The reading summary is done by:
ENGL300-1: Ross Henry
ENGL300-2: Bridget Meador
The article "The Straw Man Meets His Match: Six Arguments for Studying Humor in English Classes" by Alleen Pace Nilsen and Don L.F. Nilsen discusses the benefits of incorporating humor in classrooms. Research states that much effort has been put into eliminating humor from schools. The authors offer six arguments that their opponents have concerning why humor should not be used and the authors offer six justifications as to why it should.
The first argument is that children are exposed to enough humor outside of school. Nilsen and Nilsen say that this is exactly why it should be used in the classroom as well. Children will gain a better understanding of the various types of humor that are used in everday life as well as broadening the areas in which they draw experiences from for writing. The second argument is that teaching humor will eliminate time that could be use to teach "important" subjects such as literature and public speaking. By incorporating humor, students will enjoy the lessons and be more likely to retain the information and take an interest. The third argument is that teachers are supposed to be preparing students to earn a living. Well, with growing trends in humor-based careers it would appear that humor is doing just that. The fourth argument is that students are not mature enough and there will be a censorship issue. The Nilsen's state that yes, there will be but, it's okay. Children are going to encounter crude humor in their lives and they should be prepared with how to handle it and how to avoid using it themselves. The fifth argument is that humor can hurt people. Like the previous argument, it may hurt people's feelings but, that is why it must be taught so that children will learn the proper ways to use humor. The sixth argument is that not all teachers have a good sense of humor so, how are they expected to teach it? This article provides several lesson ideas for incorporating humor into lessons. Humor does not have to be used obviously and obtrusively. Children simply need to be aware of it and enjoy it.
By: Bridget Meador
Due by class time on:
The responses by the whole class are due by class time on:
The text you need to read is here
Monday, October 24, 2011
Blog 22: Esperanto
The reading summary is done by:
ENGL300-1: Michael Carnduff
ENGL300-2: Nick Griffith
The responses by the whole class are due by class time on:
The text you need to read is here
ENGL300-1: Michael Carnduff
ENGL300-2: Nick Griffith
Ludovic Zamenhof, a polish physician, grew up in Poland during the 19th where he heard many different languages including Polish, Yiddish, German, and Russian. He saw a lot of struggles between these different cultures and he thought that diversity of language was a major factor.
Dr.Zamenhof wanted to unite the world with the creation of an easy-to-learn language called Esperanto. Growing up, Dr. Zamenhof saw a violent struggle between different ethnic groups. He hoped creating a common language would help ease that strugge. Esperanto became popular in China and Europe after World War II. However, Esperanto did not last because it was not a native language. Outside of conventions no one really used it.
Due by class time on:Dr. Zamenhof had a genuinely good idea when he created a united easy-to-learn language hoping to use it throughought the world. Ultimately, though, as easy as the language was to learn, it was not practical. I find it unfortunate that there is no universal language that would be able to overcome all communication barriers. However, since our language is a major part of culture, getting people to adopt a new way of speaking would be next to impossible. I found this article very interesting. Before reading this article, I had never heard of Esperanto. The closest thing we have to an international language is English. Unfortunately, English is one of the hardest languages to learn. As for now, our language barriers continue.
The responses by the whole class are due by class time on:
The text you need to read is here
Blog 21: To Grammar or Not to Grammar
The reading summary is done by:
ENGL300-1: Rebecca Borowiak for 5 pts. extra credit
ENGL300-2: Abigail Mbuvi
Due by class time on:
The responses by the whole class are due by class time on:
The text you need to read is here.
ENGL300-1: Rebecca Borowiak for 5 pts. extra credit
ENGL300-2: Abigail Mbuvi
Due by class time on:
The responses by the whole class are due by class time on:
The text you need to read is here.
Blog 20: Grammar Without Grammar
The reading summary is done by:
ENGL300-1: Kristen Andrews
ENGL300-2: Tyana Battle
Due by class time on:
The responses by the whole class are due by class time on:
The text you need to read is here.
