is this really the point they're highlighting?

authors

doesn't make sense

authors

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

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

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

if this is a direct quote it needs citation

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

get

narration, especially

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

well put

suspicion?

again, no "the"

maybe just "White people"

English, which

three

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

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

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

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

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

doesn't make sense

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

? aspect?

someone, which

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

where the copula

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"

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"

no comma here

?

"straight," which

with?

put quotes here: "no"

this direct quotation needs a page number citation

straight."

change, saying,

deeper than what?

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.

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

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

excellent

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

H. Samy Alim and Geneva Smitherman

chapter

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

Is this something the authors are arguing?

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

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

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

doesn't make sense

establish

slang

This sentence is very unclear

no comma needed here

they? the authors?

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

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

doesn't make sense

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

speaks?

again, this is not quite what they say

? do you mean AAVE?

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

?

it was a big deal?

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

avoid passive voice.

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

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)

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

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

not grammatically correct

what situation you are in

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

you are

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

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

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

This is accurate, but can you be more specifc?

should be H. Samy Alim and Geneva Smitherman

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.

is this all Alim and Smitherman are trying to demonstrate?

maybe a little too informal for this sort of writing

technically this is a chapter. probably better to just say

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

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

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

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"

authors speak

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?

this sentence isn't clear/grammatical

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

authors'

this isn't clear.

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"

was

King, Jr.

instead used

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

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

who is "he"? this article has two authors

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

this sentence doesn't make sense as written

Spanish

English

is this an example from the reading?

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

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

styleshift

unclear how the image does this, and again this is also a prescriptive statement

Again, here you're straying into the ethical or prescriptive. Basso's not arguing that silence is beneficial, he's describing how it's used

This is redundant of the first sentence of this paragraph

I like this image, but I don't see how it's portraying this

Here you're suggesting that Basso is saying that other people might also use language in the same way that Apaches do and that it's beneficial. But these are ethical (should or ought) arguments and don't accurately reflect this reading, because Basso isn't prescribing that people should use silence, he's just describing how some people do

a means

This is a minor point, but the main point is more specific

Again, this is a very general statement that I'm not sure is necessary unless that's specifically what the author is saying in the article

speak

What is "it" here?

not sure what you mean by this?

rather than "lack" of speech (which suggests that there might be a limitation in capacity), it's probably more descriptive to say that speech isn't used or seen as appropriate in some contexts

unless you're familiar with Apache culture, it's probably better to write about whether Basso's examples prove his hypothesis, rather than whether they're accurate or not

Not sure what this means

Food structure?

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

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

should be

class position" (181). Each

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

What does "this" refer to?

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

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

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

defer to

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.

is this really why he's studying it? it's unclear here what you mean by "uses"

this should be:

one is" (180). Cooper

"official" might be more accurate here than specific, because it seems like there are actually many rules that are specific, right? just no guidelines as in etiquette books or anything

is that his argument?

You're right that Cooper is disagreeing the first mode, but this sentence doesn't make sense to me as written

put a period at the end here after 84.

avoid "I think": we know you think this, since you're writing it

three

should be:

game."

This is a very general statement and presumably true of anything written in anthropology. If you were to venture a guess as to why the author wrote this specific article, what would that be?

avoid "I believe," just say what you believe. And you can presume, at least for the sake of this exercise, that the author did have a specific reason to write what you're summarizing.

focus on what the article says, rather than your own speculations

I mistakenly put in the assignment description that you should assess the author's contribution to our understanding of language, but that should have said you should assess the author's contribution to our understanding of society through a lens of food.

But in any case, it's unclear from what you say here how showing examples of differences between western and Chinese table manners helps us understand language, and the relationship between those things and the translation of language through the body (which is an interesting suggestion, nevertheless)...

This quotation could probably be paraphrased just as effectively. Is there a need to quote this particular passage directly?

omit

This reading summary should not be about what you think, and should be limited to what the author says in the article.

