Little or no attempt is made to frame the discussion, and paragraphs lack development and internal coherence. | Argument’s path of development is unclear, disjointed, or unfocused. Transitions are absent or unclear. Introductory and concluding paragraphs do not adequately frame the discussion. Body paragraphs lack development and internal coherence and may only be loosely related to each other.
Student Name XXXXX, Instructor Class Date An Analysis of “Grammarians Ain’t Worth Nuthin’ Noway” “Grammaries Ain’t Worth Nuthin’ Noway” by John Kelso is a persuasive evaluation of the importance of grammar. Kelso, who is a columnist for a newspaper, occasionally makes grammatical errors to which his readers respond unkindly. His opinion on grammar is “somewhere in between,” and believes good or bad grammar is irrelevant. He challenges the opinion of his readers and the fact that they are so critical of his grammar. He uses the persuasive aim and comparative mode to suggest grammar is not as important as some people believe it to be and shows the different opinions of others along with challenging the fact that his works should not be held to a standard such as other great works of literature like “Dante’s Inferno.” The persuasive aim is used by Kelso to suggest that grammar is not as important as some people think it is by stating, “I am of the opinion that good grammar is at least the equal of bad grammar, in that both are irrelevant” He is persuading us to believe that good and bad cancel each other out and it is better to just be in the middle where it is irrelevant.
Do not use colloquial expressions. Use simple sentences, avoid compound or long sentences. Speak with intelligence and assume difference if unsure about the meaning. Assume the listener don’t understand and explain clearly. Use breaks between ideas.
Conversely, common-sense is very different. It is the ‘sound and prudent judgment based on a simple perception of the situation or facts’. (Merriam-Webster, 1996). Explanations are untested, rely on a limited global view and help to reinforce the familiar. As a result of this, these explanations are not at all reliable due to the fact that knowledge is not obtained from a dependable source and that the knowledge itself and evidence behind it is lacking in detail.
| The writer’s voice is not appropriate throughout the whole paper and/or it is not consistent. | There is no clear voice in the paper and/or it is inappropriate for the audience and purpose. | | | The diction is specific and clear. Elevated diction is used where appropriate and used in a natural way. | Wording is occasionally awkward because of misused words or choppy syntax.
Brenda Chow breaks the first rule by using many worn out metaphors and similes; Brenda Chow neglects to follow Orwell’s second rule with very poor word choice and delivery; She violates the third rule by being very wordy in her essay, leading to a more confusing and deceptive essay. It’s important for us to recognize the misuse of language so that we do not walk the same path. The best thing Brenda can do to help improve her writing and use of language would be to simplify and be more specific with her diction. Brenda Chow is guilty of using many flat and overused metaphors and similes that have almost lost all of their original meaning. For example Brenda Chow writes “The radio plays old Springsteen, and suddenly there is a lightning flash, a sudden “eureka!”, and the light bulb pulsates urgently over my head; a phrase pops into my mind” (Chow 1) or “It is a diamond in the rough”(Chow 1).
Overall, the presentation of the results were poor. The authors leaned more toward winning favor of the reader through not providing clear results. The case study presented was inserted creating biased favor toward the use of Family Therapy (FT) where numbers were void. Critique of Discussion: Numbers 1, 2, 4, 7, and
Our knowledge was seen to be an attempt to grasp or capture that reality, and language was the medium through which that capturing occurred. The crisis of representation has occurred because it is no longer believed that signs or language more generally have the ability adequately to reflect that reality. Rather, they are now seen as both arbitrary and volatile. For Lyotard, as a result, The social subject itself seems to dissolve in this dissemination of language games. The social bond is linguistic, but is not woven with a single thread.
“Censorship Arguments in ‘Take the Tortillas out of Your Poetry’” Many writers in the past and even today have struggled to express their ethnic values in their writing because of the act of censorship. Censorship is the suppression of writing to accommodate the common good. Not only are the writers unable to express their values, but this act also neglects the readers from knowing and learning these values. In Rudolfo Anaya’s essay “Take the Tortillas out of Your Poetry” he makes valid arguments against this act of censorship. He uses many different methods to achieve this such as symbolism and specific events that have affected multicultural writers.
Certain elements, such as acronyms, initialisms, incomplete sentence structure, or the omission of vowels, included in abbreviated messaging technologies (sometimes referred to as “textese”), have contributed to the English language, reflected in the literature and writing skills of the people who use these media. As a response to the skepticism as to whether text messaging is more detrimental or beneficial to the English language, one reviewer comments “f u cn rd ths thn wats th prblm?” (Crystal