This document provides instructions for writing a fact-based paper about a person, object, or event. The paper must use only verifiable facts and cannot include any subjective language. It must convince the reader to view the topic in a positive or negative light solely through strategically organized facts. The instructions specify choosing a controversial topic, researching only facts that support the intended perspective, using citations, and following an outline format. The paper will be graded based on persuasive arrangement of facts and adherence to the objective writing guidelines.

1. COMM 100W - Writing for Influence
The Fact Paper
In this paper, you will describe a person, object, or event using
only verifiable facts, making sure to eliminate ALL words that
are subjective. Subjective words are words that derive their
(different) meanings, based on the experience of the perceiver.
In other words, these have different definitions depending on
each person you ask; e.g., honor, big, skinny, lots, delicious,
bright, challenging, etc., are all subjective words. In contrast to
saying, “My mother is short,” (which is subjective), you could
say, “My mother is five feet tall.” As you can imagine then, you
paper will make extensive use of citations, since you’ll need to
cite every fact in your paper that is not “common knowledge.”
The objective of the paper is to convince your reader to see the
person, object, or event in either a positive or negative light
while ensuring that your paper remains completelyfree of any
subjective language. You paper should be at least 4 - 5
buzzwords in length. Instructions
Choose a person, object, or event that you find interesting and
that you can readily research. It is better if you choose a topic
about which many people already have a strong opinion (that
differs from your own). For instance, many people like
chocolate ice cream, but perhaps you hate chocolate ice cream.
If so, chocolate ice cream would make a good topic for this
paper.
After you choose a topic, begin to compile facts about your
topic that will help you to show your topic in either a negative
or positive light. To show chocolate ice cream in a negative
light, for instance, you might look for a medical study that links
chocolate ice cream to mad cow disease, or find evidence that
an unpopular person such as Richard Nixon ate chocolate ice

2. cream every day. Likewise, if you find a report concluding that
chocolate ice cream cures pancreatic cancer, it may be wise to
omit those findings from your paper. Either way, you want to
provide only verifiable (factual) information about chocolate ice
cream. At no point should you disclose to your reader your own
opinion of chocolate ice cream, as this would constitute
OPINION (subjectivity), and NOT FACT. In other words,
persuade us to dislike chocolate ice cream merely by providing
negative information about it that you have strategically
organized (remember arrangement) to maximize persuasive
effect. ** Remember, in addition to the instructions stated
supra, you may not include VALUE language of any kind; e.g.,
language that suggests your opinion, or is defined in relative
(subjective) terms.
Other requirements:
1) Your opening sentence, since it cannot be an opinion
sentence, must be either: (1) A quote of someone else’s opinion
(in this case, subjective language is OK, because, since you are
quoting it, it becomes verifiable (factual); or (2) (a vivid,
powerful description of the topic of your paper in neutral
objective terms (this vivid description substitutes for the
OPINION sentence under the O-T-R model of writing). If your
topic is algae and you wish to present algae in a positive light,
then you could, for instance, write an engaging description of
algae, or include a quote on algae that includes someone’s
else’s opinion. Keep in mind, though, your opening description
must also be free of any evaluative or opinionated language.
2) The introduction of your paper must include a preview of the
paper. Your preview should give your reader a sense of the main
points you will cover about your topic (remember buzzwords).
3) The body of your paper should deliver on the promises made
in your preview, and each section of the body should begin with
a preview of that section (think major transition sentences). For
instance, if you promise in your introduction that the first

3. section of your paper will provide information about deaths that
have occurred on rides at Disneyland, then the first section of
your paper should provide information about a number of deaths
that have occurred on rides at Disneyland. AND, the first
sentence of that section should preview which deaths on which
rides will be discussed. AND, the first sentence of each
paragraph should preview the specific deaths or rides discussed
in that paragraph. For instance, the first sentence of your
paragraph on the Matterhorn might read like so: No fewer than
nine people have died while riding the Matterhorn.
4) Your paper should feature a conclusion that follows the 3-
part conclusion format discussed in class. Without drawing
conclusions or stating your opinion, end the paper in such a way
that your reader will be persuaded to adopt your perspective on
the topic. (Link to vivid description, demonstrates connection of
buzzword concepts, and relationship of topic to reader’s
interest. All of these 3 components, however, must be
accomplished using nothing but FACTS alone).Peer Reviews
This assignment also provides for the possibility of an extra
credit peer review. The same instructions apply as last time,
inasmuch as you will put your fact paper in both the rough draft
drop box, as well as in a drop box particularly designed for peer
reviews. If you place your paper in the peer review participation
drop box, YOU ARE AGREEING TO PROVIDE YOUR
PARTNER WITH A PEER REVEW. If you fail to conduct that
review (notwithstanding that you signed up for it), you will be
prevented from participating in all future extra credit
opportunities. Please see the Word document (peer review
instructions) that we used for the spelunkers, and apply the
same principles to the fact paper. Please note, there are a
different set of peer review questions for the fact paper than
there were for the spelunkers essay. Formatting requirements
Full APA requirements. Grading

