response

Response to abstract...
the idea of having to manipulate your language to reach a varying audience is something that becomes apparent when you enter school....especially college. The idea of altering your writing to emulate your superiors, use a different lexicon database within your work to reach a specific audience and that being tied to a loss of voice does not seem to connect. For me, even if you are altering your voice and style to manipulate your audience you never truly lose your voice or insight on a particular matter. Becuase you will always bring your understanding of the differernt interworkings and facets of a topic, you can never truly lose your voice.... this piece did not seem to ring true through and through. I agree on some elements, but not all

Preh Cee # 3

A.J. Pallante
Prof. Boland
English 329
5 March 4, 2009

Precis #3

Haas, Christina. “Learning to Read Biology: One Student’s Rhetorical Development in
College.” Literacy: A Critical Sourcebook. Cushman, Ellen et al, eds. Boston: Bedford/St. Martin’s. 2001.

Of the many ways to study\draw conclusions about the acquisition of literacy, the most successful consists of observation and interpretation. Christina Haas, in “Learning to Read Biology: One Student’s Rhetorical Development in College,” presents her conclusions and insights gained from monitoring “Eliza,” through four consecutive collegiate years. Before introducing the reader to Eliza, Haas begins “at the college level, to become literate is in many ways to learn patterns of knowing about, and behaving toward, texts within a disciplinary field (Haas 358). This is important to recognize, as it serves as a reminder that pursuit of literacy is never finished, it is constant and unending. Though it may seem that once a student enters college he or she does not need to strive to maintain literacy, as if he or she has arrived at an ultimate understanding. However, this could not be further from the truth. In an institution where education is held to a higher standard, the requirements for literacy are also held to the same standards, requiring more practice. To measure this endeavor, Hass “focused primarily on her [Eliza’s] reading processes and practices (Haas 360).
As Haas followed Eliza through freshman, sophomore, junior and senior year, Haas made some interesting observations concerning how Eliza processed and understood text. Haas found that during Eliza’s freshmen year “her [Eliza’s] processes consisted of mostly linear reading […] if she had trouble comprehending, her strategy was usually to reread, and she made extensive use of a highlighter, sometimes marking whole paragraphs […]” (Haas 363). Throughout the observation Haas was permitted to observe Eliza’s growth as a student, concluding with senior year where “Eliza […] now spent a great deal of time and effort going over figures and tables in texts as she read […] she also exhibited a greater awareness of the intertextual nature of discourse” (Haas 368). Though the study was conducted over a series of years, one can see Eliza’s growth when her freshmen and senior year are held in comparison. From this Haas concludes that “indeed, it is interesting to contemplate how different our views of students might be, and how our teaching might differ as well, if we were able to learn about our students over a period of years rather than weeks” (Haas 375).
Though teaching is an important endeavor, equally important is the capability to remain realistic. When examined in terms of time, the given hours we have with students pale in comparison to the hours students spend on their own, developing their own theories. This said, it is important to understand that, though we as teachers can teach our students some concepts, it is impossible to teach them all the concepts expected of them to learn. By recognizing this, in accordance with the short amount of time allotted in the classroom, it becomes necessary to then focus on growth and accomplishment, rather than amount, quality over quantity.

Prey Sea # 2

A.J. Pallante
Prof. Boland
English 329
18 February 2009
Precis #2
Many times, as teachers, we forget how difficult the processes of learning can be. We may understand certain concepts, which seem simple, failing to recognize that we have been polishing our skills in that subject for years. This is the context in which many students find themselves in, having to learn from an instructor who does not teach, rather expects learning to occur. In David Bartholomae’s “Inventing the University,” such issues are addressed. He begins by making an interesting speculation regarding the manner in which “students have to appropriate (or be appropriated by) a specialized discourse, and they have to do this as though they were easily and comfortably one with their audience …” (Bartholomae 511). This endeavor to reconcile what they know with what they are expected to learn is how students often “invent the university.”
As developing thinkers\writers, Bartholomae points out that, it is difficult for students to “code switch” between the language that they are familiar with and language used in an academic setting. It is the inability to make this switch that causes students to fall short in their composition. Many teachers regard this failure to “code switch” as negative progress. However, though their wording may be imperfect, it is important to realize that they are not wrong. Error and a lack of vocabulary are two different principles. Students may understand concepts, but finding the words to express their comprehension may be a futile endeavor. Bartholomae believes that “sentences fall apart not because the writer lacks necessary syntax to glue pieces together but because he lacks the full statement within which these key words are already operating” (523). This is important to keep in mind when dealing with students who are new\developing writers.
As a student, too much responsibility is placed upon test scores and standards, while the emphasis on comprehension and literacy is null. Memorization is not the same as actual comprehension. This is a universal concept that can be applied to both reading and composition. Especially in the secondary school settings, when identities and interests are still being formed, students can face great difficulty attempting to write something that sounds academic. This is where many multi-syllabic mishaps\misuses occur. It is important for teachers to understand that students are fairly new to the concepts of what learning is, and what it is not. By remaining sensitive to the student, within reason, it is seemingly possible that the transition between “everyday” speech, and what is spoken in a specified institution, can be one free of unneeded strife.

