Theoretical Framework

Language Diversity
The End of Unit 1
In our final week of Unit 1, you will soon notice that we are reading less and writing more.
This weekly introduction is critical to your understanding for the rest of the semester, so please, read carefully.
Theoretical Frameworks – REVIEW
Your FRAMEWORKS readings provide the TOOLS you will need for your semester-long project.
A Theoretical Framework is:
A tool used to analyze a subject from a particular angle
A way to organize your writing to provide clarity, and
A means of contributing to a specific discourse within a specific community
Writing Studies has developed a number of frameworks, but we will be focusing on only four. I chose these four very specifically so that your would have OPTIONS for your major project.
IN ENC1102, WE WILL BE STUDYING, AND THEN USING, FOUR (4) SPECIFIC THEORETICAL FRAMEWORKS:
RHETORIC
LITERACY SPONSORSHIP
DISCOURSE COMMUNITIES
LANGUAGE DIVERSITY
Using last week’s illustration, think again of the Apple icon:
Now let’s apply frameworks for analysis.
Rhetoric Review & Constraints
Using Rhetoric as a set of tools, we can analyze any text via any number of the rhetorical elements Downs Download Downs(2016) lists on page 464.
The only things holding our analysis back are what we call “Rhetorical Constraints.” Without constraints, rhetorical analyses would always seem incomplete. We are constrained from analysis by things like time, audience, geography, our goals, and our own prior experience (there are countless more!)
Consider this:
Are there deadlines? Do you have eons to examine every possible tiny thread of analysis?
What are your audiences’ needs and interests? They probably don’t want to hear you spout on for ages about every little detail any more than they want to waste there time if you offer only general, superficial observations!
Is it useful to give a speech about how to change New York City if you are speaking in L.A?
Even your own experience and knowledge base create boundaries (constraints) around what you can argue with authority.
The number and types of rhetorical constraints are innumerable, but reflectively considering as many of them as possible when we write is one key to effective writing because constraints help define both the minimum and maximum amount of analysis you should commit to for any given project.
So let’s turn this idea out onto our artifact example with just a couple rhetorical elements: Let’s say we ask the question, “In what ways is the Apple icon ecological? How has it developed over time into the current icon, and why? How are these changes motivated?
We have now set up a few constraints that make this a viable research topic.
We have limited our rhetorical focus to “ecology” and “motivation,” though others certainly apply. We’ve set a chronological constraint to the timeline of Apple icons and corporate designers. We have no need to study the history of apple trees or other other fruit symbolism.
We’re just simply researching how a few real people made design decisions and why. If we research deeply enough in the field, perhaps even interviewing designers who were there, we might find something worth publishing about how the Apple icon evolved from this,
to this to this .
If that seems silly, take one minute to Google how many people have written on the subject. Most of them got paid.
There are audiences for this information! Vintage tech consumers, Graphic Design students, marketing teams, and who knows who else!
Literacy Sponsors Review
But what if you want to go in a different direction? What if you need a little more bite than a strict rhetorical analysis?
Maybe you’re more interested in how Apple sponsors literacy. Perhaps you’re inspired by Apple’s 2019 Literacy Initiative (Links to an external site.), and you’re concerned that a lack of critical media literacy among rural populations contributes to the polarization of American politics. Maybe you want to publish, or maybe you just want to stop arguing with Grandpa at Thanksgiving dinner. Research into Apple as a literacy sponsor might help.
Discourse Communities Review
Perhaps you’ve noticed that classmates who use Macs often display brand affiliation in other places–on their laptop case, their water flask, or their rear bumper. Why is that? Is there some sort of Apple club you’re not aware of, like the guys who drive Jeeps and always wave to each other or the secret Subaru campaign to openly market to lesbians?
Well, studying the genres of Apple users, from .pages to dank memes, may require a Discourse Community framework.
The same framework may be right for you if you intend to one day join the Apple career force! Studying the communication practices of Apple employees in whatever realm of the business you’re attempting to crack is surefire way to increase your odds of joining that community.
Introducing Language Diversity
This week, however, you’ll be experiencing a little Language Diversity.
As you read, think about how you might frame a research into Apple based in how they engage with diverse languages and dialects. This may mean considering branding issues in foreign countries or to non-English speaking Americans, or it may be in the subtle differences of speech used when branding decisions are made among English speakers. What can you guess about their target demographics based on marketing? What are the advantages or disadvantages? What may be problematic about this? Who are they NOT marketing to, and why?
To be totally honest, I just pulled this potential topic out of nowhere, and I’m already tired of writing about it, which just goes to show how important topic choice is.
The point is this: Theoretical frameworks aid in our understanding of how language (which is always symbolic) can be directed towards and received by unique people and communities. The idea is that ANY TOPIC may be analyzed through ANY NUMBER OF THEORETICAL FRAMEWORKS, each with a different purpose and each for a different community, yet EACH ARE EQUALLY VALID AREAS OF RESEARCH.
Now, this is where we start to see how it affects us.
Threshold Concepts Activity
Read
Your first impression of Language Diversity as a framework may be that you will be learning about different languages or dialects, and that’s true to a large extent. However, you should begin thinking about how this notion becomes complicated as you the following short piece by Matsuda (2016):
Concept 4.6 – Writing Involves the Negotiation of Language Differences Download Concept 4.6 – Writing Involves the Negotiation of Language Differences
This is a short excerpt of Paul Matsuda’s “Myth of Linguistic Homogeneity,” adapted for threshold concepts, and it is a WONDERFUL article, if you’re into that sort of thing. If you would like the full-length article, just ask!
NOTE: This is the final week I will be able to provide PDFs of NWWK articles due to copyright law. If you do not have Naming What We Know yet, please retain a copy ASAP.
Respond
After reading this short piece, write an informal paragraph or two about your thoughts in the comments below. Include the quotes that most stand out to you with in-text citations like this (Bazerman, 2019, p. 36).
Reply
Unlike mid-week discussions which require constructive, generative feedback to peers, your replies in weekly introductions may just be an informal chat about common findings or thoughts on the readings.
For ALL discussion posts, you must reply to at least two classmates.
SIDE NOTE/AMAZING RESOURCE:
A more formal study of language diversity as a framework, specifically as it pertains to race, is called “Critical Race Theory” (CRT). Recently, Adrienne Keene, a professor at Brown University, made an entire graduate course on CRT, including readings, available online.

Last Completed Projects