4. When grading your paper, I will be looking for the following:
1) All the tools graded in The Case of the Spelunkers
(arrangement, Topic/Audience/Purpose consideration;
2) The absence of evaluative words that cannot be empirically
verified (Note: if there are more than five such words in your
paper, you will lose two points for each additional word);
3) Successful arrangement of your facts according to themes
and strategic organization of information for persuasive effect
(think photo essay—what story is my arrangement telling);
4) Successful presentation of your topic in either a negative or
positive light;
5) The use of well-researched, peer reviewed sources (no less
than five) from SJSU King Library’s Electronic Databases, that
establish credibility; and
6) Adherence to the formatting guidelines detailed above,
including complete and correct citations for ALL of your facts
and sources.
Running head: MEANING OF BAILOUT
1
MEANING OF BAILOUT
2
The Meaning of…
Bailouts Are a Good Thing
First Last
San Jose State University
Abstract

5. This essay explains how the meaning of the word “Bailout” has
been changed to refer to something as disgraceful or shameful,
instead of referring to something in a positive context, such as
the benevolent act of helping another in trouble. The subject of
“bailouts” is explored against the background of the financial
crisis of 2008. Points, counterpoints, and rebuttals serve to
examine both of the ways in which “bailout” is used, and proof
is provided to reinforce why the term should only be used with
a positive connotation.
The meaning of the term “Bailout” has been changed into a
politically-charged perversion of what is actually a noble act of
lending help to another. In the article “Bailout Baloney” by
Justin Quinn (2008), the term “bailout” is used to describe any
government monetary assistance program, such as the Recovery
Act
, with the negative connotation of rewarding fiscal ineptitude.
It is implied that this “reward” is wasteful and inefficient by
spending precious government resources on the dysfunctional
business model of a failing industry
at the expense of the American taxpayer population. But the
Oxford Dictionary describes a “bailout” as “an act of giving
financial assistance to a failing business or economy to save it
from collapse” (Bailout, n.d.). Saving our economy from
collapse is never a bad thing. A “bailout” is an emergency
countermeasure, when a situation is so desperate that this last
resort must be used to prevent further harm. The financial
assistance or “bailout” that the U.S. Government provided to the
banking industry in 2009 was necessary to protect the fragile
state of the U.S. economy from a catastrophic economic
collapse, something that an over-reliance on free-market
principles is unable to do.
Government “bailouts” are a way to protect the major players in
our vital industries, and even the U.S. economy itself, in times
of financial crises. The Merriam-Webster dictionary (Protect,

6. n.d.) defines the term “protect” in this context as “to maintain
the status or integrity… especially through financial or legal
guarantees … as to save from contingent financial loss.” In the
past, when national or global factors threatened to harm the
status or integrity of the U.S. economy, the government
provided financial assistance in order to bolster specific
companies or institutions (Smith, 2011). This was done to
stimulate short-term liquidity and solvency of those industries
because they were interconnected to many other economic
sectors. To help these types of companies would be to help the
economy as a whole. These “bailouts” did just that, saving the
major players in these industries from contingent financial loss,
which produced an overall positive economic effect for the
country.
Fiscal conservatives would argue that we should not invest so
much to save failures, and instead invest in winning players. In
a Harvard Business Review article, Bill George (2012) stated
that “America has repeatedly demonstrated its capacity to
develop entrepreneurs who start with revolutionary ideas and
create global companies that dominate their markets.” If
America’s economic success relies on our innovation and
entrepreneurship
, to offer a “bailout” would not be conducive to maintaining our
economic standing on the world stage. The $700 billion spent
through the TARP
program was the largest instance of government spending in
history (Nankin, 2008). Instead of giving that money to key
players in the financial industry, that money may have been
better-spent feeding the poor, developing ways to reduce energy
dependence on foreign countries, or perhaps investing in
education so future generations would be more competitive in a
global economy.
But the government stepping in to protect the economy is
sometimes required when those who work within the system
serve only themselves, with a lack of moral responsibility to
their country. Randy Martin (2010) argues that no one has been

