Rhetorical Analysis: Writing Construct

The Effects of Social Media on Writing

Introduction

Statements that write about scholarly rhetorical composition that are generally accepted as true define a Writing Construct. These statements ask students to question the validity and determine if any bias is present. Many students believe that being capable of understanding all of the words in a text allows them to have critical-thinking skills. According to Haas and Flower this is not the case; “To interpret any sophisticated text seems to require not only careful reading and prior knowledge, but the ability to read the text on several levels, to build multi-faceted representations (170).” Also from Keith Grant Davie’s article, we are provided with the four necessary constituents of the rhetorical situation; “exigence, rhetors, audience, constraints (266).” These components allow rhetorical situations to exist, and help students, readers, and writers produce communication through words within text.

One example of a Writing Construct is Social Medias Impact on Writing. In today’s world, texting is a prime method of communication. Texting provides a quick and efficient way to spread information and get in contact with others. Although texting and the internet may lead to creative ways for students to research topics and continue further in their studies, social media has a negative impact on students writing. With this device texting has created many acronymsand has led to incorrect grammar and spelling. I have chosen to analyze three articles that all discuss the effects of social media and texting on students’ writing. I believe that constant and excessive overuse of social media and texting creates a negative effect on students writing. In order to study how social media and texting affect students’ writing, I have decided to analyze the articles “Do Texting and Cyber Slang Harm Students’ Writing Skills?” and “How Slang Affects Students in the Classroom”. This visual gives a description of how young students are beginning to use incorrect grammar and spelling on an everyday basis without the realization of their mistakes.

Exigence

Exigence is described by Grant Davie through three essential questions; “What is the discourse about? Why is the discourse needed? What is the discourse trying to accomplish? (267-268).” Exigence is “the matter and motivation of the discourse”—in other words, the urgency. Within the article “Do Texting and Cyber Slang Harm Students’ Writing Skills?” exigence can be found. Jason Tomaszewski discusses how a negative side effect is beginning to take rise in classrooms and students writing today. This discourse is about the debate over whether texting can be acknowledged as a creative tool or negative impact on writing. Tomaszewski states, “Cyber slang is suspected of damaging students (How Slang Affects Students).” This discourse is trying to steer students away from the many negative qualities of improper grammar and spelling and eliminate any further decline in our generation’s vocabulary. Without this discourse many students may fail to accomplish new and improved critical reading and writing skills.

Rhetors

Rhetor, the second constituent, is the “authorial identity that readers can infer from an author’s writing (Davie 267-268).” A rhetor is responsible for defining the situation, discourse, and its authorial voice. According to the situation the identity of a rhetor can be multiple things. A rhetor can be a variety of things such as; someone or something real, plural, imaginary or singular. Ryan Lytle, the writer and rhetor of “How Slang Affects Students in the Class Room” takes a negative stance to the impact of social media and texting. Lytle states, “In fact, 64 percent of students in the study reported inadvertently using a form of shorthand native to texting or social networking. But, the problem does not end there, as Sakowicz acknowledges that younger teachers see the slang but let it go (How Slang Affects Students).”

Audience

The third constituent, Audience can range from people who read a discourse, to a specific audience that the writer has in mind, and sometimes writers may even be their own intended audience. According to Davie, “Those people, real or imagined, with whom rhetors negotiate through discourse to achieve the Rhetorical Objectives (Davie 210).” In the article “Does Texting Hurt Your Grammar,” the rhetor provides a visual that clearly states to the audience how social media and texting are creating an insufficient vocabulary and skill level in students. The article states to the audience, “Communicating poorly may give someone the wrong impression of you. The person may thing you can’t think clearly, express yourself well, spell or punctuate” (Does Texting).” Since many people including multiple audiences argue that texting and social media lead to creative students and quicker methods of communication, an argument and struggle become apparent between the writer/rhetor and audience.

Constraints

All factors in the situation or constraints may lead the audience to be either more or less sympathetic to the discourse, and that may therefore influence the rhetor’s response to the situation. According to Davie, “Constraints-factors in the situations context that may affect the achievement of the rhetorical objectives (Davie 272).” For this writing construct the constraints include the various reasons as to why this problem may not be fixed effectively. The Since most people and students today own phones or acquire a way to be involved in social media, decreasing grammar and spelling issues in students writing will always be a difficulty. Another main constrain that appears in all three articles includes the topic of how there will always be the struggle of accidently forgetting to switch back to traditional grammar when needed to. In the article, “Does Texting Hurt Your Grammar” the rhetor includes how students took a poll, “only 11% of students said they thought electronic communications had a negative impact on their writing skills (Does Texting).” This constraint shows how many younger students disagree with the statement of how texting leads to a decline in their skills. On the other hand the older generation is more likely to believe that texting may rob students of a fundamental understanding of standard grammar.

Conclusion

The articles by Grant-Davie, Haas, and Flowers have helped me realize that our generation has become inclined to avoid correct grammar by creating acronyms and abbreviations. By rhetorically analyzing this element of writing I have learned that we rely too much on technology such as texting and social media; including Twitter, Facebook, and emailing, and not enough on our own minds. Since this topic includes a large controversy between older and younger generations it is hard to say that there is physical proof that texting is the main resource for the destruction of skilled grammar and writing. The three articles I included to analyze this writing construct have helped me understand writing differently. Throughout the four components and articles I hope others will learn that students can become better rhetorical readers by developing a better understanding of the author’s intentions vs merely understanding the material.

Works Cited

"Does Texting Hurt Your Grammar? - OnlineCollege.org." OnlineCollege.org. N.p., 12 Feb. 2013. Web. 21 Oct. 2014. <http://www.onlinecollege.org/2013/02/12/does-texting-hurt- your-grammar/>.

“Does Texting Harm Students' Writing Skills?" Education World:. Web. 24 Oct. 2014

Grant-Davie, Keith. "Rhetorical Situations and Their Constituents." Taylor & Francis Ltd. 15 (1997): n. pag. Web. 7 Jan. 2010.

Haas, Christina, and Linda Flower. "Rhetorical Reading Strategies and the Construction of Meaning." College Composition and Communication 39 (1988): n. pag. Web. 4 Jan. 2006.

"How Slang Affects Students." US News. U.S.News & World Report. Web. 24 Oct. 2014.

http://thetased.files.wordpress.com/2010/10/texting.jpg (picture source)