Return to VAST PORTAL site

Thursday, January 20, 2011

Three Spelling Rules We All Learned Once

Becoming overly dependent on spell check provoked a revitalized interest in those spelling rules we all learned as children.  There are ten major ones, and this post will explore (I mean review) three of them.   Forgive the elementary nature of this blog post and please indulge my fascination with words, regardless of length, and the English language.


Rule #1
One of the first rules we all learn in the early years of school is to put “i” before “e” except after “c” … and sometimes after “w”.


achieve
ceiling
weird
believe
conceited
weight
chief
receive
weir
grief
receipt
weigh
piece
conceive
weightless
niece
perceive
weighty

Next, we learned that we could not trust this rule to apply in every instance and were taught how much of the English we know and love is populated with words that are exceptions to a given rule.

“e” before “i” and not after “c”
“i” before “e” even after “c”
either
species
leisure
financier
neither
fancier
freight
specie

Rule #2
When a word ends with an "e" this last vowel remains silent and causes the other vowel in the word to have a long sound or "say its name" as my elementary teachers used to say.  Then we were often presented with a table similar to the one below so that we had the visual on this rule:  short vowel sound vs. long vowel sound.  After all, we learned and applied more phonics rules than kids do today.

Short vowel sound
Long vowel sound
hat
hate
mat
mate
hop
hope
fat
fate
mad
made
sit
site (as in a location)
hid
hide

Rule #3
I've seen adults still thrown by this one and even some college graduates I've worked with do not properly double the consonants when adding a suffix to one-syllable words.  That is the third rule, to know when to add an extra consonant at the end. Maybe this rule isn't taught in second and third grades anymore...

One-syllable word
Proper spelling with added ending
bat
batted, batting
hop
hopped, hopping
plan
planned, planning
scrap
scrapped, scrapping
stop
stopped, stopping
bar
barred, barring
mar
marred, marring
pat
patted, patting
map
mapped, mapping
nap
napped, napping
snap
snapped, snapping
whip
whipped, whipping
top
topped, topping
tip
tipped, tipping
tap
tapped, tapping

Please share this with a grade school student you know, or have them add to it, or just accept my post as a exercise in nostalgia. Ah, remembering all those wonderful moments, effectively glued to a small desk, staring at the blackboard while rules were tossed out for us to catch and remember. I'm glad I still love English after going through those drills!






Wednesday, January 5, 2011

Misuse of “Went” and “Gone” in the Media


Have you noticed that both local and national reporters – and some anchors – have quite a bit of trouble with verb tenses?  Most particularly I have noticed a confusion with the past participle and past tense of the verb “go.”  Of course it wouldn’t be worthy of a blog post if the error is a simple slip of the tongue or other form of occasional misspeaking.  However, it happens so often  that it requires at least a single blog post to acknowledge it.

The mistake usually happens in the middle of a report, when I hear:

“He has went….” or “They have went….” (Ouch – it hurts my ears)
instead of “He has gone….” or “They have gone….” or simply "He went...." or "They went...."

The reporters in question seem to forget that “went” is the past tense of the irregular verb “go” while “gone” is the past participle form of the word that requires the speaker or writer to use “have,” “had,” or “has” before the verb.

Grammatical errors from the average person who may be answering a reporter’s questions are common and expected, but when I tune in to hear a broadcast journalist give me the news of the day, I anticipate a higher level of grammatical accuracy.  After all, a journalist’s business is language and his or her job is to communicate both ideas and information.  Bad grammar gets in the way and becomes a distraction to the listener or reader. 

Tuesday, January 4, 2011

Alternative Approaches to Writing Instruction

Is it possible to get kids to connect with the writing process in a way that gives them confidence and skills that stay with them?  Absolutely.  Can it be done within the existing public school structure?  It isn't getting done for the majority of students using the traditional teaching methods and, no matter how inspiring the teacher is, as long as we keep teaching to tests and segmenting skill sets into a seemingly unrelated string of exercises we are not honoring creativity and life-long learning.

