Session 2: Part 2: Critical Active Reading

Inference: Reading Ideas as Well as Words

Ideally, speakers mean what they say and say what they mean. Spoken communication is
not that simple. Much of what we understand—whether when listening or reading—we
understand indirectly, by inference. Listening involves a complex combination of hearing
words, analyzing sentence structure, and attempting to find meaning within the context of
the given situation.

The situation with the written word is no different. A text does not contain a meaning.
Readers construct meaning by what they take the words to mean and how they process
sentences to find meaning. Readers draw on their knowledge of the language and of
conventions of social communication. They also draw on other factors, such as knowledge of
the author (“Would Henry say such a thing?), the occasion (“No one knew such things
then!”), or the audience (“He’d never admit that publicly.”) They infer unstated meanings
based on social conventions, shared knowledge, shared experience, or shared values. They
make sense of remarks by recognizing implications and drawing conclusions.

Readers read ideas more than words, and infer, rather than find, meaning.

Inferring Meaning
Consider the following statement:
The Pop icon admitted owning the gun that killed his wife.
On the face of it, we have a simple statement about what someone said. Our understanding,
however, includes much that is not stated. We find meaning embedded in the words and
phrases. Unpacking that meaning, we can see that the Pop icon was married and his wife is
now dead—although this is not actually stated as such. (In fact, the sentence is about an
admission of gun ownership.) It is as though the single sentence contains a number of
assertions:
 There is a Pop icon.
 He owns a gun.
 He is married.
 His wife is dead.
 That gun caused her death.
 The Pop icon admitted owning that gun.
Clearly, the original sentence is a clearer and simpler way of conveying all of this
information. Writers take note!
On a more subtle level, we recognize that a public figure confronts involvement in a major
crime. Our understanding need not stop there. We infer that the gun (or at least a bullet)
has probably been recovered and identified as the murder weapon—or the notion of an
admission would make little sense.

We also recognize the danger of unwarranted inferences. We recognize that we do not

necessarily know if the Pop icon's admission is true. We do not really know whether the Pop
icon is in any way responsible for his wife's death, nor do we know that she died of gun shot
wounds (she could have been hit over the head with the gun). We do not even know if it
was murder—it might have been suicide or an accident.

Are we reading things in here? Or are these meanings truly within the sentence? We are
going beyond that the text says, but not beyond what it actually means to most readers.

Inferences such as these are essential to both written and spoken communication. Writers
often only hint at what they mean, and mean much more than they actually seem to say. On
the other hand, we can see the danger (and temptation) of assuming facts or interpretations
for which evidence is not present, and recognize that a critical reader reads with an open
mind, open to many possible interpretations.

The following story is often presented as a brain twister. In fact, it’s a reading exercise.

A man and his son are driving in a car. The car crashes into a tree, killing the father
and seriously injuring his son. At the hospital, the boy needs to have surgery. Upon
looking at the boy, the doctor says (telling the truth), "I cannot operate on him. He is
my son."
How can this be? Decide on your answer before reading further.
Whether this passage is a brain twister or a reading passage, readers must assume
that any lack of understanding is not due to the story, but due to their own lack of
understanding. We must work harder to think about how the story might make
sense.

We quickly see that we have to explain how a doctor can have a son ("I cannot
operate on him. He is my son.") when at the same time the father is dead (“The car
crashes into a tree, killing the father”). The answer: The doctor is the boy's mother.
Many readers are blinded to this meaning by the sexist assumption that the doctor
must be a male.

A somewhat similar example has been offered by Robert Skoglund, The Humble
Farmer of Public Radio in Maine (http//www.TheHumbleFarmer.com), as follows:

We had visitors a week or so ago. Houseguests. Six of them. One of them was Oscar
who teaches geology at the University in Utrecht. Now I love houseguests. Usually.
But when they arrived I discovered that two of them couldn't even walk into the
house. Had to be carried in. And then I found out they couldn't talk, either. What
would you have done if you'd been in my place? How do you handle a situation like
that?
See the end of the page for possibly the most appropriate advice.

Implications For Reading

All reading is an active, reflective, problem-solving process. We do not simply read words;
we read ideas, thoughts that spring from the relationships of various assertions. The
notion of inference equations is particularly powerful in this regard. Readers can use the
notion of inference equations to test whether or not the ingredients for a given inferences
are indeed present. To show lying, for instance, a text must show that someone made a
statement that they knew was incorrect and that they made that assertion with the specific
purpose of deception. If they did not know it was wrong at the time, it’s an error, not a lie. If
they did not make the statement for the specific purpose of deception, we have a
misstatement, not lying.

Implications For Writing

The notion of inference equations is equally useful for writing.
Writers must assure that the ingredients of the equation are present and clear, and that the
desired relationships are signalled in a clear and effective way. As writers, we must be aware
that our readers will interpret our thoughts.

We must strive to make our meaning as clear as possible. We must provide sufficient
examples to make our ideas clear, as well as to short-circuit undesired interpretations. We
must recognize what evidence is necessary and sufficient for our purpose, and assure that it
is included.

And we must choose our terms carefully for accuracy and clarity of meaning, and spell out
our exact thoughts in as much detail as possible. We must recognize biases our readers
might bring to the text and explain and support our evidence as much as our conclusions

Inference: The Process

Inference is a mental process by which we reach a conclusion based on specific evidence.

Inferences are the stock and trade of detectives examining clues, of doctors diagnosing
diseases, and of car mechanics repairing engine problems. We infer motives, purpose, and
intentions.

