Students' Right to Their Own Language

Students' Right to Their Own Language is a resolution determined by the National Council of Teachers of English (NCTE) about the issues of students and their dialects. It can be assumed that there was controversy about teaching “proper English” to students with dialects; teachers must have thought that it would be too challenging to do so. The NCTE determined that English teachers must have the appropriate education and training to teach students while working with their dialects. The teachers have to “respect the diversity of dialects” of the students. The resolution lists all the standards or requirements that English teachers should follow to help student the best that they can.

            I agree with the NCTE that teachers should do everything that they can to teach students English no matter what challenges their speech may imply. I can relate to this because when I was younger I was unable to annunciate “R’s” in my speech. If it wasn’t for my English teacher that took the time and patience to help me, I may still talk that way today. Teachers should not give up on teaching just because they think a student is below standard because of their dialect. They should strive to work through the complications that come along with teaching; the resolution written by the NCTE helps them do that.

            I also agree that teachers should provide assignments and options in writing that allow students to use their own dialect to express themselves. If there was absolutely no dialect in society, then writing and speaking would be robotic. If there was no dialect that would stifle creativity.

Do you agree that teachers should not give up on teaching students English because of their dialects? Do you think that anything should be added to this resolution, as an update since it was written in 1974? If so, what changes would you make?

"Ain't So / Is Not." Academic Writing Doesn't Always Mean Setting Aside Your Own Voice

Generally speaking, most people have been taught to use academically appropriate grammar when writing. But can there be a benefit to switching up your style? This chapter explores just that. Communicating is an essential way in which many of us use to get our points across. According to Graff and Birkenstein, “such informal language also helps you connect with readers in a personal as well as an intellectual way. In our vie, then, it is a mistake to assume that the academic and the everyday are completely separate languages that can never be used together”. As we continue reading along, the authors show us a few excerpts from different scholarly articles and essays in which the author attempts to mix academic and colloquial styles. The first passage they present is from Conners and Lunsford, “Frequency of Formal Errors in Current College Writing,” where it is very apparent they mix the two styles. Through using fictional movie characters (as the case with the secondary title “Ma and Pa Kettle Do Research”), by using a more relaxed tone and informal words and phrases, it allows them to make the writing come a bit more alive. In the literary critic, Judith Fetterley piece, she is able to blend phrases from psychology with more popular expressions.  With this piece, they want to show that if you state your point in a more academic form first and then reiterate it again in a more relaxed way, it can be a great method to get your point across while integrating the two.  From the last two excerpts they discuss how blending languages can help make a political statement. Although to some using different vernaculars is just as valid as using “standard” English, to others it is not. Therefore, through showcasing these different dialects, one might be able to better understand the message the author is trying to convey, or as Smitherman pointed out “our habitual language practices need to be opened up, and that the number of participants in the academic conversation needs to be expanded” (126). Last, the authors want us to realize that although we may have many options in our writing choices, we should always be cautious of the type of audience and purpose our use of style is trying to target. For example, would you use the same writing style for a job application as you would for a college entrance one? Although learning different expressions and becoming a more intellectual writer is important, it’s just as meaningful to understand the English language is changing over time and by limiting ones writing capabilities to a more formal style, it can only hinder the effectiveness in getting a point across. I agree it’s vital to first figure who you’re writing for and the purpose/tone you want to set. Limiting oneself to keeping a strictly formal text seems like it can only take the writing from being great to just bland. Knowing when and how to blend the two is key.

With that being said, do you generally stray away from using informal expressions or sayings in your writing? Do you find there be an importance in using an informal tone? When do you feel are more appropriate times to blend the two styles, or should it be okay at all times? As different vernaculars are just as normal as “standard” English, do you see it okay to use in more formal writing?

