Waas Sappening?!?!?

Sherman Aspacio
Professor Boland
Eng. 329
12 February 2009

Farr, Marcia. “En Los Dos Idiomas: Literacy Practices Among Chicago Mexicanos.” Literacy: A Critical Sourcebook. Cushman, Ellen. et al. Boston: Bedford/St. Martin’s, 2001. 467-487.

Farr opens her piece with a descriptive setting of her linguistic study and the motivating theory behind it. Her Hymes influenced study sought to “Emphasize the importance of context and holistic analysis, and its aim is to understand meaning from the point of view of the members of a particular cultural group,” in this case, Chicago Mexicans (Farr 467). She worked closely within a group of forty-five tight knit Mexicanos who embrace the theory of compadrazgo, or the Mexican system of godparent type relationships that endure between close friends and family. The potential to learn literacy is very great in such groups that found themselves in compadrazgo. In social groups, Farr points out that “Those who are more knowledgeable about literacy, either in terms of reading and writing skills or background knowledge relevant to written texts [ . . .] are routinely called on by less knowledgeable individuals when the need arises” (Farr 477). Identification of such a social group immediately gives rise to the question: Can literacy be taught outside of formal schooling? What factors must be in place to achieve said learning?
Farr identifies the four components of the motivation felt by the subjects of study to become literate: 1) distance, the people who were to be communicated with were in another country. 2) A personal obligation was felt to uphold social relationships personally. 3) Writing is available for this end. 4) Others were willing to share their knowledge of literacy. Farr argues that this motivation arises simply from the setting the subjects are in. From this, one can grasp the somewhat implied ease with which literacy, in its most basic form, can be learned.
Farr opens her study with a gauge of how literate her study subjects are. While she finds most to have encountered some type of public or formal schooling, she uncovers a new type of literacy learning, Lirico, or lyrically. Farr describes this type of learning that happens entirely outside of formal schooling. A large sense of trust must (and does through compadrazgo) exist between two Mexicanos stepping into literacy. The teacher role must be played with understanding of the learner’s deficiency and the teacher must have patience and want the student to learn (and have an at least basic grasp of English literacy). By learning letters and the sounds they produce in English, the focal group of the study was identified as using phonetic structures of Spanish to create a comprehensible English counterpart to whatever message they felt compelled to communicate when learning lyrically. These messages were sent to the men’s families in Mexico where they were translated and reciprocated.
In the learning process, Farr finds that neither reading nor writing precedes the other in any natural fashion. This is important to understand because it speaks to the very nature of literacy itself. While there are accepted trajectories of literacy learning, the ability to learn one type of literacy before another simply addresses the idea that literacy is not bound to structure. Literacy does not have to be learned in a classroom between certain hours focusing on isolated examples, it can be learned in any of the domains Farr identifies.
Farr describes the literacy of four domains of the study subjects lives to prove their literacy.
In the religious domain, Farr concludes that the literacy practices used as part of religious ceremony are “so integrated into the events as to be almost invisible” (Farr 479).
In the commercial domain, Farr concludes that although “most members have rather limited schooling (in U.S. terms), they are quite functionally literate in the commercial domain of their own lives” (Farr 481).
In the state/law domain, Farr found that focus members of the study “coped quite well with literacy demands” as they studied and strived for citizenship (and succeeded) through the amnesty process (Farr 483).
In the educational domain, “the children had difficulty doing their homework because they did not understand until the conceptual basis for the work was explained to them at home” (Farr 485). Farr describes how student children had the mental ability and motivation to succeed in homework assignments, yet lacked the proper instruction on how to do those assignments. Parents often stepped in to guide and teach their children, Farr concludes: “There is a serious gap between parental expectations and the realities of school” (Farr 485).
Farr finds that throughout her study, “Both the adults and the children in these families participate in literacy activities that further their educations” (farr 486). Literacy is not bound to educational institutions. As Farr identified and concluded, Literacy can emerge from a tight knit social group with common motivations, means and desire to communicate knowledge.