Brilliant response to preee-seee

I thought it was interesting to read about the different discourses and to see how they are defined. So clearly it seems they can be divided, but when taking fieldnotes and looking into my military people's communication and lifestyles I have noticed that they have, in some ways, replaced their primary discourse with their second. Military language, priorities and etc. have become ingrained into them. “Gee maintains that there are the primary discourses, those learned in the home, and secondary discourses, which are attached to institutions or groups one might later encounter. He also argues that all discourses are not equal in status, that some are socially dominant-carrying with them social power and access to economic success-and some nondominant” (Delpit 546). I think that by taking into consideration that some discourses hold more power than others, it makes sense that some people would want to completely embrace the military discourse. Military most definitely holds power, prestige and inherent respect. One of my people that I am studying has completely embraced the military discourse and lifestyle- to the point where she has replaced her family with the military. Her family is not her number one priority, the military is. This is fascinating to me...that the alteration in language-she learned from the Marine institution- has completely altered her priorities and ideologies. This situation probably affects many others as well....this is saddening, but interesting...

A.J.'s PRAY SEE

.J. Pallante
Prof. Boland
English 329
26 February 2009

Politics, Politics, Politics

Written as an argumentative counterpoint to James Paul Gee’s “Literacy, Discourse and Linguistics: Introduction” and “What is Literacy?,” Lisa Delpit’s “The Politics of Teaching Literate Discourse” offers new insight as to literacy development in the context of primary and secondary discourse. On one side of the argument, “Gee maintains that there are the primary discourses, those learned in the home, and secondary discourses, which are attached to institutions or groups one might later encounter. He also argues that all discourses are not equal in status, that some are socially dominant-carrying with them social power and access to economic success-and some nondominant” (Delpit 546).
The problem with this statement, as recognized by Delpit is that “if teachers were to adopt both of these premises suggested by Gee’s work, not only would they view the acquisition of a new discourse in a classroom impossible to achieve, but they might also view the goal of acquiring such a discourse questionable at best” (Delpit 547). Introduced in the initial pages of her essay, and discussed throughout the remainder of the text, Lisa Delpin highlights two areas in which Gee’s argument becomes faulty. The “first is Gee’s notion that people who have not been born into dominant discourses will find it exceedingly difficult, if not impossible to acquire such a discourse […] The second aspect of Gee’s work that I [she] finds troubling suggests that an individual who is born into one discourse with one set of values may experience major conflicts when attempting to acquire another discourse with another set of values” (Delpit 546).
While I agree that it can be difficult for individuals endeavoring to acquire a secondary discourse, I also understand that it is not impossible. This is important to recognize when in the context of classroom instruction. The answer to this dilemma is to make the student aware of the fact that “acquiring the ability to function in a dominant discourse need not mean that one must reject one’s home identity and values, for discourses are not static, but are shaped, however reluctantly, by those who participate within them […]” (Delpit 552). This can be accomplished in many ways, as can be observed in Prof. Peter L Patrick, PhD work in the field with African-American Vernacular English. In this case, he introduced a secondary discourse to a classroom of primary discourse elementary students. By making small amendments to the game of Jeopardy, he was able to make the acquisition work.
What this all comes down to is a matter of understanding. Every student, every group, is different and requires different attention. This is seemingly the flaw in most public education systems. Due to the “standards” that standardized testing seeks to measure, the emphasis in not placed on learning, rather on a form of programming, where the information is memorized but never truly learned.

