Anderson's Analyses of Adjectives and Adverbs

In just ten pages, there are outlined three adjective- and adverb-related mistakes made by writers: which-who-that confusion, and misuse of adjective and adverb clauses. As we began with adjective clauses, the first thing that came to mind during my reading was Noden's brushstrokes: he taught us how to creatively clarify and diversify our sentences with these techniques. I feel like I am good ont he adjective use, as we have practiced this a couple times in class as well. Anderson also provides a simple explanation for the uses of "which," "who" and "that." But he also used "where" in some of his examples, and to be sure I usually only use this word for places in formal writing. Otherwise, I will replace it with "i which" or something that I feel is more suiting. Converstationally, I will use where much more. It must be so frustrating to be an ELL trying to remember and contextualize all these exceptions of the English language! With adverb clauses, we return to AAAWWUBBIS, which I honestly forgot about! So I am glad we are going to refresh on this technique. It is kind of difficult to grasp for me, just because I was never really taught anything other "Lolly lolly lolly get your adverbs here!" While it is certainly integral to define the parts of speech and their functions, real reminders like AAAWWUBIS will be more helpful to writers because they are applying what they are learning. Lynne Truss may say italics are a cop-out, but I find it important to stress this application process! Since building our classroom pedagogical assessments of one of the bases that grammar should be taught alongside writing, I see the two as inseparable now. Just one change like that can truly alter the entire classroom dynamic and effectiveness. It is funny that Anderson suggests using "The Human Sentence" strategy because Kelsey had this idea for our literature circles presentation. I think it will be like an interactive version of Krista's sentence-building activity in which we used the post-it notes. I believe our lit circles presentation will be a good one, at least because Lynne Truss does a good job of explaining some of those grammatical rules we have all pondered mulitple times in an understandable fashion (even if she takes the bizarre, roundabout way to get there!). I have my own ideas for teaching the class about the uses of the colon and semicolon, aka "Airs and Graces!"

M*G*P

I am excited to work on this multigenre project, but I realized that it will be a challenge to me as well. As my eyes scanned over the sample multigenre assignment, I started to think about the role research will play in my MGP. If taking a research-based approach, I might ask myself, What would I want to investigate? What about grammar interests me? Dr. Shannon reminded us to include ideas from our Weaver, Anderson and Noden readings as well. No matter what, I will have to develop my own grammatical thesis in relation to the overall theme of my piece. I know it sounds a bit dry, but maybe I will do a unit lesson plan or something geared toward a student. In a way, I want to think of something more creative, but maybe I can just inject the creativity into my lessons. A time capsule or something of that fashion would be really neat! But I know I am putting the cart in front of the horse, since my research and theme should be intertwined. After all, the MGP is supposed to be about stressing meanig over form, among other things. I'm sure everything will fall into place when we have discussion this week in class.

As for the conclusion of our lit circles reading, I have to admit I am kind of glad not to be grappling with Lynne Truss anymore! She is very sarcastic (which I am too) and her anecdotes are, at times, way off topic to her argument. But I do recognize some of the true and better points she makes. Her outlook on the world as a place "of plummeting punctuation standards" (1) and "low[ered]... intellectual aspirations" (xxiii) is not without veracity. While the overabundance of mistakes on public signs, banners, carvings or whatever else she points out are quite disturbing, does it change the meaning of the text? To a stickler, English teacher, English major, or anyone else educated/interested in puncuation, the answer is yes. But most people viewing these flaws take away the same message. So is it really a problem? I think that is Truss's whole point, and I have to agree. Yes, the English language is complex and sometimes arbitrary, but the real problem is people's apathy toward and separation from English as a means of educated communication. What does she suggest to do? Show people the ways of their mistakes (you can always use her puncuation repair kit) by correcting them!

