11/8/09

Lanham Method Revision

Bitterness regarding the nature of women is obvious even in the historical context of Shakespeare’s tragedy Othello where, during that time period, women were not valued as equal human beings with rights. Shakespeare constantly harangues women indirectly through his characters who portray slave-like women, their only jobs being classical women’s duties (cooking, cleaning, etc.) and sex. He puts a much darker spin on women in society, which at least commanded some respect for the roles they did play.

The blatant examples of this male dominance and female weakness are practically constant during the course of the play. Iago has a discussion with the rest of the main characters about the qualities of women. Desdemona challenges Iago to praise a woman who is worthy. She asks him to say what he thinks of a woman who is beautiful and smart, then one who is ugly but smart, and then one who is beautiful but foolish. Iago is cynical and bitter about women’s qualities saying that the women with beauty and wit simply know how to use their beauty for their own gain, women who are ugly and smart will find a “white that shall her blackness fit,” meaning she will be able to trick a quality man into fitting with her and marrying her, and of the woman who is beautiful but dumb, he says there has never been such a woman because even her foolishness allows her beauty to take her as high as she can go, making it intelligence after all, not foolishness.

It was in that year that the MMR, a name for the well studied Maternal Mortality Ratio (appositive), finally broke 50,000. The sudden outcry that had accompanied the passing of the United States’ MMR from the thousands to tens of thousands was swamped with the constant factual point that now half the prospective mothers that became pregnant, died from said pregnancy. The MMR was measured in parts per 100,000. Deaths rather, per 100,000.
It was after the outcry that pregnancy was finally classified as a disease by the US Government Conglomeration. Parading and wildly reveling at the dawn of a new age (participle), the streets filled with men and women and children and elders and everyone who had or had once had an interest in continuing to replicate for our species. Now that we had recognized the true problem and accepted that pregnancy, with its plethora of complications and risks leading to maternal death (absolute), many of which could no longer be classified or understood, was by healthcare definition a disease--any condition that worsens and if allowed to progress, results in death. Now we could take the long overdue steps to correct our ailment.
I was there. I remember it all.
The support groups started springing up all over. Accompanying the long running Alcoholics Anonymous and Narcotics Anonymous for sufferers of the alcoholism and illicit drugs diseases (participle), came MA: Mothers Anonymous. They were wonderfully open and beneficial groups, warm and welcoming (adjectives out of order), despite the name. At-risk fathers were also welcome at these meetings, often running right next door to AA and NA (participle out of order?). Some at-risk fathers found it a perfect system to attend their alcohol session and then their pregnancy session, alcohol being one of the known leading causes of at-risk fathers for developing pregnancy.
Years before it had seemed ridiculous to say that a “father”--as the definition of father had changed since those years from a male that has reproduced to a male who was at risk for reproduction and consequently, maternal mortality--could develop the not yet classified disease of pregnancy but we had sloughed away our ignorance and realized the error in that thinking. It was a reverend by the name of Politician Carlyle that brought to our attention the age old belief, understanding and fact rather (absolute), that sexual intercourse created a bond between a male and female that modified their bodies into “one flesh.” Everyone was at-risk.

10-11-09

This week I found a lot of help in defining some grammatical subtleties that I had been seeing arise in my own writing. Specifically the work with AWWUUBIS and coordinating conjunctions. I was punctuating some sentences that had an “and” or “but” with a comma before the conjunction, something I had never done. It seemed as though I was writing phonetically or my stylistic choice of not placing that comma was changing. Upon working with coordinating conjunctions, though, I saw that I was subconsciously distinguishing between sentences where clauses are changing subjects and sentences where the “and” or “but” is not a coordinating conjunction. I think that to some degree I was writing phonetically but that it connected to the very subtle difference in those sentences. There seems to be a reason in terms of how it sounds within the language to punctuate “and”s or “but”s differently, as well as the technical differences that are harder to define.
Our work and explanations in class really helped me put a defined understanding to why I had been seeing these developments in my writing. It will be especially helpful for teaching and tutoring to be able to point out a possible error or inconsistency and then back it up with concrete understanding rather than natural understanding which often feels airy and somewhat silly to explain to students. “It just is,” or “it just does.”
Finding examples for the scrapbook has also been a simpler task now that I’m seeing the technical aspects of grammar to support the initial questions that arise when I’m reading newspapers, magazines, etc. I found many errors in the use of the colon (maintaining the understanding that there must be a complete sentence before a colon) in the publications I worked with. This makes me wonder about the changing nature of our language and how some very common and usually sensical errors end up as de-stigmatized errors, or “stylistic choices,” or even just ignored issues until they are accepted.
And that’s it.

