Writing Commons One

Punctuating with purpose!

2010-05-28T18:55:00.000-07:00

As someone who struggles with the correct use of punctuation, I found this chapter illuminating. I've never really thought about using punctuation as a way of communicating anything. Punctuation, for me, has just been something I know I must follow the rules of or will lose points on a paper. The only non-rule I have ever heard regarding the use of punctuation was with commas; to use them when I felt like there should be a pause, or breath.
This class has really helped me to become aware of what I can do with my writing. There is more to writing a paper than just putting your thoughts on paper. The writer, I now see, can take the time to use grammar and punctuation to emphasize or highlight certain content without the reader being able to notice. Grammar can be used blatantly with punctuation like dashes or more subtly with punctuation like commas.
My favorite part of this chapter was the short section on dashes. For awhile most of my informal writing was filled with dashes. I didn't have a grammatical reason for it, I just liked the way it looked and the way it added to my writing. I was made fun of by my peers for using it so often, and eventually I stopped using it. Now after reading this chapter, and being in this class, I see that there is a way to use the dash -- as well as other punctuation -- to give purpose and meaning to my writing.

Deciding Which Strategies to Use

2010-05-28T13:27:00.000-07:00

A lot of things stand out to me when reading Kolln's 14th chapter. The concept of Basic sentences and sentence patterns being the end all to how we read sentences is a but unnerving to me. Like how we only recognize sentences as ether simple sentences, compound sentences, complex sentences or by their sentence pattern. But is this all we can go by? I made an honest attempt to do my Great Grammar Project using Walt Whitman's "Leaves of Grass." What I found is that in poetry a lot of these things do not exist. And if they do, the arrangement is highly skewed. Whitman doesn't write in simple sentences. He doesn't start sentences with a noun phrase or even a subject. He did what he wanted to do. This must have taken a lot of courage because I'm sure this style wasn't very appreciated by scholars. But it actually handicapped my ability to pull of a purposeful GGP. So, as much as I love his poetry, Whitman kind of made me drop the ball. I was able to find a lot of the miscellaneous pieces of writing, but when it came down to the sentence patterns, I had nothing. So I had to abandon the project due to my undying need for sleep and personal reflection.

I use this example to support my intentions upon using the strategy of teaching students that these structures are NOT, by any means, THE ONLY WAY TO WRITE SENTENCES. Because they aren't. They can't be. I feel we should disregard the norm and do what works best for us. I know this isn't common, but I find it will benefit many writers.

I want to combing the purposeful grammar part with the intonation part of sentence rhythm. I see being able to develop a useful voice as one of the most important aspects of writing. If I can purposefully present these two in accordance, I know students will be able to punctuate according to how they speak in real life. The large amount of authors I read keep me invested because of how easy their voices are to follow. When a writer can notice the pitch or their voice and envelop that properly through their punctuation, they have won over the reader.

Another thing that I've found that I want to implement when I become a teacher -- as it pertains to the realm of grammar -- is being able to provide alternate verbs for my students. I also want to do this for myself. I find myself constantly using the same verbs or phrases quite often through out my writing and I want to find strategies to increase my verbal vocabulary. Instead of using "looking," us "investigating," like Kolln suggests. It makes so much sense because readers will get incredibly bored if a writer uses the same verbs throughout. When I edit my friends papers and come over the same verb three or four times, I try to think of other verbs they could use or at least suggest they change it themselves. A lot of emotion and intent is lost on readers when the reader cannot reinvent their own language.

To bring this back to the Whitman comment, I found that he infuses all of these things in his writing. He finds ways to explore common worlds of nature and life and reinvent his views to allow our sight to be altered to align with his intentions. It's incredible. A lot of what he uses is the linking BE verb, especially when he does his metaphors. And there are lines like "She is all things duly veil’d—she is both passive and active; / She is to conceive daughters as well as sons, and sons as well as daughters." It's incredible! I want to find a way to encourage my students to think outside of the box in their comparisons and find what is truly amazing to them.

This is my goal. I hope some of this made sense.

Chapter 14 -- Probably a Decent Crash Course

2010-05-26T20:48:00.000-07:00

Kolln's chapter 14 is...interesting. This is not the kind of information I would hide in the middle/end of any grammar book.

I appreciated her description of the "Deliberate Sentence Fragment," as it's a stylistic choice that I would definitely like to use more in my own writing. To me, it's more about rhythm than the cool-ness of purposefully breaking the rules, but I can understand how that aspect of it attracts certain writers.

Without knowing how to describe what metadiscourse is, I've known for some that I'm probably a metadiscourse addict. I've filled more papers with words like "while," "unfortunately," and other openings than I would like to admit. Kolln's passage was more sobering than enlightening, and I think I'll give the metadiscourse a break for an essay or two.

While Kolln discusses verb choice, I wish that she would talk more about adverbs and adjectives in the same regard. Her passage on verb choice seems to infer that a verb will be the most important word in your sentence -- and I certainty don't believe that this will always be true. I'm usually more concerned with how my adjectives and adverbs shape my sentence rather than the verb, so perhaps I should take her lesson to heart...

On Punctuation (and Grammar)

2010-05-25T21:41:00.000-07:00

Things like punctuation have been too long ignored in our education system. And the longer issues of writing incompetence continue, the farther the descent into illiteracy of our country, supposedly one of the most developed in the world. It is time to stand up and speak out against the atrocities being committed against the written word.

Writing skills are, or should be, an integral component of education. Grammar instruction should be brought back as a standard part of writing instruction. It wouldn't be that difficult. Grammar could be taught as an extended form of spelling. As children learn English phonetics, they should be introduced to the ideas of commas and capital letters. We can teach our children to read sentences the same way they read words, with the pauses and emphases in the right places. And appropriate punctuation is a major component of ensuring that sentences are read the way they were intended.

There is no point in being free to express one’s thoughts if no one else can understand them.

---

Though it can become impractical and is often misleading, for the native speaker, it never hurts to read a written sentence aloud to listen for errors.

Another strategy for improving grammar in a written work or to help proofread could be to mentally diagram a sentence: identify the subject and predicating verb to confirm subject-verb agreement. (This would also help to ensure that sentences are full sentences rather than fragments - which could work as a stylistic choice, but is awkward when done unintentionally.

The Death of a Language.

2010-05-24T02:52:00.000-07:00

I've said this once and I will say it again: The Internet Machine is going to murder the English language. It is vile and it is a parasite to the very fabric of what we hold true to our language. It is horrible to admit this, but it's so true! And it's unavoidable—especially in college, where we are practically required to have access to a computer AT LEAST once a day. The fact that our population is so dependent on computers makes me quite afraid for our future. I guess the shear dependency scares me more than what is actually occurring on the Internet.

After becoming so desensitized to how words are actually written, I'm not sure what to believe is the proper usage anymore. Do I simply lol every time I need a good haha? Or am I too lazy to tell someone I'll be right back and give in the easier three key punch that is brb? DOES TYPING LIKE THIS MAKE YOU THINK I'M REALLY EXCITED OR REALLY ANGRY AT YOU?! You decide. Because that's what is becoming of our language. The facts that are brought up in the video are amazing because they're so true. It's so shockingly true that ANYONE, regardless of prowess or skill, can become a published writer. It doesn't take merely any effort or talent. That's disgusting to me! As someone planning on becoming a writer, I want to work hard for my recognition. I don't want to have it created for me by some backroom printing press for $100. I mean, if I was really desperate, I would go for it. But I'm not that desperate...yet.

I spoke about how I worry for my generation on the Internet. Well, the next generation isn't going to be at any form of advantage when it comes to the same battle. My niece texts me the most absurd messages that disregard punctuation and spelling. The thing is, she's a brilliant student!!! I asked her why she texts like that when she's such a smart student. She told me she does it because it's how her friends text. Kids are sacrificing their intelligence for the shear sake of being accepted through a simplified version of English!

But it’s not simple because I have to take extra time to focus on what the person texting me was trying to say. Then I typically respond asking them to clarify their entire text, or at least punctuate it better. This is when they get offended. I look like the bad guy, just like when I pull out the grammar police badge on Facebook. It’s a lot of fun to notice errors, but no one wants to be corrected on it, because they “don’t care.” And people wonder why they are horrible writers! Perhaps it’s because most of them will never understand the beauty of their language because they don’t know what it is anymore!

Multiple English Languages

2010-05-20T16:33:00.000-07:00

In the YouTube video posted by Crystal VanKooten, issues of the the affect media-communications are having on the English language are raised. Personally, there seems to be multiple different forms of the English language. The different forms go beyond just prescriptive and descriptive and delve into what areas people use different types of English. There are so many different forms of communication where English is used differently. For example, talking on the phone, instant messaging, texting, writing a blog for fun, and writing a college paper all utilize separate forms of the English language. While the prescribed way of writing a college level paper is somewhat strict, the rules of English in a texting conversation are completely different.

I think the largest factor determining the way English is used is the audience. If I am writing an email to a friend it will be filled with exclamation points, emoticons, and probably some grammatical errors. When writing an email to a professor or boss, the email is formal and gone over with a fine toothed comb to search out any possible errors. The problem arises when the person writing does not take their audience into account. This is where teachers can play a large role in helping their students to understand the different between talking to friends and to superiors; teaching them that there is a differentiation and that there is a personal power to be had by being able to distinguish that split.

Is the Internet degrading English?

2010-05-19T20:58:00.000-07:00

In my mind, English won't degrade as long as people don't speak as they type on the Internet. I have met a few people who say "J/K" and "TY" in real life, and that makes me shake my head. I hope that it isn't foreshadowing the end of English. If the use of CMC becomes more integrated into peoples lives, then maybe future generations will have more difficultly learning correct spelling and grammar. One thing that I find interesting is that the usage of "proper" English in communities where people commonly use netspeak is sometimes viewed as arrogant and pretentious. For example, when I first started chatting with people online, I attempted to type with correct grammar and spelling, but then people always pointed out how I typed. In that situation, I eventually gave in to the norm and began to type like everyone else, but even though I occasionally may type poorly on the Internet, I do not speak that way.

So I am not convinced that English is currently being degraded by CMC. As long as it is contained in the Internet, I think that "proper" English will persevere.

Does language change democratically?

2010-05-19T20:27:00.000-07:00

First -- let's agree that there is a "language of power" that people who must learn if they want to succeed in the professional world (i.e have a job).

Secondly -- Nobody talks like this 100% of the time. We've all read about different "Englishes," and we all use them.

Yes, the diction of the online world is nothing more than one of dozens of Englishes which exist today, but it arguably has the most influence on what is commonly spoken. Is that a good thing? Maybe, the language of the internet has certainty evolved to allow information to be expressed quickly, but it inherently lacks the depth that other English dialects can convey.

Our language has only changed because a large percent of the population has decided to speak in a different manner. This is the way English has always evolved -- seeing as we have no established body which regulates our language (like the French).

Remember, there was a time when Chaucer's English was the common tongue...

Language Evolving

2010-05-19T02:40:00.000-07:00

In her YouTube video, Crystal VanKooten raises some interesting points about how modern language, particularly English, is changing to accommodate the faster pace of technologically dependent societies. With a few well placed commonly used deviations from standard written English, VanKooten draws attention to the way our language has been forced to accommodate simplifications of language to accommodate a greater rate of communication. No longer do people have the time to leisurely compose a letter to a friend. In commenting on the changing pace of our society and the consequential effect on communication, VanKooten tangentially comments on the deterioration of certain parts of our society. In the name of progress, modern people have sacrificed much of what previous generations, until the Industrial Revolution, had fought to cultivate into tradition.

This is particularly evident in modern communication. Text based communication can now be as fast, if not faster than speaking face to face. It just depends on how quickly one's thumbs can move. Do you have thumbs like lightening? Or is the iPad Apple's gift to people with inarticulate fingers? Either way, there is no doubt that millenia of language development must now yield to the masses, in the name of progress.

