Squires # 8: Who decides what is "the right way" to say things?

My thoughts are that (as when deciding all things of importance) the dominant
group of a society decides what "the right way" of speaking is. This group in most
English-speaking parts of the world are white, middle to upper class males. Yankovics
video makes this apparent in a number of ways. The first is that he is proclaiming that he
is correct about grammar. By knowing that Yankovic is a white upper class male (of
European descent) this is enough subconscious justification for the viewer of this video to
assume that he is correct. This concept of mentally justification is a societal norm, and
because the viewer is always conscious that white, rich men make the rules, the viewer
trusts Yankovic without thinking twice. Furthermore, Yankovic disregards most cultural
dialects while teaching the proper way to use the English language, therefore further
demonstrating that the white, rich way of speaking is king.
Another piece of evidence that claims that the rich white males way of using
English is correct is our textbook by Keith Polette. The mere fact that Polette is a white
male is once again enough to justify his credibility. A reader would not think twice about
his credentials unless he was not part of the dominant group. In the end of his
introduction in Teaching Grammar Through Writing, Polette promises that the readers of
his book will grow considerably as future writers. To me, this claim seems too good to
always be true, yet because of his status in the dominant societal group, many readers
would trust his word no matter what.

Squires # Weird Al claims that "B" "C" "R" and "U" are "words not letters."
Do you agree? Can you make an argument that these ARE, indeed, words?
I think that Yankovic is trying to make a point that is slightly irrelevant to the
pervasive theme in Word Crimes. It seems to me that he is encouraging people to use
complete words like be, instead of an abbreviation substitute like b, but he makes it
seem as if the letters b,c,r and u are not letters at all. That being said, I do not agree with
his statement that these letters are only words. I dont know if I can make the argument
that the letters are indeed words, but they are indeed letters, which Yankovic disregards.
To me this makes his credibility seem faulty, as he seems to be manipulating the facts for
the benefit of the point that he is making. He is compromising facts for his own video
success. I think that if Yankovic wants to stress the use of complete words instead of
abbreviations within writing, this is a good cause. However, by claiming that the letters
are not letters, his credibility is compromised. It caused me to ask, what other facts is
he bending to make the rules fit his needs?

Squires #20: What IS the difference between "good" and "well"? Would you say
"I'm doing good" or "I'm doing well"? Why?
The difference between good and well is simply that they are not synonyms with
interchangeable definitions. Good is a noun. A person can do good, like they can play
soccer. In Teaching Grammar Through Writing, Polette defines a noun as a PERSON, a
PLACE or a THING. Well can either be an adverb or an adjective. It describes either
and action or the quality of something. Polette describes an adverb as a word that gives
more information about a verb, and adjectives as words that describenouns and
pronouns.
You can do good well! That makes total sense! You can say Im doing good, if
you are completing a beneficial task. Superman does good, volunteers do good. If you
saving a man from a burning bus, and someone yells, WHAT ARE YOU DOING!? it
is appropriate to respond, Im doing good. If someone asks you how you are (feeling),
you can say, Im doing well because your state of being is that you are in good health
and a good mood.
In Word Crimes, Yankovic touches upon good vs. well, briefly, depicting a
picture of a superhero above the words, doing good, and a picture of a person with a lot
of money above the words, doing well. Yankovics video may be flawed, but at least
this small detail within the video is correct.


Squires #21: Weird Al doesn't like people "misusing" the terms "literally" and
"irony." Can you think of words that you and your friends use to mean something
different than what other people might mean by them?
One word that I find my friends and myself using incorrectly are exclamations
like amazing, hilarious, and awesome. I feel that as a whole, people today misuse
these grand exclamations. Personally, I think that words like amazing and awesome
should be reserved for things like mountain scenery, having a baby, or a lightening storm,
but people use these words to describe things that arent actually awesome or amazing.
For instance, my roommate just bought caramel flavored coffee and when she made it,
she described it as tasting amazing. Perhaps she should have used a word like tasty
because amazing seems too grand to describe the taste of Starbucks coffee.
I like to think of the way 19
th
century English poets would use words like
awesome, because I think this is the way these words are intended to be used.

Squires #23: What do you think the function of emoji are is in online
communication? Do you or your friends use them? Where do they usually go in a
message (beginning, middle, end)? How does their position relate to their function?
Emoji are for expressing an emotion that may only be able to be expressed on a
persons face. It is more effective for a person to show a picture of a horrified face to
successfully get their point across than typing Im horrified. Emojis usually go at the
end of a message, which adds to their function in that said horrified expression is the last
thing someone will remember from the message, thus emphasizing the emotion of horror.
While I and my friends use emojis to enhance text messages, in Word Crimes
Yankovic implies that people who cannot speak proper English should use emojis
instead of words to communicate. This is inappropriate of him because he is implying
that if a person cannot speak his version of proper English, then they are downgraded to a
subhuman level of not being able to communicate with language. He is implying that
these people are too stupid for words, so they are only allowed facial expressions and
pictures to get their message across. To me, it does not seem the the true function of
emojis is being accurately represented in Word Crimes.