Welcome back. Project 3 asks you to develop an intertextual conversation

on a much more rigorous level than you've done for Projects 1 and 2.

I want to say that all academic writing involves intertextual conversations.

Usually I want to qualify what I say, so I guess maybe I want to say

most academic writing involves intertextual conversation.

But, really, you've already been engaging in intertextual conversations

by offering a critical review of someone else's work,

by closely and critically reading a visual image; that is intertextuality.

But the difference with Project 3 and with what you'll do as you design

longer and more complicated writing projects is that that intertextuality

becomes more vociferous. There are many more voices contributing to an idea.

When you're working with a highly intertextual conversation,

there are certain things that you want to make deliberate choices about.

These include what the parameters are of that scholarly conversation:

How many different writers and voices

and ideas and resources do you want to include?

What is relevant? How do you want to categorize, kind of,

the map of that field in which you are participating?

So, you'll need to make choices about that.

Another thing to keep in mind with highly intertextual conversation is your own voice.

Make sure that your own voice plays a role in the writing project,

that you don't get lost amidst all these other thinkers and writers,

especially for students.

Sometimes we feel like if someone else has published on this, surely,

they're going to be the expert. And what do I have to say

that would be new or different or more important than what someone else has said?

And I'm not sure that what we're saying is necessarily more important,

but what you think matters, and it's at least as important, in my opinion,

as what others have said. So make sure you think about

where your own voice is situated in relationship to all those other people

that you're bringing in, and try not to get lost there.

Another aspect here on voice is that

you’ll want to think about how you're integrating it.

So, one option would be, I guess, to have all the other thinkers here

and then your voice here. But that's not necessarily the best choice.

Sometimes you want to integrate it more thoroughly, or maybe you want to have

your voice first and then some of their voices and then your voice again.

So, be thoughtful and make deliberate choices about where your voice is.

And finally, the signposting is another very important aspect

to highly intertextual conversations.

This involves offering textual markers of where another person's ideas stop

and where your ideas begin, and you do that through certain kinds of language

like “however,” “but,” offering a question in a text.

Perhaps sometimes saying deliberately, “I will make the argument,” or “I think this.”

And it also happens visually.

You can do that with paragraph division or with other kinds of, kind of, font emphasis,

like italicizing or bolding certain items depending on what context you're writing in.

So, signposting becomes really important as a way of not losing your own voice.

Here's an example that I wrote for us to see an intertextual conversation,

and I'll read it and show you a little bit about where my voice comes in

and how I have signposted this.

“Talent and expertise is becoming an increasingly complicated area of inquiry.

Writers such as Colvin and Coyle emphasize the importance of hard work and practice,

and they tend to suggest that this is inspiring

in that nearly anyone can hope to achieve expertise in their chosen field

with approximately 10 years of practice…

As they seem to push against notions of innate talent, though,

they inadvertently place value on the individual in another way.

In this article, I will argue that practice is not enough.

Colvin and Coyle both seem to neglect considering the importance of environment

and social networks on expertise. Colvin for instance,”—and then I would put a quote in there—

“but how does Jennie have the time and money

to spend hours practicing at the ‘edge’ of her ability?”

So in this example here, we have the scholarly conversation, is there,

and then here with a “though,” I would say that that's a signpost

that I am offering to readers, that my voice is going to come out.

And, sure enough, here's my argument that happens in the next two sentences.

And then I have scholarly conversation again.

And then I have a “but” that is a signpost, and then my voice again.

And even as I read this, what I realize is I'm falling into a pattern

where my paragraphs are organized by scholarly conversation, then a sign post, then my voice,

and as a writer, what I would probably do if I continued to write this project,

would be to think about how I can vary that pattern

to make it a little more exciting throughout the project.

So, maybe I would leave these two paragraphs with this pattern, but then,

in the third paragraph, I would put my voice maybe at the beginning of the paragraph

and the scholarly conversation in the middle and then my voice again or something.

So definitely please don't lose your voice in this highly intertextual conversation

that you are writing for Project 3.

In my opinion, the point of academic writing

is for you to get a chance to contribute your ideas and for you to advance knowledge.

That's what writers maybe should aim to do.

So I hope that you don't lose your voice.

Intertextual Conversation

English Composition I

Conoce a los instructores