But you don't have to listen to me. I'll just refute your argument because I know ... ur just jeal cuz i use abrevs & u don't

Language and Technology Assignment

2010-05-16T22:44:00.000-07:00

Crystal VanKooten, a doctoral student in English and Education at the University of Michigan, has created a You-tube video on the influence of technology on language. Please watch the video (just under six minutes long) and respond on your blog to one or more of the issues Van Kooten raises in her video. I especially like her use of music with the images. Crystal VanKooten received her MA from OSU and then taught high school in Oregon for five years before going on for her doctorate. Remember also to respond to the blog posts of others.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=W0Mgxhqfdyg

Approaching a teaching career

2010-05-14T01:54:00.000-07:00

First off, I apologize for the lateness of this post. My mind was convinced I had already done it and then I realized that my mind was incorrect.

1. If you are preparing to teach, what are you taking away from Delpit’s article regarding language and power that might help you as a teacher, and how could you apply these ideas to your proposed level of teaching?

I feel that Delpit's article is essential for those of us entering the teaching realm. So much is dependent upon the words we say and how we say them in regard to our student population. If we have the slightest implication in our speech that we aren't fully engaged or that we are assuming anything of our students, we are failing them as educators. Watching what we say and how we say it isn't easy, but it is necessary. I think that how Delpit discusses the differences between the way white audiences and black audiences listen to a lecture is essential because each culture picks up on different things depending on their own internal biases.

Biases are very common amongst the teaching profession and it is our job as educators to maintain a level head when speaking to our students so that our biases aren't made more public than they may already be. Language and vocabulary are seemingly the most difficult aspects of being a teacher because we are the center of the classroom. The students are listening to us. Everything we say is taken to heart and people from different cultures, people from backgrounds take things differently. It isn't something I always think about when I'm in the classroom, but Delpit really makes it that much more important for me to focus on this when I'm planning a lesson.

"Why don't we respond to the Delpit article?"

2010-05-12T21:04:00.000-07:00

1. If you are preparing to teach, what are you taking away from Delpit's article regarding language and power that might help you as a teacher, and how could you apply these ideas to your proposed level of teaching?

I am not planning to become a teacher, but I was unintentionally thinking about how this essay could help a teacher as I was reading it. I thought it was interesting when Delpit was talking about the different ways that students react to various styles of speaking. Depending on how direct the teacher is speaking to them, they may or may not feel like the teacher is really contributing anything to the class.

When I was in fourth or fifth grade, I can remember instances where the teacher would say something like, "Brandon, why don't we do the problem on the board?" I recognized that it was not really a question, and that "we" didn't actually mean that we would work together, so I typically went up to the board and completed the problem. Later in my school career, when I was asked a question like that I would think to myself, "I don't know what we want, but I don't want to do the problem," but I still understood that it wasn't really a question. I never thought that some people may not realize that it is a command in disguise, and that their learning may be affected by it.

I am a student who usually prefers teachers to to be more direct than they probably would like to be, so I found myself nodding in agreement to a lot of the examples present in the essay. It showed me that if I somehow end up teaching, I need to be aware of my style of speaking and how my students interpret it. Being direct and ridiculously indirect probably both have merit, but realizing when each is appropriate is the important part.

Delpit Response - Too Much Political Heat

2010-05-12T20:30:00.000-07:00

“I further believe that to act as if power does not exist is to ensure that the power status quo remains the same. To imply to children or adults (but of course the adults won't believe you anyway) that it doesn't matter how you talk or how you write is to ensure their ultimate failure. I prefer to be honest with my students. Tell them that their language and cultural style is unique and wonderful but that there is a political power game that is also being played, and if they want to be in on that game there are certain games that you too must play.”

First, let me say that I agree with what Delpit is saying here, but political pressure brought on by groups claiming that this program is racist or culturally insensitive would kill any program built around this proposal within a very short timeframe. Schools have a hard enough time dealing with parents suing schools over the “racist” book “The Adventures of Huckleberry Finn” (yes, this actually happened in Arizona) to want to provoke a large-scale assault from the UCLA over a “Culture of Power” argument. Successful implementation would require using willing private schools as “test-subjects,” and attempting to draw support by advertising successful results to academically withering public schools.

Delpit Article Response: Discussion of acceptance

2010-05-12T19:13:00.000-07:00

2. One student asked, “Why do we have to discuss teaching minority children the language of power? Why not just teach everyone acceptance?” Respond.

The article by Delpit talks about how students of all ethnic backgrounds need to be taught the language of power. If one looks at this article from the perspective of simply needing to teach acceptance, then they are missing the purpose behind this argument. The issue with acceptance is that it will still not get someone very far in life. By teaching everyone the language of power, the education system is preparing and helping their students for the "real" world. The students are at least better prepared for higher paying, higher quality, and higher respecting jobs. While acceptance is important for everyone to learn; accepting someone's lack of understanding of the English language will not help that individual better themselves in life. The lack of knowledge of the language of power signifies someone's lower educational status; it places someone in a certain economic range simply by how they speak. Even if everyone accepted everyone else, no matter how they spoke, the basic human scale of status would still be in place. There is something important to being able to write and speak well. In the very least, it shows that one cares for the way they present themselves personally.

Delpit Article Response: Necessary Discussion

2010-05-11T22:11:00.000-07:00

Question: One student asked, “Why do we have to discuss teaching minority children the language of power? Why not just teach everyone acceptance?” Respond.

Delpit’s article stresses that the culture of power in which affects how educators teach and that the varying backgrounds from which students come affect their learning. Thus understanding how those varying backgrounds affects students in the classroom is absolutely necessary to education. And while acceptance is important, there are so many other influences in a child’s life that teaching love and acceptance in school is not enough to change how a student learns. Knowing the paradigm from which students approach material is paramount to enabling them to succeed, and if students, especially from minority backgrounds, are unfamiliar with how to operate in the world of the majority, they will not succeed.

So, “Why do we have to discuss teaching minority children the language of power?” We must discuss the issue because it is an issue. The fact that students come from varying socioeconomic backgrounds, different ethnic backgrounds, etc. means that their knowledge and understanding of the world differs. And those differences must be understood to best serve the students’ needs.

Delpit Assignment

2010-05-10T13:38:00.000-07:00

Your assignment is to respond to one of the following questions related to Lisa Delpit’s “The Silenced Dialogue.” Aim for about 100-150 words, and post it to your team blog. Please follow the following guidelines: 1. Identify your entry with a title that suggests the content.
2. Single space. You may respond to other people’s posts through the comment feature. You may also read the blogs of the other groups by going to: http://writingcommonsone.blogspot.com/ http://writingcommonstwo.blogspot.com/ etc. through http://writingcommonssix.blogspot.com/ You can add a comment to other blogs by using the comment feature. You can only post to your own blog.

Questions (choose one):
1. If you are preparing to teach, what are you taking away from Delpit’s article regarding language and power that might help you as a teacher, and how could you apply these ideas to your proposed level of teaching?

2. One student asked, “Why do we have to discuss teaching minority children the language of power? Why not just teach everyone acceptance?” Respond.

3. For one of Delpit’s specific proposals (refer to the article), discuss the challenges of implementation. How could these challenges be addressed?

4. Your own topic.

Very Late Cinquain

2010-05-07T10:20:00.000-07:00

Written early...posted late >.<

Sprinting
Triumphantly
In this last moment
His final burst of speed
To surge across the finish
Because you challenged me to run.

Cinquain

2010-05-05T17:11:00.000-07:00

Eating
Alone
In my home,
A lovely meal
To be shared with you
If you come over tonight.

Cinquain!!

2010-05-05T01:51:00.001-07:00

"Laying"
Poolside
with you.
Swimmers lap
to improve their endurance,
while I attempt to do the same.

Cinquain

2010-05-05T00:21:00.000-07:00

Thinking
Quietly
In foreign tongues
Every single day
To expand the walls of my mind
Lest my thoughts run out of room to play

Cinquain

2010-05-04T22:13:00.000-07:00

Sleeping

right here,

in the M.U.

this lovely morning

to make up for last night

since I didn't start studying until midnight!

Cinquain

2010-04-30T20:23:00.000-07:00

Running
Late
for class,
out of breath,
turning in work
'cause I know it's due.

Welcome to your Grammar Blog!

2010-04-26T12:01:00.001-07:00

I suggest that you compose your blog post in Word and then paste it in because sometimes Blogger is strange, and you could write a long post and then something jumps and you lose it. Comments are usually fine to just make in Blogger.

You will need to post your blog entry by 9 pm on Wednesday nights.

Please be respectful and professional in what you write on the group blog and in your comments.

I think this will be fun, and I'm looking forward to reading your ideas and responses.

vickitb

Purposeful Punctuation

2008-05-28T08:21:00.000-07:00

I think this is a very helpful chapter. Like Kelley said, the information is more applicable than a lot of the rest of the book. I doubt I will reference the section on sentence diagramming the next time I write an essay, but I know that I will have questions about punctuation. This chapter does a good job at organizing the different forms and uses of punctuation, providing useful examples at the same time. I am already comfortable using the comma in my writing. I have used the dash in my informal emails and facebook posts before, but never knew the true usage. I have not yet used semicolons or dashes in my formal writing. Any future questions I have about these forms of punctuation can be answered by referencing this chapter.

Purposeful Punctuation

2008-05-27T23:36:00.000-07:00

I think this chapter did a good job of laying out the different pieces of punctuation and identifying different structures that make up syntax and sentence structure. I appreciated the examples and detailed explanations and exceptions. I agree that students should know the standard punctuations and how to appeal to the reader to make it as smooth and easy for them to comprehend as possible. There are a lot of rules that I wasn't familiar with and I am now enlightened on matters dealing with comma splices, pronoun modifiers, and essential and non-essential structures. It's nice to have a list of important punctuation rules to refer to and act as a guide to express correct meaning in prose.

Purposeful Punctuation

2008-05-27T13:12:00.000-07:00

I think Chapter 15 is an excellent summary of the more applicable material in this book. While diagramming sentences is interesting, the knowledge of where to put punctuation is more useful. Similar to Easy Writer, this chapter lays out the basic rules and lists pages where a more in-depth explanation is available. Personally, I prefer the layout of Easy Writer to this chapter; the Easy Writer makes it easier to find solutions to specific problems and covers more obscure issues.

Purposeful Punctuation

2008-05-26T20:35:00.000-07:00

Chapter 15 definitely surprised me. I didn't realize how many different jobs commas, semicolons, and colons have. I use them quite frequently, but now I have a much better understanding of how to use them in my writing. What stands out to me most in this chapter is the idea that we need to keep the reader in mind when writing--grammar is essentially for their benefit. It is interesting how clarifying a simple comma or semicolon can be. If the person I'm speaking to doesn't understand, I can always sense this and try to make your point clearer; however, I don't usually have the opportunity to do this when I am writing.

Here are a couple of things that are new to me:
-the difference between dashes and parenthesis--dashes are used for emphasis (and parenthesis are used to downplay material).
-a semicolon can be used when two independent clauses tied together with a coordinating conjunction already have commas in them. Interesting! I have always had trouble with sentences that have too many commas.

2008-05-21T22:40:00.000-07:00

I am a sophomore and have not yet declared a major. For the most part, I’ve taken only bac core classes, and have not had to read many scholarly articles or journals. I am, however, thinking about education and have taken a few TCE classes. Outside the regular class textbooks, I have only read short newspaper and magazine articles related to education. Before taking this class, I new nothing about grammar except what nouns, adjectives and adverbs were. Because of this, I never paid attention to any grammatical structures within the writing I read, especially nominalization.

