“‘God Don’t Never Change’: Black English from a Black Perspective”, Geneva Smitherman

IWA: 2/27/13

Summary: In her article, “‘God Don’t Never Change’: Black English from a Black Perspective”, Geneva Smitherman attempts to tell her audience, grammar experts and language specialists, that Black Idioms (BI) shouldn’t be judged like White English (WE) because it’s just the way some people speak. She argues that BI tend to be criticized more by teachers and that students’ writing in this style tends to be torn apart more because of it. She feels it should not be this way and even proves it by writing her article in that style.

Synthesis: This article made me think of “Good English and Bad” because both discuss the language people use today and how it’s constantly changing. They both agree that we should be able to use terms that we can relate to and that people shouldn’t shoot down these terms.

QD 2: Smitherman uses BI rhetorically by writing her article in this manner to prove to her audience that people can write in different ways and still get their point across to their audience.

QD 4: I think people believe British English is a more proper way of talking based upon a cultural perspective. To me I think of the British as all being rich, fancy people who sit around eating tea and crumpets discussing their daily events in a very proper way with good manners. Obviously this is a stereotype and not everyone in the UK is like this but because it’s a stereotype, people automatically assume it to be true and so view British English as more proper than BI.

QD 6: Basically Smitherman argues that good writing is being able to use your voice and convey your ideas to the audience. Even though the grammar in the paper was awful, she feels he was able to promote his cultural heritage while properly conveying his ideas as compared to a paper using proper grammar but lack of voice and argument.

QD 7: Mastery of a dominant discourse can be a risk because it takes away personal voice. Typically if people ignore the dominant form of writing they can give their pieces a special standpoint because they’re able to use their dialect and give their writing style a different flavor from everyone else’s.

AE 2: I see a “either/or” argument because papers should eventually be able to be written using one’s voice, not just a style that everyone is forced to use.

AE 3: The idea of “laziness” plays a large role in the way people view BI because they tend to feel people writing in this tone are ignoring proper grammar because they just don’t care. Laziness is oftentimes the reason why BI is criticized, people just can’t relate to it and come up with the idea that the writer didn’t care.

AE 4: Basically she’s saying language isn’t about what the general society uses, it’s based on a micro perspective. She believes language is based upon the individual’s way of speaking. This relates to Greene’s piece in that both believe the individual needs to use their own opinions and voice to frame their argument in their writing.

MM: I would keep my language because I like who I am and the way I write. I would not want to comply to some new form of writing that somebody (who I’ve never heard of) tells me is correct. To me, I like to write in a way that people will understand as opposed to some dry, boring, yet somehow proper way to write.

Afterthoughts: This article was okay but kind of annoying. To me she was basically, for lack of a better term, “bitching” about how teachers shoot down an individual’s voice. I mean, I agree that we should have our voices in a paper but at the same time, for a scholarly piece you have to follow the guidelines no matter what. Basically the whole time I wanted to be like, “yes I agree but suck it up. Write the way they want you to and move on…I did.”

“Good English and Bad”, Bill Bryson

IWA: 2/24/13

Summary: In his article, “Good English and Bad”, Bill Bryson attempts to tell his audience, English teachers, that our language has constantly changed throughout history and many historical figures saw this in different lights, some calling it barbarous. He argues that we shouldn’t worry about it too much because everybody has a different view on the matter (like different dictionaries) and languages constantly change.

Synthesis: This article reminded me of, in a way, the Porter piece. It’s a pretty big stretch but Porter discusses how people combine other’s ideas to form their own. I think Bryson’s piece touches on this in a way because we have begun incorporating other’s ideas in our everyday grammar. These ideas include texting, yolo, google it and more.

QD 1: Bryson is challenging the construct of how we use grammar. He discusses how the English language use of tenses doesn’t really make much since because we sometimes use the exact same word for past and present (like to drive). He often compares its complexity to that of Latin in that many of our verb tenses just do not make sense.

QD 3: Prescriptive means the “laws” of grammar and how we are supposed to use it. Descriptive on the other hand means how we actually use grammar. Throughout school I was always taught to use proper grammar on my papers and for the most part I did. However I’ve also realized that sometimes it just sounds awkward to write the “correct” way and I begin to write a little more informally. Although I know this isn’t always the best thing to do in my writing I think it helps the audience relate to it more and not zone out.

