EngComp 1552: Uses of Literacy

Cintron’s article “Gangs and their Walls” is a complex deconstruction of the ways marginalized people try to reappropriate power from a majority society. While there are many gems of analysis in this piece, one that stood out for me is his discussion of the “social sphere.” On page 193, he writes: “In short, the maintenance of social order is also the maintenance of exclusion,” and on page 194 he links this to the central fear of a society.

Following those statements, he reluctantly gives us a highly qualified solution for reducing the problem of gang warfare: instead of creating zero-tolerance policies against gang warfare, we should encourage them to participate in what he calls “majoritarian society,” i.e. public forums.

What are some problems with this solution? What are some merits? Finally, since he doesn’t explicitly relate his analyses to literacy, how do you think literacy is involved in this?

In Dyson’s article, she argues that media and childhood cultures have been ignored by most literacy theorists, and by not ignoring them herself will help educators “better understand children’s motivations and concerns and better recognize and appreciate their resoures and challenges” (326).  Judging by the fact that the average American child watches about 28 hours of television a week, it seems like media would influence all aspects of their lives, including their learning.  Do you think that the lack of attention this is given by literacy theorists could still allow for accuracy in studying literacy, or do you believe that media is too central to contemporary childhoods to be ignored, as Dyson does?

Dyson hoped to illustrate social, symbolic and ideological challenges throughout this reading along with helping educators communicate with their students. The teacher in this reading wants the children to convert their own textual experiences into newer, complex social, symbolic, and ideological challenges (page 326).  Can you give explanation and examples on how Dyson does so throughout this reading?  Is it important for children to expand on these ideas throughout education?

On a different stand point, learning literacy is crucial to a child’s development. Once it is introduced, it is expanded in so many different levels. The reading says that children learn through their own participation in the practices of their everyday life (page 328). Should teachers be allowed to disrupt (in a positive or negative way) the child during their practices to reinforce them?  Would your answer be beneficial for the child in their future education years?

In “Other People’s Children,” Delpit discusses ways that teachers can approach dealing with students whose language is strongly affected by their culture. Sometimes when there are these pre-formed cultural blocks, it makes it more difficult to expose them to the more standardized, formal English that is taught in the classroom. She makes the point that forcing speakers to monitor their language for rules while speaking typically just produces silence, which is not a functional way to become literate. She then says that instead of correcting them for mistakes in their speaking–which are often just results of their culture and upbringing–to correct and standardize their English in their writing.

This draws a clear distinction between writing literacy and reading literacy. Is someone whose speaking has never been corrected going to be able to standardize their spoken language during appropriate occasions? Do you think that only being forced to standardize your writing and not your speaking is enough to function successfully in the professional world?

In response to the question “Is it good for everyone to speak in Standard American English”
I think that this is a very pressing question. In today’s world, there are thousands of spoken languages, and almost as many written ones. What is gained by everyone speaking the same language? What is lost?
Dan brought up the point that Standard American English is a prescriptive treatment to a larger problem. While as it pertains to children in the United States speaking an easily understood dialect, I’m not sure that’s entirely true. The world is moving towards universal communication—from the internet to worldwide cell phone coverage to SAE being taught in schools all around the world, the notion that someone from Singapore, Russia, China, America, and Brazil all being able to communicate with each other is a very real possibility. The world is becoming global, and in many respects SAE is a necessary vehicle of that change.
However, there’s also a definite loss with SAE, if it becomes the focus beyond what it is meant to do. While SAE is useful as a bridge between cultures, it mustn’t be mistaken for a culture in its own right. Outside of no one other than a CBS Broadcaster speaking SAE, it is inherently limiting. When speaking, one must obey all the rules of the language without flexibility; to take the broadcasting school notion further, the notion is that no one can tell where you are from; in essence to make your speech cultureless. Our speech influences how we think. There are certain thoughts which are in a native language which will not be in another. The bilingual advantage is a very real phenomenon which should not be ignored when considering the ramifications of global communication. While Babblefish may translate from any language we choose, it doesn’t capture the full meaning of what was said, the idioms passed on from century to century, the escape from being trapped in a single one dimensional common usage of a word.
Even if these reasons fall short, I think that there is one which must remain. Art. While much art may be appreciated regardless of the language spoken, literature in particular is something which can often only be appreciated in its natural state. My favorite example of this is Dante’s Divine Comedy; while we can learn about the form and structure, we can’t really appreciate the oral aspects, the depth of its natural Italian. The natural benefits of the language would not, could not be realized in SAE. Not every street dialect has such a commendable notion. But to say that children must learn SAE, particularly when a comment is made that it should be learn at the expense of the local dialect or language, should be viewed as an obvious stab at the local culture. As in Hawaii where the pidgin English was attacked, it was a battle of cultural hegemony which took place in the educational sphere. While SAE represents something more than a prescriptive fix, I think it must in the end be viewed as an expedient to global communication, never an end to exist in a vacuum.

