For the benefit of others @emarias26 - Tumblr Blog

Posts

"At the still point, there the dance is." —T. S. Eliot

theyuniversity

(Source: Explosm.net)

jenglasgow

For all you Harry Potter and word fanatics out there…This is some serious use of alliteration!

emarias26

YEAHSSS

Here's the article: http://dailyinfographic.com/words-waiting-to-be-added-to-the-oxford-english-dictionary-infographic

Just thought this was neat. I love looking at this stuff.

Another notebook-written now-typed Reflection

Inventing the University. Not everyone can participate in Academic Discourse. Academia is for the elite. College used to be only for those who could afford it. Now, it's for anyone who wants debt and knowledge! Thanks, Landham. Usually, high school and even students will try so hard at sounding smart in their essays that you end up confused, and won't know what they're talking about. They usually think that writing academically is writing what the professor wants to hear. Many times the student will directly quote and cite their professor's lecture notes because its what the students are led throughout school thinking is the answer. They are led like sheep to the answer that will grant them success. They also tend to use large elaborate words that don't normally fit in their vocabulary. The professor will unintentionally convince the student they need to write about certain themes, yet what the professors usually want is for the students themselves to make discoveries and aid in their own learning.

Naturally talented writers are often adapted writing short essays into "spinning bullshit." They write so that you can get a grade, putting no further thought into it. The assignment then becomes only surface deep. No student knows how to produce grad-school quality papers, or ever college level papers until they have. This may seem futile to teach how NOT to become so horribly bound by whatever the professor wants, but this way the students learn for themselves. And by figuring things out on their own, they are much less likely to forget it.

The professors use their authority. But students apply whatever they have retained from lectures and workshops so they can mimic their own professor's tone. One should be able to tailor their academic writing to their own words, obviously only to a point, but they can't always sound so completely different. Your voice should be heard throughout your essays, regardless of topic or length. It should be taught to be a little less a standard and more building off of common sense. We know many times we need to be professional, and that is respected. But common sense can go a long long way in life and don't be afraid to bring it into the classroom. Professors award the competent. (Even now, I feel as if I'm preaching. I understand and recognize that, but this is also a reflection on Landham's essay. So cut some slack.)

Initially, freshman think that an academic paper requires long, complicated sentences, arguing abstract arguments or have the presence of a claim. In truth, some do. Some. They believe that you must have a purpose adopted to be successful in your paper, but that always depends on the paper's topic. They believe these papers have to be elborately structured. When an authoritative voice takes over your own, you cannot make your argument in the best manner possible.

Later, most of the class seemed to collect things they now see as the marks of successful papers: realizations from an advanced perspective, as well as sophisticated use of transitions. We also concluded that familiar theories mentioned,and cohesive wandering, are used to give the reader a sense of voice, clarity and intelligence. There are multiple more, analysis and rhetorical grammar, and to be overall, understood. It's really a shame we realize these things so late, because it wouldn't be all that terrible to hear youth write about some college-level subject in their own words. They'll end up inventing their own "university." Students would then be able to create their own style and overall come to understand how to communicate effectively.

thekrustyykrabb-blog

annabellioncourt

I never knew how true and realistic and non-exaggerated this episode was until I went to college.

emarias26

Literally me, all the time.

From the depths of my notebook...Hi-Med-Lo Style of English.

There is a major difference in the way that people talk when they feel the need to sound intelligent. Their words become longer and more Latinate, as well as making the most round about way to talk about things the ONLY way to talk about things. It's elaborate and long-winded, and that is what we associate with being knowledgable and even emotional. Although, as sad as it is, the multiple times that people feel the need to sound smart is when they are writing an academic paper, on the news, or giving a presentation - and even then, most of these don't HAVE to be seen as proper or enigmatic. This is called high style. It's used in many academic settings, professional settings, as well as inside the higher social circles of our time. Because it isn't used every where, high style is a heavily weighed with connotation and expectation. There is a reason we tend to perk our ears up more when people use longer words- why say what you could in 10 in 100 words? This also tends to grasp our attention about whom it is coming from, especially. When students use it, a million things could rush to your head; is this the way they normally talk? Are they trying to impress? What do they mean by using this? With all of the connotation that high style is dripping with, it's no wonder that it's hard to master, and sometimes difficult to take seriously.

There is also the instance of talking in low style, in sincere, folk-y, logical sentences that are typically much shorter. One is able to understand more immediately what the person is trying to say. This is how I would say most people communicate on a daily basis. They aren't interested in sounding impressive or clever, but genuine and simple. Humans tend to gravitate towards simplicity when they hear it, but high style has a more polarizing effect. Low style is found more commonly among interactions with every day people and those who you know well. Low style is also more effective in not only basic communication, but how you might feel about the subject. For example, you could say how one say you found a "paper bag of canine deification on fire" on your door step...or you could say "a bag of flaming dog S#!%" on your door step. The English language is so vast that it IS possible to have these different styles. English has so many words but they all have "different levels of acceptability." (vSauce) This is what makes English linguistics so interesting, and why we also morphed into the different styles (however unconscious we may be of them) we have today.