Problematic Pronouns & Stylistic Sense

On the first page of Anderson's chapter, I was perplexed by this quote by authors Caroll and Wilson: "It, clearly a pronoun meant to refer to and idea previosly expressed, is often used by students to refer to an idea still in their heads" (103). Can I just say that I have no idea what this means? I don't know if I am reading too much into this, but I didn't know that "it" is tense sensitive! Other than the perhaps not so widespread pronoun-antecedent agreement error, I found these pronoun errors to be some of the most common ones that I personally see. By going off of his research indicating which problems students have most, Anderson has showed me how many common errors relate to pronouns. I feel that these problems don't always stick out because pronouns, being more general or even vague, do not draw as much attention as other, more particular parts of the sentence. Does this in turn mean that pronoun errors don't always interrupt the meaning being conveyed? It may seem that way, but I would say no. I don't think a misplaced comma is nearly as confusing as a misplaced pronoun. I noticed the lesson called "Where Have All the Pronouns Gone?" because it gives students the opportunity to explore how to make sensical use of pronouns. Reading the sentences aloud would definitely help them place the correct pronouns in the blanks.

On Thursday, Kelsey, Sara and I will be presenting on Chapters 9 and 10. Noden pairs these two chapters, on structural and revising techniques, together by suggesting teaching them as part of the writing process. I found the keyboard model of structuring nonfiction pieces very helpful. It made me think that I have probably been able to create such "melodies" using different keys and not even knowing it! But I was also intrigued to read Noden's warning, "A writer shouldn't try to stuff ideas into predetermined boxes of form" (219). I think we should take this into account when planning our lesson and allow the students' ideas to flow freely and have their own style. While I could see the point it was trying to make, I wouldn't use the ladder of abstraction in my classroom. Yet something drew me to Strategy 4 in the second chapter, which teaches students how annoying unnecessary wordiness can be! It uses the same method of showing students the extreme negatives of the habit. I think it would be good to focus on this topic, because it follows up Sara and Jenne's lesson on using vivid parrts of speech, by showing the other side of the coin. As I continued to read on, I came to the final section, "Six Chunks: Techniques for Eliminating Unnecessary Words." Apart from the "Beat the Deadline" game, these chunks show students to re-word some sentences or parts of sentences in order to achieve a tight focus and a clear meaning.

Sentence Building: One at a Time

Anderson had me questioning some of the principles I have been personally taught in writing. On page 87 he talks about replacing the comma splice with a coordinating conjunction followed by a comma, or a semicolon (like we discussed last class). I was once told that when using a semicolon, to always use a transition word like "however" after the mark of puncuation. I now know that this is not true, but I am wondering, is there a particular instance in which this is necessary? I couldn't help but relate it back to his explanation of when to use the comma after the conjunction (84). It made me think, "If there is a special rule for this, there probably is for semicolons, too." also demonstrated to students how to use an author's ideas without plagarizing them. Through teaching students to imitate a sentence's form, not content, (94) he is helping them become more familiar with the process so they won't mistakenly plagiarize information. I think the other side of the coin is teaching students to summarize properly. It can be difficult to say what the source is saying in a unique way without manipulating their ideas but, again, this is a necessary skill to acquire. I absolutely love the assignment in which the students are sent out to take down "field notes" (97) , observations of something in their lives outside of school. I like the idea of getting students to interact with their environments in this way. What all of his specific solutions to grammatical problems have in common are the sentence-building activities that he implements.

Since last week I accidentally wrote about Chapter 2 in Noden, this week I will compensate with Chapter 4: From Imitation to Creation. Noden basically expands on the same point that Anderson makes above. I'm not really sure I get the house comparison though. I think what Noden is simply trying to say is: Build your own style house. You can use the same structure, but the materials must be different. That helps me understand it anyway! I found the various approaches to imitation quite interesting, and some of them complex. Many of these methods, like the Pooh Perplex Approach, I recognized as devices used by writers of the classics I read all the time. It made me realize that these approaches are not just for students attempting to improve their writing; they are for real writers with real purposes as well. I especially favor the first two of the imitation strategies, which are the "Writer's Sketchbook" (92) and the "Family Photo" (93), respectively. What I like about both of these strategies is the transition from the visual images through the writer's (artist's) eye to the paper (canvas). Wordsworth said that each person has a different experience, even if it is the same subject matter. It is the writer's duty to be able to eloquently, linguisitically impart their internal experience and reaction to their subject. That's what it made me think of. Even though each reader's experience with the text will be different, the author should still set the scene with as many details as possible, trying to insert the reader into their own version of the text.

