Though, it is difficult to believe that everyone does in fact play the culturally assigned roles of report and rapport speakers by stereotypically assigning language to gender, it is apparent that a great many in our society do in fact follow this trend. I can remember myself thinking about this subject on several occasions in fact. At my high school there were two teachers assigned for the social sciences classes. Mr. Bueller who taught the geography/economics and sociology classes and Mrs. Wheatly who taught the American History class, aka: the class of death. Now what surprised me about these two was how there teaching styles seemed to differ so dramatically from one another.


Mr. Bueller always had something to say, and when I say always I mean always. The man barely stopped to catch his breath sometimes; he liked hearing his own voice way to much. A truly report style. And, if you wanted to have a free day all you had to do was ask him about his good old college days and then you would get all the hell raising escapades he had been on in his frat. At this time, Mr. Bueller was going through the beginnings of his forties and probably was distracted by gray more than youthful remembrance. Don't get me wrong the man knew his stuff, he could tell you basically anything you wanted to know about history and political function, as long as you accepted his own personal perspective. And as for actual work, we probably did about three assignments all year.


Mrs. Wheatly on the other hand was a completely different animal. She didn't bark...she bit and hard too. Now just so you can get the picture of this woman I would like you to think of the finest piece of silver jewelry with sparkling emeralds glittering with a great intensity. Now throw that piece of jewelry in an ancient tomb for about 3 thousand years, and equip the tomb with so many crocodiles, compressing walls, and pongee sticks that not even Angelina Jolie in a g-string with a nuclear weapon could get the evil thing out.



Mrs. Wheatly was fifty-seven when I was in her Senior American History class, and she had lost none of her intensity. Everyday at seven o'clock she was in the class room, writing her notes in its small yet mystically clear enough for blind to see from the back of the room font. Her silver head bobbing over and over, covering every inch of the board. She always had her lesson plan laid out years in advance, mostly because she had lived through practically all of history. I can remember that everyone had to come in at least at 7:15 just to keep up with everything. She always had time to allow questions during the lecture, and she was constantly giving quizzes. Now if that wasn't bad enough, Mrs. Wheatly also had here final exam. A 500 to 700 question test with multiple choice, fill in the blank, true and false, and some but little matching.


A test which made some adults awed by the woman's sheer lack of mercy. But she always had to have every thing prepared, and she never tried to come off as dominate in a conversation. She was better at listening to others problems and allowing them to come up with the answers they already knew was best.


Though their teaching styles followed the report and rapport it was completely different when it came to discipline. With Mr. Bueller it was live and let live, he didn't want to face an altercation if he could help it. If somebody did anything such as cheat, if that person was particularly popular he would act like the whole thing was funny, or if someone talked about performing the worst bouts of debauchery he would think the whole circumstance funny. If that wasn't enough if something really bad went down such as a fight, he would try to stop it by telling a child like "stop it" and would proceed to run across the hall to Mrs. Wheatley. She would come flying, in force both parties away from each other, with herself in between, and would say if they didn't stop it she would personally insure that they never be able to fight ever again." Obviously the ability to truly express ones self only comes when you are really angered.

We all pride ourselves on the past histories of the Americans who were ready and willing to sacrifice their lives for their country, but is the dedication to preserving their legacies detrimental to the future. The article I am reviewing is about a school called the York Institute located in Jamestown, TN. This school was named after the World War I hero Sgt. Alvin C. York. Though the article failed to provide a more detailed account of this hero's feats, I have attained some information on the subject. Alvin C. York was born in Pall Mall, present day Jamestown , Tennessee on December 13, 1887 to an impoverished family. In order to provide food for his family York had to help obtain the family's sustenance at an early age, being taught to hunt with exceptional skill. At the age of twenty York's father William York died and the bereaved Alvin was left to take care of his family. However, the stress of both his father's death and the pressure of his new position as primary provider proved to much for him and he began to take to drinking and fighting in local saloons. During the deterioration of York's morals, his younger brother was forced to care for the family. York's mother, an avid Christian, continued pleading with her eldest son to change his ways, but he remained resistant. During an altercation in the local saloon, York's best friend was killed, the shock of which made York assume the role of a pacifist christian that his mother wished him take.

