"Sponsors of Literacy"

Brandt, Deborah. "Sponsors of Literacy." Literacy: A Critical Sourcebook. Cushman, Ellen. et al. New York: Bedford/ St. Martins, 2001

In Brandt’s "Sponsors of Literacy", she explains how the. She starts out by defining sponsors of literacy as those in her study that came up most frequently as influences on her subjects’ literacy development. These people consisted of relatives, teachers, clergy, authority figures and authors. Brandt theorizes that literacy is defined by the interest of its sponsors. This in turn affects the way and reason why people read and write. She goes on to describe how literacy has political and economic value. This being true, many Americans go through great lengths to obtain literacy for their families. Because literacy plays such a huge role in our economic system, a sort of stratification regarding literacy emerges, and roadblocks are placed in front of certain individuals to gain literacy in the name of competition. Brandt explains her theories by citing two individuals she studied.
Raymond Branch belonged to the “majority-race membership, male gender, and high-end socioeconomic profile”. Because of this, Brandt explains, Branch had more access to literacy than his counterpart of the same age that lived in the same town Dora Lopez. She also explains that the difference in access has to do with the difference in the level of sponsorship available in both situations.
Brandt’s account of how economy and sponsorship affect literacy is quite striking and I found quite a bit of truth. Most people recognize the sponsor’s role in literacy, but rarely recognize economic influence. Sponsors are either congratulated or blamed for any one individual’s literary competency. If one is unable to read critically or write effectively, this is blamed squarely on the sponsors and the efforts and abilities of the individual are seemingly disregarded. I also agree with Brandt’s theory that the interest of the sponsor is reflected in the capacities in which an individual is successful in literacy, as well as how and why they read and write. In school, reading and writing are seen as a means to an end of economic accomplishment and intellectual growth. In church, literacy is seen as a means of spiritual and personal growth. In the home, literacy is seen as a way to connect to your own culture. Whichever sponsor is the most influential usually has a hold on how and why that individual will read and write. Brandt’s theories on how economics influence literacy can be seen in our society. Socioeconomic status can play a huge role in access to literacy. Socioeconomic status is often determined by race and gender, contrary to the capitalist thought that everyone chooses their socioeconomic status through work ethic. It is clear that those apart of the dominant culture have more access to literacy than those who are not. Teachers don’t want to teach in low socioeconomic areas because of the crime rate and behavioral problems due to broken homes. Those that are supposed to be literacy sponsors in the community find little importance in literacy, as most of their employment only requires the basics and nothing more. This creates literary roadblocks for those belonging to different social and economic groups, and severely limits access to literacy.

What I Meant to Say Was...

It wasn’t until I actually stopped to really notice how I speak in different situations that I noticed that my speech changes according to the situation that I am in. I noticed that I speak differently in these situations: at school, at work with my immediate superior, with superiors/when I conduct business, when I am speaking to my mother, when I am speaking with my grandmother, when I am speaking with my younger siblings, and when I am speaking with my friends/fiancé. When I first started reflecting on my own speech, I really had the idea that I would only have two differences in my speech; one type of discourse when I speak to my friends and one type of discourse when I speak to everyone else. This was not the case. When I speak at school, I do a combination of things. I attempt to speak in a seemingly intellectual manner, but because I got along with my teachers so well when I was in high school, I also allow a bit of my personality to come through in my speech. It’s a formal speech, but it’s not so sterile that I sound like Ben Stein in Ferris Bueller’s Day Off. When I speak to my immediate superior at work, I speak in an informal yet respectful manner. We work closely together so that allows for the informality, but she is also my superior so I take that into account when I am speaking to her. My speech with her is somewhat conscious.

When I speak to any other authority or when I am conducting business, I do assume a very formal, sterile sort of speech. This is because of my respect for him and as well as my willingness to adhere to certain social standards. When I speak to my mother, it is more informal than when I talk to my immediate superior at work and contains more colloquial language, but there is still a level of respect in my speech that I am conscious of and try to maintain. When I speak to my grandmother, I actually regress a little bit. I become a tad childlike when I speak to her. This is a response to the fact that she still speaks to me as if I am a child. My manner of discourse with her is very instinctive, and has not changed in 21 years. I have a very authoritative yet loving tone and style of speech when I speak to my younger siblings. I am the second oldest of seven and I had a hand in raising the five siblings under me. They respect me and I respect them, but to do what they are told and when I say something that I mean it. This speech is very instinctive as well. When I speak to my friends and my fiancé, my speech is totally informal and full of colloquialisms. I am conscious of the fact that I don’t need to speak in a formal manner with them, so I can relax and allow whatever comes to my mind to come out of my mouth. None of are offended easily and things said between us would be acceptable if said to a total stranger. What was interesting to me when I started to observe myself is how smooth my transitions between the different discourses were.

