<?xml version="1.0" encoding="utf-8"?><rss version="2.0"
	xmlns:content="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/content/"
	xmlns:dc="http://purl.org/dc/elements/1.1/"
	xmlns:atom="http://www.w3.org/2005/Atom"
	xmlns:sy="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/syndication/"
		>
<channel>
	<title>Comments on: Naming The Literate</title>
	<atom:link href="http://borderland.northernattitude.org/2005/12/19/naming-the-literate/feed/" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml" />
	<link>http://borderland.northernattitude.org/2005/12/19/naming-the-literate/</link>
	<description>(bôr&#039;dər-lănd&#039;) n. Located on or near a frontier. An indeterminate area or condition.</description>
	<lastBuildDate>Tue, 02 Mar 2010 16:24:44 -0800</lastBuildDate>
	<generator>http://wordpress.org/?v=2.9.2</generator>
	<sy:updatePeriod>hourly</sy:updatePeriod>
	<sy:updateFrequency>1</sy:updateFrequency>
		<item>
		<title>By: Teaching Generation Z </title>
		<link>http://borderland.northernattitude.org/2005/12/19/naming-the-literate/comment-page-1/#comment-1045</link>
		<dc:creator>Teaching Generation Z </dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Thu, 29 Dec 2005 10:59:05 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://borderland.northernattitude.org/?p=195#comment-1045</guid>
		<description>[...] I can see why recently so many blogs are pointing to Borderland. Doug&#8217;s thoughts make for compelling reading and gets my brain asking as many questions as there are answers to be found. It&#8217;s an uncomfortable but necessary feeling to be seeking answers that eighteen years of teaching don&#8217;t adequately provide for. I&#8217;ve been  reading his post  Naming The Literate which deals with the issue of standardised testing and flows over into a stack of other related areas. Doug points out at the start of the post that literacy is a point of view issue:  Any interpretive act could count as reading. We can read the weather, read a river, read a face, or read a room full of people. Since interpretations of the same phenomenon can vary, we know that a range of meanings for any text is possible depending on a person’s point of view. [...]</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>[...] I can see why recently so many blogs are pointing to Borderland. Doug&#8217;s thoughts make for compelling reading and gets my brain asking as many questions as there are answers to be found. It&#8217;s an uncomfortable but necessary feeling to be seeking answers that eighteen years of teaching don&#8217;t adequately provide for. I&#8217;ve been  reading his post  Naming The Literate which deals with the issue of standardised testing and flows over into a stack of other related areas. Doug points out at the start of the post that literacy is a point of view issue:  Any interpretive act could count as reading. We can read the weather, read a river, read a face, or read a room full of people. Since interpretations of the same phenomenon can vary, we know that a range of meanings for any text is possible depending on a person’s point of view. [...]</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: Doug</title>
		<link>http://borderland.northernattitude.org/2005/12/19/naming-the-literate/comment-page-1/#comment-1036</link>
		<dc:creator>Doug</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Tue, 20 Dec 2005 00:44:17 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://borderland.northernattitude.org/?p=195#comment-1036</guid>
		<description>&lt;a href=&quot;http://www.resort.com/~prime8/Orwell/patee.html&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;Politics and the English Language&lt;/a&gt; (1946) by George Orwell addresses the erosion of meaning in written language. It isn&#039;t, apparently, a new topic, and it may have nothing whatsoever to do with reading in a digital age. It&#039;s an interesting question, though, whether a more common idiom will inhibit our ability to communicate complex thought.</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p><a href="http://www.resort.com/~prime8/Orwell/patee.html" rel="nofollow">Politics and the English Language</a> (1946) by George Orwell addresses the erosion of meaning in written language. It isn&#8217;t, apparently, a new topic, and it may have nothing whatsoever to do with reading in a digital age. It&#8217;s an interesting question, though, whether a more common idiom will inhibit our ability to communicate complex thought.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: Queen Anne Lace</title>
		<link>http://borderland.northernattitude.org/2005/12/19/naming-the-literate/comment-page-1/#comment-1035</link>
		<dc:creator>Queen Anne Lace</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Mon, 19 Dec 2005 22:50:47 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://borderland.northernattitude.org/?p=195#comment-1035</guid>
		<description>I am currently reading The Gutenberg Elegies: The Fate of Reading in an Electronic Age by Sven Birkerts. I have to confess that I just started reading this book but here is a quote that relates to the NAAL report:


