Dear Linda--
Thanks for sharing your institutional circumstances. I also face with the
same dilemma. My approach that level of formality in writing depends on the
goal of the activity. For classroom discussions, communication with familiar
people (i.e., classmates and instructor) should be prioritized over
conventional form of presentation. However, in students' final projects that
they published on open Internet web at
http://ematusov.eds.udel.edu/final.paper.pub/ conventional/monologic form of
presentation is important. Students are advised to work on drafts feedbacked
by classmates and the instructor; spelling and organization are emphasized
as important. However, I feel even in this conventional/monologic form of
presentation, students should be encouraged to experiment with the form and
press the convention for change. Although, conventional/monologic form of
academic presentation of writing is a "collective fissile" it is not written
in stone. I guess we are back on our smysl-znachenie discussion.
What do you think?
Eugene
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Polin, Linda [mailto:Linda.Polin@pepperdine.edu]
> Sent: Friday, April 07, 2000 8:23 AM
> To: 'ematusov@udel.edu'
> Subject: RE: lects
>
>
> Eugene,
>
> I have the same implicit rule in newsgroups and online chat used with my
> classes. It seems to have had the wonderful benefit of creating a
> conversational space that is more intimate and honest, perhaps
> because folks
> feel they aren't being judged by their surface syntax . I've always felt
> conflicted about this. Well, not true, I haven't felt conflicted,
> I"m pretty
> much committed to it. But, I have felt anxious about my fellow faculty
> stumbling across the messages and berating me for lowering the
> standards of
> academic discourse. (ha) Your message alleviates my anxiety
> somewhat. I can
> always whine and say, "but Eugene does it too."
>
> Thanks for an eloquent response on this:
>
> > So, I guess my answer is that "lines"
> > can be drawn and re-drawn by the participants as they participate in
> > meaningful (for them) communication. In his case, competence is a
> > relationship among participants and a property of a person.
> >
> >
> Linda P.
>
>
> > ----------
> > From: Eugene Matusov
> > Reply To: ematusov@udel.edu
> > Sent: Thursday, April 6, 2000 4:06 PM
> > To: xmca@weber.ucsd.edu
> > Subject: RE: lects
> >
> > Hi Martin and everybody--
> >
> > Martin wrote,
> > > As I can read Welsh, I had no problem in reading this non-standard
> > > English. Her communication to me was competent but to others
> it could be
> > a
> > > complete mystery. Where do I draw lines?
> >
> > What lines? Why can't these "others" talk with the girl? By the way, I
> > read
> > the girl's writing well without Martin's translation into Standard
> > English.
> > In my classes, my grad and undergrad students write on the class
> > interactive
> > Internet webtalks. The rule is that you can write in whatever
> way as soon
> > as
> > others can understand you. However, others have also
> responsibility to ask
> > for clarifications or explanations. So, I guess my answer is
> that "lines"
> > can be drawn and re-drawn by the participants as they participate in
> > meaningful (for them) communication. In his case, competence is a
> > relationship among participants and a property of a person.
> >
> > What do you think?
> >
> > Eugene
> >
> > > -----Original Message-----
> > > From: Martin Owen [mailto:mowen@rem.bangor.ac.uk]
> > > Sent: Thursday, April 06, 2000 10:57 AM
> > > To: xmca@weber.ucsd.edu
> > > Subject: RE: lects
> > >
> > >
> > > ematusov@UDel.Edu writes:
> > > >Our mainstream culture is a culture of understanding and fluency.
> > > >Understanding is considered to be non-problematic, expected, and
> > normal.
> > > >Non- and mis-understanding is abnormal and dysfunctional. If I
> > understand
> > > >correctly Jay, he calls for destroying the normalcy of fluent
> > > >understanding
> > > >and for expecting non- and mis-understandings (and cultural
> mastery of
> > > >dealing with them). If my understanding of Jay is incorrect,
> feel free
> > to
> > > >attribute the statement to me :-)
> > > >
> > > >What do you think?
> > > >
> > > >Eugene
> > >
> > > This morning I was in a school where the natural mode of communication
> > is
> > > Welsh. I I collected a bit of language use from a predominantly Welsh
> > > speaking child. In Bart Simpson mode she was writing out a punishment
> > > note, which for a reason I have yet to discover, was in
> English. As you
> > > will see her writing may at first appear to be completely odd. However
> > > Welsh, unlike English, is written phonetically (using the Welsh
> > phonetic
> > > values for the alphabet).
> > >
> > > Her writing (in Welsh phonemes) is completely understandable:
> > >
> > > To: " Why I have to behave responsibly in lessons" , she replies:
> > >
> > > "so wi can lyrn in lesyns and bihef wen tetys tel ys to
> lisyn" and " we
> > > haftw bihef and lisyn o wi get a row ol the taim if we dont lisyn".
> > >
> > > I translate:
> > > "So we can learn in lessons an behave when teachers tell us to listen"
> > and
> > > "we have to behave and listen or we get a row all the time if we don't
> > > listen."
> > >
> > > As I can read Welsh, I had no problem in reading this non-standard
> > > English. Her communication to me was competent but to others
> it could be
> > a
> > > complete mystery. Where do I draw lines?
> > > Martin
> >
> >
This archive was generated by hypermail 2b29 : Tue May 23 2000 - 09:21:14 PDT