ENGL300-1: Kristen Andrews
ENGL300-2: Tyana Battle
The article, Grammar without Grammar: Just Playing, Around, Deborah Dean talks about her experience as a teacher doing assignments with adverbs, adjectives, subjects and direct objects. She found that her student’s performance in writing decreased when grammar was taking out of her curriculum by the district—a change she thought she would welcome. Dean set out to change her once stultifying grammar exercises into fun, educational assignments. Reviewing many books by many publishers, Dean resolved to try sentence imitation in her classroom. During sentence imitation, Deborah Dean was able to teach her students grammar without naming the parts of the sentence structure. Dean found that “these imitation activities were a way for students to work with language, to consider different ways of expressing an idea, and to begin to understand that many options for expressing an idea or thought exist-and that they had the ability to work to find more effective constructions”(87).
Dean’s objective in the classroom was to have her students think about how sentences are formed without putting them to sleep with stultifying exercises. She also helped her students grasp the concept of grammar without grammar by encouraging her students to pick their own sentences from their favorite children’s books and also from the books that they read as a class. Through constructing sentences and figuring out how many single ideas exist in one of the sentences the students learned “to see new ways to combine their ideas in their own writing” (Dean 88). In the end, Dean’s students learn to write better and identify parts of the sentence grammatically without ever knowing they learned to write more grammatically correct. In the end Deborah Dean states of her student’s progress, “My students are writing, and they are trying to write more effectively, and they understand how to look at what they read as a model for what they want to say. They know grammar-they just don't know that they do” (88). Her objective was met. She was able to teach her students to use grammar effectively without having to teach them standard grammar.
By:Tyana Battle
Due by class time on:
The responses by the whole class are due by class time on:
The text you need to read is here.
Blog 19: Grammar Instruction: What Teachers Say
The reading summary is done by:
ENGL300-1: LaMonica Brown
ENGL300-2: Stephanie Feeman
Due by class time on:
The responses by the whole class are due by class time on:
The text you need to read is here
ENGL300-1: LaMonica Brown
ENGL300-2: Stephanie Feeman
Due by class time on:
The responses by the whole class are due by class time on:
The text you need to read is here
English 300-01 LaMonica Brown
The article “Grammar Instruction: What Teachers Say” uncovers the many struggles of teaching grammar student from grammar school all the way to graduate school. Brenda Arnett Pretuzzella breaks down the differences between what colleges teach future teachers in education courses and what practicing teachers in schools actually do. She also found that grammar instruction was a waste of time.
Brenda shares some of her experiences she had with her student in high school. She found many students unable to learn correct grammar. “I would painstakingly prepare and teach a lesson on nouns and verbs, using the most creative and relevant examples I could think of, and many students would fail the quiz.” Brenda wanted to get rid of the traditional ways of teaching and come up with a whole other way to get through to her students. Another factor was that she had to teach high school student who can be disruptive and overly dramatic at times.
You also have to take into consideration that most schools are very diverse and kids from different races and cultures are using different languages. It is very hard to turn off the “slang” language and write in correct grammar.
English 300-2 Stephanie Feeman
The article, "Grammar Instruction, What teachers say" opened up a perspective that many people are unable to see on a daily basis. The author, Brenda Arnett Pretuzzella opened up the article by stating the huge difference between what they teach prospective teachers in college education courses and what practicing teachers actually do in the classroom. She said that most college courses discourage the idea of teaching formal grammar lessons, while most high school grammar teachers say they need grammar instruction in their classrooms.
The author talked about during the times she was in school, there was no question as to whether or not grammar was needed as a primary subject. She learned about the eight parts of speech, and how to diagram sentences. Then when she entered college she found out that grammar was a waste of time. In 1963, an article was published titled "Research in Written Composition." The authors, Richard Braddock, Richard Lloyd-Jones, and Lowell Shoer, conducted a study and found that most teachers agreed that teaching grammar had no positive effect on student writing. This lead to a suggestion that grammar instruction could therefore be abandoned. Many professors were overcome with joy when they heard this, because they found grammar dull and boring.
