Words like romantic, plastic, values, human, dead, sentimental, natural, vitality, as used in art criticism, are strictly meaningless, in the sense that they not only do not point to any discoverable object, but are hardly even expected to do so by the reader.
To me, this really points out that all of the writing that I do should have some sort of meaning
while writing that aims at glorifying war usually takes on an archaic colour, its characteristic words being: realm, throne, chariot, mailed fist, trident, sword, shield, buckler, banner, jackboot, clarion.
Dressing up the language can make the writer seem somewhat more credible or knowledgable, even if what they are saying is not true. These are things to look out for
The first is staleness of imagery; the other is lack of precision. The writer either has a meaning and cannot express it, or he inadvertently says something else, or he is almost indifferent as to whether his words mean anything or not.
Are these faults always faults, or is it just that they become faulty in the context that it is in?
It becomes ugly and inaccurate because our thoughts are foolish, but the slovenliness of our language makes it easier for us to have foolish thoughts.
I think that noticing this process in really anything is super important.
language is a natural growth and not an instrument which we shape for our own purposes.
I think that this is really cool to think about. We put a lot of focus on English, and it really is a tool that helps us to improve other things.
The inclination to direct more energy to that which arrives last in a sentence seems to correspond to the way we work at tasks through time. We tend to take something like a "mental breath" as we begin to read each new sentence,
This is super interesting to think about. Important material not communicated in an effective way can lead to the reader not fully understanding what is going on
Will this passage lead us to further discussion about URF's, or about Complex I, or both?
Really this whole paragraph reminds me of the class discussion on cohesion and coherence. Both are super important for people to be able to understand material.
A research article, for example, is generally divided into recognizable sections, sometimes labeled Introduction, Experimental Methods, Results and Discussion.
This goes back to an earlier annotation about familiarity with structure can help a reader understand new concepts that are being introduced
It may be that the very familiarity of the tabular structure makes it easier to use.
To me, familiarity with one part of context when there might be more new information involved is really helpful and important
This methodology of reader expectations is founded on the recognition that readers make many of their most important interpretive decisions about the substance of prose based on clues they receive from its structure.
This is important to keep in mind when writing because we need to be writing in a way that all aspects of writing draw attention to the right things