We have to stop meeting like this, well, I guess we are with this being my last essay for this class. So let’s get into it. English 110 was a nice way to ease into college writing; it got rid of every preconceived notion about what college writing should look like. By focusing on what I wanted to say and how I wanted to say it, rather than forcing me to write a certain way. With phase one focusing on rhetoric as a whole, it served as a good jumping-off point for everything that followed.

One thing this phase taught me was that standard English isn’t the only acceptable form of English to write in. Standard English has been idolized for most of my life, to the point where I couldn’t imagine writing in another form. The course texts, however, showcased the value of other forms of writing and what they can add to a piece. When completing the rhetorical worksheet for Amy Tan, I wrote her 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 form of language can tackle all aspects of life effectively. Instead, she believes there are multiple forms that each have a value to them. When discussing the evidence in Mother Tongue that Amy Tan used to make this point, I wrote. “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. Reading about this revelation allowed me to learn that a style which breaks the rules of standard English is not worthless if utilized correctly, it could be just as great as standard English.

I also learned that categorizing words is damaging to communication as a whole. When I say categorising, I’m not talking about verbs, nouns, etc., but the categories, real and fake. This lesson came from the moment my language and literacy narrative(LLN) retells. Finding out brolic isn’t a “real” word, it didn’t change anything for me because words are just sounds used to communicate. It did make me look at this from a global scale, and I realized this can lead to a change in speech for many. In the ending 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.” I realized that the standard of speaking right or wrong regarding English makes variations less desirable, causing people to conform to what seems “right” and, in return, many unique languages disappear. If this distinction between right and wrong didn’t exist, then communication would be able to happen without worry.

During phase two, 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 my knowledge that the audience has a direct relation to the presentation of an argument in writing. I learned you have to tailor writing to the group you’re addressing; however, I talk to everyone the same and never thought that, audience could cause major distinctions. When introducing synthesis essays, we went over three examples of intros; they all focused on Mayor Zorhan Mamdani’s childcare plan in New York City. 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. The variety in these intros was because of different ideal audiences. The first intro, if I remember correctly, was for lawmakers, so that’s why the formal approach and the context were given to convey the issue better. The second was for citizens who aren’t New Yorkers but might be interested in the issue, so they need context to but it didn’t have to be as formally presented as the first example. While the last one was for the everyday New Yorker who is experiencing what is being described, so more emotion could be put in without much context, because they already know what the issue is. This conversation helped me really grasp the effects of the audience on writing because even if the topic is the same, different groups require different things to reach the same point being conveyed.

Lastly, I learned the difference between patchworking and paraphrasing when presenting evidence. When making our synthesis essays, we focused on certain components that usually give most writers trouble. 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. I was familiar with the concept of quoting and paraphrasing, but when Enid mentioned patchwork, she rocked my world. She mentioned how it is a common misconception made when trying to paraphrase a text. Essentially, patchworking involves making minor changes to the original text in the restatement. In contrast, paraphrasing is a full restatement of the text in your own words. 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 it argues that code-switching is a beneficial tool not only for an employee to build a better work environment but also for 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.

To be blunt, these phases taught me not to really focus on language standards for everything I write, and how those standards can harm speech that doesn’t meet them. I was finally able to fully grasp the importance of an audience when writing and learned how to distinguish ways to provide evidence and ways not to. I’m really grateful for this class and feel it has prepared me well, and I’m going to miss it.

This entry is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial-ShareAlike 4.0 International license.