Talal Abu Issa

E-Mail: Abuissa.t@husky.neu.edu

Date: 09/27/13

Daniel Humphrey Essay Review

Dear Daniel: Your essay is well written and was very interesting to read. In the introduction, I suggest you find another way of starting your essay instead of, On Wikipedia. The opening line of your essay should be better and it could be better considering you are a good writer based on the body of your essay. I think it is important for the writer to define his terms in the beginning of his essay before he goes into to depth. I like how you told your audience that there are two types of English, SWE and local dialect. The fact that you define descriptivism and prescriptivism makes your essay stronger. While reading your essay, I can imagine you speaking the essay, which is impressive. While quoting the author Maya Angelou, you forgot to change the font back, so it looks like its just one big chunk of quote. The little secret handshake is a good way to pull your reader into your essay (applause). You sound confident in your essay (applause 2). Your opposing opinion on Wallace is strong, I used language that might make a SNOOT cringe. This is a great line in your essay. Your conclusion is great. You stated that SWE is important for formal situation but local dialect can be used for more laidback occasions but you need to work on your flow from your last paragraph into your conclusion, as it sounded very choppy. Other than the few things that I have mentioned in my letter, your essay is strong and you seem to be on the right track. Keep up the good work and just fix a few problems here and there and you will end up with a well-structured polished essay. Good luck!

Sincerely,

Talal Abuissa

Project 1: Working with Wallace Dan Humphrey

ENGW 1111, Dr. Musselman, 9/20/13 On Wikipedia, David Foster Wallace is described as an award -winning American novelist, short story writer, essayist. In his essay Authority and American Usage, what was meant to be a commentary on A Dictionary of Modern American Usage instead becomes a discussion of the state of modern English and who gets to make the rules. In Wallaces opinion, no one should be allowed to decide correct English, because it has already been determined in history. In fact, for people of differing opinion he calls descriptivists, he spends a long time explaining why theyre wrong. He argues that you cannot create a definitive catalogue of every possible dialect of English because you would have to write down every word, real or not, ever spoken. Meanwhile, Wallaces belief in a neat and tidy English language can be summed up quite well in a dictionary. Also, not only does a set system create a structure everyone can adhere to, but people are often judged based on their adherence to the system. He argues that having a standard allows everyone the opportunity to gain ethos and respect. From now on, lets call the uniform English Wallace wants everyone to know Standard Written English (SWE) and everything else local dialect. As a person, I have always found that balance is best. To simplify the concept of both ideas, descriptivism (its alright as long as the intention is understood ) and prescriptivism (there is only one way to speak properly!), SWE is for resumes, interviews, and speeches. Meanwhile, local dialects are for the emotional and the artistic, from poetry to novels. For example, the novel I Know Why the Caged Bird Sings by Maya Angelou contains dialogue from people from h er childhood, whose dialect is very much not proper English: Ritie, don't worry 'cause you ain't
pretty. Plenty pretty women I seen digging ditches or worse. You smart. I swear to God, I rather you have a good mind than a cute behind. The reader can imagine the character, and thus create a better
Comment [CM11]: Needs citaiton Comment [CM8]: An inaccurate summary of descriptivism Comment [CM9]: Also not very accurate Comment [CM10]: If its a novel, the title has to be formatted as a book title. Comment [CM5]: Yeah, but did you detect the straw man in his argument? He does not accurately represent the descriptivist stance. Comment [CM6]: Really? Dictionaries tell us about grammar? Comment [CM4]: Hmmm, this is not quite what he says. Comment [CM1]: See syllabus youre missing information Youre also missing a title. Comment [CM2]: So, why start this with him? Ultimately, the essay is about you using your experience (visual, auditory, reading) to take part in the conversation he starts. Why not start with your ideas? Comment [CM3]: Need to format as an article title.

Comment [CM7]: People are often also judged on skin color, height, weight, religion, socioeconomic class, and sex, too, but we dont tell everyone to suck it and try to be more white/blonde/skinny/rich/male. Why is it OK to do this with language?