Question!: Isn’t the approach of “it just is that way” a useful teaching tool if used properly? Having explored so much material on spontaneous generation of grammar systems and how those contribute to richer understandings of language, isn’t that explanation good if qualified to say there is a reason and it makes sense but a student should understand that some things in this crazy crazy language of ours just are and that it should be understood at an intrinsic level before a defined level?

10-4-09

I have always punctuated as I write. I find that it helps organize my thoughts when I properly punctuate my sentences and seems to point my writing through logical trains of thought instead of rambling and losing the focus of my writing. This is definitely a more natural way to learn how to write and punctuate, in the phonetic sense. It fits that I don’t speak in a long droning matter and then try to somehow go back and correct those errors. They just naturally fall into sub-units of language as I go: at the sentence level, below to individual clauses and above to paragraphs and others. So for writing, while I might make mistakes in forming these sub-units at first just like speaking, it guides the writer as well as the reader and, in fact, is intrinsic to meaning.
I think it is the same for most students to learn to factor in punctuation as a valuable part of their communication beyond simple and pointless rules. It seems that after the initial difficulty of adding another operation to an already occupied mind, punctuating during writing lends itself to an eventual benefit in ease and quality of writing through a natural sense of punctuation and the ability to correct later. I see it in the same light as speaking in complete (at least most of the time) sentences. It isn’t something that only directs the reader and forms complete thoughts. It affects the whole of the work how it is worked. Mostly, it isn’t something a student could just go back and fix. It needs to be placed on the page in the manner that it is thought and envisioned, even when that sort of deliberate writing is difficult.

Question!: Is it ok to use an exclamation point without it being used as a sentence ending punctuation? I’ve seen it used in literary pieces almost as a comma that expresses, well, exclamation, but the following writing doesn’t start with a capitalized word, a new sentence or anything. Does an exclamation point not necessarily end a sentence! and is more a dramatic piece than anything?

9-27-09

I was both surprised and, in a sick sense, happy to see myself signed up for the “lay/lie” mini-lesson because that issue causes a lot of trouble for me. I don’t like Spell-check or its green and whimsical pal Grammar-check and I fight them both every sentence of every paper I write (just kidding, it’s only a few sentences I have to fight them). But when it comes to the lay/lie problem, I keep my mouth shut and let Microsoft Word do the work. I always mix those up.
It’s not a topic that I’m easily familiar with to focus on the teaching of grammar but it will also help me learn and internalize the subtle rules governing these words.
Our exercises with the newspapers are interesting and I’m seeing the theme develop in Barbara’s teaching of using modern, practical materials to work through the lessons as opposed to teaching them outright. Even for grammar lessons that I feel I already have a good grasp on, it is still engaging to do the activities.
This last installment of grammar classes held less obstacles for me and so I haven’t uncovered any big bad grammar issues that I might have but for the whole class, I’m finding that I do have my quirks and issues with grammar more and more as we move along (while correcting them, of course). They were issues that fell into the background and have been overlooked for too long. I think some of my writing has smoothed out and I have a better conscious understanding of grammar that helps solidify my academic writings.
Question!: I have always cited, in MLA format, with my sentence and then the short parenthetical citation. So I’ll have my sentence go “blah blah blah in the blah century.” (Blah pg. blah) Recently I’ve seen a lot of people keeping the parenthetical citation within the sentence and putting the period outside the last parentheses as if the citation was a short blurb within the sentence. Which one, if not both, of these options is correct?