When she began teaching grammar in her own classroom she found that most students were incredibly reluctant to learn it. She tried to use creative teaching methods and relevant examples, yet students still seemed to fail the quizzes. She went on to talk about the difficulties in helping the student fix their writing mistakes, when they had no knowledge of common grammatical vocabulary. She tried many different ways to teach the students about even the most common grammar functions and she continued to feel inadequate. She said that she found that when she worked with students one on one they grasped the concepts better. Towards the end of the article she sums up that part of the difficulty in teaching grammar was the lack of resources. Since most professors and authors agreed that grammar was pointless, there was little literature on how to effectively teach grammar to students.
Blog 18: Collaboration: Writing Center Tutorials vs. Peer-Response Groups
The reading summary is done by:
ENGL300-1: Joselyn Arteaga
ENGL300-2: Adriana Meneghetti
Due by class time on:
The responses by the whole class are due by class time on:
The text you need to read is here.
I have benefited from both writing centers and peer editing. In comparing them, I would have to say that they can each be very helpful to the writer in different ways. Peer editing can be good for writers who are not very clear about their writing objective. In some of my past English classes, seeing the types of papers and arguments that my fellow classmates are making has given me clarity for the papers I write. Peer editing is tricky, though, especially if different ability levels are mixed (the weak writer may be intimidated by the strong writer's paper, or the strong writer may be overly critical of the weak writer). Peer editing should always be supervised by a teacher who can relate to writers of all levels.
I feel like writing center tutorials are for more direct writing help, and therefore, should be used less frequently than peer editing. Writing center tutorials provide not only clarity to the writer, but also direct instruction concerning fundamental things (like content, organization, and mechanical elements). Peer editing is less intensive than writing center tutorials.
October 25, 2011 1:29 PM 
Rebecca Borowiak said...
I have never gone to the writing centers open to me in either my community college or Southern Illinois. I know many friends that have gone and they say they are helpful for the extra boost of clarity. I myself love peer editing. I enjoy receiving criticism from my peers for it helps me see what those my age are thinking when they read my paper.
I also benefit from reading other papers my peers have written about similar topics. Seeing the path they take on their paper in response to a topic inspires me to critical think about my own paper and helps me improve my writing further.
I would prefer peer editing over writing centers for those that do not need clarity or direct instruction. Peer editing is perfect for those that just need advice and a second pair of eyes upon their paper.
ENGL300-1: Joselyn Arteaga
ENGL300-2: Adriana Meneghetti
Due by class time on:
The responses by the whole class are due by class time on:
The text you need to read is here.
Eng300-1: Joselyn Arteaga
The article "Collaboration: Writing Center Tutorials vs. Peer-Response Groups" emphasizes the differences between two different types of collaboration which can be used by writers or students. According to article Collaboration, is a process writers engage in and teachers facilitate, is firmly entrenched in our thinking about the teaching of writing. Muriel Harris explains that there is two methods to "collaboration" which are collaborative writing and collaborative learning about writing. Collaborative writing, usually refers to two or more authors working together on a text and each having a responsibility to complete it . As for collaborative learning about writing, it's an interaction between a writer and a reader to help the writer with his writing skills. This type of collaboration is used for both writing centers and peer-response . The difference is that peer-response is an informal collaboration which colleagues help one another with their reviews and may be more opinionated than skilled. In writing centers there are tutors who need to be qualified in order to help writers improve their writing.
Informal collaboration is more about fixing written mistakes rather than tutoring which focuses on the writer's writing knowledge. Many instructors like to use peer-responses because although it might not perfect a paper but it allows students to be expose to different writing styles. Also reading their peers draft allows them to be focused on the subject and help improve skills of critical response by this process repetition.
Stephen North highlights the importance in tutoring rather than peer-response. He states that tutoring may help writers deal with anxiety, poor motivation, cultural confusion, ineffective or dysfunctional composing strategies, lack of knowledge, or inability to follow assignment directions. Tutors can also set up sessions for the writer improve a certain writing concerns and improve them. It allows students to ask questions and collaborate to find an effective way to master their writing problems.
Setting an agenda is different between the two types of collaboration. Usually, peer-responses are assigned by the teachers and it's up to the student when they will complete it, using the skills they learnt. As for tutorial it may become difficult because students usually want their papers to be corrected and be done but the tutor may want to focus on certain issues.
