English 110 was a nice way to ease into college writing; it got rid of every worry and preconceived notion about what college writing should look like. It focused on what I wanted to say and how I wanted to say it, rather than forcing me to write in a way a college might want. With phase one focusing on rhetoric as a whole, it served as a good jumping-off point for everything that followed. Discussing language politics and the effects they have on day-to-day life was my favorite moment of that phase because it made me internally reflect. 

One thing this phase taught me was that standard English is not the only acceptable form of writing. Standard English has been hammered into my brain as the only form of writing that should be used in academia since I could write a sentence. The course texts, however, shattered this by showcasing the value other forms of writing hold.  When completing the rhetorical worksheet for Amy Tan, I stated that the main idea “is the value of language, and I think Amy Tan believes all languages have their own unique value, making no one form better than the other.” From reading her work, I got the impression that Amy believed that no one form of language can tackle all aspects of life effectively, but instead, there are multiple forms that each have a value to them. This completely goes against the idea of standard English. I later touched more on this revelation in the evidence space, where I analyzed the examples of language usage. “She touches on how the loosely structured language she developed because of her mother didn’t work in an academic situation like school. However, when it came to creative personal pieces or conversation between family, that language shone.” Amy is explaining in an academic setting that the broken English that she and her mother talk in isn’t ideal for school work, while standard English is, but instead, this English she and her mother share shines in more creative expression. 

I also learned that categorising is damaging to communication as a whole during phase one. 

When I say categorising, I’m not talking about verbs, nouns, etc., but the categories, real and fake, regarding words. My LLN perfectly showcases this. After finding out brolic isn’t a “real” word, it didn’t change anything for me because words are just sounds used to communicate, but when I looked at this on a global scale, I did realize the effects this distinction can have on people who take it to heart. In the ending paragraph of my LLN, I stated, “It makes the use of languages that are born from people from a specific area seem shameful. This can come in the form of embarrassment or even constant nitpicking of a person’s speech.  The result of the negative outlooks due to this division can be the death of many beautiful and unique dialects that branch off from standard English.” What I was referring to was these distinctions being made, and they create a hierarchy in language, causing people to branch away from the less desirable. With more people stopping to speak fake languages, they stop existing, so to reiterate my ending message, keep speaking with fake words. 

During phase two, I had a change in mindset. At the start, I expressed my dislike of academic writing because of the jargon, but by the end, I saw that there are ways to make this form my own. I further developed the knowledge that the audience has a direct relation to the formation of an argument in writing during this phase. We went over three examples of intros for synthesis essays when introducing this phase. They all focused on Mayor Zorhan Mamdani’s childcare plan in New York City, but presented it differently. The first one was very formal and informative, the next example was a little more relaxed but still had some formalities and was trying to convey some type of information, but the final one was really casual and argumentative. This was all because each work had a different group it wanted to convey to. The first intro, if I remember correctly, was for high officials like lawmakers, the second was for citizens who aren’t New Yorkers but might be interested in the issue, while the last one was for the everyday New Yorker who is experiencing what is being described. Showcasing, even if the topic is the same, different target audiences require different methods to understand the message. 

Another major thing from this phase was that I learned the different ways evidence can be presented and the common mistakes associated. When making our synthesis essays, we focused on certain components that usually give trouble to most writers. One of the major things that stuck out to me during this presentation was the difference between directly quoting, paraphrasing, and the new term I learned, patchworking. Direct quoting was already a method I knew from the dawn of my academic career. To be honest, when Enid mentioned patchwork, she rocked my world, in that motherfucker. She mentioned how it is a common misconception that even she makes when trying to paraphrase a text. Essentially, patchworking is using words or phrases from the original text in the restatement,  compared to paraphrasing, which is a full restatement of the text. Just like Enid, when I think I’m paraphrasing, I’m actually patchworking. After learning this, I took more time to think about how I would present a piece of evidence that it’s too long to directly quote. You can see me taking the information I got from this presentation and applying it to my synthesis essay. When I talk about the so-called± benefits of code-switching, I talk about a blog and how they argue that code-switching is a beneficial tool for not only an employee to build a better work environment but also a corporation to progress. Funny, I paraphrased my paraphrase. The presentation allowed me to nip a flaw in my writing in the bud, real quick in my college career, and I’m really grateful for it.