Response to Delpit

When it comes to Gee’s articles Delpit agrees with his argument that literacy more that reading and writing and that it is “part of a larger political entity”. However, once she went over his articles again she found two aspects of his to be problematic. The first one she mentions is Gee’s belief that people who have not been born into dominant families or lifestyles will find it hard to succeed in life and eventually become dominant themselves. Delpit finds this to be a disturbing statement because it gives no hopes for the teachers teaching these students and leaves the students feeling like there is no point whatsoever. His second aspect that she disagrees with is that once a student is born into a certain discourse and values it will be hard for that student to obtain another discourse and values. This can leave teachers feeling that they can not teach the same discourse to all of their students and will have to separate them.
Delpit proves her argument by giving examples of people from other cultures that were pushed and urged on by teachers to overcome obstacles in an alien environment. She does so to show that teachers can make a difference if they really want to. Delpit believes teachers shouldn’t shut out the students’ home language because it is important to the way they view themselves and their community. Delpit then moves on to say that the teacher needs to come to terms with the fact that there is “discourse-stacking” in our society. She says the teachers should then make their classrooms aware of what is taking place in their society as well.
Delpit’s argument is well thought out and has many good points. It wouldn’t make sense for teachers to teach the same discourse to every student when there are many different cultures around; especially in the United States. Thoughts and comments like Gee’s seem to intimidate teachers to take further action with their students; leaving the students to fall behind and do no better that what the society thinks of them. A student from a poor family or colored family can be just as smart and willing to learn as a student from the dominant discourse. The teachers just have to be willing to teach them and motivate them to do their best and succeed.

Gee’s “Literacy, Discourse, and Linguistics”

This essay has a lot of information for students who are looking into becoming a teacher. Being a teacher is important to be able to read students and understand where they are coming from to help them learn better. Gee’s introduction explains “language” is more of the grammar, so that leads to a misleading term. Language has to do with the environment as which we speak in and how the grammar could be perfect in a phrase but may not fit with the environment. “ It is not just what you say, but how you say it” shows that Gee is staying that no matter what you say it might be wrong for the setting of the place or people that you are speaking to. Further in the reading, Gee brings up her way of writing “Discourses” with the capital “D” which are “ways of being in the world” meaning that language is a social role that is present in our beliefs, values, and attitudes. Discourses are like your self- identity, how you approach things and the way you are in your environment. There are many different types of Discourses just as primary and secondary, dominant and non- dominant ones. Primary Discourses are is the one we grow up with and “ make sense of the world and interact with others” and Secondary Discourses are the social institutions that are in the public sphere like school, the store, and etc. Dominant and non-dominant Discourses are secondary ones but which you master in a common place or mastery in an environment alone. Gee explains that two of these can interfere with each other because you may use the one in the other or mix up the grammatical features to the other.
Gee continues by referring this essay to teachers who want to teach a certain language to students. English teachers are the ones who need to find this balance of how to teach the students and ways of not interfering with their native tongue. “Vygotsky says that learning a foreign language “allows the child to understand his native language as a single instantiation of a linguistic system” which helps the child learn both the new language and their native but leads to the understanding which Gee uses the term “meta- knowledge” as one learning a language plus putting that to the real life situations which you would deal with.
In Conclusion, I believe that the rest of the essay of “what is literacy?” states Gee’s argument of how the way we speak in our environments and people is also literacy as well as the writing and grammar.

Autobiography week 6

Well with everything I have been through in the last week i have definitely had to watch what i say around certain people. Normally I find myself being of free speech but because the situation called for more of a following and listening I had to do so. I had to watch what i said about my mom or to my mom because it would be upsetting and the same went for my dad this week too because the social situation was one of a somber one. In waiting rooms I found myself communicating with others as if I was in school carrying on a conversation with professors about what I was reading and it is because family encouraged me o do so to be on top of my game. i find myself when I talk in school and in that type of situation I try too hard to sound smart and sometimes it backfires but sometimes I impress. 

I find myself separating my school and home language as o fit the type of situation I am in even though sometimes they blend. I never really noticed I was doing it until this assignment was given and I don't necessarily think it is a bad thing but I do now find myself doing it and I just wonder how I sound to others or what they think as I am talking to them. My family never says anything to me but it might be out of politeness I am not sure. I do think though that all of us do maintain a certain language in certain situations as to not sound stupid or mean or even smart in some cases all to avoid possible teasing or even being looked down upon.

One Person, Many Voices

We all make changes to the way we speak to people based on the place, time, and situation. I have found that I speak in numerous ways depending on who I am speaking with and where I am at, at the time. When at school during class I have to be able to speak properly and be able to back up what I am saying. I cannot use words that not everyone might know. Just as when I am tutoring my students I have to make sure I am using vocabulary that they can comprehend. I often find myself using words that are beyond their comprehension and I have to go back and correct myself. When I am at work I have to be sure to have a professional manner and speak politely to customers; especially when I answer the phone. However, when there seems to be no one around my co-workers and I tend to go off on our own conversations; speaking the way we would if we were hanging out outside of work. And then when we see someone we go right back to being perfect little angels. At home is where I feel like I can be myself and speak however I choose. My brother and I are always messing around and saying random things; usually things that don’t even exist. I tend to not pay attention to grammar and structure when I am talking at home. The downside on that part is that my family is constantly making fun of me and saying, “Aren’t you the English major?” which tends to get very annoying.

"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.