Gee, James Paul. "Literacy, Discourse, and Linguistics." Literacy: A Critical Sourcebook. Eds. Ellen Cushman, Eugene Kintgen, Barry Kroll, and Mike Rose. Boston, MA: Bedford/St. Martin’s, 2001. 525-544.
“We all have many Discourses,” claims Gee in his article, “Literacy, Discourse, and Linguistics (526). This statement is decidedly true. I myself have a myriad of Discourses if you consider the breadth of what Gee considers to be Discourses. For example, I am a student of literature, I am an American, I am a woman, etc. With the idea that what we claim ourselves to be, what our immediate identity is at the moment, how are we to categorize and explain these many Discourses in a sensible way. Gee has presented to us his explanation and example of exactly how to do this.
Initially Gee explains the basics of a Discourse: “A Discourse is a sort of “identity kit” which comes complete with the appropriate costumes and instructions on how to act, and often write” (526). With this individualism between Discourses firmly cemented into our minds Gee must now delve further into defining each Discourse or, discourse. First we are broken down to decipher the differences between primary and secondary Discourses. The primary describes an initial learned Discourse that branches from the family and extends to our later interactions with anyone we become intimate later in life with. The secondary Discourse can be described as one we acquire once we have branched from our families, once we enter churches, schools, or community groups (527).
Then we must decipher between dominant and non-dominant discourses, which Gee considers to be secondary Discourses. These dominant/non-dominant discourses are concentrated on the acquisition of goods. While the dominant is used to acquire necessary and social goods, such as money and status, the non-dominant focuses on finding comfort and protection in a single social network (528).
By focusing on and defining the different levels of discourses, Gee can continue to explain the purpose of discourses in language and literacy. For without the Discourses that everyone contains the process of explaining literacy is unable to be done. We must first fully understand our own Discourses and others to explain there interaction with each other, in order to define literacy.
Tuesday, February 24, 2009
Auto 5: Discourse Shifts & Level of Verbal Formality
After observing shifts in my own verbal discourse over the past few days I have come to the conclusion that my verbal level of discourse can be put on a scale from one to five. One stand at the most informal setting and five is the highest level of spoken formality. I find that at the most informal level is my discourse and speech that I share with my boyfriend. It is open to anything and a little silly at times, which is why I scored it as the most informal. I believe that the fact that we live together also creates this heightened level of informality. My mother on the other hand, whom I am very close to, but no longer live with, can be scaled at a two. It was difficult to determine the placement of my mother, because I feel that generally my mother and my boyfriend should be on the same level: somewhere in between 1 and 2. I have noticed though that my voice actually deepens from my oral discourse with my boyfriend to my mother, and even more so as formality increases in the scale. I think this is because my speech is becoming more direct and concrete, and my points are being made more clearly as the formality increases.
On level three I find my friends. These are my friends outside of college; the ones I have known for years or simply never discuss scholastics with. Even on this level though, I find a discourse difference between each friend, which may also comment of the education level of the individual I am speaking with. My closest and longest friend of 13 years, Vanessa, seems almost to be at a 3.3 level. While Vanessa and I are close we find little to talk about outside of daily life due to the fact that after High School I went straight to college, and she chose to work and eventually start her own family. Another friend of mine named Kyle seems to be at a 3.6 (I have only known him for roughly 5 years). He also has not attended college, but is an avid reader and is constantly interested in learning. Due to this I relate to him on a closer level intellectually than with Vanessa. My last close friend is Derek, whom I have only known for about 2 years. I would probably rate my discourse with him at a 3.9. His own discourse is what elevates my own, I believe. Derek is a very proficient speaker, and his speech is extremely honest and blunt. This is something that I consider a quality, for I am blunt myself. It is interesting to note that Derek has also attended some college in his life, which is more than either of my other close friends. Do I intend my oral discourse to be determined by a level of education? Of course not, for both my boyfriend and mother have higher levels of education than any of my friends. Apparently though, when it comes to my friends (who I do not live with), there is an obvious subconscious level of change where I determine my level of informality and formality based on education.
Level four I reserve for my fellow peers in school and if I was currently working, probably my co-workers. With these people I find myself needing to meet there level of discourse, and for that reason I level them fairly high for I feel I need to be more formal in order to do so. At the highest level of formality (5) in my oral discourse I categorize my speech with professors, bosses, and individuals at a school in which I am observing at. As I stated before my voice deepens and becomes clearer with the elevation of formality and at level five I am very clear and concise. I find it interesting to note that my discourse lies on the most basic level of hierarchy: family, friends, peers, and professionals; but that also (with the exception of family) I subconsciously classify my discourse based on the assumed level of education with the person I am speaking with.
