THE FINAL BLOG DUN DUN DUN

What I liked most about the article was that it did not completely bash on Standard American English. Because Standard American English (edited) is my dominant and home language I always feel uncomfortable guilty when articles or discussions arise that make using Standard English as a tool to make people of other cultures feel inferior to you. Because that is not my goal when I am speaking, I am not trying to make myself above anyone else it is just the way that I speak. I liked how he wanted to teach languages in a way that no one language was devalued or belittles and that by learning standard English was just another tool for success in their tool box along with the many other forms of language that a student could pull from and adapt to certain situations with. I really agree with the idea of making languages and different discourses of writing or speaking as flexible. And by incorporating many different styles (even standard American English) the only thing that can happen is an appreciation for other languages and an understanding of knowing who your audience is. I also enjoyed the idea that teaching this goes beyond just writing, I liked how they practiced different types of speak for example a news anchor.  For my final reflective statement I want it to be something that introduces the idea that language is a tool for communication, and that the end goal of language is to communicate. There are many different audiences for which one may need to communicate too, so by learning different styles of language and understanding how they allow people of that discourse to communicate is what I will center my class around when it comes to teaching grammar. I want my students to really understand what community discourse, audience and the role of the writer (or speaker) really means and how they can adapt language to empower them in whatever situation they are in. Code-switching. I believe that if language is taught to students as something that is a tool for success and they are shown the many ways in which to communicate there will not be issues with devaluing different languages.

For my portfolio I am having trouble classifying my different examples. I have found passages of writing that I find interesting but I find it hard to limit myself to putting a label on them.  Most of my English are pieces of Standard American Edited English as the core or base or influence of the writer but each passage has its own twist or flare that make it deviate from the norm giving it flavor. I specifically chose these because SAE is my dominant discourse and has been getting criticized, so I wanted to find passages that show that this language style can be creatively made unique and is not as constricted as people claim it to be. 

Languages and Power

For my Languages and Power research essay I have decided to write it about the Russian culture within my community. The tea party sparked this idea in me because (being the optimist that I am) [Participle, I liked having it in my aside to show that it was a present action or state of being]I wanted to find some positive ways that assimilating to English has created. Reflecting on my time in high school many of my friends immigrated from Russia with their families. I always found it very fascinating that they were able to fluently speak both English and Russian. Their ability to jump back and forth between each culture surprised me. They did this almost effortlessly. Their community is so tight nit yet they are able to integrate into the cultures around them. But since I do have these views from being an outsider: I want to research my hypothesis. To do this I am going to research the background of the Russian culture in the United States (if anyone has an source suggestions please let me know). And then I am going to individually compose a set of questions to ask my Russian friends back home. Any suggestions for idea questions? After I have gathered my information I will then relate it back to who has the power. I have not thought about what types of world English I am going to use. I want to use my own but honestly my world English is very much similar to standard edited American English.

Tea Party

The only issue that I have with Linda’s article is that she claims “white” linguistics are/is the only thing that is oppressing people of color. Beth made a good point in class that there are other dialects that are dominant in our society. I understand that she is trying to include people of different cultures but I am curious to know what she stands on when it comes to equity vs. equality. Equity is giving people the necessary tools for everyone to have the same opportunity and equality can SOMETIMES be limiting and excluding. I am not saying that I believe “whitewashing” is not a thing or an issue but if she is trying to reach some incorporative community she should not exclude her students who may identify with “whitewash” style of discourse or make them feel guilty. [complex sentence with a relative clause]I realize I am going out on a limb here and that not everyone who reads this blog will agree with my views, but that was one of my responses to her blog. Setting that aside however, I did like the tea party exercise because there are so many different languages out there that students may not even know exist. I felt that exercise was a good introduction into the fact that there are so many other languages than just the mainstream popular ones. By recognizing that you may align with dominant language and its practices will help you be able to avoid or better incorporate other language practices. However it is not entirely a bad thing to teach along those boundaries because when students are put out into the real world they may find themselves in a position where they will have to understand the dominant language and its practices and the person on the other end may not be so willing to mold themselves to their language style. Specifically a challenge for me is I do align with what would be considered the dominant discourse. But knowing this I am able to be set in my own self-identity. Culturally responsive teaching starts with knowing who you are and being firm in your beliefs. Because of this I believe I will be able to respect and have a curiosity for other language discourses allowing me to incorporate some of those non-traditional practices into my classroom activities. This article really helps set into stone my design concept for my classroom. I want my classroom to be decorated by my students and show my students growth, personalities, and atmosphere. By incorporating different language practices my classroom will hopefully show the diversity within my students. The influence her article holds over my research idea is still forming. But I have an idea of what I want my research article to accomplish. I want to discover a way where comingling languages proves to be more beneficial or enhancing than by being dominant in one area.

