539 Matching Annotations
  1. Last 7 days
    1. lost the control over which foods they should consume

      either

      lost control over...

      or

      lost the control they once had over...

    2. United States, and England

      either

      United States and England

      or

      United States, as well as England

    3. made sugar a first luxury

      a first luxury?

    4. He analyses the frameworks that made sugar a first luxury which was consequently turned into a necessity.

      Good summary, but sentence is missing something

    5. ,

      no comma here

    6. Sugar grew rapidly in popularity, quadrupling its production in the last four decades of the seventeenth century

      Why? The why of this is what this text is all about.

    7. Mintz’s belief sounds accurate

      careful with wording here. This isn't so much Mintz's belief, it's his argument. And to say it "sounds" accurate makes it sound like you're not certain if it is. You don't have to actually be certain, but your summary should make it sound like you are.

    8. Sugar is just a substance that helps give our food taste and we find ourselves making it a part of our meals everyday for that extra comfort that we have become familiar with when consuming it. That coffee we tell ourselves that we need to have in order to function for the day? It’s this natural desire that makes us crave sugar and inserts into our daily routine without meaning to.

      This is exactly what Mintz is not saying. His argument is that sugar did not become part of daily routine because we need it, because it's natural to crave it, etc., etc.

      Sugar consumption increased because it fit well in the global expansion of capitalism.

    9. I do believe it is a natural desire as he argues because we don’t need sugar to live.

      Avoid "I believe" statements. But also this statement doesn't make sense...we do need sugar to live (though not necessarily in its highly processed form).

      But in any case, your summary doesn't need to evaluate his argument in terms of your beliefs, it should evaluate it in terms of whether the evidence he gives logically proves his argument. (And note that his argument is not about the "natural" preference for sugar.)

    10. Sugar slowly changed its place as people of the 17th century expanded its uses into medicine and preservation.  Before this introduction in the 17th century, people used honey and fruit to satisfy the desire for sweetness and now it’s sugar that took its place

      These sentences are true, but they're really not important for the main point of this article, which is that sugar consumption increases as a result of changes wrought by the expansion of global capitalism.

      See for example page 99 where he talks about jam:

      "Jam, when produced on a factory basis and consumed with bread, provides an efficient, calorie-high and relatively cheap means of feeding people quickly, wherever they are. It fits well with changes in the rhythm of effort, the organisation of the family, and, perhaps, with new ideas about the relationship between ingestion and time" (99, my emphasis).

    11. and even English monarchs favored the rare spice and developed methods in which to afford more of it, including what we now know as jam.

      Is this right? The monarchs could have afforded anything so they probably didn't develop ways to afford more of it

      Jam is one of the ways Mintz says sugar become more frequently consumed by commoners, rather than the privileged.

      Overall I think what you're getting at is probably correct, but this needs to be reworded to make that clear

    12. It became a staple in European cities and rapidly gained in popularity and consumption

      yes. Why and how this happened are crucial to Mintz's argument though, and we don't get a sense of that here

    13. The usage of sugar trickled down from the royals, to the upper class, and down to the everyday man.

      very important part of his evidence here. nice. you might expand on why this is important to his overall argument and perhaps cut out some of the other detail you give in this paragraph

    14. Sugar in its modern form has been around since the 8th century A.D. when it was only regarded as a rare spice and then the age of discovery in Europe flooded new substances, sugar being one of them, into the New World where the people will be first introduced to them

      this is kindof a run-on sentence as written

    15. contributes

      not the right word. maybe "supports"?

    16. Commonplace meals in England were replaced with the new substance that was cheap and increasingly easy to access. The industrial revolution fueled a model for growth in the product and sugar became one of the first luxury items to be utilized into a marketing tool for some of the first ad campaigns.

      great. excellent summary of the argument he makes here

    17. and it’s true.

      Since this is a new sentence, And should be capitalized, but I'm not sure this is appropriate for a summary. You might say "this is true" if you had expertise on the changing food production conditions in 18th century England, but otherwise in a summary we want to avoid making explicit claims about how true the authors's evidence is (unless we ourselves are experts).

    18. elsewhere.”

      This needs a page number citation.

      It should look like this:

      elsewhere" (100).