On June 15, 1917 York received a draft notice. It has been found that he applied as a continuous objector, but that his request was never approved. During the Battle of the Argonne Forest on a mission to take the German Decuaville rail-line on October 8, 1918, Corp. York lead an attack on a German machine gun nest after the acting officer Sgt. Bernard Early and another eight of the original seventeen assigned to the mission were wounded during the early part of the attack. York was successful in the attempt with the salvaging of 32 machine guns, 28 deaths of enemy combatants, and capturing 132 others. A feat for which he was awarded the Medal of Honor. In 1926 York established a school in his hometown, a portion of which funding was provided from York's attainment of private sources and solicitation of the Tennessee State Legislature.

The article, though lacking in its historical depth, does maintain its coverage of the current situation. Is the York Institute safe enough to remain standing and does it have the ability to continue as a function facility of education. The article provides its introduction into the situation by saying that eighty years since the establishment of the York Institute, George York the son of the illustrious Sergent is trying to save the school from the emergency demolition the state has called for. This is due to the assessment made by Mark Buchanan a structural engineer who wrote the Tennessee Board of Education prompting them to call for the demolition. While the school board says the school is at present safe for use, Buchanan believes that there are only three scenarios that he perceives as applicable. Repair the building and bring it up to codes, tear down the building and build another school in its place, or demolish the building completely. The article only provides Buchanan's estimate costs for the demolition options, ranging form $500,000 for complete demolishment to $3.7 million for a completely new school. The latter estimate has increased since the added cost of portable facilities has been added while construction is in progress. Buchanan also says for a short-term fix shelling the front wall of the school might be the best option, however this is designed only for several weeks or a few months not the necessary years in order to complete the repairs.

The York Institute Superintendent Phil Brannon comments,"Every time this comes up about tearing down, everybody throws a fit, and the state just walks away." He also says that the building has been empty since 1980 and the 700 students now use an instillation only 9 feet away. He goes on to say that a fifty foot fence has been constructed which disrupts traffic and has closed four classrooms. Brannon also comments that a emergency plan has to be in place in case the building does collapse, which would spew dangerous materials, including asbestos, into the air.

As I read this I can only think of one thing to ask. Why would a war hero want a building he established to be a major hazard to the health of the children he fought for? I mean who would think that this is what a man who sacrificed his life for the future of his country would want. I also would like to know, why would the state allow the institute to fall to that kind of decay if they really wanted to preserve the landmark, why is the state continuing its apathy putting the students in further danger, why when the situation is so critical is the issue of money the main concern, and why would George York be more concerned with the remembrance of his father than the safety of the students? I would also like to hear the concerns of some of the parents who have to witness this apathy, and also what they have tried to do about it? These questions differ greatly form that of a journalist who focuses on the current situation and the factual problems involving it instead of the fieldworker who would try to gain insight into how the people involved perceives the problems.



The best way for a fieldworker to gather resources to answer these questions is by asking the people of the community. To get the best idea of the problem you should ask the people who deal with it. As for the perspective of Sargent York on the matter, you could ask his family, however the pride which these members might have may bias there response. I believe it would be better to observe the thoughts posed by York in his diary, which has been published. From this, you might be able to gather an idea as to the thinking of the late Sargent, and thus form a hypothetical conclusion.

When I consider the oppression and hardship faced by the bilingual authors we have read in class, I find myself hard pressed to relate a part of my life that could even begin to reflect the situation of language assimilation. This is obviously because I have never had to face a position of complete loss in communication, having been a resident of my native country all my life. The only comparable scene I can recall, that at best grazes the subject matter of the authors, would be the language transformation I faced as a five year old child.



It was three days before my inauguration into the lucrative world of elementary education, and I could hardly express my overflowing excitement at the prospect. I was not the only one that was expressing excitement as I prepared for the maiden voyage of my true role as a "big kid"! My mother was seeming exceedingly proud, and appeared to gain a mysterious energy that only a mother can summon when she feels the arrival of her offspring at a prestigious landmark in their life. However beneath the proud energy she possessed, there were undertones of a less than wonderful anxiety about this change.



My mother, though a loving and caring woman who has always seen to my every need and want for happiness, had an unfortunate condition that no one seemed able to cure her of. She was a Vice-principle, and if that was not bad enough she was a good vice-principle having gained the great title of the Wicked Witch of West Tennessee.



