Literacy, as defined down by contemporary CYA “edumacationists” is merely the ability to decode the funny lil squiggles found on the printed page (in whatever form) into words. Comprehension? Notsomuch. Ability to take printed text, comprehend its meanings and reason from it? That’s not really what contemporary “edumacationists” are after, from all evidence at hand. (You can do your own searches on strings like “literacy declines” etc.)
Simple material literacy is just that: decoding printed text.
Formal literacy is more, much more, and involves having a wide written vocabulary, a grasp of correct grammar, and the ability to write using proper orthography in order to communicate as well as possible.
More and more, nowadays, folks write just what they have heard and in the way they speak. This is not all bad, but much depends on the speech they have heard and their ability to understand even that. The problem comes when these same people only read text written by others of their ilk, so that substandard usage, misheard (or misused) words and expressions have entered their speech and then their own text, so that poor language use is promulgated to yet another subliterate reader.
A couple of quick “tests” determine whether a writer is really literate or simply mistaken in thinking he is. (And there’s one right there: the use of the masculine pronoun to indicate a generic human.):
Word and phrase misusage. Does the writer constantly move a literate reader to invoke Inigo Montoya? (“You keep using that word [or phrase]. . . “) Subliterate. “Chomps” (at the bit) for “champs,” “snigger” for “snicker,” “beg the question” with an intended meaning of “begs that a question be asked” instead of its long accepted meaning of a form of argument where the conclusion is assumed in one of the premises, etc., etc. The stupidities are almost endless.
Another quick test: does the writer even know how to use pronouns? Many, if not most, illiterate/subliterate self-inflicted victims of the Dunning-Kruger Effect have NO idea how to use reflexive pronouns, such as “myself, himself, herself,” etc., and so consistently misuse them in place of “my, him, her,” etc. Does the writer even have a fricking clue about objective case and subjective case pronouns, or does he constantly use “I” when he should be using “me”?
These are all signs of a grasp of English that is verbal rather than literate, and that such grasp is influenced by the language (spoken and written) of others of the writer’s subliterate class.
Of course, a grasp of good grammar, proper orthography, and a decent vocabulary are just the barest beginnings of formal literacy. The person who would be literate must then read and soak up the language use and content of great literature, then use the knowledge gleaned to read widely. . . and deeply on many subjects in order to also become culturally literate. History, science (no, not crap science as presented by the Mass MEdia Podpeople Hivemind), the various arts, etc., are ALL the province of a literate person. These once were the realm of a liberal arts education, but, sadly, no longer, save in a few scattered institutions of genuine education.
In truth, literacy is a lifelong learning experience. Anyone who is not fascinated to find ” holes and gaps, lacks and losses, absenses, silences, impalpabilities, insipidities, and the like”1 in one’s own literacy is simply not literate enough to do so. *sigh*
Of course, my post title could be an unfair imputation of ignorance. Perhaps the reader already knows this, and more. If so, I am open to instruction.
