The statement that struck me the most in Stroupe's article was on page 611, when he says "Any pairing of instructional impulse could serve the comparison that follows because we are concerned with what is happening on the level not so much of technique or even theory, but of cultural impulse: that of verbal development as opposed to visual display." That really struck me simply because the study of literary theory and theories of writing hadn't changed that significantly. We always try to explore the "political landscapes that engross writing in general, while studying less of how technique is used in technical writing through visual backdrops such as the web.
Similar to Hill's article, I found the page where he discusses how much meaning can occur from technical documents. One would believe that giving simple instructions or explain certain situations in the most mundane, scientific fashion wouldn't require being analyzed to find hidden meanings. It is interesting to see how much language can carry through to give more meaning and purpose than originally intended.
Regarding your comment on "added meaning," I was just wondering during class yesterday, how much of the meaning ascribed to Shakespeare was actually what he meant to say. Once his plays became 'serious literature' in the minds of later scholars, there was a field day of 'supposing.'
ReplyDeleteWish we could have a nice conversation with the Bard, about his original intent.
Language is indeed "loaded" with all sorts of meaning, reflecting the times, the society, the author. That probably even applies to technical and scientific texts.
Baudrillard's quote:"We live in a world where there is more and more information, and less and less meaning," is true. And maybe that's part of why Literature lovers will always be searching for those deeper meanings, whether they are there or not...