I am reviewing the article the Critical Tradition The article starts by saying that conversation is inevitable when it comes

to human communication. The main focus is to highlight the important of conversation. This is achieved through how what language we use creates social division, but it also empowers us no matter what group we belong to. This is the idea of egalitarian. So this is equality; its not who you are but what you say. The first theory is Fern Johnsons language-centred perspective based in the US. He poses 6 assumptions for his theory 1. All individuals possess implied cultural knowledge through which they communicate 2. In multicultural society, there is a dominant linguistic ideology that marginalises other cultural groups 3. Members of these groups possess knowledge about both their background and the dominant ideology 4. Cultural knowledge is passed down and constantly changing The meaning you make from conversation in a particular discourse depends on your cultural knowledge. If a group of people from 5 different cultural backgrounds are talking in a circle, whilst they are all speaking English, they may take things differently. He also mentions that the power of one language group over another in the US. The belief that there must be a single dominant language in a single country I suppose this is true for a lot of western cultures- we expect people to know English because it is easy for us to communicate that way. He goes through 4 cultural discourses Gender African American Hispanic Asian American He puts them in 4 settings Health care Legal setting Education Workplace He did this because these 4 groups are considered to be treated differently across these settings. One example given was: African Americans using broken english or slang in classrooms where teachers insist of them speaking standard english English only workplaces

The purpose of Fern Johnsons study was to promote a more fair way of seeing communication in the US given that it is so multicultural. The next part of the article was invitation rhetoric When we try to persuade someone of something, we are trying to get them to change their minds and see our viewpoint. Persuasion is described as a kind of violence because you are essentially imposing on someones thoughts and beliefes and everyone has the right to think what they want. my perspective is right and yours is wrong Denies integrity of other person Perspectivs are developed from our life experiences Equality means that you value everyone elses perspective Inviational rhetoric means you invite someone to consider your perspective without trying to change their mind. Its up to their indivisual whether they want to adopt your Primary goal is a clarification of ideas If change is self chosen, then it because of insight not influence When we deliberately expose ourselves to more ideas, we have more opportunities for understanding The article goes on to describe the different rhetoric The first one is conquest rhetoric Where the goal is to win the conversation Most prevalent in society Law/politics Conversion rhetoric Change others perspectives based on being more right Religious/social groups Benevolent rhetoric Designed to improve peoples lives Health campaigns, self help books etc Influence you for the better Advisory rhetoric Exposing yourselves to different opinions Counselling and schooling Conquest is DEFAULT. Our world is very hostile We should move into an environment where intivation rhetoric is dominant This class is probably a good example of invitational rhetoric The four things to ensure this: freedom, safety, value and openness

The last part just goes through how while conversations are not scripted, they are organised. This is because people follow certain codes and rules when they talk to each other. Also they depend what context they take place in.