7. able to demonstrate that “private selfishness turns into public
altruism.” Even President Ronald Regan, the poster child of
conservatism, stated “There is a legitimate need in an orderly
society for some government to maintain freedom or we will
have tyranny by individuals” (Klausner, 1975). Occasional
government intervention is a way to ensure the stability of the
economy, and in the above quote, Ronald Regan has equated a
“bailout” with the ability to “maintain freedom.” In the absence
of personal or moral responsibility, certain measures may be
necessary to protect the economy, but critics claim that the
economy was not actually in a fragile state, and there was no
need for the government to intervene.
Cyclical economic swings have occurred throughout history,
which would indicate that the economy is not in a fragile state,
and the 2008 downturn is an expected behavior which does not
need to be regulated. I am not a fiscal conservative, but I
acknowledge that the market periodically rises and falls, and
some naturally-occurring events should not be meddled with by
government intervention. A small-scale example of such an
event is the apartment rental market in my home town. When
the local universities are in session, rent costs are high, and
when each term ends, the rent costs are low. On the national
scale, removing restrictive laws would allow the market to more
fluidly self-regulate and more truly reflect how investors value
companies within our economy. Unfortunately, strictly
following this philosophy where markets are not regulated
produces a majority of “losers” and minority of “winners.”
To elaborate on this point, and taking it to the extreme, suppose
America’s airline companies were not regulated by the FAA
because they considered the regulations to be too costly, and
ensuring proper airplane maintenance should be left solely to
those in the private sector. The airlines would definitely
benefit from cost savings resulting from the removal of the
protections against airplane failure, but the passengers would be
the ones who are most at risk of losing their lives at the hands
of the potentially negligent airline companies. Now imagine if

8. this gross negligence would cause the airline companies to face
multiple million-dollar lawsuits resulting from hundreds of
simultaneous plane crashes. If the airline industry was the
backbone of America’s transportation infrastructure, and if the
major players in the airline industry were to go into bankruptcy
or be unable to operate, then America as a whole would suffer
the same crippling financial loss as the industry itself. In this
hypothetical scenario, the benefit of government intervention
would be necessary to prevent further harm to the country’s
economy, to “bail it out” of trouble. Returning this line of
reasoning to the real-world scenario of the financial crisis of
2008, the self-serving decisions by multi-national investment
firms left the economy in a fragile state, and since finance is so
intertwined with every aspect of our economy, a catastrophic
economic collapse was imminent.
The ultimate goal of the “bailout” given to America’s major
investment firms
was to prevent a domino effect of financial failures, which
would have eventually led to a catastrophic economic collapse.
Under normal conditions, government intervention is not
required, as regulations prevent the decisions and actions of the
self-serving from adversely affecting the economy. But the
1999 repeal of the Glass-Steagall
law, a lack of regulatory oversight, and the over-leveraging of
lending institutions were contributing factors to the financial
crisis. This removal of safeguards compelled a government
“bailout,” which came in the form of a cash injection to banks,
just to keep business operating across all industries (Andrews &
Landler, 2008). Without operating capital, wages could not
have been paid, debt obligations could not have been honored,
and business would have grinded to a halt. However, there is a
moral hazard to the government assistance. A signal is sent to
private companies that no matter how risky their decisions may
be, the government will be there to save them in the future. If
the U.S. Government dispenses “bailouts” to private companies
any time they are in financial trouble, then institutions do not

