Week 9

In his article “Literacy, Discourse, and Linguistics”, James Paul Gee attempts to explain his view of a Discourse and a discourse. He argues that these two terms are different and he wants us to understand why. He also explains that one cannot learn in a classroom how to be a part of a Discourse. We must be an apprentice to a particular Discourse and take part in the group by doing. We must learn to be a part of that community by possibly following around someone else who is a part of that Discourse and copying what they do. They have to practice. He then goes on to explain the differences in primary and secondary Discourses, and dominant and non-dominant Discourses.

I can make connections to the last article we just read about discourse communities because they both have the same idea. They are similar ideas because they both explain discourse as a group that only certain members belong to. In the Swales article he explains there are certain criteria that a group must have in order to be considered a “discourse”. In Gee’s article, he explains a Discourse as more of an action based group and certain language associated with it. I think Gee’s criteria for a Discourse is a little less strict than the criteria that Swales explained.

QD#3: Gee explains that Discourse with a capital D is “not language, and surely not grammar, but saying (writing)-doing-being-valuing-believing combinations”. This he explains means that Discourse is something that might not make sense grammatically but will make sense socially. It is combining language (maybe poor grammar) with actions and doings to make something make sense socially to others. I took it as a type of cultural thing, people from different cultures will understand different combinations of sayings and actions. He then explains that discourse with a small d means the things that grammatically make sense. This would be the correct way of saying things in a grammatically structured way but it may be viewed as “wrong” socially. This makes sense to me because I think I understand what he is trying to say. He is making a difference between things that are supposed to make sense but don’t, and things that aren’t supposed to make sense, but they do.

(I think I understood this correctly...it took me awhile to understand what Gee was trying to explain.)

QD#13: Earlier in the year, I wanted to be a member of a sorority on campus. I did not know anything about Greek Life therefore I had no idea on how to go about being a member. I went through rush and became a member of Delta Zeta which I consider a Discourse because there is certain language, events, and clothing associated with it. I am currently an apprentice because I still do not know everything about Greek Life. The hardest part belonging is trying to understand what you are supposed to be doing at certain events and learning all the terms associated with Greek Life. Our new member coordinator aids us the most in becoming a member at first, until we get our Big. Our Big helps us out with anything we need and shows us the way of being Greek. I do not feel like a pretended because I am learning what it means and I am starting to feel comfortable being a part of this Discourse.

Overall, I thought this article was intriguing. I really thought the concept of a primary Discourse was interesting to read about. I never thought of having one primary Discourse that we are born into and we learn through being with our families and peers at school. Then the concept of the secondary Discourse was also of interest to me. This is how we build upon our primary Discourse with other Discourses that we become apprentices in. I have never thought of discourses this way, therefore I enjoyed the ideas of Gee and how he had a different approach to explaining them.