So seeing that a.) I never started a post and b.) I'm scrambling to finish everything this week, I have no choice but to start a post about the article we used to read and evaluate for the final.
The article begins with the idea that children learn their language through their own process and discovery, rather than the traditional direct instruction. With Hispanic families in the U.S., children become immersed into the English language by making friends in the neighborhood or going to school. These children who are raised bilingual are not sat down by one person and taught two languages and what makes them different. The children learn after using the languages (and making some mistakes) how to speak in each language from their own discoveries and use of the languages.
With invented spelling, students construct words by using their listening skills. I thought it was very interesting how these students' writing were compared to the drawing of the stick man with no hair to the one with a beard and a crown - students' spelling develops over time with room for error, and gradually their spelling improves. This is completely different than the hundreds of spelling lists we had to memorize as kids to take the dreaded spelling quizzes. So, while I am probably a person who believes in the process-oriented constructive approach, I can't help as a future teacher but feel that the ultimate goal is establishing correct habits and mastery of the language. So maybe I believe a little of both approaches.
As this is probably the last post on our blog, I hope everyone did well on the final. But more importantly, I hope everyone has a really nice break. Happy holidays (we're almost there)!!!
Wednesday, December 5, 2007
Monday, December 3, 2007
Online Lingo, by Hayley Kevil
Sorry this took me so long..I was having difficulty writing about the chapters in the book so I had to come up with my own topic for my blog post.
The topic I came up with is online lingo or online jargon. . .you know what I'm talking about. . . idk, bff, omg, sob, brb, jk, lol, wtf, lmao, btw, nm, ttyl....the list can go on and on....
I'm sure most of us spend a lot of time sending text messages, talking on AIM, communicating via facebook or myspace, as well as writing emails, etc...and when you aren't writing a formal paper it is nice to be able to type and write things in a much more carefree manner. You don't have to watch for spelling errors as much and you can abbreviate almost any word that has more then 2 vowels in it. I am a huge lingo user, I'd probably be considered an abuser...haha jk! But as I think about the online lingo more and more I wonder if it is actually effecting our language. . .
For many people, such as the people of my parents generation who are close to 60, and even my brothers generation which is close to 30 do not use the lingo as much as my generation and on. This can be an annoyance to the other generations and can serve as a threat as well. Many parents have no idea what their children are saying which I imagine would get very frustrating. For example, the commercial (I believe it is for Sprint, or some phone company) when the mother asks her young daughter who she has been texting, the girl answers, "I. D. K. my BFF Jill" which is full out lingo, demonstrates how communication between adults and children may be beginning to decrease. This can be a threat to many parents because of how easy it is for kids to communicate with others online. If a parent wants to be able to know who their kids are taking to and what they are saying, they may not be able to fully protection their children if they can't even make out what they are saying.
From a grammar standpoint, I wonder if the increased use of abbreviations and jargon has changed our language at all, or if it will in time. Is it effecting our language since people are beginning to speak in lingo instead of just writing it? Likewise is it effecting our grammar because people become so comfortable with using the sloppy, shorthand writing? I feel as if this language is minimizing the use of such common words as well as ignoring the meaning as well. What about those good old homonyms and the importance of spelling?
I have a link to the site of two commercials demonstrating the use of jargon and how it has shaped our language today. I find this topic to be interesting, and although it is the last week of school, if anyone has time to write what they think about online jargon, I'd like to hear what you've got to say.
http://youtube.com/watch?v=ySR3hpieiQc&feature=related
http://youtube.com/watch?v=4nIUcRJX9-o&feature=related
I apologize again for those of you who may have been waiting for this blog post.
The topic I came up with is online lingo or online jargon. . .you know what I'm talking about. . . idk, bff, omg, sob, brb, jk, lol, wtf, lmao, btw, nm, ttyl....the list can go on and on....
I'm sure most of us spend a lot of time sending text messages, talking on AIM, communicating via facebook or myspace, as well as writing emails, etc...and when you aren't writing a formal paper it is nice to be able to type and write things in a much more carefree manner. You don't have to watch for spelling errors as much and you can abbreviate almost any word that has more then 2 vowels in it. I am a huge lingo user, I'd probably be considered an abuser...haha jk! But as I think about the online lingo more and more I wonder if it is actually effecting our language. . .
For many people, such as the people of my parents generation who are close to 60, and even my brothers generation which is close to 30 do not use the lingo as much as my generation and on. This can be an annoyance to the other generations and can serve as a threat as well. Many parents have no idea what their children are saying which I imagine would get very frustrating. For example, the commercial (I believe it is for Sprint, or some phone company) when the mother asks her young daughter who she has been texting, the girl answers, "I. D. K. my BFF Jill" which is full out lingo, demonstrates how communication between adults and children may be beginning to decrease. This can be a threat to many parents because of how easy it is for kids to communicate with others online. If a parent wants to be able to know who their kids are taking to and what they are saying, they may not be able to fully protection their children if they can't even make out what they are saying.
From a grammar standpoint, I wonder if the increased use of abbreviations and jargon has changed our language at all, or if it will in time. Is it effecting our language since people are beginning to speak in lingo instead of just writing it? Likewise is it effecting our grammar because people become so comfortable with using the sloppy, shorthand writing? I feel as if this language is minimizing the use of such common words as well as ignoring the meaning as well. What about those good old homonyms and the importance of spelling?
I have a link to the site of two commercials demonstrating the use of jargon and how it has shaped our language today. I find this topic to be interesting, and although it is the last week of school, if anyone has time to write what they think about online jargon, I'd like to hear what you've got to say.
http://youtube.com/watch?v=ySR3hpieiQc&feature=related
http://youtube.com/watch?v=4nIUcRJX9-o&feature=related
I apologize again for those of you who may have been waiting for this blog post.
Thursday, November 8, 2007
Chapter 4, Synchronic and Diachronic Structualism
By Jason
November 8,
The Article about the Synchronic and Diachronic structuralist schools:
I think it impossible for a truly synchronic analysis of a language to exsist. Granted, a person can disregard the origin of words or roots of the language, but it doesn't negate it's importance to the way the language functions. Negative connotations that are pinned onto words evolve into socially unacceptable parts of speech (such as queer, or savage).
To properly explain "harsh" or "bad" words, a person would have to explain where the distinction stemmed. Therefore a synchronic analysis would not be able to explain a dirty word. Social structure and norms play such a vital role in the language that removal of the speakers and their history from the language is lingual suicide. This is why I have a hard time believing in the Synchronic system.
The evolution of the language is blatently obvious and very measurable. The study of ancient languages through the present language historical documents would be fascinating. It would be amazing to see a description of the home countryside of an ancient roman citizen next to the same description of an Italian living in Rome two-thousand years later. The differences would be vast, but the content would be similar.
November 8,
The Article about the Synchronic and Diachronic structuralist schools:
I think it impossible for a truly synchronic analysis of a language to exsist. Granted, a person can disregard the origin of words or roots of the language, but it doesn't negate it's importance to the way the language functions. Negative connotations that are pinned onto words evolve into socially unacceptable parts of speech (such as queer, or savage).
To properly explain "harsh" or "bad" words, a person would have to explain where the distinction stemmed. Therefore a synchronic analysis would not be able to explain a dirty word. Social structure and norms play such a vital role in the language that removal of the speakers and their history from the language is lingual suicide. This is why I have a hard time believing in the Synchronic system.
The evolution of the language is blatently obvious and very measurable. The study of ancient languages through the present language historical documents would be fascinating. It would be amazing to see a description of the home countryside of an ancient roman citizen next to the same description of an Italian living in Rome two-thousand years later. The differences would be vast, but the content would be similar.
Chapter 3 of Grammar for Grammarians
By Jendayi
For my blog I had to read Chapter 3 of Grammar for Grammarians. This chapter gave lots of insight to representative rules. Specifically rules developed by prescriptive grammarians during the eighteenth century. They express twenty or so grammatical rules in some detail. All of which have syntactic component rather than just dealing with vocabulary. The many rules they discussed in the chapter are listed below.
Don't end a sentence with preposition
Don't split an infinitive
Use shall with first person and use will with second and third
Lie is intransitive and lay is transitive
Use like as a preposition; use as as a conjunction
Use nominative case after the verb be
Don't use ain't
Don't use between you and I
Don't use hopefully to mean 'I Hope'use subjunctive for hypothetical situations
Don't omit the relative pronoun
Don't omit that introducing a noun clause
Pronouns must agree with their antecedents
Either/or and neither/nor take singular verbs
Case following as/than
Subject-verb agreement
Use
For my blog I had to read Chapter 3 of Grammar for Grammarians. This chapter gave lots of insight to representative rules. Specifically rules developed by prescriptive grammarians during the eighteenth century. They express twenty or so grammatical rules in some detail. All of which have syntactic component rather than just dealing with vocabulary. The many rules they discussed in the chapter are listed below.
Don't end a sentence with preposition
Don't split an infinitive
Use shall with first person and use will with second and third
Lie is intransitive and lay is transitive
Use like as a preposition; use as as a conjunction
Use nominative case after the verb be
Don't use ain't
Don't use between you and I
Don't use hopefully to mean 'I Hope'use subjunctive for hypothetical situations
Don't omit the relative pronoun
Don't omit that introducing a noun clause
Pronouns must agree with their antecedents
Either/or and neither/nor take singular verbs
Case following as/than
Subject-verb agreement
Use
First Part of Chapter 4 (pp. 61-70)
By Justin Rook
Descriptive grammar developed in the late 20th century, which concentrates on speech, constituent structure, and descriptions of modern English. In the 19th century a language study developed known as historical-comparative; scholars were on a mission to figure out the chronological development and comparing similar languages throughout the world. European scholars began a descriptive methodology on collecting data; instead of making new rules for grammar.