Since enrolling in this course, I have learned a lot. I cannot tell yet if my writing style has been affected. I am more cautious when I compose sentences, careful to avoid the misuse of commas and other forms of punctuation. I know that understanding grammar should help me take more chances in using different sentence structures and punctuation, but I am still a little reluctant to change my writing style yet. I know that this class has had an influence on the way I read. I now constantly diagram sentences and find the form and function of words that I read in my books. I can’t read an entire paragraph without identifying at least one sentence pattern. I know that being constantly aware of grammar in my reading will help me improve my own writing in the future.

Nominalization and Writing 330

2008-05-20T21:53:00.000-07:00

As an English/Education major, I come across nominalization in writing frequently. I usually don't see it in the novels/poems I read for class, but I have seen it many times in essays and literary criticism. I am not taking any English classes at this time, so I can't think of a good example of it, but I did take a class two terms ago where we spent a lot of time examining paragraphs for nominalization and changing those sentences to make them clearer. I have also experienced nominalization when reading education textbooks, especially when the authors are writing about statistics/facts.

This class has had more of an impact on my editing style than it has on my actual writing style. At first I felt like this class was making my internal editor go into overdrive. I was over-editing everything. However, now that I am becoming accustomed to the different rules and exceptions, I am trying to be more adventurous because of my new found knowledge. I know that I am still making mistakes, but I can correct most of them. Instead of wording my sentences differently to avoid unfamiliar rules or punctuation, I am taking chances and trying out new ways of writing what I want to say. It's going well so far!

The Effect of WR 330

2008-05-20T16:43:00.000-07:00

This class has changed my writing style very little. I am for the first time aware of the technical terms for the words, phrases, and clauses that I write, but I do not write them any differently. What has changed due to my participation in this class is the location of a certain punctuation mark (the comma) within my papers. Most of what I write for others to see now receives more careful attention in the editing stage because I better understand the rules of the English language and am more able to recognize when I have incorrect punctuation. I do not believe that this extra revision has an effect on my writing style.

Nominalization in Political Science Texts

2008-05-20T16:28:00.000-07:00

Political Science is actually my minor, but I didn't think that examples of nominalization in French texts would help anyone.

Until I looked for this assignment, I had not noticed nominalization in my class readings. However, now I can see that there is a fair amount of it in political science texts.

An example of an appositive:
"What we now call globalization-the growth of an international economic system-is one of the most important historical development of the last five centuries."
-Walter Russell Mead, "Changing the Paradigms"

A gerund phrase as a subject of a sentence:
"Finally, attacking Iraq would undermine the war on terrorism, diverting manpower, money and attention from the fight against Al Qaeda."
-John J. Mearcheimer and Stephen M. Walt, "Keeping Saddam Hussein in a Box"

Revised Cinquain

2008-05-19T08:43:00.000-07:00

Moving

Away
From Oregon
The third week in June
To live in the real world
When we have passed all the exams

Revised Cinquain

2008-05-18T22:53:00.001-07:00

Wandering

Aimlessly

Throughout my life

A bewildered state

To exlpore my options

Because I have no major

Cinquain revised

2008-05-18T22:00:00.000-07:00

Sleeping
Always
In my bed
Sunday morning
To forget the week
Because I need to catch up

Revised cinquain

2008-05-18T19:49:00.000-07:00

Thinking
Always
Over worked
Mind transpiring
To digest info
It’s hard to be awake

Cinquain - Pressure

2008-05-15T21:58:00.000-07:00

Pressure

Sharp

In me

Every day

Compelled to try

To avoid failure

Cinquain

2008-05-11T11:56:00.000-07:00

Sleeping

Always
In bed
Sunday morning
To forget the week
Because I need to catch up

Cinquain

2008-05-09T00:36:00.001-07:00

Wandering

Aimlessly

Through life

A confused state

To explore my options

Because I have no major

Cinquain

2008-05-08T16:36:00.000-07:00

This was a little harder than I thought so here it goes. Please let me know what you think.

Walking
Slowly steadily
Down the aisle
Toward my true love
And true love's first kiss

Singing
Sweetly softly
Praises to Him
Who brings me Hope
For He is the Lord

4. If you are not planning to teach, how do issues of language and power apply in the field you plan to enter? Does Delpit offer relevant insight?

2008-05-07T15:48:00.000-07:00

I am a Political Science major and, while I haven’t ruled out teaching, the career I am most interested in pursuing is in politics. As to the actual position I would like to have, there is a minimum of seven years until I can even try for the position (the U.S. Constitution requires U.S. Senators to be at least thirty years old). The intricacies of lingual and cultural norms take on a significant role for a diplomat and statesman: as I am not writing as a senator this would not directly impact my role. My first job in national politics will likely be as a congressional or senatorial staffer. I think, as a junior staffer (or intern), my contact with foreign dignitaries and heads of state will be minimal, but the other attribute of language discussed by Dr. Delpit, the “culture of power”, may play a large role in my interactions with both opposition party members and even members of the Democratic Party.

Not all public officials and political operatives at the various branches of government possess top-tier lingual skills. Those involved in state and local governments often vary greatly in terms of their level of education. In the interest of brevity I am skipping a few stepping-stones and will consider only the national government. At the national level, assuming anyone with a policymaking role possesses a fluency in the norms of “formal English” is not presumptuous. The implicit arguments Delpit addresses in “The Silenced Dialog” dominate political discussion when in the public eye. A conversation between political operatives may seem respectful at first glance, but an old, and unsurprisingly, unattributed description of politics explains, “statesmanship is the art of saying ‘go to hell’ in such a manner that the person actually packs for the trip.” Senators and their staff use respectful, polished language when speaking, lest an unseen camera catch an unprofessional comment: terse replies or snide remarks convey implied messages too crass for a direct delivery, despite the eloquent language of the statement.

If during a meeting a remark is missed or misinterpreted the parties might leave the negotiating table with distinctly different impressions of how the meeting went. The attribute of parliamentary procedure responsible for the deference between members of Congress is more distinct in the Senate than the House of Representatives – reflecting the difference between the House of Lords and House of Commons – so the higher the level of government one is involved in, greater significance the “culture of power” becomes. Failing to pick up on subtle messages, or an inability to express a nuanced message may only lead to a short, undistinguished career in politics, but the worst-case scenario creates a political backlash not only on you, but back on the party as well. A recent case was former Senator Trent Lott’s comment that the U.S. would have been better off if former Senator Strom Thurmond won the 1948 Presidential Election, in which he ran for the Segregationist party: the backlash painted every Republican standing too close to Senator Lott as racist and forced him to resign his post as Senate Majority Leader.

Delpit Question 2

2008-05-07T12:30:00.000-07:00

I think there is a huge difference between the language of power and acceptance. For me, if a person knows the language of power they have an "upper-hand" in gaining or imputing into that power position. Someone who recongnizes the language of power will have an easier time suceeding in attaining power and/or be able to contribute their opinions to that position. On the other hand, teaching everyone acceptance (while important) won't help them in making their own voice heard. Even if everyone were taught acceptance, the language of power (as Delpit suggested) is not always recongnized by those who have that power. Often, it is not intolerance of others that drives a proverbial wedge between those who have the language of power and those who do not, but a simple misunderstanding or overlooking. So, to avoid being overlooked, children should be taught the language of power.

Delpit- Question #1

2008-05-07T08:36:00.001-07:00

As a second year student, I have still not decided on a major. I am exploring my options and have been enrolled in two TCE courses to see if education is the right choice for me. Before taking these courses, I was so naïve, just thinking about the chance to interact with and teach fun little kids. After reading Delpit’s article and others like it in my TCE classes, I have come to realize that there is so much more than just that. If I continue down the path toward education, my future students will not all come from the same economic or cultural backgrounds. I will have to learn how to address different issues, including those of language and power as discussed in Delpit’s article. I will have to decide how and what to teach children of different backgrounds. Learning from other people’s experiences, especially Delpit’s and the ones she includes in her article, will be helpful in my preparation for a position as an educator.

Delpit Question #1

2008-05-06T22:59:00.000-07:00

I am preparing to become a middle school language arts teacher, and I definitely feel that Delpit’s article gives me tools to take into the classroom. I have always been interested in the “process” of writing (as Delpit titles it) instead of the “skills” because I feel it is important for students to enjoy writing and to understand how it applies to their own lives instead of memorizing words and drills.That said, I understand it is important for students to understand rules and form in order to communicate their ideas effectively. Delpit’s article demonstrates how important it is for minority students to gain access to these codes of the language of power. I never thought that the push for “process” writing would actually limit students’ opportunities in the future. If anything, I was under the impression that it would help open their minds and enrich their ability to think critically. Delpit urges teachers to recognize that their students already know how to tap into their inner voice because of what their parents or culture has taught them, but they aren’t always being taught the “skills” at home that they need to function in American society. Minority parents “want to ensure that the school provides their children with discourse patterns, interactional styles and spoken and written language codes that will allow them success in the larger society” (Delpit 29). I understand that this is a concern for minority parents and students, and I am glad I am aware of this situation before I step into my future role as a teacher. Whether we like it or not, our system is set up so that they cannot succeed without this knowledge.

Cinquain and Delpit Posting

2008-05-06T18:27:00.000-07:00

Thinking
Always
Over worked
Mind transpiring
To digest info
It’s hard to be awake

All Students Should be Educated on Different Situations of Power

It’s important to teach all students about figures of authority, how the law works and who should be respected, and how to behave in different real-life situations. The reason for not merely teaching acceptance to minority children is that every student deserves a chance to be enlightened on the different aspects of the world’s cultures. It doesn’t make sense to cater their education to a pre-assumed idea of what they’re going to amount to be. Just because they come from minority families doesn’t mean they don’t have a chance to potentially work in an environment with majority citizens or possibly even work up to owning a big time company. Teaching to stereotypes reflecting behaviors they are already familiar with doesn’t broaden their horizons and doesn’t give them a sense for what it takes to work in a different environment than what they know. It’s important that all students be prepared to respond to different situations of power and respect since their future is not set in stone. Minority students shouldn’t have to accept that they will never be able to succeed in a realm where they might have more control over people or hold more power. They need to know how to act in those situations so they can succeed in areas outside of the classroom.

Response to Question #3

2008-05-06T09:56:00.000-07:00

One of Delpit’s specific proposals is that “appropriate education for poor children and children of color can only be devised in consultation with adults who share their culture.” (500). Usually, parents want a better life for their children than they experienced, including education; there is no reason to suppose that Black and working class parents are any different. They may feel that they do not know what their children need to be taught in order to improve their situation in life. To address this problem, the parents could explain to the administrators what they want their children to be able to do at the end of their public education, and then the administrators could suggest methods of achieving those goals. The end result would be a cooperative effort of the parents and the administrators.

Cinquain

2008-05-03T14:59:00.000-07:00

Moving

Away
From Oregon
The third week in June
To live in the real world
When we have passed all the exams

Welcome to your class blog!

2008-05-01T19:25:00.000-07:00

For the rest of the term, you will be posting, commenting upon, and reading the blogs of this class, Writing Commons One through Writing Commons Seven. When you compose a post, you may want to write it in Word first and save it. Then paste it into the blog post block. By composing in Word, you won’t get frustrated if the posting doesn’t work the first time.

You may respond to other people’s posts through the comment feature. You may read and respond to the blogs of the other groups by going to:
http://writingcommonsone.blogspot.com
http://writingcommonstwo.blogspot.com
etc. through http://writingcommonsseven.blogspot.com

You can add a comment to other blogs by using the comment feature. You can only post to your own blog.

Your first assignment is to post your cinquain, a poetic form described on p. 134 of Kolln. Then you will give each other responses and suggestions for revising.

Your second assignment is to respond to one of the following questions related to Lisa Delpit’s “The Silenced Dialogue.” Aim for about 100-150 words, and post it to your team blog. Please follow the following guidelines:
1. Identify your entry with a title that suggests the content.
2. Single space.

