Communication As Translation: Analogies in the Basic Course by Lee M. Pierce, PhD University of Georgia Author Note: An audio version of this material is available at: Per the Fair Use Clause of the U.S. Copyright Office this material is available for reproduction in specific circumstances noted below. However, the author would appreciate the following accreditation upon distribution: Materials reproduced and/or adapted from Lee M. Pierce, “Communication as Translation: Analogies in the Basic Course,” Department of Communication Studies, University of Georgia, 2015, (insert document retrieval URL and date of retrieval). 107: Limitations on exclusive rights: Fair Use Notwithstanding the provisions of section 106, the fair use of a copyrighted work, including such use by reproduction in copies or phone records or by any other means specified by that section, for purposes such as criticism, comment, news reporting, teaching (including multiple copies for classroom use), scholarship, or research, is not an infringement of copyright. In determining whether the use made of a work in any particular case is a fair use, the factors to be considered shall include: 1.The purpose and character of the use, including whether such use is of a commercial nature or is for nonprofit educational purposes; 2.the nature of the copyrighted work; 3.the amount and substantiality of the portion used in relation to the copyrighted work as a whole; and 4.the effect of the use upon the potential market for or value of the copyrighted work. (added pub. l 94-553, Title I, 101, Oct 19, 1976, 90 Stat 2546)
Transcript
Communication As Translation: Analogies in the Basic Course
by
Lee M. Pierce, PhD
University of Georgia
Author Note:
An audio version of this material is available at:
Per the Fair Use Clause of the U.S. Copyright Office this material is available for reproduction in specific circumstances noted below. However, the author would appreciate the following accreditation upon distribution: Materials reproduced and/or adapted from Lee M. Pierce, “Communication as Translation: Analogies in the Basic Course,” Department of Communication Studies, University of Georgia, 2015, (insert document retrieval URL and date of retrieval).
107: Limitations on exclusive rights: Fair Use
Notwithstanding the provisions of section 106, the fair use of a copyrighted work, including such use by reproduction in copies or phone records or by any other means specified by that section, for purposes such as criticism, comment, news reporting, teaching (including multiple copies for classroom use), scholarship, or research, is not an infringement of copyright. In determining whether the use made of a work in any particular case is a fair use, the factors to be considered shall include:
1.The purpose and character of the use, including whether such use is of a commercial nature or is for nonprofit educational purposes; 2.the nature of the copyrighted work; 3.the amount and substantiality of the portion used in relation to the copyrighted work as a whole; and 4.the effect of the use upon the potential market for or value of the copyrighted work. (added pub. l 94-553, Title I, 101, Oct 19, 1976, 90 Stat 2546)
Introduction: Perspectives not Information Before you start reading, grab a pen and at the bottom of this page write down the first 5 words you think of when you hear the word “communication.” Got it? Okay. Where does your list fall in between the two columns below? Does your cluster generally fall in with Column A or Column B? Maybe a little bit of both?
Column A Column B Objective Expert Facts Useful Instruction
Hopefully your list has a little bit of Column A and a little of Column B but if you’re mostly hanging out in Column A, no worries. That impulse is understandable—it’s an effect of how we are conditioned in early education. When we are little kids we run around asking questions, shouting opinions, and acting on pure impulse. Schools work hard to help discipline our decision making, encouraging us to research and support our opinions with something we can measure. We generally call this the “scientific method.” Often, however, this correction becomes an over-‐correction. Soon, we are obsessed with objectivity. “Opinion” turns into a dirty word and our essays are filled with number after number and quote after quote from people with PhDs. What gets lost in this way of thinking is this: all information is perspective. Put differently, objectivity is just a kind of subjectivity or there are only subjectivities. At least, if you want to say anything worth hearing, there are only subjectivities. If we are standing in a room with a red wall and you say, “that wall is red” I’m not going to argue with you. But still, it’s not a factual statement, it’s an accurate descriptive statement and descriptions are subjective, though some are further from being empirically verifiable (observable) than others. I could push you on the word “red.” Maybe the wall is actually berry, crimson, or persimmon? But in the end it wouldn’t much make a difference to most of us? If the wall is red, if the wall is crimson…it doesn’t matter. It’s the same thing with information, if you are being objective, then rest assured, no one cares about what you are saying. What do people care about? Perspectives. Perspectives are informed, researched, supported, developed, experted, data-‐filled claims that are useful, interesting, enjoyable, storied, analogied, understandable translations about things (I use that term loosely) in our symbolic reality. Notice I am not limiting us to Column B. You need both to produce a good perspective. Perspectives aren’t just randomly formed opinions, shouted from nowhere with no support. They are claims supported by different subjectivities, from scientific to emotional, from PhD to your next-‐ door neighbor. Therein lies the informative rub: offer only Column B, everyone wants to hear your speech but no one believes you. Offer only Column A, however, and everyone believes you but no one cares. Hence the title of this unit is not “Informative Speaking with Cold Hard Facts” or “You Don’t Need Research.” It’s, “Perspectives not Information.” How are we going to achieve this mythical, elusive, well-‐balanced mélange of Column A and Column B? First, we will assess our informative rhetorical situation and think of every speech or text as the “working through of a problem.” Two, we will stop pretending that language just transmits stuff like a truck and start thinking about the truck, both on a small scale as style and on a larger scale as disposition or arrangement. Three, we will treat experts and statistics like salt, needed in small quantities, and start using our other rhetorical “spices”: our S.U.P.P.O.R.T.S.
