Unlike in
history, the boundary of literacy becomes broader and more blurred; today, this
issue isn't merely about if you can read or not, but the degree of literacy. I
have read many articles about literacy recently but I still do not have any
clear clue about what literacy really means. However, Lunsford’s argument of
teenagers’ literacy ability seems more real to me compared to other articles.
The topic of Carr and Hedges did not seem like they are focused on literacy
itself, rather they tend to talk more about the effects of technology today and
then literacy. I agree with some of the arguments that the development of
technology makes people blanker and more artificial but like Lunsford argued,
not only teenagers, but most people are all able to distinguish their audience
and use of language. Slang, fragments, etc. are just one kind of language,
trend, or even culture. If Hedges is right that Americans are illiterate, then most
people today should not be able to write or read, which also means they do not
know what they are doing, therefore, our society would not be able to function,
which isn’t happening.
In “Literacy in
Three Metaphors”, Scribner tries to explain more easily what literacy is. He
divides it into three metaphors: “literacy as adaptation, literacy as power,
and literacy as a state of grace.” He does not regard the issue of literacy
negatively whether people are illiterate or not, but he explains that it is certainly
the way people can communicate, the tool that people have rights and social existence,
and the trend that people need to follow as our society changes. Regardless of
countries whether they are developed or developing, literacy is important anywhere
as a way of communication, and as long as it is used endlessly, different style
of literacy should not be defined as illiterate.
No comments:
Post a Comment