The advantage in peer-responses is that it has a better sense of audience and he learns over time to interact and become a good critic. The down side is that peers might not give constructive suggestions and may give negative comments which can lower the writers confidence. In contrast the benefit of going to a writing center is that he can receive one on one help and ask specific questions to approach certain issues. As for the negative side is that students may hear more suggestions rather than answers they anticipated, and student may become frustrated or angry.
By Joselyn Arteaga
___________________________________________
Andrea Dimitroff said...
I feel like writing center tutorials are for more direct writing help, and therefore, should be used less frequently than peer editing. Writing center tutorials provide not only clarity to the writer, but also direct instruction concerning fundamental things (like content, organization, and mechanical elements). Peer editing is less intensive than writing center tutorials.
I also benefit from reading other papers my peers have written about similar topics. Seeing the path they take on their paper in response to a topic inspires me to critical think about my own paper and helps me improve my writing further.
I would prefer peer editing over writing centers for those that do not need clarity or direct instruction. Peer editing is perfect for those that just need advice and a second pair of eyes upon their paper.
Tuesday, October 4, 2011
Blog 17: Fry Graph: How to Calculate the Readability Level you Write at
The following article will describe how you can calculate for which audience reading level you write. There is a formula for that, invented by Edward Fry.
As in-class activity, we will calculate our own readability level for BLOGGING. When our research essay is finished in a few weeks, we will calculate our readability level for RESEARCH WRITING.
Due by class time on: Fri., Oct. 7th, 2011
The responses by the whole class are due by class time on: Wed., Oct. 12th, 2011
The text you need to read is here.
The reading summary is done by:
ENGL300-1: Drewandria Burnside
According to Edward Fry the readability formula is a ranking system published in 1923 that determined the comprehension level of readers. Leveled reading is a system that was used distinguish the advancement of readers during the 19th century. It was not until the '30 that the concept of "leveled" reading became a scholastic tool used to signify the grade level of readers. The difference between the two methods of caculating literacy is the degree of objectivity. Most readability formulas have two variables of measurement; they are syntactic difficulty, which measures grammar and semantic diffulicty, which measures word meaning. Most readability formulas are caculated by the computer, but can be caculated by hand. Most readability scores are very accurate, because of the level of objectivity. Leveling on the other hand is more diffuclt to measure, because it includes text support factors.
I think that the entire concept of readability and leveling are two of the same entities. One is just meaures more of the context than the other, so to create a formula for the two seperately makes no sense and is a little redundent.
ENGL300-2: John Seratt
The article Readability Versus Leveling is about the two main way in which books are ranked on which who should be able to read them. The first readability is more objective and like a math equaion in how it is formulated, the next is leveling, leveling has more to do with what the reading is about more than how difficult it is to read.
The first of these two rankings was leveling. leveling came about in 1836 which was made famous by William Holmes McGuffey his system just ranked books on difficulty by way of numbers starting at on and going up. McGuffey went on to publish a set of books called the McGuffey readers these books were highly accepted in schools. The schools used them for different grade level readings. The way that leveling works is by looking more at the content of the reading. It looks at whether or not the reading would be interesting to the grade reading it, it looks at if there is illustrations within the book, and it also looks at the length of the book among other things. I believe that this ranking system is a good way to find why most children do not read in that they may not like that book that they are reading. The problem with this model though is that it does not go all the way into grade twelve it stays at the more primary level.
After The leveling system came the readability system this was created in the nineteen fifties and it was used in pretty much the same fashion; to rank a book's reading difficulty. the readability scale stayed the same until other companies came in and started breaking down the grades into more sections so that a book could be placed in the exact spot a student should be able to read it. The way that this readability scaling system works is that it is more like a math equation. Readability takes the syntactic difficulty which is the grammatical complexity that is measured by sentence length, also it takes the semantic difficulty which is pretty much the average length of the words within the writing. The average of these two are added then plotted on a chart to show what grade the reading is appropriate for.
In summation I feel that both of these systems have their strengths and weaknesses the leveling system does not get to the true difficulty of reading and does not go to all grades. The readability scale goes to all grade and tells the difficulty but it does not tell a teacher why a student may not enjoy the reading. with this I believe that both of these systems can work but not perfectly. To answer the question do I think that I blog at a different level than when I writ research papers? Yes I do feel I do just because research papers are supposed to be more scholarly and more in depth than a blog post.