9. have to worry about economic collapse, and they can continue
to behave recklessly, which is not a free-market principle.
Critics of bailout programs like the Recovery Act claim that
“governments cannot pick winners and losers more effectively
than the [free]-market, since governments have imperfect
information and insufficient knowledge of the national and
global business environment” (Choi, Berger, & Kim, 2009).
Ron Paul stated (Paul, n.d.) that letting companies fail would be
a better solution than “confiscating money from productive
members of the economy and giving it to failing ones.” Joseph
Stiglitz asserts that "in a [free-] market economy, there has to
be a sense of accountability. You can't come running to the
government every time you have a problem” (Herman &
Mayerowitz, 2008). On a smaller scale, letting companies fail
may be a viable solution, but for industries which are so
ingrained into every aspect of our economy, to do so would
have dealt a fatal blow to America’s ability to sustain its
economic health. AIG
was the major underwriter for insuring investments, and when
the financial crisis left AIG unable pay out for insurance claims,
it threatened to stop all credit transactions in America. The
“bailout,” which came in the form of an injection of cash to the
investment banks, may have been against free-market
principles, but was needed to correct the “rules that permitted
companies to offshore jobs, reduce real wages, and permit risky
financial practices” (Kozy, 2009).
Government “bailouts” may be controversial, but there is a need
to protect something as important as the economy when it is in a
fragile state and on the verge of economic collapse, since the
free-market does not care who is a “winner” and who is a
“loser.” The need to protect something when it has been left in
a fragile state is justified, especially when it is something as
vital as the U.S. economy. The health of our economy is not
something we can simply experiment on with short-sighted,
laissez-faire ideologies, since the failures of large financial
institutions “could be contagious” (Boyd, 1994). To allow these

10. institutions to fail would most likely cause the confidence in
our fundamental institutions to spiral towards economic
collapse. Though our country has historically embraced free-
market principles, there are times when we cannot simply allow
portions of it to fail, which is why “bailouts” are a valid safety
measure against systemic failure. A “bailout” should not be
used to describe something in a negative manner, but instead be
used to describe a beneficial action meant to save those in need.
I can recall some of the general uses of the term I learned when
I was younger, like to “bail water out a boat” when a vessel is
sinking, or to “post bail” for someone who has been arrested.
These uses indicate providing aid to someone so they may exit
from a bad situation. The term “bailout” should not be viewed
in the same light as whatever decisions a troubled party made to
get themselves into harm’s way. On the contrary, providing a
“bailout” is, at its very core, a compassionate act meant to save
others from endangering themselves further. A “bailout”
stopped the hemorrhaging and ensured long-term economic
stability (Chu, 114). A “bailout” saved the automobile
manufacturing industry
. A “bailout” prevented the country from turning on itself in
desperation. “Bailouts” are a good thing.
Bibliography
AIG’s Story. (n.d.). American International Group, Inc.
Retrieved from
http://www.aigcorporate.com/aboutaig/index.html
Andrews, E., & Landler, M. (2008, October 9). U.S. Considers
Cash Injections Into
Banks. The New York Times. Retrieved from
http://www.nytimes.com/2008/10/09/business/economy/10fed.ht
ml
Bailed out banks. (2009). Retrieved from

11. http://money.cnn.com/news/specials/storysupplement/bankbailo
ut
Bailout. (n.d.). In Oxford dictionaries online. Retrieved from
http://oxforddictionaries.com/definition/english/bailout
Barth, J., Brumbaugh, D., & Wilcox, J. (2000). The Repeal of
Glass-Steagalls and the
Advent of Broad Banking. OCC Working Papers 2000-5.
Retrieved from
http://www.occ.ustreas.gov/publications/publications-by-
type/economics-working-papers/2008-2000/wp2000-5.pdf
Peer Reviewed
Boyd, J. (1994). The Role of Large Banks in the Recent U.S.
Banking Crisis. Federal
Reserve Bank of Minneapolis Quarterly Review, 18, 1, 2.
Peer Reviewed
Bridge Loan. (n.d.). In Oxford dictionaries online. Retrieved
from
http://oxforddictionaries.com/definition/american_english/bridg
e+loan
Choi, C.J., Berger, R., & Kim, J.B. (2009). Capitalism’s Global
Financial Crisis: The
Role of the State. Science Direct, 47, 833.
Peer Reviewed
Chu, H. (2011). Deposit Insurance and Banking Stability. Cato
Journal, 31, 1. 114.
Peer Reviewed
Fiscal Conservatism. (n.d.). In Wikipedia online. Retrieved
from

12. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fiscal_conservatism
George, B. (2012). Developing Global Leaders is America’s
Competitive Advantage.
Harvard Business Review. Retrieved from
http://blogs.hbr.org/hbsfaculty/2012/03/developing-global-
leaders-is-a.html
Herman, C., & Mayerowitz, S. (2008). AIG Bailout Means
Drastic About-Face for
Feds. ABC News. Retrieved from
http://abcnews.go.com/Business/MarketTalk/story?id=5821661#
.UASeE5GDfd4
Klausner, Manuel. (1975). Inside Ronald Regan. Reason.
Retrieved from
http://reason.com/archives/1975/07/01/inside-ronald-reagan
Kozy, J. (2009). The Economic Crisis: No, this will not be a
Normal Cyclical
Recovery. Global Research. Retrieved from
http://globalresearch.ca/index.php?context=va &aid=13109
Landers, J. (2009). American Recovery and Reinvestment Act
Provides Billions for
Infrastructure. Civil Engineering, 3, 10-12.
Peer Reviewed
Martin, R. (2010). The Good, the Bad, and the Ugly; Economies
of Parable. Cultural
Studies, 24, 3, 419.

13. Peer Reviewed
Mission. (n.d.) Federal Aviation Administration. Retrieved from
http://www.faa.gov/about/mission
Nankin, J. (2008). Bailout Aftermaths. Pro Republica. Retrieved
from
http://www.propublica.org/special/bailout-
aftermaths#penncentral
Paul, R. (n.d.). The Bailout Surge. Retrieved from
http://paul.house.gov/index.php?option=com_content&task=vie
w&id=1689&Itemid=69
Porter, M. E. (2009). The Competitive Advantage of Nations,
States and Regions.
Harvard Business School. Retrieved from
http://www.isc.hbs.edu/pdf/20090415_AMP.pdf
Protect. (n.d.). In Merriam-Webster’s dictionary online.
Retrieved from
http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/protect
Quinn, J. (2008). Bailout Baloney. About.com. Retrieved from
http://usconservatives.about.com/b/2008/12/05/bailout-bull.htm
Smith, R. (2011). Dilemma of Bailouts. The Independent
Review, 16, 22.
Peer Reviewed
� The U.S. Recovery Act was a financial reform program
implemented in 2009, and provided monetary assistance to
lending institutions to restore confidence in America’s economy
(Landers, 2011).

14. � Fiscal Conservatives and Libertarians alike believe in limited
Government, and that Government financial assistance is
counterproductive to a successful capitalist society, such as the
United States (Fiscal Conservatism, n.d.).
� In contrast to the sheer manufacturing power of countries like
China, or the inexpensive labor of less-developed foreign
countries, creativity and ingenuity are cornerstones of
America’s competitive advantage in our global economy
(Porter, 2009).
� The Troubled Asset Relief Program, or TARP, was a U.S.
Government program to purchase assets and equity from
financial institutions to strengthen the financial sector.
� The Federal Aviation Administration regulates commercial
airlines in regards to safety, efficiency, and environmental
responsibility (Mission, n.d.).
� Citigroup, Wells Fargo, JPMorgan Chase, Goldman-Sachs,
and Bank of America were just some of the companies which
received bailout money (Bailed out banks, 2009).
� The Banking Act of 1933, also referred to as the Glass-
Steagall Act, limited commercial bank securities activities and
affiliations between commercial banks and securities firms.
This prevented commercial banks from commingling client
money with security reserves for trading purposes (Barth, J.,
Brumbaugh, D., & Wilcox, J., 2000). This deregulation was
considered one of the major contributing factors of the 2008

15. financial crisis.
� American International Group, Inc. is a leading international
insurance organization serving customers in more than 130
countries (AIG).
� I acknowledge that term “Bailout” was improperly affixed to
the U.S. Automobile manufacturing industry here, since the
financial assistance received was actually a short-term “bridge
loan” (Bridge Loan., n.d.) and not a “free government handout.”
This particular assistance carried with it the responsibility of
repayment, an obligation that the GM Corporation has
successfully met. This usage was included here because the
same negative connotation for the term “bailout” has been
connected to this industry as well in recent popular media.
COMM 100W – Writing for Influence
The Meaning Of…..
Assignment Overview
In previous work, your efforts were focused on the use of
arrangement, and empirically verifiable fact as your stylistic
tools. During those assignments, you had to eliminate all
subjective language. This assignment, in contrast, will ask you
to focus on subjectivity—to exploit and manipulate it, for the
purpose of arguing the meaning of a word that may otherwise be
taken for granted.
As you may have experienced when composing the Fact Paper,

