My Mother’s Response to a Season-Ending Injury (2017)

 

What can I do to fix this?  How can I fix this?  Why does this have to happen to Luke? This just isn’t fair.  Someone who has worked as hard as he has, to achieve everything he has...all cut short like this?  “Sweetheart, it’s going to be okay.  Just take another kick and see if it needs loosening up.”  God, please let it loosen up.  He doesn’t deserve this again.  No... oh no. “It’s okay, it is going to be okay.  I don’t know why this is happening to you, I don’t know why. I am so sorry.”  I didn’t think we’d be back here, crying in a cluster.  First Sophomore year, and now Senior?  He rehabbed for so long and worked so hard.  2017 was supposed to be his year.  I cannot bear to watch him go through this again.  I wish I could do something.  I want to do something.  Can I give him my leg?  Can I bear the pain he feels, instead?  Why Luke?  Why not one of those other partying, slacker kickers on the team?  Why?  God, I don’t understand this.  Please help.  Help me help him through this.  “Honey, it’s okay.  God is here with us.  I don’t know what his plan is, I don’t understand it, but I know he loves you and that he will make it okay, somehow.”  This is horrible.  He is in so much pain.  The other kickers do half as much work as he does...they don’t stretch, they barely practice, and are horrible in games.  Damn it, why couldn’t it be one of them?  “It’ll be okay, don’t worry.  Maybe it will just be a strain, and you’ll only be out a few weeks!”  Why am I lying to him right now?  We all know what this is.  It is a repeat of Sophomore year.  Another tear.  Another season ended.  Lord, if there is any way you can fix this, please fix it.  Make this go away.  “Luke, whatever comes back from the MRI, remember: God has a plan.”  Of course, the MRI is what we expect.  A season-ending tear.  I’m trying not to be angry, God, but this just seems so damn cruel.  He’s such a good kid.  I can’t fix this.  God, how I miss when I could fix his problems with a kiss and popsicle.  Now, I am in tears, holding my son’s head to mine.  Mothering isn’t for sissies.  It’s time for me to be tough.  It’s time to show him that the faith that I have taught him and modeled for him isn’t fluff. “I don’t know why this happened, Luke, but we will get through it.  You will come out of this a stronger person. You are more than an athlete.  This does not define you.” God, show him.  Show him that he is more than the boy on that football field.  Open his eyes to see that he is so much more.

 

Analysis of My Mother’s Reaction

 

            “Languages were seen as living in ‘speech communities,’” (Pratt, 37).   Pratt’s idea of a speech community represents a very wide geographical area.  However, speech communities are often much smaller than country to country, or state to state.  So often, these occur within households and right within the same school or church.  People may not notice these subtle differences in their everyday lives, but they are ever so present and noticeable to those who do not live in that environment.

            Contact zones can be much narrower than cultures meeting.  They can also be different lifestyles.  At home, this can often be prevalent.  In an interview with Melissa Kieper, she states, “My job involves teaching children, so I must help grow their vocabulary but not use words over their heads.  So yes, my vocabulary is different in my professional life versus my home life,” (Personal Interview, Melissa Kieper, September 1st, 2018).  This statement articulates the difference of dialect between different groups of people, both due to profession and knowledge/experience.   This can create contact zones within the household, or school, as well.  The language at home may shift alongside external sources, such as work or church or school.  There are many more potential reasons to the versatility of language between people in a smaller setting.  In the article, “Arts of the Contact Zone,” the author states, “These shifts are being lived out by everyone working in education today, and everyone is challenged by them in one way or another,” (Pratt, 39).  These “shifts” that the author speaks of include a rhetoric of belonging, representation and basic rights, and multiculturalism.  These shifts have caused much diversity within school, church, the workplace, and many other public and private locations.  Even things such as adoption have also affected the way people speak among each other not only in public, but also in their household as well.

            There is typically evidence of language at home through inanimate objects.  In an interview by Steve Kieper, it is stated, “’Saving the world, one click at a time,’ is typically a phrase I use,” (Personal Interview, Steve Kieper, September 1st, 2018).  This commonly used phrase, by the interviewee, has been shaped and molded by their profession and work experience.  This person works in a technologically inclined field, and typically works around computers and in databases.  Another example of a profession or line of work shaping someone’s dialect or train of thought is in an interview, featuring Melissa Kieper.  “’It could be worse,’ is a common phrase I use in my daily life,” (Personal Interview, Melissa Kieper, September 1st, 2018).  This example is molded through the line of work that the interviewee works in.  They work in a school with many children, in a mostly impoverished area.  This daily experience with underprivileged children is a key reason as to why this phrase has been incorporated into their everyday life and household dialect.