___________________________________________________________
comment by Brittney Hosey:
The idea of leveling on anything is amazing to me. But touching on books first, I think this is an important part of the learning cycle. It's also useful for parents who are trying to decide what level their child reads at and in the end help them get further with that process. I think this also relates to games and puzzles that are aged. Parent's can buy a game for their child that is supposed to be able to be completed by their age group and this can show the parent whether or not their child is where they need to be or not.
___________________________________________________________
comment by Anne Gayes:
Leveling is a very good strategy when dealing with education groups. It is a good way to catagorize children when trying to find what best fits them in learning terms. Also it is a good tool to use to help the teachers understand what levels all her students are in. Leveling also does have it's weaknesses though. It does not test and evaluate children as much as it should. For this system to be completely accurate it must evaluate the person on more than one test.
___________________________________________________________
comment by Melanie Bloden:
Determining the levels or readability of books has strengths and weakness'.Leveling helps students find what reading materials will benefit them most. Readability is measured like a math formula. It also fits students with appropriate material. Leveling should be more detailed with its testing. I am not sure which systems my teachers have used in the past. I would like to know what methods my parents and teachers might have used when picking out books for me.
As in-class activity, we will calculate our own readability level for BLOGGING. When our research essay is finished in a few weeks, we will calculate our readability level for RESEARCH WRITING.
Due by class time on: Fri., Oct. 7th, 2011
The responses by the whole class are due by class time on: Wed., Oct. 12th, 2011
The text you need to read is here.
When you write your COMMENT for the article below, please also comment on this question: "Do you think you write at a different level when you're blogging than when you're writing a research essay? Explain."
The reading summary is done by:
ENGL300-1: Drewandria Burnside
According to Edward Fry the readability formula is a ranking system published in 1923 that determined the comprehension level of readers. Leveled reading is a system that was used distinguish the advancement of readers during the 19th century. It was not until the '30 that the concept of "leveled" reading became a scholastic tool used to signify the grade level of readers. The difference between the two methods of caculating literacy is the degree of objectivity. Most readability formulas have two variables of measurement; they are syntactic difficulty, which measures grammar and semantic diffulicty, which measures word meaning. Most readability formulas are caculated by the computer, but can be caculated by hand. Most readability scores are very accurate, because of the level of objectivity. Leveling on the other hand is more diffuclt to measure, because it includes text support factors.
I think that the entire concept of readability and leveling are two of the same entities. One is just meaures more of the context than the other, so to create a formula for the two seperately makes no sense and is a little redundent.
ENGL300-2: John Seratt
The article Readability Versus Leveling is about the two main way in which books are ranked on which who should be able to read them. The first readability is more objective and like a math equaion in how it is formulated, the next is leveling, leveling has more to do with what the reading is about more than how difficult it is to read.
The first of these two rankings was leveling. leveling came about in 1836 which was made famous by William Holmes McGuffey his system just ranked books on difficulty by way of numbers starting at on and going up. McGuffey went on to publish a set of books called the McGuffey readers these books were highly accepted in schools. The schools used them for different grade level readings. The way that leveling works is by looking more at the content of the reading. It looks at whether or not the reading would be interesting to the grade reading it, it looks at if there is illustrations within the book, and it also looks at the length of the book among other things. I believe that this ranking system is a good way to find why most children do not read in that they may not like that book that they are reading. The problem with this model though is that it does not go all the way into grade twelve it stays at the more primary level.
After The leveling system came the readability system this was created in the nineteen fifties and it was used in pretty much the same fashion; to rank a book's reading difficulty. the readability scale stayed the same until other companies came in and started breaking down the grades into more sections so that a book could be placed in the exact spot a student should be able to read it. The way that this readability scaling system works is that it is more like a math equation. Readability takes the syntactic difficulty which is the grammatical complexity that is measured by sentence length, also it takes the semantic difficulty which is pretty much the average length of the words within the writing. The average of these two are added then plotted on a chart to show what grade the reading is appropriate for.