During this time period the scholars figured out the English had many similarities to other languages. They had classified English as a Germanic based language, and decided to classify Latin and Greek as sister languages, all of these languages evolved from a form of Indo-European, much like Darwinism. The scholars also came to a conclusion that Latin and Sanskrit were dead, and were considered similar.
In 1822 Jacob Grimm designed Grimm’s Law which compares Germanic Languages with other Indo-European languages. By 1900 a theory of structuralism was developed, which states that language can be studied historically and as a science. There was also diachronic linguistics, which compares language at different time periods, and synchronic linguistics studies language as a self contained system. In retrospect Grimm’s Law would be a part of synchronic linguistics, because it is a studying two completely different languages unlike diachronic which only studies one language at different times.
Leonard Bloomfield believed that the brain was unstudiable and Edward Sappir believed that the brain was a key component in the study of language.
Descriptive grammar developed in the late 20th century, which concentrates on speech, constituent structure, and descriptions of modern English. In the 19th century a language study developed known as historical-comparative; scholars were on a mission to figure out the chronological development and comparing similar languages throughout the world. European scholars began a descriptive methodology on collecting data; instead of making new rules for grammar.
During this time period the scholars figured out the English had many similarities to other languages. They had classified English as a Germanic based language, and decided to classify Latin and Greek as sister languages, all of these languages evolved from a form of Indo-European, much like Darwinism. The scholars also came to a conclusion that Latin and Sanskrit were dead, and were considered similar.
In 1822 Jacob Grimm designed Grimm’s Law which compares Germanic Languages with other Indo-European languages. By 1900 a theory of structuralism was developed, which states that language can be studied historically and as a science. There was also diachronic linguistics, which compares language at different time periods, and synchronic linguistics studies language as a self contained system. In retrospect Grimm’s Law would be a part of synchronic linguistics, because it is a studying two completely different languages unlike diachronic which only studies one language at different times.
Leonard Bloomfield believed that the brain was unstudiable and Edward Sappir believed that the brain was a key component in the study of language.
Grammar for Grammarians Chap 3
Latin is an Italic Language, Where English is Germanic. they haven't been intelligible for over 5,000 years. Latin language is synthetic, meaning it has many inflections, when English is analytic with few inflections. Latin is basically a language where the direct object normally precedes the verb, where in English is basically a language where the object normally follows the verb. The language verbs, prevent the structural transfer from one language to another. Different forms imply differnt meanings. Ex: lie/lay shall/will Another assumption if two forms appear synonomous, I must be superior, but this is not tottaly accepted. Ex: Kathy is the girl who cheated on the test. Kathy is the girl that cheated.
Thursday, November 1, 2007
Assignment for last class activity
Dear all,
On the last day of class, we want to do some fun activities dealing with grammar. Therefore, your assignment for after Thanksgiving break is to come up with some kind of activity that contains grammatical learning, and still is fun to perform (as a practice for inventing lesson plans for your future students, for those who want to teach....).
You will submit your proposal on November 27th, the first class after Thanksgiving break.
I will select the best ones, and we will do a lottery and pick some to be performed on the last day of class.
If you need material for that, write this in your proposal, too, so I/we can get it in time!
Treat your proposal like a "grant proposal." You will receive an additional email about the required layout, and the subheadings.
You can start researching ideas whenever you want....
On the last day of class, we want to do some fun activities dealing with grammar. Therefore, your assignment for after Thanksgiving break is to come up with some kind of activity that contains grammatical learning, and still is fun to perform (as a practice for inventing lesson plans for your future students, for those who want to teach....).
You will submit your proposal on November 27th, the first class after Thanksgiving break.
I will select the best ones, and we will do a lottery and pick some to be performed on the last day of class.
If you need material for that, write this in your proposal, too, so I/we can get it in time!
Treat your proposal like a "grant proposal." You will receive an additional email about the required layout, and the subheadings.
You can start researching ideas whenever you want....
Responses to historical chapter 2
Prompt for in-claass essay on November 1st:
Select one question from chapter 2 (pp. 21-35), and answer it by clicking on "comment" on this blog entry.
Select one question from chapter 2 (pp. 21-35), and answer it by clicking on "comment" on this blog entry.
Tourette and Grammar Rules
What were the main findings of this article? What are the differences between normal children and children with the de la Tourette syndrome when it comes to creating the past tense forms of regular and irregular verbs? What would this difference in logic imply? What are your personal reactions?
Wednesday, October 31, 2007
Grammar for Grammarians (1st half of Chapter 2)
The Prescriptive Period
The period of time when prescriptive grammar evolved in England was the second half of the 17th century and the early 18th century. It was known as the Prescriptive Period. England had been through many problems both politically and socially. There were three major forces that affected the intellectual climate of this period:
1. A desire to control and regulate society and language.
2. An increased interest in English rather than Latin.
3. A look to the past as a time of linguistic"purity".
Four literary figures went about the regulatin of language: John Dryden, Daniel Defoe, Jonathan Swife and Samuel Johnson. They had three goals:
1. To standardize English
2. To refine English
3. To ascertain English (to fix the language once and for all)
They felt the best way to do this was with an authoritative dictionary that could be used as a standard by which to judge usage. They planned to open an academy and through it the dictionary would be written and published. After numerous attempts were tried without success, the idea was dropped.
In 1755, however, Samuel Johnson did publish a dictionary that he hoped would fix the pronunciation of the English language. During this period, many grammar books were also published establishing rules of grammar.
The period of time when prescriptive grammar evolved in England was the second half of the 17th century and the early 18th century. It was known as the Prescriptive Period. England had been through many problems both politically and socially. There were three major forces that affected the intellectual climate of this period:
1. A desire to control and regulate society and language.
2. An increased interest in English rather than Latin.
3. A look to the past as a time of linguistic"purity".
Four literary figures went about the regulatin of language: John Dryden, Daniel Defoe, Jonathan Swife and Samuel Johnson. They had three goals:
1. To standardize English
2. To refine English
3. To ascertain English (to fix the language once and for all)
They felt the best way to do this was with an authoritative dictionary that could be used as a standard by which to judge usage. They planned to open an academy and through it the dictionary would be written and published. After numerous attempts were tried without success, the idea was dropped.
In 1755, however, Samuel Johnson did publish a dictionary that he hoped would fix the pronunciation of the English language. During this period, many grammar books were also published establishing rules of grammar.
Wednesday, October 10, 2007
A Formula for Predicting Readability
According to Robert P. Gunning, the Wall Street Journal an award for having “the most readable front page in the country.” Gunning’s way of coming to this conclusion was simple, he had found the difficulty of other front pages by using a formula. After using this readability formula, he found that the Wall Street Journal was the “most readable.”
Until recently, the objective techniques used by journalist were mainly used in children books. These techniques, however, have been knows for about 25 years and have been written about in educational journals, doctoral dissertations, Masters’ theses, etc. One question that people are asking is, “What has caused people to start reusing these techniques?”
The war period has helped people to realize how important these techniques are. More people are having to fill out tax forms, buy war bonds and so on. These techniques for making articles more readably have made things so much easier.
There are a couple of different ways to determine the readability of an article. The Lorge formula was one of the first and easiest formulas to use. By using this, it only took a short time to predict the readability of an article and make it easier to read. This formula is used by counting the number of uncommon words, the average sentence length, and the number of prepositional phrases.
Rudolf Flesch produced another formula in 1943. With the use of correlation tables he showed that the Lorge formula failed to discriminate satisfaction between materials above the eighth grade level in difficulty. Average adults are usually around the eighth or ninth grade level, Flesch felt that there needed to be a better way of determining the difficulty readability. His formula provided three different techniques. The average sentence length, number of affixed morphemes (prefixes, suffixes, etc), and a relative number of personal references were his ways of determining readability. After using this formula while reading materials published by the National Tuberculosis Association, they formula was found adequate. But not everything was correct. The number of affixes came up different and was difficult to keep count of all of them and was very time consuming to keep counting. Flesch later dropped the count of abstract words in his formula.
The main objective to using the Dale List of 769 words was that it did not differentiate between the higher levels of difficulty. The second downfall to Flesch’s formula was the count of personal references. This is not reliable because in most readings, things we say are not abstract or general. In the article, American Psychologists by S.S. Stevens and Geraldine Stone reported that Flesch’s formula was not as accurate as people thought.
After viewing the downfalls to this formula, a more efficient way of predicting readability was found. The hypothesis was to find a larger word list instead of affixes, personal references don’t really add up to that much, and a shorter formula could be created to make this more efficient. After doing an experiment, it was found that certain words that scored higher in other formulas, weren’t really difficult words at all. After making several combinations of factors, there was a new and better two-factor formula. By using a factor of vocabulary load (number of words outside the Dale list of 3,000 words) and a factor of sentence structure, this was a good way of predicting readability.
After correcting the grade levels, it helped to interpret scores obtained by the formula. For adults, the corrected grade levels may be interpreted by the number of years of schooling required to read the material and understand it.
The article did not claim that the formula would be definitive. It is believed, however, that this is a short cut in judging the difficulty in material. This formula can also be an aid in simplifying text.