AE 1: Bryson uses examples of how what used to be correct now sounds weird. He says it was acceptable to say “you was” for multiple people but today we say “you all”. Today people are inventing new terms constantly such as “texting” or “yolo”. Before cell phones were around people would’ve never used the term texting but now it’s a common verb. The same goes for yolo. Although it’s an acronym people seem to constantly use it in everyday conversation and the majority of people immediately know what they’re saying. I don’t think Bryson would be too concerned with this since he talks about how language is constantly changing.

AE 3: This goes back to what I was talking about in my last paragraph. Basically as technology and humans advance in life we create more and more acronyms for common things to simplify what we’re writing or saying or to keep up with the world. Today people use terms like “texting” or “google it” which several years ago would not have made any sense. However because our world is constantly changing we have to make word changes. In addition I constantly hear “OMG”, “ROTFL”, and “YOLO”. Although this would be considered awful English people are so used to hearing/texting these acronyms they just accept it and use it in everyday conversation.
MM: Some parts of speech are: nouns, verbs, adverbs, and punctuation. Although I was taught all about them in school I don't always think about them anymore. Some I try to ignore and others have just become second nature that I'm not even aware I'm using them. I think in a way knowing them can help you write better but to me I think writing is more about conveying an important idea. I believe good writing isn't about whether you were grammatically correct, I think it's more about did you have an idea that you were passionate about and did you share it in a good way.

Afterthoughts: I think this piece brought about many new thoughts. It made me realize how ignorant people sound when they go around going “LOL that’s so funny” when they’re laughing out loud already. Granted I’ve always hated the term YOLO but now it gives me a reason to hate it even more because of how ignorant it makes people sound.

“Seeing the Text”, Steven Bernhardt

IWA: 2/18/13 Part 2

Summary: In his article, “Seeing the Text”, Steven Bernhardt attempts to tell his audience, English teachers, that it is important to teach students how to visually lay out their papers. He argues that layout is as important as the actual writing itself because it helps to properly convey ideas, changes the way the audience perceives what I written, and makes the paper more visually appealing.

Synthesis: This article is similar to “The Sticky Embrace of Beauty” because it informs us how to properly lay out our papers so our audience gets the full effect of what it is we’re trying to tell them. Both of them have shown us just how important a visual layout is to proving our argument.

QD 1: I believe this type of writing can be hard to read because I have come to the belief that this type of layout is generally used in a paper I won’t care much about. It has given me the assumption that what I am about to read will be dull. It’s also very plain an boring to the eye so helps me lose interest very, very quickly.

QD 3: Based upon the structure I have come to know I often feel like I’m writing the same paper just filling in the blanks based upon my topic. This is mainly because of the two year English course I took in high school where all our papers followed the same format. To change this I should find a different layout that is more visual to keep the audience interested. Based upon the reading I would say he’d want writers to stress their arguments with sub headings with varied font sizes so it catches the eye better.

AE 1: I don’t think I ever strayed away from the traditional writing format because it was what I had “grown up” with. However I think I could maybe add different headings with different font sizes and such to keep the audience interested.

AE 3: Gestalt basically means how visually appealing your paper is; whether it is straightforward in a typical fashion or varied. Knowing this helps me better understand what Bernhardt wants us to take away from his article and shows me how to properly set up my papers so my argument is more effective.

AE 4: I often visit Facebook which guides you by stressing “important” stories on your newsfeed that they think you would be interested in, a side bar that shows you top stories and who’s online, and of course a search bar. I would say they guide you pretty well and don’t need to make any improvements.

After you Read: I think McCloud would’ve shown Bernhardt’s argument in a creative way using his cartoons and comparing whatever it was he was talking about in cartoon form next to a written paragraph of what it was to show how layout is everything.

Afterthoughts: I found the article to be rather dull and tiring to the eyes after reading the McCloud piece. I believe it did show many valid points though such as the fact it’s okay to stray from a traditional writing format to keep the audience interested.