In her article on page 59, Delpit describes an interaction between a student and a teacher where the teacher constantly interrupts the student as they read.  Delpit argues taht this does harm to the student becuase they should be able to learn in their own dialect.  While I agree with this to a pont– we all learn better when we are in a comfortable environment, I also see a problem.  Shouldn’t students be taught proper speech in schools? If students are constantly taught in their own dialect, and are not corrected when they read aloud, will they ever learn the proper way os speech? If these students are to succeed in a career sense, shouldn’t they be able to be able to speak proper English? So essentailly my question is this: is it possible to go to far in understanding the student’s personal background and taking everything in context of their personal dialect that we lose sight of proper English speaking that is necessary to be polished in the workforce?

It is clear that there is a higher stress level put on students with a dialect other than that being taught. It is difficult to leave the comfort zone or to feel free to express oneself when being criticized constantly and not experiencing improvment. Delpit notes that when writing it is often easier and less stressful for students to use rules of a new dialect, where there is no room for revision before scrutiny in orality. Delpit also notes the ease with which many people pick up a dialect unconsciously vs. trying to consciously learn a new dialect. How could we as future educators work to eliminate this kind of stress from the classroom? Besides being conscious about making corrections, what could we do to emulate this “unconscious acquisition” of a dialect to help students learn? Do you even think this is necessary in a world where diversity is spreading, to conform every student to the “standard English” dialect?

Delpits recounts a exchange between a student and a teacher while a student is reading.  The teacher consistently corrects any dialect-related mistakes the child makes. Delpit notes, “The lesson continues in such a fashion, the teacher proceeding to correct the student’s dialect-influenced pronunciations and grammar while ignoring the fact that the student had to have comprehended the sentence in order to translate it into her own dialect” (59). Is, in fact, the ability of the student to put the reading into his/her own words (to ‘translate’ the words into the dialect that he/she speaks) a greater assessment of understanding? Is being able to put a reading into your own words not the basis of understanding it? In this situation, is that not precisely what the child was doing? Do you think this is a clear marker of people believing that someone who speaks non-standard English is not as intelligent?  Delpit also points out that there is no evidence that speaking in a certain dialect hinders a child’s ability to read but often makes a teacher believe that the student is less intelligent. Is there a difference between how people speak in a classroom environment and at home or amongst friends? Does speaking differently in different situations make you less intelligent or is being able to speak/understand language in different ways a sign of being intelligent and literate in your surroundings? Just because the student is not speaking standard English, does that make him/her less literate? Must we all speak standard English to be considered literate?

Lisa Delpit delves into the problems involved in language usage and diversity within the classroom. Through this study we can see that difference in vernacular between black and white communities is very different. We can also see how that effects students understanding and participation within the classroom. What this study fails to do is consider the vernacular of sections of white communities as well. Whether it is the rural farming language or, as we deal with in Pittsburgh, the ‘yinzer’ speak. I think there is a lot of emphasis on black culture vs. white culture within education. Often times it is easy to forget how many different kinds of black cultures and white cultures exist within the same city or country. Language diversity within the United States is not black or white. How can these issues be addressed within the context of Delpit’s study? What sorts of changes should or should not happen within an educational setting in terms of language development and assessment?

On page 428, Young notes that in the near future: “our classrooms will include more students of color, more students from diverse economic backgrounds, and more students who come with an array of diverse literary skills.”  For those aspiring teachers (or anyone else interested in answering this question), do you plan on “embracing” these changes (as Young hopes we will) or do you feel that these diversities will somehow hinder the way you manage your classroom?  Why do you feel this way?  Does this component (great diversity or little diversity) affect where you might teach (i.e., will you look for a suburban-based school or a city school) and why?  Lastly, how do you plan on handling/embracing diversity in your classroom?