It is said that you must be cautious about “writing for a readability formula.” A formula is a statistical device and it means that longer sentences make comprehension more difficult. It states that a readers purpose in reading and interest and background must also be taken into consideration.
Until recently, the objective techniques used by journalist were mainly used in children books. These techniques, however, have been knows for about 25 years and have been written about in educational journals, doctoral dissertations, Masters’ theses, etc. One question that people are asking is, “What has caused people to start reusing these techniques?”
The war period has helped people to realize how important these techniques are. More people are having to fill out tax forms, buy war bonds and so on. These techniques for making articles more readably have made things so much easier.
There are a couple of different ways to determine the readability of an article. The Lorge formula was one of the first and easiest formulas to use. By using this, it only took a short time to predict the readability of an article and make it easier to read. This formula is used by counting the number of uncommon words, the average sentence length, and the number of prepositional phrases.
Rudolf Flesch produced another formula in 1943. With the use of correlation tables he showed that the Lorge formula failed to discriminate satisfaction between materials above the eighth grade level in difficulty. Average adults are usually around the eighth or ninth grade level, Flesch felt that there needed to be a better way of determining the difficulty readability. His formula provided three different techniques. The average sentence length, number of affixed morphemes (prefixes, suffixes, etc), and a relative number of personal references were his ways of determining readability. After using this formula while reading materials published by the National Tuberculosis Association, they formula was found adequate. But not everything was correct. The number of affixes came up different and was difficult to keep count of all of them and was very time consuming to keep counting. Flesch later dropped the count of abstract words in his formula.
The main objective to using the Dale List of 769 words was that it did not differentiate between the higher levels of difficulty. The second downfall to Flesch’s formula was the count of personal references. This is not reliable because in most readings, things we say are not abstract or general. In the article, American Psychologists by S.S. Stevens and Geraldine Stone reported that Flesch’s formula was not as accurate as people thought.
After viewing the downfalls to this formula, a more efficient way of predicting readability was found. The hypothesis was to find a larger word list instead of affixes, personal references don’t really add up to that much, and a shorter formula could be created to make this more efficient. After doing an experiment, it was found that certain words that scored higher in other formulas, weren’t really difficult words at all. After making several combinations of factors, there was a new and better two-factor formula. By using a factor of vocabulary load (number of words outside the Dale list of 3,000 words) and a factor of sentence structure, this was a good way of predicting readability.
After correcting the grade levels, it helped to interpret scores obtained by the formula. For adults, the corrected grade levels may be interpreted by the number of years of schooling required to read the material and understand it.
The article did not claim that the formula would be definitive. It is believed, however, that this is a short cut in judging the difficulty in material. This formula can also be an aid in simplifying text.
It is said that you must be cautious about “writing for a readability formula.” A formula is a statistical device and it means that longer sentences make comprehension more difficult. It states that a readers purpose in reading and interest and background must also be taken into consideration.
Thursday, October 4, 2007
Excursion in Recursion: Language & Cognition in the Piraha
In the May 2006 Der Spiegel, Rafaela von Bredow profiles the Piraha people of Brazil. Over three decades ago, linguist Daniel Everett stumbled across an anomaly in the Brazilian forests: a band of around 350 tribal people known as the Piraha. He kept his “find” to himself because as he puts it “I simply didn’t trust myself.” What he didn’t trust was his initial analysis of their language. He admits that their language is “tremendously difficult to learn.” Given the well-known errors of linguistic anthropologist of days gone by who are all but too eager to plant their academic “flag” on a new discovery only to have their work debunked by the next generation, caution is a good sign. Fellow linguist and Piraha scholar, Peter Gordon, is "concerned the Piraha will simply become one more scientific oddity, to be exploited and analyzed right down to their feces."
An example of academic overconfidence involves the Eskimo language. Yes, I know that there is no such thing as an Eskimo; indigenous people of the Arctic are Inuit and Yupik, if they are found in our hemisphere. Although many social science textbooks still state otherwise, it is not the case that they have 50, 100 or even 500+ words for “snow.” The truth is that their languages are what linguists term agglutinative. This means that they can string morpheme after morpheme together in a seemingly endless line and call it a word. In other words, anthropologists might hear “snow-that-fell-the-night-before-when-the-moon-was-full” and call it a new “word” for snow. (German is also known to be an agglutinative language, but I will bow to our native speaker to expound on that.)
I started to question whether von Bredow's confident assertion that the Piraha "have no history, no descriptive words, and no subordinate clauses." I “Wikied”--I know that Wikipedia isn't proper in formal research, but thought it would be okay for blog purposes--the Piraha, and discovered that their language is, indeed, agglutinative. To an English speaker like me, those agglutinated words might as well be subordinate clauses, because that is how I perceive their function. I also discovered that males and females have different languages. This is not uncommon in cultures with strict gender-defined roles. Another aspect of their language that may prove difficult for the native English speaker is the tonal element. Everett notes two tones that are meaning-laden. Other linguists claim three or more. Since they don’t agree, they are not hearing the same thing that the Piraha are. This makes me wonder what else they might not understand.
So although I question their lack of recursion and also question von Bredow's arguments on that score, some of her points were, indeed, valid. Whorf has been resurrected from mid last century in order to explain their lack of a counting system. The Whorf-Sapir hypothesis that states that words help us think our thoughts. This idea dates back to the dawn of linguistics in the writings of classical Indian scholars Pingala and Patanjali, but it took the British 2,000+ years to "discover" it, and plant their own flag. Yes, in fact, proving that words matter!
I don't doubt the influence of language on thought, but I am not convinced that Whorf's theory is the operative agent in the phenomenon that is the inability of the Piraha to count to ten.
All sources agree that the Piraha are intelligent people. They are genetically related to neighboring tribes that do have counting words in their vocabulary. Their language is an isolate, a remnant from a group that is extinct but for their branch. It is documented decisively that they are counting impaired. What other conclusion could be reached?
At least, two things bother me about this picture. First, it is also stated that they have two color words that indicate light and dark. Sounds strange to us, but this is more common that you may think. It also indicates a classic linguistic progression. Their language would have the next color word added indicating red. Does this mean that they are color-blind? No. Linguistically, orange would not be a "color" word in English because it has a juicy, citrus fruit as its primary referent. Second, I posit Piaget, Montessori, and Steiner pedagogies of learning numbers may be more relevant in exploring the Piraha deficiency. If number concepts were so hard-wired into our human brains, would we spend so much preschool time exposing them to our own children? If language acquisition has windows of opportunity, perhaps, counting has an even more rigid time frame.
If it does hold true that these tribal peoples are without past or future and that they live absolutely in the present, then they will be of interest not only to the academics of the world, but also the Zen monks who strive for decades to achieve what the Piraha have as a birth right: Present Mind. My fears run along with Peter Gordon, that the tribal people may have more to suspect from the "friendly academics" than they do the ethically-suspect traders from "civilized" Brazil. The perils are too numerous to count.
An example of academic overconfidence involves the Eskimo language. Yes, I know that there is no such thing as an Eskimo; indigenous people of the Arctic are Inuit and Yupik, if they are found in our hemisphere. Although many social science textbooks still state otherwise, it is not the case that they have 50, 100 or even 500+ words for “snow.” The truth is that their languages are what linguists term agglutinative. This means that they can string morpheme after morpheme together in a seemingly endless line and call it a word. In other words, anthropologists might hear “snow-that-fell-the-night-before-when-the-moon-was-full” and call it a new “word” for snow. (German is also known to be an agglutinative language, but I will bow to our native speaker to expound on that.)
I started to question whether von Bredow's confident assertion that the Piraha "have no history, no descriptive words, and no subordinate clauses." I “Wikied”--I know that Wikipedia isn't proper in formal research, but thought it would be okay for blog purposes--the Piraha, and discovered that their language is, indeed, agglutinative. To an English speaker like me, those agglutinated words might as well be subordinate clauses, because that is how I perceive their function. I also discovered that males and females have different languages. This is not uncommon in cultures with strict gender-defined roles. Another aspect of their language that may prove difficult for the native English speaker is the tonal element. Everett notes two tones that are meaning-laden. Other linguists claim three or more. Since they don’t agree, they are not hearing the same thing that the Piraha are. This makes me wonder what else they might not understand.
So although I question their lack of recursion and also question von Bredow's arguments on that score, some of her points were, indeed, valid. Whorf has been resurrected from mid last century in order to explain their lack of a counting system. The Whorf-Sapir hypothesis that states that words help us think our thoughts. This idea dates back to the dawn of linguistics in the writings of classical Indian scholars Pingala and Patanjali, but it took the British 2,000+ years to "discover" it, and plant their own flag. Yes, in fact, proving that words matter!
I don't doubt the influence of language on thought, but I am not convinced that Whorf's theory is the operative agent in the phenomenon that is the inability of the Piraha to count to ten.
All sources agree that the Piraha are intelligent people. They are genetically related to neighboring tribes that do have counting words in their vocabulary. Their language is an isolate, a remnant from a group that is extinct but for their branch. It is documented decisively that they are counting impaired. What other conclusion could be reached?
At least, two things bother me about this picture. First, it is also stated that they have two color words that indicate light and dark. Sounds strange to us, but this is more common that you may think. It also indicates a classic linguistic progression. Their language would have the next color word added indicating red. Does this mean that they are color-blind? No. Linguistically, orange would not be a "color" word in English because it has a juicy, citrus fruit as its primary referent. Second, I posit Piaget, Montessori, and Steiner pedagogies of learning numbers may be more relevant in exploring the Piraha deficiency. If number concepts were so hard-wired into our human brains, would we spend so much preschool time exposing them to our own children? If language acquisition has windows of opportunity, perhaps, counting has an even more rigid time frame.
