Punctuating with purpose!

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

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

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)

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.

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

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?

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?

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

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

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