    19. He writes, “as people produced less and less of their own food, they ate more and more food produced by others, elsewhere

      Right! This is specifically saying that it's not an evolutionary thing, it's about changing working conditions, family dynamics, etc., etc.

    20. argues that there must be an evolutionary explanation for the preference towards sugar, and wonders if it is a natural desire.

      He does mention this argument, but it's not his main point. I wouldn't say he necessarily disagrees with it, but he's definitely saying this isn't what explains the massive increase during the 18th century in sugar consumption

    21. ead to various topics relevant today such as racial injustice and discrimination

      okay! this is a very good point. but I don't get any sense from the rest of your summary what Mintz has said that might point us to these topics of relevance today....??

    22. points made about the production and rise of sugar

      what points? you haven't really told your reader what these are

    23. Overall it should be noted that sugar has such a rich history. Thus, it is crucial for us to take a look at this history and realize its flaws, in order to create a richer and more meaningful society in modern day.

      This is vague. Consider omitting this and adding something about what Mintz says specifically about the history of sugar and what, if any, suggestions he gives about what that can show about history in general.

    24. the author is implying that we should really take moment and realize the roots behind sugar, as just like many other things it has a flawed history

      okay, but the reason we should think about sugar isn't simply because its history is "flawed." No history is somehow more or less flawed, it's just history. The question Mintz is asking is, what can the history of sugar teach us??

    25. deducted

      deduced

    26. good job at giving meaning behind their arguments

      but what are those arguments? The way it's written here it sounds like you're saying the only argument is that sugar consumption increased and/or that sugar's history should be viewed as a complex social phenomenon involving many people and both production and consumption. The latter is more accurate, but you don't let your reader know how or why Mintz arrives as this assertion

    27. said the

      said, the

    28. the main argument that so many groups have had an impact on the history of sugar is clearly supported throughout the text.

      as I say above, this is getting closer to his main argument, but this is very vague. try to locate some of the more specific reasons why Mintz says this is important, and what impact those groups had on the history of sugar

    29. It is clear that sugar is such a major component to everyone’s lives today and centuries before our time

      this is a minor point in Mintz's argument

    30. their

      his

    31. ;

      ,

    32. This argument is left at this point, and then touched upon it again almost 10 pages later

      hmmm...okay, but you don't give the reader any sense of what happens in those 10 pages, which presumably contain something of importance?

    33. previously nothing of significant importance was exported to England, however sugar broke that barrier and created an economic boom.

      was this stated somewhere in the article?? I could be wrong, but I don't see why Mintz would say this... what about tea or textiles from Britain's colonies? They were huge imports for England.

    34. It was stated that

      Avoid this kind of use of passive voice. Rather than "it was stated" (by whom??) say "Mintz states" or better Mintz writes, Mintz describes, Mintz says, etc....

    35. “New World”

      Mintz doesn't put "New World" in quotes. I think I get why you're doing it, but if so, just do it once, then the rest of the time you can just say New World without quotes.

    36. sugars

      sugar's

    37. should be viewed as a combination of all types of people

      I think I get what you're saying here, but this phrase needs to be reworded

    38. sugars

      sugar's

    39. the world particularly England was

      should be:

      the world, particularly England, was

    40. hinting

      i'm not sure he's "hinting" at this...he's saying it. but this is actually not part of his overall argument, it's more like part of his evidence. the argument is more about why people become obsessed with sugar/sweetness, or why its use grows so dramatically--and how that phenomenon is part of the global history of capitalism

    41. its

      it's unclear what "it" this "its" refers to... sugar? production? consumption?

    42. outpaces

      outpaced

      usually past tense is better when writing a summary and describing the author's evidence/assertions

    43. increase consumption

      either

      increased consumption

      or, better yet

      increase in consumption

    44. say the

      say that the

    45. civilization

      use either "society" or "culture" here. civilization has connotations that you don't want to evoke in this context

    46. Work Cited:

      not necessary in this case

    47. Mintz, Sidney W. “Time, Sugar, and Sweetness.” Story. In Food and Culture a Reader, 91–103. New York, NY: Routledge , 2013.

      Lots of mistakes in this citation. Just copy directly from the class syllabus

    48. Story

      ?? why is this here?