Questions (choose one):
1. If you are preparing to teach, what are you taking away from Delpit’s article regarding language and power that might help you as a teacher, and how could you apply these ideas to your proposed level of teaching?

2. One student asked, “Why do we have to discuss teaching minority children the language of power? Why not just teach everyone acceptance?” Respond.

3. For one of Delpit’s specific proposals (refer to the article), discuss the challenges of implementation. How could these challenges be addressed?

4. If you are not planning to teach, how do issues of language and power apply in the field you plan to enter? Does Delpit offer relevant insight?

2007-06-11T11:58:00.000-07:00

I thought the video was interesting. I was a peer mentor for some Vietnamese students in high school, and found that some of their problems were similar to those in expressed in the video. It is difficult to learn grammar, especially from very different languages, like English and Vietnamese are. I also found that there is difficulty when some of these students learn one form of English, and then receive instruction in another. When I was in Thailand, many of the students were confused simply because many of the instruction they had received was British English, as opposed to American English. That included some slight variation in grammatical forms that we don't have.

Writing Across Borders

2007-05-31T00:52:00.000-07:00

I found the video impressive indeed, especially for its runaway story of educational fame and revelry. In terms of the ideas it presented it felt very similar to the Delpit article, which I believe was fully on purpose. I find it fascinating that all it takes to get this subject blown wide open is to just let people talk about it, in whatever manner they want to, and to let the audience judge for themselves.

Something that I thought was curious about the video was that all of these international students seemed to answer the questions that they were asked very directly. Since many of them claimed that the writing style of their home culture was contrary to this, I found it strange that their verbal communication style didn't reflect this.

Some theories:
(1) the questions of the interviewers required a direct answer. Perhaps we ought to look closely also at the questions we ask.
(2) the students have been in the country long enough to pick up our colloquialisms and manner of speech.

Writing Across Boarders

2007-05-30T13:32:00.000-07:00

Reflecting on the video, the part that sticks out in my mind is allowing international students to write in their own dialect. Having been asked to read and correct scientific reports for a Japanese student in summers past, I now realize that it can be overwhelming for them to have articles inserted into every single sentence. Honestly, why do we use articles? Are they really critical to our understanding of what is being said? Or are they simply something we have memorized that we need to do when writing?

Purposeful punctuation

2007-05-30T09:41:00.001-07:00

Overall, I found the section helpful but somewhat like a review. "Separating Prenoun Modifiers," "IDing Essential/Nonessential Structures," and "Signaling Sentence Openers" all provided clarity which was helpful (especially with the exercises), however. I also preferred the condensed version of the information.

Thoughts on "Writing Across Borders"

2007-05-30T01:00:00.000-07:00

After watching "Writing Across Borders," I felt I had gained a new awareness of the hardships that International students face when taking classes in the United States. When you speak to a person from another country, you tend to overlook the small grammatical and lexical issues you hear, possibly pointing something out to them as the conversation goes along, but mostly taking in the meaning of what they tell you rather than worrying about the "correctness". However, you tend to take grammar for granted when reading and writing. You aren't typically faced with the challenge of reading something from a person who doesn't know the language as well as you do. After seeing this film and being made aware of these issues, I will definitely think twice before judging a person's writing ability on small errors they may make.

Writing Across Borders

2007-05-29T23:34:00.000-07:00

Upon watching Writing Across Borders, I felt an increased awareness regarding the difficulties faced by non-native speakers trying to learn English, especially in an academic setting. Although I have seen the movie before, it was beneficial to see it again, as I was reminded of the many ways in which ideas can be expressed. When I watch Writing Across Borders, I feel more keenly aware of the somewhat ethnocentric way in which I have previously viewed writing without even realizing it. I simply didn’t have much knowledge of writing in other languages and styles apart from Standard English. What little I did not know pertaining to other languages was fairly superficial. While the film did not have time to give the most thorough of discussions about specific languages and writing of other cultures, I still appreciated the broad variety of differences and similarities which it did cover. The Turkish use of punctuation for aesthetic purposes seems very intriguing, as does the reader participation and subtlety of Japanese writing. The innumerable ways to express any idea is one of the things which most interests me in writing, and the film showed the complexity of and difficulties involved in trying to present ideas in a form, style, or language that is not your own.

Seeing what students found difficult or different about writing in English made me think about some of the rules which generally go unstated past a certain point in education, because it is often assumed that people know the standard forms of academic writing. Because I feel so comfortable with English, I forget how difficult it can be for others learning it. I tend to be more aware of that difficulty when trying to learn other languages. Even though Russian seems to have far fewer rules than English, I struggle endlessly in class trying to remember those rules. Mistakes abound. Oftentimes it is difficult to express things in Russian which I would very easily say in English. I try to keep in mind that frustration when helping other students, especially non-native speakers, with their writing. It’s easy to forget how complex language is when the rules of your first language are so deeply ingrained that language becomes seemingly simple. This is why I think it’s good to see Writing Across Borders from time to time to remind me of what really is important in writing—standards of synthesis, clarity of thought, and the expression of ideas in appropriate ways which the reader can understand.

Cinquain

2007-05-09T22:26:00.000-07:00

Loving
Always
for ever
In my heart and soul
Filling me with happiness
As if my soul were soaring high.

Loving (title -ing +MV)
Always (adverb)
for ever(prep phrase)
In my heart and soul (Noun phrase)
Filling me with happiness (infinitive verb)
as if my soul were soaring high. (clause).

Cinquain - "Deriding"

2007-05-09T09:14:00.001-07:00

Deriding,

succinctly,
in debate class,
to feed my fragile ego.
Sweaty palms on the podium:
I listen intently to the faults of your speech.

Deriding, (title -ing +MV)

succinctly, (fun adverb)
in debate class, (simple prep. phrase)
to feed my fragile ego. (verb-inf. phrase the corrected part)
Sweaty palms on the podium: (noun)
I listen intently to the faults of your speech. (adv. clause)

2007-05-09T07:35:00.000-07:00

Sacrificing

There
In the nest
To feed their fragile young
Every hour of the bright daylight
Because they know of of nothing else but self-sacrifice.

Sacrificing (Title)

There (adverb)
In the nest (prepositional phrase)
To feed their fragile young (verb phrase)
Every hour of the bright daylight (noun phrase)
Because they know nothing else but self-sacrifice (clause)

Aren't cinquains fun?

2007-05-08T23:25:00.000-07:00

Planning
Happily
For our special day
Our closest friends nearby
To witness our happiness
When we exchange our wedding vows

Planning (verb + -ing)
Happily (adverb of manner, 3 syllables)
For our special day (prep. phrase, 5 syllables)
Our closest friends nearby (noun phrase, 6 syllables)
To witness our happiness (infinitive verb phrase, 7 syllables)
When we exchange our wedding vows (adverbial clause, 8 syllables)

Cinquain fun

2007-05-08T23:10:00.000-07:00

Wishing

Always
For transformation
A mouth of scorching fire
To burn away all disbelief
I would make such a good deity

Wishing (-ing verb)

Always (adverb of time, 2 syllables)
For transformation (Prepositional phrase, 5 syllables)
A mouth of scorching fire (Noun phrase, 6 syllables)
To burn away all disbelief (Verb phrase, 8 syllables)
I would make such a good deity (Clause, 9 syllables)

sin-kwain

2007-05-08T22:36:00.000-07:00

Dancing
there
for hours
nary a shoe
on either stout foot
I wish I knew all the steps.

Dancing (verb+ -ing)
adverb of place
prepositional phrase
noun phrase
verb phrase
clause

2007-04-24T20:46:00.000-07:00

One student asked, “Why do we have to discuss teaching minority children the language of power? Why not just teach everyone acceptance?”

The power of language is a system that has been established by people in power. People in power typically lack the ability to see that there is a power system and thus are not willing to adjust their system. To teach acceptance is to change that power system which is not easily done in society. To teach only acceptance is to cause a disadvantage to those students when they enter the "real world" and have to face a system of power. Personally, I feel it is impossible to live without some power system. The best solution is to teach both disciplines of acceptance AND power to provide students with the most knowledge of what they will face in the "real world".

How to not call it Remedial

2007-04-24T18:02:00.000-07:00

One of the questions I came up with when I read Delpit's article was whether anyone would view this more direct, basics approach to teaching language as a remedial approach, and how that could be avoided. Or, if it should be avoided in the first place.

It certainly seems like a remedial approach. Whereas the teacher can assume easily that the kids of WASP (white anglo-saxon protestant) parents "get" language, because they use its Edited American English form at home, when it comes to those kids from different cultures, who might not even speak English, the teacher must be more direct. Being more direct means assuming the student knows less, and then teaching them what they don't know, while the students from the culture of power stir in their seats from boredom.

However, I don't see this as a particularly bad thing. If the students from other cultures need to learn more so they learn the language of power, then that's just how it has to happen. It's probably best not to refer to the "explicitly taught" class as remedial, you know, to avoid bullying and teasing, but isn't that essentially what it is? That is, aside, of course, from the connotations of its students being dumber, which would definitely be untrue.

Why not just teach acceptance?

2007-04-24T17:54:00.000-07:00

One student asked, “Why do we have to discuss teaching minority children the language of power? Why not just teach everyone acceptance?”

The problem with simply teaching acceptance is that there are already institutions of power in place. If students wish to interact with that power, they will need to be able to communicate effectively. I think no matter who you talk, work, or interact with, there are adjustments in language made to suit that situation. If the goal of teaching acceptance is to change the way power operates in society and in language, there is a long road ahead, and only teaching acceptance is unlikely to substantially change the way power is already at work in the world.

Applying Delpit to the classroom

2007-04-24T15:47:00.000-07:00

As a future teacher, I haven’t really thought beyond Spanish-English speaking students in the classroom. However, having read Delpit's piece, I am now conscious of the fact of the language of power, and must respond accordingly. I cannot say for certain because I need further explanation of process vs. skills oriented learning, but I think I am more inclined to skills—although I think a good balance is central to student learning. I think I probably would have “dumbed down” myself (tried to pretend that I didn’t have the power I did) in the classroom had I not read this article. I think I would have tried to mix that with a standards-emphasized learning environment, but now I don’t know if that is possible. I definitely want to be liked by the students, but to pretend that I function outside of the culture of power could potentially hamstring my teaching style, career or otherwise.

Prompts for Delpit

2007-04-23T17:47:00.000-07:00

Your assignment is to respond to one of the following questions related to Lisa Delpit’s “The Silenced Dialogue.” Aim for about 100-150 words, and post it to your team blog. Please follow the following guidelines: 1. Identify your entry with a title that suggests the content. 2. Single space.

You may respond to other people’s posts through the comment feature. You may also read the blogs of the other groups by going to: http://writingcommonsone.blogspot.com/ http://writingcommonstwo.blogspot.com/ etc. through http://writingcommonssix.blogspot.com/ You can add a comment to other blogs by using the comment feature. You can only post to your own blog.

Questions (choose one):
1. If you are preparing to teach, what are you taking away from Delpit’s article regarding language and power that might help you as a teacher, and how could you apply these ideas to your proposed level of teaching?
2. One student asked, “Why do we have to discuss teaching minority children the language of power? Why not just teach everyone acceptance?” Respond.
3. For one of Delpit’s specific proposals (refer to the article), discuss the challenges of implementation. How could these challenges be addressed?
4. A topic of your own choosing.

2007-04-20T06:43:00.000-07:00

Thinking over the variations with grammar, I wonder if a good way to think about the relation of grammar to vocabulary in language is like a skeleton to flesh. Also, I'm wondering if anyone else had some difficulties trying to figure out the pedestals. I'm not sure if I fully understand them.