S.U.P.P.O.R.T.S. & Evidence1 If style, the second canon of disposition, illustrates or reinforces a speech’s main perspective, central idea, or thesis statement through the artful deviation of words (tropes) and arrangement (schemes) at the sentence-‐level, then evidence does the same at the mid-‐level of the speech and far more explicitly. You might also think of it this way: stylistic devices are the building block of evidence are the building block of main claims are the building block of a central idea. Often used synonymously with research, data, experts, or statistics, evidence does and should include those things but is not reducible to them. On the contrary, the key to evidence is variety, assembling different types of evidence in order to produce a synergistic effect by compensating for weaknesses with strengths. This is an extremely difficult task, perhaps even more difficult than composing stylistically effective sentences because of evidence’s visibility. Whereas an audience usually can’t identify the stylistic mis-‐steps in a speech they don’t like (though one of the reasons they don’t like it is because the style was ineffective), they can probably point out weaknesses in the evidence. Stylistic maneuvers, though powerful, often go unnoticed and are comprised of just a few words. Evidence, however, is usually the most scrutinized aspect of a speech and usually exists in big chunks, sometimes taking minutes to complete. In other words, evidence has middle child syndrome: the youngest (style) gets away with everything and the oldest (main claims) gets to call the shots while the middle child usually gets most of the blame but none of the perks. If the situation isn’t mitigated by a particular parenting style or attention in school, middle children can become indecisive, disinterested, and apathetic. Don't let that happen to your evidence! Do what most well adjusted middle children do: enjoy the flexibility your position allows and play around with different personalities, behavioral styles, and roles. That is to say, variety is the key to effectively leveraging your evidence so it is both effective and affective. They say, “Variety is the spice of life,” so it makes sense that variety is also the spice of evidence. A speech, like any good culinary creation, needs a good recipe with plenty of room for a pinch of this and a dash of this. Our evidence recipe for a great speech is S.U.P.P.O.R.T.S: Stories, Universals, Parallels, Proofs, Occurrences, Rebuttals, Testimony, and Statistics. Independently, these aren’t hard concepts to understand; the tricky part is varying them strategically to produce a synergistic outcome. For that, I will provide a reference chart with some general guidelines for use.
Stories (narratives). Stories can be “real” (actually happened), “hypothetical,” (could happen), or “allegorical” (a resolution from one situation used to illustrate a resolution in another situation). Stories are narratives but rather than taking up the entire speech, they are just a small part. That said, stories are the longest piece of evidence because they require all of the parts of the plot to be effective. If they are adequately developed, they will reap all the benefits discussed previously. However, if they are adequately developed they will also take a lot of time, so one story per speech is all you need. Also, one of the big benefits of a story, its ability to involve the audience in a singular experience, is also its biggest weakness. Stories are unrepresentative. Even in a class of just 27 students, the experience of one student can hardly be taken as the norm. To avoid this weakness, pair stories with more representative options, such as Universals, or Statistics. Finally, if you select a narrative organizational pattern for the speech, think twice about (but still consider) including a story as a piece of evidence.