    49. article

      technically this is a chapter, not an article. but to keep it simple and not have to fix all this, just say something like "In "Time, Sugar, and Sweetness," Sidney Mintz dives...

    50. food and culture by Sidney Mintz

      Food and Culture should be capitalized. Also the way you put this it makes it sound like the whole book is by Mintz, but it's technically an edited volume. I might just leave out the reference to F&C because your reader can figure that out from the citation at the end.

    51. Therefore, to master some table etiquette in social life is particularly important.

      Therefore suggests that what you've just said is proof that mastering table manners is important... but how you've just shown that isn't clear. Also unless this is an argument Cooper is making, it's not appropriate for a summary.

    52. in today’s fusion of China and the West, many Chinese etiquette is often ignored, resulting in many embarrassing scenes.

      Is this something Cooper is saying?

    53. Correct table manners not only show elegance but also make a good impression and affirmation.

      According to whom? Is this an argument Cooper makes?

      The word "elegance" has a lot of connotations that I'm not sure are part of what Cooper is saying...

    54. people’s self-cultivation etiquette

      not sure what this means

    55. It is also a means of socializing

      What is "it" here? Table manners?

    56. meant to be

      I would use a different phrase here. Rather than "meant to be" perhaps say "organized around the principles of" or something similar

    57. because the host will order the best dishes to entertain the guests to show their enthusiasm and care for the guests

      this isn't clear; you say "because" but I don't understand how this is related to the guest eating too much rice

    58. ts’ai

      put this (and any other Chinese words) in italics

      also tell your reader what ts'ai is

    59. Don’t put anything chewed back on the plate; Wait until everyone is served; One has to pick up a bowl of rice with both hands, and so on.

      the word after each semicolon shouldn't be capitalized

    60. Cooper describes how expectations of proper behavior at the dinner table vary by region, age, and class, in both formal and informal settings. Even so, one must abide by the principle of obedience and consideration for others.

      excellent summary

    61. that it is hard to find a guide that can give a general description of contemporary table manners.

      this needs some additional detail as to why this is important to his argument

    62. A country’s dining table, like its buses, taxis and streets, is a microcosm of its civilization.

      interesting idea, but in what way are these microcosms? and it might be more appropriate to say "culture" rather than "civilization"

    63. etiquette has a profound influence on the development of Chinese society and history.

      is this an argument Cooper is making?

    64. For a society, etiquette is a reflection of a country’s social civilization procedures, moral customs and living habits. For individuals, it is a person’s ideological and moral level, cultural accomplishment, communication ability of the external performance.

      is this an argument Cooper is making? I don't see where he does that

    65. communication ability of the external performance

      this is unclear

    66. Propriety”.

      should be

      propriety."

    67. known as the “state of etiquette and Propriety

      known by whom? where did this quote come from?

  2. Nov 2020
    1. it

      unclear again what "it" is

    2. excerpt

      chapter

    3. enabling us to dig deeper into the intricacy of Black English rather than just dismissing it as lazy or incorrect.

      this is true, but I think Alim and Smitherman are going beyond just showing that it's not incorrect (which others before have shown). They're making an argument about social and political structures

    4. It

      what is the "it" here?

    5. highlighting a very significant point: language is beyond just the means of communication, it is the identity of an individual

      is this really the point they're highlighting?

    6. authors’

      authors

    7. Obama’s speech as evidence and used it to reference different parts of the speech

      doesn't make sense

    8. authors’

      authors

    9. through his example, the gap between the dialogue of language in the context of race is being bridged

      unclear. do you mean through the examples of Obama the authors analyze?

    10. very influential in his election

      yes. notice that this is different than saying it "led to" his election?

    11. The authors, however, broke down his simple phrase of “Nah, we straight” explained the significance of saying what he said, the way he said it

      unclear sentence also the "however" makes it sound like this is contradicting something you've just said

    12. Whiten, Blacken, Americanize and Christianize”

      if this is a direct quote it needs citation

    13. He used storytelling and narration especially the ones that his audience can relate to and are familiar with, to connect with people and to hit his point across while also using techniques like repetition and parallel structure that is rhythmic and poetic to captivate the audience, as seen in the video.

      this sentence is very long and could use some re-wording

    14. hit

      get

    15. narration especially

      narration, especially

    16. comma here

    17. about G.I bill

      I think this should be "talked about the G.I. Bill"

    18. He was no too White that the Blacks could not trust him and he was not too Black that the Whites could not deem him incapable

      well put

    19. paranoia

      suspicion?

