Punctuation

I think that punctuation can make a large difference in the meaning of a text and the way it is interpretted. When completing a close reading of a piece of literature I always look at how the punctuation affects meaning. In classrooms, as teachers, generally we are just happy to have students punctuating at a level of basic correctness, but at the college level, or in any advanced form of writing, people need to pay attention to how they punctuate. Purposeful mistakes can be just as impactual as correct use of grammar. My own style of academic writing is vastly different than my style of personal or creative writing. In my creative pieces I like sentence fragments, dangling gerunds or participals, etc. when they improve the piece's rhythem and don't detract from its meaning, but in my academic writing this would be considered unacceptable. The key to purposeful punctuation is not only to use punctuation in a way that benefits the piece, but also to know when it is acceptable to experiment and when the rules should be followed strictly.

Punctuation Perfection

Punctuation literally makes or breaks a piece of writing. I think sometimes people underestimate the power of punctuation because there are so many choices that you can use. Dashes, commas, periods, exclamation points, question marks (okay, nobody misuses question marks), semicolons, colons, ellipses...the list goes on and on. The problem is that these different punctuations mean different things, and often it's the context that determines whether a comma and a conjunction, or a period should separate two clauses. I'm not saying one is more correct than the other, but overlooking the stylistic qualities of punctuation is overlooking a major component of a piece of writing, and can add stylistic flair when used correctly.

Thoughts on Purposeful Punctuation

I think punctuation is incredibly important in writing, not only for the sake of clarity, but also for stylistic and rhetorical purposes. Semicolons, dashes, and Oxford commas are my favorite punctuation choices. Depending on the context of a sentence, none of the aforementioned are particularly necessary, but they are often featured in my style of writing. In fact, I plan to use them all now. I use dashes profusely -- probably more than I ought to -- especially when handwriting, because I enjoy the pause and emphasis created by a mere flourish of a pen. Regarding semicolons, I love seeing the look on writers' faces when I explain why all it takes to correct their comma splice is a single dot.

As a former writing consultant and current newspaper copyeditor, it has become ingrained in my subconscious to correct improper sentences. While I may be confident in my punctuation skills, I continue to make errors. It doesn't matter how much I attempt to improve my grammar; I'm not immune to mistakes! One of my most common errors is overlooking commas before coordinating conjunctions, my personal nuisance being "and" -- for example, "To make a tasty pie, I mixed dough for the crust, and Patrick sliced apples." As simple as such an error may be, I firmly believe learning purposeful punctuation is an ongoing process. Also, I have been forced to publicly deny my love for Oxford commas, because they aren't allowed according to journalism rules. I continue to use them when no one is looking.

Tech Speak Has Its Time And Place

I don't really have a problem with tech speak or abbreviations when they are used in the proper time and place (IMs, texting). I sometimes think that people are just being lazy, as it is not really that difficult to spell out full words in most situations, but it is just the way things are done these days. What I find to be very irritating, is when people use such language in emails, blog posts, speech, or--my personal pet peeve--craigslist postings. The lack of punctuation, sentence structure, and proper spelling has gotten so bad that many of these items are not even readable by the average person. I think that this inappropriate use of such words and spellings is due to the fact that many young people have not been taught the appropriate uses for different types of language/writing. We need to make sure that schools start to cover the use of tech speak, so that our future generations will have a variety of language skills, and be well educated in when to use them.

Technology and Language

I do not agree with the assertion proposed by some that informal online language is ruining standard English. I think it is not a matter of people not knowing how to use standard English, but an issue of when it is okay to use this new, informal version of the language. The idea that "techspeak" is polluting standard English is a judgement that should not be made. Language is an ever evolving thing, even if the process is slow, and this new version may just be the latest evolutionary move in language. Who knows, centuries in the future, standard English may include techspeak, such as "gr8t, l8tr, lol, luv, :)s, etc. Although none of these would be acceptable in formal writing during our time period, things such as contractions have evolved in languages, so there exists a possibility that this new form might become integrated in standard language.
For now, I must say that techspeak is not the problem; the problem is when people fail to analyze their audience and write or speak appropriately. With that, all there is left to say is this: c u l8r, hope u hav a good nite & ill ttyl. :)

Technology and Language

I think it's a little naive to think that technology is degrading the English language. The new 'techspeak' created by technology is merely a change in our language, just the same as all other changes in language over the course of history. If language never changed we would all still be using Old English, and we would never be able to expand our language to include new vocabulary.

Even though informal writing is common in 'techspeak', writers are still able to identify who their audience is. Just because someone sends a friend an informal text message does not mean he will use the same language when writing a research paper. As long as writers are still able to separate formal and informal writing depending on the audience, I see no reason why technology should be viewed as detrimental to the English language.

The Language of Power

Sorry this is so late. I had a huge project due in another class on Thursday (plus it was my birthday) so I was a little distracted on Wednesday. Then I was going to just post a little late, but I had a medical emergency with my dog. I'm sure you don't care, but I just needed to vent and give my reasons. Thanks

Why We Can’t Just Teach Acceptance

The defect in the plan of teaching acceptance without teaching the language of power is its failure to prepare students for all possible situations. This can be clearly seen when it is compared to an abstinence-only sexual education program. Although both have good and pure intentions at heart, their weakness is that they only prepare students for an ideal world. If (or when) the students are faced with someone who does not treat them with respect and acceptance they need a way to respond. If this lack of acceptance were to occur during an important event (such as a job interview) it would already be too late. It is for this reason that we must teach our students to be “defensive speakers” and be always on the lookout for those who do not choose (or were not taught) to be accepting.

Language and Technology Assignment

Crystal VanKooten, a doctoral student in English and Education at the University of Michigan, has created a You-tube video on the influence of technology on language. Please watch the video (just under six minutes long) and respond on your blog to one or more of the issues Van Kooten raises in her video. I especially like her use of music with the images. Crystal VanKooten received her MA from OSU and then taught high school in Oregon for five years before going on for her doctorate. Remember also to respond to the blog posts of others.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=W0Mgxhqfdyg

Teaching languages

Hey everyone, sorry for the delay, I live out in the country and haven't been able to maintain an internet connection tonight until now.

I plan to teach high school language arts, hopefully in a rural area. This means I would be working with students who tend to come from low-income families and/or are part of a minority group. In light of this, Delpit’s article sheds some interesting light on the idea of teaching the language of power (formal English) while maintaining the heritage language. As a teacher, in order to implement this successfully in my classroom, I need to make the point, which Delpit also makes, that neither language is “better,” but each has an appropriate time for usage. In my classroom I would not restrict students completely to the language of power, but instead offer a variety of assignments which will force students to engage both languages by using the appropriate one based on the context of the assignment (formal or informal writing).