            Speech communities can be both inclusive or exclusive, depending on those who are involved directly with that dialect.  An example of this is in “Arts of the Contact Zone,” when the author writes, “The idea of the contact zone is intended in part to contrast with ideas of community that underlie much of the thinking about language, communication, and culture that gets done in the academy,” (Pratt, 37).  This quote shows how different communities can be inclusive within their boundaries, and yet also exclusive to those not indigenous to the community.  These contact zones are likely exclusive to outside peoples due to their culture and potentially religious circumstances.  Another example of inclusion or exclusion of peoples in specific speech communities include another example from “Arts of a Contact Zone.”  “Languages were seen as living in ‘speech communities,’ and these tended to be theorized as discrete, self-defined, coherent entities, held together by a homogeneous competence or grammar shared identically and equally among all the members,” (Pratt, 37).  Languages and dialect, as stated in the quote, tend to be “self-defined.”  If something is self-defined, typically the person, or people, who define it are very inclusive of their personal establishment with those present at the time of the creation.  This may mean that they are very exclusive of those around them who are not subsumed within the same language as their counterparts.  This, in turn, creates contact zones.

            Melissa and Steve Kieper’s dialects are indicative of their separate, individual experiences, both as children and outside of the home.  They are living proof that work, school, and previous experiences shape and form a person’s dialect and work choice.  Whether it be country to country, state to state, or simply just within the household of those near and dear, dialects can conform to personal experiences, events, or every day involvements.

 

 

Reflection of Parts 1 and 2

 

            In part 1 of the writing project, I spoke from a fictional perspective about an event involving an injury in high school.  I spoke from my mother’s perspective in this piece.  In part 2, I analyzed my fictional piece, and compared quotes from “Arts of the Contact Zone” by Mary Louise Pratt, to create a parallel.  The language in part 1 and 2 are much different from each other, however.  In the fictionalized piece, the dialect was informal, personal, and in first person from my mother’s point of view.  In the analysis, the tone was formal, and in first person from my point of view.  An example of the difference of dialect can be shown in quotes from both pieces of literature.  In part one, I write, “It’s time to show him that the faith that I have taught him and modeled for him isn’t fluff” (Kieper).  This quote shows the point of view and dialect that I used to display a perspective of someone other than me.  In part two, I write, “There is typically evidence of language at home through inanimate objects” (Kieper).  This bit shows the formality of the second piece and shows the difference between the two literary pieces.

            The likely cause of the difference in tone and word choice in the two pieces stem from contact zones and differences in lifestyle.  The typical lifestyle is not extremely formal and completely grammatically correct.  Also, the audience may dictate the style of writing for each piece.  For part 1, its tone was more directed towards an audience with an interest for a story.  An example of this was in an interview done with Melissa Kieper.  “One reason would be my familiarity with the people I am around (Are these people I am comfortable with, etc…).  Next would be consideration of the audience (Age, socioeconomic status, etc)” (Kieper).  This quote shows a regard for the audience.  However, in part 2, the tone was much more partial to teachers, or professional audience members.  In Steve Kieper’s interview, he states, “At work, I must use a variety of more technical terms” (Kieper).  This shows an expectation of advanced terms in order to efficiently do a job.  While there are similarities in each piece, the language expectations of each were very different.  In the first piece, the expectation was to be informal, and yet true to one’s dialect (which may have included slang, slur, or any other type of grammatically incorrect speech).  Piece two demanded a very clear, direct, grammatically correct bit of writing, as it was an analysis of the original part.

            While my ability to write formally may be present, I am much more comfortable in the language and dialect of home.  In this place, I can say what I feel, and I’m able to portray my thoughts much quicker without much detail.  I do not have to worry about the use of indirect pronouns, correct punctuation, and thesis statements.  The language of home allows a speech not typically found in formal writing.  I do, however, feel somewhat comfortable in both school and home environments.  While there is a more formal aspect to school speech, there is also plenty of room for slang, joking, and mutually understood phrases.  The beauty in everyone having different life styles is diversity, and learning.  The fact that one person may say something, and another person may say the same thing in a different way is incredible.  Perhaps these people will be able to teach the saying to each other, and this could potentially expand the knowledge of both individuals.  Contact zones and unique lifestyles allow for a growing community, and a greater diversity among all peoples.

Building bridges can be an important task.  They help get people from place to place, whether they walk or drive across.  They provide access to other parts of the world and create a direct route between civilizations.  Yet, bridges are much more than their physical beings.  They are also metaphorical.  The creation of bridges between two people due to a language gap, an education gap, or some other gap allows for the expanse of knowledge across the world, and between many people.  While these opportunities may often happen intentionally, there are also moments where the development of these avenues are completely accidental.  Even accidental branches allow for growth of an individual, and others around them.  Truly, differences in language and communication, while possibly frustrating, are incredible in their own right.