Gee's Key Points

Sherman Aspacio
24 February 2009
Precis #3

Gee begins his piece by defining Discourse. He defines it as "a sort of 'identity kit'" that defines a person's behavioral patterns and particular role (526). A person can (and does) have many discourses. Gee goes on to designate said discourses.
Gee argues that Primary discourse is the freebie we all get as human beings, the language in which we interact within the home element, the language we think in, etc. This is the only discourse with which we can be truly fluent (as it is attained through acquisition). This language is acquired and later expanded upon through learning.
Secondary discourses are those that come into an individual's life after acquisition of the primary discourse. A secondary discourse that is mastered that promises potential attainment of social goods within communities is called a Dominant Discourse. A discourse that is mastered that only brings harmony with the individual and the social network without promise of said goods is called a nondominant discourse.
Gee also brings up the tension and conflict aspect of mingling discourses. Often, one will take on secondary discourses that may not share values across the board with the primary discourse. This often causes a non-literacy of the secondary discourse and in stressful situations can be “socially disastrous” (528). Thus, Gee defines literacy as “the mastery of or fluent control over a secondary discourse” (529).
Secondary discourses are also handy in gauging the primary discourse in providing meta-knowledge. When one masters a secondary discourse, one attains a new perspective to evaluate one’s own primary discourse, or meta-knowledge. This self-observation is only critical when a secondary perspective is available, when one is literate.
Gee holds two theorems with his definition of literacy. 1st: You are either in or out. There is no middle ground, only fluency of the discourse or non-fluency. As Gee so eloquently put it, “There is no affirmative action for Discourses,” only speakers and apprentices (529). 2nd: All primary discourses are limited.
Literacy also has a gating function. Through superficial “trivialities,” people can be evaluated as a nonpartisan of a certain discourse and denied the social goods inherent. These trivialities cannot be learned through secondary discourse, Gee argues, rather, they must be attained through submersion into the discourse.
“Mushfake” is the pretension of a discourse through taking elements of the discourse and coupling it with a person’s reserve of meta-knowledge to make do (533).
“Filtering” is the process of taking values from different secondary discourses and applying them to the primary discourse (534). A child who does this, as apparent in the reading, will seem to have talent or native ability in secondary discourses simply through a long amount of practice.
One must not assume that bringing in and ingesting whole secondary discourses will benefit a young learner, though. Often times, a young learner will eat the plate along with the food, if you will, absorbing “a whole system of thought, embedded in the very linguistic devices she uses” (536). This was exemplified through a child who narrated a fight she was involved with, assuming that the unnatural elements of the situation were natural. In this case, one can readily observe the values that can filter into primary discourse through mastery of a secondary one.
Gee goes on to elaborate on all of these concepts in the second part of his piece. It is curious to wonder, what will happen to primary discourses? Are they as flexible as literacies? Can they change radically from generation to generation to create gaps in communication and understanding? How will subjective values mingle amongst different interest groups as more and more people absorb secondary discourses.
I hope this precis was helpful for you. Thanks for reading.

response!

Fantastic! This concept is something that I am most interested in. I want to be able to approach my research paper via the idea that, as you states, "Work, church, home, school shape literacy, but political social and economic structures limit people. All of these factors web together to create a unique tapestry that is an individual’s literacy. Work allows literacy to grow in a specific field, depending on the nature of the job, of course." Within my research I am looking at the functionality of military rhetoric, but I am also looking at the "individual's literacy" and how it is so key to survival in the work force....how intellectuals and scholars need to expand on their ideas of what literacy entails, what needs to be taught to our children and how we should go about incorporating new ideals into the schooling process that will benefit students in a more practical way....

The sponsors are coming! The sponsors are coming!

Brandt, Deborah. “Sponsors of Literacy.” Literacy: A Critical Sourcebook. Eds. Ellen Cushman, et.al. Boston: Bedford/St. Martin’s, 2001. pp 555-569.

