Reading Responses 12,13,14
Dan Feuerbach
English 354
3-30-06
Reading Response Twelve
As the semester begins to wind down, the study of literacy has taken an interesting turn. The twelfth assignment for this class was to read two papers by James Paul Gee on literacy, discourse, and linguistics. The reading was composed of two papers he wrote on topics related to reading. The ideas presented were somewhat controversial. Enough so to warrant to next assignment to actually offer counter-arguments to Gee’s assertions.
The first section he wrote is entitled “Introduction.” In it he details the ways in which language and grammar are two different things. He suggests that using language is a purely contextual thing. One doesn’t go up to a tattooed biker in a run-down bar and say “May I please have a match?”, but speaks in a simplified diction.
In the second section, “What is Literacy?” Gee defines the word literacy but defines several other words because he doesn’t believe that the literacy can be defined without certain terms that also need to be defined. When it’s all said and done he gives the idea that literacy is being able to command language in various aspects.
His basic message is that being literate is much more than being able to read and write. These are aspects of it, but language as a whole is so much more. It is a political, social and cultural aspect that people defined based on their positions in these situations. He also suggests that the illiteracies a person is born into continue through the individual’s life, and it is difficult, nearly impossible to break into new illiteracies, and when an individual of lower status/literacy achieves higher status/literacy he or she will be conflicted between the new and the old.
The last two sentences have set a fire in the literacy-study world. For more information about this topic, I would recommend the reader to reference my thirteenth reading response.
I have to commend Gee for having the guts to say what he says. Although the reading was only mildly interesting to me as an outsider of the academic world, I still think he stood up for something that many people wouldn’t have the guts to stand up for.
In conclusion, Gee’s idea’s about literacy as a symbol of socio-economic class and the difficulty of breaking out are an important, though not amazing read. I respect him for what he did. I think the stand he took was good, but this means little to me. I am glad I read this but I probably won’t read it again.
Dan Feuerbach
English 354
3-30-06
Reading Response Thirteen
The controversy set of by James Paul Gee in his articles on literacy was countered with an equally compelling essay by Lisa Delpit. In her article “The Politics of Teaching Literate Discourse” she addresses his article and tries to persuade her audience that his points aren’t set in stone and the social obstacles faced by those of lower-literacy are not insurmountable.
Delpit begins her article by praising certain aspects of Gee’s work. She states she agrees with him on many ideas. She believes that language is part of a larger political entity. When illiteracies are added up it becomes something new, called discourse. She also agrees that dominant groups try to keep the statuses in line by the way language is presented on tests.
However, two of Gee’s arguments are stated to be “problematic.” She finds them to be not necessarily true and tries to dissuade people from just rolling over and taking it. She argues that if Gee’s ideas are correct then there is no reason to try and fix the situation.
The first argument she addresses is the “people in a literacy class probably won’t get out.” Delpit says this is a bad philosophy. It reminds her of Nazi geneticists, but instead of being locked into a social class by genes, a person is locked into place by social standing. She argues that this philosophy will leave teachers hopeless to affect change and students no bothering to learn.
The second argument she addresses is the “conflict by moving up” idea. She again says it is similar to the Nazi geneticists and she argues that these two philosophies combined could have dangerous affects on the students and teachers of America.
I thought this was an interesting read. Delpit’s call for change was an important thing for me to read as a person considering a career in teaching. People are willing to learn and make their lives better and as a teacher I would have to be willing to forego the idea of people being locked into their class for life. I agree with her in agreeing with some of Gee’s ideas but I am more inclined to side with her on this issue.
A good read, and better than the Gee article. Although sometimes the language was a little too academic for me I pulled it together and managed to get the main points of the article. I would read this again because I found it very compelling.
Dan Feuerbach
English 354
3-30-06
Reading Response Fourteen
The final response assignment was written by Deborah Brandt and is entitled “Sponsors of Literacy.” This article summarized the experiences that so many people who become literate have. Inevitably there is a person or people that guide the illiterate into the world of literacy. This struck a chord with me because I know I have my mother and father to thank for my current abilities with reading and writing.
The most interesting idea about literacy in this narrative is it is viewed as a resource. Much like lumber or gold, literacy can be “measured” and used to turn economic profits. This article follows Dwayne Lowery on his journey though the systems involved in his life as he gets promoted in the post-World War Two economy. His changing literacy is explained and who was there to guide him to the next level of literacy.
This was cool. As I have grown-up I have had new people be introduced into my life who taught me different types of illiteracies for different situations and social circles. Whether it was being taught how to politely ask for my first paycheck or where the cheapest places to by cigarettes are, my evolution in literacy has definitely gone beyond the simple bedtime stories my parents read. And each new phase has brought new literacy sponsors to show me how to act.
I didn’t really have a problem with this article. The narrative is pretty straight-forward, the language is comprehensible. I can understand what is happening and I want to continue to find out what happens. This was a good piece on Brandt’s part. If I were to grade it would receive a B.
In conclusion, the evolution of Dwayne Lowery’s literacy is somewhat similar to mine. Although we come from different eras, the idea that for each phase of literacy there is going to be new sponsors that will teach you and that have something to gain from it is part of my life and I’m probably sure anybody else’s.