“The vocabulary of Comics”, Scott McCloud

IWA: 2/18/13

Summary: In his cartoon, “The vocabulary of Comics”, Scott McCloud attempts to tell his audience, students, that icons and pictures are really simple, meaningless drawings. He argues that our minds take images and icons we see on a daily basis and transforms them into some sort of universal concept. In addition he believes that icons help mold our daily lives.

Synthesis: This article really reminded me a bit about “The Sticky Embrace of Beauty” because both talk about symbolism. This article was more about basic drawings and what they represent while the other was more about ad layouts, but they both dealt with how our brains receive and interpret images and placements of them.

QD 1: I think adults still like cartoons and their simplicity for two reasons. One being it makes them feel better knowing their awful drawing skills could be put into a story and two (and perhaps more important) is that it takes them back to their childhood and makes them realize how much simpler life was and perhaps how much happier it was too. Although I do not believe there is an age where it is inappropriate to read/watch cartoons, I do believe there is a time it becomes inappropriate for that to be a major part of your life. I don’t think McCloud would believe it’s ever inappropriate since he uses a comic to share his ideas and discusses how we always use symbols to represent broader ideas in our everyday lives.

QD 2: I think McCloud uses the comic book format because it’s so appropriate for a cartoon of him to be explaining that we see simplistic images and draft them into a larger meaning. As I read I kept seeing him telling me these things and I realized it helped me get more on a personal, one on one level as opposed to simply reading his thoughts. I think his writing would’ve suffered if not done this way because the reader may not have seen his point as clearly had it not been drawn out for them.

AE 2: McCloud says we see ourselves in simplistic faces because it is something everybody can relate to, we’re selfish and apply emotions to things that are emotionless, and our brains just naturally do it. I have looked at a photograph/portrait and identified with the subject because of the emotion they seemed to be expressing and the reason why they were expressing that. I don’t believe everybody would’ve shared the same emotions I did.

Afterthoughts: I really liked this article because it was totally different from anything we’ve ever read. I liked how he put his thoughts into a visual representation because it helped me focus more on what the point was he was trying to make. I’m also slightly jealous of his creativity and ability to put such a strong idea into something so simplistic.

James Porter, "Intertextuality and the Discourse Community"

IWA: 2/13/13

Summary: In his article "Intertextualiy and the Discourse Community”, James Porter attempts to tell his audience, students and professional writers, that plagiarism is not really a thing because all writers use somebody else’s form of writing in some way or another. He argues his point through the idea of discourse community, a belief that people sort of “bounce ideas” off of each other in an indirect way to form their argument. He furthers this point with the Declaration of Independence and pop culture saying that people use other’s ideas to promote their own.

Synthesis: This article does not make me think of any other articles we have read because it focuses more on plagiarism rather than the writing process. I guess in a way it makes me think of “The Sticky Embrace of Beauty” because both mention the use of advertisements and how companies use techniques to attract people’s attention.

QD 4: To me I love to write and I’ve always sort of felt whatever it is I’m writing needs to be accepted by a vast majority of people if I ever want to make it big. So for me the thought of my writing being “acceptable” is not a new concept. However this is different than the way it was graded in my past because my writing was evaluated by teachers who would tear it apart if my opinion differed from their own as opposed to being accepted by the rest of the class/community.

QD 5: I believe what he is writing follows his argument that nobody’s work is original. To show his point he used examples such as a commercial and the Declaration of Independence meaning he was using somebody else’s work. This goes to show that nobody can be completely original.

AE 2: The new definition would include the term discourse community and citation. Porter believes that the use of these two things would not make our papers plagiarized. Basically the only way the two definitions would differ would be the new one includes discourse community to make it okay.

MM: To me it has made me realize that nobody has original work anymore and that idea is a very frustrating thought. I think it would be a good idea to adopt Porter’s ideas but it probably would not change my style, views, or overall writing since we already are technically plagiarizing.

Afterthoughts: I think this article brought up a good point about how none of us really use our own work when you break it down enough. I never really thought of it like that before and this put everything into a whole new perspective. It also gave me the inspiration to possibly write project two on my new belief that nobody really has an original work.