If it does hold true that these tribal peoples are without past or future and that they live absolutely in the present, then they will be of interest not only to the academics of the world, but also the Zen monks who strive for decades to achieve what the Piraha have as a birth right: Present Mind. My fears run along with Peter Gordon, that the tribal people may have more to suspect from the "friendly academics" than they do the ethically-suspect traders from "civilized" Brazil. The perils are too numerous to count.
Tuesday, September 25, 2007
Beyond the Emoticon: Semicolon Style
In the January 2003 issue of The English Journal, Angela Petit confesses to be a "grammar addict." Having read her article, I see no reason to prescribe her to a twelve-step plan. Quite the contrary, I would describe her condition with respect to what is missing.
What Ms Petit lacks is found in overabundance in the general population: grammar anxiety. Her state of linguistic nirvana has been achieved by an awareness shift undergone by others as well. Cook portrays an active view of grammar as "purposeful rhetoric moves." Richards professes that "words work." Burke, describes language as "the Scramble, the Wrangle of the Market Place, the flurries and flare-ups of the Human Barnyard." These images run counter to the "drill and kill" of standardized testing or the dour teacher from grammar school days...well, at least my grammar school days. Think Aunt Bea with Barney Fife's sense of authority.
We may learn a few things from dissecting a dead phrase, but we could learn much more by watching a living, thriving thing. Petit would have it that we could learn even more still by having a hand at "editing" works of others.
Petit develops her brand of pedagogy while exploring the grammatical subcategory of punctuation further divided to the level of semicolon. Mostly, this works for her because as she asserts, semicolons are "not necessary." English language is not inexorably hinged upon the muscle of meaning they provide.
Does that mean they are not important? Do they have no rules? Why am I reading this anyway? With a wink and a smile [I knew you knew they were good for something. ;)], we can explore a bit of their style potential.
For official usage rules, "Andrea Lunsford's Everyday Writer presents the semicolon as weaker than a period but stronger than a comma and lists the following guidelines for using this punctuation mark:
Semicolons are all about choice. In making choices, a writer develops a voice and a style. If writing is an art as well as a craft, semicolons punctuate the overlap. I may not have the rhetorical genius of King as witnessed in his Letter from Birmingham Jail, but my writing is also a series of choices; perhaps, some are more successful than others. I look forward to seeing you take it on as a makeover of sorts.
What Ms Petit lacks is found in overabundance in the general population: grammar anxiety. Her state of linguistic nirvana has been achieved by an awareness shift undergone by others as well. Cook portrays an active view of grammar as "purposeful rhetoric moves." Richards professes that "words work." Burke, describes language as "the Scramble, the Wrangle of the Market Place, the flurries and flare-ups of the Human Barnyard." These images run counter to the "drill and kill" of standardized testing or the dour teacher from grammar school days...well, at least my grammar school days. Think Aunt Bea with Barney Fife's sense of authority.
We may learn a few things from dissecting a dead phrase, but we could learn much more by watching a living, thriving thing. Petit would have it that we could learn even more still by having a hand at "editing" works of others.
Petit develops her brand of pedagogy while exploring the grammatical subcategory of punctuation further divided to the level of semicolon. Mostly, this works for her because as she asserts, semicolons are "not necessary." English language is not inexorably hinged upon the muscle of meaning they provide.
Does that mean they are not important? Do they have no rules? Why am I reading this anyway? With a wink and a smile [I knew you knew they were good for something. ;)], we can explore a bit of their style potential.
For official usage rules, "Andrea Lunsford's Everyday Writer presents the semicolon as weaker than a period but stronger than a comma and lists the following guidelines for using this punctuation mark:
- Use semicolons to link closely related independent clauses.
- Use semicolons to link independent clauses joined by conjunctive adverbs or transitional phrases.
- Use semicolons to separate items in a series containing other punctuation. (326-27)"
Semicolons are all about choice. In making choices, a writer develops a voice and a style. If writing is an art as well as a craft, semicolons punctuate the overlap. I may not have the rhetorical genius of King as witnessed in his Letter from Birmingham Jail, but my writing is also a series of choices; perhaps, some are more successful than others. I look forward to seeing you take it on as a makeover of sorts.
Pun and Games, William J. Vande Kopple
One of the wonderful things about my elementary education is that in grades 6-8, my teachers believed in “Hands-on” methods. If we did math, there were always counting cubes around. If we were studying science, we would measure out certain formulas and make things with our own hands. The beauty of learning like that really shows around quiz time. It’s much easier for a child to remember what he/she learned that day when they held the matter of what their being tested on, in there own hands. Mr. Kopple is writing about much of the same thing. He says that he uses reading games in the beginning of each of his classes. Instead of opening their books to chapter seven, the class is involved in a brainteaser about word puns. This is an excellent way to get the creative juices flowing.
Kopple says that the only downside to playing the games is that the real transition from game time to learning time is horrible.
He can hear the hissing and booing when his little games are over and it’s time to learn from the book.
I’m surprised that he didn’t find some way to incorporate those reading and word games into an entire class time. My teachers in my younger years were able to do it. Then he wouldn’t have to have ‘fun’ time and ‘learning’ time. The two could work together. He could find a way to influence group discussion with his games. Make a whole lesson out of it. I understand however, why he chooses to use the games in small doses. It’s very difficult to create a whole lesson plan out of a small brainteaser game. So Kopple believes that they can have a bit of fun learning everyday, instead of just some of the time.
Either way, I fully agree that brain teasers and word games area an excellent way, especially in High School (Because 80% of those students don’t really want to be there any way) is a great way to draw the students in. School should be fun; it doesn’t have to be the teeth pulling event that most say it is.
Kopple says that the only downside to playing the games is that the real transition from game time to learning time is horrible.
He can hear the hissing and booing when his little games are over and it’s time to learn from the book.
I’m surprised that he didn’t find some way to incorporate those reading and word games into an entire class time. My teachers in my younger years were able to do it. Then he wouldn’t have to have ‘fun’ time and ‘learning’ time. The two could work together. He could find a way to influence group discussion with his games. Make a whole lesson out of it. I understand however, why he chooses to use the games in small doses. It’s very difficult to create a whole lesson plan out of a small brainteaser game. So Kopple believes that they can have a bit of fun learning everyday, instead of just some of the time.
Either way, I fully agree that brain teasers and word games area an excellent way, especially in High School (Because 80% of those students don’t really want to be there any way) is a great way to draw the students in. School should be fun; it doesn’t have to be the teeth pulling event that most say it is.
Wednesday, September 19, 2007
The Straw Man Meets His Match: Six Arguments for Studying Humor in English Classes
Firstly, I apologize for the late post, technical difficulties.
The authors discuss their six arguments for bringing humor into the classroom, calling them "straw men" but hoping that readers realize the reasons for keeping humor out are the "straw men," not the other way round. 1) But Kids Already Get Enough Humor Outside of School - by bringing humor in, however, teachers are able to bridge the gap between "real life" and academics, making students see real life applications of school. Also, teachers should educate their students on the subtlety of humor and what makes things humorous, helping them to gain a higher appreciation of humor. 2) But Teaching Humor Will Take Away from the Time I Need to Teach Grammar, Composition, Literature, and Public Speaking - as we have often discussed, looking at what is "wrong" is more interesting and just as effective of a teaching method as looking at what is "right," which is also what this suggests doing. Looking at humorous mistakes allows students to have fun while seeing the effects these errors can have, and making them realize the different circumstances under which formal and informal grammar should be used. Also, by involving something the students find to be fun, they are less uneasy about public speaking and learn to analyze literature, hopefully leading to other forms. 3) But I'm Supposed to Be Preparing Kids to Earn a Living - the business world has a growing need for people to work directly with humor, script writers, comedians, actors, and authors to name a few. Also, in almost every job there is a need for humor, whether just between colleagues or as a release of stress. 4) If I Bring Humor into My Class, I'll Have Censorship Problems - "We [teachers] need to help students ponder the relationship of censorship to such terms as good taste, appropriateness, tolerance, kindness, respect, sensitivity, and the ubiquitous political correctness (38). 5) Humor Hurts People's Feelings - the authors admit that this does happen, but that humor is equally used to build relationships, just as any communication tool does. 6) But I Can't Teach about Humor When I Can't Even Tell a Joke or Write a Funny Letter Home - teachers sometimes need to let their students lead, but they offer some activities to help, including having students bring in news clippings, research and write about humor, and writing parodies and pattern jokes.