Inference is essential to, and part of, being human. We engage in inference every day. We
interpret actions to be examples of behaviour characteristics, intents, or expressions of
particular feelings. We infer it is raining when we see someone with an open umbrella. We
infer people are thirsty if they ask for a glass of water. We infer that evidence in a text is
authoritative when it is attributed to a scholar in the field.

We want to find significance. We listen to remarks, and want to make sense of them. What
might the speaker mean? Why is he or she saying that? We go beyond specific remarks to
underlying significance or broader meaning. When we read that someone cheated on his or
her income taxes, we might take that as an example of financial ingenuity, daring, or
stupidity. We seek purposes and reasons.
Inferences are not random. While they may come about mysteriously with a sudden jump of
recognition, a sense of "Ah ha!," inferences are very orderly. Inferences may be guesses, but
they are educated guesses based on supporting evidence. The evidence seems to require
that we reach a specific conclusion.

Evidence is said to imply; readers infer. While this image suggests an intent or power on the
part of evidence that does not exist—how, after all, can a fact compel a certain conclusion?
—the image and resulting terminology are useful nonetheless. The sense of inevitability to
the conclusion suggests that we did not jump to that conclusion or make it up on our own,
but found it by reasoning from the evidence.

The above image implies that everyone will reach the same conclusion. That obviously is not
the case—as the examples above suggest. The umbrella might be protection from the sun,
the request for water might indicate a need to take a pill, and a footnote may cite only one
side of a controversy. Here again, the line between inference and jumping to a conclusion
can be awfully thin.

A man gets on a bus. What might be implied by each of the following?

 He ran to catch the bus.

 He is carrying a suitcase.
 He asks the driver for change of a $100 bill.

Inferences are not achieved with mathematical rigor. Inferences do not have the certainty
obtained with deductive reasoning. Inferences tend to reflect prior knowledge and
experience as well as personal beliefs and assumptions. Inferences thus tend to reflect one's
stake in a situation or one's interests in the outcome. People may reason differently or bring
different assumptions or premises to bear.

Given evidence that PCB's cause cancer in people, and that PCB's are in a particular water
system, all reasonable people would reach the conclusion that that water system is
dangerous to people. But given evidence that there is an increase in skin cancer among
people who sun bathe, not all people would conclude that sunbathing causes skin cancer.
Sun bathing, they might argue, may be coincidental with exposure to other cancer causing
factors.

More often than not, disagreements are based not on differences in reasoning, but in the
values, assumptions, or information brought to bear. If we believe that all politicians are
crooks, we will infer that a specific politician's actions are scurrilous. If we believe that
politicians act for the good of all, we will look for some benefit in their actions. Either way,
we will try to use reason to explain the actions. We will look for some coherent explanation
as a way of making sense of things. As we saw earlier, if we can understand why someone
would do something, why someone might say something, why someone might act in a
certain way, we feel we have made sense of the act or statement. It's like a murder trial: if
we can put together opportunity, motive, and means, we can make a case.
The more evidence we have before us, and the more carefully we reason, the more valid our
inferences. This principle plays an important role with reading: the more evidence within a
text we incorporate into our interpretation, the more likely we have not gone astray from
any intended meaning.

Inference and Analysis

Inferences are based on evidence. To infer, we must collect evidence. And evidence is
collected by the process of analysis.

Analysis is a particular form of investigation. In general usage, analysis refers to any close,
careful, or systematic examination. In the discussion here, the term “analysis“ is used in its
more technical meaning. Analysis is a process of investigating something by breaking it into
parts for closer examination. Complex topics are broken down into simpler ones. Intricate
patterns are broken down into less complicated elements. A problem is simplified by limiting
the amount that must be examined at any one time.

The goal of analysis is not simply to discover parts within the whole, but to understand the
whole. Once the parts are identified, analysis then seeks to determine how those parts are
related. From a recognition of
 the nature of the parts, and
 the relationships between the parts
we infer additional meaning. In the analytic model, the whole is seen as greater than the
sum of its parts.

Levels of Analysis

Analysis can be carried out on various levels. Any part can be analyzed into smaller parts. A
table of contents, for instance, indicates the contents of a book at various levels of analysis:
parts, chapters, sections, etc.

Bases of Analysis

Finally, note that a single topic can often be broken up for analysis in a number of ways. An
anthropologist might view society in terms of cultural values and institutions; the sociologist
might look at issues of group identity and social interaction. The anthropologist might look
at how justice is administered, the sociologist at the social status of judges. One would
speak in terms of mores and ethical principles, the other in terms of social class and socio-
economic status. They may analyze the same society, but their different bases of analysis
lead to different understandings.
Analyzing Texts

What are the parts of a text? The simplest answer is that texts are composed of words,
which form sentences, which form paragraphs, which form larger sections of a the text as a
whole. Texts can also be analyzed in terms of elements or themes occurring throughout the
discussion, like colours throughout plaid cloth.

The discussion throughout these notes focuses on analysis of three basic elements of choice
by the author: content, language, and structure.

Inference: Inference Equations

Inferences are not random. Inferences follow rules. Not mathematical rules, but rules
based on common experience and social conventions. We draw inferences from the
relationships of certain ideas, and can, in effect, write "equations" to suggest this process.
Consider the following two remarks.