Kolln

2007-04-20T06:37:00.000-07:00

What I found that was interesting about chapter two is simply the mechanics of sentence structure. It was interesting just to see how everything worked together and how many variations were possible with different patterns, or even with the same pattern. It was also interesting to see how complex forms developed from the simple forms, allowing for more variations.

Chapter 2: The Realizening

2007-04-10T23:27:00.001-07:00

I think I have some interesting realizations to share after reading Chapters One and Two of Kolln.

The first realization I have is the paradox of how cool and how frustrating I find all of this term-mongering. For instance, I have often wondered what exactly it is called when you identify a noun by "pointing" to it. I now know that this is called a demonstrative pronoun, like that sugar bowl or those houses with the smoke billowing out the windows. However, I can see that there will be lots and lots of these definitions, and if "grammar" is any example, many of these words will have many distinct definitions. To keep them all straight then, I think, will be difficult and confusing. Thus, this is the paradox I have discovered in ChapterTwo.

The second realization I had while reading Chapters One and Two was that my own previous thoughts on grammar were echoed by the book. The thought kept occurring to me, "That's what I thought" or "That's the same argument I used" when, for instance, I would argue for why one sentence was correct and the other was not. This is comforting to me. I only hope I don't find that I have argued for something the wrong way and constructed some sort of parallel grammar where, say, nouns don't necessarily need predicates to form a clause, but that makes perfect sense to me, thus ruining my future career as a grammarian.

Those are my two realizations. I do hope they have been worth your time.

Idiom Idiyum

2007-04-10T19:30:00.000-07:00

One thing which interests me a great deal that I have written about in blogs before is the use of idioms. Kolln wrote, “The term idiom refers to a combination of words whose meaning cannot be predicted from the meaning of its parts; it is a set expression that acts as a unit.” Some examples we commonly use would be things like catch some Zs, hit the books, or on crack.

I think that quite often we appreciate our own language in an ethnocentric way, neglecting to find the beauty in languages which are not our own. One way I’ve found of appreciating the unique cultural differences of others is by finding idioms in other languages and asking for their translations in English. I also try to find equivalents of English idioms to see if other languages have similar ones.

I have a friend who is living in China right now, and he acquainted me with an idiom for something being difficult. Like pulling feathers from an iron chicken. This seems very similar to our “like talking to a brick wall,” or “like pulling teeth.” They also have like scales on tofu, meaning “obvious.” I am not sure why, but I always find learning new idioms and traditions from other languages interesting. In Russian, when you wish a person good luck, you can use the phrase commonly used to wish a hunter well. You would wish them “neither down nor feathers,” and in response, they tell you to “go to hell.” This is interesting in that the tradition uses an idiom, and people wish for and respond with the exact opposite of what they really hope (not wanting to jinx the other person). While I’m not sure why I find these differences in speech so fascinating, I am always hoping to learn new idioms from other languages. If anyone has some they would like to share, I would greatly appreciate it.

I haven’t always been as interested in idioms as I am now, and I think it’s because I have lived in many places where there really was not a variety of different languages, dialects, or major differences in writing present. Going to college and working with ESL students has helped me to appreciate the immense variety of languages and ideas that are different from those to which I am accustomed.

A question I would pose to others would be this. Some cultures circle round an argument before coming to their point. Some start with the most drastic statement and then slowly move towards stating what it is they are really after. To what degree do you tend to think of English as “absolute” or forget that others might be communicating in different ways when talking to people or perhaps doing a peer review for a non-native speaker? If you're a non-native speaker, do you find that you think of your first language in those same ways? Do you always take into account the differences in language, even in the country in which you've grown up? Do you make assumptions, as I often have, based solely upon a particular view, having grown up in the United States where I speak and write Standard English?

Kolln!

2007-04-10T18:04:00.000-07:00

Well, I had never heard of the ten sentence patterns, so seeing those was kind of confusing, and it may take some getting used to--although they make sense. I also didn't think of grammar in ways other than rules for writing and speaking; the four definitions we discussed in class were suprisingly refreshing.

As far as questions go, I remember diagramming sentences in grade school or middle school (I don't specifically remember which), but after that there was little attention paid to it at all. I definitely remember diagramming nouns, verbs, adjectives, adverbs and prepositional phrases, so what are other people's experiences with diagramming? Had a lot of you done it before?

Kolln and Sentence patterns

2007-04-09T16:42:00.000-07:00

Chapter two was full of new information for me. I do not remember learning to diagram sentences in elementary school or high school. I liked that Kolln explained what a noun phrase, a noun, a verb phrase and a verb was. The whole diagraming thing brings a new light to the English language for me: it doesn't matter if you know all the rules, what matters is if you know all the exceptions to and modifications of the rules.

How has your grammar changed during your college years? Which definition (from Kolln) do you associate as your definition of grammar?

Thoughts on Kolln

2007-04-06T16:27:00.000-07:00

One thing that I noticed in the first chapter of Kolln, something I had never thought of before, was the fact that grammar can be defined in a lot of different ways. I had always thought of grammar as a formal system of rules designed to help us speak and write properly (kind of a combination of Grammars 2 and 3), but there is a lot more to it. I never thought of my innate knowledge of the English language as a form of grammar. Also, I didn't know about prescriptive and descriptive grammar, or any of the ideas discussed in the Modern Linguistics section of the chapter. Did anyone else have this same experience, or one similar?

Also, I was wondering if anyone else had problems in the diagramming homework with the pedestal for prepositional phrases? I get confused about when to use the pedestal and when to keep it on the main line.

Welcome to your grammar blog

2007-04-03T14:07:00.000-07:00

Welcome to Writing Commons One, your group grammar blog. For your first post, I'd like you to identify something in the first two chapters of Kolln that interests you and share your thoughts with your group. Also, pose a question related to your post to which others might respond.

You are also welcome to use your blog to converse with your group members about the course content and assignments, get help, clarify things you don't understand.

Enjoy!
vtb

Great Grammar Project URL for Colleen and Laurent

2006-06-09T13:06:00.000-07:00

http://oregonstate.edu/~bonczijl/

Great Grammar Project

2006-06-07T22:50:00.000-07:00

Shannon, Ayla, and I did our GGP as a powerpoint presentation on Dr. Suess. In the end it proved to be a challenge to find all of the necessary grammar elements for the project, but it certainly made for some fun reading! : )

http://oregonstate.edu/~andersst/

that'll take you right to the presentation!

(it's still undergoing editing, fyi)

Cinquain

2006-05-28T23:00:00.000-07:00

Hopelessly behind as always... we'll see if I'm desperately wrong, too.

Smirking
Thoughtlessly
Amidst timely responses
More often than I should
To relieve my procrastination
Whenever I am able

Cinquain

2006-05-23T21:52:00.000-07:00

I'm not sure about the title, it was originally titled, "5 ways to run in a race," but with the present progressive requirement I changed it. I'm not sure if it still works.

Running

Quickly.
Without Hesitation.
Every day like it was your last.
To understand the pain of another.
Since, today, you have nothing better to do.

Gum

2006-05-23T16:10:00.000-07:00

Chewing
Gum
Fresh Mint
Four days old
Not so fresh, now
Found beneath my chair

Cinquin

2006-05-22T00:14:00.000-07:00

Riding
quickly
for my sanity
high-spirited horse
to rest a heavy soul
when all else seems naught.

Cinq Un

2006-05-14T17:50:00.000-07:00

Brewing

Cleanly,
In my kitchen,
Light malts and hops,
To create a Cream Ale,
Because the store’s won’t ever be that fresh!

Cinquain

2006-05-13T23:14:00.000-07:00

Writing

Slow
For hours
Every day
To clear my mind
Before I can sleep

HDFS interview

2006-04-26T23:35:00.000-07:00

I interviewed Dr. G of the HDFS department, even though I am a student in English and French. I have taken a class from Dr.G and have been on staff with her in a residence hall for two years now, so I knew I could get honest answers and get some insight from a teacher who has taught both upper and lower division courses - including a WIC course.

Dr. G unhesitantingly agreed that writing is an essential element in personal success because writing abilities (or inabilities) correlate to speaking abilities. She noted that you can not communicate your purpose if you can't express yourself. The importance extends beyond clarity and accuracy - being able to speak and write reflects a commitment to professionalism.

The most desirable style of writing for Dr. G is writing that is "succinct, influential, clear, accurate, and concise." These qualities are expected in some courses - but in survey and intro courses, Dr. G is impressed simply by complete sentences and "proper spelling, grammar, and punctuation." Detracting from proper writing, however, is writing that is directionless or poorly organized. She described this type of writing as "stream of consciousness" as opposed to writing with an outline or obvious organization pattern.

Somewhat related to writing for academics, Dr. G is bothered by e-mails from students that are so casual that they contain no punctuation, organization, or coherency. E-mails that say "u" instead of "you" or "i" instead of "I" are almost dismissable because of their complete disregard for even trying to communicate clearly and respectfully to a professor.

Grammar in poetry

2006-04-26T20:33:00.000-07:00

Although my conversation with Karen Holmberg on poetry went into several aspects, she honed in on three topcs: the subject, the verb, and the object.

Out of the three, the verb dominated the conversation. She finds many beginning writers only think of adjectives having the ability to describe, therefore lacking in verb usage, namely in variety. She said many people will use "ran" instead of words like "bolted" or "scrambled" which can add not only a superficial benefit but a deeper meaning as well. Such as if you wrote, "I ran through the kitchen," it could be better, "I scrambled through the kitchen." This time the verb scramble is associated with egg cooking because of the word kitchen.

She mentioned many LANGUAGE poets actually play with the language and gave two examples. The first, many LANGUAGE poets will play with the verb and make it predicate a non-traditional subject. Her example was, "The Tennis shoe [subject] smelled [verb] the flower." In this sense we have an inanimate object (or subject in this case) that doesn't have the capacity to physically smell another object, such as a human or animal can smell a flower. The other way LANGUAGE poets play with verbs is by giving you choices with the verbs. An example would be, "I ran/danced/conjugated through the kitchen." This forces the reader to choose which action happened, depending on the reader one to all three actions can happen.

Next she talked about the subject and its power. The usage of first person such as, I, is very different from the third person, you. When the poet writes I it forces the reader to become, or see things as, the narrator. But when the poet uses you it’s like the reader is reading a letter or diary. The you becomes much more powerful in this sense, as if the writer is directly writing towards the reader. Even within first person it can be different, such as I is different from we. The use of we makes both the reader and writer one. It makes both of them look at the poem from a similar, if not the same, view. An entirely different emotion is found.

Lastly, she mentioned the object of the poem is ethically charged. The reason it is ethically charged is it may be the object in a grammatical sense, but it is the subject of the poem. “How do we treat the subject?” becomes the stasis theory. The reasoning is, if it is an inanimate object no one really cares or makes a fuss about it, but if a person is the object/subject then they question, “How did you treat the subject… is it true… is their a truer way to say it, etc.”

Outside of these three main topics she went into the importance of being grammatically correct, or being prescriptively correct. She said poetry allows you to do what you want grammatically, but if you can still follow the prescriptive guidelines than your work can be that much stronger. She said, “I think all poets are trying to make [prescriptive] grammar as flexible as possible.”

Show me how smart you really are!

2006-04-26T18:38:00.000-07:00

Mrs. K, a middle school science teacher, believes that in order to be respected as a professional, a person’s writing must be grammatically correct. Mrs. K said, “It is the only way you will come off as a competent and effective individual. Your writing level will be the level of intelligence people place you in.” This is why she stresses the importance of writing when working with her students. She tells them, “Show me how smart you really are!” Then makes them practice, practice, practice. Mrs. K brought up the fact that students aren’t getting taught enough about writing at all levels of schooling. In her district, 80% of the students will pass the state reading benchmark, but only 30% will pass the state writing benchmark.

