Editor for this issue: Terence Langendoen <terry
linguistlist.org>
Gregory, Eve, and Ann Williams (2000) City Literacies: Learning to Read Across Generations and Cultures. Routledge, 232 pp, Literacies series. Review by Charlotte Brammer, University of Alabama, Tuscaloosa, AL, USA This monograph should have broad appeal to anyone interested in literacy studies, in general, and to multicultural literacy studies in particular. In the Prologue, the authors state that their book "will appeal to all those fascinated by the lives and literacies of different generations living in two square miles of London." This section of London, Spitalfields, has been home to a variety of immigrants, from the early Irish and Welsh to French Huguenots to Polish Jews to recent Bangladeshi refugees. Through ethnography and ethnomethodology, the authors' argue that "contrasting rather than similar home and school strategies and practices provide a child with a larger treasure trove from which to draw for school learning." The Introduction challenges the persistent paradigm that equates poverty with low literacy skills (i.e., the deficit myth) and suggests that educators must look for the richness of "contrasting" literacy practices to better understand and appreciate the literacy skills their students already have. The book is divided into three parts: Part I, Living and learning east of the Aldgate pump; Part II, Childhood memories of literacy and learning; and Part III, Looking ahead: Young literacies, lives and learning. Part I provides an excellent overview of the history of Spitalfields, including a favorable painting of Toynbee Hall as an evolving center for cultural enrichment. Parts II and III, however, focus on the people of Spitalfields and provide a richness of description that epitomizes ethnographic research. Part II introduces study participants who were born either before or just after World War II. For these individuals, literacy seems inextricably tied to reading, writing, and learning, in general, but also to what the authors term "getting on in life." Literacy provides a "key to open doors. Whether one chooses to use or lose the key is another matter. Without it, however, entry is impossible" (p. 70). Learning was important for the participants in this section because it gave them opportunities to improve their economic situations. Although the English students were more familiar with school culture than were their Jewish peers, the authors point out that, at times, the English students may have been at more of a disadvantage because "they were not as conscious of difference as their Jewish peers" (p. 99). Moreover, parents could not usually help with homework, and most students used teachers and other community members to negotiate the demands school. Many of these students learned to use skills developed in culture specific classes (e.g., Hebrew classes) to better function in English school. One adult remembers that she seemed to be ahead of her English peers in studying grammar because she had learned Hebrew grammar. This is central to the authors' argument that students have a range of literacy practices from which to draw as they negotiate the literacy expected in the classroom, and teachers should recognize and facilitate this syncretic, contrasting literacy. While Part II dealt with adults remembering their learning process, Part III explores the literacy paths of thirteen children and their parents. The monolingual, English families primarily see literacy skills as fun, but for the Bangladeshi families, literacy is work. These children spend an average of thirteen hours a week, outside of the English school, in structured classes to learn Qur'an. Much of the reading is done in groups and is taken very seriously by students and adults. Accuracy is demanded. In the transcripts of younger children reading English texts to older siblings, the authors note that the demand for accuracy continues but seems somewhat mitigated by the methods used in the English school. In other words, one student, Wahida, combines the modeling and scaffolding techniques from her Bengali classes and English classes as she teaches her younger sibling. Specifically, Wahida balances imparting social queues with providing text, establishing meaning, and insisting on accuracy. Overall, this is an engaging and well-written addition to longitudinal literacy studies. It provides a unique look at contrasting literacies across several cultures and generations in Spitalfields and furthers current discussions about how contrasting literacy does not mean a lack of literacy. Part III is particularly poignant in illustrating how children can mine their literacy repertoire to facilitate learning and teaching. If the text has a shortcoming, it is the lack of transcripts from other children showing how they too use their multiple literacies to facilitate learning. Aside from that, my only quibble is the authors' refusal to discuss, other than a refusal to apologize, for the paucity of men in the study, particularly in Part III. Erikson's justification of ethnography, which the authors quote, does not justify omitting a discussion of how the unbalanced ratio of female to male participants affects the study. Might the results be different if fathers rather than mothers were interviewed? Gender is tied to literacy and language, and the focus on women, particularly mothers in Part III, it seems, should be addressed. This does not, however, diminish the value of the text to literacy studies, nor does it weaken the argument that children can benefit from their multiple and contrasting literacies. Charlotte Brammer is a PhD candidate in the Applied Linguistics program at the University of Alabama. Her research interests include literacy studies, dialect influences on writing, and technical and professional communication. She also serves as editorial assistant for IEEE Transactions on Professional Communication.Mail to author|Respond to list|Read more issues|LINGUIST home page|Top of issue