Language Myths Summary

Follow these guidelines in writing your reflection:
– A 1 paragraph summary of EACH assigned myth (Myth 4, Myth 6, Myth 14) and the supplemental article (Santa Ana Article). Include only the most significant details in the summary: what the reading was about, what evidence was provided, and why the findings are consequential. You should have a total of 3-4 paragraphs for the summaries total.
*THE LINKS OF THE LANGUAGE MYTHS AND ARTICLE READINGS ARE AT THE BOTTOM OF THIS GUIDELINES*
TIPS:
Be concise in your summaries. Don?t feel the need to mention everything the author says
State the main points (2 or 3 main points is generally good)
Briefly state what evidence was provided (1 or 2 examples per main point is sufficient)
State why the findings are consequential. (1 or 2 sentences)
– A 2-3 paragraph analysis of the selection of readings. You may discuss a few readings together or focus on one reading in particular. Types of analysis are:
Discuss how your thinking has changed
Argue for or against something you read
Identify similarities and differences among the readings
Apply something you read to something you?ve seen or experienced
– A 1 paragraph conclusion of how the readings relate to the course. Identify specific connections you?re making to the lecture content, section content, and other course readings.
Problems with the conclusion:
Does not connect readings to a specific example or concept from lecture or discussion.
Example of a bad conclusion  The Lentine and Shuy article relates to morphology because it talks about the morpheme;.
Better  The Lentine and Shuy article is directly related to the morphology lecture because we learned in lecture that morphemes can undergo morphological processes. In the case of <mc->, that process is genericization- It originally only referred to products of the McDonalds Corporation, but by the time of the lawsuit (early 1990s), its meaning had been extended to include several other meanings.
Or  The <mc-> morpheme in <McSleep>, relates to Professor Loring?s example of the <i-> morpheme because both underwent a morphological process in which they don?t have to refer to the companies that they originated from. Now <i->come to refer to intelligent products, and not only Apple products.