Language Myths Summary Writing Reflection 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. Language Myths Summary Writing Reflection
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 &#61664; 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 &#61664; 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.