Omit. A summary should focus on what the author says, rather than what you specifically found interesting

These are all topics Cooper writes about, but are they the main argument? Your summary should begin with your overview of the main argument(s) or concept(s) in the article.

this should be:

three" (180).

A summary isn't meant to lead your reader chronologically through your process of reading Cooper's article. You should omit this and just say something like "The article describes differences in table manners..."

This is all contained in the citation at the end of the summary so no need to write it out in narrative form.

written

was

article

Needs a period at the end of this sentence, so:

Eat."

italicize the How

Not necessary to write these things explicitly; your reader knows you chose this reading, since you're writing about it

this should be:

position” (181).

This isn't an accurate representation of what Cooper is saying. I don't think he says anything about how natives feel about not using chopsticks in relation to Hu's statement.

But the point about ethnocentrism is actually meant to disprove something you say above. The ethnocentric perspective would be that "it is known" that you shouldn't share food because of germs. But Cooper is saying that the use of chopsticks takes this into account, because chopsticks "mediate between" the mouth and the table, and prevent their users from making contact with the food in a shared dish.

This should be:

change" (180).

This piece of writing is a summary. It's not a matter of what you believe this signifies, you're writing about what Cooper believes it signifies.

This is good. This accurately represents what Cooper is saying.

get by in the present?

its

The title should be in quotation marks and not italicized, because it's a journal article, rather than a book

yes! excellent point that he dismisses one of the three modes that he outlines

This is a very general statement that could be said about almost any piece of anthropological writing. This article isn't super specific about what the broader point is, although incorporating here your discussion above about food being part of a "symbolic order" would fit well here.

Avoid "I think" because your reader already knows you think this, since you wrote it

this makes it sound (to me) like the job he did wasn't that great...which is fine, but is that what you're saying? just curious.

Also if you mean that he didn't do a great job, it would be helpful for your reader here to suggest or highlight what you think could have been better or what was left out. This is the "critical" part of a critical summary, so it's okay to give your opinion in this case.

very interesting point. does this reflect or is it symbolically similar to other ideas about social status/hierarchy?

Although what you mean by "sub-rules" isn't clear here, this is an interesting point. It would be very helpful if you tie this and your discussion of communal eating back to how food practices "reverberate sympathetically with other orders" of the culture as you say at the top of this paragraph?

em dash

say something like "because rice is so important" or "rice is that important" here, rather than "just that"

em dash again

excellent use of direct quotation here

use an em dash again here

Does it seem like the establishing of qualifications is so important that it needs this much detail?

I could be wrong, but it seems like a minor point to his article...

I see now why you say above that Chinese culture doesn't have as big a concern with table manners. But I don't think that's what Cooper is saying when he mentions his enthusiast friend. He's saying that table manners are the sort of thing that are taken for granted (and so assumed not to really be a concern) by natives.

use an "em dash" (—) here, with no space. So:

...qualification of individuals—he calls upon...

Does he make a claim that Chinese etiquette is deeper or less superficial than "western" etiquette? I didn't see this in the article.

he did? I can't find where it says this

Oh, I think I see what you're referring to. Cooper says "Those few who have written on the subject (Chang 1977; Hsii and Hsii 1977) generally qualify as bi-cultural individuals with sufficient experience of both Chinese and Western rules" (180). But here you make it sound like his ethnographic research was done with bicultural people as informants, which I'm not sure is the case...?

Does he really say this?

Avoid "I think". Your reader assumes you think this, since you're writing it.

this is a direct quote from the article but that's not clear because it's not in quotation marks. this is plagiarism. be sure to fix.I think you can probably paraphrase this, not sure that a direct quote is necessary

This is a a direct quotation from the article, but the article is citing another so that makes it complicated. Do you really need to use this direct quote or can you paraphrase?

period should be a comma, "such as..." is not a complete sentence

this period should be a comma, because what comes after "which" isn't a complete sentence

them?

unnecessary to say this because everything in your summary should be mentioned in the reading

good

eight

woman

I think "contrasts" might be a better word here than "contradictions"

How should be italicized