The stock market fell. Burger King laid off 1,000 workers.
We have two separate assertions: That the stock market fell and that Burger King laid off
1,000 workers. But watch what happens when the ideas are related in specific ways.
1. The stock market fell, after Burger King laid off 1,000 workers.
2. The stock market fell, because Burger King laid off 1,000 workers.
3. The stock market fell, therefore Burger King laid off 1,000 workers.
4. The stock market fell, but Burger King laid off 1,000 workers.
Relating the assertions generates a wide variety of thoughts. (See "Relationship Categories
and Terms)
In this first case, from evidence of change following an action (after), we might infer the
action caused the change (This does not, of course, necessarily follow. Just because one
event precedes another does not necessarily mean it caused it.)

In the second, the relationship is of reason/conclusion (because): the fall in the stock market
is explained by the layoffs.

In the third, the relationship is again reason/conclusion (therefore), but now the layoffs are
explained by the fall of the stock market.

In the fourth sentence, the relationship is of contrast (but), with the suggestion that the
events are unrelated.

With each set of assertions we draw inferences based on the relationship of the ideas.
1. Burger King's layoffs might have been the cause of the stock market's drop.
2. Burger King's layoffs caused the drop in the stock market.
3. Burger King laid off workers because of a drop in the stock market.
4. The stock market drop did not effect Burger King's laying off of workers.
The overall meaning is conveyed not only by the individual assertions, the content, but also
by how the elements of the content are related to one another, the structure. We identify
the nature and relationship of parts, and infer underlying or unspoken meanings. Consider
another set of examples.
The class went to the beach and it rained.
The class went to the beach although it rained.
The class went to the beach before it rained.
The information is the same in all three sentences:
The class went to the beach
It rained.
But the relationship of the two assertions is different in each sentence:
1. The class went to the beach [series] it rained.
2. The class went to the beach [in contrast to] it rained.
3. The class went to the beach [earlier in time than] it rained.
The meaning of each sentence is therefore different:
1. bad luck
2. perseverance or determination
3. good planning

Depending on the relationship between the two assertions, the class is portrayed as
disappointed, determined, or lucky.
What information would be needed, and how would it be related, to show:

Overconfidence.
A lack of self esteem.
Justified homicide.

Inference: Denotation
Words, it has been observed, are sneaky—they change meaning when you put them
somewhere else. Consider the term "ate" in the following examples:
The boy ate the apple in the pie.
The acid ate the metal.
His guilt ate into him.
The stapler ate staples
The word ate means different things in each of these sentences. ·
* took in solid food as nourishment
* caused to rust or disintegrate
* produced worry or anxiety
* used up
The same sequence of letters— a t e —denotes more than one concept.
Whether we think of these various meanings of "ate" as different meanings of the same
word or as the meanings of four different words, we still have to recognize the appropriate
meaning in any given context. As we read, our brain calls up possible meanings. With barely
a pause, we infer an appropriate meaning in each of the remarks.
Dictionary citations with more than one meaning are more the rule than the exception, as in
the following example.

table n 1 thin piece of flat wood, stone, etc. 2 article of furniture with a flat top and
legs 3 the food served on a table 4 the persons seated at a table 5 arrangement of
words, facts, figures, etc., often in columns, for reference 6 index or summary vt 7
to lay aside, as a proposal 8 to postpone indefinitely
Here again, we can think of these eight meanings of table as eight different words, or one
word with eight different meanings. Either way, readers must recognize the appropriate
meaning when they come upon the sequence of letters t-a-b-l-e in a text.

Anyone familiar with the language will quickly recognize an appropriate meaning whether a
word refers to an object (a noun)

Delia sat at the table.

of a quality of an object (adjective),
Jessica washed the table cover.
or refers to an action (verb),
The committee will table the motion.

We have little trouble understanding the three meanings of grade in the following sentence:
You’ve made the grade when promoted to a new grade as a reward for achieving passing
grades.
You’ve made the grade(overcome a barrier, been successful) when promoted to a
new grade(level) as a reward for achieving passing grades(evaluations, marks).

From a variety of possible meanings, we infer the meaning appropriate for the given
context. We read ideas, not words.
We can "fix" a car, a race, a meal, a dye, a cat, or a ship's course. In each instance we do
something different. Consider another example:

Blackberries are red when they are green.

You can almost feel wheels grinding in your head as you do an initial double take
before recognizing that, in this context, green does not denote a colour, but
"unripe."
In similar manner, we fill in the appropriate meanings of used in the for-sale advertisement:
Used gun. Used for protection. Never been used.
Does a reference to a ghetto refer to urban hood or European religious enclave? In each
instance, the surrounding discussion provides clues for inferring the appropriate denotation.

Ambiguity
The fact that common words tend to have multiple meanings can lead to ambiguity, a
situation in which two or more equally legitimate readings exist. In many instances, any
potential ambiguity is easily resolved.
The kids played in the snow.
Here snow is obviously a reference to frozen water, not heroin (well, in most
contexts!). When more than one meaning of a word makes sense, we have lexical
(i.e., referring to words) ambiguity.

The school had many poor students on scholarships.

Are the students on scholarship "not rich" or "not good students"? The sentence is
ambiguous.
Readers draw on prior knowledge and past experience to infer the appropriate meaning.
They at once "read" both the language and their knowledge of the world. Some of the most
striking examples of ambiguity of word meaning can be seen in headlines.

Bundy Beats Date With Chair

At first glance, this headline refers to an attack by an irate suitor.
date = person of opposite sex with whom one has a social engagement
chair = household furniture
In the context of the news at the time, the headline referred to a convicted killer's
scheduled execution.
date = appointment
chair = electric chair
Readers infer word meanings consistent with the surrounding discussion. They infer
meaning from contextual clues, whether on the page or, in this case, from our prior
knowledge and the news of the day. Examples such as this make clear that we do not simply
read words so much as interpret them.