    20. the Black people

      again, no "the"

    21. the White people

      maybe just "White people"

    22. English which

      English, which

    23. 3

      three

    24. style”.

      if this is a direct quotation it needs a page number citation

    25. led to his election

      okay, I see why you're saying this, but this makes it sound like a cause of his election and I don't know if that's exactly what they're saying. They're saying it was a necessary condition, which is not the same thing as a cause.

      Here's what they say: "Barack Obama’s mastery of White mainstream English ways of speaking...combined with his mastery of Black Culture’s modes of discourse...was...necessary...for him to be elected America’s first Black president" (20, emphasis added)

      Is this the same thing as saying his language led to his election? Perhaps I'm splitting hairs but this seems like a different claim

    26. includes

      you shift between present tense and past tense ("was singing") in this sentence, which is confusing

    27. is often characterized

      by whom? the authors? or the authors' informants? also, using "was" here instead of "is" would make it more clear this is what Alim and Smitherman have said, not what you're saying

    28. the Black people

      doesn't sound right. perhaps just "Black people" or better yet, since Alim and Smitherman use the phrase, "Black folks"

    29. the language he is addressing to

      doesn't make sense

    30. Black language

      again capitalize Black Language (to indicate to the reader this is a specific term for Alim and Smitherman)

    31. flavor

      ? aspect?

    32. someone which

      someone, which

    33. signifying

      maybe put this in quotes since it's a technical term in this text

    34. follows a set of rules on when the copula is left out

      maybe say instead "is rule-governed and systematic, as with any language" ?

    35. where copula

      where the copula

    36. English is spoken by Black people

      this makes it sound like all black people speak English this way in all contexts. perhaps it's an "aspect of AAVE"

      Alim and Smitherman do say "speakers of Black Language" do xyz but this isn't quite the same as saying "the way English is spoken by Black people"

    37. , words like is and are

      not sure you need to define copula here, but your definition isn't clear. copulas aren't words "like" is and are, they're different forms of the verb "to be"

    38. ,

      no comma here

    39. the old generational slang

      ?

    40. ‘straight’ which

      "straight," which

    41. to

      with?

    42. it’s

      its

    43. no

      put quotes here: "no"

    44. pronunciations.”

      this direct quotation needs a page number citation

    45. straight”.

      straight."

    46. change by saying

      change, saying,

    47. deeper

      deeper than what?

    48. This primarily

      This is primarily

    49. ‘hyperaware’

      use double quotes here (and throughout).

      since this is the word Alim and Smitherman use, this should probably have a page number citation

    50. this style-shifting

      it's not clear here what "this" is referring to. Is it what you say in the previous sentence about his skills as an orator? This could use some clarification.

      Also, since styleshifting is a key term and one Alim and Smitherman are distinguishing from a more commonly used concept (codeswitching), putting styleshifting in quotes would help indicate this to the reader.

    51. The authors claim that language is usually not talked about in the context of race. There is a well-defined dialogue about race, but when it comes to language and the role it plays in the broader context of the race most Americans are largely unaware

      excellent. you immediately get to the core of their claim here

    52. it’s

      this should be its but it's not clear here what "it" refers to, so you might reword this

    53. The authors discuss how Obama utilized a mixture of Black language and Standard English to his advantage in making himself appear more familiar and more American, which contributed greatly towards his election. 

      excellent

    54. Black language

      when using this term the authors capitalize both words: Black Language

    55. Alim H. Samy, & Smitherman Geneva

      H. Samy Alim and Geneva Smitherman

    56. excerpt

      chapter

    57. That is why Obama had to change his language as he needed a better image and presentation of himself.

      perhaps, but why is it that Obama had to change?

    58. As a result, we must take notice of how we use language, as it defines us and shows who we are.

      Is this something the authors are arguing?

    59. As many people and cultures in America recognize the slangs and the different languages we speak, is not formal

      Sentence isn't grammatical. And is this an argument they are making?

