SUMMARY
In this article, Geneva Smitherman describes the use of the english language and its constant adaptations in society. Her main point is the arguments over "Black English" and how this is considered incorrect grammar. She also describes how this is considered wrong based on class rank. The african american culture and language is described to be grammatically incorrect when in reality it was once considered correct. When other authors describe why this is wrong the come off as racist and believe they have authority over this culture. The point of this article is another description into how the english language is constantly changing based on society.
The connections I make in this article to the other articles we have read is the changing of our language. It transforms as our society does. New words are added to the dictionary every year. It is amazing how much we have changed in 200 years. I mean reading the Declaration of Independence is difficult to some in today's society. In wednesday's reading we discussed how grammar should be used when in this article we learn how there are many ways of "correct" english.
Sloppy incorrect writing can refer to many things. One thing the author describes is the use of a sentence with no specific supportive details. The writing this college student portrays is technically correct grammar but the teacher is only looking at the "correctness" according to society's norms. The student should be graded based on the amount of information and how he felt rather than only grading him on "correct grammar".
I really enjoyed reading this article. The random use of Black English throughout the article allowed Smitherman to put in personal touches and to get her point across. I also liked the personal note moments. These were not only comical but they kept me glued to the writing. A piece I especially enjoyed was when she referred to english as "schizophrenic" based on class. Smitherman wrote on a personal level that I enjoyed reading but also described her position very well.
Thursday, February 28, 2013
Wednesday, February 20, 2013
Research Bibliography
Francis W. Parker School Studies in Education , Vol. 9, EXPERIENCE IN ENGLISH: Composition and Literature: Volume I, Grades I-VIII (1932), pp. 305-337
The English Journal , Vol. 98, No. 6 (Jul., 2009), pp. 79-86
Research in the Teaching of English , Vol. 40, No. 2 (Nov., 2005), pp. 168-206
British Educational Research Journal , Vol. 22, No. 4 (Sep., 1996), pp. 421-439
Monday, February 18, 2013
Week 6 McCloud/ Bernhardt
SUMMARIES
In Scott McCloud's illustration "The Vocabulary of Comics" he describes how people constantly use imagery in their lives. He also talks about the fact that we as humans are a selfish race. Every drawing or shape we often see a face or ever our own face. Often we put ourselves in the cartoons "shoes". Not only does imagery control our views it also contours how we accept a very detailed face and also a simple smiley face.
Writing can take on physical characteristics that are attractive to the eye no matter what type of reading it is. Stephen A. Bernhardt describes how texts are laid out to be read simply by the reader. Scientific texts are often written with white space, lists, and headings to be more attractive to the reader. Even with advertising the text is written simply and laid out to appeal to the reader and persuade them to buy the product. As writing evolves so does writing. It bends to fit the mold that is needed.
When it comes to reading simple writings with paragraph after paragraph I often enjoy them. It depends on what the reading is about. If it is interesting it can be easy to read. The vocabulary also plays a key role in that I like to understand the words I am reading. The more eye appealing the text the more I will want to read it. Just as Bernhardt describes I would rather read a text that is appealing to the eye rather than boring paragraphs.
OPINIONS
I enjoyed reading both of these texts and they really showed what type of reading I enjoy reading. The comic strip idea of McCloud was appealing to the eye and really got across what he was trying to describe. It's sort of eye opening how much we use visual contexts to control our reading.
In Scott McCloud's illustration "The Vocabulary of Comics" he describes how people constantly use imagery in their lives. He also talks about the fact that we as humans are a selfish race. Every drawing or shape we often see a face or ever our own face. Often we put ourselves in the cartoons "shoes". Not only does imagery control our views it also contours how we accept a very detailed face and also a simple smiley face.
Writing can take on physical characteristics that are attractive to the eye no matter what type of reading it is. Stephen A. Bernhardt describes how texts are laid out to be read simply by the reader. Scientific texts are often written with white space, lists, and headings to be more attractive to the reader. Even with advertising the text is written simply and laid out to appeal to the reader and persuade them to buy the product. As writing evolves so does writing. It bends to fit the mold that is needed.
When it comes to reading simple writings with paragraph after paragraph I often enjoy them. It depends on what the reading is about. If it is interesting it can be easy to read. The vocabulary also plays a key role in that I like to understand the words I am reading. The more eye appealing the text the more I will want to read it. Just as Bernhardt describes I would rather read a text that is appealing to the eye rather than boring paragraphs.
OPINIONS
I enjoyed reading both of these texts and they really showed what type of reading I enjoy reading. The comic strip idea of McCloud was appealing to the eye and really got across what he was trying to describe. It's sort of eye opening how much we use visual contexts to control our reading.