In many, if not most, instances, one meanings is obviously the intended meaning within the
given context, the other meaning a somewhat funny alternative meaning.

The painting was found by the tree.

By can mean "near," or "through the agency of." It is unlikely the tree did the
finding. This example, however, involves more than simple lexical ambiguity. We
also parse the sentence differently to see the different meanings, as the following
suggests.
The painting was found by the tree. It was next to the tree.
The painting was found by the tree The tree found it.
When the ambiguity lies in how we analyze a sentence, rather than in deciding the
meaning of a word, we have syntactic ambiguity.

The meanings depends on how you analyze the sentence. The following headlines provide
examples of ambiguity.
 1. Drunk Gets Nine Months in Violin Case
2. Iraqi Head Seeks Arms
3. Prostitutes Appeal to Pope
4. Kids Make Nutritious Snacks
5. New Vaccine May Contain Rabies
6. New Study of Obesity Looks for Larger Test Group
7. Include your Children when Baking Cookies
8. Police Begin Campaign to Run Down Jaywalkers
9. Red Tape Holds Up New Bridge
10. Local High School Dropouts Cut in Half
Identify which word in each sentence has multiple meanings.

Inference: Figurative Language

Further evidence of the need to read ideas, not simply words, comes from the use of
figurative language. We often convey meaning by suggesting that something is like
something else.
Mervin runs like a duck.
The comparison is, of course, only suggestive. Mervin doesn't really run like a water bird.
Here again, we must not talk only of what the remark says (Mervin runs with a waddle.), we
must recognize what the remark does (It compares Mervin's running to that of a duck.) and
from that infer what the remark means (Mervin is awkward.)
When, in Shakespeare's Romeo and Juliet, Merrcutio says
A plague o'both your houses,...
we know he is not wishing termites on certain dwellings, but cursing two families.
In the commentary on Dennis Rodman [Cf.Inference: Association and Reference] ,
the final comment is a use of figurative language.
With Rodman around, Jordan has become more of a deity than ever.
Michael Jordan has obviously not become an actual God, merely an object of
admiration and inspiration.
We read remarks such as these for the essence of the thought rather than for literal
meaning. We interpret an unspoken, and yet, we feel, implied meaning.

How do we know statements are meant to be read figuratively? Quite simply: because the
literal meaning does not make sense and another meaning does. When the literal meaning
doesn't make sense, we try alternative understandings.

Figurative meaning is not always obvious, as with the simile

Time is like a river.

or the metaphor
Life is a game.
We find meaning by using imagination, reason, and trial and error. In the case of
Time is like a river.
The meaning may be that both life and a river go on endlessly, or that time follows a definite
but wandering path. We look for some common element. The metaphor
 Life is a game.
might be suggesting that in life there are winners and losers, or that rules must be
followed. We must turn to the larger context to be sure.

Martin Luther King was a master of figurative language. Notice how easily your mind shifts
between literal and figurative meanings.

In those days the Church was not merely a thermometer that recorded the ideas and
principles of popular opinion; it was a thermostat that transformed the mores of society.
Martin Luther King, Jr., "Letter from Birmingham Jail"
Now is the time to lift our national policy from the quicksand of racial injustice to the solid
rock of human dignity.
Martin Luther King, Jr., "Letter from Birmingham Jail"

One hundred years later, the life of the Negro is still sadly crippled by the manacles of
segregation and the chains of discrimination.
Martin Luther King, Jr., "I Have A Dream"
Like a boil that can never be cured as long as it is covered up but must be opened with all its
pus-flowing ugliness to the natural medicines of air and light, injustice must likewise be
exposed, with all of the tension its exposing creates, to the light of human conscience and
the air of national opinion before it can be cured.
Martin Luther King, Jr., "Letter from Birmingham Jail"

Figurative language can shape perception. The metaphors of "surfing the Web" or "cruising
the electronic highway" imply different mental images, and with that different
understandings of the Internet: whether as a natural phenomenon to be experienced
vicariously or a man-made network to be travelled with a purpose. (The topic is being
investigated by an Internet metaphor study, http://www2.umdnj.edu/~ratzan/imeta4.html.]

New denotations for words can evolve from figurative use of words. Consider the computer
mouse—a cursor device that scurries around like the rodent. Computer users are the only
ones to wallpaper windows—that is, install a background image (wallpaper) on a portion of
a computer screen (window).

Example: Translation and the Sixth Commandment

Translators attempt to capture both the denotation and connotation of words, as
well as the cadence of the language. A translator's linguistic struggles," it has been
observed,"
extend far beyond dictionary definitions, …every word is surrounded by a halo of
connotations and associations that radiate far beyond their literal meanings. And
since all words carry meanings and suggestions in one culture that don't necessarily
have an exact counterpart in another, it is inevitable that translators will end up with
colours, tones, and meanings that don't exist in the original.
Michele Rosen, "Translate This: 'A Man, a Plan, a Canal, Panama!" Or Was It
Paraguay?,"The New York Times, July 25, 1998, p. A13.
Translations, and Biblical translations in particular, are often subject to great debate.
Everyone knows the Sixth Commandment: Thou shalt not kill. The commandment
has been invoked to argue against murder, abortion, mercy killing, ethnic cleansing,
religious persecution, and assisted suicide, bearing arms in time of war, homicide in
self defense, and the criminal death penalty. The original Hebrew term for "kill",
however, actually means "murder." The command should read: Thou shalt do no
murder.
Which of the above would be excluded by this translation?

