Re: **Defining Tech Comm**

Subject: Re: **Defining Tech Comm**
From: Romay Jean Sitze <rositze -at- NMSU -dot- EDU>
Date: Wed, 16 Nov 1994 08:50:20 -0700

On Tue, 15 Nov 1994, David Farkas wrote:

> But this perspective does remind us that readers bring their own
> individual backgrounds and idiosyncracies to any text they look at. We
> may say to ourselves that what we've written down is "clear" and "makes
> good sense." But meaning ultimately resides as much in our readers as in
> the texts we create.

Considering the multiple interpretations of postings to this list, I
should think that we have significant proof of this concept. I am
sometimes amazed at the number of different readings people come up with!
The idea that we bring to both our writing and our reading the whole
baggage of our previous experiences as well as our present mood, and that
this affects our interpretation of the words on the page, makes sense.
Certainly I have had the experience of reading something one day and
finding one meaning--and reading the same passage another day and
discovering a whole new way of looking at the subject.


RoMay Sitze rositze -at- nmsu -dot- edu

Practice makes perfect--or perfectly awful.
It depends on what you practice.


Previous by Author: Re: spoken & written usage: a response to two threads
Next by Author: Re: spoken & written usage
Previous by Thread: Re: **Defining Tech Comm**
Next by Thread: **Defining Tech Comm**

What this post helpful? Share it with friends and colleagues:

Sponsored Ads