Linnea
Skoog
10-6-14
Rhetorical
Analysis
Writ.
101
ZuZu
Feder
Rhetorical Analysis
of “Sponsors of Literacy” by Deborah Brandt
Deborah
Brandt is a professor in the English department at the University of
Wisconsin-Madison. She has written several books on literacy, as well
as scholarly research articles about literacy (Brandt p.43). In 1998,
her prompt Sponsors of Literacy was
featured in a periodical for other scholars and educators called
College Composition and Communication (CCC). “CCC is
a committee of scholars and teachers aimed at giving students the
opportunity to receive the education and literacy they deserve”
(ncte.org). Considering that this article appeared in a CCC
publication, Brandt's intended audience was other scholars and
teachers. She was writing this to bring the attention to the learning
of the students. Moreover, where they began learning and who taught
them. Deborah Brandt can relate to this essay in the fact that she
not only see's people either excelling with their literacy or
struggling with their literacy, but as well as the reminder of her
literacy background.
Another
audience this prompt seems to have been aimed at was students. Most
likely college students who were doing an analysis on the background
of their literacy, or even the literacy of their classmates and
peers. Much like our class, they could have read this essay and
conversed about how much positive impact their parents had on their
reading and writing, as well as the negative impact that was poured
upon them from negative literacy sponsors.
Deborah
Brandt's article “Sponsors of Literacy” touches on the basis of
our literacy. Where we began to read and write and how that has
shaped us now. In the article, Brandt specifically gives examples of
two people and their literacy backgrounds. Raymond Branch and Dora
Lopez come from different walks of life. One of Raymond's literacy
sponsors was the technology around him. As a young child “he
enjoyed fooling around with 'real users' at his father's science lab”
(Brandt p.49). Dora, though she had a Latino background, knew nothing
about the Spanish language, thus she took it upon herself to learn.
She taught herself to read and write in Spanish. From these examples,
not only does Brandt show that technology and books can be a a
literary sponsor, but also the people with whom we interact. Raymond
experienced his literacy through exploring technology, though it
wasn't something he just 'decided upon' one day. Being that his dad
was into science, and so, around technology a lot, Raymond got a
knack for technology as well. Dora, though English speaking,
experienced her Spanish literacy on her own through books she had
obtained and read. Though Dora did 'decide' to learn Spanish on her
own, she was never discouraged by her family. In fact, she would
often get Spanish books form the library her mother worked at.
Brandt shows us
that people are also our literary sponsors by making us think about
how and when we learned to read. From this we can conclude that for
most of us, our parents were huge literary sponsors, as well as
siblings, babysitters, pre-schools, and even “learning” shows.
Our parents would teach us our ABC's and patiently read to us our
favorite books over and over again. While our siblings would
impatiently correct our words and grammar. Our babysitter and
preschool teachers would give us little impromptu lessons that would
help us improve our reading and writing. These were all positive
literacy sponsors. They encouraged us to learn and keep learning new
things. They would help us as well. Within
thinking about our positive literacy sponsors, one is prompted to
think about the “negative” literacy sponsors, too. These negative
literacy sponsors could range from anyone who talks over you when
you're talking to a teacher who told you to stop writing a certain
way. Often, it would be someone who either didn't help you to improve
your reading and writing or someone who practically told you to throw
everything you already know about reading and writing out the window
and start doing things their way. Or both. Sometimes, it would be
that one teacher who would favor certain students. They were too
focused on their “favorites” succeeding that they “forgot”
what being a teacher meant.
I
think Brandt's bigger argument here is that no matter where you came
from, and what your literacy sponsors were, good or bad, there's
always a chance to start fresh and learn what you want to know. I
also think that what she's saying is that by the time people get to
the college level, they either don't care how something is written or
supposed to be written, or they don't know. They don't know because
all everyone does these days is use text talk and acronyms. They
don't use real words or grammar. They're not sure which 'there' to
use when they want to go over 'there' or
to 'their' house. They're not sure when to use a semi colon or a
comma. They start every sentence with 'and,'
'because,' and 'but.' They don't care because they don't know. If
they were expected to actually do work to improve themselves, then
maybe they would care a little bit more, thus picking up and
understanding what's expected of them.
I
believe Brandt's exigence was probably the fact that there are so
many people who don't know the basics of constructing a paper.
Instead of getting the proper help they need to get to the stage of
constructing a “good” paper, they failed and possibly don't have
the motivation to continue. Another reason she most likely wrote this
was to bring it to the attention of fellow scholars and teachers.
It's not like she was the only one who noticed. If she could get so
many more teachers involved, they would really be able to help people
and keep writing what it is, before it gets any worse. She probably
also wrote this to reflect on her literacy sponsors. To understand
that not everybody has the same opportunities growing up. Some people
are much more fortunate and motivated. Other just aren't as lucky.
In
conclusion, what Brandt is saying in the article is that people learn
differently. Not everyone will learn the same way. With this, their
literacy journey has been different. They have different reading
levels than their peers, they write differently, they may or may not
have terrible grammar. Everyone's literacy background is different.
She is also telling us that no matter how well we think our literacy
is now, there's always room for improvement, in one way or another.
Even if it's as little as just sitting down and reading a new book.
Works
Cited:
-Brandt,
Deborah. "Sponsors of Literacy." Writing
About Writing.
2nd ed. Boston: Bedford/St.Martins, 2014. 43-60. Print.
-Yancey,
Kathleen Blake, ed. College
Composition and Communication
1998. Print.
http://www.ncte.org/cccc/ccc.
No comments:
Post a Comment