When I think of literacy, illiteracy, etc., I have always thought of an ability to read and write. To say someone is illiterate has always meant that they had not learned how to read or write. So in the noun form, literacy means the ability to understand written words and to produce written words.
This definition seems to make sense in regards to the "Theory of Language and Literacy" we are to ponder. Language is simply a way to communicate, generally orally (sometimes language incorporates gestures and facial expressions, especially in the case of someone who is unable to speak or hear, i.e. American Sign Language), so then literacy would apply to reading and writing. I believe someone who is illiterate (unable to read) generally will still be more than capable of communication.
I actually thought about that the other day...about the use of sign language. I fear that language, to many, is simply oral. But really, isn't language communication between people? I guess the whole idea of "language" is hard for me to pinpoint. I don't think we will ever be able to without a 500 page definition:) no but really....
ReplyDeleteAnother thing to think about is non-verbal communication. I think of this because the other day Simon (boyfriend) got mad at me for gasping while we were driving. He whipped his head around, looked at me like I was an idiot, and asked me "why did you gasp." My feelings were hurt, but when I tried to explain that to him he couldn't believe I was upset when all he had said was "why did you gasp." I told him it was more about his physical reaction and he said "that's nonverbal!" as if it didn't matter as much. It did. And he eventually apologized after I explained that to him.
ReplyDelete