Some people are able to sit comfortably in between in a middle English style that's unique yet basic. They are not experts or masters of each style, but float along being themselves, able to understand and respond with both. This is portrayed quite comedically in Pirates of the Caribbean. Both Captain Barbossa of the Black Pearl, and Elizabeth Swan, a governess, are able to converse after a bit of testing the language.

Elizabeth: Captain Barbossa , I am here to negotiate the cessation of hostilities against Port Royal . Barbossa: There are a lot of long words in there, Miss; we're naught but humble pirates. What is it that you want? Elizabeth: I want you to leave and never come back. Barbossa: I'm disinclined to acquiesce to your request. Means "no".

Elizabeth probably grew up speaking high, proper english, and Barbossa...well, he's a life-long pirate. Yet they communicate towards each other with flair and simplicity, and eventually, humor.

[ vSauce Link: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Dd7dQh8u4Hc ]

I don't care how many vSauce videos I've posted today. :]

GUYS, seriously, take the time to watch this. :D buahaha.

What IS cool? "Groovy," "hip," and "outtasite" left, but cool stayed.

Writing Symposium reflection.

I went to one of the later sessions, from 2:15-3pm. Initially, I was actually pretty impressed with the writing of the ENG 110-ers. Perhaps living in a freshman dorm has brought down my standard of expectations of behavior (as well as most of the ENG 110-ers WERE freshman), but they read their papers in an extremely professional and intelligent manner. Though however composed they were, I sensed a few things about their writing that could be improved. The first two who spoke were extremely methodical. They had laid out their argument and systematically approached each situation with more facts or obvious statements. Though, I didn't get much emotion out of it, or provocative thinking as I would have liked to. The third person to speak had more of a solid character towards his subject but they walked a dangerous line between grounded in their character, yet objective. I was wondering how they WOULDN'T sound methodical while writing their papers. It's easy for me to sound extremely informal, yet "preachy." This is a result of my ever-failing attempts at sounding academic when I write. Because I never want to sound so boring, and have this natural tendency to become too conversational, I come off sounding pompous, and unclear. Some of these students sounded "preachy," but only because they were trying very hard to sound professional. Each one of them made themselves talk professionally, and without passion. Though they certainly were interested in whatever topic they chose, they clearly didn't follow through with their own words. Yes, it's true that we mimic whatever didactic cadence and word choice we hear-because so far, that has been the only example of academic rhetoric we have heard. It's not difficult to understand, but extremely challenging to break away from. All of the students I heard from were off to a wonderful start, though a little too professional. I know I initially compliment them in this post, but my impression changed throughout the session as I heard them answer questions later. Their composure and word choice changed almost instantly, and wasn't at all what they sounded like in their papers. Surely these two components of communication cannot be identical, but I was looking for a little bit more of their passion to inspire me to think of their paper a little bit more seriously. The most impressive aspect of their writing to me was that they had a good direction. They had the best audience-driven papers I have read/listened to in a while. They were able to communicate their argument to the targeted audience extremely efficiently, and part of me thinks this is because they did have an audience in mind. I congratulate them, they did very well, more than I could have done as a freshman. Kudos, ENG 110-ers.

"I Wish I Could Believe" Cecil Day-Lewis' contribution in the 1950's as a part of the This I Believe project.

Meta cognition & thinking about the way you write

How much time, if any, do you spend thinking about why you write the way you write?

I don’t spend much time thinking about why I write the way I write. I do wish that in formal papers I had a natural talent for writing in a formal sense. I guess to me writing falls into place. It’s just me putting words down. My style is just me---I have no reasons WHY it’s me, but it is. I haven’t truly thought about how I write. I know I’m very informal, but I guess I also like it to be entertaining to the person reading. Why sound academic when you can sound genuine? Not to say those two can’t be related, it’s just that they very rarely are.

Similarly, I don’t spend time thinking about my personally and if I do, it’s almost always accompanied by self-discovery…or self-disgust. I’m either trying my hardest to be me, or trying to do a better version of me. I’m definitely seeing a pattern of phrases, or common techniques I use while I write. I’ve realized I write with an almost condescending tone, and sometimes a disconnected flow to the entire piece. As if it’s a good piece of writing that someone put through a shredder and paper-machéd it to look professional. I also realized if anything, I hardly look at my writing once I’ve completed and turned in something. It’s a habit I intend to change for the better.

"Black flies in your Chardonnay, rain on your wedding day, a traffic jam when you're already late, and 28 other things that define irony."

^ No. Not 28. and not all Ironic...maybe #9 or #10. And poor #12 is just funny. However, most of these just don't make any sense. Apparently, irony is now what people use to label the quirky mishaps of everyday life. See for yourself.

writingbox

emarias26

Reminds me of that awesome TED Talk and the discussion in class about Metacognition.

Trending Blogs

Recently Viewed Blogs

For the benefit of others