The authors discuss their six arguments for bringing humor into the classroom, calling them "straw men" but hoping that readers realize the reasons for keeping humor out are the "straw men," not the other way round. 1) But Kids Already Get Enough Humor Outside of School - by bringing humor in, however, teachers are able to bridge the gap between "real life" and academics, making students see real life applications of school. Also, teachers should educate their students on the subtlety of humor and what makes things humorous, helping them to gain a higher appreciation of humor. 2) But Teaching Humor Will Take Away from the Time I Need to Teach Grammar, Composition, Literature, and Public Speaking - as we have often discussed, looking at what is "wrong" is more interesting and just as effective of a teaching method as looking at what is "right," which is also what this suggests doing. Looking at humorous mistakes allows students to have fun while seeing the effects these errors can have, and making them realize the different circumstances under which formal and informal grammar should be used. Also, by involving something the students find to be fun, they are less uneasy about public speaking and learn to analyze literature, hopefully leading to other forms. 3) But I'm Supposed to Be Preparing Kids to Earn a Living - the business world has a growing need for people to work directly with humor, script writers, comedians, actors, and authors to name a few. Also, in almost every job there is a need for humor, whether just between colleagues or as a release of stress. 4) If I Bring Humor into My Class, I'll Have Censorship Problems - "We [teachers] need to help students ponder the relationship of censorship to such terms as good taste, appropriateness, tolerance, kindness, respect, sensitivity, and the ubiquitous political correctness (38). 5) Humor Hurts People's Feelings - the authors admit that this does happen, but that humor is equally used to build relationships, just as any communication tool does. 6) But I Can't Teach about Humor When I Can't Even Tell a Joke or Write a Funny Letter Home - teachers sometimes need to let their students lead, but they offer some activities to help, including having students bring in news clippings, research and write about humor, and writing parodies and pattern jokes.
Monday, September 17, 2007
Teaching Grammar in the Context of Writing Response
“Teaching Grammar in the Context of Writing” by Constance Weaver was not as affective an article in my opinion. I do agree that it is easier to teach grammar in the context of writing, but I am not sure if Weaver gave the best examples of how to do so. Weaver had a long article considering the amount of useful content of her article. Do not misunderstand me though, I do not think it was a bad article, but I did not find it as affective as some of the other assigned. Weaver did state that “teaching grammar in context of writing is more effective then isolating grammar as its own subject.” This I can certainly believe. The idea of knowing grammar is that you may produce more effective writing. What better way is there to learn grammar than incorporating it with what it will be later used for. “Teach minimum of grammar for maximum benefits.” This I also agree with because as stated in Fraser and Hudson’s article, we want to teach students to control their language. What I found to be the best part of Weaver’s article was the listed goal for teachers: “Have students use grammar more effectively and conventionally in their writing.” This is why we teach grammar is it not!!!
21 Kicks at the Grammar Horse Response
There were quite a few points that I came to an agreement with in “21 Kicks at the Grammar Horse” article. The article did throw question a few issues that many prefer not to address that deal the fact of why students to do not retain the grammar rules and information taught to them well (not verbatim): Are the students mentally ready for what we present in class, are they cognitively able to comprehend grammar at the level presented to them, have they had all necessary teaching before hand to be at a level to understand what is going on? These were good things to consider. The article also mentioned that grammar is not a separate subject, but that “grammar should =draw from and feed into writing, reading, listening, and speaking programs.” I also agree that modern methods are required for modern grammar in order to reach these modern students of ours. The article also touched on inductive teaching and the inductive approach, and it did give the reader a good idea of what the inductive approach was about. I do want to read on the inductive approach a bit more as a result of getting a taste of what it is about from Fraser and Hudson’s article. Fraser and Hudson also mentioned that it is necessary to distinguish between grammar and linguistics. It is necessary to clarify dialects for students as well as standard English. The question came up, how should a teacher teach grammar and “teach as little as possible” was the given answer. I do agree with that especially because as teachers we should remember “in grammar just teach students to control language.” The grammar process Fraser and Hudson listed at the end of the article was incubation, generalization, shaping, polishing, and editing. I found this to be an affective article.
Thursday, September 13, 2007
What;s a (White) Teacher To Do About Black English
I appreciate this article and it defining Black English, giving a little history behind Black English, and showing respect toward the language. No one ever speaks well of AAE but I do not think most know the truth behind AAE. This article definitely explained its developments as well as point out that it is something to be proud of. The article pointed out that most people who speak AAE do not even respect it themselves and look at is as something to be ashamed of; “it should evoke pride in a speaker and admiration in a listener.” I could not agree more that so called “good English” has to do with politics and power rather than aesthetics or immutable rules. I did enjoy the article.
Watch Your Language: Teaching Standard Usage to Resistant and Reluctant learners
I completely agree with the ideas of this article. You do not want your students to feel as if “alright let me just do this for class” and never apply it or even get anything out of it. As Delpit said we should teach our student “to watch their language.” The article stated that maybe as teachers we should re-examine our convention ways of teaching especially since we can intensify a students’ resistance. I do not think most teachers realize that things they may not have preferred as a student and only teach out of requirement can also intensify a student’s resistance also. This is because the teacher still has an underlying resentment about the subject matter he/she has not dealt with themselves. Again agreeing with Delpit we must meet our student at their current linguistic level and work from there. And it is very important to recognize and not to condemn and immediately correct their current linguistic position; that’s like implying how their family, friends, and community communicate is incorrect. I admire the three steps to re-examine our teaching habits listed near the end of the article. This was a very informative and helpful article. It surely drew my attention to something that had never crossed my mind.
Wednesday, September 12, 2007
"Twenty-one Kicks at the Grammar Horse" by Ian S. Franser and Lynda M. Hodson (summary by Bobbi Robison)
“Twenty-one Kicks at the Grammar Horse” basically describes exactly what it states. Ways of teaching grammar efficiently are extremely outdated. The article states that “even the word grammar as defined and used by early researchers has come to mean something very different today” (LSF, LMG pg.49).
In our day and time much of the traditional grammar teaching methods are no longer of any use to our society. Many teachers today, as well as in the past, specifically look at grammatical errors instead of the ideas that a student may produce in his or her paper. By doing so, the student gains no writing improvement and certainly does not get a good grasp of the grammatical features. Students sometimes use the excuse that they do not understand the concepts that a teaching is trying to get across and the article argues a good point; it states that maybe a student does not have the appropriate level of logical thinking necessary for learning the material or maybe they are simple not interested. In this case, teachers must acquire a new method of teaching that requires them to “learn as much as possible about the language itself, [and] the ways in which kids acquire it…” (ISF, LMG pg.50). This allows the teachers to become aware of why a child may struggle in an area and therefore be of better assistance in helping them overcome such struggles.
The article explains, in detail (too in depth to explain in a short summary as so), twenty-one suggestions on how teachers can improve their attitudes and focuses on dealing with grammar. One that I found interesting was suggestions nine. It states that “Linguistics is the scientific study of language. Just as in the science of medicine there are particular areas of specialization (radiology, psychiatry, neurology, etc.) so too in linguistics, the linguist may specialize in the study of: grammar, rhetoric, semantics, lexicography, or usage. Grammar, then, is only one of several specialized studies within the general science of linguistics” (ISF, LMG pg.51).
Grammar is not everything when it comes to language and the way we speak. There are several other areas that need to be taken into consideration. I agree that our society needs to develop a new and improved way of teaching grammar. We also need to understand that there is no set standard way for writing or speaking. Cultures and different areas produce different dialect, one no better and no worse than the other.
In our day and time much of the traditional grammar teaching methods are no longer of any use to our society. Many teachers today, as well as in the past, specifically look at grammatical errors instead of the ideas that a student may produce in his or her paper. By doing so, the student gains no writing improvement and certainly does not get a good grasp of the grammatical features. Students sometimes use the excuse that they do not understand the concepts that a teaching is trying to get across and the article argues a good point; it states that maybe a student does not have the appropriate level of logical thinking necessary for learning the material or maybe they are simple not interested. In this case, teachers must acquire a new method of teaching that requires them to “learn as much as possible about the language itself, [and] the ways in which kids acquire it…” (ISF, LMG pg.50). This allows the teachers to become aware of why a child may struggle in an area and therefore be of better assistance in helping them overcome such struggles.
The article explains, in detail (too in depth to explain in a short summary as so), twenty-one suggestions on how teachers can improve their attitudes and focuses on dealing with grammar. One that I found interesting was suggestions nine. It states that “Linguistics is the scientific study of language. Just as in the science of medicine there are particular areas of specialization (radiology, psychiatry, neurology, etc.) so too in linguistics, the linguist may specialize in the study of: grammar, rhetoric, semantics, lexicography, or usage. Grammar, then, is only one of several specialized studies within the general science of linguistics” (ISF, LMG pg.51).
Grammar is not everything when it comes to language and the way we speak. There are several other areas that need to be taken into consideration. I agree that our society needs to develop a new and improved way of teaching grammar. We also need to understand that there is no set standard way for writing or speaking. Cultures and different areas produce different dialect, one no better and no worse than the other.
Monday, September 10, 2007
Watch your Language- First Summary
Grammatical errors, wrong verbs, punctuation, and many more problems arise when trying to write a paper. How many times has someone wondered in class if their teacher is not making this stuff up? Well, that question and many more questions have arised in the article, Watch Your Language: Teaching Standard Usage to Reistant and Reluctant Learners. The author, Mark Larson like many others had difficultly learning the basic rules and regulations of grammer when he was a student. Eventually, these struggles landed him into a remedial English class entitled "Hurdles"; here he was able to do countless hours of paper work which would remind him of the rules used in our everyday language. Now, a teacher himself, he has started to investigate the "rules" that have been dictated to not only himself but countless others.
In his search he questions why "Its a crime to end a sentence with a preposition?" Early on we read that these rules were forced upon us when England became the center of power. So language became a tool to lord over everyone. Bad grammar was a device to show someone's rank on the social scale. Using good grammar only enforced that, that person was well educated, distinguised and an upright citizen.
