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!