I believe that making a summary is a challenging task. Reproducing a shorted form of the author’s ideas, particularly in large works (e.g. chapters), can be overwhelming. Understanding the thoughts in details is one thing. Compressing it while staying faithful to the central ideas I believe will compress my brain as well. I cannot imagine compressing a 10,000-word chapter in 250-word summary. My first reaction was: even stringing the key words together into a summary may not limit the volume into 250 words.
Hard the task may be, I believe certain skills can be learned in forcing myself to summarize a chapter or so. Sharpening my mind, I believe, is one benefit. Training my mind to detect the most (not only ‘more’) essential ideas is another.
Bazerman (2010) suggested three approaches on page 50: “selection and deletion”; “note taking”; and “miniaturization”. Looking at the selection, I thought that the brain-compressing approach I mentioned above is “miniaturization”. The first method, however, appeared to be the quickest to do. Simply identify the “most important ideas” and then delete the rest. Bazerman, however, cautioned that it works best in main ideas expressed as direct statements. However, it seems logical though that the first paragraph of a material may likely contain the main ideas as the samples in the chapter indicated.
Bazerman (2010) also mentioned two types of summaries (informative and descriptive), which somehow helped me put the challenges in a better perspective. I thought: Why make a more head-pounding informative summary when a far easier option in descriptive summary can be used? Reflecting the original tone alone can be prone to a misinterpretation of the tone itself. Meanwhile, a pure description felt more like having more freedom to write it my way.
Somehow, Bazerman had helped me device my own approach to this challenge.
Bazerman (2010) wrote on page 28 that often we read others thoughts “inaccurately and incompletely”. This statement affirmed my basic concerns about writing in Week 1. In this chapter, however, it is evident that the issue of word meanings and cultural meanings can be effectively addressed through the exercise of paraphrasing.
Paraphrasing, evidently, challenges me to understand each word I am reading and to make a serious effort at understanding these words and rewriting it with different words while being faithful to the author’s concept as written. Thus, I agreed with Bazerman that it will help me “communicate the meaning of a difficult passage”. In fact, it forces me to deal with that difficulty first before even writing a letter or word about it on my paper. Paraphrasing forces me to face the challenge and not back down.
Bazerman (2010) suggested two paraphrasing approaches: “substituting synonyms” and “rearranging sentence structure”. I believe that the first approach is far easier with a word processor (like Microsoft Word), but not with the old mechanical typewriter, than with rearranging the sentence structure because I am still less confident in my abilities to do so. It may take me more time imagining the right structure to use than by replacing important words with a right click on the built in dictionary of synonyms.
I recognize, however, the possibility of making erroneous interpretations of meaning even while understanding or using the right words, particularly in abstract concepts, as Bazerman (2010) noted, such as “truth” or “freedom”. I believe that this is something I should be very careful about in my reading.
On page 15, Bazerman (2010) wrote that reacting to a reading involves a linking “between the ideas suggested by the page” and its impact and the consequent responses of my mind. It is an important dynamic, which describes in better depth my concerns in Week 1 about understanding the cultural meanings embodied in every English word I read. The interpretation of these meanings is also essential as these interpretations apparently guide my internal reactions, or responses, to the English words I read. If I interpret the meanings erroneously, then the quality and accuracy of my responses will also be off. There is an apparent danger here because “reactions pass so quickly” (Bazerman, 2010). And, with those reactions, my responses in words will commitment to the accuracy or the errors of my interpretation of meanings.
Logically, making annotations on my readings, as Bazerman (2010) suggested, is a safe and valuable exercise of personal discretion in my interpersonal interactions with others, particularly those who speak the English language as a first language.
Marginal annotations are clearly an effective practice in sorting out my first reactions. However, I may have a problem keeping this practice in relation to borrowed books, magazines, or journals in the library. Thus, unless I own the materials I am reading, I may have to write my annotations in a notebook, or journaling, which admittedly can be inconvenient when I think of the prospect of bringing a notebook everywhere I go as I cannot anticipate finding a good read to take on. Similarly, anticipating a potential reading situation can also be a headache to do all the time.
However, I believe that perhaps I have to learn to pay the price of learning to master the English language. This cost may be lower than other alternatives.
I agree with Bazerman’s statement that “reading and writing go hand in hand” (Bazerman, 2010) because the better I read, the better I can write. It is very logical because without the knowledge I will gain from reading better, I will naturally have no storage of information to draw from for my writing. Reading with the English language itself can be a challenge because it is not my first language. The English meanings, which obviously are naturally conditioned by the British or the American culture, will be hard to access in all its fullness. My first language may as well interfere with the interpretation of meanings in the English language. Thus, I will need more reading in the English literature, or the literature in English, understand the cultural contexts of these writings, and attempt to interpret more accurately the nuances in each English word I encounter in all materials I read, be they books, magazines, newspapers, or journals.
This is apparently what Bazerman (2010) referred to when he wrote about “getting a feel for the conversation”. It is about feeling the deeper cultural meanings in every word and idiom used in the conversation in order both to avoid offending the listeners and to harnessing the richness of the underlying culture in formulating my message and sending it through. Since written and oral conversations are complex (Bazerman, 2010), I need a certain level of mastery of the English language to effectively bring my message across with reasonable accuracy.
In effect, I need to aim at mastering the English language before I can use it to write concepts that I am very familiar with in my own culture, translating the language of that culture through the different cultural richness of the English language. Essentially, effective communication demands mastery of the language. It is not an easy task admittedly, but certainly an exciting one.
References
Bazerman, C. (2010). The informed writer: Using sources in the disciplines. (5th ed.). Fort Collins, CO: The WAC Clearinghouse.