On level three I find my friends. These are my friends outside of college; the ones I have known for years or simply never discuss scholastics with. Even on this level though, I find a discourse difference between each friend, which may also comment of the education level of the individual I am speaking with. My closest and longest friend of 13 years, Vanessa, seems almost to be at a 3.3 level. While Vanessa and I are close we find little to talk about outside of daily life due to the fact that after High School I went straight to college, and she chose to work and eventually start her own family. Another friend of mine named Kyle seems to be at a 3.6 (I have only known him for roughly 5 years). He also has not attended college, but is an avid reader and is constantly interested in learning. Due to this I relate to him on a closer level intellectually than with Vanessa. My last close friend is Derek, whom I have only known for about 2 years. I would probably rate my discourse with him at a 3.9. His own discourse is what elevates my own, I believe. Derek is a very proficient speaker, and his speech is extremely honest and blunt. This is something that I consider a quality, for I am blunt myself. It is interesting to note that Derek has also attended some college in his life, which is more than either of my other close friends. Do I intend my oral discourse to be determined by a level of education? Of course not, for both my boyfriend and mother have higher levels of education than any of my friends. Apparently though, when it comes to my friends (who I do not live with), there is an obvious subconscious level of change where I determine my level of informality and formality based on education.
Level four I reserve for my fellow peers in school and if I was currently working, probably my co-workers. With these people I find myself needing to meet there level of discourse, and for that reason I level them fairly high for I feel I need to be more formal in order to do so. At the highest level of formality (5) in my oral discourse I categorize my speech with professors, bosses, and individuals at a school in which I am observing at. As I stated before my voice deepens and becomes clearer with the elevation of formality and at level five I am very clear and concise. I find it interesting to note that my discourse lies on the most basic level of hierarchy: family, friends, peers, and professionals; but that also (with the exception of family) I subconsciously classify my discourse based on the assumed level of education with the person I am speaking with.
Thursday, February 19, 2009
Response to Brandt
Dear Chewy Coyote,
Your precis on Brandt was very informative. When I initially heard her term of "sponsor"I thought the essay would explore the motivations that push people toward literacy. I was surprised to learn that there is more to sponsorship. It can open doors and also closed doors. Her essay talked about the need for people in the workforce to gain literacy.
Your precis on Brandt was very informative. When I initially heard her term of "sponsor"I thought the essay would explore the motivations that push people toward literacy. I was surprised to learn that there is more to sponsorship. It can open doors and also closed doors. Her essay talked about the need for people in the workforce to gain literacy.
Negotiation; Autobio 6
The variables that seem to most influence my shifts in discourse include the person I am negotiating with and the sensitivity of the topic. Negotiations I have mostly occur orally and if it is written it is in the form of email, instant messaging, texting, or leaving comments on facebook.com.
Towards my younger sister and my mother, members of my family whom I most closed to, I express my feelings or complaints first regarding the subject and then proceed to work out a plan. Even if the negotiation is as trivial as the order in which we hit the stores in the mall we still consider anyone’s preferences but mother has the final say. In matters between my siblings, no matter how we feel against a decision, we usually listen to the eldest sibling’s decision. Formalities are not necessary within the family, but I feel obliged to keep some formality when I negotiate with my father. At times I don’t think I want to even try negotiating with him in fact I don’t think “negotiate” is the right word. My mother and I have this tactic where we make him believe he came up with the plan originally but we had laid some foundation for the result we intended. That tactic is usually involves exhausting every and any logical and reasonable argument before resorting to pathos.
In negotiations with cohorts and peers, I find that is best to begin saying something to the extent of “If it’s alright with you” because it seems to be the best way to get started with group projects. I never like to assume the leadership role unless I feel there is a pressing need for it. Having many experiences with class group work, I find it very annoying when someone suddenly becomes the “boss” when there was no instruction to assign one. Some people are happy to follow a good leader and some people would rather do the group assignment individually as much as possible.
In all cases where negotiations are made I always try to keep in mind ways to approach people with maximum respect. Even if it’s a child or someone much younger than me, people are more likely to abide with the stipulations of the negotiation if they feel respected. I try to make an effort to consider the perspectives and feelings of those involved as much as possible.
