Digital, for the purposes of this class, I define as any type of academic or scholarly writing put into a computer hardware/ software format, that in turn can be communicated to us (the students) during our time in this course. However a more general overview of the word would lead us to a newer form of communicating with the general public.
When looking at the word New Media, Kress defines it very early on in his writing, saying it is a change in “new information and communication technologies” and these are suppose to “make it easy to use in multiplicity of modes.”(pg. 5) While this definition is well understood, I have to argue that technology has not necessarily been easy, when looking at academic works, like e-books. However, I understand the need for such growth in New Media because as Wysocki states, “new media needs to be open to writing,”(slide 3) and as she advocates for inclusivity, she also makes the argument of why new media is so important in teaching. Specifically when we look at digital rhetoric and what that entails in the pedagogy.
Kress specifically wanted to show the effects of the ever-growing digital space where he saw a shift in communication. There is only so much you can provide when communicating through technology in the sense of framework of linguistics. Specifically, when there is need for a healthy mixture of both when communication isn’t in a face-to-face setting. So as text is busy being revamped, his suggestion would be to use different forms of communication to have a better understanding of the message being conveyed. Semiotics help fill the void of not being face to face by supplementing that with images and symbols.
Coming into this course, I was familiar with what rhetoric meant, and I had a similar assumption on the definition of digital rhetoric. The two key terms seem to completely overlap, except in the space of where they are found and presented, format. From our first few readings, rhetoric seems to follow a similar pattern no matter how it is expressed (Invention, Arrangement, Style, Memory, Delivery). Rhetoric began in speech, and when text came along it was used in text, so as we continue on this technological pivot, it is to my understanding that that digital rhetoric is rhetoric just on a different platform. Because their foundations are similar, both terms seem to always overlap, until one is left behind. Even when looking at the defining word of traditional rhetoric, it’s a matter of “persuasion” between logos, pathos, and ethos, and how that is being presented.
I see all literacies overlapping in a similar fashion to rhetoric. When I think of literacy, the definition comes to mind, which is having the ability to read, and write. Digital literacy and New Media literacy seem to overlap with the “ability to be able to” communicate in whatever platform is put in place. New media literacy seems to have the distinction of creating a newer platform, something that can be molded into the future, whatever that may be (a much more evolved platform perhaps). New media literacy is an encompassing term that connects both literacy and digital literacy in the otherwise separate space. However once more, digital literacy seems to only be able to reach so far before it becomes something other than the ability to be able to understand something being produce by computer software.
Hey Amberlynn!
ReplyDeleteYour response reminded me of just how difficult it is to use something like e-books. When I buy a book and place it on my shelf I tend to read it more than I would an e-book or a PDF file. It took me a while to become computer literate and to use digital literacy comfortably. Your perspective on using technology was something that made me realize that going forward I need to go back to taking notes by hand as a way to make more sense of the work.
Do you think new media literacy and digital literacy will be the end of books?
Hi Amberlynn! Thanks for your thinking-through here :)
ReplyDeleteI'm interested in your decision to emphasize the continuities from print/traditional literacy to digital/new media literacy, given Wysocki and Johnson-Eilola's cautions against doing so and Kress' emphasis on the necessity of shifting from linguistic to semiotic frames. Both of these texts encourage us to see breaks in that continuity, and I'd love to hear more about the uses you see in de-emphasizing those breaks.
I'm looking forward to further conversation on Slack!
Hi Amberlynn,
ReplyDeleteYou mentioned that linguistics frameworks wouldn't be enough to account for communication that isn't face-to-face. This has me thinking about some non-verbal communication is carried through the images we choose to show. We could probably make an endless list, but I'm trying to think ways we do this connected to the digital. For example, the ways we personalize our phones (with cases, pop-sockets, ringtones, wallpapers) and laptops (with stickers and some of the aforementioned). These seem to be textual as often as they are not. We definitely do these things for ourselves, but we shouldn't ignore the message(s) the might send out intentionally or unintentionally.
Hello Hello Amber!
ReplyDeleteI think what you've mentioned regarding the obvious limitations of communicating through linguistics (even through the uses of the growing technological age) is something that most, if not all students in our current class are realizing. What a time to realize it! I agree wholeheartedly that it is the mixture of both linguistics and semiotics that proves to be the most effective form of communication when trying to get meaning across from point A to point B.
I also find it interesting the way you see digital rhetoric as leaving behind traditional reading and writing. While I don't think rhetoric can ever be eradicated from the presence and evolution of technology, I understand what you mean. In present day, we do have to adapt to the world that digital rhetoric has presented to us, especially in an academic setting where most of our learning is communicated to us through some form of technological usage.