English 354
3-30-06
Reading Response Twelve
As the semester begins to wind down, the study of literacy has taken an interesting turn. The twelfth assignment for this class was to read two papers by James Paul Gee on literacy, discourse, and linguistics. The reading was composed of two papers he wrote on topics related to reading. The ideas presented were somewhat controversial. Enough so to warrant to next assignment to actually offer counter-arguments to Gee’s assertions.
The first section he wrote is entitled “Introduction.” In it he details the ways in which language and grammar are two different things. He suggests that using language is a purely contextual thing. One doesn’t go up to a tattooed biker in a run-down bar and say “May I please have a match?”, but speaks in a simplified diction.
In the second section, “What is Literacy?” Gee defines the word literacy but defines several other words because he doesn’t believe that the literacy can be defined without certain terms that also need to be defined. When it’s all said and done he gives the idea that literacy is being able to command language in various aspects.
His basic message is that being literate is much more than being able to read and write. These are aspects of it, but language as a whole is so much more. It is a political, social and cultural aspect that people defined based on their positions in these situations. He also suggests that the illiteracies a person is born into continue through the individual’s life, and it is difficult, nearly impossible to break into new illiteracies, and when an individual of lower status/literacy achieves higher status/literacy he or she will be conflicted between the new and the old.
The last two sentences have set a fire in the literacy-study world. For more information about this topic, I would recommend the reader to reference my thirteenth reading response.
I have to commend Gee for having the guts to say what he says. Although the reading was only mildly interesting to me as an outsider of the academic world, I still think he stood up for something that many people wouldn’t have the guts to stand up for.
In conclusion, Gee’s idea’s about literacy as a symbol of socio-economic class and the difficulty of breaking out are an important, though not amazing read. I respect him for what he did. I think the stand he took was good, but this means little to me. I am glad I read this but I probably won’t read it again.
Dan Feuerbach
English 354
3-30-06
Reading Response Thirteen
The controversy set of by James Paul Gee in his articles on literacy was countered with an equally compelling essay by Lisa Delpit. In her article “The Politics of Teaching Literate Discourse” she addresses his article and tries to persuade her audience that his points aren’t set in stone and the social obstacles faced by those of lower-literacy are not insurmountable.
Delpit begins her article by praising certain aspects of Gee’s work. She states she agrees with him on many ideas. She believes that language is part of a larger political entity. When illiteracies are added up it becomes something new, called discourse. She also agrees that dominant groups try to keep the statuses in line by the way language is presented on tests.
However, two of Gee’s arguments are stated to be “problematic.” She finds them to be not necessarily true and tries to dissuade people from just rolling over and taking it. She argues that if Gee’s ideas are correct then there is no reason to try and fix the situation.
The first argument she addresses is the “people in a literacy class probably won’t get out.” Delpit says this is a bad philosophy. It reminds her of Nazi geneticists, but instead of being locked into a social class by genes, a person is locked into place by social standing. She argues that this philosophy will leave teachers hopeless to affect change and students no bothering to learn.
The second argument she addresses is the “conflict by moving up” idea. She again says it is similar to the Nazi geneticists and she argues that these two philosophies combined could have dangerous affects on the students and teachers of America.
I thought this was an interesting read. Delpit’s call for change was an important thing for me to read as a person considering a career in teaching. People are willing to learn and make their lives better and as a teacher I would have to be willing to forego the idea of people being locked into their class for life. I agree with her in agreeing with some of Gee’s ideas but I am more inclined to side with her on this issue.
A good read, and better than the Gee article. Although sometimes the language was a little too academic for me I pulled it together and managed to get the main points of the article. I would read this again because I found it very compelling.
Dan Feuerbach
English 354
3-30-06
Reading Response Fourteen
The final response assignment was written by Deborah Brandt and is entitled “Sponsors of Literacy.” This article summarized the experiences that so many people who become literate have. Inevitably there is a person or people that guide the illiterate into the world of literacy. This struck a chord with me because I know I have my mother and father to thank for my current abilities with reading and writing.
The most interesting idea about literacy in this narrative is it is viewed as a resource. Much like lumber or gold, literacy can be “measured” and used to turn economic profits. This article follows Dwayne Lowery on his journey though the systems involved in his life as he gets promoted in the post-World War Two economy. His changing literacy is explained and who was there to guide him to the next level of literacy.
This was cool. As I have grown-up I have had new people be introduced into my life who taught me different types of illiteracies for different situations and social circles. Whether it was being taught how to politely ask for my first paycheck or where the cheapest places to by cigarettes are, my evolution in literacy has definitely gone beyond the simple bedtime stories my parents read. And each new phase has brought new literacy sponsors to show me how to act.
I didn’t really have a problem with this article. The narrative is pretty straight-forward, the language is comprehensible. I can understand what is happening and I want to continue to find out what happens. This was a good piece on Brandt’s part. If I were to grade it would receive a B.
In conclusion, the evolution of Dwayne Lowery’s literacy is somewhat similar to mine. Although we come from different eras, the idea that for each phase of literacy there is going to be new sponsors that will teach you and that have something to gain from it is part of my life and I’m probably sure anybody else’s.
posted by Dan at 12:53 AM
0 Comments:
Post a Comment
<< Home