Response to Farr

In Farr’s article she discusses how she studied Mexican families from Chicago and two ranchos in Mexico. She watched how the families had close relationships with friends, calling them “compadrazgo”; which is just another way to say godparent. She explains how some of the families have members that move back and forth from Chicago to Mexico, some only visit for weeks at a time and others only have the husband in Chicago sending money to his family back at home. Not every member in these families went all the way through school; some had to stay at home to help the family. But Farr states that some of them were at a higher level at literacy than expected due to their own motivations. A group of men were able to “pick up” literacy from other people using spoken language. What motivated these men to want to be able to read and write was that they wanted to be able to write to their families back home. What the article then continues to prove is that it is quite possible to learn literacy without actually going to school. One man was able to teach himself after only going to school for a total of three months. He would just practice on the things he saw. She also mentions that it is possible to learn to write before learning to read; there is no right order.
As Farr explained, what helps a person learn literacy by spoken language is motivation, and it’s not something everyone has. This just proves the old saying that “you can do anything you put your mind to” can work for reading and writing as well. It doesn’t have to be taught in a school setting; however a person has to want it. I find it interesting that a lot of this can be related to earlier readings such as Douglass and what we know from our history. Common people couldn’t send their children to school because they needed them at home to help work or there wasn’t a school close enough to them; just as it was for these groups of people. But just like Douglass, some of them found a way to learn it other ways and succeeded.

Totally In Control

The first time that my language abilities made me feel powerful was when I was a junior in high school and I was Mock Trial. Mock Trial is a high school extracurricular activity/group where students come together and form legal prosecution and defense teams. These teams receive a fictional case, and work both ends. Competitions are held locally at actual courthouses, and are very intense and fun. In my high school’s mock trial I was the lead defense attorney. I took this position because I like a challenge, and most of all I love to argue. It was very important that my teacher who was advising the group had faith in my ability to perform well in this position. I was also chosen for this position by my fellow classmates who were participating in Mock Trial because I have strong verbal communication skills, especially if my speech is thoughtfully planned. I also had to be able to think on my feet and really come up with rebuttals to the prosecutions arguments in the blink of an eye. I also had to do so in a legal and professional manner, and without breaking the rules of the court. I felt powerful because I was using my language skills to argue points in a legal setting. It gave me such a rush. I have no idea why I’m not planning on going to law school after college.

Intimidated

I do not remember my first experience with speaking and others speaking around me, but I do remember some interesting experiences when I transferred from community college to Cal State. When I first took classes at my community college it was a nice transition from high school; almost like I never left. It seemed to be at the same level as far as speaking and comprehending went. But when I was finally able to transfer to a four year college, I noticed a big difference in the classes, instructors, and students that attended. It wasn’t that the instructors spoke in a way that I could not understand; it was the way the students would respond to the discussions we were having. I felt like I was on a completely different planet. I started to question my abilities when it came to speaking and writing. It even made me very scared to include myself in the discussions. It wasn’t like I couldn’t understand what they were saying; I just felt that they were explaining their ideas in a way that could have been summed up in a simpler way. The reason a situation could be scary for someone is because it makes them feel like they should know how to speak or write as eloquently as these students. But as time has passed I have listened to different students and even broadened my vocabulary by doing so. I have also noticed other students that are like me and feel that things don’t have to be said in such a complicated manner; making me feel a little more confident with the situation. It made me realize that some people are just articulate when it comes to speaking; it doesn’t make them smarter, they just have a gift with words.

Precis: Heath: Protean Shapes in Literacy Events

Heath's essay describes the importance of literacy value of communities. She explains traditions that have changed throughout the years and the society with the use of literacy. Heath goes on to explain the term “Literacy Event", which meaning " is any occasion in which a piece of writing is integral to the nature of participants' interactions and their interpretive processes" and this is a helpful tool in describing the communities of today's society. Heath gives the examples of a Girl Scout is selling cookies to you and gives you a paper to look at plus she gives her speech which includes everything on the paper, so the speech is more important than the paper which is the reading part. Concluding her example she states, “there are more literacy events which call for appropriate knowledge of forms and uses of speech events than there are actual occasions for extended reading or writing." Heath continues her main argument by using ethnographic work to experience the society using literacy in their daily lives. Tracton is a literate community because the members could read printed and use written materials. In a work setting is different because it restricts the types of materials. But looking at these examples enable us to see only the protean shapes of oral and literate traditions and language.

Week 5: Trouble with Speaking

Looking back at my first time that my language meant something meaning was when I gave my first speech to my high school class. I was really nervous and I was scared that I would sound like a moron up there trying to motivate my peers to do something. I wasn’t really shy in school but after that experience and trying to talk in class made it hard for me because I get scared that I am going to say a stupid thing or sound like a moron when doing so. I didn’t feel the support from that teacher in that class and not that moment scarred me for the rest of my life because ever since I don’t say anything in class because it will be stupid or people are going to look at me strange. But thinking back on the moment I don’t really see why I would be like the way iam now because I do at times feel comfortable to be talking in front or with a large group of my peers, it’s the speeches I have to give to people older than I and more professional than I is when it is scary and my nerves get the better of me.