Later on in the article, we find that the reasons students are so inept to learn the "right way" to use grammar comes from an inability to cross a certain line. For some students, language is something that is cultural and passed down. Some students won't step up and try to speak correctly because its not "cool." Language is a social identity and to some students its a trap for being a social outcast. "Without a rational examination of what a standard language is, how it develops, and the ways in which it can be misapplied, we end up with the problem Jenny Cook-Gumperz and John Gumperz have identified: that "theories of educatability'- the basis for judgements about who can or should learn what-' are often built around small linguistic features." What Mr. Larson is trying to point out is, the inablity to learn language can come from something as small as our background. Language identifys our differences in society and culture.
However, he is not trying to say that anything goes, each of us should understand grammar and language in order to use our ablities to their very best. Once we can get students to "watch their language" this could open up doors for them to learn these skills without the humiliation of being in other classrooms trying to jump over "hurdles" that are long forgotten when they are older. The students ability to read articles and books while observing language and grammar patterns will only further their own ability to write and speak well.
There are a few tools that need to be used in the classroom that should help in understanding grammar. The first rule: Support the language each student brings to school. Students who bring their own slang and cultural language will only further help other students by explaning to them what they are saying. They know the rules already, why not help other students in understanding? This could create a class discussion and interest in the uses of grammar throughout any slang. Also, creating questions in the minds of the students; "Why do I make the choices I make when I speak, when I write?" These questions will lead to other significant changes in their writing and speaking styles. Because they will only change with the group of people they are around. Students will be able to modify their language in any situation that is presented.
The second rule: Provide them with input from an additional code. This means providing them with editorials, short fiction, or segments of books. This will only hlep them to see more examples of writing done well. Providing them with a basis of which to start their own writing process. The third and final rule: Give them opportunities to use the new code in a non-threatening way, real communicative context. This meaning, using their grammatical tools to be effective. Making correct chocies when speaking or writing for a varitey of audiences or people. Mr. Larson speaks of the Rodney King verdict; in his class many students used colorful language in which to express their feelings. However, once they realized that these letters would go to Corretta Scott King, each student was more than will to re-write a version of their paper in which it showed off their writing skills.
In conclusion, as teachers all we really want is a student to communicate to you what they want you to see. "Ultimately, writing is not about commas carefully placed or infinitives unsplit; rather, it is as Anne Lamott (1994) says, 'About our need to be visible, to be heard, our need to make senest of our lives, to wake up and grow and belong."
In his search he questions why "Its a crime to end a sentence with a preposition?" Early on we read that these rules were forced upon us when England became the center of power. So language became a tool to lord over everyone. Bad grammar was a device to show someone's rank on the social scale. Using good grammar only enforced that, that person was well educated, distinguised and an upright citizen.
Later on in the article, we find that the reasons students are so inept to learn the "right way" to use grammar comes from an inability to cross a certain line. For some students, language is something that is cultural and passed down. Some students won't step up and try to speak correctly because its not "cool." Language is a social identity and to some students its a trap for being a social outcast. "Without a rational examination of what a standard language is, how it develops, and the ways in which it can be misapplied, we end up with the problem Jenny Cook-Gumperz and John Gumperz have identified: that "theories of educatability'- the basis for judgements about who can or should learn what-' are often built around small linguistic features." What Mr. Larson is trying to point out is, the inablity to learn language can come from something as small as our background. Language identifys our differences in society and culture.
However, he is not trying to say that anything goes, each of us should understand grammar and language in order to use our ablities to their very best. Once we can get students to "watch their language" this could open up doors for them to learn these skills without the humiliation of being in other classrooms trying to jump over "hurdles" that are long forgotten when they are older. The students ability to read articles and books while observing language and grammar patterns will only further their own ability to write and speak well.
There are a few tools that need to be used in the classroom that should help in understanding grammar. The first rule: Support the language each student brings to school. Students who bring their own slang and cultural language will only further help other students by explaning to them what they are saying. They know the rules already, why not help other students in understanding? This could create a class discussion and interest in the uses of grammar throughout any slang. Also, creating questions in the minds of the students; "Why do I make the choices I make when I speak, when I write?" These questions will lead to other significant changes in their writing and speaking styles. Because they will only change with the group of people they are around. Students will be able to modify their language in any situation that is presented.
The second rule: Provide them with input from an additional code. This means providing them with editorials, short fiction, or segments of books. This will only hlep them to see more examples of writing done well. Providing them with a basis of which to start their own writing process. The third and final rule: Give them opportunities to use the new code in a non-threatening way, real communicative context. This meaning, using their grammatical tools to be effective. Making correct chocies when speaking or writing for a varitey of audiences or people. Mr. Larson speaks of the Rodney King verdict; in his class many students used colorful language in which to express their feelings. However, once they realized that these letters would go to Corretta Scott King, each student was more than will to re-write a version of their paper in which it showed off their writing skills.
In conclusion, as teachers all we really want is a student to communicate to you what they want you to see. "Ultimately, writing is not about commas carefully placed or infinitives unsplit; rather, it is as Anne Lamott (1994) says, 'About our need to be visible, to be heard, our need to make senest of our lives, to wake up and grow and belong."
Tuesday, September 4, 2007
What is AAE?
My article basically answered the question “What is AAE (African American English)?” It opened explaining what AAE was in general, who speaks AAE—most think only African Americans do but that is not true—and how AAE is classified. Is AAE “Broken” English? The answer to that question is no definitely not. According to some linguist, “Linguist research has established that three rule-governed components identify a system of speech as a language: phonology, semantics, and syntax. As we have seen, however, so-called dialects like AAE also possess rules for pronunciation, meaning, and grammar.” (p12) The article goes on to discuss AAE and if it is slang, but again the answer is no. “Unquestionably AAE, like other varieties of English, encompasses a wealth of slang.” (p7) The article discusses AAE as a dialect and as a language. There are linguist that argue both cases. Both arguments offer valid evidence for each case.
As a reader it was a bit difficult for me to accept some of the research. I am sure my being Black had everything to do with that but some of the so-called facts about the rules of AAE were so far fetched to me. I feel as if some of the examples listed as things AAE speakers say were very extreme. There was no balance to me. Some of the examples were just ignorant and things I have never heard spoken before. I myself speak AAE, but there are just some things you do not say. I feel as if some oft eh examples in the research were just from places where AAE is spoken at its worst possibly. Do not misunderstand what I am saying though; there were many things that I did agree with in the article. The article was helpful in some instances, but some things it listed were foolish to me. I think the research/studies were not well rounded yet carefully conducted and documented.
As a reader it was a bit difficult for me to accept some of the research. I am sure my being Black had everything to do with that but some of the so-called facts about the rules of AAE were so far fetched to me. I feel as if some of the examples listed as things AAE speakers say were very extreme. There was no balance to me. Some of the examples were just ignorant and things I have never heard spoken before. I myself speak AAE, but there are just some things you do not say. I feel as if some oft eh examples in the research were just from places where AAE is spoken at its worst possibly. Do not misunderstand what I am saying though; there were many things that I did agree with in the article. The article was helpful in some instances, but some things it listed were foolish to me. I think the research/studies were not well rounded yet carefully conducted and documented.
Monday, September 3, 2007
Sociolinguistics Basics
This article is talks about Sociolinguistics which is the study of how language serves and is shaped by the social nature of human beings. Sociolinguistics examines the interplay of language and society, with language as the starting point. Sociolinguists also study dialect any regional, social or ethnic variety of a language. By that definition, the English taught in school as correct and used in non-personal writing is only one dialect of contemporary American English.
Scholars are currently using a sociolinguistics perspective to answer some intriguing questions about language in the United States, here are some are as follows: Which speakers in urban areas of the North are changing the pronunciation of vowels in a systematic way? Which features of African American Vernacular English (AAVE) grammar are used by middle-class white teen-agers who admire contemporary African-American music, entertainment and clothing?
Considerations other than grammatical correctness often govern speaker choices. Some social factors are attributes of the speaker for example, age, gender, socio-economic class, ethnicity and educational level. Constraints on subject matter vary from culture to culture.
Contact is an important concept in sociolinguistics social contact and language contact. Language change spreads through networks of people who talk with one another. Contact between languages brings about variation and change. Bilingualism is another response to language contact. Speakers may also develop a dialect of one language that is heavily influenced by features of the other language, such as the contemporary American dialect Chicano English.
Summary 3: "Codeswitching: Tools of Language and Culture Transform the Dialectally Diverse Classroom"
Summary 3: “Codeswitching: Tools of Language and Culture Transform the Dialectally Diverse Classroom” (by Rebecca S. Wheeler, and Rachel Swords)
The article points out the growing gaps between the dialect of a subculture (specifically urban) and the written language. The difference between the dialect of some subcultures and standard modern English is so great in some parts of the country that schools have been sued for malpractice because certain children could not understand a dialect that was not their own, therefore could not learn English. To ignore this difference between spoken and written language is viewed as a failure by educators. In order to compensate for the split, informal English writing has been coined. The style of the informal English is called a language variety. Language variety depends on geographic placement and cultural background of the general populous. The style in which a person speaks is dependant on the audience, their vernacular, and situation.
Acknowledging the difference between informal English and modern standard English gives a superior grasp of grammar as well as a better command of language. This focus on the differences between dialect and formal writing and speaking is called contrasting analysis. Educators across the country have made an effort to include contrasting analysis when they teach. The “pluralist” teachers have yielded positive results in the education of both black and white students.