sense of empathy with him or her. Another example is television: if the protagonist fighting to survive on the streets of New York City spoke proper English, you probably wouldnt feel quite as bad for him, or feel like he was realistic as a character. I have grown up with a lot of exposure to Standard Written English. I have read many books, been educated on the subject in my private schools, and grown up in the company of two working professionals. In my essay ranting on the impracticality of high school cliques [see appendix], I am able to both introduce and close my argument clearly and concisely, using my knowledge of properly written English to convey to you, the reader, what precisely I am trying to say. However, I also have a local dialect of my own. In the modern world, where facebook and twitter and text messaging constantly plug me into a vast network of people, I have adopted colloquialisms, like twerking and sup, and turns of phrase now common knowledge, like acaawesome! created and spread by the film Pitch Perfect. So when I want you to imagine a scenario and I want you to be there, Im not going to use SWE, Im going to talk to you using personal language. Again referring to my essay, I describe your friend as munching those FunYuns. I believe that you will understand what I am talking about, and in that understanding, I develop a bond with you based upon our mutual comprehension of a non-standard language. Its like a little secret handshake. With all of my experience with the written English language, when asked to compose a short essay explaining my opinion about a topic, it was relatively easy for me. I also have a lot of experience with musical theater, giving me a certain comfort in speaking to an audience as well as a flowing rhetoric which comes naturally to me. Wallace is definitely right about some things. Standard Written English has given me the tools to speak formally and as a professional. If I were to give a speech, my peers and I would have the tools we need to speak to a larger audience, also with formality. But for someone with a strong dialect (perhaps theyre Cajun in Louisiana) and no knowledge of SWE, they would certainly have a harder time at interviews for white collar jobs. For example, my mother was born and raised in Brooklyn, New York, and had the accent for a long time. But by the time she entered medical school,
Comment [CM15]: Well, youre talking about spoken accent. SWE is about writing. We need to make the distinctions clear. Also, do we really think that folks with Cajun accents dont get hired? Comment [CM13]: I like this paragraph far more vivid and present that what has come before. Comment [CM14]: Looks like a title, to me (but then youd need to begin the essay somewhere else and that wouldnt be bad). Comment [CM12]: Cliff hanger, dude. What *is* your local dialect? Is it ever reflected in your writing? You classmates (supposedly) know that you can turn on a spoken local dialect at will, but do you really think theyll remember it at this point?

she practiced to lose the accent because she felt that she wouldnt be taken seriously as a professional if she tawked with the patients or wawked into their rooms. In speaking with authority and rhetoric, Standard Written English is essential. But as for Wallaces opinion that everyone in America should know it, I disagree. Some people just plain dont need it. For the Cajun from Louisiana, if he or she wants to work a blue collar job with other Cajuns, then why bother? Also, as the globe shrinks from the increasing ease with which we communicate and travel, so does the workplace. Each workplace develops its own jargon and way of speaking, which any employee could catch onto. From my experience, when I had to send e-mails to my Algerian boss, the e-mails were frank and plain-spoken, not a lengthy piece of fine writing. I used language that might make a SNOOT cringe, but it doesnt really matter in the end because I was able to communicate with my boss effectively while still displaying my linguistic intelligence. If you read Authority and American Usage, you will find Wallaces language to be incredibly complex. I have had a very good education, and even I had trouble keeping up with his constant creation of words and his need to use every big word in the English Language. For SNOOTs like Wallace, English is an art meant to be honed, displayed, and appreciated like any fine work of art. But what made his essay interesting, what kept us engaged, was the contrast between his proper (and incredibly difficult) English, and his spots of humor, populated almost entirely by colloquialisms. In his ability to walk that line, he simultaneously educates and engages us. He is a very talented writer. But for the vast majority of us, though we can speak with eloquence of our own, we do not know or care to know our language on the level he does. If you want to be able to truly enjoy art, you need to educate yourself in it. Opera, Ballet, Fine paintings or sculptures, and Shakespeare all require a prior knowledge for you to be able to truly enjoy them to their fullest. But that is a choice that you have to make for yourself. Its like Wallace wants everyone to understand Shakespeare, and for some people, theyre simply not interested. As for me, however, I deeply enjoy Shakespeare, so he might have me on that one.
Comment [CM22]: Show us some of the back and forth he does? Let the reader know exactly what youre talking about? Comment [CM23]: Necessary? Why should your readers believe you? Give them the evidence and let them decide for themselves. Comment [CM24]: True? Comment [CM25]: Really? Says who? That is no longer the common view. Comment [CM19]: So, heres the thing: when English peakers Comment [CM20]: Id avoid you in this essay. Speak of yourself, your experiences, your observations, and of Wallace. You is a bit too prescriptive. Comment [CM21]: Hyperbole ;) Comment [CM16]: I dont doubt it. However, my doctor has a broad Boston Jewish accent (its adorable). I would never want her to lose it. So, what else was pressuring your mom? Comment [CM17]: Nope, S*W*E is about *writing* spoken English is a different thing.

Comment [CM18]: This is potentially ambiguous as it could mean pulls away from rather than gets smaller because of

To become President, one needs to be educated in Standard Written English. To become CEO, one needs to be educated in Standard Written English. But for people who dont, who simply arent interested, maybe not. Our local dialects are what allow us to not only communicate, but to connect to the people around us. Standard Written English is spoken from the head. But for the language we all speak differently, it can be spoken from the heart.
Comment [CM28]: Holy smokes! No Works Cited? Thats pretty much a disaster. Comment [CM26]: Are these statements objectively accurate? Comment [CM27]: Defeatist?