Language Investigation 2

Learning to read and write in elementary and through high school seemed easy enough. My teachers expected all the students to be able to write well, learn everything expected from them, and move on to college. Reading and writing came naturally to me and how could I fail anyways? My older brother, friends and twin brother were already on their ways of successful language development. During my elementary and middle school career, I disliked reading but was able to meet the language performance expectations of all of my teachers. The whole process of learning seemed strait forward and seemed to make me part of the standard society.

Throughout elementary and middle school, we learned subject-verb agreements and so on. We learned to write in complete sentences and the wrath of the teacher and grading kept us in line. Heaven help us if we forgot to include the verb or the receiver of the action. My teachers taught me the almighty 5-paragraph paper. It magically includes an introduction, three paragraphs giving support and my favorite, the conclusion with half of it containing a summary of what I already wrote.

I met all the expectations of my teachers, regardless of whether or not I actually did the task or pretended to, and moved on to high school. Even in high school this magical 5-paragraph formula for essays seemed to get me by and I was even a “good student”. Language classes in high school taught me to think critically, often without even using my imagination. We would read a novel and connect ideas and themes to the events we learned in history or in government. My teachers told us these were building blocks or steps in preparing us for college. By high school, I was a good student. This means that I was a master at the 5-paragraph essay. I was willing and able to play their learning games. High school had apparently made me a model student, molded and ready for college and then a career. Like a clay model, I didn’t really think for myself, I just knew to find the teacher’s expectations and meet them.

Upon arriving in college, Composition 150 seemed to turn my narrow school view upside down. The 5-paragraph essay was not good enough. It did not examine things deep enough and did not explain the importance of the thesis. Blasphemy! College Professors had all kind of weird expectations and it was hard for me to simply find these expectations and mindlessly meet them. Teacher wanted my writing to have a provable argument, with multiple examples, evidence and proofs. These support items needed to span across multiple pages. Suddenly 3-5 sentences was not a well-written paragraph! Our writing often had to have a target audience in mind. The conclusion of the paper had to explain the “so what” or implications of our argument and support.

By my second year in college, I learned that I couldn’t just play the education game. I had to put time and effort into my work. I had to think for myself and apply the knowledge that I learned into my own life. Thinking back, primary and secondary school taught me many important lessons and while it sometimes taught me ways to think and solve, it was just a shallow way of critical thinking just to please the teacher. Education reformers and such are often trying to change the curriculum to get students to learn problem solving and critical thinking skills. Some of my more enjoyable classes were achieving this, but I remember the mindless, structure-based classes just as well.

Language Investigation 1

I generally use language in a constant way and do not change my style of speech. I am part of several communities that have special connotations to certain words. These communities also include some of their own vocabulary. Added vocabulary and connotations serve to express something that occurs often in these communities or groups but would normally take much longer to express in normal language and style.

I am part of the snowboarding community and my friends and I use phrases like “yard sale” and “ate snow” often while in the mountains. While many people unfamiliar with skiing and snowboarding would think that only little kids would eat snow and give me a strange look for saying this, this is a normal thing to say about someone if they fall or trip on the mountain and land on their face. Obviously, “ate snow” is a quicker and in my opinion, more entertaining way, to explain this. On the mountain, a yard sale refers to someone who has fallen and tumbles or skids down the mountain while dropping clothes and gear. Imagine a person’s many belongings scattered around a hill behind them like they are trying to sell unwanted items, and you can appreciate this phrase. There are many ways to describe falling on a snowboard. In this community, falling is common and important enough that there a variety of ways to classify how a person falls and how bad.

When snowboarding, my roommate is goofy and I am not. In this community, that does not mean that my roommate is socially awkward or dresses funny. Instead, his right leg is the front leg on his snowboard rather than the left leg in front as normal. This community also says “sketchy”. If a snowboarder takes a jump and lands without falling but it looks like they almost fell I would tell them “Your landing was sketchy.” I am new to snowboarding and often come close to falling. This community would describe my riding as sketchy or sketching. My favorite word in this community is “bail.” When a snowboarder goes onto a rail to do a trick and they know that they are on it wrong it is a good idea to bail. To bail is to decide not to do a trick after you started. When a snowboarder goes on a rail wrong and continues, their resulting fall will hurt more than just bailing.

Community based language helps to describe ideas quicker and thoroughly. With this type of language, the audience must be part of the community to understand the meaning. With community groups, new vocabulary is added or words are modified to express ideas and events occurring more often within the group.

I would like to think that a speech I gave in SPCM 200 made a positive difference. During my freshman year, I spoke about conflict (blood) diamonds in front of 24 other students. I used descriptive and precise language in hopes of influencing my class. My hopes for that speech were to help create more awareness about exploitation and the terrible conditions for mine workers. Using these diamonds, warlords and other groups are able to fund civil wars in countries such as Liberia and the Democratic Republic of the Congo. I wanted my fellow classmates to remember this crisis and ask the right questions when they were buying jewelry.

I chose to take on a more serious issue rather than writing a fun and easy speech. Choosing this topic was not a great sacrifice or anything extraordinary, but awareness of conflict diamonds is an affective movement: The mass awareness of this issue has had a great enough impact to cease our importation of conflict diamonds in Zimbabwe and Angola. This awareness has also forced Liberia to mine diamonds legitimately.

My speech was successful because I used descriptive language and was able to move my audience. They became sympathetic towards exploited diamond miners. My use of language caused the audience to question bad practices and a part of life (buying jewelry) they take for granted. I feel that one of the more important aspects of language and literature is influencing an audience to think and examine their lives and surroundings and I hope that achieved that with my speech.

Hello. I don't really know what to write about so this is just going to be a test.