Dawkins:

"Before you read":   Talking to my friends about grammar rules at dinner, because they are also in english 1510, we discussed how rules of english language are not bendable, rules like punctuation, capitalization, fragments, independent and dependent clauses, sentence structure, coordinating conjunctions. We all learned one way of using the rules and that that was the only way it could be done.

Summary: This article is all about punctuation. Basically it says how the punctuation we have learned means nothing because it can be inter changeable with other punctuation. and its all in a writers good taste to pick the write punctuation based on the message they want to convey.  On page 144 it goes through different example of using different punctuation can mean the same thing in the same sentence.


Synthesis: This article is questioning punctuation much like Bryson questions english language itself. Both articles take rules that students have learned and teachers have taught for years and throw all the rules out the door.  Dawkins makes punctuation seem like is shouldn't be taught in the first place because it seems you can do pretty much what ever you want anyways. And Bryson talks about the english language being a free for all, how the language incorporates roots from all over.

Response	Quotation
Quirk et al. examined statistical data on the use of the comma to mark coordination and this was what he came up with. after reading the rest of this article I have to agree it seems like punctuation rules are tendencies that we always do because it is what we were taught and is what is comfortable to do.	"These results show we are dealing with tendencies which, while clear enough, are by no means rules"
After reading the examples on page 142 and using different punctuation in the same place in a sentence, I was questioning how to choose what to do. Ive never been great at punctuation to begin with, this makes me question it even more.	"The writer has choices, so there arises the question of how one goes about making these choices."
I feel like in middle school and high school teachers make punctuation seem to relate so heavily on grammar. they make it seem that the grammar of this sentence will determine the punctuation but after this article I dont think it does as much.	"As should be clear by now, learning to punctuate effectively requires only a little knowledge of grammer, much less than most english teachers will grant"
I have learned that punctuation doesn't have set rules and that only in certain circumstances are you limited to the punctuation you have to use.	"The notion that there is only one correct way of punctuating a given word pattern is true only in limited degree"

QD5: From reading Dawkins I learned that punctuations do not always mean anything, Dawkins uses random punctuation throughout his essay that adds voice, and identity to his piece. It also helps makes the point that punctuation does not always need to be structured.

MM: I think we are reading about punctuation is rhetorical rather than just explaining what it is because, dawkins says that punctuation is more tendencies that we are taught and that we stick to them because that is what is comfortable. It is more effective to talk about grammar as a rhetorical.

Thoughts:  I found myself wanting to keep reading just because this idea was so different than anything i have ever heard before but on the contrary i thought this article was really long. I did however like the examples it gave through out to help put and image to the concept.