The Achievement of Desire: Personal Reflections on Learning "Basics"

Many students throughout their education, struggle to find a balance between academics and the various aspects of their social life.  In Richard Rodriguez's essay The Achievement of Desire, he explains his own personal struggle with finding common ground between these two distant worlds, and fulfilling the expectations of those around him.  Rodriguez depicts how from a young age he found it difficult to relate with others due to his academic success and how an essay by Richard Hoggart entitled The Uses of Literacy, helped him to discover his role as a scholarship student.

For Rodriguez, education played an important role very early in his life.  Growing up as a Latino-American boy, family and hard work influenced him greatly.  His brothers and sisters were successful students who pleased their parents and learning came easily to them.  He strives to be like his siblings and soon made education a priority in his life, though for Richard things were not so easy.  He had to work much harder to achieve success since he was not the brightest, spending hours upon hours plugging away at school work in order to be a scholarly student.  This aspect of his life is what disconnected him from his family as he struggled to relate with them, feeling they did not have the same capacity for knowledge that he did.  Rodriguez uses the term scholarship student, meaning "good student, troubled son", in order to describe his fight between academic success and being a good son. 

As education began to replace the role of his family, his struggles with his home life only grew greater (This being a main point highlighted throughout the essay and a main reason for his writing). As Rodriguez recalls, "I idolized my teachers. I began imitating their accents, using their diction, trusting their every direction." which shows how he began to replace the need for family with education as he became an Americanized scholarship student.  He continues to find success through education and becomes the well respected scholar he had hoped to be.  It is through achieving this success that he discovers what the role of a scholarly boy is and what the process of becoming one entails.  In response to a quote from Hoggart's essay, Rodriguez explains "The scholarship boy is a bad student, but in large part the reason he is so bad is that he realizes earlier and more acutely than most other students---than Hoggart himself!---that education requires radical self-reformation".  Rodriguez knows this because at a young age he had to chose between his family and education and now that he has reached scholarly success he wonders if he can ever rekindle the bond he once had with his family.  Though he seems to find a sense of understanding in all of this at the end of his writing when he recollects, "If, because of my schooling, I had become separated from my parents, my education had also given me in the end a way to speak and to care about that fact".

So when looking at Rodriguez's essay it is plain to see the emphasis he places on education, but one can also sense that he is warning the reader about the importance of finding a sense of balance between academics and life outside of education.  He uses himself as an example for those who strive for academic success, or for those who do not find it as easily as others that you must not sacrifice so much as to give away a whole aspect of your life.  We must not let one factor of our life dictate another in such a dramatic way.  He is speaking not only to scholarship students like himself, but anyone who has experienced academic struggles, success, or an interest in education.  It also speaks to anyone trying to fulfil a role or position in which they feel obligated and that it is important to not lose sight of your values in doing so. His writing can be viewed as a warning but can also serve a purpose for those trying to balance school and social life.

Overall I feel that Rodriguez did an excellent job of conveying his life struggle with being a good son and reaching a scholarship level of education.  He clearly supported his argument for what a scholarship boy is and why education served such an important purpose in his life by using great examples from Hoggart's text and detailed visualization of events that unfolded in his childhood.  I agree with Rodriguez that many feel the need to live up to other's standards but that no matter what path we choose in life that we must not get caught up in it and lose sight of who we once were. I also agree with him that education is an important art form that needs to be sought after and that it is mastered through hard work and sacrifice.  I do not feel that a sacrifice as big as family needs to be given up, but in his case it was so, and for that reason he shows regret and understanding for why education replaced his family. His scholarly journal style of writing is a great example of what we have been discussing the past few classes.  It is a great educational piece and can give others a better understanding of how and how not to be a scholarship student.

So some questions to think about after reading,

What makes a scholarship student? Do you feel a relation to Rodriguez in the ways in which you balance your education and social life?
Does education require sacrifices like the ones he describes in his essay?  Do you feel that education has changed you in any way, or lead you away from something you were once close to?  Home vs. School?  Any other comments on the reading or things to take away from Rodriguez's essay?