I tend to use relative clauses a lot in my writing but I am not sure if I using them correctly specifically when it comes to my complex sentences 

Crovitz

Crovitz makes a point that in order to understand where one is going wrong in their grammar, you must be able to understand the thought process behind the mistake. Because even when something looks wrong to you, in that students culture it could be correct and they just do not know the difference. And by understanding the thought process behind it you can better help them understand their mistake [FANBOY]. I also agree with his statement that standardized testing can lead teachers into doing repetitive drills for grammar rather than teaching them how grammar works in context. Just because a student will be able to recognize the fault in a sentence they have seen thousands of times; doesn't mean they will be able to recognize the same mistake when it comes to multiple variations of sentences. Not only will they not be able to catch a mistake in other types of sentences, I fear that they will not be able to recognize when a sentence is using a specific punctuation correctly in a way that they were taught before. I really liked the alternative of creating more complex sentences from basic sentences. I like this idea because I think that it will help solve to a degree the problem I just stated previously. Because basic sentences are just not a reality, when reading Mary Shelley for example her sentences are all over the place. 

*I have been suffering from the flu all weekend so this is as about as good as this blog post will, get I am very sorry to whomever has to read this. I just cannot think clearly right now*

Sentence Diagramming

This was my first time of ever seeing grammar taught through a visual; other than the human sentences we did in class. The only other visual that I have ever had was just my teacher (or myself) [an aside set off by parentheses] [reflexive pronoun to show emphasis] labeling the parts of my sentences with acronyms so I knew what each part of the sentence was. And honestly besides being able identify what a specific word was in a sentence; we never looked at sentence structure in depth. When I saw the visual in the book of the diagram I was very confused. Which made me immediately recognize a shortcoming with the method: it is probably only successful when taught in person and showed through example. Because just reading it to me was very confusing and I became lost. I feel as if that visual for teaching grammar would be best suited for older students, not so much students who are just starting out early in the writing process. I am also confused on how sentence diagramming can be used as collaborative projects and used for debates. The human sentences showed me that there are multiple ways to set up a sentence with all the different verbs and adjectives and pronouns [list without final “and” or with all “ands” and no commas]. Bur it also showed me that there was pretty much a common medium of the sentence structure that everyone agreed on and thought sounded best. So when trying to turn the sentence diagramming into a debate I do not feel like it would work because at the high school level their sentences are all basically the same without much variety. I mean it could be a way to induce variety. I guess I am just not a fan of this particular method.

I THINK I used a reflexive pronoun (I know it is a reflexive pronoun but is it in the way I put it in my sentence I am unsure) in parenthesis to tell the reader that my teachers where mainly the ones who were pointing out grammar to me; but as time went on I began to add in my input or recognize grammar just a little. I used the parenthesis because when I tried it with the dash it was too much of an emphasis on something that was merely just a side note not something that I wanted the reader to be drawn too. I also used the listing method with all ands. I decided to do this because it did draw attention to the fact that I was saying there are multiple/many ways to create a sentence. So by adding in the “ands” it emphasized the continuation of something going on for a long time. I really liked the way that I used the listing method with ands in my paragraph and thought that it made the paragraph flow nicely. 