Work, church, home, school shape literacy, but political social and economic structures limit people. All of these factors web together to create a unique tapestry that is an individual’s literacy. Work allows literacy to grow in a specific field, depending on the nature of the job, of course. Church allows people to worship and develop their “souls,” if such truly exist. In the home life, especially with younger siblings or children involved, one may assume the teaching role and simultaneously reinforce their literacy level and teach it. In the school system, at least the public school system, a diversity in knowledge is fostered that provides a launch pad into a specialized field. In this way, it is easy to understand the very liquid nature of literacy. It seems (to me) that literacy is not as standardized as one would perceive it to be. Is it laughable to assume that, given all of these factors, that individuals that differ in some aspect of sponsorship will reach an equal literacy?
New generations of specialists will replace multi-skilled workers as “the history of literacy is in fast forward” (566). I don’t know about anyone else, but this reading gave me a new perspective on the constant evolution of literacy, and also develops questions in my mind of how important literacy as we know it truly is. I am apprehensive to recognize the destructuring of the multi-faceted and multi-literate human literacy level. The gloriously crafted time piece that exemplifies the inner immaculate nature of the human mind is being reduced to mere cogs. Will individualism take on a new meaning? Will being a unique worker/person denote that you know one thing better than anyone else? I certainly hope not. And what new sponsors will arise unprecedented? I hope, for all of our sakes, that literacy does not become unrecognizable to us through such sponsorship.

The Unnatural Discourse

Sean Tucker
Professor Mary Boland
English 329
17 February 2009

One of the most obvious shifts in discourse I make is in writing. Here, in this format, I can take much more time to think about what I want to communicate. For example, I just stopped writing for about thirty seconds to take a sip of my coffee and to think about how I wanted to continue this discussion after writing the first two sentences. If I were to pause for only a fraction of that time in an oral conversation, the listener would assume I was finished with my turn in this discourse and he or she would take over the conversation. Maybe there would be questions or maybe the listener would change topic. However, here, I can pause and think or continue to write as my thoughts enter my mind and I translate these through my fingertips and on to this page. It seems that this is almost a selfish type of discussion in that I can control the topic, the voice, the organization, and the tempo of the words here and you, the reader, will keep following along, or not—I will never know. I can write short sentences. I can write sentences much longer with many more words than the previous sentence that go on for a few lines and cover more than one particular thought that enters my mind as I write these words for you to read or not to read—it is entirely up to you to continue if you wish to do so.
Indeed, this type of discourse seems unnatural compared to speech. For example, I would very rarely use the word indeed in a casual conversation. I would never think about punctuation, spelling, paragraphs, or grammar while I speak; but in writing, these issues and devices are constantly on my mind as I write. I use reference materials such as a dictionary and a thesaurus when writing, but I would never make use of these in oral discourse. In fact, I would not say, “make use of these in oral discourse,” when speaking—I would simply say, “I wouldn’t use them when talking.” While writing, I use all of the formalities and tools I was taught to use as a college student. These formalities sound dry and unnatural in speech in that they convey a sense of eruditeness and superiority that does not carry over well into conversation. This language could possibly make the listener feel like this speaker is talking down to him or her. There is something else required and expected in conversation that does not translate well into writing. Perhaps it is a sense of belonging to the same community or having a common point of reference. Either way, the discourse of writing in this format does not fit well with oral discourse.
Simply, speaking is more intuitive and instinctive and writing is something that is done consciously. We all learn to speak without explicit instruction. However, writing is taught to us formally by teachers. This is perhaps why writing is more unnatural sounding in everyday oral discourse and conversation. For example, a comparison could be made between a speech given wherein someone reads a prepared speech directly, word for word, from what he or she prepared as opposed to a speech made from a simple outline that leaves room for reading the audience’s reaction and making adjustments for that. The latter sounds much similar to everyday oral discourse where as the former sounds very formal and unnatural in oral discourse. Another example is when someone gives a PowerPoint presentation and reads exactly what they have written verbatim on the slide instead of using the slides as a tool to highlight important points, i.e. outline what it is that he or she is discussing. It comes down to making speech sound natural by leaving the written discourse on paper and using what we’ve all learned naturally in oral discourse.