Write Like Fireworks... Not Fog

One reason I was pleased to read Anderson's take on sentence fragments because I was really looking for some discrimination on this topic as to appropriate v. inappropriate usage. He addresses this in the very beginning, saying to "avoid writing [fragments] in high stakes situations such as testing" (64). I also saw this first section and thought of some of the sentences I've been stalking from poetry, as I mentioned in my last blog. Fragments abound in the stanzas of poetry! So it really connects to what Anderson is talking about here, which is that fragments are not always a bad thing. Sometimes, they add flavor to the text or change its tone. Other times, there are just periods placed where commas can be. As in the Chuckie doll example, the student is actually pigeonholing his or her thoughts, but simply using the wrong punctuation.

On the next page, I selected this quotation for its value in teaching any subject: "It's easy to lose students' attention when we talk in abstractions..." (65). How does he solve this problem? He has his students apply their grammatical knowledge by engaging with examples and hence, breaking down some sentences into their core parts. As I'm playing out the implementation of activities like the Sentence Smackdown and learning to "create mind movies" with our mind's camera (69). I'm thinking that maybe these activities have a few too many bells and whistles for me to handle. No offense to Mr. Anderson, but I don't think hosting a WWE grammar lesson is my thing! But that's why they say "adapt not adopt" - these few strategies may not fit my teaching persona, but I can use the same underlying ideas and adapt the way I implement them. For example, I appreciate how he not only allows, but encourages his students to play around with grammar and try different combinations using variations on syntax and diction. I see this in lessons like "Only You Can Prevent Dangling Modifiers - Playing with Sentence Parts."

Noden's chapter puts emphasis on the amount of detail in the text. Every detail must be included because that is the only way the writer can even hope to describe to the reader what is going on in her mind's eye. Following suit with Noden's trope of the writer as artist, he first focuses on imagery, a literary device in which no details can be spared. Noden expands on his plea to student writers to "show, not tell" by asking them how you can communicate a concept without explicitly voicing it. Students must form clear images in their own minds first in order to describe the effects of an action or concept.

The first section about using specific verbs I feel very passionate about, because one of my high school English teachers used to always encourage us to use "vivid verbs" and I have been using that term ever since. While reading my WIFYS students' papers, I praised them for spicing up their sentences with effective verbs, labeling them as vivid verbs.  What makes the term vivid verbs so catchy? A specific adjective! That is Noden's next point. Adjectives are key in modifying and describing, so they are what students utilize the most when instructed to make their passages more specific. He says, however, this can He later talks about painting imagery in dialogue, which is something I have never thought about before. I think this would be difficult, because I would tend to write dialogue in my own casual tongue, and not think about how that character speaks influences his/her depiction. I like Noden's views because they focus on more on creative writing as well as informative writing.

"Writing is the life of the composition party!"

Anderson is probably my favorite grammarian that we are learning from at this point in the semester. He takes a somewhat casual approach, but implements strategies that are usually quite agreeable. I like how he talks about the writer's journal as the staple of teaching effective writing. His "mini-process" of writing seems to be effective because it gives students a space to write freely and express themselves on issues that are relevant to them. If I had to take one quote away from this lesson, it would be this: "It's important for students to see how puncuation works to hold and connect larger texts together." (33) Examples come from the writing of authors, the teacher and of course, the students. The writer's eye (I) activity made me think of the students as poets for some reason. Being a fan of poetry, I think this genre would provide some great nontraditional examples of creative writing for students. In fact, I believe I will look at some poetry for my next sentence stalking! The student-led writing individualizes their approach to writing and conventions - it makes the experience relatable and interesting. Anderson even gives guidelines on specific ways to make these methods work, which is really helpful. But what exactly makes his "Editor's Checklist" different from the others? Is it simply the way in which he is using these tools?

