a text: making notes in the margins of a text to stay engaged and illuminate the text
    • write down questions
    • connect the subject to your own experiences
    • make connections to other texts
    • mark and define unfamiliar words
    • number major parts of the author’s argument
    • summarize difficult passages or sentences
    • offer alternative perspectives to the author’s point of view
    • consider how the text explains big issues
  • write a summary to help you remember content
    • do not include your interpretations of the text
    • always include the complete publication information
• Critical reading
  • critical reading: thinking while reading to question the author’s intention, argument, evidence, and word choice
    • analysis: break down the components of the text and show how they relate to each other
    • interpretation: decide where you stand on ambiguous points
    • synthesis: put the elements of the analysis back together and see what they mean as a whole
    • evaluation: judge the value of the text
• Evaluating evidence
  • facts: true statements that can be verified
  • opinions: interpretations of facts
  • beliefs: deeply held convictions that cannot be proved or disproved
  • underlying assumptions: certain assumptions underly thesis statements
  • evaluating evidence and assumptions
    • is the evidence accurate?
    • is the evidence relevant?
    • is the evidence sufficient?
    • is the evidence representative?
    • what assumptions are being made in the thesis?
    • what assumptions are valid?
    • what assumptions can be fairly challenged
    • did the author fail to make certain assumptions?
• Rhetorical analysis
  • rhetorical analysis: analyzing the effects of the text and how the author achieves them, purpose, and context
    • ethos: appealing to the character of the writer and their attitude towards the subject
    • pathos: appeal to the audience’s emotions
    • logos: use of context as a form of proof
    • purpose: the writer’s aims
    • context: the circumstance of the writer, the historical situation, and the nature of the audience
  • questions for rhetorical reading
    • what is the purpose?
    • is there more than one purpose?
    • what is the author’s tone?
    • what makes the author seem knowledgable?
    • how does the author establish credibility?
    • is the author’s position well researched?
    • does the author treat opposing arguments fairly?
• Reading for the use of language
  • diction: word choice used by the author to influence meaning and audience reception
    • formal diction: used when the occasion for writing is serious
    • informal diction: used when the author wants to relate to the reader
    • style: the arrangement of words into sentences in a certain form
  • what is the rhetorical context
    • what circumstances lead the author to write this text?
    • does the text fit the current situation?
    • are there any values or options that explain the text?
    • how does the text fit in to other conversations about the subject matter?
    • what is the intended audience?
  • who is the audience?
    • what knowledge and expectations do readers have about the text?
    • how are readers likely to feel about the author’s opinion?
    • what values do the author and reader have in common?
    • how does the author appeal to these values?
    • does the writer have a secondary audience in mind?
  • what is the subject matter?
    • does the author use examples to illustrate the argument, show events, or explain the narrative?
    • does the author build a case by starting with widely accepted knowledge and then moving towards new claims?
    • does the author appeal to reason?
    • does the author invoke emotion?
    • does the author rely on their reputation to gain support?
    • is the subject complemented by outside sources?
    • how is the text presented?
  • how is the text structured?
    • what is the genre?
    • is there anything unusual about the style?
    • what is the tone?
    • is there anything unique about the diction?
    • how does the visual design affect the text?
    • does the presentation enhance the content?
  • does the text accomplish the author’s purpose?
    • did the text accomplish its purpose?
    • is it likely to fail to accomplish its purpose with other readers?
    • can you identify the response of historical and contemporary audiences?
• Reading for purpose
  • judgement is formed by paying attention to the author’s intention, asking whether or not expectations have been fulfilled, and analyzing the rhetorical context to provide clues about the author’s purpose
• Reading for rhetorical context
  • every text is part of a wider conversation that can help you learn and can help you discover an author’s motive and meaning
  • a text is written at a certain time and place for a specific purpose and audience

This excerpt from The Brief Thompson provided a lot of great information on how to be an active reader that annotates and analyzes effectively. The example questions provided by the author will be useful in helping me to make sure that my annotations and rhetorical analyses are moving in the right direction and contain the correct information. I am looking forward to using the information provided in this text to become better at writing rhetorical analyses.