Wednesday, February 13, 2013
Porter
SUMMARY
In this reading James E. Porter examines intertextuality, "the principal that all writing and speech arise from a single network" (88). He discusses rhetoric and the importance of sources and social context that all writing arises from. An example he gives is the Declaration of Independence, and its many authors rather than the fact that most people view Thomas Jefferson as the author. Reading closely you can identify that Jefferson was merely an expert at borrowing phrases.
#4
The acceptability is how the reader will understand and view the reading. Are they understanding and putting themselves in the reading? Or are they merely reading the words on a paper? When evaluating a paper I try to put myself in the writers shoes. However, this is difficult because ofter the reader begins to put themselves into the story. The more acceptable it is to the reader, the better the evaluation will be.
A2
If following Porter's argument then the definition of plagiarism should be rewritten. It should be more defined as, copying the exact writing or content from another writer without correct citing or crediting the author from which the text has been quoted. Plagiarism is a loose term and can be taken in many ways. I believe that everything I write or say can be traced back to some sort of hearing or even reading I've done. Does that mean I am plagiarizing this post because I was taught to read context? This argument could continue forever but plagiarizing is serious if a student is trying to pass off the exact writing of another as their own with no crediting.
My opinion of this writing differs based on all of the arguments. I believe that everything I learned in writing and reading has come from another source. There isn't much new material because the same information is being passed down. Plagiarism is wrong and I understand the need for that definition, however, it is very broad and like religion, is always argued.
In this reading James E. Porter examines intertextuality, "the principal that all writing and speech arise from a single network" (88). He discusses rhetoric and the importance of sources and social context that all writing arises from. An example he gives is the Declaration of Independence, and its many authors rather than the fact that most people view Thomas Jefferson as the author. Reading closely you can identify that Jefferson was merely an expert at borrowing phrases.
#4
The acceptability is how the reader will understand and view the reading. Are they understanding and putting themselves in the reading? Or are they merely reading the words on a paper? When evaluating a paper I try to put myself in the writers shoes. However, this is difficult because ofter the reader begins to put themselves into the story. The more acceptable it is to the reader, the better the evaluation will be.
A2
If following Porter's argument then the definition of plagiarism should be rewritten. It should be more defined as, copying the exact writing or content from another writer without correct citing or crediting the author from which the text has been quoted. Plagiarism is a loose term and can be taken in many ways. I believe that everything I write or say can be traced back to some sort of hearing or even reading I've done. Does that mean I am plagiarizing this post because I was taught to read context? This argument could continue forever but plagiarizing is serious if a student is trying to pass off the exact writing of another as their own with no crediting.
My opinion of this writing differs based on all of the arguments. I believe that everything I learned in writing and reading has come from another source. There isn't much new material because the same information is being passed down. Plagiarism is wrong and I understand the need for that definition, however, it is very broad and like religion, is always argued.
Construct
For my upcoming english paper I've decided to write about "formal writing". What is considered informal for a paper? What is considered formal? Does it take away from the information in the paper if I add content that is considered "informal" by readers? I would like to hear what researchers and other writers have to say about informal writing.
Friday, February 1, 2013
Week 3 Kleine
SUMMARY
In this article, Michael Kleine describes the process of research done by professional researchers. He studies and interviews to test his theory of "Are they really doing what he thinks they are?" He finds that most of his findings come from personal interviews rather than observing and reading the research the professionals are conducting. The subjects are writing out of interest rather than being forced to research such as college students. In the end Kleine learned that researching is part of writing and that he learned more off of the research that he conducted rather than what he read.
I found Kleine's article and Deborah Brandt's article to be very much alike. Like Kleine is learning doing actual physical research more than reading a books Brandt talks about literacy sponsors physically teaching the sponsored. Also Kleine mentions how he views professional researchers conducting their research is sort of a stereotype in the way that different researchers conduct their research differently like how Brandt describes the stereotype of all literacy sponsors having a positive effect on the sponsored.
When the professional researchers found a source they use it entirely. I think this is because they are writing more out of interest and the more research and sources they have the more it sparks their intellectual interests. When I have a research source I skim through finding useful information for my paper and leave it at that. The difference is often that I am writing out of force rather than pleasure. The sources are the entire research rather than my papers are usually small pieces of several sources.
I enjoyed reading Kleine's enthusiasm in this article. You could tell her enjoyed learning about the research and personally interviewing the professionals in their respective fields. I also liked learning that professionals write out of enjoyment rather than when I am forced to write a paper on something I am less interested in. The scientific look at the outline of their research rather than looking at it in a writing sort of view was also interesting.
Subscribe to:
Comments (Atom)