Explicit Content

Over the last few days, I’ve noticed several shifts in my oral and written discourse across various discourse communities that establish my magnificent existence. I noticed my first shift when I prayed at night: “Dear Louie, give me rage, deception, and a heart of ice that I may annihilate my enemies. You’re my boy, Lou. Amen.” Shortly after praying I went to work at a local auto parts store where I’ve given five years of my life I’ll never get back. After walking through the doors, smiling, of course, I began interacting with the lovely people I deal with on a daily basis. One gentleman was raving maniacally that I had given him the wrong part for his vehicle. For purposes of compliance with witness protection acts, I will label the man as Steve and the auto part a Flex Capacitus. The conversation was as follows: Steve: “Well, you gave me the wrong part.” Me: “Ok, sir, I‘m terribly sorry, (pleasant smile) how can I fix the problem?” Steve: “By not being a dumb*ss first, and second, get me the right part.” Me: “Well, no promises on the first part (polite chuckle masking rage) but I know for a fact I can help on the second!” By now you understand how happy I am to have such wonderful customers! Even in the face of provoking words, I code switched to a professional dialect rather than one that would tell that guy where I thought he should install his Flex Capacitus! This is obviously an instinctive reaction, as anyone who has dealt with an irate customer can readily agree. Another instance that I noticed I code switched was when I visited my cousin in prison, again, anonymity. Our conversation was as follows: Cuz: Sup cuz? Me: Sup primo? Cuz: Sh*t, just locked up, same ol’ story, Holmes. How’s my tia?” Me: Eh, she’s good, she doesn’t like my tattoo though.” Cuz: “You got ink?” Me: “F*ck yeah, I did, check this sh*t out!” This is where I ripped off my shirt and showed him the Phoenix back piece. Cuz: “Shyeow! Sexy! I don’t think my mom would like it either.” Me: “She didn’t.” I notice that I spit swear words like a sailor in situations where I have to live up to the coolness factor of my incarcerated family members. This seemed natural to me in the setting I was in, and I wasn’t very conscious of the dialogue before I spoke.

auto. #5 interaction

C. Rosie Caldwell
Professor M. Boland
English 329
17 February 2009
Auto. #5 Interactions

I have been able to blend with my surroundings and the people that fill it. When speaking with my parents my vocabulary doubles and I become very aware of my grammar and the relevance of what I am saying as well. I become a proper little lady instinctively whenever I am interacting with them. When I am with friends, people doubt my honesty when I mention how I am finishing my degree soon. After I try to tell a story or a joke, my boyfriend will say “I can’t believe you are an English major.” I’ll start laughing before the punch line and forget the majority of the background information. When speaking with a barista or a server my politeness and friendly level is amplified and I can almost be viewed as a gregarious personality. “Hey, how are you doing?! Today is lovely! Hope you have a great day!” Yet, in contrast, I am not especially interactive in school, from fear of being completely off topic or being viewed in a negative way. In the past, dates that went well I was flirtatious and somewhat witty. On dates that didn’t go so well I was sharp, impatient and usually had a compelling reason to leave early. With police officers I become a little confused and excessively sweet. I find myself shifting into all of these different modes or personalities very easily. I put on a smile and switch interactive styles depending on the person and the social context.

Lately, I have noticed my ability to switch away from the droll scholarly writing I use for school, is becoming harder and harder. For my papers I will try to include sentiments expressed in class; and of course that varies from class to class, or teacher to teacher. Other than this, my language does not vary significantly in writing.

We all shift the way we interact with one another. With some people you need to be highly interactive and friendly, with others you should be respectful, intelligent and access all those multisyllabic words you learned in school. With some people you can throw around a few cuss words at and it’s all good. All depending on the social context and the person or group of people you are conversing with, your mannerisms, language usage and interactive style changes. It is a survival technique; it is what human beings need to be able to do to function in society. I have learned from a young age how to interact with different people, and how to act in different social contexts because I had to.

Stuff From My Brain

A.J. Pallante
Prof. Boland
English 329
17 February 2009
Negotiable Negotiations

I never really paid any attention to the way I use language. Until now, I believed the way I spoke to be seemingly just a routine. I never really considered the way I switch codes as needed. After taking a few days to focus on the many ways that language negotiations are made, and incorporated, I noticed that I too am guilty of amending language to suit the circumstance. I found that there are two main contexts in which I switch the way I speak. The most common negotiation I make is switching from the way I speak normally to the way I speak at my jobs. The second negotiation I make is when I switch from the way I speak normally to the way I speak in an academic setting. Neither or the ways I utilize language are hard, so to speak. For, each of these negotiations is done without thought, and until now, have gone disregarded entirely.