Now comes the first problem I ever had with my dear mother. As I said, it was the third day before my proper education's commencement, and my mother who had been cuing with delight for the past month had finally sat me down and put upon her face a look of supreme will and solidarity. A face I would become quite accustomed with and learn to feel both respect and frustration for. As I sat there it was all I could do to keep from laughing considering that this was a woman who in the five years I had known her, not including the nine months in the womb, had always strived to appear at prefect peace and happiness. I soon realized that she meant business. She began her presentation by saying that I should decide whether or not I was ok with her being the vice-principal of my school. Of course, as a five year old I didn't understand her completely. I honestly thought she said she was Vice-president, but I didn't mind any way because I knew that whatever her occupation was it entailed being at my school as much as I would be, how cool is that! "Oh, to be five and an idiot." After she completed the preamble portion of her presentation, she told me that my school life would be far better if I did not try to converse with her at school as if I were her child. She said it would be far better for me if I spoke to her as any other student would, by saying Ms. Padgett instead of mom and trying not to say "I love you" as best I could.

My response to this was merely a look of what could only be expressed as "MY MOTHER HAS GONE CRAZY AND SHE TRYING TO TAKE ME WITH HER." I didn't understand what she was trying ask me to do. I was her child, so why was it she was trying to make me act as if I wasn't? I had always tried to express my deep felt love for her, as she had always done for me. So why couldn't we do the same anymore? Well seeing as how my mom did goofy stuff all the time I just decided, to say yes and go play with my imaginary friend Nanukinhifrerstaooken the III.

So, I came to class my first day and went about my business as any student would. That is until lunch rolled around and I found myself face to face with my mother, who had lunch-patrol like so many of the teachers. As everyone went into the lunchroom, in our classic straight line, we passed my mom who was controlling the flow of traffic when I opened my mouth and said this, "Hi Mommy, I love you."

Well you might think it caused a problem, and you would be wrong. When I said those dreaded words the apocalypse did not occur. There were no typhoons, no floods, no earthquakes. There was not a soul who made a big deal out of it. After all, it was kindergarten. No one even really cared whether or not I called Ms. Padgett, mom. That is until about the third grade, I was doing very well in school, and that can be attributed to good parenting. But, everyone else decide it had nothing to do with a good mom, and everything to do with a devious vice-principal, everyone who entered the third grade and was a lazy moronic buffoon at least. Most of which would be arrested for drug possession in the future. So in order to deal with this problem I had to start calling my mother the impersonal Ms. Padgett, and tried to present as little emotion as possible. This lasted for all of three seconds with small bursts of success. I found it much easier to just forget everybody else, and just talk to my mother as I pleased. After all, who were they to say how my family should operate.

A Review of the reading from 1/14 (AL154)

The portion of the Postman passage I found most interesting was its reference to the Korzybski and his idea of humans being different from other organisms in our role as "time-binders" That humans have the capacity to transport their experience through time, amassing knowledge from the past to communicating such knowledge to the future, and that the principle means to accomplish this is by the use of symbols in language.

Though the extremities of this ideology might stretch rationality, it does make sense that the past knowledge amassed by our ancestors would define the parameters of our world perception. It would also be understandable to assume that since we can manipulate the physical world that past knowledge could also influence our shaping of the material world and the perceptual world. After all, the very languages we speak today are constructed from the languages long since dead and in some cases forgotten.

This idea that language is a way of time travel for the beliefs and basic understanding of the world, is further supported when looking at how religion can constitute the ideas created by whole nations. The United States being included. In this case the knowledge is what should constitute the moral obligations of a society. So it is easy to see how this idea might have some truth when you consider that without language we could not create such a developed world by expanding on the applications of past beliefs.

This expansion not only involves morals but also the material functions of our world. For instance when the Wright Brothers began to experiment with flight, they could derive inspiration from the past documents of such minds as Leonardo De Vince. The very architectures that we find to be the most reflective of grace and elegance today were created with much more grandeur in both ancient Greece and Rome. Granted that the study of the still existent architecture has been useful, but the degradation of these wonders make the ancient blueprints and documents that were created by the original engineers to be pivotal in understanding the intended magnificence.

There is only one part of Korzybski's theory that I disagree with, however. Korzybski claims the man kind is the only organism capable of this "time-bending". Now I grant the use of language sophisticates our ability to "time-bend" with much more complexity and efficiency, but it has been known that animals have been able to know the locations of mating, birthing, and resource locations from out of the womb or egg. So to say that man is the only one capable of this extraordinary ability might be just the ugly rearing of an inferiority complex from the dear old Count.