Traditional English instruction is top-down: the teacher sets the standards, gives specific lessons and uses a rubric to measure the success of the student's writing product. What is a student's motivation for conforming to the established set of rules?  From my experience watching kids go through standard-issue U.S. education, the motivation is completely external to the student and what the assignment can teach him or her.  


Extrinsic reasons to write:
I have to please the teacher
I have to finish this quickly
I have to meet a deadline
I have to keep parents from nagging
I have to get a good grade

What if we gave the student more control and more responsibility for designing the project?  Instead of conforming to a one-size-fits-all set of rules, the student's role becomes one of ownership.  In fact the writing process in this scenario is a means to an end, which is the finished project.. For example, say the student chooses from a list of possible assignments to write and self-publish a book for younger students. Right there we see the biggest difference between the traditional and alternative approach: "I write because I want to," not "I write because I have to." The motivation is now internal, which means the student can become fully invested in the project and want to learn the skills to succeed.  Guidance, not rules, is what young writers need at this point.


Intrinsic reasons to write:
I want to learn how to write in this genre (children’s book, short story, persuasive essay)
I want to learn how to publish
I want learn about a topic of interest
I strive to write better
I feel  strongly about a topic
I want to communicate

These are big picture ideas, and my discussion of an alternative approach to writing instruction is far from complete. However, I know that learning is a personal, vital experience that cannot be drilled into anyone.  The desire to learn must come from within each of us, it must be nurtured in a safe and non-threatening learning environment, and it must be allowed time to grow.

Monday, January 3, 2011

A Word's Meaning: Well Intentioned or Intentionally Emotional?


Words are the symbols that we assign to things so that we have a basis for shared meaning when we communicate, or at least attempt to do so. While S.I. Hayakawa reminded us that  "The word is not the thing," long ago  (Language in Thought and Action, page 28), many speakers and writers tend to forget this basic fact of semantics. 

At the very fundamental  level, and when we are not speaking or writing in metaphor or using symbolism, there seems to be agreement as to a word’s meaning:  street, cat, dog, horse, cow, house, garden.

It’s the abstract concepts that, when used, start to impede our communication.  In fact, some words become so emotionally loaded that, instead of a rational response from the listener or reader to an entire paragraph or essay, there is a reaction to just one word that hits a hot spot somewhere inside the brain.  Hope of communicating at this point fades into the deep abyss between the message’s sender and receiver. 

Words may shift in meaning over time and within different subcultures in the same language group or change with the political winds of any given era.  According to the authors of An Introduction to Language, meanings change over time in three ways:  it may become broader, it may become more narrower, or it may shift (Fromkin/Rodman, page 207).  Today, these words are examples of those that carry emotional baggage beyond the dictionary definition:

liberal
conservative
government funded
state’s rights

Speech or writing used purposefully to cause an emotional response has become an art form employed by advertisers, columnists, and politicians (and radio talk show hosts).  Now, however, I hear self-proclaimed journalists use emotionally loaded terms, supposedly without thinking (if I am to give them the benefit of the doubt).  Whether intentional or not, word use by journalists should be as objective as possible and hold up to scrutiny.  Instead, broadcast journalism becomes just another sound bite and no one cares if it stings.

For example, I have paid into the social security system all of my adult working life.  Most recently I heard the retirement system called an "entitlement" program by someone assuming the role of a journalist on cable news (CNN). The interviewer used this emotionally loaded term instead of calling it what it is:  a tax on payroll matched by employers to be set aside for the employee’s retirement.  Brevity in language does not always equal correct language. Definition of entitle:  to give (a person or thing) the right to receive, demand, to do something.  Does this definition imply that the person has not worked to receive the thing in question?  

A sound bite literally goes by so quickly that it is difficult to capture, let alone analyze. I am often left with questions.  Did I hear correctly?  Did I misinterpret the intended meaning?  What was the intention?  Did the journalist speak knowingly or in error? Or are certain words used as descriptors in certain interviews and not in others?

If I conclude that it is all just a matter of semantics, that doesn't solve the problem of shared meaning; it only begins to point out  the ongoing dilemma.