I didn't get the opportunity to see you all in class last Thursday, but hopefully this week's reading and the related responses should sufficiently compensate.

Weaver begins by discussing the problematic nature of editing papers, and then attempts to sort the most damaging errors (in terms of professional and formal communication) to determine what manner or manners of errors ought to be corrected, while still retaining a sense of autonomy within the student to compose. The four supposedly most damaging errors, found on page 145 of Weaver's text, are

1. Nonstandard verb forms
2. Lack of subject-verb agreement
3. Double negatives
4. Objective pronoun as subject

Weaver argues that these errors communicate to middle-class America that the writer's education is presumably insufficient. These, Weaver argues, are the sorts of errors worth correcting for the sake of formal communication. As in past chapters, Weaver expresses the need to "code-switch" for writers. I find conflict, however, with Weaver's perception of dialects--such a concept as "African-American English" existing as a separate dialect strikes me as inappropriate to transfer to a classroom setting. This may be more of a social issue, however, than a pedagogical one--the identification of "dialects" renders too rigid the definition of in-groups and out-groups within language, and creates further division within the concept of race where there exist no functional or ethically-sound reason for these differentiations to exist, other than convenience. Interlanguage is perhaps somewhat more sound of a concept, because it stems from the gaps between languages and not what appears to be an attempt to further differentiate dialects into more-disconnected bodies of thought and speech.

Weaver again emphases the importance of teaching writing and grammar in a way which construct within the writer, rather than forcing the writer to learn so rigid and defined of an existing construct. The new process is called "constructivist grammar," which emphasis writing as a process rather than the product of obedience. Now that this theory has been articulated more thoroughly, I am inclined to strengthen my agreement with the educational paradigm Weaver suggests.

In the second half of the assigned text, Weaver discusses more specifically expository writing, and in doing so confronts a problem I addressed in a past blog--the "rules" of writing for school. I'm certain anyone reading this has been indoctrinated to some degree or another in the structure of 5-paragraph format, and I'm certain anyone reading this knows how dry, even soul-less, that 5-paragraph format texts often feel. Weaver suggests emphasizing the narrative element of writing, rather than the informative element of writing, could improve expository writing greatly. Surely enough, the 2 example texts given speak for themselves--the first example following "the rules" and feeling far less interesting, and the second being driven more by an evocative, personal and intimiate narrative style.

Here, Weaver places her model of academic instruction into the most concrete words yet, encouraging a focus on rhetorical value of writing rather than obedience to a set of regulations. The Constructivist approach within this model is evident, directing the writer to focus on appeals to Ethos, Pathos and Logos. Rather than emphasizing how sentences are to be structured, Weaver's approach guides the writer to improve the sentence using their own perception of appeal to the outside world, thereby rendering writing perhaps more authentic.

Now that we have begun to expose and unravel Weaver's methods, I am excited to read more and discover greater depth to this approach than I had previously concieved. For now, I look forward to a face-to-face discussion of these concepts.