Authorship today – is it important?

Authorship… what is it?

Harold Love (2002) describes “Authorship” as “more helpful to define in relation to a series of functions performed during the creation of the work rather than as a single, coherent activity.”

He also describes it as “a form of human work” which validates “individual agency” (Love, 2002).

Attribution studies rarely find a true individual ‘author’ more often finding subtle traces of potential additional authors in the work (Love, 2002).

Does it matter if one takes credit for all?

According to Mark Rose, “Authors do not really create in any literal sense, but rather produce text through complex processes of adaptation and transformation.” (Rose, 1993 p.8)

Does that mean that since we are never actually creating anything new, authorship is in fact irrelevant? Or should the term authorship be restricted to the creation of original ideas and not just how existing ideas are put into words?

If, for example, an author wrote a novel, but their editor changed the language, should they both be accredited as authors? Many would say that it would depend on whether the style had been changed or if new information had been added.

Authorship, is it relevant today?

Authorship continues to be of interest, especially in the press.

The ‘Stieg Larsson’ authorship case has been widely discussed recently in the media. They question whether the Swedish author actually wrote the novels accredited to him. These novels became increasingly popular after the author’s death in 2004. For a news link on this case, click here.

It appears that Stieg Larrson was never considered by his colleagues to be a particularly good writer, which has led to the suspicion that his life partner, Eva Gabrielsson, may have been the talent behind the works. If, as the evidence suggests, this was the case, why did they not publish the book under co-authorship?

Link for Stieg Larrson Homepage.

Gender and authorship – is it still important?

In the past, women could not successfully publish literature under their own name. Do women today still feel the need to hide behind a male pseudonym?

Can the gender of the author be deciphered through the texts they write? Many feel that particularly the characters in a novel betray the gender of the author (Love, 2002).

So is it possible that, in the Stieg Larsson case, his partner did not feel they would sell as many books if her name were on the cover? Or did she feel that the books would not even be published if she were co-author? Do men today still get more opportunities than women? Or did Stieg feel he needed a ‘female’ touch to his books?

So is Authorship still important today?

Yes, authorship still appears to be as important as ever, though much has changed. There are now many successfully published women, J.K.Rowling being one of the most famous and wealthy.

In the Stieg Larsson case, it is possible that Stieg himself came up with the ideas for his novels and his partner Eva merely reviewed his work. Or it could have been a joint project and she did not mind him taking the credit. Or she may have felt that her name should have been on the cover, but Stieg believed that, because the basic ideas were his, he should be the sole author. Regardless of Eva’s reasoning, the public appears to want the name of the person who wrote the words to be on the cover.

References:

· Love, H. (2002) Attributing Authorship: An Introduction. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

· Rose, M. (1993) Authors and Owners: The Invention of Copyright. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.

Bhatia’s (2004) Move Analysis

Bhatia’s (2004) Move Analysis is often used to evaluate promotional texts. He identifies nine “moves”, claiming: “One of the most important moves in advertising discourse is ‘offering a product description’ that is good, positive and favourable”.

But is it really?

Bhatia’s (2004) Move Analysis:
1. Headlines (for reader attraction)
2. Targeting the market
3. Justifying the product or service
4. Detailing the product or service
5. Establishing credentials
6. Celebrity or typical user endorsement
7. Offering incentives
8. Using pressure tactics
9. Soliciting response

Contrary to Bhatia’s (2004) view, many advertising campaigns appear to be highlighting other moves more predominantly, such as offering incentives (7).

For example: The Economist produced a sample edition of their newspaper targeting the student market. In the actual adverting leaflet (see images above) in the centre of the magazine, the product is barely discussed let alone highlighted. It was clearly not necessary to detail the product, as they were providing a sample. However this still means that the advertising documentation predominantly highlighted the incentives (7) of the purchase and soliciting a response (9), conflicting with Bhatia’s (2004) own views.

So what makes one “move” more important than the others?

The order of priority of the “moves” will depend on the individual advertising campaign. In The Economist example, soliciting a response (9) appears to have been a priority. A whole page of the leaflet was used for the potential customer to provide their details and actually purchase the offer detailed in the advertisement.

Unlike The Economist example, offering incentives (7) would be less important for the promotion of luxury goods as this is less likely to appeal to the target audience. Promoters of luxury goods are more likely to emphasize establishing credentials (5) and user endorsement (6), whereas a promoter of a new brand/product would be much more inclined to highlight what the product does and why it is needed, as Bhatia (2004) suggests.

The “moves” chosen are thus dependent not only on the product being promoted but also on the stage of the product within its life cycle.