    60. to inform people and this generation to realize our use of language

      again, this is very, very general and vague. They give more specific reasons for writing than this

    61. I realize the reason why the authors were writing

      avoid I in summaries like this. Just say "the reason the authors" or "one goal of the authors may have been"

    62. more surprising as he was able to practice and establishes himself as an American

      doesn't make sense

    63. establishes

      establish

    64. slangs

      slang

    65. The authors explain they had to sound educated in order to win his elections as he would fail if, he didn’t fix his way of speaking or use of language

      This sentence is very unclear

    66. if, he

      no comma needed here

    67. they had to sound educated

      they? the authors?

    68. that based on the way we use language, it identifies us and shows people who we are as a person to talk to and how formal we are

      I'm not sure this is actually what they're claiming. This may be implied in what they're saying or be part of their argument, but it's not the major thing they're getting at

    69. It is claimed by the authors

      this passive voice is okay because you say who is doing the claiming, but it's better to say "the authors claim"

    70. but also a white person

      doesn't make sense

    71. but

      this sentence "as many people...but Obama" isn't correct. Choose either as or but

    72. has

      speaks?

    73. The authors explain Obama may have changed his way of speaking English, so it can help him be elected as president

      again, this is not quite what they say

    74. the black language system

      ? do you mean AAVE?

    75. ungrammatical

      it's not ungrammatical, it's a different pronunciation

    76. was a bad look

      ?

    77. it a big

      it was a big deal?

    78. say “Nah” then saying no

      should this be say "Nah" instead of saying no?

    79. it was stated

      avoid passive voice.

    80. that Obama was elected because he had a good and formal way of speaking English in America

      are they really making a claim that language is the cause of his election? be careful to be precise. I would say they're analyzing why language was more important in Obama's campaign than in other presidential campaigns, but that's not the same as saying he was elected because of his way of speaking

    81. in the article it was claimed

      avoid the passive voice "it was claimed." Say "Alim and Smitherman claim" And no need to specify they claim it in the article, since all you're talking about is this article (which is technically a chapter, not an article)

    82. race, in the

      this comma separates two complete sentences. should be either a period or a semicolon

    83. In other words, race or culture impacts your way of speaking to other people, as it would change when you are in a different setting or speaking to someone

      Again, this is a very general statement. The authors are making much more specific arguments about how language changes in context and how the phenomenon of styleshifting is related to social hierarchy

    84. different and more manner way

      not grammatically correct

    85. what situation, you are in

      what situation you are in

    86. based on your race or culture you part of, it impacts the way you speak your language

      yes, this idea could be said to be a part of what Alim and Smitherman are saying, but this is a very general statement; they're making other much more specific arguments

    87. you

      you are

    88. One of the arguments I see is that

      Avoid this in a summary. Just say "one of their main arguments is..."

    89. to see and understand their own set of language

      do the authors say they're trying to see and understand their own language?

    90. As

      this "as" makes this into a clause instead of its own sentence, so this isn't a grammatical sentence as written

    91. the reading explains the meaning and use of language in America

      This is accurate, but can you be more specifc?

    92. Alim, H. Samy, & Smitherman, Geneva

      should be H. Samy Alim and Geneva Smitherman

    93. the use of language in American society, specifically in the context of race

      Good broad overview. Is there a way to be a bit more specific here?

      Also, consider a second read of this chapter to ask whether their main argument is that race plays a role in language, or whether language plays a role in race. This might be an important distinction that will help you bring this summary together more coherently.

    94. demonstrate language playing a role and stereotypes based on race

      is this all Alim and Smitherman are trying to demonstrate?

    95. boy

      maybe a little too informal for this sort of writing

    96. article

      technically this is a chapter. probably better to just say

      In "'Nah, We Straight...," Samy Alim and Geneva Smitherman discuss

    97. Language shouldn’t be judged just because you’re a certain race but instead everyone sticking  together and being able to express your tone in an appropriate way.

      not grammatical. and is this an argument the authors make?

    98. Language is important in which everyone should feel free to express themselves and not feel judged by the way they speak

      not grammatical. Also is this an argument the authors make?

    99. something I personally appreciate because it’s

      in a summary like this, you don't need to say you personally appreciate it (the fact that you're highlighting this from the reading suggests you appreciate it).