16. our ability to make an argument is limited when we cannot
appeal to values. Contrary to the belief that values diminish the
validity of an argument by rendering it mere opinion, values are
a necessary part of argument. Indeed, they are the very heart of
argument. This is the case in part because evaluative terms are
notoriously difficult to define.
To establish what is meant by any evaluative word, we must
rely on precedent and context. We can refer to authoritative
sources such as dictionaries, but we must also take into account
common usage and intent. In the case of words like hot, cold,
short, or tall, there may be specific temperatures or heights that
we can all agree define that term. There is no such widespread
agreement for other evaluative terms, especially cultural values
and principles.
Cultural values are key terms to which we appeal again and
again when deciding a course of action. They are values that
most people would agree are fundamental to our society, even if
we cannot agree on their definition. Examples of cultural values
are: freedom, happiness, efficiency, maturity, ingenuity,
independence, health, security, life, criminality, responsibility,
and sustainability.
This assignment is designed to give you practice in another
technique of persuasive writing, that of defining a cultural value
or other key term in such a way that seems credible to your
reader. Your ability to credibly define your terms will help you
to contribute to a range of public discourse in influential ways.
Instructions
Identify a specific instance in a document, broadcast, or
conversation in which the meaning an author assigns to a word
is debatable. You are not looking for an instance in which
someone uses a term incorrectly, such as using the word
“antidote” to refer to a short story. Rather, you are looking for

17. an instance in which a person applies a word to an object or
situation and you disagree with the person’s evaluation of that
object or situation; e.g., the killing of his sister for her sexual
indiscretion and indecency was deemed a “mercy” killing. In the
aforedescribed example, the author uses the word “mercy” to
describe a compassionate act done for the other individual’s
sake as a result of the compromise of moral values, and the
implications on the family’s character. You may disagree that
such an act was done out of “mercy,” and therefore take
exception to the use of that word.
When you have your example, then answer for yourself the
following question: Why is it important to dispute the meaning
of that word? Your answer to that question will eventually
become the thesis of your paper.
Begin your essay (in its body, and using all of the stylistic tools
you’ve learned thus far), by: (1) summarizing your example,
explaining what meaning the author suggested or connoted when
using the word; (2) follow this by arguing why this is incorrect;
(3) what the word should really mean (and why); (4) and then
“prove” to me that the word really means what you say it
means.
There are several ways to “prove” that the word means what you
say it means. Those include: dictionary definitions, common
usage, historical usage, trade/technical jargon, socio-economic
history of the word, religious attributions, cultural context, and
many others. In other words, use law, medicine, philosophy,
history, religion, culture, slang, etc. to “prove” your stated
meaning of the word.
Another strategy for establishing the meaning of a term is to
define related terms. For instance, if you are establishing the
meaning of maturity, you may also want to define experienced,
responsible, and established.
After establishing a precedent for your preferred meaning,

18. explain the difference it will make to use that meaning over
another. In this section of the paper, you will want to provide
specific examples of how the word’s meaning can or will
influence decision-making and social action.
Conclude your paper with a proper, three part conclusion.
Your entire paper should make use of the skills learned (to date)
in the course. See Style Tool Checklist.
Formatting guidelines
You paper should be 5-7 buzzwords in in length, plus a separate
cover page, and list of references. You will be graded in
conformity to APA standards, the published rubric, and
adherence to these instructions. Please include no fewer than
seven peer reviewed references; you may have more references
that are NOT peer reviewed, but failure to include at least 7
peer reviewed sources will result in scoring penalties. Even
when you reference a dictionary available online (not peer
reviewed), be sure to provide a complete citation for the text,
including the names of editors and publishers.
Standardized English
David Foster Wallace
NovelistProfessor at Pomona College

19. Wallace’s thesis“Issues of tradition vs. egalitarianism in U.S.
English are at root political issues and can be effectively
addressed only in what this article hereby terms a ‘Democratic
Spirit” (41).
anti-SNOOT-iness
“the issues surrounding ‘correctness’ in contemporary
American [grammar] usage are both vexed and highly charged
and the fundamental questions they involve are ones whose
answers have to be ‘worked out’ instead of simply found” (42).
anti-SNOOT-iness“Rarely do we ask ourselves who decides
what gets in The Dictionary or what words or spellings or
pronunciations get deemed ‘substandard’ or ‘incorrect’” (43).
Two schools of thought on grammarPrescriptivists
Descriptivists
PrescriptivismThe prescriptivists want one set of rules that we
agree are the “correct” rules of grammar.
DescriptivistsThey believe that their cataloging of word usage
is a “value-free” and “neutral” scientific process.
Further, they believe there is a universal law of grammar
“wired” into humans and that this (and not stylistic choices) is