9-20-09

I’ve found these last lessons much more beneficial and outside my intrinsic knowledge of grammar than previous weeks. Although not entirely a new concept to me, our work with transitive and intransitive verbs was clarifying if nothing else. That seems to be a more subtle and therefore difficult understanding of our language and how it functions.
“My quivering flesh secretes delight,” “he made secret love on the kitchen table” and “his turgid pleasure rod filled her” were some of my group’s examples for transitive verb usage which quickly showed itself as a more common usage of the verb. More difficult to comprehend and define for me was the intransitive verb. Nonetheless we created some good examples in our magnetic poetry exercise--working with limited words, though we were. “She came,” was a simple example of an intransitive. No less dirty, I might add.
Otherwise, I’ve been noticing the teaching style of these grammar lessons and, like last blog entry, have been trying to see the bigger picture and the applicable aspect of this grammar course with the mantra that we cannot teach grammar, grammar has to teach itself. Intransitive and transitive verbs could very well make me gouge out my eyeballs whilst crying a sea of bloody tears if taught properly. I can see in Barbara’s activities how to make these grammar lessons, the ones that require some focused attention for our classes, into something at least bearable and more often rather than less often, enjoyable. That is definitely the biggest piece I am taking from this class, the creative aspect of teaching that can sustain the goodness of our subject and why it is enduring as an educational necessity. Someone loved it at the beginning and if it isn’t our sole job to foster love of English, it is our job to not foster loathing for it and, in turn, loss of the practicality which is absolutely a need of every budding young mind and body.
Another interesting note, although outside our grammar focus, is my take on the Socratic circle. I found that self-guided/group-guided method of teaching an exciting and useful teaching exercise. It was something I had experienced in high school once or twice and in context of a teaching class, remembered its effectiveness.
Again, I’m actually seeing slight improvements in my grammar through our focus on understanding difficult rules rather than memorizing them. Thanks Foreman Barbara!

Question: Isn’t the word “law” usable as self-pluralizing, so to speak? Like “deer” or “fish.”

p.s. Sorry this installment of my super interesting grammar blog is late. I’m a spacey sort of guy.

9/13/09

In these wonderfully grammatically correct two weeks past, I have learned the technical aspects of why many of the more difficult grammar rules are the way they are. I have always had a good intrinsic understanding of grammar and how it functions in language but most of what I understood was: “It is the way it is.” I found it particularly interesting to discuss the plural and possessive rules in words that end with “s.” The Joneses’ dilemma was one of the first grammatical questions that I initially felt as out of my grasp. I didn’t understand the subtler meanings of that particular grammar issue without spending time considering it and discussing it in class. But that led to a much better understanding of that rule and why it works in English language.
Thinking about house styles and the malleability of our language was also new and interesting to me. I found it reinforcing to see up-scale publications with their own sense of language and how grammar isn’t perfectly right or wrong in every situation. It showed me that people have a sense of grammar that is complex and subtle beyond our ability to define in every aspect.
I’ve also learned that this class will be much more enjoyable and beneficial to my learning than I had initially suspected from the course title. I have never minded grammar but because I feel I have always had a solid grasp on it, I was worried that this would be, as Barbara put it, an exercise in rote memorization of grammar rules with no practical benefit transferring over to our writing and, in turn, our future students’ writing. Of course there are always grammar rules to learn but it is presented within context which definitely reinforces my belief in how grammar should be taught in secondary schools.
So yes, I have learned some intricacies of grammar over the past two weeks that will apply to my writing, editing and any other works I do with the English language but I have also started to see the whole process of learning grammar form which, to me, is the aim of this course and in a broader sense of our education for teaching.

Question!: Is there another word for synonym?