Hostname: page-component-cd9895bd7-p9bg8 Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-12-25T21:45:54.358Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Literate practices in a modern credit union1

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  18 December 2008

Deborah Keller-Cohen
Deborah Keller-Cohen
Affiliation:
English Composition Board, and Program in Linguistics, University of Michigan
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

Modern bureaucratic institutions are notorious for producing documents that are difficult to understand. Much attention has been paid to the language of these materials; little is known about the contexts in which these documents are used and their potential effects on functional literacy. Drawing on research in a midwestern credit union, this paper discusses several factors that seem to characterize how and why credit unions and their members use credit union documents: the characteristics of document availability, the structure of interactions in which documents are used, attitudes and beliefs about the documents, and the functions of documents. (Literate practices, conversational analysis, bureaucratic institutions, politics of language, plain language movement).

Type
Articles
Information
Language in Society , Volume 16 , Issue 1 , March 1987 , pp. 7 - 23
Copyright
Copyright © Cambridge University Press 1987

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

References

REFERENCES

Cicourel, A. (1981). Language and medicine. In Ferguson, C. A. & Heath, S. B. (eds.). Language in the U.S.A. Cambridge University Press. 407–29.Google Scholar
Clanchy, M. T. (1979). From meaning to written record. London: Edward Arnold.Google Scholar
Crandall, J. (1981). Functional literacy of clerical workers: Strategies for minimizing literacy demands and maximizing available information. Paper presented at the Annual Meeting of the American Association of Applied Linguistics,New York City.Google Scholar
Diehl, W. (1980). Functional literacy as a variable construct: An examination of attitudes, behaviors, and strategies related to occupational literacy. Ph.D. dissertation. Indiana University.Google Scholar
Francis, V., Korsch, B., & Morris, M. (1969). Gaps in doctor-patient communications. Patients' response to medical advice. New England Journal of Medicine 280: 535–40.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Goffman, E. (1963). Behavior in public places. Glencoe. N.Y.: Free Press.Google Scholar
Goffman, E. (1976). Replies and responses. Language in Society 5: 257–313.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Goody, J. (ed.) (1968). Literacy in traditional societies. Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Goody, J., & Watt, I. (1963). The consequences of literacy. Comparative Studies in Society and History 5: 304–45.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Grice, H. (1975). Logic and conversation. In Cole, P. & Morgan, J. L. (eds.). Syntax and semantics, vol. 3. New York: Academic. 41–58.Google Scholar
Havelock, E. (1982). The literate revolution in Greece and its cultural consequences. Princeton: Princeton University Press.Google Scholar
Heath, S. B. (1978). Outline for the ethnographic study of literacy and oral language from schools to communities. Philadelphia: University of Pennsylvania, Graduate School of Education.Google Scholar
Heath, S. B. (1979). The context of professional languages: An historical overview. In Alatis, J. & Tucker, G. R. (eds.), Georgetown University Round Table on Languages and Linguistics 1978. Washington, D.C.: Georgetown University.Google Scholar
Heath, S. B. (1982). Protean shapes in literacy events: Ever-shifting oral and literate traditions. In Tannen, D. (ed.). Spoken and written language: Exploring oralily and literacy. Norwood, N.J.: Ablex. 91–117.Google Scholar
Jacob, E. (1982a). Literacy on the job. Final report of the ethnographic component of the industrial literacy project. Submitted to the Ford Foundation. Washington, D.C.: Center for Applied Linguistics.Google Scholar
Jacob, E. (1982b). Research on practical writing in business and industry. In Gentry, L. (ed.). Research and instruction in practical writing. Los Alamitos, Calif.: Southwest Educational Research Laboratories.Google Scholar
Kerr, P. (1983). Deregulation: A puzzle for consumers. New York Times June 4.Google Scholar
Korsch, B., Gozzi, E., & Francis, V. (1968). Gaps in doctor-patient communications. Pediatrics 42: 855–71.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Labov, W., & Fanshel, D. (1977). Therapeutic discourse: Psychotherapy as conversation. New York: Academic.Google Scholar
Merritt, M. (1976). On questions following questions in service encounters. Language in Society 5: 3, 5–57.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Odell, L., & Goswami, D. (1981). Writing in non-academic settings. Final report submitted to National Institute of Education, Washington. D.C.Google Scholar
Ong, W. J. (1982). Orality and literacy: The technologizing of the world. New York: Methuen.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Pattison, R. (1982). On literacy. New York: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Practicing Law Institute (1979). Drafting documents in plain language. Document no. A4–3034. New York: Author.Google Scholar
Sacks, H., Schegloff, E., & Jefferson, G. (1974). A simple systematics for the organization of turn-taking for conversation. Language 50 (4): 696–735.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Schegloff, E. A. (1972). Sequencing in conversational openings. In Gumperz, J. & Hymes, D. (eds.), Directions in sociolingitistics. New York: Holt, Rinehart and Winston. 346–80.Google Scholar
Schegloff, E., & Sacks, H. (1973). Opening up closings. Semiotica 8: 289–327.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Sticht, T. (1977). Comprehending reading at work. In Just, M. & Carpenter, P. (eds.). Cognitive processes in comprehension. Hillsdale. N.J.: Lawrence Erlbaum. 221–46.Google Scholar
Szwed, J. (1981). The ethnography of literacy. In Whiteman, M. F. (ed.). Writing: The nature, development, andteaching of written communication. Hillsdale. N.J.: Lawrence Erlbaum. 13–23.Google Scholar
U.S. Department of Commerce (1984). How plain English works for business. Washington. D.C.: U.S. Department of Commerce. Office of Consumer Affairs.Google Scholar
Yu, L. L. (1981). Taped materials for course paper. University of Michigan. Linguistics 354.Google Scholar