Monday, February 16, 2009
AutoBio #5- Literacy Interaction
As I begin to write this assignment I step back into time and truly wonder how many times I use oral and written language on a daily basis. I realize how significant our use of literacy is throughout our everyday tasks. From the morning we get up, we look at (read) the alarm clock then we rush to get ready for wherever we need to go or do. We set our coffee maker and use our microwaves. When driving we have to be conscious of our speed limit, signs and lights. Even more interesting is that literacy is a multi-functional tool that serves to accommodate our everyday lives from simple to more complex tasks.
What’s most appealing to me is that all of us interact with oral and written communication on different levels. For example, a teacher may be equally bound to using both oral and written literacy within the classroom whereas a real estate agent needs to show the upmost friendly and social communication skills to make a sale. At home, my language usage is more informal than it would be at work, school, party, dinner table, etc... thus, social community matters. For example, it’s unavoidable to quarrel (goof around) daily with my brother at home where bad words and tricks are exposed. In contrast, I talk more formally (with more respect) to my sisters and parents. I’ve come to realize that literacy is integrated and needed for human survival. We are all active participants and connected in this literacy world.
What’s most appealing to me is that all of us interact with oral and written communication on different levels. For example, a teacher may be equally bound to using both oral and written literacy within the classroom whereas a real estate agent needs to show the upmost friendly and social communication skills to make a sale. At home, my language usage is more informal than it would be at work, school, party, dinner table, etc... thus, social community matters. For example, it’s unavoidable to quarrel (goof around) daily with my brother at home where bad words and tricks are exposed. In contrast, I talk more formally (with more respect) to my sisters and parents. I’ve come to realize that literacy is integrated and needed for human survival. We are all active participants and connected in this literacy world.
Deborah Brandt: Sponsors of Literacy
Cushman, Ellen, Kintgen Eugene R., and Kroll Barry M.. Literacy-A Critical Sourcebook. New York: Bedford/St. Martin's, 2001.
In the world of literacy during the mid-nineteenth century, there came to life, the inventions of what is called steam press which reorganized the economy of print industry. This new form of mass printing brought an end to certain potentials in literacy as well as different kinds of literacy sponsorship. Throughout the fluctuation of time and generations, literacy has been traced as both rising and falling with each new wave of new technologies and ideas. There is an attempt to connect literacy as an individual development with literacy as an economic development. This approach is known as sponsors of literacy, with the idea that “sponsors” are tangible reminders “that literacy learning throughout history has always required permission, sanction, assistance, coercion, or at a minimum, contact with existing trade routes” (556). The concept of sponsors is used to clarify human relationships and ideological pressures that arise from the world of literacy. Literacy sponsors affect learning by organizing such systems that create opportunity and access, and they raise the bar of literacy, in struggles for competitive advantage which makes things more complimentary for the average individual.
Brandt uses two cases as examples of “literacy diversion.” Both of the narratives used are the stories of woman who both work “in subordinate positions as secretaries, in print-rich settings where better-educated male supervisors were teaching them to read and write in certain ways to perform their clerical duties” (568). Both of the women took what they were exposed to at work, and diversified it to help them with personal aspects of their life. Carol white took the idea of Anecdotes from her boss, and began creating her own colorful anecdotes to do door-to-door missionary work as a Jehovah’s Witness. Sarah Steele explained how she began to model her very own household finances after the attorneys of whom she worked with. The picture being painted is a pattern of how such opportunities for literacy acquisition open up a kind of clash between old and new sponsorships, and between “the lingering presence of literacy’s conservative history and its pressure for change” (570).
It seems after reading and understanding all the theories of literacy learning among all classes, that this idea of a “sponsor” plays an even larger role throughout the entire realm of literacy and language. The essay breaks this concept down, and explains the histories behind, and even gives specific examples, however, there seems to be a great deal that has not yet been mentioned. Such as the professional writer who is struggling to publish. How does a writer connect his/her private world with that of the public realm and create material that is both culturally and socially acceptable? There are hundreds of oppositions that must be adequately balanced in the world of literacy.