Literacy Privilege: How I Learned to Check Mine Instead of Making Fun of People’s Grammar on the Internet

You know the overused but very insightful cliché “never judge a book by its cover”? In the blog post “Literacy Privilege: How I Learned to Check Mine Instead of Making Fun of People’s Grammar on the Internet,” this is put to the test. While they say that good grammar is a sign of intelligence, this blogger clearly lays out why one should not judge another based on his or her grammar and she takes it a step further in saying that correcting other people’s grammar makes you nothing but condescending, elitist, and annoying.

This blogger used to consider herself a grammar snob. She would, as she bluntly put it, “rail and rip” people apart for using improper grammar. Four years ago, she was hired in a program that helps disadvantaged adults acquire fundamental literacy skills. She claims that this experience was not only eye opening, but also mind-opening. In this job, she learned that being nit-picky about the language skills of perfect strangers is “kind of an asshole move.”

She goes on to say when you hear someone using improper or even poor grammar, specifically on the Internet, consider these things. The writer may be dyslexic. He may have spent his childhood being shamed or belittled by his teachers and peers because his brain works differently from theirs. He might have come from an abusive home, where keeping his body and spirit together, not focusing on English studies, came first. She goes on to name more possible situations for this man’s poor grammar. She also looks at this from the other side. What if this man, with his poor grammar, likes to express his obnoxious opinions in childish ways and picks fights with anyone who disagrees. This scenario makes it far more tempting to criticize this man for his improper diction. However, there are problems with this approach as well.

Judgments about what is considered “right”, “good”, and “correct” in writing and grammar always – ALWAYS (as the blogger strongly emphasizes) – align with characteristics of the dialects spoken by privileged, mostly wealthy, mostly white people. We make judgments based on learned biases. An emotional attachment to a specific way of doing things can be responsible as well.

The issue of literacy is by no means trivial, either. The latest statistics from the International Adult Literacy Survey show that “nearly half of all North American adults cannot cope with complex written material of the sort that the other half of us take completely for granted.” This, according to the blogger, should be considered a national crisis.

Back to the one of the main points of not judging a book by its cover, we need to become more committed to finding better ways to engage with people whose opinions, experiences, and means of expressions are different from ours.

Correcting other people’s grammar - Do you agree? Do you believe that one’s grammar should be overlooked while looking for deeper meanings in what he or she is trying to communicate? Should we cease trying to correct other’s grammar as studies have shown that is does not truly improve grammar? Or is proper grammar and good diction a sign of intelligence that has to be considered when listening to one’s argument?

Crime or Creative Process?

The line between plagiarism and tribute work continues to be nearly indiscernible – as is shown by a series of posters created by various graphical designers and arranged for viewing ease by Bob Caruthers, a retired design professor. He presents the posters alongside the older posters that certainly provided their graphical inspiration. What is most striking is how utterly similar the pairs are – the content of a poster may have been changed, say, from a 1960’s movie to a concert advertisement, but the main content is, in most cases, nearly untouched. The obvious similarities leave us wondering, “Is this tribute work, or merely lazy graphical design?”

The authors of the post believe that no individual person is entitled to solely explore an idea, but rather that ideas, once formulated, should be free for anyone to use. In the age of the internet, when access to information is unprecedentedly easy to obtain, they argue, artists should be reveling in the availability of new mediums through which to express themselves, and not hung up on getting credit for their work. If this were the case, then artists would not have the right to claim an idea as their own – and as far as copyright goes, this is technically the case. It is not the idea protected by law, but the creator’s individual expression of what the idea means to them.

A few of the oldest posters shown are unquestionably in public domain, so any recent iterations are safe and legal. The newer posters, though, are often a rehashing of designs that were created just a year or two before. Would these posters be protected, then? Could the modern-day designers make a legitimate claim that their work is more tribute than a copy of another artist’s work?

Should the new posters be considered artistic translations?

Does the line between plagiarism and tribute work actually become more or less clear when the core designs are so clearly identifiable in both the original work and the iteration?

Is it ethical to act in the interest of the “idea” rather than the artists who have created works based on the idea in the past?