Sponsors of Literacy

Sponsors of Literacy

Deborah Brandt

In Sponsors of Literacy, by Deborah Brandt discusses how individuals acquire discourse through the use of sponsors, who "are any agents, local or distant, concrete or abstract, who enable, support, teach, model, as well as recruit, regulate, suppress, or withhold literacy--and gain advantage by it in some way" (page 556, Sponsors of Literacy, Brandt). Individuals throughout are history have come across sponsorship in some form or another, either by machine or person.

Individuals who we consider to be sponsors are anybody who you obtain literacy through such as "teachers, older relatives, editors, etc" (page 557, Sponsors if Literacy, Brandt). The reason individuals for literacy acquisition are critical is because they have the means of supporting and bridging the gap between individuals that already have the discourse in which you desire to have. Having access to higher discourses can led individuals to obtaining "social goods," that bring about power and prestige, valued in society.

You as the sponsored, benefit because sponsors are "powerful figures who bankroll events or smooth the way for initiates" (page 557, Sponsors of Literacy, Brandt). The goal of the sponsored is to have a smooth transition from your dominant discourse into one you aren't familiar with. Having the proper sponsorship can have such a powerful relationship changing the way you think, write, and read.

However, the relationship between sponsor and sponsored is a two-fold relationship in which the sponsors "lend their resources or credibility" (page 557, Sponsors of Literacy, Brandt). But the sponsors also stand to gain from the relationship as well "either by direct repayment or, indirectly, by credit of association" (page 557, Sponsors of Literacy, Brandt). The sponsors teach with the reward of having the sponsored gain advantage in society giving praise to the individual (s) who contributed to the success of that particular individual they taught.

The Politics of Teaching Literate Discourse

The Politics of Teaching Literate Discourse

Lisa Delpit

The essay written by Lisa Delpit describes how certain aspects of James Paul Gee's essay entitled Literacy, Discourse, and Linguistics: Introduction and What is Literacy introduces different types of discourse, with differing factors into obtaining the dominant discourse, which brings about acquisition of "social goods" (money, prestige, status, etc.). Delpit contends that Gee is wrong in two areas about discourse. First, that individuals who aren't born into dominant discourses can't be taught these particular discourses. Secondly, by having control over a dominant discourse a constant conflict emerges between another discourse in which you had acquisition to.

With regards to the first argument I agree with Deplit that individuals can "overtly" learn a dominant discourse in the classroom setting. Being part of a "mainstream" discourse deemed necessary for acquisition of "social goods," I still didn't have access to my dominant discourse, I was seen as a pretender or beginner ( Page 529, Literacy, Discourse, and Linguistics: Introduction and What is Literacy, Gee). It wasn't until I was "overtly" taught by a speech teacher in my elementary school the tools necessary for acceptance into the privileged group.

So, I believe that even though I was born into a "mainstream" dominant discourse it wasn't until further teaching that I fully acquired it. By having firsthand knowledge for the argument presented above I have to disagree with Gee that you can't acquire a discourse in the classroom. I agree with Deplit in her second argument that just because you have a dominant discourse doesn't mean conflicts with another. During my tenure at UWM I have come across many secondary discourses with students, professors, etc. in which they have influenced me greatly. In hindsight though I never truly lost my identity when it came time to revert back to my primary language. I feel as though I could have command of secondary discourse with professors and students of academia and still be able to have control of dominant discourse talking amongst my family and friends.

In closing I believe Gee even in his article proves valid points some however without further dissection by an individual can be proved entirely false. Two of the aspects Gee states in his article I have dealt with in my lifetime. Through teachers, family, friends, professors, etc. have shaped the means in which I acquire, learn, and speak a given discourse.