Implications For Reading

The choice of words can shape how a text portrays the world, and so readers must
be sensitive to those choices. They must see what words say, do, and mean.
Readers need not identify whether a meaning is a matter of denotation and
connotation. It is enough to be sensitive to both what words mean (denote) and to
what words imply (connote). Similarly, readers do not have to identify the specific
form of figurative language—whether you are dealing with a simile, metaphor, or
any other form of figurative language. They must, however, see that the text does
use figurative language and infer an appropriate meaning behind the words.

Implications For Writing

By choosing between potential terms, authors define their topic and shape their
reader's perception of that topic. One of the most critical decisions an author makes,
then, is in the choice of words—exactly what to call things. Writers must be alert to
their possible choices, and sensitive to the meanings and nuances of each. They must
not only convey the desired meaning, but the desired overtones as well. The broader
one's vocabulary, the greater their sensitivity to the meaning of words. When in
doubt, consult a dictionary.
Figurative language is more picturesque. It enables writers to indicate layers of
meaning. Figurative language ups the reader's interest and often conveys meaning
hard to convey in words.

Words
Any discussion of reading and writing is, ultimately, about words and how we use
words to convey meaning.
Classifying, Categorizing, and Conceptualizing
Language begins with words, with spoken and/or written symbols. Words refer to
ideas (conflict, truth), feelings (passion, warmth), things (pigs, teeth), and actions
(running,). Words can indicate relationships (however, therefore, on, after) and
stand for other references (these, him). Some concepts, such as the cold side of the
pillow or yellow slush, have no words (at least yet), and some concepts for which
there are words do not exist (such as unicorns or the king of Boston).
We assign names (words) to ideas, events, and objects. In so doing we classify that
item under a broader, more abstract, heading. We classify when we label a specific
song as rap or hip-hop, blues or country. We classify when we recognize an action as
a certain kind of behaviour.

Say you see a number of large yellow animals on the African plain. Words allow you
to distinguish between "lions", and "lionesses," between "lions" and "pumas,"
between a "pride" (a group) and a "pair." Without words, we might see the
differences, but we could not talk about the differences. Finally, words enable us to
talk about lions in general a day later, when the lions are no longer there.

Academic v. Informal Discussion

Academic discussion relies heavily on knowledge of relevant concepts and
terminology. Informal discussion is commonly about specific events in the here and
now. Academic discussion deals with concepts and theories, hypotheses and ideas.
Academic writers talk more generally about the world. On the street, you might talk
about your nineteen-year old cousin Vinny from Detroit taking a job at Mac Donald's.
Academic discussion might talk about changing rates of unemployment,
demographic factors affecting occupation selection, or the expansion of the service
industry.

Our Evolving Language

The choice of word for any concept is essentially arbitrary. Words come to have
meaning by how they are used by native speakers. ("A rose by any other name," as
Shakespeare noted, "would smell as sweet.")
The English language, for example, uses the letters d-o-g (and their corresponding
sounds) to denote a domestic animal. French uses chien; Spanish, perro. We name
animals by their shape (spoonbill), origin (great Dane), size (horsefly), color (beaver,
from Old English beofor, brown), or facial expression (dodo). Animals even talk
differently in different languages. In English a duck says quack quack, in Italian qua
qua, in Thai gaab gaab, and in Russian krya-krya. [ For a listings of animal sounds in
many languages, see "Sounds Of The World's Animals,"
http://www.georgetown.edu/cball/animals/animals.html. ] Note that there is no
natural rational connection between most words and the ideas they represent--well,
with the exception of words such as plop, whiz, and slide.

Language mirrors the history and culture of its speakers. English speakers use words
that have descended from earlier forms of English (knave, from Old English: cnafa)
and borrow words form other languages. We use English names for animals (cow,
sheep, deer) and French names for their meat (beef, mutton, venison). We use
Spanish terms for geological features of the Southwest (canyon, mesa).

Dialects often incorporate words or grammatical structures of other languages. Black

English, a combination of standard English and West African languages, includes an
additional aspect indicating habitual action over time (He be swimming—he has
been swimming for a while, not just now, and not just once). [ See "Black English: Its
History and its Role in the Education of Our Children,"
http://www.princeton.edu/~bclewis\blacktalk.html, and "Black English," and
http://www.browneyedintelligence.org/ebonics.html. ]

Word meanings change with time—hence the need to indicate the original meaning
of words when we read Shakespearean plays, written around 1600, today.
Dictionaries indicate current educated usage, not what a word is supposed to mean,
which explains why there have been ten editions of the Merriam-Webster Collegiate
dictionary in the past hundred years.

When a word is too closely associated with a undesired meaning, it drops out of
usage, as with queer (odd) or niggardly (miserly), the latter a word from the Middle
English unrelated to the racial epithet derived from the Spanish for "black."

Many people lament how, or even that, the language is changing. They want to
return to a "pure" form, when no one said "It is me!," "Grow the economy," or
"Winston tastes good like (as against "as" ) a cigarette should." Such an attitude is,
regrettably, both uninformed and hopeless. Spoken languages constantly change, as
surely as the trees turn every fall. One thousand years ago, in Old English, "Happy
New Millennium, Everybody" would have been: Bliss on bæm cumendum þusende
îeara, Eallum!

Finally, in this Age of the Internet, we might note two other written symbols that are
a part of what is in essence a written dialect of standard English: emoticons
(smileys), facial expressions formed with typographic characters to communicate
emotions such as humour :-) , sadness :-( or skepticism :-/ , and Internet acronyms,
such as BTW (by the way), OTOH (on the other hand), and IMHO (in my humble
opinion).