In the world of literacy during the mid-nineteenth century, there came to life, the inventions of what is called steam press which reorganized the economy of print industry. This new form of mass printing brought an end to certain potentials in literacy as well as different kinds of literacy sponsorship. Throughout the fluctuation of time and generations, literacy has been traced as both rising and falling with each new wave of new technologies and ideas. There is an attempt to connect literacy as an individual development with literacy as an economic development. This approach is known as sponsors of literacy, with the idea that “sponsors” are tangible reminders “that literacy learning throughout history has always required permission, sanction, assistance, coercion, or at a minimum, contact with existing trade routes” (556). The concept of sponsors is used to clarify human relationships and ideological pressures that arise from the world of literacy. Literacy sponsors affect learning by organizing such systems that create opportunity and access, and they raise the bar of literacy, in struggles for competitive advantage which makes things more complimentary for the average individual.
Brandt uses two cases as examples of “literacy diversion.” Both of the narratives used are the stories of woman who both work “in subordinate positions as secretaries, in print-rich settings where better-educated male supervisors were teaching them to read and write in certain ways to perform their clerical duties” (568). Both of the women took what they were exposed to at work, and diversified it to help them with personal aspects of their life. Carol white took the idea of Anecdotes from her boss, and began creating her own colorful anecdotes to do door-to-door missionary work as a Jehovah’s Witness. Sarah Steele explained how she began to model her very own household finances after the attorneys of whom she worked with. The picture being painted is a pattern of how such opportunities for literacy acquisition open up a kind of clash between old and new sponsorships, and between “the lingering presence of literacy’s conservative history and its pressure for change” (570).
It seems after reading and understanding all the theories of literacy learning among all classes, that this idea of a “sponsor” plays an even larger role throughout the entire realm of literacy and language. The essay breaks this concept down, and explains the histories behind, and even gives specific examples, however, there seems to be a great deal that has not yet been mentioned. Such as the professional writer who is struggling to publish. How does a writer connect his/her private world with that of the public realm and create material that is both culturally and socially acceptable? There are hundreds of oppositions that must be adequately balanced in the world of literacy.
Week 6-autobio
This quarter alone, has been one of the most interesting areas of school with the idea of literacy and methods of communication. It is so intriguing to acknowledge just how much an average individual changes their modes of speaking and shifting discourse gears in their normal day-to-day routine. Taking the time to really listen for my own shift in discourse has proven that I myself actually shift discourse gears everyday. Aside from someone who swaps between one language and another, I change discourses just within the English language. A great example of this, is in my writing: both in class note taking, and the daily communication through text messages. Looking at my class notes alone, there are several instances where I begin to write out complete sentences, and then almost immediately begin to make abbreviations, and simple codes that stand for a more complete or complex thought. This is done involuntarily in a way that helps me to gather as much information and transfer it from ear to paper and ink, while still being caught up with what is being discussed in the class. Text messaging is a great example of this kind of code making in literacy today. It doesn’t matter how professional a situation or person is, because in the “community” of text messaging, it is easier, faster and more room efficient to make abbreviations, or spell words wrong on purpose, so long as you get your message across. In my own personal experience in this circumstance, I was texting my friend, who was actually once my high school AP English teacher. She presents herself as a very intellectual and “grammatically sophisticated” individual in her work environment, and even occasionally outside of the work environment. I have noticed that this image of sophisticated language discourse immediately changes when she communicates through text messages. Almost every word is spelled wrong, or incorrectly abbreviated, but the fact of the matter is, I still understand exactly what she is communicating.
Another important kind of shifts in communication takes place within my own household. This year, I rent a room from one of my old assistant coach and his family. They have a 16 month old little boy named Spencer, who has been taught several different signs (of actual sign language) in order to communicate what he wants. He knows the signs for words or phrases such as “Hungry” “more food” “bottle” “bath” and “diaper change”. It is interesting for me to sit and observe Spencer and his mom communicating with one another. Spencer’s mom shifts from speaking verbally, to strictly making the hand gestures in order to help Spencer to have a smooth transition from not being able to speak, to speaking pretty fluently.
Another important kind of shifts in communication takes place within my own household. This year, I rent a room from one of my old assistant coach and his family. They have a 16 month old little boy named Spencer, who has been taught several different signs (of actual sign language) in order to communicate what he wants. He knows the signs for words or phrases such as “Hungry” “more food” “bottle” “bath” and “diaper change”. It is interesting for me to sit and observe Spencer and his mom communicating with one another. Spencer’s mom shifts from speaking verbally, to strictly making the hand gestures in order to help Spencer to have a smooth transition from not being able to speak, to speaking pretty fluently.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)