Graff and Birkenstein explain that most writers (certainly of academic essays) are responding to what others have said, and they tell us to look for what motivates these writers. By entering a conversation, according to them, a writer has to represent what’s been said and move beyond it in some way. So, what are some of the views Gee responds to? Remember, he may name them explicitly; they may sometimes be implied, or they may be “something ‘nobody has talked about’” (Graff & Birkenstein 179).

Gee responds to the definitions that others have made, he addresses terms like language, grammar, and linguistics, and gives how he would redefine our perceptions of those words. He also mentions the findings from a study done and responds to it. He tells us what he thinks about the study and how it relates to his claim. I think he also addresses what society has said, and how it defines different things. Finally, Gee responds to his own ideas, something nobody has talked about, his idea of what a discourse is and how he defines it.

Look specifically at paragraphs 3-4 in which Gee discusses Akinnaso and Ajirotutu’s research. Use evidence from the text to explain why Gee is critical of their analysis. If he doesn’t agree with their assessment, why would he give them so much space and so early in his own essay?

Gee seems critical of their analysis because he believes they are, “unaware that communication is more than language use” (Gee 6). I think he feels that the research is biased in some way because they are unaware of something he thinks is crucial to the test they are doing. The researchers didn’t account for the fact that the basis of the words the what and why of saying something is skewed by how they say something. As Gee explains the “success” subject said the wrong thing in the right way, and she is only allowed to be the success because they didn’t factor in what each subject was saying. I think he would spend so much space because the study has a twofold purpose. First, it helps a reader to grasp what the concept of a discourse is, it gives a real-world example of it in action. Second, it helps support his claim and by explaining how they are wrong and he is right it strengthens his argument.

Although Gee is a linguist, he says that “literacy studies” should focus on “social practices” instead of language (5). In fact, he claims that “what is important is not language…but saying (writing)-doing-being-valuing-believing combinations” which he calls “Discourses” (6). Using evidence from the text, explain why Gee thinks it’s important to distinguish this “combination” from language alone. What’s an example of a “Discourse” you could add to Gee’s examples that would illustrate this concept and its importance?

Gee thinks it’s important to distinguish discourses from language because discourses include the knowledge of how you say something and why you say something, not exclusively the correctness of it. Gee explains through an example of entering a bar and saying, “May I have a match please?” to his friend. This, as he shows, is grammatically correct, however, the discourse is incorrect. I think Gee is hinting that the importance of distinguishing the two is social. Without the distinction of correct grammar and correct discourse interaction and communication become difficult and in some situations impossible. I think an example between discourse and language would be important when talking to children. In order to get your point across to children, you have to use the right discourse. Often times children are affected by body language, tone, and the order of words. You have to change dispositions and focus less on correct grammar and language in those situations.

As important as Discourses are for Gee, however, he explains that they are not “bodies of knowledge” that can be taught: “while you can overtly teach someone linguistics, a body of knowledge, you can’t teach them to be a linguist, that is, to use a Discourse” (7). How, then, does one become a linguist (or nurse, biologist, lawyer, sports announcer, etc)? Find a direct quotation from Gee on which to base your response. What in your experience would support Gee’s claim, and what if anything would complicate it?

Gee states that one can become part of a Discourse through, “enculturation… into social practices through scaffolded and supported interaction with people who have already mastered the Discourse” (Gee 7). Based on this I think people can become a linguist for example by being around linguists, by watching, listening, and understanding the things they do. They implement this into their lives and can become part of that Discourse. I think that school is one of the best ways to exemplify his claims. The more time I spent with my teachers and had them explain things to me the better I could explain it to others.

 

Annotations: