Blog #14 Response

Bryson - "Good English and Bad"

Rhetorical Overview of the Article
1. Bryson's exigence is to promote the idea that there is no wrong and right to use English because "the rules" are constantly changing.

2a. I think the audience consists of writers that are on his level of experience. I think this because he says "we" throughout the article and assumes reader automatically understand what he is trying to say.
2b. If I was an audience member, he would need to go more in depth and explain his vocabulary so that a younger audience would be able to follow his ideas.

3. I think the thesis is the last sentence of the first paragraph, "Not to put too fine a point on it, the labels are largely meaningless."

Summary
1. In his article, "Good English and Bad," Bryson explains that the English language virtually has no meaning. It is very difficult to trace back the origins of rules like using propositions, using "different than," etc. He eventually concludes that the meanings are constantly "chang[ing] in response to the pressures of common usage rather than the dictates of committees."

2. No such thing as bad English because the rules are never fully declared #constantchange

Burkean Parlor/Intertextuality

1. Bryson's ideas are similar to Allen's and Dawkins'. All three go "against the norm" and point out certain stereotypes that most people try to ignore. Bryson's article also made me reflect back on Porter's idea that we constantly use intertextuality when it comes to writing. Bryson is saying that rules gradually change when people start to reuse other's ideas, which is intertextuality.

Personal Reflection

1. I really like how Bryson questions our everyday use of language. He took a simple topic and was able to make a full article on just one subject. His use of metaphors, such as, "Making English grammar conform to Latin rules is like asking people to play baseball using the rules of football." That may seem like a silly metaphor, but it really got the point across of how dumb that idea would be.

2. I understand that he is stating reasons for why the English language can't be wrong or right (because it has no set committee to lay down the rules) but is that what he is arguing? Is there even a true argument in the article? Even after reading it, I feel like I just walked into the parlor and still do not have enough evidence to join into the "argument/ conversation" (referring to Greene).