Twenty one pages and not one mention of Frasier.
That was a very informative essay except I'm not sure what exactly he was saying except that grammar is something that we all inherently know how to do once we learn to read and so therefore it does not need to be taught except in the beginning of reading and writing like maybe in the first few grades and then as we proceed through our lessons the formal teaching of grammar is less important unless you happen to be learning English as a second language and then you may need more instruction in grammar until it becomes that which is second nature.
Did he address the run-on sentence?
I have always done well with grammar and more specifically with spelling and so, I am always aware of those aspects of my writing and in the writing of others. One of the things I have found most difficult in peer review is to not circle all the spelling errors. I have realized that the content of the writing is what is to be dealt with, the grammar can be cleaned up in the final draft. One of the most interesting aspects of the essay was the idea that we know "instinctually" how to do grammar once we are able to read and speak, and when presented with the rules we perform worse than without them. So, let the writer write and take care of the other stuff later.
I found Smith to be an "easier" read this time. Possibly with the chapter broken up into smaller chunks there was less to digest at one time. Yeah . . . that's about it.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
No comments:
Post a Comment