Writing Analytically, 6th Edition - Rosenwasser, David & Stephen, Jill.original_ [33]
don’t assume you know the meanings of words you encounter
assume instead that words may have more than one clear meaning, depending on context.
How Paraphrase × 3 Unlocks Implications: An Example
Like the “So what?” question, paraphrasing is an effective way of bringing out implications, meanings that are there in the original but not overt. And especially if you paraphrase the same passage repeatedly, you will discover which of the words are most “slippery”—elusive, hard to define simply and unambiguously.
Let’s look at a brief example of Paraphrase × 3. The sentence comes from a book entitled The Literature Workshop by Sheridan Blau.
“A conviction of certainty is one of the most certain signs of ignorance and may be the best operational definition of stupidity” (213).
Absence of doubt is a clear indication of cluelessness and is perhaps the top way of understanding the lack of intelligence.
A feeling of being right is one of the most reliable indexes of lack of knowledge and may show in action the meaning of mental incapacity.
Being confident that you are correct is a foolproof warning that you don’t know what’s going on, and this kind of confidence may be an embodiment of foolishness.
Having arrived at these three paraphrases, we can use them to explore what they suggest—i.e., their implications. Here is a short list. Once you start paraphrasing, you discover that there’s a lot going on in this sentence.
One implication of the sentence is that as people come to know more and more, they feel less confident about what they know.
Another is that ignorance and stupidity are probably not the same thing though they are often equated.
Another is that there’s a difference between feeling certain about something and being aware of this certainty as a conviction.
Another implication is that stupidity is hard to define—perhaps it can only be defined in practice, “operationally,” and not as an abstract concept.
As we paraphrased, we were struck by the repetition of “certainty” in “certain,” which led us to wonder about the tone of the passage. Tone may be understood as the implicit point of view, the unspoken attitude of the statement towards itself and its readers. The piece overtly attacks “a conviction of certainty” as “a sign of ignorance” and perhaps (“may be”) “a definition of stupidity.” So by implication, being less sure you are right would be a sign of wisdom. But the statement itself seems extremely sure of itself, brimming with confidence: it asserts “a certain sign.”
One implication of this apparent contradiction is that we are meant to take the statement with a grain of salt; read it as poking fun at itself (ironically)— demonstrating the very attitude it advises us to avoid.
* * *
Try This 2.6: Experiment with Paraphrase 3 3
Recast the substantive language of the following statements using Paraphrase × 3:
“I am entitled to my opinion.”
“We hold these truths to be self-evident.”
“That’s just common sense.”
What do you come to understand about these remarks as a result of paraphrasing? Which words, for example, are most slippery (that is difficult to define and thus rephrase), and why?
It is interesting to note, by the way, that Thomas Jefferson originally wrote the words “sacred and undeniable” in his draft of the Declaration of Independence, instead of “self-evident.” So what?
* * *
* * *
Try This 2.7: Paraphrase and Implication
Two recent books on Abraham Lincoln offer a fascinating conflict in their accounts of the president’s death. Use paraphrase to discuss the difference between these two accounts.
a. “Now he belongs to the ages”—Edwin Stanton, Lincoln’s Secretary of War, as Lincoln expired, according to Doris Kearns Goodwin in Team of Rivals.
versus
b. “Now he belongs to the angels”—Edwin Stanton, Lincoln’s Secretary of War, as Lincoln expired, according to James L. Swanson in Manhunt.
You