Being a teacher, Mrs. K’s writing is mainly business professional. This includes reports, data analysis, personal letters, and professional correspondence. Mrs. K recently applied to graduate school with the hope of moving into a school administration position. This position will ask even more of her writing skills as she produces evaluations, personal records and business reports. It’s not surprising that the class in college she most accredits to her writing competency was a business writing class. The assigned marketing plans, grant writing, letters, and detailed research papers prepared her for her current work.

An Interview with a Screenplay Writer

2006-04-26T08:55:00.000-07:00

An Interview with Tim Xxxxx

Tim Xxxxx is a Screenplay Writer and Assistant Producer. He is currently working on a few projects, including one called “Evilution”. According to Tim, grammar isn’t all that important when writing a script. He says, “screenplays are mostly about direction and dialogue so the importance of grammar correctness is much less than that of a story.” Tim also writes short stories and believes that good grammar is important in the story. In the field of writing for screenplays the most desirable writing style is simple and direct. He says, “What makes a good movie isn’t the grammar. The actors bring their talent, the producer uses his skill, and the writers change scenes and fix clumpy dialogue.”

Tim does read a fair amount of screenplays from young people, some from students. In a script, the language is more important than grammar. “The dialogue has to be believable and not forced.” What impresses him most is the format. There is a particular format for writing a screenplay and if this is not correct there is a good chance a director will not read the script. “If the student has the format down, we give them a shot. We read the script and can usually tell in a few pages if it has potential.”

Interview for 060426

2006-04-25T21:11:00.000-07:00

Mr. B. is an instructor in the NMC department with 35 years of experience in the journalism field. He answered with a resounding “absolutely,” when asked whether one’s writing affected one’s influence and impact. As a newspaper editor, he looks for “powerful, clear and to-the-point expressions that state a case as quickly and convincingly as possible.”
Although I doubt he knows Dr. C., he would surely agree with him that grammar is a “measure of intelligence.” Mr. B. described, “correct usage and grammar,” as suggesting “care, intelligence, and thoughtfulness.” In his eyes readers judge a person from their writing in the same way that they would judge them from their clothing in a face-to-face encounter. Even more important maybe is his conviction that properly formulated questions will tend to be rewarded with “careful, intelligent and thoughtful responses.”
“Clear and concise,” is the name of the game for Mr. B. The newspaper “is not a medium that accepts a lot of throat-clearing, diversions and asides.” Writers should make their story compelling as well. The lead [first paragraph] should be the “most telling or grabbing element,” in order to hook the reader’s interest. From then on it should “flow smoothly and logically, not bump along aimlessly.” The readers should never have to try and connect the dots on their own.
What he looks for in his students’ writing is “powerful, compelling prose with a strong human component.” Newspapers tell stories, and if they don’t convey strong human emotions through compelling personal details they won’t cut it. Occasionally the facts will speak for themselves, “But far more often, its up to the writer to mine the gems from the slag and polish them up for the reader.”

Interview: April 26

2006-04-24T05:23:00.000-07:00

April 21, 2006

Dr. C. of the Political Science department suspects that it was an experience in graduate school that infused him with his current “fanaticism” over grammar and the proper use of language. For the first time in his college career his paper had come back to him marked heavily with red in places that he had violated the rules of grammar; rules that until that point in time, he had not been aware of. He then dedicated himself to understanding how to use language properly, and as anyone who has taken one of his classes can confirm, he is determined to pass that information along to his students.

Why is grammar so important to Dr. C? “Well, on one hand it’s a measure of intelligence, but most importantly it’s an indicator of your quest for excellence,” he says. If you are not dedicated to learning about something so important as the correct way to write then it is likely that you will face other challenges in your life with a similar lack of enthusiasm. And being able to write is still an important skill even in this age of computers, “It’s a first clue to a reader or listener. It indicates to them how much trust they should place in you and in the information you’re trying to give them.” And for any student studying political science it becomes immediately obvious the value that trustworthy communication holds.

One has to hope the that the college environment is helping students become better writers, but Dr. C. is skeptical. He teaches students in all years, and much to his disappointment seniors often leave this institution writing as poorly as they did when they entered. It’s a distressing thought, after all, we leave college and hope to enter the real world, but as Dr. C. says, “The world is complex. Frequently it takes complexity in language to convey meaning and be understood.” The world is looking for clarity and freshness, and Dr. C hopes that we are entering it well equipped to contribute.

Gates' "The Signifying Monkey"

2006-03-15T22:14:00.000-08:00

Gates is very interested in presenting the African-American rhetorical tradition as one that is separate from the classical (white) rhetorical tradition because it is rooted in an entirely different social, political and linguistic context. Any effort to measure or define it, therefore, must emerge from that context; we cannot approach it from the traditional means of analyzing text or rhetoric because, without understanding that context, we fail to understand the language and rhetorical styles it involves. The Signifying Monkey is a metaphor for the common misinterpretation of African-American literature and discourse: it is a tale of a monkey who tricks a lion into believing that an elephant has made demeaning statements about the lion's family members. Because the lion responded to the monkey from a literal, rather than figurative, perspective, he completely misunderstood the monkey. That misunderstanding resulted in a trouncing by the elephant, for which the lion felt embarassed and foolish. Gates provides multiple definitions and examples of what it means to signify - essentially, it is a verbal fluency employed to trick, taunt, cajole, needle, persuade, lie or engage in playful language games. Monkey tales are important to Gates for three reasons: "as the source of the rhetorical act of Signification, as examples of the black tropes subsumed within the trope of Signifyin(g), and as evidence for the valorization of the signifier." We'll talk about what these mean in class, but try to think of why they're important to his thesis. He later mentions the importance of naming language, and it's interesting to note that Gates has been very involved in the development of the first African-American dictionary. Why is this act of "naming" important? How does it play out in today's society? I think it's also important to have a discussion about the relevance of language (or the existence of disparate languages within society) to our educational system. What are its implications for us as educators? For consumers of literature and culture?

Foucault's "The Order of Discourse"

2006-03-14T13:07:00.000-08:00

No one will probably get the chance to read this before class, but I'm hoping that the qeustions I pose here will be a good post-class discussion prompts.

In "The Order of Discourse," Foucault argues that discourse is controlled by certain functions, actions, or rules. In particular:

certain topics are prohibited
reason is valued and madness is ignored
the will to truth: "[T]he highest truth no longer resided in what discourse was or did, but in what it said: a day came when truth was displaced from the ritualized, efficacious, and just act of enunciation, twoards teh utterance itself, its meaning, its form, its object, its relation to its reference" (1462).
what we choose to comment on
the author function (attributed to author so must be true, is it part of the author's "work", does it disagree with what else the author says)
disciplines (excludes that which does not belong in the field
distribution limited
who speaks is limited

Since many of use are teachers or are desiring to be teachers, I'm wondering what ideas people have for how they can make decisions as teachers that are informed by Foucault. Hopefully, we'll start this dialogue in class, but I'd like it to continue here.

If you're not going into the teaching profession, how do you see Foucault's ideas affecting your work or the discourse that goes on in your chosen field?

comment on Bakhtin

2006-03-13T21:42:00.000-08:00

It won’t let me just comment. Blogs are confusing. Anyway, I was intrigued and a little annoyed by that comment of his about creative individuality. Bakhtin is fascinating, so I don’t want to sound like I disagree with him, but I don’t know about creative individuality having nothing more to do with a person than his/her social orientation. As an artist, I like to think that what I create comes from some spark inside me, but it’s true that I am strongly influenced by images around me and by stories or movies or other art I’ve seen. But I think his meaning is more complex than that. I remember theme and meaning from my discourse and text class last Spring: meaning is just the literal meaning of an utterance, while theme is actually what gives an utterance its meaning between speaker and spoken to. For instance, “I can’t hear you” means literally that the speaker cannot hear what the other person is saying, but the real meaning lies in who is speaking and where, and what about. Say your housemate is complaining again about something you don’t want to hear about, and you’re angry, so what you really mean is, “I don’t want to hear you.” Indirect speech acts don’t always work, and they work best between people who share a social orientation and situation. I guess I’m trying to orient myself on what Bakhtin is saying: a lot of the chapter was really hard to decipher. I do agree with him, though, that what someone says is really less important than its social connotations. Like I said above, the literal meaning doesn’t really “mean” anything, other than that the speaker is unwilling to say straight out what they mean. Indirect speech acts are often about saving face, but in this case, it’s about expressing anger. I like Bakhtin’s idea of communication being like an “electric spark that occurs only when two different terminals are hooked together.” But, you know, when an artist is really working, the sparks are flying just fine off one person. Going back up to the third question, no, I don’t think I can completely agree with his idea that no two utterances can have the same theme and meaning. They can’t ever be exactly the same, I suppose, because that point in time won’t ever roll back around again, but some utterances are repeated again and again for the same effect, like catch phrases: “Can you hear me now?” But of course, the original utterance didn’t mean what the catch phrase means now. Fourth question, yeah, I think a lot is happening during a conversation that we don’t consciously think about, and I think sometimes people are really clicking together and sparking, and other times they just can’t connect and don’t understand each other, shared social orientation notwithstanding.

For Tuesday's discussion of Bakhtin

2006-03-13T15:02:00.000-08:00

Hello class. Sorry this is so late in coming, but I had a bit of a family emergency over the weekend and didn't have as much time to work on preparation as I would have liked. That said, I feel like I am fairly prepared now, and I want to post some questions here for our discussion of Bakhtin in Tuesday's class. We might not get to all of them, since I only have half an hour and plan to give a bit of a lecture about Bakhtin's life and such. Anyway, here they are:

Bakhtin says that our “‘creative individuality’ is nothing but the expression of a particular person’s basic, firmly grounded, and consistent line of social orientation” (1220). What would a believer say about this? A doubter? Are our utterances based on the society we are a part of? Why or why not? How does this relate to Burke’s “Terministic Screens”?

Bakhtin ends chapter 3 with a set of propositions. What do you make of these? Do you agree with them? Why or why not? What works and what doesn’t?

Bakhtin says that “the theme of an utterance itself is individual and unreproducible” (1224). Do you agree that no two utterances can have the same theme, the same meaning, even if they are identical in form and content based on the “historical situation” in which it is uttered?

Bakhtin says that “only active understanding can grasp a theme—a generative process can be grasped only with the aid of another generative process” (1226). Is actively thinking about a conversation really necessary? Does this mean that “multi-tasking” during a conversation means that you cannot truly understand its meaning? Does the speaker need to focus as intently as the listener; that is, does the speaker need to concentrate to really understand what he or she is saying and make sure that the intended message is going through?

Bakhtin says that the meanings of individual words do not matter, but the combination of those words, the social upbringing of the speaker and listener, and the “historical setting” of an utterance all combine to give an utterance meaning. Do you buy that? Why or why not? What would a believer say? A doubter?

Bakhtin says that “meaning is the effect of interaction between speaker and listener produced via the material of a particular sound complex” (1226). Does this mean that the listener has an equal share in the clarity of what the speaker is saying? How does this relate to the idea active understanding is necessary to “grasp a theme”?

If anyone would like to volunteer to act as a believer and/or doubter, I would love to include that in our discussion. There is also a possibility that I will divide the class into groups to perform the believer and doubter rolls, but I am not sure about that yet. We can discuss it a little bit tomorrow before I get into my short lecture.

I'm looking forward to a lively discussion of Bakhtin and his theories about language tomorrow, and I hope that you are, too!

See you then,

-Simon

Gloria Anzaldúa: a couple of concepts

2006-03-13T13:51:00.000-08:00

I’d like to talk about code-switching and language use before we discuss why Anzaldúa would choose to write in a mixture of languages instead of simply choosing one.