      Just say something like "the authors convincingly argue that race and language is important"

    100. author speaks

      authors speak

    101. Something surprising about the argument is that this has been an issue for a long period of time about how slang is considered unprofessional and informal because it is not the language that we hear in books or that is taught to us in school.

      you're getting at an interesting point here, especially given that this article is a professional/academic book taught in school and yet the authors styleshift into AAVE throughout.

      But the way you put it here, it sounds like you're saying that what's surprising is that slang hasn't been in books etc. Is that really surprising? And is that an argument the authors are making?

    102. We are so judged if not speaking probably especially if latino or African American race

      this sentence isn't clear/grammatical

    103. helps us understand how language works because language is something used in daily life and as of right now in today’s society, if you have a degree the way you present yourself language wise is very important

      this is a very broad statement that could be said about almost any of the readings. Can you be more specific?

    104. author

      authors'

    105. President, talk about language and how it connects to race

      this isn't clear.

    106. He must sound like the previous White presidents to put the White people at ease, yet still sound Black enough so that Blacks would feel included in the political dialogue.

      Yes, this is a good way to state one of their main points.

      Be careful to use the past tense throughout. So, he "had to" rather than "must"

    107. is

      was

    108. King Jr.

      King, Jr.

    109. will instead use

      instead used

    110. An example based on the article

      in a summary, all your examples should be based on the article, so there's no need to specify this

    111. relationship between race, language and racism plays such a key role in reflecting and defining the way human societies are structured that it deserves study as a separate field, which he calls raciolinguistics

      is this something that's said in "Nah, We Straight"? I'm not aware of them using the term "raciolinguistics"

    112. he

      who is "he"? this article has two authors

    113. made, The

      does "The" begin a new sentence? if so, change comma to period

    114. is something latinos can’t do just speak broken english just because spanish is  the principal language

      this sentence doesn't make sense as written

    115. spanish

      Spanish

    116. english

      English

    117. An example being Latinos speaking

      is this an example from the reading?

    118. on

      about or of or based on

    119. What I mean by this

      Instead of this, say "in other words" or even "what the authors mean by this"

    120. I noticed

      Avoid things like this in a summary. You can just say "one main argument is"

    121. styleshifts

      styleshift

    1. further supplements all aspects of food culture including table manners.

      Not sure what this means

    2. Food structure is highly determined by culture

      Food structure?

    3. By comparing the Chinese social structure as seen through table manner guidelines, it explains the title “you are what you eat.”

      This isn't the title! But in any case, you haven't made it clear how his comparison would explain this

    4. his main question of how table manners could be used in a positive way through a population’s adaptation

      This isn't his question, the adaptation idea isn't something he agrees with

    5. class position (page 181)” Each

      should be

      class position" (181). Each

    6. The author uses this comparison to argue that “expectations as to appropriate comportment at the table will also vary with region of origin, age, and class position

      it's not clear how the evidence you've just said Cooper uses supports this argument

    7. This

      What does "this" refer to?

    8. The host initiates the meal by picking up his chopsticks after each person has served a serving of rice, which is served by the host and accepted by the guest with two hands. The host then inquires if the guests are full which then allows them to leave the table unless they are the guest of honor. This is compared to the Cantonese, who feel uncomfortable leaving the table without completing their soup which is a part of each meal. The Cantonese in comparison to the Chinese have different aspects to their food such as always having soup in the meals while the Chinese always have rice in their meals

      It's unclear how this is analogous to the example you give above of children. I'd also recommend re-reading this passage to double-check the author is saying exactly what you say he is

    9. Cantonese

      Cantonese are Chinese. I don't think he's comparing Cantonese specifically to other Chinese groups, is he?

    10. This is due to the social structure of respecting elders and adults

      Good. This is a clear explanation of how Cooper's evidence supports his overall argument.

    11. defer from

      defer to

    12. ultimately defines who they are as a person

      be careful here. saying how a person eats "ultimately defines who a person is" is actually quite different from what you quote Cooper as saying, which is that how a person eats "gives off signals...as to what kind of a person one is".

      The difference being that signals are things that are interpreted by others. An interpretation is different than a definition.