My “everyday” speech is not too complex or impressive. When conversing with friends, there is no need for lengthy sentences and multi-syllabic words. I am a fan of short simple sentences. I am an even bigger fan of the multi-functional “F” word. So, needless to say, in a professional environment, I need to amend my speech. My first two jobs require a similar negotiation. I work as a tutor for Victor Valley College, and a substitute for Victor Elementary School District. The way I interact with the elementary students is almost identical to the way I speak with the students I tutor, as most of them are English Language Learners. I use simple sentences spoken at a slower pace, along with questions that assess comprehension. However, when I work my other job, the negotiation I make is completely different. I work security at Mountain High, so I get to use my favorite word quite often. I do not have to be sympathetic and understanding to any individual needs, which is reflected in the way I speak. I almost revert back to my “everyday” speech, except that in my “normal” catalogue, I am a bit more caring towards those closest to me. In all three cases, I ensure that however I speak matches the setting I am in.

The second set of circumstances that call for a negotiation in language happens when I am in an academic setting. In the classroom, if I speak at all, I try to hold my speech to a higher standard. I understand that some students are in love with the sound of their own voices, so those who cannot shut up, I tend to just let ramble on. However, when I do speak, I try to maintain some level of intellect. In papers, I endeavor to do the same. Here, I negotiate language by speaking in a manner that is completely opposite of what I normally enjoy. I try to employ compound\complex sentences, as well as a vocabulary that includes “bigger words.” I view academic speak\speech as my form of code switching. Though it is different from what I am used to, it is a necessary to have this understanding.

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.

prices #3

C. Rosie Caldwell
Professor M Boland
English 329
12 February 2009
Heath, Shirley Brice. “Protean Shapes in Literacy Events: Ever-Shifting Oral and Literate
Traditions.” Literacy: A Critical Sourcebook. Cushman, Ellen. et al. Boston: Bedford/St. Martin’s, 2001. 443-466.
Discussion of Heath
There are some sentiments suggested by previous researchers that read: “language of the oral tradition is held to suggest meaning without explicitly stating information” (443). Furthermore, they discuss how “Certain discourse forms, such as the parable or proverb, […] are formulaic uses of language which convey meanings without direct explication. Thus, truth lies in experience and is verified by the experience of listeners” (443). More importantly, “literacy even is a conceptual tool useful in examining within particular communities of modern society the actual forms and functions of oral literate traditions and co-existing relationship between spoken and written language” (445). Yet there are other ideas that seem to suggest that orally-based communities are somewhat inferior to a written based community. Heath did research on a community that was orally-based, and she discusses her findings.
In Trackton, the children are exposed to spontaneous stories rather than ‘molded’ stories. Does this in any way reflect these children’s level of literacy and their potential success in life? Although many researchers seem to suggest that oral communities are sheltered and not capable of critical, concrete, abstract and analytical ideals, Heath is able to negate this. Her study as an ethnographer, has led her to be able to shed light on the functionality of these oral-centered children. At the age of two and half, is able to describe: “Way / Far / Now / It a church bell / Ringin’ / Dey singin’ / Ringin’ / You hear it? / I hear it /Far / Now” (449). This is a poetic, fluent speech that communicates an idea, a sound and engages the listener. Heath demonstrates how these children are literate in their own way and their way of communicating with one another is no way irrelevant or inferior, but different.
Heath further explains how literacy is developed and shown within the community. “Adults read and wrote for numerous purposes, almost all of them social” they included instrumental, interactional, news-related, confirmation, provision, memory-supportive, substitutes for oral messages. Literacy was utilized for social activities and interactions with others. Heath also demonstrates how much more diverse and varied the language is when coming from an orally-based individual. Expression of personal involvement, expression in a wide variety of sentence structure, use of informal style and Black English vernacular forms are all further elaborated through her discussion.
This research was able to demonstrate how “Tackton is a literate community in the sense that the residents are able to read printed and written materials in their daily lives, and on occasion they produce written messages as part of the total pattern of communication in the community” (460). It is very important and key to know that “residents turn from written to spoken uses of language and vice versa as the occasion demands, and the two modes of expression seem to supplement and reinforce each other in a unique pattern” (460). There is a different dynamic in these types of communities. The assumption that orally-based communities are inferior, or in some way lacking certain or essential skills, is completely false. The people from Trackton are able to show to us that they are able to function quite successfully in their communities. Their thinking is not hindered or broken; their communication is no less effective. This research is eye opening, in that it points out functionality of language. How language is used to allow an individual to successfully maneuver through life and society. There is an arrogance demonstrated by some researchers and people when they suggest that people who are technically illiterate are insignificant and inferior. Language and literacy in reading and writing are not enough to determine the worth or effectiveness of a person.

