50 pages • 1 hour read
Gerald Graff, Cathy BirkensteinThey Say / I Say: The Moves That Matter in Academic Writing
Nonfiction | Reference/Text Book | Adult | Published in 2006A modern alternative to SparkNotes and CliffsNotes, SuperSummary offers high-quality Study Guides with detailed chapter summaries and analysis of major themes, characters, and more.
Part 1Chapter Summaries & Analyses
Part 1: “They Say”
Part 1, Chapter 1 Summary: “‘They Say’: Starting with What Others Are Saying”
This chapter opens with an anecdote from an academic conference. Graff and Birkenstein describe a lecture they attended, delivered by a speaker who talked about the good work of sociologist “Dr. X.” However, the speaker didn’t clarify why he was talking about Dr. X’s work, which left Graff and Birkenstein confused. Graff and Birkenstein note that their confusion illustrates the need for a writer to indicate “clearly not only what his or her thesis is, but also what larger conversation that thesis is responding to” (20).
Graff and Birkenstein remind us that, when we develop arguments, we are “entering a conversation.” This means that we need to share that conversation’s context with our audience. They explain the concept of a “they say,” which is the point a writer is responding to—literally it is what “they” (other people) say.
For Graff and Birkenstein, an argument is not complete without the inclusion of contextualizing information. While they acknowledge “that not all texts follow this practice, [we] think it’s important for all writers to master it before they depart from it” (21). They believe that a writer’s well-defined “they say” and central argument (a thesis statement) should be presented as soon as possible; in the first paragraph for essays and in the first few pages for books.
They suggest a few different ways to frame a “they say,” each of which is geared toward a different context. They conclude the chapter by reminding their readers to “keep returning to the motivating ‘they say’” (27)—to remind their readers of the arguments they are summarizing and referencing. They recommend the use of “return sentences” to do this smoothly.
Part 1, Chapter 2 Summary: “‘Her Point Is’: The Art of Summarizing”
This chapter opens with a reminder that good summaries are necessary for making persuasive arguments. While Graff and Birkenstein acknowledge that some writers do not like to summarize at all, others have the opposite problem: They over-summarize, which makes their writing seem empty and unfocused. Chapter 2 focuses on striking a balance between the two to produce a rhetorically useful summary:
As a general rule, a good summary requires balancing what the original author is saying with the writer’s own focus. Generally speaking, a summary must at once be true to what the original author says while also emphasizing those aspects of what the author says that interest you, the writer. Striking this delicate balance can be tricky, since it means facing two ways at once: both outward (toward the author being summarized) and inward (toward yourself). Ultimately, it means being respectful of others but simultaneously structuring how you summarize them in light of your own text’s central argument (31).
In order to strike this balance, Graff and Birkenstein urge the reader to “suspend your own beliefs” (31) when writing a summary. Doing so, they say, helps writers to avoid bias and maintain credibility. To demonstrate the hazards of biased summarizing, they present an unfairly critical summary of David Zinczenko’s “Don’t Blame the Eater” and then compare it with an excerpt from his piece, which demonstrates how much detail is lost in heavily biased summaries. Graff and Birkenstein say that distorted summaries suffer from the “closest cliché syndrome,” in which the writer presents a reductive version of their source rather than a fair representation of its nuances.
Graff and Birkenstein acknowledge that it’s easy to either over- or under-summarize one’s sources. They look to writing professor Karen Lunsford for advice on striking the balance between productive brevity and reductive truncation. Lunsford states that one or two short sentences per source is okay when summarizing many sources. However, if only one or two sources are being summarized, then they should be recounted in greater detail.
Graff and Birkenstein acknowledge that good summaries have a paradoxical quality: They must be free of bias, but the writer must also “spin” the summary to suit their rhetorical needs. This means that summaries of the same text will differ depending on the writer’s angle: “[An] essay on the fast-food industry” will need to summarize the same sources very differently than an essay on “parenting, corporate regulation, or warning labels” (34).
Graff and Birkenstein break down a sample summary of Zinczenko: They present an opening sentence that gives a “general sense” of his argument, two main points from his work, and then the summarizer’s focus within Zinczenko’s work. They also state that writers should “match” their “they say” with their “I say” to make sure the summary is relevant to the argument.