(by Jason Valentine)
The article points out the growing gaps between the dialect of a subculture (specifically urban) and the written language. The difference between the dialect of some subcultures and standard modern English is so great in some parts of the country that schools have been sued for malpractice because certain children could not understand a dialect that was not their own, therefore could not learn English. To ignore this difference between spoken and written language is viewed as a failure by educators. In order to compensate for the split, informal English writing has been coined. The style of the informal English is called a language variety. Language variety depends on geographic placement and cultural background of the general populous. The style in which a person speaks is dependant on the audience, their vernacular, and situation.
Acknowledging the difference between informal English and modern standard English gives a superior grasp of grammar as well as a better command of language. This focus on the differences between dialect and formal writing and speaking is called contrasting analysis. Educators across the country have made an effort to include contrasting analysis when they teach. The “pluralist” teachers have yielded positive results in the education of both black and white students.
(by Jason Valentine)
Thursday, August 30, 2007
First Summary: The Distinctive Features of AAE (by Markie)
Markie Rhodes
August 28, 2007
Chapter 2: What Are the Distinctive Features of African American English?
Today, it is becoming a widely accepted fact that African American English is a rule-governed variety of speech containing several distinctive characteristics that separate it from Standard English. These differences arise in categories such as vocabulary, slang, historical words to the culture, novel meanings, obscenities, pronunciation, spelling, grammar, rhetoric, and discourse strategies.
The vocabulary of AAE contains several words that are unique to West African languages. For example, Smitherman discusses several examples when he lists, “ the traditional black church (e.g., git the spirit), black music (e.g., funky), and racial oppression (e.g., the Man)” (20.) These sets of words are the first of many aspects of AAE that make it distinct.
Similar to the vocabulary of AAE is the choice of slang. Once again, there are several phrases unique to AAE that are not used in Standard English. As stated in the text, these phrases include, “ hat up (‘leave’), lame (‘out of step’), and nickel n’ dime (‘petty’)” (20.) These phrases are generated from multiple outlets in the culture including famous Hip Hop music. There are also several “historically black words” said to “extend across generational, geographical, and social boundaries in African America” (23.) These words provide further insight into many defining characteristics of African American lifestyles. Some of the examples listed included, “ ashy (‘dry skin’) and suck teeth ( ‘to suck air through the teeth to express annoyance’)” (23.) These terms differ from slang in that they are more widely accepted among the culture. In conjunction with these historical words are words that AAE has assigned novel meanings to. These words cannot be found in the English Dictionary and often baffle teachers when used by students for class writing assignments. However, there are several words and phrases that most teachers will not encounter in their students’ writing assignments. Some of these words include what Standard English would label obscenities.
Obscenities in African American English can often be used with a different connotation than obscenities belonging to Standard English. Smitherman discussed in the text, “ the notorious AAE term muthafucka (or mutha or M.F.). Although it can sting like a curse word (that no good muthafucka), it can also express admiration (he a bad muthafucka) or add weight to a statement (you muthafuckin right)” (24). The important thing to understand when encountering these phrases is that many people do not consider them to be obscene.
Pronunciation of syllables and vowels is another unique aspect of AAE. When making vowel sounds there are several differences in the way ing/ink endings are pronounced along with complex vowels and the “E/i” sound. There are also variations with consonants such as “Th”, “r”, “l”, “V” and “Z”, “Str”, “Ing”, consonant clusters, and adjacent consonants. Pronunciation also has a dramatic effect on spelling patterns. Many words in AAE are spelled in the same manner that they are pronounced rather than by Standard English rules. The example listed in the text stated, “The –er ending on words with two or more syllables is spelled –a, -uh, or –ah, as in brotha (‘brother’)” (27.) These alternate methods of spelling commonly appear in formal writing assignments.
Grammar is yet another important distinction of AAE. There are several unique methods of using nouns, pronouns, adjectives, adverbs, verbs, and sentence patterns. Various linguists have been able to establish eight principles to keep in mind when studying AAE grammar. First of all, AAE is becoming streamlined in the United States. Second, AAE depends less on word endings and more on context. Third, AAE uses a verb system that emphasizes how something happened instead of when. Fourth, there are parallels in the languages spoken by West Africans before slavery. Fifth, many grammatical forms are assigned different meanings. Sixth, use of AAE varies according to demographic characteristics of a person. Seventh, AAE is currently in a transitional stage in convergence with Standard English. Finally, AAE grammatical features should not be considered errors because they conform to a different set of standards than implied by Standard English. (29). Surprisingly, when composing essays many students still conform to Standard English rules. Therefore, it may not be as likely that a teacher will observe this grammar in formal writing. However, it is extremely common for teachers to observe AAE rhetoric in writing.
August 28, 2007
Chapter 2: What Are the Distinctive Features of African American English?
Today, it is becoming a widely accepted fact that African American English is a rule-governed variety of speech containing several distinctive characteristics that separate it from Standard English. These differences arise in categories such as vocabulary, slang, historical words to the culture, novel meanings, obscenities, pronunciation, spelling, grammar, rhetoric, and discourse strategies.
The vocabulary of AAE contains several words that are unique to West African languages. For example, Smitherman discusses several examples when he lists, “ the traditional black church (e.g., git the spirit), black music (e.g., funky), and racial oppression (e.g., the Man)” (20.) These sets of words are the first of many aspects of AAE that make it distinct.
Similar to the vocabulary of AAE is the choice of slang. Once again, there are several phrases unique to AAE that are not used in Standard English. As stated in the text, these phrases include, “ hat up (‘leave’), lame (‘out of step’), and nickel n’ dime (‘petty’)” (20.) These phrases are generated from multiple outlets in the culture including famous Hip Hop music. There are also several “historically black words” said to “extend across generational, geographical, and social boundaries in African America” (23.) These words provide further insight into many defining characteristics of African American lifestyles. Some of the examples listed included, “ ashy (‘dry skin’) and suck teeth ( ‘to suck air through the teeth to express annoyance’)” (23.) These terms differ from slang in that they are more widely accepted among the culture. In conjunction with these historical words are words that AAE has assigned novel meanings to. These words cannot be found in the English Dictionary and often baffle teachers when used by students for class writing assignments. However, there are several words and phrases that most teachers will not encounter in their students’ writing assignments. Some of these words include what Standard English would label obscenities.
Obscenities in African American English can often be used with a different connotation than obscenities belonging to Standard English. Smitherman discussed in the text, “ the notorious AAE term muthafucka (or mutha or M.F.). Although it can sting like a curse word (that no good muthafucka), it can also express admiration (he a bad muthafucka) or add weight to a statement (you muthafuckin right)” (24). The important thing to understand when encountering these phrases is that many people do not consider them to be obscene.
Pronunciation of syllables and vowels is another unique aspect of AAE. When making vowel sounds there are several differences in the way ing/ink endings are pronounced along with complex vowels and the “E/i” sound. There are also variations with consonants such as “Th”, “r”, “l”, “V” and “Z”, “Str”, “Ing”, consonant clusters, and adjacent consonants. Pronunciation also has a dramatic effect on spelling patterns. Many words in AAE are spelled in the same manner that they are pronounced rather than by Standard English rules. The example listed in the text stated, “The –er ending on words with two or more syllables is spelled –a, -uh, or –ah, as in brotha (‘brother’)” (27.) These alternate methods of spelling commonly appear in formal writing assignments.
Grammar is yet another important distinction of AAE. There are several unique methods of using nouns, pronouns, adjectives, adverbs, verbs, and sentence patterns. Various linguists have been able to establish eight principles to keep in mind when studying AAE grammar. First of all, AAE is becoming streamlined in the United States. Second, AAE depends less on word endings and more on context. Third, AAE uses a verb system that emphasizes how something happened instead of when. Fourth, there are parallels in the languages spoken by West Africans before slavery. Fifth, many grammatical forms are assigned different meanings. Sixth, use of AAE varies according to demographic characteristics of a person. Seventh, AAE is currently in a transitional stage in convergence with Standard English. Finally, AAE grammatical features should not be considered errors because they conform to a different set of standards than implied by Standard English. (29). Surprisingly, when composing essays many students still conform to Standard English rules. Therefore, it may not be as likely that a teacher will observe this grammar in formal writing. However, it is extremely common for teachers to observe AAE rhetoric in writing.
In-class exercise-Sociolinguistics
In todays society of planes, trains, and cars; it is easy to meet someone from another country or state right in your own backyard. However, their culture and language might be completely different from what you are used too.
In my case, I talk to people all over the United States. I work at a shoe store and most of the time I am talking on the phone with different companies and retailers. I encounter the most interesting accents and use of dialect on a daily basis. For example, I am always calling the south (Texas, Tennesee, and South Carolina) sometimes it is hard for me (someone from Southern Illinois) to dicipher just exactly what the person on the other end of the phone is saying. Their words seem to go together and they can talk so quickly that it sounds like a mesh of one word when it is really a sentence. The best thing I have heard is "Djeet" which means, Did you eat ? Another classic example is "Doyawatyate" now obviously that looks like some word that comes from another language however, in translation it is, Do you want your tea?I have however noticed that when I talk to these retailers my accent becomes much more southern than its normal tone. I guess I feel I want to fit in with their society and changing my tone creates the illusion that I am one of them. But, if I meet anyone from a northern state, I hear the phrase "Gee, you have a thick accent"
Granted, this particular dialect can only be found in our southern states but, the northerns have a different interpretation of certain words as well. Once I over heard a comedian commenting on a gentleman from New York asking him if he wanted a "Slice of pie" now to myself and this comedian we are probably thinking "cherry, apple, chocolate." Well obviously, a slice of pie in New York means a slice of Pizza.