Response to Sherman's Manly Hobby

Of all the lessons to be learned in high school, the lessons that solidify one’s identity are of the utmost importance. These are the lessons that spark confidence and establish a sense of individuality. In high school, the majority of individuals are bottom feeders, finding nourishment in the shadow of others. However, to be able to break away from that, going against the accepted norm, is an accomplishment that transcends academics. This is important in the context of literacy. For, many times, intellect and intuition is looked down upon in a high school setting. It seems that ignorant is the “cool” thing to be. As teachers, it is imperative to establish a precedent that reflects a “pro-knowledge” sentiment. After all, though students may not look up to teachers as role-models, teachers can be very influential as they are allotted time every week to speak to the student’s identity.

response to auto. #4

Geez Sean- that's horrible....I can remember going to church when I was young....not so good memories there. Once I had to get up and give the opening prayer. I don't think I went back to church after that. Public speaking can be terrifying, but expecially when you don't like the subject matter, or if the words are not your own.

From Granny's Rocker Auto 4

The first time that language abilities really made me feel powerful or important was my senior project presentation for my high school english class. I learned how to crochet. Being an overwhelmingly masculine endeavor into the incredibly popular field of granny-stick-working, I had absolutely no need to present any jokes or anything comical at all to keep the classroom's attention. (If only this had been the case). I was immediately struck with a challenge that I had never been faced with before: Make your experience acceptable to your peers!!! ahh! how oh how would I make light of my somewhat feminine endeavor? I know! Gay jokes! I incorporated some reactions from my homophobic step-father, utilizing mocking tones and overly dramatic diction to present the class with the irony that (being interested in the ladies) I continued into a stereotypical field. I effectively communicated my heterosexuality and masculinity and through pinning jokes to myself, I securely highlighted my inability to be penetrated or affected by the perceptions of my peers.
I found that simply defending myself by defining myself bred a new slew of self-confidence.
I realized that being in a perfectly focused situation gave much gravity to what I said. The jokes and other innuendos I utilized lightened this gravity and allowed the audience to trust me as a speaker. After I gained their trust I harked on how my senior project allowed a new dimension of self-realization, and described that i not only learned how to make sick-ass beanies, but learned how to step through stereotypical barriers without self-doubt. I transfered knowledge through my experience in the oral tradition. I communicated this through my presentation, being very confident and identifying stereotypes in very precise measures sure not to offend anyone who exemplified these stereotypes. In short, as an offshoot of learning to crochet, I learned to objectively identify stereotypes as they present themselves and feel secure in confidence to let them simply pass by, and gained power and importance through oral tradition by the communiation of and acceptance of my experience.

Response to Rosie's French Romance

Wow Rosie! That is a great post. It reminds me of a classic movie, e.g. Grand Hotel, Gigi, etc. Anyway, you bring up a good point of the illusion of literacy. The illusion that we all have to speak the same and understand communication the same was in order to come to a deep understanding of humanity. Anyone that has tried to communicate with another outside of their environment, i.e. another contry with different languages and customs, can appriciate what it's like to want to communicate something and have to rely on more than speech. We use gestures, eye contact, physical contact, and even the intonation of our voice can convey so much without understanding all of the words. Great story!