In summation I feel that both of these systems have their strengths and weaknesses the leveling system does not get to the true difficulty of reading and does not go to all grades. The readability scale goes to all grade and tells the difficulty but it does not tell a teacher why a student may not enjoy the reading. with this I believe that both of these systems can work but not perfectly. To answer the question do I think that I blog at a different level than when I writ research papers? Yes I do feel I do just because research papers are supposed to be more scholarly and more in depth than a blog post.
___________________________________________________________
comment by Brittney Hosey:
The idea of leveling on anything is amazing to me. But touching on books first, I think this is an important part of the learning cycle. It's also useful for parents who are trying to decide what level their child reads at and in the end help them get further with that process. I think this also relates to games and puzzles that are aged. Parent's can buy a game for their child that is supposed to be able to be completed by their age group and this can show the parent whether or not their child is where they need to be or not.
___________________________________________________________
comment by Anne Gayes:
Leveling is a very good strategy when dealing with education groups. It is a good way to catagorize children when trying to find what best fits them in learning terms. Also it is a good tool to use to help the teachers understand what levels all her students are in. Leveling also does have it's weaknesses though. It does not test and evaluate children as much as it should. For this system to be completely accurate it must evaluate the person on more than one test.
___________________________________________________________
comment by Melanie Bloden:
Determining the levels or readability of books has strengths and weakness'.Leveling helps students find what reading materials will benefit them most. Readability is measured like a math formula. It also fits students with appropriate material. Leveling should be more detailed with its testing. I am not sure which systems my teachers have used in the past. I would like to know what methods my parents and teachers might have used when picking out books for me.
Blog 16: Dialect Boundaries
The reading summary is done by:
ENGL300-1: Jacob Collins
ENGL300-2: Chris Zoeller
Due by class time on: Wednesday, Oct. 5th, 2011
The responses by the whole class are due by class time on: Fri., Oct. 7th, 2011
The text you need to read is here.
______________________________________________
ENGL300-1: Jacob Collins
ENGL300-2: Chris Zoeller
Due by class time on: Wednesday, Oct. 5th, 2011
The responses by the whole class are due by class time on: Fri., Oct. 7th, 2011
The text you need to read is here.
______________________________________________
The article entitled “Dialect Boundaries” seems to tackle both different accents as well as different slang between certain area's. To gather data, they tested people in Ohio which has the most dialectical difference do to its location. They did this by first having surveyors draw a map of where they thought the boundary lines existed and then to judge the strength of the differences had them fill out a survey about speakers in those areas that went as such: 1, exactly like you; 2, a little different; 3, somewhat
different; and 4, different.
The surveyors from the south rarely agreed on their map most responders agreed that their were two different dialect differences, which was north of Columbus and south of it. Those from southeast central felt like most of Ohio spoke the same while the far corners of the state had different dialects. Those from the central divided it up by saying the far north had a Chicago type accent, while those in the middle was more “normal” and average, and the southern part having a southern twang to it. One northwestern Ohio citizen mapped the northeast part of the state as “good plain English,” the northwest part “slight dutch” and the southern part “strong hillbilly; fast.”
The findings then are that folk perceptions can be drawn from a small geographical region, that people from different parts of the states answered differently, and perceptual dialectology and traditional dialectology can yield similar results. This disagrees with earlier studies that basically just split the state in half but it also shows that the results are only relative to those answering the questions, in my opinion.
I think it would be interesting to do the same study for the state of Illinois. I am literally from the most southern part of the State and feel like a have a “normal” accent and feel that anyone north of approximately St. Louis has a “northern” accent, but basically every person I talk to tell me that I have a strong southern accent and obviously feel like they have a normal one, while I think that they have a very, very strong northern accent. I find it very interesting the differences in perception from just one single state.
--Jacob Collins
Blog 15: A 1925 Lesson in Slang
The reading summary is done by:
ENGL300-1: Jodi Witthaus
ENGL300-2: Megan Abell
Due on: Wednesday, October 5th, 2011
The responses by the whole class are due by class time on: Friday, October 7th, 2011
The text you need to read is here.