&quot;1. Language erosion. There is no question but that the transition from the culture of the book to the culture of electronic communication will radically alter the ways in which we use language on every societal level. The complexity and distinctiveness of spoken and written expression, which are deeply bound to traditions of print literacy, will gradually be replaced by a more telegraphic sort of &quot;plainspeak.&quot; Syntactic masonry is already a dying art. Neil Postman and others have already suggested what losses have been incurred by the advent of telegraphy and television–how the complex discourse patterns of the nineteenth century were flattened by the requirements of communication over distances. That tendency runs riot as the layers of mediation thicken. Simple linguistic prefab is now the norm, while ambiguity, paradox, irony, subtlety, and wit are fast disappearing. In their place, the simple &quot;vision thing&quot; and myriad other &quot;things.&quot; Verbal intelligence, which has long been viewed as suspect as the act of reading, will come to seem positively conspiratorial. The greater part of any articulate person&#039;s energy will be deployed in dumbing-down her discourse. 

Language will grow increasingly impoverished through a series of vicious cycles. For, of course, the usages of literature and scholarship are connected in fundamental ways to the general speech of the tribe. We can expect that curricula will be further streamlined, and difficult texts in the humanities will be pruned and glossed. One need only compare a college textbook from twenty years ago to its contemporary version. A poem by Milton, a play by Shakespeare–one can hardly find the text among the explanatory notes nowadays. Fewer and fewer people will be able to contend with the so-called masterworks of literature or ideas. Joyce, Woolf, Soyinka, not to mention the masters who preceded them, will go unread, and the civilizing energies of their prose will circulate aimlessly between closed covers.&quot;

Birkerts who teaches literature at the collegiate level has noted that many college students are struggling with the classics of literature. Has outsourcing the human brain via the digitial format created this situation??</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>I am currently reading The Gutenberg Elegies: The Fate of Reading in an Electronic Age by Sven Birkerts. I have to confess that I just started reading this book but here is a quote that relates to the NAAL report:</p>
<p>&#8220;1. Language erosion. There is no question but that the transition from the culture of the book to the culture of electronic communication will radically alter the ways in which we use language on every societal level. The complexity and distinctiveness of spoken and written expression, which are deeply bound to traditions of print literacy, will gradually be replaced by a more telegraphic sort of &#8220;plainspeak.&#8221; Syntactic masonry is already a dying art. Neil Postman and others have already suggested what losses have been incurred by the advent of telegraphy and television–how the complex discourse patterns of the nineteenth century were flattened by the requirements of communication over distances. That tendency runs riot as the layers of mediation thicken. Simple linguistic prefab is now the norm, while ambiguity, paradox, irony, subtlety, and wit are fast disappearing. In their place, the simple &#8220;vision thing&#8221; and myriad other &#8220;things.&#8221; Verbal intelligence, which has long been viewed as suspect as the act of reading, will come to seem positively conspiratorial. The greater part of any articulate person&#8217;s energy will be deployed in dumbing-down her discourse. </p>
<p>Language will grow increasingly impoverished through a series of vicious cycles. For, of course, the usages of literature and scholarship are connected in fundamental ways to the general speech of the tribe. We can expect that curricula will be further streamlined, and difficult texts in the humanities will be pruned and glossed. One need only compare a college textbook from twenty years ago to its contemporary version. A poem by Milton, a play by Shakespeare–one can hardly find the text among the explanatory notes nowadays. Fewer and fewer people will be able to contend with the so-called masterworks of literature or ideas. Joyce, Woolf, Soyinka, not to mention the masters who preceded them, will go unread, and the civilizing energies of their prose will circulate aimlessly between closed covers.&#8221;</p>
<p>Birkerts who teaches literature at the collegiate level has noted that many college students are struggling with the classics of literature. Has outsourcing the human brain via the digitial format created this situation??</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
</channel>
</rss>