Three Ways to Read and Discuss Texts

How we discuss a text is directly related to how we read that text. More to the point
here, how we read a text is shaped by how we expect to discuss it. While you may
not be asked to write about texts at school, and probably will not be asked to write
about texts in your job, you must learn how to talk about texts to discover what
makes them work.

Reading and Discussion

The follow excerpt (from the sample text ) serves as an example to define three
forms of reading and discussion.
In his social history of venereal disease, No Magic Bullet , Allan M. Brandt describes
the controversy in the US military about preventing venereal disease among soldiers
during World War I. Should there be a disease prevention effort that recognized that
many young American men would succumb to the charms of French prostitutes, or
should there be a more punitive approach to discourage sexual contact? Unlike the
New Zealand Expeditionary forces, which gave condoms to their soldiers, the United
States decided to give American soldiers after-the-fact, and largely ineffective,
chemical prophylaxis. American soldiers also were subject to court martial if they
contracted a venereal disease. These measures failed. More than 383,000 soldiers
were diagnosed with venereal diseases between April 1917 and December 1919 and
lost seven million days of active duty. Only influenza, which struck in an epidemic,
was a more common illness among servicemen.
You have read this passage, and someone asks you "to write about it." What should
you say?
What you write will vary, of course, with how you read. Your response to the text
might take any of the following:

1. Unlike the New Zealand soldiers in WWI, who received condoms, American
soldiers received after-the-fact and ineffective medicine that resulted in the
loss of seven million days of active duty over close to a three year period.
2. The passage compares the prevention techniques and disease outcomes of
American and New Zealand soldiers in World War I, noting that unlike the
New Zealand soldiers in WWI, who received condoms, American soldiers
received after-the-fact and ineffective medicine that resulted in the loss of
seven million days of active duty over close to a three year period.
3. By examining the outcome of various approaches to condom use during
World War I, the text makes a case for more realistic approaches to disease
prevention in the future.
Each of these responses reflects a different type of reading, resulting in a different
form of discussion.
The major difference in the discussions above is in what is being discussed.
1. Unlike the New Zealand soldiers in WWI, who received condoms, American
soldiers received after-the-fact and ineffective medicine that resulted in the
loss of seven million days of active duty over close to a three year period.
2. The passage compares the prevention techniques and disease outcomes of
American and New Zealand soldiers in World War I, noting that unlike the
New Zealand soldiers in WWI, who received condoms, American soldiers
received after-the-fact and ineffective medicine that resulted in the loss of
seven million days of active duty over close to a three year period.
3. By examining the outcomes of various approaches to condom use during
World War I, the text makes a case for more realistic approaches to disease
prevention in the future.
Only the first response is about the topic of the original text: American soldiers. The
next two discussions are in some way about the text. More specifically, the three
modes of response mirror our earlier distinction between what a text says, does, and
means.
1. The first discusses the behaviour of soldiers, the same topic as the original
text. It restates the original information.
2. The second indicates how ideas or information are introduced and
developed. It describes the presentation.
3. The third attempts to find a deeper meaning in the discussion. It interprets
the overall meaning of the presentation.
In each of the responses above, a reader gains, and is accountable for, a different
kind of understanding.
1. Restatement- restating what the text says talks about the original topic
2. Description- describing what a text does identifies aspects of the
presentation
3. Interpretation - analyze what a text means asserts an overall meaning

We can tell which type of discussion we have before us by examining what it talks
about.
How are these three different understandings achieved?

To look beyond a literal, sentence-by-sentence meaning (restatement), you might

ask two questions: What is the text doing, and what are the example examples of ?

In this example the text contrasts two approaches to potential venereal disease
among military troops,

A -- recognizing that soldiers would succumb to prostitutes and providing condoms

B -- attempting to discourage sexual contact combined with after-the-fact, and
largely ineffective, chemical prophylaxis and the threat of court marshals.
The text claims that approach A was a failure and offers evidence of that failure in
terms of statistics ["More than 383,000 soldiers were diagnosed with venereal
diseases between April 1917 and December 1919 and lost seven million days of
active duty." ] and a comparison ["Only influenza, which struck in an epidemic, was a
more common illness among servicemen."]. The extent of failure is conveyed by
examples of a large number of affected persons and a comparison to a major disease
outbreak.
These realizations lead to the description of the text.

An interpretation goes one step further. In this example, we recognize a message is

conveyed by showing the failure of one approach over another. To find a greater
meaning, we must recognize what the two approaches are examples of , and what
the choice of one over the other might represent.

Example: A Statement
Your doctor tells you to eat less chocolate and drink less beer. A restatement would
repeat the statement,
The doctor said I should eat less chocolate and drink less beer.
A description would describe the remark:
The doctor advised me to change my diet.
An interpretation would find underlying meaning in the remark:
The doctor warned me to reduce my calories for the sake of my health.
Only this final discussion attempts to find significance in the examples, that the foods
mentioned are high calorie.
Example: Nursery Rhyme
Mary had a little lamb,
Its fleece was white as snow,
and everywhere that Mary went
The lamb was sure to go.
A restatement would talk about Mary and the lamb.
Mary had a lamb that followed her everywhere.
A description would talk about the story within the fairy tale.
The nursery rhyme describes a pet that followed its mistress everywhere.
The interpretation talks about meaning within the story, here the idea of innocent
devotion.
An image of innocent devotion is conveyed by the story of a lamb’s devotion to its
mistress. The devotion is emphasized by repetition that emphasizes the constancy of
the lamb’s actions (“everywhere”…”sure to go.”) The notion of innocence is
conveyed by the image of a young lamb, “white as snow.” By making it seem that
this is natural and good, the nursery rhyme asserts innocent devotion as a positive
relationship.
Note the effort here to offer as much evidence from the text as possible. The
discussion includes references to the content (the specific actions referred to), the
language (the specific terms used), and the structure (the relationship between
characters). Try another nursery rhyme yourself.
These ways of reading and discussion, --- restatement , description , and
interpretation ---are is discussed in greater detail elsewhere.