________________________________________________
By Megan Abell
After reading Clark's article, I disagree with her statement that many offensive words have disappeared. I would argue that slang words have a higher chance of being integrated that this article would suggest. Slang has always been presented to me as being negative. I learned at a young age that sland was something that was not tolerated in the classroom. Yet with age, I have realized that some slang is ingrained in the English lanuage and in the language of the classroom.
The teacher explains how both these excerpts were taken from thieves. Shakespeare utilized this language of thieves through the characters in his plays--his plays are renowned as high culture in modern-day society. This, in itself, contradicts the assertion that most slang disappears, as the language of Shakespeare has been integrated into contemporary society with words such as bedroom, swagger, and rant. However, the meaning of slang can still exist, even if it tries to disappear. Slang insinuates meaning where none exist. Slang is, in itself. a means for alternating meaning for those who are unable to understand a more formal language. This article expresses how the words of thieves are constantly slithering into our language, because slang was once the language of thieves. Therefore, any slang that society uses today is taken from its language. For example, the word "kids" was taken from the term "kidnap," which today is also known as "kidnap," and kidnapping is the action of "child stealing." The word "slang" comes from the old language of Scandinavia, which meant "to talk abusively."
This article continues on to express how offensive slang really is, and because of this, slang terms never stay in existence for very long. The students come to the conclusion that words only last if they are not offensive very long. For example, calling an insane asylum, a "bug house" is very offensive to anyone who may know somebody who has been legally defined as "insane;" and what is even more interesting is that the term "bug house" is very rarely used in today's society.
That being said, I do agree with the notion that modern slang is not appropriate for conversation in the classroom, because it has the potential to be offensive. By using the intellectual language, students can increase their vocabulary and thus encourage them to establish a professional standard. Yet, slang is a huge part of the language that is utilized and thus needs to be addressed (in some manner) withing the classroom. I did find the article interesting because society constantly uses terms without having a true understanding of the meaning of the words, which makes us slightly ambiguous when determing whether or not the world is offensive.
ENGL300-1: Jodi Witthaus
ENGL300-2: Megan Abell
Due on: Wednesday, October 5th, 2011
The responses by the whole class are due by class time on: Friday, October 7th, 2011
The text you need to read is here.
________________________________________________
By Megan Abell
A Summary of "A 1925 Lesson in Slang"
After reading Clark's article, I disagree with her statement that many offensive words have disappeared. I would argue that slang words have a higher chance of being integrated that this article would suggest. Slang has always been presented to me as being negative. I learned at a young age that sland was something that was not tolerated in the classroom. Yet with age, I have realized that some slang is ingrained in the English lanuage and in the language of the classroom.
The teacher explains how both these excerpts were taken from thieves. Shakespeare utilized this language of thieves through the characters in his plays--his plays are renowned as high culture in modern-day society. This, in itself, contradicts the assertion that most slang disappears, as the language of Shakespeare has been integrated into contemporary society with words such as bedroom, swagger, and rant. However, the meaning of slang can still exist, even if it tries to disappear. Slang insinuates meaning where none exist. Slang is, in itself. a means for alternating meaning for those who are unable to understand a more formal language. This article expresses how the words of thieves are constantly slithering into our language, because slang was once the language of thieves. Therefore, any slang that society uses today is taken from its language. For example, the word "kids" was taken from the term "kidnap," which today is also known as "kidnap," and kidnapping is the action of "child stealing." The word "slang" comes from the old language of Scandinavia, which meant "to talk abusively."
This article continues on to express how offensive slang really is, and because of this, slang terms never stay in existence for very long. The students come to the conclusion that words only last if they are not offensive very long. For example, calling an insane asylum, a "bug house" is very offensive to anyone who may know somebody who has been legally defined as "insane;" and what is even more interesting is that the term "bug house" is very rarely used in today's society.
That being said, I do agree with the notion that modern slang is not appropriate for conversation in the classroom, because it has the potential to be offensive. By using the intellectual language, students can increase their vocabulary and thus encourage them to establish a professional standard. Yet, slang is a huge part of the language that is utilized and thus needs to be addressed (in some manner) withing the classroom. I did find the article interesting because society constantly uses terms without having a true understanding of the meaning of the words, which makes us slightly ambiguous when determing whether or not the world is offensive.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)