20. what’s important.
Rejoinder to the Philosophical Descriptivists “From the fact that
linguistic communication is not strictly dependent on usage and
grammar, it does not necessarily follow that the traditional rules
of usage and grammar are nothing but ‘inconsequential
decorations’” (49).
Lanham on style:“Poetry and prose do differ, as we’ll see, but
not in a fundamental dichotomous way…’Style’ usually means
the game and play part of the message, but sometimes the
competitive or the playful part of the message really is the
message and so style becomes content” (7)
Why does grammar matter?“When I say or write something,
there are actually a whole lot of different things I am
communicating. The propositional content (the actual
information I’m trying to convey) is only one part of it” (50).
PropositionA declarative sentence that affirms or denies a state
or condition in reality.A declarative sentence that has a subject,
verb, a predicate (a term that designates a property or relation)
and ends with a period.A sentence whose purpose is to explain
the relationship between the subject and predicate.
There are many ways to say the same thing.“I was attacked by a

21. bear.”“Goddamn bear tried to kill me.”“That ursine juggernaut
bethought to sup upon my person” (50).
“Sally - your writing could use some polish.”Sally - your
grammar usage made your paper difficult to read.”Sally – have
you ever heard of a style manual?”
Why does grammar matter?“People really do ‘judge’ one
another according to their use of language” (50).
Why does grammar matter?“’Correct’ English usage is, as a
practical matter, a function of whom you’re talking to and how
you want that person to respond” (50).
Discourse communities“Whether we’re conscious of it or not,
most of us are fluent in more than one major English dialect and
in a large number of subdialects and are probably at least
passable in countless others” (51).
Discourse communities“many of these non-SWE dialects have
their own highly developed and internally consistent grammars”
For example….lolcats

22. Discourse communities
Midwesterners: “I’m such a jackass; I can’t find my car!”
West Coasters: “Whoa dude, like, where is my car?”
Discourse communities“Could I see the salt, please.”
[Translation: “Please pass the salt.”]
Discourse communities“It is Mankind’s responsibility to
steward the Earth.”
[Translation: “It is the responsibility of all humans….”]
Discourse communities“the little A+ SNOOTlet is actually in
the same dialectal position as the class’s ‘slow’ kid who can’t
learn to stop using ain’t or bringed. One is punished in class,
the other on the playground, but both are deficient in the same
linguistic skill – the ability to move between various dialects”
(53).
And why might grammatical flexibility be important?

23. Standard Written English“SWE is the dialect of the American
elite…it was invented, codified, and promulgated by Privileged
WASP Males and is perpetuated as ‘Standard’ by same” (53).
Standard Written English“both students and SWE are better
served if the teacher makes his [or her] premises explicit and
his [or her] argument overt, presenting himself as an advocate
of SWE’s utility rather than as a prophet of its innate
superiority” (53).
Standard Written EnglishIn other words, SWE is a style the
primary function of which is to perpetuate the perceived
superiority of those who use it. It also can be, and is, employed
by marginal cultures to challenge this claim.
Evan Bayh’s Use of the First Person:
(1) To reference points in time in relationship to the speaker’s
life (when I was a kid)
a. What is the difference between saying, “When I was a kid,”
and saying, “Back in the early 1950’s.”
(2) To reference individuals in relation to the speaker (my
father)
(3) Actions/events the speaker is currently engaged in (I am in
class)
(4) The speaker’s thoughts/emotions (I feel unsure)
a. EX: “I’m thinking that it would be nice to see Maine this
summer.”
(5) To reference events that happened to the speaker in the past
(I encountered resistance).
(6) To reference events the speaker intends to undertake (I will
be picking it up)

24. Bayh NEVER uses the first person to convey his:
(1) Opinion
(2) Values
(3) Thoughts
a. EX: “I think we should go.”
(4) Feelings
(5) Impressions
For example, Bayh never says, “I think the Senate would be
better served if we all had lunch together on a quarterly basis.”
Instead, he conveys opinion in a declarative way, which makes
it appear more like a fact, than an opinion: “The filibuster is not
well utilized.”