Blog 2

My whole life I have been taught by my teachers, my parents, and older members of my community what the “proper” way to speak was. After I moved to the U.S from Spain I stayed in the same place for most of my life. So all of my teachers and people that I took influence from where generally from the same discourse; so everything that I was learning on what the “proper” way to structure my thoughts were all the same. I was told that this way was the most educated way, the way people from my class spoke. And that anyone else who spoke differently was uneducated and lacked sophistication. Because of this—some may call it brain washing; I disagree however—I found myself making many first assumptions about people’s intelligence, social standing and value based on the way they spoke [here I used the dash to emphasize that this was my own personal opinion. I also used a semicolon because standing alone each sentence was too short but they were related so combined they created the perfect length].

Chapter one from GA and the Christensen article both challenge my view on what it means to teach grammar. I am one of those people that will correct people because in my “standard” English the way they are speaking or writing is wrong. Although it may be wrong according to my dominant discourse; they could be right for their discourse. GA states that our presumptions or prejudices about a language variety may stem from our prejudices about the people. And in order to appreciate language variety I need to deviate from my idea that there is a “standard”. Because “standard” is subjective and differs from different regions; which is something that I was not raised to value. Christensen gives an example about one of her students who integrates the language she uses at home with the language she was taught in school. What some consider a beautiful blend of culture; I see as something that needs to be corrected; because in my discourse you cannot infuse one variety with the “standard” without being judged [use of the double semicolon]. This is something that over my years at school has been challenged, and although I still struggle with the urge to make other language varieties or discourses seem inferior to my dominant discourse. And like stated in GA it isn’t actually the language that is deeming itself inferior to others it is the people within it. So when I am teaching grammar in m English class I need to remember that I am only teaching one way of grammar. I am not teaching the correct way or the better way. But am giving them another tool in their tool box to use when is appropriate. And show them that each language variety has value, not just the one that I am teaching them.

“although vernacular does not carry the same intensely negative connotations that the term dialect does, it often brings out our assumptions, perhaps unconscious ones, about “better” or “worse” language’” (7)

Normally in my writing when I want to insert my own opinion I would use parenthesis. However I want to expand my writing so I have decided that whenever I would normally use a parenthesis I will now replace it with a dash to add emphasis. I also have seen the use of a sentence with double semicolons and I thought that it flowed nicely and look interesting. So I decided I would also try to incorporate that as well, although I am not sure if I am using it correctly. 

Self-assessment

This will be my second attempt at a grammar class for teachers; the first time being a few semesters ago. This semester I have already overcome my issue: staying enrolled in class past the first week! Just kidding, but on a serious note- this semester I would like to make my writing more exciting to read. I have discovered that the type of writing I enjoy the most is very formal and standard English style formatting. My background and upbringing really influence my appreciation and natural ability for this type of writing. But I fear that although I may sound very educated or polite, my writing may lack something to give it life. I tend to use only commas and I introduce quotes the same way every time; the standard “lead in, “quote…quote”. I had no idea that you could use many forms of punctuation to introduce a quote. If I could learn new techniques of sentence structures it could help my writing become less boring and more pleasurable to read. In fact the first three or so sentences of this paragraph I just threw in some of the punctuations we discussed in class. I am still not positive if I am using them correctly but I won’t learn unless I try.

I have now taken two English courses where the first lesson we have had is about Gee’s views on discourses (you may or may not have heard of him). If you haven’t, he states that literacy is the ability to master discourses out of your primary discourse. And that literacy is always plural meaning that you can have multiple literacies in different areas. He also explains that literacy is not a measure of overall intelligence; this still is very hard for me to adjust too because I have always grouped the idea of being literate with being intelligent, and literate meaning a whole: singular not plural. Because of his article I believe that another way to enhance my writing is to start utilizing all of my discourses. My dominant discourse is very present in my writing. And I sometimes find myself thinking that my dominant discourse is inferior to other discourses. If I could incorporate my primary discourse with some of my secondary discourses it could give my writing more depth. I also found that while reading GA, although it does not directly state discourses: it instead uses the phrase “language variety”, that I have a hard time appreciating different speech patterns especially when they largely stray from Standard English. I tend to look down upon them or want to correct and say they are wrong. According to GA there is not wrong grammar, because language and grammar is situational. This can be compared to Gee as well because different discourses are situational as well. If I can unbound myself from my primary discourse and pull from other discourses I hopefully will not necessarily agree, but have a better understanding or respect for different language varieties.