Another AutoBio From Me

Sean Tucker
Professor Mary Boland
English 329
10 February 2009
Empty Words from a Dry Mouth
When I was about thirteen or fourteen years old, I was obligated to get up in front of the congregation of the church my parents made me attend every Sunday and read a sermon. I use the word obligated because this duty was a part of the youth group I belonged to at this particular church. My parents, who were always very active with various church activities, expected me to do this task, and me being fearful of what impositions they might place on me if I refused, accepted this assignment rather half-heartedly. I remember the pastor asking me if I would like to write the sermon or if I would like him to do it. I immediately said, “Could you do it?” I was scared to death. I didn’t want to do it. I felt I had to do it. For some reason, my parents thought I should participate as much as they did in church activities. Maybe my participation was their way of participating more than they already were. It was as if they were in some sort of competition with other members of the congregation: who can be holier than thou, who is closer with the pastor, and who is going to be the most visible and recognizable person in the church aside from the pastor. I am rolling my eyes and gritting my teeth in disgust as I write this.
I remember that day as the time approached for me to get up and speak in front of everyone clearly. As my parents gleamed with anticipation of their proud moment, I sunk low in the pew (the very front pew where they always made us sit) with my eyes drawn to the floor and feeling my throat, eyes, stomach, and cheeks cramp up at the same time. I had the sermon in the slot that held the hymnals and sundry church materials in front of me and turned around so the blank side of the pages faced me. I never read the entire sermon. I only glanced at it once after the pastor gave it to me the week before. It was scrawled with his thick, squashy handwriting with letters that were barely legible. I could not even remember the topic. I just figured I would get and read the stupid thing and be done with it.
When the time came, I felt my dad nudge me with his arm. I my eyes crept up from the floor and I clenched my left hand firmly on the pew in front of me and crumpled the sermon in my hand with my right as I rose up from the pew. I walked up to the pulpit looking straight at it without looking back at the eyes that I could feel poking the back of my neck. I arrived to my station, placed the sheets of paper on top of the pulpit, and tried to smooth them out without looking up. When I finally looked up, faced my (parents’) audience, and saw all of the heads pointed at me, my eyes dashed back down on the slightly rumpled paper before me. I squinted at the words, trying to make the first four or so out clearly in my mind before I spoke. My throat felt dry and cramped. My vision was blurred and I could feel a spot on the back of my neck that felt like someone was slowly pushing a hard, crooked, bony finger into it. When I opened my mouth and began reading the words on the first page, I was afraid I might vomit or that my voiced would crack. I just began reading, and reading, and reading, while the finger boring into my neck kept driving, and driving, and driving. As the pain got worse, I lifted my right hand to the back of my neck and tried to rub away the pain. I rubbed it off and on the entire time I read. I had no idea what I was reading, but I just kept on reading with the knowledge that the more words I read on the page, the sooner my pain would be over.
I don’t remember how it ended. I only remember feeling a release after I returned to my seat and didn’t have to ever read those words again—empty words that I didn’t write and that I didn’t want to speak. What I do remember is that after church we went to the area where all the members were allowed to drink coffee, have a donut, and socialize with one another. During this time, my friend Johnny’s dad came up to me to congratulate me on a fine job and also to point out that I mispronounced a word. The word was pupa and I said papaya. I had no idea what a pupa was or how to pronounce it. So in my state of vague confusion, I must have just said the word that closely resembled it. I remember Johnny’s dad laughing about how what I said made no sense and how funny it was. He also raised his hand to the back of his neck to mock me. I just said, “yeah,” not really know what else to say and I sulked away hating my parents for making me read those words so that they could feel proud.
Today, I still feel some resentment towards my parents for making me do that. I realize that fear is a part of public speaking, but I feel that they had me do this to make themselves feel and look better. I admit that I still do not enjoy this type of formal public speaking very much. I do enjoy just being myself and talking to others about issues that matter to me, but I still hate speaking at a pulpit while everyone remains hushed, seated, quiet, and with a look on their faces that indicates they are listening. I suppose that what I am trying to say here is that I enjoy dialogue and resent (fear) monologue. I want to know what others have to say at the moment, not afterwards while sipping coffee later and eating a donut.

comment on Auto. #3

Ooh so tough AJ :)I have nothing deep or potent to say....just that I can relate to not being the "in" crowd. I was a homeschool misfit and then was out of high school when I ws 16. I had dance to distinguish me from the others (kind of like your music) ....I danced in New York City with the Joffrey Ballet company and Ballet West co. in Salt Lake City. Just doing your own thing and having a skill that sets you apart, puts you in a position of respect...