Different Ways Of Reading For Different Occasions

Readers read in a variety of ways for a variety of purposes. They can read for
information, sentence by sentence, taking each assertion as a discrete fact. They
can read for meaning, following an argument and weighing its logical and
persuasive effects. They can read critically, evaluating unstated assumptions and
biases, consciously identifying patterns of language and content and their
interrelationships.
We can read any text, whether a nursery rhyme or complicated treatise on the
origins of the American political system, in various ways. On the simplest level,
Cinderella is a story about a girl who marries a prince. On another level, it is about
inner goodness triumphing over deceit and pettiness.

On occasion, we might read the same text differently for different purposes. We
can read a newspaper editorial backing a tax proposal
1. to learn the content of the proposal,
2. to see why that newspaper supports the proposal,
3. to identify the newspaper's political leanings,
4. to learn facts, to discover opinions, or
5. to determine an underlying meaning.
We can read a newspaper article on a drive by shooting as an account of the death
of an individual or as a symptom of a broader disintegration of civility in
contemporary society. We can even look at the names in a telephone book to find
the phone number we want or to assess the ethnic diversity of the community. No
single way of reading a text is necessarily better. They are simply different.
Which Way to Read
How we choose to read a particular text will depend on the nature of the text and
our specific goals at the time. When we assume a factual presentation, we might
read for what a text says. When we assume personal bias, we look deeper to
interpret underlying meanings and perspectives.
Recall the opening paragraph of the health care article at the beginning of the
session. To answer the question, How did the New Zealand army prevent its soldiers
from contracting venereal disease during World War I? we read to see what the
essay says.

To answer the question, What issues does the text discuss? we read to see what the
essay does.

To answer the question, What concerns underlie the essay’s analysis of history? we
read to see what the essay means.

As a reader, you must know what you intended to do, and whether or not you have
accomplished it. You must adjust how you read to the nature of the reading
material, the nature of the reading assignment, and the manner in which you will be
held accountable for your reading.

Restatement: Reading What a Text Says

Reading what a text says is more notable for what it does not include than for what
it does.
Reading what a text says is concerned with basic comprehension, with simply
following the thought of a discussion. We focus on understanding each sentence,
sentence by sentence, and on following the thought from sentence to sentence and
paragraph to paragraph. There is no attempt to assess the nature of the discussion
and no concern for an overall motive or intent. Reading what a text says is involved
with rote learning.

Restatement generally takes the form of a summary, paraphrase, or précis.

Restatements should avoid the same language as much as possible to avoid
plagiarism and to show understanding. Reading what a text says is common under a
variety of circumstances:
 when learning the definitions and concepts of a new discipline,
 when there is agreement on the facts of a situation and their interpretation,
 when a text is taken to offer a complete and objective presentation, or
 when the word of a specific author or source is accepted as authoritative.
Readers simply accept what a text states.
When first studying any academic topic, your initial goal will be to understand what
others have discovered before you. Introductory courses ask students to learn terms,
concepts, and data of the particular area of study. You are expected to use your
imagination and your critical faculties to understand the concepts; you are not
expected to question the assertions. The goal is to learn the commonly accepted
paradigm for discussing topics in that field of study.

Finally, remember that repeating the assertions of a text need not suggest a denial of
critical thinking, merely a postponing of, or preparation for, critical thinking.

Description: Describing What a Text Does

Read an essay about AIDS, and you think about AIDS. But you can also think about
the essay. Does it discuss preventive strategies or medical treatments? Or both?
Does it describe AIDS symptoms or offer statistics? Is the disease presented as a
contagious disease, a Biblical scourge, or an individual experience? What evidence is
relied on? Does it quote medical authorities or offer anecdotes from everyday
people? Does it appeal to reason or emotions? These are not questions about what a
text says, but about what the text does. They are not about AIDS, but about the
discussion of AIDS.
This second level of reading is concerned not only with understanding individual
remarks, but also with recognizing the structure of a discussion. We examine what a
text does to convey ideas. We might read this way to understand how an editorial
justifies a particular conclusion, or how a history text supports a particular
interpretation of events.

At the previous level of reading, restatement, we demonstrated comprehension by

repeating the thought of the text. Here we are concerned with describing the
discussion:
 what topics are discussed?
 what examples and evidence are used?
 what conclusions are reached?
We want to recognize and describe how evidence is marshalled to reach a final
position, rather than simply follow remarks from sentence to sentence.
This level of reading looks at broad portions of the text to identify the structure of
the discussion as a whole. On completion, we can not only repeat what the text says,
but can also describe what the text does. We can identify how evidence is used and
how the final points are reached.

Interpretation: Analyzing What a Text Means

This final level of reading infers an overall meaning. We examine features running
throughout the text to see how the discussion shapes our perception of reality. We
examine what a text does to convey meaning: how patterns of content and language
shape the portrayal of the topic and how relationships between those patterns
convey underlying meaning.

