Talkin' Bigger then yer Britches
I've noticed the principle that Bartholomae discusses- what Dr. Rogers calls the 'nebulous space'- more in verbal communication than in writing. I used to work in a group home setting where most of the kids were 'hood rats' and didn't know how to express themselves in the way that educated adults do. After being 'institutionalized'- going from home to home, program to program, and especially going through years of therapy- the kids begin to pick up on adult 'lingo'. The result is pretty humorous- it's like a new language.
I can't imagine how frustrating it is to be a college english professor teaching a COLLEGE english class and having students that don't know the basic rules of writing. There are remedial english classes that re-teach basic english, but, sad to say, I have tutored 1010 and 2010 students that can't write a correct sentence. I know our job as tutors is to teach people to be better writers, but is that possible when the people we try to teach don't know correct grammar from a hole in the wall? I admit, when I'm in that situation I just try to help them fix a few of their major grammatical and sentence structural errors. I feel like that's all I can do. I don't have all day to go through the ins and outs of english...hell, I don't know them all myself.
I don't remember if it was Ong or Bartholomae that discussed a person telling different people what they did for their summer vacation. Bizzell called these different contexts 'discourse communities'. Whatever you call the principle, it's true- we fit our language, our delivery, and even our mannerisms to the group that we are talking to. I believe that this is the principle that catches students- that nebulous space. A person who uses 'loose' or informal language in their speech, emails, etc, will probably find it hard to leave that type of speech at the door when they sit to write anything formal. They're now in an environment that has rules for every word, every part of speech, and every kind of punctuation.
No contractions. No cliches. No slang. Subject and Verb. No run-on sentences. No fallacies. No comma splicing. You can't say 'um', 'er', 'dog', 'homie', or use 'like' as a conjunction or pause relief. Leave the 'hood at the door- you're in college now.
And just like those kids that I discussed at the beginning of this drivel, after a while, these students begin to learn the lingo. They don't, however, learn WHY you should use such language; or, they start with the language they should be using, and as Bartholomae points out, they can't keep it up. This new, hybrid language is almost worse than keeping with their normal 'discourse' language.
As far as Bartholomae's idea that writing is 'an act of aggression disguised as an act of charity'- if this is meant to say that ALL writing is 'yada yada yada' then I would have to disagree. But I do think formal, particularly argumentative writing, can be seen as he describes. In argument writing, we are taught to make a claim and support it with proof from a legitimate source. If you don't make a strong claim, your paper will fall on its face. Making that strong claim is an act of aggression...like I said, if you don't make a strong claim, no one will believe or agree with you, which, in my opinion, is the point of argument writing. I think the fact that effective, formal writing follows certain rules- that it is in the form of clean, sound language- that the aggressiveness of the message is buffered a bit. If a person swears at you in a soft, loving tone while smiling at you, it doesn't change the fact that they are swearing at you. The tone just masks the message, which is what I think formal writing does to argument writing.
By the way, did John Kerry get his tan at 'The Great Pumpkin's Tanning Salon'? His face is so orange it looks as if he stared at a nucular (get it? see, I can make fun of Bush a little too) blast.
I can't imagine how frustrating it is to be a college english professor teaching a COLLEGE english class and having students that don't know the basic rules of writing. There are remedial english classes that re-teach basic english, but, sad to say, I have tutored 1010 and 2010 students that can't write a correct sentence. I know our job as tutors is to teach people to be better writers, but is that possible when the people we try to teach don't know correct grammar from a hole in the wall? I admit, when I'm in that situation I just try to help them fix a few of their major grammatical and sentence structural errors. I feel like that's all I can do. I don't have all day to go through the ins and outs of english...hell, I don't know them all myself.
I don't remember if it was Ong or Bartholomae that discussed a person telling different people what they did for their summer vacation. Bizzell called these different contexts 'discourse communities'. Whatever you call the principle, it's true- we fit our language, our delivery, and even our mannerisms to the group that we are talking to. I believe that this is the principle that catches students- that nebulous space. A person who uses 'loose' or informal language in their speech, emails, etc, will probably find it hard to leave that type of speech at the door when they sit to write anything formal. They're now in an environment that has rules for every word, every part of speech, and every kind of punctuation.
No contractions. No cliches. No slang. Subject and Verb. No run-on sentences. No fallacies. No comma splicing. You can't say 'um', 'er', 'dog', 'homie', or use 'like' as a conjunction or pause relief. Leave the 'hood at the door- you're in college now.
And just like those kids that I discussed at the beginning of this drivel, after a while, these students begin to learn the lingo. They don't, however, learn WHY you should use such language; or, they start with the language they should be using, and as Bartholomae points out, they can't keep it up. This new, hybrid language is almost worse than keeping with their normal 'discourse' language.
As far as Bartholomae's idea that writing is 'an act of aggression disguised as an act of charity'- if this is meant to say that ALL writing is 'yada yada yada' then I would have to disagree. But I do think formal, particularly argumentative writing, can be seen as he describes. In argument writing, we are taught to make a claim and support it with proof from a legitimate source. If you don't make a strong claim, your paper will fall on its face. Making that strong claim is an act of aggression...like I said, if you don't make a strong claim, no one will believe or agree with you, which, in my opinion, is the point of argument writing. I think the fact that effective, formal writing follows certain rules- that it is in the form of clean, sound language- that the aggressiveness of the message is buffered a bit. If a person swears at you in a soft, loving tone while smiling at you, it doesn't change the fact that they are swearing at you. The tone just masks the message, which is what I think formal writing does to argument writing.
By the way, did John Kerry get his tan at 'The Great Pumpkin's Tanning Salon'? His face is so orange it looks as if he stared at a nucular (get it? see, I can make fun of Bush a little too) blast.
posted by Anonymous at 7:20 PM
0 Comments:
Post a Comment
<< Home