As we have already established, the relative importance of the “moves” will not be the same for all advertising campaigns. For The Economist example the importance would be ranked like this:

1. Header – this would probably be one of the most important “moves” in the majority of advertising texts, as it attracts the reader’s attention. An advertisement without an audience is worthless!
2. Targeting the market – again important for most campaigns, The Economist example is aimed at students which is clear from the frequent use of the word ‘student’ in the leaflet.
3. Offering incentives – the leaflet is full of incentives, which are particularly appropriate for their target audience.
4. Soliciting response – a whole page of the leaflet is dedicated to this “move”. The consumer is able to purchase the offer detailed immediately - an effective way to capture potential buyers interest (and money) whilst they still have all the incentives in front of them.
5. Detailing the product – the leaflet does little to detail the product, it states what type of articles can be expected by claiming that The Economist would provide ‘a truly international perspective’ etc.
6. Establishing credentials – this “move” has lower priority, as the campaign would assume that their target audience, students, would know who and what The Economist is and what they do.
7. Justifying the product – not a priority as the justification hides behind the incentives of this advertisement.
8. Using pressure tactics – pressure tactics are barely used in this text, the targeted words such as ‘inquisitive’ could imply that one must read the newspaper in order not to be considered “boring”.
9. Celebrity or typical user endorsement – no celebrity is used in this leaflet so this “move” is not used in The Economist example

Bhatia’s (2004) Move Analysis provides an excellent base both for creating and analyzing advertising text. The individual “moves” may differ in priority depending on the campaign, its target audience and main focus. Some “moves” may not be applicable to a particular promotional text. Writers of such texts are advised to consider the “moves”, but prioritize them according to their product, enabling them to exclude any irrelevant “moves” and add their own “moves” to address any unique needs that they may have.

References:
•Bhatia, V.K. (2004) Worlds of Written Discourse: A Genre-based View. London: Continuum.

Bhatia’s Three Level Analysis

“View the chronological development of the field in terms of three main phases, each one highlighting at least one major concern in the analysis of written discourse.” (Bhatia, 2004, p. 3)

What does this mean?

The three levels of analysis are:

1. First phase – Textualisation of lexico-grammatical resources

2. Second phase – regularities of organisation of discourse

3. Third phase – highlighting contextualisation of discourse

(Bhatia, 2004)

Textualisation includes the observation of functional adjectives, which Bhatia identifies for advertising texts is: “(Determiner) (Adjective) (Adjective) (Adjective) ... Head (Qualifier)”. For which he uses the following example: “The world’s smallest and lightest digital camcorder that’s also a digital still camera.” Textualisation also analyses statements, facts and the use of pronouns, such as ‘we’ and ‘you’ in institutional text (Bhatia, 2004 p.6).

The organisation of discourse looks at the flow and structure of the text. It should answer the six ‘wh’ questions: why, what, where, who, when and how (Bhatia, 2004).

Contextualisation of discourse considers purpose, audience, socio-cultural aspects and context (Bhatia, 2004).

Who should use this model?

Bhatia’s three level model (2004) should be considered by a writer of promotional texts including promotional letters such as a project proposal. It could also be considered by someone analysing such documents.

How should the model be used?

The use of adjectives should be used to describe the product or service, in particular highlighting points of difference, such as in the above example by Bhatia (2004). Using pronouns such as ‘we’ and ‘you’ gives the reader a clear message of what ‘we’ (proposing firm) are providing the ‘you’ (them/potential customer).

The six ‘wh’ questions (mentioned above) can be used as a guideline or checklist to ensure the text is fulfilling all its requirements. Hatton (2007) however suggest a structure which includes only three of the questions, which are:

• Why – What is the problem and what are the benefits?
• How – What is the proposed approach or solution?
• Why – Why should the proposed solution be chosen?

Contextualisation of discourse according to Bhatia (2004) considers: purpose, product, practice and players. This should focus the writer of promotional texts to focus on ‘why’ they are writing the text, and ‘what’ they want it to achieve. This further allows the writer to identify their target audience, depending on their product or service. Certain aspects of contextualisation of discourse overlap with the other levels.

Why use the model?

Using both Bhatia’s (2004) ‘wh’ questions and Hatton’s (2007) structure a well rounded project proposal can be established. The ‘wh’ questions focus predominately on promotional texts, where as Hatton (2007) builds the structure for the proposal.

In fact I propose that Bhatia’s (2004) questions can be inserted into Hatton’s (2007) structure:

• Why – What is the problem and what are the benefits?
• What - is the problem?
• Where – is the problem?
• How – What is the proposed approach or solution?
• Who – has a solution?
• How – will it work?
• Why – Why should the proposed solution be chosen?
• Why – should it be chosen?
• When – proposed timing
  
  

This structure would need to be adapted depending on the product or service.

All three levels of analysis highlight objectives of promotional writing, by following such a structure the writer can be assured to be on track with the aim of their writing.

For a writer of promotional texts it would be advised that they consider the third level first –identifying the purpose, audience, etc. The second level, the ‘wh’ questions should be considered next, they will give more direction as to what the text should consist of. Hatton’s (2007) structure should also be taken into consideration at this point. Finally the first level should be taken into account, ensuring that adjectives are being used effectively and the structure of the sentences re-enforces the overall message and mood of the text.

Throughout this blog entry I have used four of the ‘wh’ questions, using Hatton’s (2007) structure and the adapted sub-‘wh’ questions by Bhatia (2004). Six were not used as it wasn’t relevant to promote this theory. By using the questions and the structure I hope to have successfully given an outline on Bhatia’s (2004) Three Level Analysis.

References:

• Bhatia, V.K. (2004) Worlds of Written Discourse: A Genre-based View. London: Continuum.
• Hatton, A. (2007) The Definitive Business Pitch. London: Prentice Hall.