1 S.U.P.P.O.R.T.S. is adapted from the V.A.S.E.S. model presented in Susan Huxman and Karlyn Kohrs Campbell,
Universals. Universals are well circulated, generally accepted truths (bumper stickers, aphorisms, clichés, catchphrases, or slogans) without clear origins or authors. Universals are a form of testimony but their credibility comes from their circulation rather than their expertise or authority. Examples include: “well behaved women rarely make history,” “two in the hand is worth two in the bush,” and the golden rule. Universals gain quick agreement but rarely hold up to scrutiny because they oversimplify and generalize. Use universals as points of departure rather than absolute fact and pair with more specific, unrepresentative or empirically verifiable evidence including occurrences and stories. Parallels (analogies). You may have noticed by now that I am using the word “translation” quite a bit in this section. Central to this course is the perspective that communication, teaching, and rhetoric are all fundamentally practices of translation. That idea is analogous to the central idea of the style reading: all language is fundamentally metaphorical. Words do not refer to things; they refer to other words, which refer to other words. So if you want to communicate effectively and get something close to what’s inside your head inside your audience’s head then you need to be translating, all the time. One way you translate is by choosing effective words, stylistic devices, and metaphors. Another way you translate is through analogies, or parallels. Parallels are extended metaphors that illustrate an unknown thing/idea by transferring a tenor from a known thing/idea. Metaphors and parallels work the same way, transferring tenors, but metaphors do so more quickly because they are used often and so the tenor is kind of automatic. For instance, if I say, “my roommate (unknown vehicle) is a pig (known vehicle)” you instantly know the tenor I mean: messy, sloppy, etc. You know this because that phrase is used so often that the transfer is nearly automatic. Suppose, however, that I said, “My roommate (unknown vehicle) is so Real Housewives (known vehicle).” Now, the right audience would instantly get the tenor: extra, entitled, bratty, diva. Another audience might get it a little bit, but a good portion of the population wouldn’t know what that meant. If the tenor isn’t clear almost immediately from the selection of the unknown vehicle, then the metaphor won’t work. In which case, you have two options: pick another vehicle and keep the metaphor, or, if there’s no suitable vehicle to produce the desired tenor (often the case when the unknown vehicle is more complex than a roommate), develop a parallel. Parallels work the say way as metaphors except a considerable amount of time (two sentences, four sentences, a paragraph) are spent to describe the known vehicle so that the tenor is crystal clear and the audience can effectively transfer it from the translation to the original, unknown vehicle. For an example of an effective parallel, look at the introduction to this reading where I try to describe a particular perspective on evidence. I was trying to illustrate evidence’s “middle-‐ness.” Partly, I used personification to get my point across (comparing evidence to a middle child) but mostly I used a parallel:
In other words, evidence has middle child syndrome: the youngest (style) gets away with everything and the oldest (main claims) gets to call the shots while the middle child usually gets most of the blame but none of the perks. If the situation isn’t mitigated by a particular parenting style or attention in school, middle children can become indecisive, disinterested, and apathetic. Don't let that happen to your evidence! Do what most well adjusted middle children do: enjoy the flexibility your position allows and play around with different personalities, behavioral styles, and roles. That is to say, variety is the key to effectively leveraging your evidence so it is both effective and affective.