Language is a marker of class, of race, of gender. Language marks one as a member of a group. It may betray where we grew up, or our nationality; it may betray what kind of education we’ve had, or it may mark us as upper class or lower class. By marking, I mean how we are perceived by others. Often, speakers use a particular type of language or word choice consciously to allow themselves to be identified a certain way by another person. Group solidarity is reinforced by certain language use. When someone speaks differently than the majority, that person is singled out. When a group speaks differently than the majority, that group is singled out, often in a negative way.

Code switching occurs when a bilingual (or multilingual) speaker switches suddenly from one language to another, and this can only happen naturally when the speaker is fluent in both. For instance, a girl and boy are working together at the computer. They are speaking Spanish, talking about their friends, but when they start to talk about the assignment they’re working on, they begin speaking English. My professor who is Greek is talking on the phone in Greek with her son, and suddenly she says in English, “Did you pay your car insurance?” This is code-switching. Monolingual speakers will switch styles or dialects in this same way. We all use language, normally, that is appropriate to the situation we are in, including who we are talking to and where we are, and even what emotions we are feeling. Another similar phenomenon that often occurs with code-switching is borrowing, when a word from another language is inserted spontaneously. For a bilingual or multilingual speaker, code-switching is especially rich. It serves a particular function in speech that provides more dimension for these speakers than they might have in a single language.

In order for a child to be completely bilingual, many experts believe that each language must be used in separate contexts at home. For instance, maybe the Hispanic mother speaks Spanish to the child, while the Anglo father speaks English. Or maybe both parents are bilingual and Spanish is used for close family situations and English is used for talking about school or the outside world in general. My Greek teacher uses Greek to talk to her son about his feelings or his personal life, but then switches to English to talk about whether he paid his bills. I was watching a program on a Spanish speaking channel, and the show host, in Spanish, introduced the next topic, then grinned at the camera and said, “Check it out.” It was startling to me, but I noticed that quite a few people on the Spanish channels and on Spanish radio will pop in English words and phrases for emphasis, or to express a concept. English speakers do the same with Spanish phrases. We see bits and pieces from other languages everywhere: my stepson’s school sends out a newsletter every month. The closing salutation is “Carpe Diem!”

Why do we use phrases like this instead of just translating them into English? Because they carry a certain significance in their own language. Everyone knows Carpe Diem means seize the day in Latin. It doesn’t sound the same to yell, “Seize the day!” But to yell the Latin phrase does carry significance. It brings to mind certain images or ideas. For bilingual speakers, not every language functions in the same way. Apparently, “Check it out,” carries a different meaning than saying the equivalent in Spanish, and clearly, the people watching the TV show are expected to at least be familiar with the English phrase, otherwise it wouldn’t be worth using.

According to Suzanne Romaine in her book Language in Society, switching is an option available to bilingual speakers in the same way that monolingual speakers switch between dialects or speech styles. An example of this would be a mother asking a child about his day versus reprimanding him for spilling milk, or you speaking to your best friend versus greeting your boss at work. This type of switching is an important function of language, and it has meaning in the way we express ourselves in a given situation or context to a given person or persons (59). Speakers switch for many reasons, Romaine states, to define a certain “social arena” or to redefine a conversation from one arena to another (60). Such as I showed with my teacher and her son.

There is a little poem on page 1585 of BH: “Ahogadas, escupimos el oscuro.” It means “Drowning, we spit the dark.” I may not have it quite right, but regardless, we have lost something important in the translation: in Spanish, most adjectives are gender oriented. In this poem, the adjective which describes the persons in the poem as drowning is a feminine adjective. A Spanish speaker knows that the people drowning are female. This can’t be expressed so succinctly in English. We have to add more words. On page 1586, we see her shock at hearing the word “nosotras,” which means “we” feminine. She hadn’t known the word existed. She had only heard “we” used in a masculine form: “nosotros.” I found this particularly poignant, and it is a concept that just can’t occur in English.

Because Anzaldúa is multilingual, fluent in many languages because of her exposure since birth, she can “walk between worlds” in a manner of speaking. She has far more freedom than someone who speaks only a single language, and she can use whatever language she feels is most appropriate to express a particular concept. But it certainly isn’t as easy as she makes it look, or as easy as it sounds. Imagine trying to write an essay and switching from standard, formal English to casual English. My mother, when I was growing up, always used Standard English, while my father speaks some mix of Midwestern dialect and Oregon dialect, so I can speak either depending on which is most appropriate, but I couldn’t write this way, switching back and forth. I don’t know how Anzaldúa does it.

Gloria Anzaldúa believes that your home language is who you are, a vital part of self that can’t and shouldn’t be erased. Her work matters because she shows us what it means both to feel ashamed of one’s home language, and to regain that love and pride in it. She shows us how we can benefit from using a rich mixture of language. La Frontera demonstrates clearly that someone can master and use Standard English smoothly, yet still maintain a sense of self and individuality.

On Correctness... and hopefully other

2006-03-09T12:31:00.000-08:00

On Correctness:

Much as it is now, correctness in linguistics, is due to a need for power (sorry about the social justice mind that's still at work). In many ways it parallels the treatment of women: education equals unchase. By saying educated women are unchase they are able to control their education and their lives. In similar fashion, by saying you need to be correct, especially in pronunciation, you are setting limitations/expectations that not everyone can live up to. Although it did help unify education by having spelling/grammar/pronounciation expectations, it limited a lot of people. As Michael Faris presented in class, most education systems were limited to those at least in middle class. This includes universities like Oxford and Cambridge, the dissident schools, and the Redbrick universities. Although all three of these had different curriculums and students seeking different educations, they all served the the same monetary classes.

Faris also noted the working class may have received an education but it wasn't the same as others, the employed practical skills, working skills. Basically, anything that can help them continue to do menial work, but nothing that will broaden their mind. This immediately sets up the ability to distinguish between classes: the upper and middle classes will speak "eloquently" and the lower classes will speak in broken patterns, not graceful, and according to the other two classes, mispronouncing everything.

There is still a desire for correctness today, within the poetry world at least. Three years ago a female novelist came to OSU as a visiting writer. She briefly gave her ideas on writing, her writing process, and where she plans to go from there. A Q&A session followed and got on the subject of minority writers. Her response was they are "destroying" the English language and getting way too much credit for it. She cited that Maya Angelou taught too many bad habits... and then her voice trailed off when she saw me, and said, "but we still need them." I then asked her if she felt the same way about women writers, if they are horrible writers, "but we still need them." And I asked the group in general if Southern writers did the same to the language, destroyed it, "but we still need them." Most responded in accordance with me, but others would say there's nothing wrong with the way Southerners speak, citing, "It's just another dialect." I then asked if minorities, each individual group, had their own dialect. Some agreed, a handful didn't.

Women's Education

2006-03-07T00:28:00.000-08:00

Since I am presenting my discussion in class on Mary Astell I decided to post the process of women's education for some background information.

In 1681 Archbishop Fenelon wrote a treatise On the Education of Girls that explained how women’s education had been neglected since the Renaissance. He suggested a list of curriculum: reading, writing, arithmetic, and household economy. This treatise also assisted in the development of childhood education. By the eighteenth century more women were getting an education, but mostly those of the upper class. Louis XIV founded the school of St. Cyr that serviced the education of women. The headmistress, Mme. de Maintenon, fought not only for women’s education but also for a better education.

Mary Astell wrote a promotion for the plans of a college for women, but instead of pushing forward with the idea she wrote a revision. She worked at a girl’s school, many of which appeared in England, and more women were becoming not only literate but fiction and poetry writers as well. Reading and writing seemed to be the main focus because it was thought that a woman’s “station” in the household did not pertain to business or public affairs. Women still had no voice in the Roman Catholic and Anglican services but some were allowed to participate in Dissenting churches.

epistemology and semantics

2006-03-06T23:43:00.000-08:00

I thought I would address April’s question in her previous post:
I’m having a lot of trouble with page 799-800 which details concepts talked about on page 792: espistemology, semantics, other scientific theories in play.

We might look at this issue (“What is the relationship between language and knowledge?” [799]) as a disagreement with two major camps. On one side are Descartes, Condillac, and Locke, and on the other side is Vico. (Of course, there are others, but these are the ones described on these pages.)

Descartes valued empiricism, the belief that knowledge is created from human experience. He valued the use of experiments and the reformulation of logic “as a means of investigation,” not of proof (793). Descartes sought truth, not the Scholastic dispute and rhetoric, which only gets at probability and persuasion (793-794). Drawing on the Cartesian “tradition,” “Locke argues that all ideas are mental combinations of sense perceptions and that words refer not directly to things but to mental phenomena, the ideas we retain and build from sense impressions” (799). Bizzell and Herzberg suggest that Locke’s ideas were followed by various philosophers in order to “purify language” (799). Condillac proposes that there is a universal grammar and a way to perfect language for science (799). In fact, this belief that grammar is so intrinsically linked to logic led the French to go so far as to replace the university chairs of logic and metaphysics with chairs of universal grammar in 1795 for eight years (800). These philosophers believed that knowledge was possible because we perceived the world, not because we created it or because of the way we described it.

Giambattista Vico, however, was opposed to the Cartesian epistemology. Instead of viewing knowledge and language as separate, Vico understood knowledge as “bound up in human reason, passion, and imagination” and valued rhetoric more than the Cartesian method to investigate knowledge (800). For Vico, even the “certainty” of hard sciences like math comes into question because this certainty is merely belief, not actual knowledge (800). While Cartesians believed the world was something that could be perceived and thus known, Vico was of another philosophical bent: We cannot know what God has created, but only what we have created.

For Vico, a universal grammar exists for a different reason than it does for Locke and the others. The others saw a purified language as best because then one can accurately describe what one sees (empiricism). For Vico (the best I understand it at this time), all languages developed from a universal language that was used to describe and create human reality (but not affecting nature).

Does that make sense?

Further Simplification:
Cartesian: We perceive the world accurately, and the more pure our language, the more accurate our descriptions of our perceptions.
Vico: Our perceptions are bound up in our history, language, emotion, and social groups, and so therefore we can only, with the best probability, describe human affairs. We cannot have actual knowledge of the world because only God can have that.

Correctness during the Enlightenment

2006-03-05T19:06:00.000-08:00

What fascinates me most about this period—and annoys me—is the obsession with correctness. Blair particularly writes in detail about how development of “proper taste” leads to improvement of character, that when one speaks and writes properly, one is morally superior. This isn’t a new idea: I think Aristotle was one who touched on the idea of developing the mind’s faculties and becoming more virtuous, but during the Enlightenment period, something different was happening. After hundreds of years of the feudal system, two factors—as I understand it—played into shifting power out of the hands of the nobility. One was the black plague. Thousands and thousands died, mainly those who were responsible for working the land and growing food (little access to good food and doctors). Suddenly, the peasant class had a little bargaining power since healthy workers were hard to find. Secondly, the industrial age had begun and a true middle class began to arise. I’m really oversimplifying it, but basically, during the Enlightenment, the merchant class had burgeoned into a consuming public. The population centers were shifting as well, with people flooding into cities looking for work in the new factories as many landowners, faced with a dearth of workers, turned to sheep farming.
With the rise of a middle class which wasn’t sure where they stood in a world that valued those with power and wealth (oh, like that’s any different), a concern over class identification also arose. In earlier centuries, you were a member of the class you were born into, and there was little room to move upward: you were noble, or you were a peasant. Many rules applied to help keep the population pegged into the right holes: only the King could wear a certain type of fine fabric or fur such as ermine, a lesser noble could wear fox-fur, and peasants could only wear homespun wool, etc. These rules applied to education as well. Ruling class or working class. Now, with a prosperous middle class of “common” birth, the question arose as to how one could tell what class a person belonged to. How could you tell who had privilege? You could say that this middle class was extremely class-conscious, and they had serious nobility-envy. They wanted to speak as the members of the ruling class did.
Also, to keep oversimplifying because I don’t want to write hundreds of pages, we see the development (after the printing press) of a desire to standardize English just as French and—I think—Italian had been. These latter languages had universities and committees devoted to preserving the language. The idea was that change in a language meant deterioration, thus rules must be set in stone as to what was correct. Also, a language only has status when it is used by those with power, can be taught, and has rules of usage to follow. A dictionary is vital to this. Samuel Johnson produced the first substantial dictionary, and he felt strongly that language should be fixed and not be “polluted” by a haphazard introduction of foreign words. Unfortunately for him, English is a language that adapts easily and quickly to foreign words, having its own roots in old German, but many other languages as well, all blending together into a fantastically flexible system. Believe it or not, our “unpredictable” methods of spelling can be predicted by a computer programmed with just a few guidelines to follow.
I apologize for focusing so much on linguistics, but I think this is important to understanding why there is such an obsession with correctness in the way writing is taught even today. What surprises me most about the Enlightenment period, however, is that the birth of the study of language truly blossomed here, whether anyone in influence over the universities took notice or not. Sir William Jones (page 801 of BH) noticed through intense study that Latin, Greek and Sanskrit had to have had a common source. This realization led to the understanding—at least on the part of linguists—that language does change and grow, just like everything else on earth.
One last point: Cicero made a comment that he felt that rules of usage should be based not on ancient, fixed rules, but on common usage of educated, respectable people in society. George Campbell (801 of BH) also felt that “prevailing custom” should set the standards. These are, unbelievably, issues still under passionate debate. There was a fantastic show on PBS just last year about language use and dialect in the USA, and prescriptive (rules of usage) grammar versus descriptive (how do people use language?) grammar.
My question: I’m having a lot of trouble with page 799-800 which details concepts talked about on page 792: espistemology, semantics, other scientific theories in play. Anyone with a logical brain who can help me understand these ideas?

