Charles+Sadler

In the article “Good grammar leads to violence at Starbucks?” on Dennis Baron‘s blog he discusses how an English Professor was evicted from a Starbucks Coffee Shop when she did approve of the barista improper language use. Later on, Baron discusses how corporate jargon has invaded our language, and its improper use is a vice on language. Additionally, Baron discusses how there is a corporate speak that many lacks creativity in its language and is all most offensive in its basicness to both the customer and the employee. He goes further to say that maybe some terms that are used in the corporate world are actually incorrect and unfair (such as employee being associates.)

Overall Baron points out the fallacies in corporate speech, and the poor use of grammar it has. Baron in this article uses fair amount of logos, pathos, and ethos. He demonstrates his character in his dislike for bad grammar and his connection with people who have been in these situations. He uses pathos when he is talking about the relationships of the employees, and how they can be almost punished for not following strict guidelines. Then he uses logos in his logical approach to discussing how there should be good grammar in all situations of the day.

I find that Baron was most appealing to my Pathos.

The term "pathos" means "an appeal to the reader's emotions". So it doesn't make sense to say "Baron was most appealing to my appeal to my emotions" doesn't make sense. I felt sorry that customers and employees had to subject themselves to corporate speech for just a drink of coffee or a job. This was persuasive because I feel the need know to maybe go to a Starbucks try an implant correct grammar, but also I used to work for a Kroger grocery store and I too felt this strain on speech. I feel that Baron is quite successful in this article, but he doesn’t present a counter-point of why corporation may have to have such manners a speech. Although, I’m pretty sure that Baron was trying to target students and English Professors. If that was his intended audience, I could see him not really needing, in that case, to put in an opposing opinion in his article. Also, his innuendo of students working in coffee shops would appeal to students, as well as his position would appeal to English Professors.

Chuck - Overall a good summary and analysis. A bit skimpy on the analysis side, but what you did say you said well. Decent for a first college "paper." CHECK ~Prof. Wendt

Charles P. Sadler II     Mary Wendt English 101 Paper One No Robo Teachers Language is an art of communication (dictionary.com, language), and communication happens between people. A student being taught by a robot is a poor way for him or her to learn how to    communicate, and learn how to interact with others. Robots have no emotion. They are not exactly like flesh and blood human being who can hold conversation with emotion, or use language to its full potential. People might be able to produce robot teachers efficiently, and then you could have a very uniform teaching method across many schools. Yet, I believe that in doing something like that society will destroy what little creativity we have in school already. We need teachers who are passionate and emotional over English. Students need that emotion, from teachers, if they are ever going to learn the art of language as communication. Students need to be taught by a teacher in order for them to grow and learn in language and social interactions. People need to be able to communicate in normal life. Communication happens every day. When one in school you can communicate with all types of people, perhaps the bus driver or a friend, so    one would need to have an idea of communicating in normal life. Having a teacher helps one do this, unlike a robot. Teachers can foster discussion, emotion, creativity. Teachers have wider ideas and options on how to teach students. A teacher will also notice if students are struggling, and then can find an alternative methods to teach the students that are having trouble. They can challenge students to    think critically for different answers than what is in a text book. Robots are going to have one set list of    instructions to follow every day. They will not get of topic to explain or explore anything. They will stand and teach and that’s it. Children at young ages need human interaction if they are going to be    developing a personality. If they are going to be able to function as anything other than robots, students need humans teaching them. Language is extremely complicated, as it covers a broad range of ideas. Language is used to    argue, to convey emotion, to process thought, etc. To have English teachers just teach students the basic principles for forming sentences and paragraphs won’t encourage them to use it. They won’t learn why to use language. Students might learn that you need a thesis statement in a paper in order to have a center to focus papers on, but if they have no reason to right a paper defending anything they believe in or to express themselves through language than they will not right papers with thesis statements. Human teachers can express through emotion and different teaching methods that language is a way to    express oneself. We need language teachers that will give reasons to use language in everyday life in a    way that a robot will not and cannot do. In an article by Dennis Baron he discusses the negative impact of new robotic teachers. The new robots were only introduced because students were failing standardized tests. Perhaps it was not a    failure of the students and teachers, but actually there is a problem in which students must be taught. Perhaps current curriculums lack the use of language in creative ways. That we are we taught to answer in basic ways to pass tests, that we are being trained to answer like robots already. And that we need to    be taught by a robot in order to pass test graded by robots. This is not right. Students should have the space and reason to explore language. They need to have a desire to use language for their own purposes. Students will be better trained for life if they are able to foster these creative, language desires through the teaching of a dedicated English teacher. Students and teachers belong together in the class room, and I mean human teachers. Language is too complicated and too human for a robot to teach it properly. Yes there are rules and basic principles, but there is also the underlining tone of language that is emotion. That tone is only carried properly to students through a human English teacher. Does a robot show love, happiness, or sadness? No. Does a human being show emotions like that? Yes. Students of today cannot be taught by a    mechanical teacher, unless we want future generations of the world to mature without the use of     language and creativity.