"Literacy, Discourse, and Linguistics" is an article written by James Paul Gee--possibly for other linguistics students--that calls in favor for "(writing)-doing-being-valuing-believing combinations," or "Discourses" with a capital D, that shall use language not for "what you say, but how you say it." (Writing About Writing, 483-484) If that primary Discourse is used correctly-- passing through tensions of two secondary Discourses by social practice--, then the primary Discourse will form a distinction of dominant ("secondary Discourses ... brings with it the (potential) acquisition of social 'goods'") and nondominant Discourses ("secondary Discourses ... which often brings solidarity with a particular social network, but not wider status and social goods in the society at large") (Writing About Writing, 485). As its' own two conflicts of someone's Discourses grow, the interference of each opposite Discourse will eventually result in studies that can actually be mastered, making it possible to be affirmative in any language, but doesn't guarantee flowing fluency necessarily. As such, students looking to use such language might "'resist' such 'superficial features of language,' so the connections needed for the Discourses to instruct no longer depends on the benefits of the concepts within those same Discourses, but towards social change students use for attraction not for learning, but to show off to peers (Writing About Writing, 488). In other words, a student has to use language "we must say or write ... while playing the right social role and (appearing) to hold the right values, beliefs, and attitudes," or risk social rejection for ideological reasons (Writing About Writing, 484).
This idea of Discourse communities eventually forming into a social conflict somewhat ties back to John Swales' "The Concept of Discourse Community," where in order to be in one such community, someone has to aware that the concept creates "a false impression that such communities are only to be associated with intellectual paradigms or scholarly cliques" (Writing About Writing, 473), so expectations that someone might look for could be deceiving. As such, the individuals within the communities can move around into various other secondary Discourses if he or she wishes, to be free to ignore the demands needed to benefit each community and easily find communities that "overt instruction and are only fully mastered when everything else in the Discourse is mastered" (Writing About Writing, 488). Swales' sees this as a good thing, where his proposed criteria point in a direction where the non-assimilated ideas as "common public goals," "information exchange," and "a high general level of expertise" will result in a community that allows maximum flexibility for those members withing--"avoid developing multiple personalities, even if, with more senior and specialized students (Writing About Writing, 475-476). Gee, through his 'identify kit' theory on Discourse, thinks on the social aspects of those communities, and find out that because of "how much tension or conflict is present between any two of a person's Discourses" always being present, that flexibly suddenly becomes a threat (Writing About Writing, 484-485). As a respond, the Discourse learning as he sees it is not towards on how beneficial it might be towards the members, but on how much restriction it truly has, so those same members would not move not for how much he is interested in each community, but "their lack of mastery of such superficialities" would be used to interest certain groups of society.
To further explain the impact of a member in Discourses, let's take three activities, and me, I am involved in. For these activities, let's use my computer, the college I'm in, and my home. The three of these were chosen not because most of my time is spent on what goes with each time-frame I spent with each, but rather, the three places have different purposes that each correspond without each being aware of it, each having their own language for me to take care of. For instance, I could take my computer with me in either location and rarely have the events the other two games interfere on the purposes I have towards the computer--which is lurk around on forums and waste time on amusing videos. So, ignoring the language used within the communities of my computer (where it wouldn't surprise me if one concept, or for that matter, meme I read/watch inside the computer would later show up superficially--or actuality--in either location), I would say that what goes on around the house rarely shows up at events within my computer, and the concepts introduced to me within my college wouldn't really be discussed within the hallways of my home, simply for one reason. I simply chose to kept each other separate for the sake of making the lives of each occupation I'm in easily observable in some fashion, where each wouldn't interfere with the other, but that doesn't mean I'll keep them separate. If the moments arrives where a moment that happens in the house was too funny to keep to myself, then I can see myself quoting it inside, say, a Facebook conservation with someone and let them know on how silly it really is, because honestly, it's simply harmless.
What isn't harmless is speaking with impeccable grammar and still be "wrong nonetheless." Reading Gee's text, I get the impression that what he meant was that the content within the text, either on how original, convenient, or though-provoking it is, is the core tool needed to really grab people's attention, not just the grammar itself, despite on easily crafted it might be to do so. As Gee himself puts it, "It is not just how you say it, but what you are and do when you say it" (Writing About Writing, 483). It's that ability to describe what the topic is about--and how someone can comprehend it--is what that sentence is trying to say, and speaking from experience of English papers getting praise for the content within, I would say that about matches what I've been taught about grammar--it's necessary, but not the main attraction of a paper.
All in all, I would say that this article was a bit lighter compared to the last few responses, so as a result, I feel as if this response focused a little too much on what it was trying to say in much greater detail than the questions I were to answer, probably because figuring out what the article meant has my attention more than the questions. Despite that, I do like the brisk pace Gee works out, where to get his point across, he tells his audience what he wants to do through repetitive ideas. Looking at the article broadly, he tells what's going on, followed by an example that shows his point with amusing business, which is then shifts explain more on his point, eventually thinking about the concepts in details in an orderly fashion, then shifting back to the topic towards a bigger concept (society), then ending it all with another example. It's that directness I appreciate with the schedule I currently have, and if future articles retain that directness, then my gratitude certainly won't be rejected by my own account.
No comments:
Post a Comment