Adam Tang

October 14, 2022

Writ 1-5

A Perspective on Language

Language – the formulation and propagation of abstract concepts – gives power to

human thought. It allows us to influence one another’s ways of thinking, providing a

basis for mutual progress, not just individual progress. However, while it is a powerful

tool, it is imperfect. The limitations of language, for example, present a barrier to

conveying intentions in persuasive writing. Because everyone has diverse backgrounds

and perceives language differently, one may misconstrue or not understand another’s

argument. Thus, writing only approximates the ideal transfer of ideas. This begs the

question: how can we overcome this barrier?

The answer boils down to one thing: perspective. I fully realized the potential of

external perspectives while drafting this portfolio’s other essay, which analyzes the

choices of a government document through the lens of a documentary. Although I knew

what main ideas I wanted to use, I had difficulties presenting and organizing them. The

writing process gave me opportunities to evaluate my writing with peers and instructors,

whose interpretations, suggestions, and feedback helped me restructure my essay and

gear it toward a broader audience. Not only did engaging in discussion with peers about
my work and seeking out diverse perspectives build a rich context that enhanced my

argument in successive drafts, but it also provided me with a reader’s view that informed

me of optimal ways to accurately convey my thoughts and to establish a logical flow.

The perspectives others contributed while drafting clarified the intentions for my

paper and released the full potential of my thoughts. Especially toward the beginning of

the writing process, I struggled to explain and organize my ideas. In my first outline, my

thesis was: “The views on water usage and rights presented in River’s End [the

documentary] and the California Water Supply Strategy [the government document]

contrast greatly, as indicated by the purposeful framing of problems causing current

issues in water supply, as well as both explicit and implicit visions for the future of water

supply and usage, especially regarding agriculture” (Tang, 9/11/2022, 1). This thesis was

hardly arguable; more importantly, though, it set up the remainder of the essay to be a list

of points rather than a coherent essay. I had a vision for the paper, but I could not bring

my ideas together in writing. Without external perspectives, I would have been stuck in

this state.

Laying out my ideas and talking about them with others helped me transfer my

ideas to paper more precisely. During a Writing Center appointment, I described my

stance and presented the relevant evidence to an assistant. Together, we went through my

thought process; meanwhile, she wrote what she believed I was trying to say on a

whiteboard, which aided me in extrapolate from my ideas and convert my ideas to

writing significantly. From this, we developed a stronger thesis: “…we see the biases and

inconsistencies in how the document frames the problem, makes assumptions about
circumstances, and proposes solutions…” (Tang, 10/2/2022, 2). This framing presented a

natural order to my points and gave my essay motivation and direction, laying out a path

from the problem to the solution. It was a stronger argument based on the same evidence.

The Writing Center visit elevated my writing by workshopping a claim that accurately

conveyed my ideas to their fullest extent.

On a local level, gaining the reader’s perspective ensured that the information is

clear and flows from one idea to the next. Because I had a view of the entire argument

while writing, my essay made unintended jumps in logic and referred to concepts the

audience might not know. Peer reviewing was an opportunity to remedy that; it allowed

me to see how those familiar and unfamiliar with the content responded to the text. In one

instance, I mentioned a concept – “Big Agriculture” – without introducing it (Tang,

9/18/22, 1). After a peer pointed it out, I realized I had not explained Big Agriculture to

general agricultural practices because I assumed it was general knowledge. In addition, I

did not provide adequate context for either source used. Although it made sense to me,

outside reviewers found the material difficult to understand. In the words of a reader, “the

evidence is very well picked but needs to be introduced much more than it currently is”

(Long, 9/20/22). After the first peer review, I realized I had to write with the audience in

mind.

Armed with the reader’s perspective, I refined my essay, providing a more

complete context of the subject, California water management, as well as of individual

evidence. In subsequent drafts, I aimed to bring readers to a greater understanding of the

subject in addition to convincing them of my claim. (EVIDENCE) The reviews pushed

my writing toward a fuller essay that guided the reader through the argument.

External perspectives are indispensable to the writer because they reveal how

readers perceive an argument and how to better communicate the points presented in the

essay. Establishing a dialogue between the reader and writer through peer review clarifies

the views of both parties, leading to more precise writing. Through a comprehensive

writing process, I was able to communicate as clearly as possible and to take my writing

to its limits.