Before I began the parallel, I introduced and tried to briefly describe the unknown vehicle: evidence. To begin the analogy, I made a clear connection between “evidence” and “middle child” (known vehicle) by using a combination of personification (the verb “has” gives physical agency to
an inanimate object) and a signaling phrase, “in other words.” Then, having made the connection, I spent several sentences carefully describing only middle children, selecting details that directly supported my tenor, using synonyms to make my tenor clear, and pushing the details further to make the parallel more vivid and therefore clearer. I kept the parallel alive by mentioning evidence quickly (Don’t let that happen to your evidence!) but I stayed focus on developing the known vehicle so the audience could really get involved in the description. Then, after I was satisfied the tenor was clear, I anchored the tenor back in the unknown vehicle, evidence, with the last sentence. If done well, parallels are amazingly effective, entertaining, persuasive, engaging, fun for the audience, and fun to deliver. However, because they are intricate, creative writing exercises they take a lot of time to develop and deliver, so treat them as you word narratives: use sparingly, develop thoroughly, and pair with less creative S.U.P.P.O.R.T.S. such as statistics, occurrences, testimony or rebuttals. Parallels are without a doubt my favorite of all the S.U.P.P.O.R.T.S. (and often the least utilized in speeches) and that is why I am having you practice them specifically in the Take Home Problems for this reading. Proofs. Most S.U.P.P.O.R.T.S. have empirical variability – they have referents in the world. Proofs do not. They draw legitimacy from their rhetorical performance. Proofs rhetorically perform the claim being made and, in being performed, make the claim viable. Campbell & Huxman explain, “Strategies of proof resemble or mimic logical arguments. Through the identification and participation of the audience, they invite the audience to provide material that will justify a claim or conclusion.”2 Proofs are part style; part evidence and they strengthen the speech by showcasing a speaker’s rhetorical skill, making language work in support of a claim. Because proofs are self-‐referential they can sound preachy or old-‐fashioned (but don’t have to). Historically, proofs were widely accepted as evidence. However, our scientific culture may become suspicious if the linguistic play becomes obvious. Therefore, keep proofs short and pair with more stereotypically credible evidence including statistics, occurrences, and testimony. We will leave proofs for now because they will be discussed at length in Unit III.
Occurrences. Also called “case studies” or “anecdotes,” occurrences should be used when you have an actual event or example that supports your claim but don’t want to use a Story. Suppose your speech claimed that the founding fathers were all a bunch of riff-‐raff. The duel between Hamilton and Burr would be a great piece of evidence. A few well-‐written sentences with some effectively placed details to communicate the riff-‐raff tenor should be all you need. If possible, it’s best to incorporate a statistic, parallel, or testimony into your occurrence to give it a little more meat. Because occurrences tend to be brief and kind of self-‐evident (the Hamilton-‐Burr duel is historically verified and screams “riff-‐raffiness”) speakers tend to use too many occurrences or move through them too quickly, creating audience overload. So, choose quality over quantity and careful pairings. That said, sometimes your goal is to overwhelm the audience in order to make them feel the scope or the magnitude of an idea, problem, or issue, sort of like a rhetorical performance of a quantity rather than presenting a statistic. In that case, use an extended occurrence. Rather than rather than just the Hamilton-‐Burr duel, briefly list several known instances of riff-‐raffiness. Used in conjunction with climax, this can produce a strong result that is both effective and affective. However, extended occurrences can be hard to deliver. The necessary density, description, parallelism, and ordering can be a lot for just a writer, let alone a speaker. If the delivery is of concern then it’s probably best to stick to a single occurrence and use 2 Karlyn Kohrs Campbell and Susan Huxman, “Resources of Argument.” Your Rhetorical Act, 3rd ed. (New York: Simon & Schuster, 2003), 106.
enumeration or polysyndeton to achieve the desired affect. Otherwise, use sparingly and select subject matter with which you are really familiar and very interested to make delivery easier. Rebuttals. Rebuttals are negative evidence. Rather than supporting a claim, they pre-‐empt common objections or opposing arguments and address them. Rebuttals tend to work best when they are filled with other types of S.U.P.P.O.R.T.S. such as testimony, proofs, or occurrences. Used well, rebuttals can strengthen a speaker’s position but can also threaten to introduce doubts the audience may not have considered or make the speaker appear defensive or argumentative.
Testimony. Commonly called “experts,” testimonies depend on 1) the insight it adds to the speech and 2) credibility. Expert credibility is only one kind of credibility, typically associated with “authority” power or influence that comes from a set of official credentials such as a badge, a PhD, or a title. Often those credentials do matter. We can be relatively sure that a PhD in Behavioral Psychology knows a thing or two about para-‐social behavior. However, my gamer brother can also speak extensively to that subject and he doesn’t have any credentials. He does, however, online game about 50 hours per week. He has “referent” or “peer” credibility, earned by someone who has thought deeply about, practiced, experienced, studied, or passionately pursued the subject at hand. Every speech should contain at least one piece of each type of testimony—authority/expert or referent/peer—but beyond that, audience analysis should drive the proportions. Let’s look at an example: Me: So I assume you are voting for Romney Dad? Dad: Sure am. Romney is a good businessman, just what this country needs.
Me: My political rhetoric professor Dr. Panetta says that Romney’s ability to make America into a business proposition is why he won the Republican nomination.