On "On Copia"

2006-03-04T15:41:00.000-08:00

[Sorry about re-representing what I did in class. I didn't get to fully makes some points on repetition that I would have liked.]

"On Copia..." was written by Erasmus as a demonstration of a writing exercise. You take one sentence and then express it as many different ways as you possibly can. Copia is translated as "abundance."

He wrote, "First of all, exercise in expressing oneself in different ways will be of considerable importance in general for the acquisition of style. In particular however it will help in avoiding, that is, the repetition of a word or phrase, an ugly and offensive fault. It often happens that we say the same thing several times. If in these circumstances we find ourselves destitute of verbal riches and hesitate, or keep singing out the same old phrase like a cukoo, and are unable to clothe our thought in other colors or other forms, we shall look ridiculous when we show ourselves to be so tongue-tied, and we shall also bore our wretched audience to death." (BH 598)

I agree with the exercises importance for "the acquisition of style." In his exercise, Erasmus rewrote the sentence, "Your letter please me mightily." (BH 605) In the importance of acquiring style I immediately find phrases that I like and dislike. I find Erasmus' first variation, "From my dear Faustus' letter I derived much delight." a rather weak variation (BH 606).

After studying the sentence I know I dislike it because of its structure: Object-Subject-Verb. Or in other words, Erasmus employs a passive voice instead of an active voice. An active voice would read like this: "I [the subject] derived [the verb] much delight from Faustus' letter [the object]"

Another example of passive voice: "When your letter was delivered, I was filled with delight." (BH 606)

To make it active: "I was filled with delight when your letter was delivered."

An example of active voice: "Your letter was very sweet to me." (BH 606)

Although I agree with using this exercise for acquisition of style, I don't believe, "... repitition of a word or phrase, [is] an ugly and offensive fault." I don't think you will sound like a "cukoo" that "sings out the same old phrase" and "bores the audience to death."

I believe there are three poetry forms that you can use to make repetition a beautiful thing. These three forms are the Pantoum, Villanelle, and the Sestina.

Erasmus noted on writing "copia" that it should be started out by "rendering" your sentence "twice, then three times, and eventually treating it over and over again, so as to attain such facility in the end that we can vary it in two or three hundred ways...." (BH 598)

I agree with him on this, that the repitition should be done gradually and because of this, I recommend starting with the pantoum, followed by the sestina, and then the villanelle. The reason being, is the pantoum's repetition is often the easiest to master, sestina somewhat harder in difficulty, and the villanelle being very hard to master.

The pantoum is very subtle in its repitition, each line is only repeated once, much like Erasmus would want it. The finished product itself is always stunning as each repeated line may take on a new meaning, or feeling.

The sestina is is somewhat harder because of its strict requirements, 7 stanzas, but easier than a villanelle as you are only repeating words and not entire lines.

The villanelle itself, depending on the person, can be harder or easier than the sestina.

All of them have one thing in common though, it can teach a person to use repitition, and not jsut variation of repititoin, to be effective in speech or writing. They all can show that repitition is not an ugly or offensive thing.

for pantoum guidelines, please visit: http://anitraweb.org/kalliope/pantoum.html

For a pantoum example, please visit:
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-srv/style/books/features/19980920.htm

For sestina guidelines, please visit: http://www.public.asu.edu/~aarios/formsofverse/reports2000/page9.html

For a sestina example, please visit: http://www.cs.rice.edu/~ssiyer/minstrels/poems/904.html

For villanelle guidelines, please visit: http://www.public.asu.edu/~aarios/formsofverse/reports2000/page8.html

For a villanelle example, please visit:
http://www.public.asu.edu/~aarios/formsofverse/reports2000/page8.html
Please read sylvia plaths, "mad girls love song." or elizabeths, "one art"

more on Arabic treatment of Aristotle

2006-03-02T20:53:00.000-08:00

From Brian Tierney, Western Europe in the Middle Ages: 300-1475, 6th ed.:

...Muslim thinkers also sought to recover the heritage of Greek metaphysics. Between 750 and 1000 all the major works of Aristotle were translated into Arabic, along with various Neoplatonic treatises and commentaries. As the translations appeared, Muslim thinkers turned to the task of reconciling all the new knowledge with the revealed truths of Islamic religion. A pioneer in this was work was Al-Kindi (d. ca. 870) who associated Muslim religious teachings with a Neoplatonic philosophy. It was more difficult to assimilate Aristotelian philosophy into a framework of Islamic thought, primarily because of the lack of a creator-god in Aristotle’s system. Nonetheless, Aristotelian studies flourished. The three most famous names from the tenth century onward are al-Farabi (d. 950), Ibn Sina (Avicenna) (d. 1036), and Ibn Rushd (Averroes) (d. 1198). Al-Farabi wrote extensive commentaries on Aristotle that made the writings of the Greek philosopher more accessible to Arabic-speaking people. Avicenna was an eclectic scholar who wrote in many fields and drew on both Aristotelian and Neoplatonic sources. Averroes insisted vigorously on the validity of Aristotle’s teachings, even when they seemed to conflict with the Muslim faith. He enjoyed a distinguished career as a judge at Cordoba, but was finally denounced and disgraced near the end of his life. After his death, the attempt to wed Islamic religion with Greek philosophy effectively came to an end in the Arab world. But the works of these last three Muslim masters became of immense importance in the development of medieval Western philosophy once they had been translated into Latin in the twelfth and thirteenth centuries. (244)

After the fall of the Roman Empire, the only works of Aristotle that continued to be known in the West were the elementary logical treatises translated by Boethius. Aristotle’s works survived by Byzantine manuscripts and they were used in the West from the thirteenth century onward. But the first knowledge of the lost works of Aristotle came from Muslim sources. It was through contact with the Arab world that Western Christians eventually recovered the heritage of Greek philosophy. (411)

Tierney discusses some of the metaphysical beliefs and discussions of Aristotle and the Arab philosophers, but nothing really on rhetoric. It appears, though, that Muslims had similar struggles that Christians had: how to incorporate a pagan philosopher into a monotheistic paradigm. It also appears that the philosophy of these Muslims had an impact on Western philosophy in the twelfth and thirteenth century.

By the way, the textbook that I cited in the previous post has the defense of Jacqueline Felicie, a woman doctor who refused to wed and who was brought to court for practicing without a licence (because she couldn't go to the university that granted licences) in 1322. She lost her case, but it's interesting to me that she got to defend herself in court against male medical faculty. I can bring this to class next week if anyone wants to read it. It's about 2 pages or so. There is also an excerpt from Christine De Pizan's The Book of the City of Ladies, which Dr. Tolar Burton mentioned in class today, as well as a few other primary documents about women in Medieval Europe.

The dangers of Aristotelian thought in Medieval Europe

2006-03-02T20:10:00.000-08:00

I was flipping around in my old history textbooks, and I came across this. It’s from a 1270 decree by Stephen, Bishop of Paris, condemning errors, most of which, according to the textbook’s editors, are errors committed by Averroists, folowers of Averroes, the Arab commentator on Aristotle. Among the thirteen errors that Stephen bans are:

2. That this is false or inappropriate: Man understands.
3. That the will of man wills or chooses from necessity.
...
7. That the soul, which is the form of man as a human being, is corrupted when the body is corrupted.
...
9. That free will is a passive power, not active; and that it is moved necessarily by appetite.
10. That God does not know things in particular.
11. That God does not know other things than Himself.
12. That human actions are not ruled by divine Providence. (Tierney 269-270)

I think this is interesting because it shows that some European thinkers were following the comments of Averroes, an Arab, about Aristotle. Of course, you can see how these ideas directly violated Church tenets. We can also see how the Church definitely tried to control discourse by banning ideas that disagreed with their Truth.

Tierney, Brian. The Middle Ages: Volume I: Sources of Medieval History. 6th ed. New York: McGraw-Hill, 1999.

Erasmus and his position in Rhetoric

2006-02-28T18:31:00.000-08:00

When I began reading Book I of "Ecclesiastes" by Erasmus, there was one point which struck me the most was that there seemed to be a connection to both the Platonist ideas and Sophistic viewpoints apparent in Erasmus and his thoughts. At one point on the first page he states "Of all traits of the preacher, the most important for persuasion is to love what you are preaching" (Erasmus 586), and as I have been focusing all of my papers on ethos this term, I realize I have not heard something so honest come from either the Platonist or Sophistic writing. There is much talk of good and moral creatures preaching to the people, there has bee argument between the two of who is more right, but this is the first time that I can remember when one has stated that either way, the preacher will be the most convincing when they love what it is they are speaking about. Does this make their ethos more believable, more trustworthy when a speaker truly believes in what they are saying? I know that the big question in terms of ethos is how to you know when someone is being honest with you about who they are, but my question is how do you judge someone as good or bad when they truly believe in what they are saying, whether it be termed just that in a certain society, who is to judge this? Thoughts?

Secondly, I also thought it amusing that women were not allowed to learn for fear that men might not be able to control them when they learned the true impact a well-thought out argument could have. I am reading about Margaret Fell and on Thursday I will be discussing more about this.

Woman Humanists...Other Notes of Interest

2006-02-28T10:47:00.000-08:00

Although I enjoyed what I have read (both in the book and the blogs), I felt the women during this time period needed a quick "shout-out." The four noted in BH are Isotta and Ginevera Nogarola, Cassandra Fedele, and Laura Cereta. They all broke into their respective intellectual circles through the men they knew by writing to them. Although their ideas were accepted it was only when they were younger, or virginal, as BH noted, "hence no threat to mature men." It's this repitition of history that I always find interesting; first with Aspasia, these four, and now many others are relegated to obscurity due to gender. I was raised in a rather matriachal setting so I am always curious as to why males in power become so insecure over female intelligence. Why does this happen? A good example of obscurity is Cereta's existence who wrote letters to other humanist during her marriage (1484-1486). She tried to publish her letters in 1488 but received little or no recognition, after the rejection from the literary world and after the death of her father, she devoted herself to sacred studies. If Augustine can do the same thing, devote a part of his life to manicheasm and then convert to christianity, and still be widely noted as a rhetorician then why can't Ceretta?