Tannen and Graff

The first thing that struck me while I was reading Tannen's essay was how often we use war- and fight-oriented language more than we realize. As we talked about in class, it's even used when trying to encourage someone to join in a conversation--"take a shot at it". I thought it was odd that we used phrases such as this, so often, without even realizing it. However, while I agreed with Tannen that we do live in a very aggressive world, I didn't agree with her point that we need to stop using this type of language all together. I do not see how it makes the world a worse place to live. Though, it wasn't really until reading Graff's essay that I fully recognized this. From his essay, I got that he didn't particularly see the problem with using this type of harsh language. In particular, I agreed with Graff when he pointed out that a lot of students in classrooms are not debating, or fighting, and neither are the faculty and teachers, since Tannen had said something along the opposite lines. From my personal experiences in classrooms, I found that students mostly just sit there, and pretend to listen to the teacher or instructor, and letting others get involved. While this is not always the case, it is definitely true for the majority of people, especially in high school, when all the students want is to get out. This was true, even in my AP and honors classes. Hardly anyone wanted to contribute. Very rarely would a student disagree with a peer who had just spoken his or her mind. So while Tannen says that argument is detrimental to learning, and essentially society in general, I would have to agree with Graff when he says that argument is not very prevalent in the classroom.

I suppose that I agreed with bits and pieces of each essay. I think Tannen has some very good points, when she says things such as our very language shapes the nature of a conversation. But I also think that Graff has some good points, when he says things such as how the statement "everything's an argument" should not be as controversial as it is. Each author has good and relevant points, along with their superfluous ones.