Dad: How much are we paying some fake Doctor to tell you the obvious? I’ve made two mistakes with my testimony here (and I’m not even trying to make an argument, I’m just trying to make small talk). First, I used bad audience analysis because my dad hates academics and refuses to call anyone “Doctor” without an M.D. Rather than assuming that all experts are created equal, I should have used a different expert, like Sean Hannity, or a referent, like Ted Nugent. If I had said, “I heard Ted Nugent say that Romney’s ability to make America…” my dad would have said, “Ted Nugent. Now there’s an American.” Regardless of the type of testimony you use, be sure that it has something interesting to say. Don’t just cite testimony for the credibility, make it do double duty: credibility and perspective. Testimony walks the line between singular and representative, quantitative and qualitative and can therefore be paired with any other S.U.P.P.O.R.T.S. Testimony often needs to be quoted directly, which can be a nightmare, so choose only eloquently expressed testimony, keep it short, paraphrase if necessary, and always translate/interpret what was said just as you would a statistic.
Statistics. Statistics are accents, flourishes, to be used sparingly and creatively to show scope or magnitude and fulfill your audience’s socially conditioned demand for “hard facts.” I hesitate to even include statistics because of the frequency and lack of creativity with which they are used. If I never taught S.U.P.P.O.R.T., I bet 79% of the evidence in the informative speeches would be statistics, experts, and a few short, undeveloped examples. So why include it? Two reasons: 1) Statistics, used effectively, are a great way to show the scope or magnitude of a problem. 2) People expect them so they need to be there. But remember, people do not make decisions based on statistics. Think about your most recent romantic interest, not just date, but flushed-‐cheeks-‐sweaty-‐palms interest. Did you pick him because you were 76% compatible on Match.com? No. Did you pick her because of the 40 girls you saw walk by you on campus she was one of the 11%
with a bike and of that 11% only one of two to wore a helmet? NO. Why? Because people don’t make decisions based on statistics. If a little kid has ever walked up and said, “I love you this much” and held their arms out absurdly wide (or in my case, held their thumb and pointer finger absurdly close together), then you know the impact of a good quantitative measurement. However, suppose you then posted to Facebook, “my nephew loves me 2 and a half feet”? It wouldn’t make any sense. And therein lies the statistics rub: numbers only show scope if they’ve got a translation to go with them. Numbers, like information, mean nothing by themselves. Suppose a week later you take your nephew to the grocery store and, when the clerk lets him scan his own candy bar, he holds his arms out absurdly wide and tell the clerk, “I love you this much.” You wouldn’t feel as special because your translation of the measurement has changed. His entire arm-‐span was significant vis-‐a-‐vis the size of his body—the width of his love vs. total arm length—but not vis-‐a-‐vis his general measurement for love with total strangers. Let’s look at a different example. “Your public speaking textbook costs $90.” Okay, $90. What does that mean? Is that expensive? “Your public speaking textbook has 320 pages so that is 28 cents per page.” Okay, 28 cents, that’s pretty good, right? “A Xerox Office supply store charges 20 cents for full color copy on glossy paper, similar to the one used in your text.” What? That’s it? I’m getting ripped off. “The average biology textbook, with 420 pages, costs $280.” What? Seriously? That’s nuts.” And I could go on and on, changing the units of comparison to change the relative significance of $90. So, more important than finding a representative quantity for your idea is to translate that quantity in a way that makes it meaningful for your audience (effectivity) and offers a perspective that enhances your central idea (affectivity). I underlined “and” so you will hopefully NOT do what most people do what I say translate a number: (statistic) “The amount of rainforest destroyed in Brazil each week is approximately 20 meters. (translation) “That’s about the size of Sanford Stadium.” Is the number more familiar to the audience? Yes. Is it meaningful? No. Is that a lot of rainforest? Does it grow back? How fast? How many Sanford Stadiums make up the Brazilian rainforest? You get my point.
Narratives that illustrate a resolution through plot structure
Audience involvement. Shows rather than tells.
Complicated. Long. Unrepresentative.
Only use once. Pair with shorter, representative evidence.
Universals a.k.a. Bumper Stickers
Generally held maxims, proverbs, slogans, principles or abstract “truths” usually without author or origin.
Digestible. Flexible. Representative.
Abstract. Reductive. Use as supplement. Pair with unrepresentative evidence.
