Can you distinguish what is being said from how it is said?
In other words, what is a ‘proposition’?
Giving an operational definition of ‘proposition’ or of ‘propositional content’ is difficult. Turns out there’s a reason for that:
Metadiscourse does not simply support propositional content: it is the means by which propositional content is made coherent, intelligible and persuasive to a particular audience.
– Ken Hyland Metadiscourse p39.
I’m very struck by how the same content can be wrapped with different metadiscourse — resulting in different genres for distinct audiences. When the “same” content is reformulated, new meanings and emphasis may be added along the way. Popularization of science is rich in examples.
For instance, a Science article…
When branches of the host plant having similar oviposition sites were placed in the area, no investigations were made by the H. hewitsoni females.
gets transformed into a Scientific American article…
I collected lengths of P. pittieri vines with newly developed shoots and placed them in the patch of vines that was being regular revisited. The females did not, however, investigate the potential egg-laying sites I had supplied.
This shows the difficulty of making clean separations between the content and the metadiscourse:
“The ‘content’, or subject matter, remains the same but the meanings have changed considerably. This is because the meaning of a text is not just about the propositional material or what the text could be said to be about. It is the complete package, the result of an interactive process between the producer and receiver of a text in which the writer chooses forms and expressions which will best convey his or her material, stance and attitudes.
– Ken Hyland Metadiscourse p39
Example from Hyland (page 21), which credits Myers Writing Biology: Texts in the Social Construction of Scientific Knowledge 1990 (180).
Tags: aboutness, audience, context, genre theory, meaning, metadiscourse, popularization of science, scientific communication
Posted in argumentative discussions, PhD diary, scholarly communication | Comments (0)
Apple’s press release about its “new subscription services” seems at first innocuous, and the well-crafted quote from Steve Jobs has been widely reposted:
“when Apple brings a new subscriber to the app, Apple earns a 30 percent share; when the publisher brings an existing or new subscriber to the app, the publisher keeps 100 percent and Apple earns nothing.” Yet analysts reading between the lines have been less than pleased.
Bad for publishers
The problems for publishers? (See also “Steve Jobs to pubs: Our way or highway“)
- Apple takes a 30% cut of all in-app purchases
- Apps may not bypass in-app purchase: apps may not link to an external website (such as Amazon) that allows customers to buy content or subscriptions.
- Content available for purchase in the app cannot be cheaper elsewhere.
- The customer’s demographic information resides with Apple, not with the publisher. Customers must opt-in to share their name, email, and zipcode with the publisher, though Apple will of course have this information.
- Limited reaction time; changes will be finalized by June 30th.
Bad for customers?
And there are problems for customers, too.
- Reduction of content available in apps (likely for the near-term).
- More complex, clunky purchase workflows (possible).
Publishers may sell material only outside of apps, from their own website, to avoid paying 30% to Apple. Will we see a proliferation of publisher-run stores?
- Price increases to cover Apple’s commission (likely).
If enacted, these must apply to all customers, not just iOS device users.
- Increased lockdown of content in the future (probably).
Apple already prevents some iBooks customers from reading books they bought and paid, using extra DRM affecting some jailbroken devices. Even though jailbreaking is explicitly legal in the United States. And even though carrier unlock and SIM-free phones are not available in the U.S.
More HTML5 apps?
The upside? Device-independent HTML5 apps may see wider adoption. HTML5 mobile apps work well on iOS, on other mobile platforms, and on laptops and desktops.
For ebooks, HTML5 means Ibis Reader and Book.ish. For publishers looking to break free of Apple, yet satisfy customers, Ibis Reader may be a particularly good choice: this year they are focusing on licensing Ibis Reader, as Liza Daly’s Threepress announced in a savvy and well-timed post, anticipating Apple’s announcement. Having been a beta tester of Ibis Reader, I can recommend it!
If you know of other HTML5 ebook apps, please leave them in the comments.
Tags: agency model, Apple, book.ish, business models, content, HTML5, ibis reader, ibisreader, iBooks, iOS, iOS: iPad, iPhone, etc., iPad, jailbreaking, middleman, subscriptions, walled garden
Posted in books and reading, future of publishing, information ecosystem, iOS: iPad, iPhone, etc. | Comments (0)