Dialect is something that can be found in any society of people, its thier own social club of communication. My social club just happens to be Southern Illinois and I wouldn't want to be anywhere else. My accent defines who I am and probably a whole host of others feel the same way.
In my case, I talk to people all over the United States. I work at a shoe store and most of the time I am talking on the phone with different companies and retailers. I encounter the most interesting accents and use of dialect on a daily basis. For example, I am always calling the south (Texas, Tennesee, and South Carolina) sometimes it is hard for me (someone from Southern Illinois) to dicipher just exactly what the person on the other end of the phone is saying. Their words seem to go together and they can talk so quickly that it sounds like a mesh of one word when it is really a sentence. The best thing I have heard is "Djeet" which means, Did you eat ? Another classic example is "Doyawatyate" now obviously that looks like some word that comes from another language however, in translation it is, Do you want your tea?I have however noticed that when I talk to these retailers my accent becomes much more southern than its normal tone. I guess I feel I want to fit in with their society and changing my tone creates the illusion that I am one of them. But, if I meet anyone from a northern state, I hear the phrase "Gee, you have a thick accent"
Granted, this particular dialect can only be found in our southern states but, the northerns have a different interpretation of certain words as well. Once I over heard a comedian commenting on a gentleman from New York asking him if he wanted a "Slice of pie" now to myself and this comedian we are probably thinking "cherry, apple, chocolate." Well obviously, a slice of pie in New York means a slice of Pizza.
Dialect is something that can be found in any society of people, its thier own social club of communication. My social club just happens to be Southern Illinois and I wouldn't want to be anywhere else. My accent defines who I am and probably a whole host of others feel the same way.
Dialect
I believe it's very true that students use slang to try and fit in with different groups in their city or school. I have noticed, after attending here, that even students from Chicago have accents, it's not something that only happens when someone is from another country. Often times, slang is considered a sort of rebel language. Some may even call it the language of a uneducated person. I disagree. I believe that slang is just another way to speak informal. In Spanish there are almost two different ways to say everything.
There's the way you would speak to an elder or stranger, then there's the way you could speak to a best friend or sibling. Slang is just another way to communicate quicker with your peers. As far as accent goes, this country has many different types of people in it, and whether you’re from St. Louis and talk faster than the speed limit, or Carbondale IL-with that sweet southern tang. It's doesn't matter. Dialect is everywhere, we might as well embrace it, instead of judge it.
There's the way you would speak to an elder or stranger, then there's the way you could speak to a best friend or sibling. Slang is just another way to communicate quicker with your peers. As far as accent goes, this country has many different types of people in it, and whether you’re from St. Louis and talk faster than the speed limit, or Carbondale IL-with that sweet southern tang. It's doesn't matter. Dialect is everywhere, we might as well embrace it, instead of judge it.
Sociolinguistics
Sociolinguistics:
Living in the same small town my entire life, it wasn't until I moved to Southern Illinois for college that I encountered any dialectal mishap.
The first thing I noticed, of course, was the slow, southern drawl the local people used. I couldn't figure out why I felt like I was in Alabama, when I was still in the same state of which I grew up!
I heard words like "ya'll" and phrases like "a lick of difference" and couldn't figure out what these people were trying to say. A lick? Like to a lollipop?
Not to mention the name of the little towns around here; all of them end in ''boro''. Murphysboro, Jonesboro, Hallidayboro; a little further south in Kentucky there is Murfreesboro, Hollowsboro. There are ''boros'' in the south; what exactly is a ''boro''?
But perhaps the biggest surprise of all was when these slow speaking locals labled me a "city girl". City Girl?! I grew up on a farm in a town with less than 2,000 people and you're going to call me a city girl?
"Well, you have that Chicaahhgo accent," they'd say, holding their nose on the Chicago apparently to imitate my nasaly dialect I had previously been unaware of.
But, I don't have an accent...do I?
After living in Carbondale for four years, I've learned the truth. If you live in southern Illinois, anything north of Champaign is "Chicago" and therefore anyone with the slightest Chicaahhgo accent is labeled such.
But I've also learned that my dialect changes with my environment. It is easy to fall into step with the laid back, slow speaking style of the south. However, once I am back home to "Rural Chicago", I revel with my northern peers in whining out our "a" sounds and even talking through our nose from time to time.
As they say, "When in Rome..."
Living in the same small town my entire life, it wasn't until I moved to Southern Illinois for college that I encountered any dialectal mishap.
The first thing I noticed, of course, was the slow, southern drawl the local people used. I couldn't figure out why I felt like I was in Alabama, when I was still in the same state of which I grew up!
I heard words like "ya'll" and phrases like "a lick of difference" and couldn't figure out what these people were trying to say. A lick? Like to a lollipop?
Not to mention the name of the little towns around here; all of them end in ''boro''. Murphysboro, Jonesboro, Hallidayboro; a little further south in Kentucky there is Murfreesboro, Hollowsboro. There are ''boros'' in the south; what exactly is a ''boro''?
But perhaps the biggest surprise of all was when these slow speaking locals labled me a "city girl". City Girl?! I grew up on a farm in a town with less than 2,000 people and you're going to call me a city girl?
"Well, you have that Chicaahhgo accent," they'd say, holding their nose on the Chicago apparently to imitate my nasaly dialect I had previously been unaware of.
But, I don't have an accent...do I?
After living in Carbondale for four years, I've learned the truth. If you live in southern Illinois, anything north of Champaign is "Chicago" and therefore anyone with the slightest Chicaahhgo accent is labeled such.
But I've also learned that my dialect changes with my environment. It is easy to fall into step with the laid back, slow speaking style of the south. However, once I am back home to "Rural Chicago", I revel with my northern peers in whining out our "a" sounds and even talking through our nose from time to time.
As they say, "When in Rome..."
In-Class Exercise
I graduated from high school many years before most in the class and we had a different language. I grew up in the 1970's and we had the terms groovy and cool, which are not used today or have a different meaning. One word that has changed dramatically is gay. When I was younger, the word meant happy and carefree. The word is now used as a slang for homosexual. Using this word now has a very different connotation than what it did when I used it as a teenager. There are many words that change meaning over time.
(by Cindy)
(by Cindy)
Monday, August 13, 2007
Welcome to Grammar 300!
Hello students,
This is our blog for posting the summaries of our class readings, and our reactions to them, or to our peers' responses.
During the course of this semester, each of you will do one summary that contains a short personal statement in the end about what you think of the reading, and nine responses. They will be graded for content and depth of thought.
You are welcome to include cartoons as long as you indicate where you got them from (to avoid copyright issues and plagiarism) by linking them to their source.
We will practice blogging in the computer room 3208 on Thursday, August 30th.
Below is an example of a summary for our first class reading, the ENGFISH text. I've left out the personal statement, because we are going to discuss this text together in class.
Summary of Chapter 1, “the poison fish,” from Ken Macrorie, Telling Writing
The chapter begins with an explanation of the coinage of the word “Engfish” - a college student deemed unfit to teach English by her professor wrote a critique about him in James Joyce’s style using messed-up English: “Eets too badly that you someday fright preach Engfish.”
The term was then employed by the author to describe the “phony, pretentious language of the schools” (Macrorie 12), the kind of language students write because they think it’s what their teachers want to hear. In reality, however, teachers are “fed up” with reading such texts.
Macrorie gives several examples from students’ writings in Engfish; thus, one student wrote sentences like “my impression was quite impressive,” or “the hustle and bustle was going on.” We can easily see that “Engfish” means to write mere “blah,” and to employ nice sounding words or idioms without understanding them, or using them in the wrong connotation. Another textual example shows that “Engfish” can also consist of abundant repetitions which use text as page filler. Engfish texts, according to the author’s definition, don’t employ a “fancy, academic language, but simple everyday words that say nothing …” (Macrorie 13). Such texts are quickly forgotten.
The chapter begins with an explanation of the coinage of the word “Engfish” - a college student deemed unfit to teach English by her professor wrote a critique about him in James Joyce’s style using messed-up English: “Eets too badly that you someday fright preach Engfish.”
The term was then employed by the author to describe the “phony, pretentious language of the schools” (Macrorie 12), the kind of language students write because they think it’s what their teachers want to hear. In reality, however, teachers are “fed up” with reading such texts.
Macrorie gives several examples from students’ writings in Engfish; thus, one student wrote sentences like “my impression was quite impressive,” or “the hustle and bustle was going on.” We can easily see that “Engfish” means to write mere “blah,” and to employ nice sounding words or idioms without understanding them, or using them in the wrong connotation. Another textual example shows that “Engfish” can also consist of abundant repetitions which use text as page filler. Engfish texts, according to the author’s definition, don’t employ a “fancy, academic language, but simple everyday words that say nothing …” (Macrorie 13). Such texts are quickly forgotten.
However, it’s not only students who use “Engfish.” It can happen to everybody, and “Engfish” can even be found in textbooks; for example, when they begin with statements such as “If you are a student who desires assistance in order to write effectively and fluently, then this textbook is written for you.” (Macrorie 13) The author argues that students think textbooks are unfailing, and a model for good language, so they give the teacher precisely that language they are fed with through their textbooks.
Macrorie mentions a textual sample from a third-grader which – although clearly in faulty English – is written in a vivid voice, containing sharp and true pictures. He argues that college students have lost much of this original truth and sharpness, because they employ the extremely boring language they have learned all the years in school: Engfish. However, according to Macrorie, there is a way out of this dilemma.
Subscribe to:
Comments (Atom)