Parallels a.k.a. Analogies
Makes an unknown vehicle known by transferring a specific tenor from a known vehicle
Translation. Audience involvement. Shows rather than tells.
Reductive (only one tenor). Abstract. Complicated.
Use metaphors when tenor is immediately apparent. Pair with less complicated evidence
Proofs a.k.a. Rhetorical Arguments
Evidence that words through style, performance, and linguistic play
Shows rather than tells. (Often) short. Stylistic.
Lack empirical reference. May be appear preachy or old-‐fashioned.
Keep short. Don't cluster. Pair with empirically verifiable evidence.
Occurrences a.k.a. Case Studies
Empirically verifiable examples or incidents
Empirically verifiable. Easy to use
Tell rather than show. Lack audience involvement.
Cluster for stronger impact (extended occurrences).
Rebuttals a.k.a. Refutations
Acknowledgement of and response to competing points of view that are commonly held in order to strengthen a position
Enhances credibility. Engages audience. Melds easily with other evidence. Helps the speaker consider weaknesses of position.
Speaker may appear defensive. Require careful audience analysis. May raise doubts that did not exist.
Only rebut objections that are likely held. Do not rebut for show. Ground rebuttals: use as form for testimony, occurrences, and statistics.
Testimony a.k.a. Experts (2 Types: Referent and Authority)
Explanations, claims, or interpretations from others made legitimate by credentials, experience, or quality of insight
Easy to use. Enhance speaker’s credibility. May add more insight to the speech’s perspective. Satisfy audience expectations (if not desires).
Complicates delivery. May miss their mark. Often sacrifice perspective for credentials. May be unrepresentative
Consider referential power and authority power. Translate. Quote directly only when eloquently expressed. Look for perspective not just credentials. Include credibility statement.
Statistics a.k.a. Quantifiable Evidence
Quantifiable measurements (numbers, percentages, study results, etc.)
Easily show scope or magnitude. Satisfy audience expectations (if not desires). Representative.
Always translate or interpret. Never pile up. Incorporate or pair with stores, occurrences, universals and analogies.
Preparatory Exercises 1. Use the Square-‐Triangle-‐Circle (STC) model to reflect on the lecture material-‐-‐especially
regarding the S.U.P.P.O.R.T.S. as evidence and “parallels”.
2. Watch Sandra Oh read Emma Goldman’s speech, “Patriotism: A Menace to Liberty” at https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YmUzd1ECLt8. Can you identify one of each type of S.U.P.P.O.R.T.S.? (First see if you can recall all of the parts of a plot on your own…I’ve given you some help by providing the first letter of each). What is Goldman’s central idea? How does her evidence illustrate (or fail to illustrate) that central idea? Do you notice any aporias? Does Goldman treat them as aporias?
3. Prepare a 30-‐second parallel (analogy) to share with the class. Your parallel may borrow material or be your own composition. It may re-‐use material from your previous assignments or try-‐out material planned for future assignments but may NOT directly utilize material provided by the instructor.
Student Name: Use the chart below to map the “Fresh Prince of Bel Air” analogy shown in class https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zqPNu5WsOEs Step 1) Leave the top row blank Step 2) As you watch the clip list the attributes of the “known vehicle” (KV) that Uncle Phil uses in the left column. On the right, list the correlates for those attributes in the “unknown vehicle” (UV). (Remember these won’t be actually spoken in the analogy; you have to supply them) Step 3) Brainstorm potential tenors with a partner Step 4) During class discussion we will settle on the “best” words to complete the top row of the chart KV= Tenor= UV=
3-Colulumn Chart for Constructing an Analogy of Self-Introduction
Student Name: Construct an analogy to prepare for the upcoming speech of self-‐introduction by completing the 3 Column Chart below using any object, person, place, thing, experience, event, etc. as your KV and yourself (personality, behavior, etc.) as your UV. Try and isolate a single tenor as you expand upon your list. KV= Tenor= UV=
Speaking Outline for Constructing an Analogy of Self-Introduction
Student Name: Construct an analogy to prepare for the upcoming speech of self-‐introduction using your primary KV, Tenor, and UV from your 3 Column Chart.
*Excerpts from a student speech of self-‐introduction outline prepared from the “3 Column Chart for Constructing an Analogy of Self-‐Introduction” (pp. 14 & 18 of this packet)