In the beginning of Chapter 4, Weaver provides an example of an almost successful writing lesson. She says what is missing from this mini-lesson is consistency, meaning and a strong follow-up. However, I think the dreaded grammar worksheet is what did it in! Weaver includes a passage saying how we don't teach kids to learn all the gears and parts of a car before teaching them to drive, so why try to teach them every part of speech? It is parallel to Anderson's "Express Line" editing sessions - just getting the items you need. I really loved the student's sentence: "I felt the wind going through the trees like ice cream melting in the summer." The teacher noticed that the student was using -ing verbs, but I noticed that she used a simile! It shows the extent to which our language is learned, not taught. Again, I am eating up these specific strategies that are provided (research and experience included!). However, I again wish to challenge their effectiveness in the name of Murphy's Law... for example, the focus lesson. Weaver says that all it takes "is a general invitation: '...I'm going to teach more about this at our writers' table in about five minutes" (66) and she assumes that you will get some takers. What if this isn't enough? Also, Anderson and Weaver both bespeak their concerns about teacher conferences due to the sheer lack of time to talk with each student. But Weaver discusses some solutions for this problem too; like, try to keep it short, sweet and to the point. The subsequent activity, called demonstrations, showed to me a principle that I think we learned in Ad Lit: sometimes your students will respect you more if you do the assignments along with them. It puts you down to earth on their level and shows that you're not too busy to focus on the task as well (even if you are!).

(Our) Native Language

One thing that I honestly fear as a teacher is helping ESL students. It just seems like something that is impossible to prepare for. But the main thing I took away was that it is best to teach these students according to their individual needs just like any other student with an IEP, or whatever the case. Weaver says that the terms ELL and ESL are somewhat condescending or offensive to those with a different native language. So, what should the new term be? She doesn't really give any alternatives. On the same topic is the distinction between studying English v. acquiring English. The book keeps saying that we learn English as children by seeing, hearing and imitating, so this is how we must teach it to our students. Later, Weaver talks about "break[ing] some of the time-honored rules" of writing. She seems to suggest combining different writing genres, like creative and informative to give an essay pizzazz and engage its readers. I like this approach because it would probably make students, like the ones that were polled, feel less restricted even in their formal writing. Also, the creative element really does what Weaver and others keep stressing: gets the point across and adds meaning. I love the Stephen King quote: "Must you write complete sentences each time, every time? Perish the thought." The point was made that sentence fragments often give the tone of the text some identification, as in the example of Bruno Maddox's sarcasm that comes through his writing. Some would view fragments, beginning a sentence with a conjunction, or maybe use of slang as errors, but at times these are used deliberately as stylistic devices. As Weaver says earlier, it is important that a writer has a reason for what they're writing, especially if using these types of style modifiers.

Breaking Tradition!

Jeff Anderson seems like the grammar guru, with his self-assured method of teaching this topic aside "powerful literature and student writing." I like how he gets to the point faster than Weaver! Right off the bat, he talks about his early days of teaching grammar: he used all the right pedagogical models, his students had high test scores and he was even schooling other teachers! But... were his students learning anything? It shows that good grades aren't always synonymous with taking away meaning. Anderson also makes an important distinction (that students must make) between "the informal communication of their world" and "more formal or standard language expected in academic writing." Like I said in class, the difference between these two is the stylistic requirements for successful communication. Isn't that what it's all about? But I was a little skeptical about his "show not tell" model: students won't just pick up on these grammatical rules! As I read on though, he explained how he broke down the examples with the students, piece by piece. Doing this every day, he advocates, will fuse grammar into the other areas of the English curriculum. I think that is so great, because we want students to see how everything we teach them comes together, and how to apply their knowledge.

In "Image Grammar," Harry Noden breaks text down in a different manner - to its meaning. How is the image, feeling, thought. etc. being conveyed? In good writing, the words capture the reader and place them in the author's reality. The style must be oh-so-original! And better yet, I got to learn some terminology! Now I feel like a true Junior English Major. But I have to ask if these "5 major brushstrokes" are the way to start teaching grammar at any level, or if this is intended for a grade level with some preliminary knowledge? It is so difficult to break the old traditions, because all I can think is that we HAVE to start with noun, verb, adjective and adverb! Is Noden, instead, trying to create a new set of basic elements to grammar?