Part 1, Chapter 3 Summary: “‘As He Himself Puts It’: The Art of Quoting”
Chapter 3 focuses on the rhetorical power of direct quotations after Chapter 2’s exploration of summarizing. Quoting is strategically distinct from summarizing, in that it presents direct evidence of another author’s claims. Including quotes direct from the source has the power to lend “tremendous” credibility to one’s work.
As with summarizing, Graff and Birkenstein note that many writers tend to over-quote or under-quote. These habits may stem from what the authors identify as “the main problem” of “writers assum[ing] that quotations speak for themselves” (42). Without the proper framing, the potential value of a quotation diminishes. Graff and Birkenstein call quotes that are poorly framed “dangling” or “hit-and-run” quotations. They offer an example of a writer quoting from the work of Susan Bordo:
[S]ince this writer fails to introduce the quotation adequately or explain why he finds it worth quoting, readers will have a hard time reconstructing what Bordo argued. Besides neglecting to say who Bordo is or even that the quoted words are hers, the writer does not explain how her words connect with anything he is saying or even what she says that he thinks is so ‘right’ (45).
To avoid dangling quotes, Graff and Birkenstein recommend creating a “quotation sandwich”: in this analogy, the quotation is the sandwich filling, which is surrounded by two slices of “bread,” the first being a contextualizing introduction and the second being an explanation of the quotation’s relevance to the writer’s argument.
Graff and Birkenstein urge their readers to “accurately represent” the source of quotation and to “spin” it for their own rhetorical purposes.
While there are no “hard-and-fast rules” for framing all quotes, Graff and Birkenstein recommend more explanatory framing for long, difficult, or complicated quotes. They suggest that, when one is in doubt, it’s better to over-explain a quote than to under-explain it.
Part 1 Analysis
Many of the lessons in They Say/I Say are based on the extended metaphor of “entering into a conversation.” These conversations refer to the contents of argumentative writing, especially in academic settings. To write an argumentative paper about any topic is to join the scholarly “conversation” taking place around it. The participants in this conversation potentially include anyone and everyone who has ever written on this topic, as well as anyone “listening in” on the conversation (that is, noncontributing readers). Consistently treating academic argumentation as a conversation serves several rhetorical functions.
This metaphor helps to Demystify Academic Writing for Laypeople by recontextualizing it as something simple and familiar. Conversations are common points of reference; most people have conversations multiple times a day. They are commonplace and likely far less intimidating to a new writer than the process of constructing an academic essay. However, conversations and academic writing are both forms of communication. Through both, we share ideas with other people through rhetorical techniques and compositional strategies, like those the book explores. Comparing an essay to a conversation may help new or unconfident writers focus on the practical purpose of writing an essay (to communicate), rather than emphasizing goals like being right, impressing readers, or getting a good grade.
Recontextualizing an essay as a conversation also helps new writers to access empathy as a useful tool for good argumentation. Being empathetic to one’s readers is not necessarily a matter of being emotionally open or interpersonally compassionate. It is about writers “put[ting] [themselves] in [the readers’] shoes” (31). If a writer makes incorrect assumptions about what their audience already knows or what they’re willing to accept as fact, then that audience will be confused and unconvinced by what they are reading: “Because the meaning of a quotation is obvious to them, many writers assume that this meaning will also be obvious to their readers, when often it is not” (42-43). To avoid such assumptions, writers must empathize with their audience’s perspective.
The application of empathy as a rhetorical tool ties naturally into the theme of “The Art of Listening” and Its Role in Argumentation. To craft a convincing argument, writers must understand the rhetorical moves their readers and critics will respond to; they must anticipate what their readers already know and what they need to know. In order to do so, a writer must practice empathy and (metaphorically—or even literally) listen to the other participants in the conversation.
The conversation metaphor is also an important component of explaining the real purpose of academic argumentation and scholarship. While many students regard their coursework as a means to an end (as in, “I follow the directions, and if I do it right, then my teacher gives me an A”), Graff and Birkenstein encourage their readers to focus on the writing process over the final product. They are less interested in helping students “win” debates than they are in encouraging them to interrogate ideas in astute and deliberate ways.
For Graff and Birkenstein, a term paper should not necessarily display expert-level knowledge or contain the “right” answer to its prompt. Rather, it should display a working understanding of the subject at hand, a solid grasp of argumentative writing strategies, and clear evidence of effort and critical thinking. When we think of a term paper as part of a conversation (rather than an isolated product), it encourages us to focus on the act of contributing ideas and being “a valuable participant in the conversation” (61), rather than just producing content in a vacuum.