Repeating v. Analyzing: Making The Leap

Rightly or wrongly, much of any student's career is spent reading and restating texts.
For many, the shift to description and interpretation is particularly hard. They are
reluctant to trade the safety of repeating an author's remarks for responsibility for
their own assertions. They will freely infer the purpose of an action, the essence of a
behaviour, or the intent of a political decision. But they will hesitate to go beyond
what they take a text to "say" on its own. They are afraid to take responsibility for
their own understanding. Others are so attuned to accepting the written word that
they fail to see the text as a viable topic of conversation.

Look at Leonardo da Vinci's painting Mona Lisa, and you see a woman smiling. But
you are also aware of a painting. You see different colour paint (well, not in this
illustration!) and you see how the paint was applied to the wood. You recognize
how aspects of the painting are highlighted by their placement or by the lighting.
When examining a painting, you are aware that you are examining a work created by
someone. You are aware of an intention behind the work, an attempt to portray
something a particular way. Since the painting does not come out and actively state
a meaning, you are consciously aware of your own efforts to find meaning in the
painting: Is she smiling? Self-conscious? Alluring? Aloof?

Looking at the Mona Lisa, you know that you are not looking at Mona Lisa, a person,
but The Mona Lisa, a painting. You can talk not only about the meaning of the
picture, but also about how it was crafted. What is the significance of the dream
landscape in the background? Why, when we focus on the left side of the picture,
does the woman looks somehow taller or more erect than if we focus on the right
side? The more features of the painting that you recognize, the more powerful your
interpretation will be.

When reading texts, as when reading paintings, we increase understanding by

recognizing the craftsmanship of the creation, the choices that the artist/author
made to portray the topic a certain way. And yet there is still that feeling that texts
are somehow different. Texts do differ from art insofar as they actually seem to
come out and say something. There are assertions "in black and white" to fall back
on. We can restate a text; we cannot restate a painting or action. Yet a text is simply
symbols on a page. Readers bring to their reading recognition of those symbols, an
understanding of what the words mean within the given social and historical
context, and an understanding of the remarks within their own framework of what
might make sense, or what they might imagine an author to have intended.

There is no escape; one way or another we are responsible for the meaning we find
in our reading. When a text says that someone burned their textbooks, that is all
that is there: an assertion that someone burned their textbooks. We can agree on
how to interpret sentence structure enough to agree on what is stated in a literal
sense. But any sense that that person committed an irresponsible, impulsive, or
inspired act is in our own heads. It is not stated as such on the page (unless the
author says so!). Stories present actions; readers infer personalities, motives, and
intents. When we go beyond the words, we are reading meaning.

Readers infer as much, if not more, than they are told. Readers go beyond the literal
meaning of the words to find significance and unstated meanings—and authors rely
on their readers' ability to do so! The reader's eye may scan the page, but the
reader's mind ranges up, down, and sideways, piecing together evidence to make
sense of the presentation as a whole.

Additional Observations
A number of observations should be made lest there be misunderstanding.
All Three Modes of Reading and Discussion Are Legitimate
The models are designed to identify varying levels of sophistication and insight in
reading and discussion. While one approach may be more complex than another, no
one way of reading a text is necessarily better than another. They are simply
different, and involve different observations and reasoning. The key thing is to know
which style of reading you want to do at any time, how to do it, and how to tell
whether you are actually doing it successfully.
All Reading Involves More Than One Form of Reading
The divisions between the three modes of reading are, to some extent, artificial.
Dividing reading into reading what a text says, does, and means is somewhat like
dividing bicycle riding into concern for balance, speed, and direction. They are all
necessary and affect one another. Speed and direction both affect balance; we will
fall off, or crash, without all three. And yet we may focus on one or another at any
particular time. We can parse each out for analysis.
While the modes of reading and discussing texts can be separated out for purposes
of discussion, and it is relatively easy to distinguish between the resulting forms of
discussion, in practice these reading techniques overlap. Any particular text can, and
will, be read at various levels of understanding at once. We cannot understand what
a text says without recognizing relationships between sentences. We cannot even
 understand sentences without drawing inferences that extend beyond the words on
the page. Observations and realizations at any one level of reading invariably
support and spark observations at another. Observations characteristic of all three
forms of response can be included in an interpretation.

Finally, while it is relatively easy to distinguish between forms of discussion.—

restatement, description, and interpretation—a description might include
restatement for the purposes of illustration, and an interpretation may be supported
with descriptions of various portions of the text and even restatement of key points
(see the example above). In the end, the "highest" level of remark characterizes the
discussion a whole.

These Are Not the Only Ways To Respond To a Text

Restatement, description and interpretation are not the only ways one can respond
to a text. But they are the ones of interest here, if only because they are the
responses that must precede most other forms of response. Readers can obviously
offer their own ideas on a topic—but that does not fall under the topic of discussing
a text. Readers can criticize an author's handling of a topic based on their own
knowledge or views, evaluate the writing style, or attack the honesty of the author.
These too are legitimate forms of response, but they require a critical reading of the
text first if they are to be meaningful. The first order of business is to make sense of
the text, and it is with that task that our efforts are concerned here.

Finally, we might note that book reports or reviews often contain additional
elements, such as a feeling for the writing style, comparison to other works, the
reviewer's emotional response to the reading experience, or the circumstances of
publication. And book reviewers often use the book under reviews as a taking-off
point for a discussion of the topic itself—all elements that go beyond, but depend
on, a careful reading of the text in question. ·
Descriptive Writing vs Critical Writing