UNconventional Grammar

If I got one thing out of these few chapters it would have to be: teach grammar with writing! This was one concept that was constantly reiterated in this reading. However, it speaks the truth about the purpose grammar serves in our use of language – that we actually use grammar in our formal writing when expressing ideas. I couldn’t help but think back to our first day of class when we were talking about our feelings toward grammar, what kind of mastery we have over the topic and what we hoped to learn in the class. It was through our discussion that I realized that maybe grammar isn’t so important when informally or vocally expressing ideas. Classroom discussion is a perfect example of this, because students may be talking about newly formed ideas or even just winging it as they go.

Grammar to Enrich and Enhance Writing definitely takes an alternative approach to this subject – I feel like I’ve never been taught grammar in this way before! (Really, I don’t think I have ever been taught any other way than through Warriner’s English Grammar and Composition.) As I started to read over the three structural features of the English language, I honestly felt a little confused by these classifications. I felt kind of dumb, but then I read on and the book explained that these are learned, implied categories. I always just thought of the standard terms used to name nouns, participles, conjunctions, etc. But what Constance Weaver stresses is to categorize these terms by their function, not by assigned meaning.

I never thought of respecting students’ dialects as a part of teaching multiculturalism, but it is true that many students will refuse to give up some of their slang. Even as an English major, I will still use improper grammar at times. But the difference is, I know what I am doing wrong and I recognize this. Does that matter? I always thought so but maybe not. Throughout all these grammar conspiracies, I was actually glad to read the part about interviewers’ grammatical pet peeves. I still want grammar to be considered where it should be, and be taught to students as it is applicable to their lives. Where better to apply these skills than the workforce?

Principles of English

"A Brief History of English" I found to be a nice little refresher on my history timeline, even though most of the info is pre-1500. It was a bit difficult to keep up with all the contributors to our language, but the article helped to slow down and clarify some of the key points from that gut-busting video. For one, I found it interesting that Modern English is subdivided into Early and Late Modern because it shows how rapidly our language is changing and branching off now. The Old English version of The Lord's Prayer was definitely cool too. But there was one statement from Mr. Roberts that continued to swirl around in my mind: "Languages don't become simpler; they merely exchange one kind of complexity for another." I guess I want to know what is stopping a language from developing into a simplified version of repetitive slang, for instance. Isn't it possible? The real kicker was at the end, where Roberts says it was "silly" to apply the grammatical rules of Latin to English, and blames this flawed system for some students' disinterest in the subject. I agree with the first part of this argument but I'm unsure about the second. Do the students lack respect for this system or are they showing apathy for a greater concept?

A few of these elements were repeated in "Good English and Bad," but this article was able to give me a more in-depth analysis of the English language. I always knew that it was sort of backwards, but now I have an idea as to why it is so confusing. Mainly it was how Latin rules were applied to English, but the contradictory classifications and such at the beginning of the piece really had me questioning this subject I love so much! I also never knew how much the potential revisions and alterations of the English language were disputed over by men like Thomas Jefferson and Samuel Johnson. When I think about it, it is only natural that some should want to take action in controlling or facilitating change in the language. A united nation has a dominant language. But it seems to be getting a bit ridiculous when people are getting quite offended by a dictionary. I suppose that shows the high standard we hold to the dictionary as the language auhtority.

I chose "It's Like, EXTREME But Not GROSS" and I just couldn't help but laugh at the expression "missed the forest for the trees" in the first sentence. Perfect play on words for all this exploration into language and its meaning. As I was reading through this final article, I could recognize with at least 3 of the trends Lehigh pointed out among the younger generations. It was almost shameful. Then I felt even worse because television is eroding my and everyone else's brain. Just the other day I read that brain activity is higher when we are sleeping than when we are watching TV! It is true that watching the tube is a passive brain activity, whereas reading, like the article said, is an active one. I believe that TV is a large part of the declining language compentency rate, but there are surely more factors at play here. Both of these are part of a larger culture that has developed in the younger generations, as I see it. In this culture, where school isn't cool, why bother to study subjects like English?