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.