For my introduction, I introduced Cuddy and I had not done that till later in the paper for my first draft. I also tweaked my thesis some so that it made more sense for the reader. In my first draft I mostly gave an explanation of Discourse in the first few paragraphs, for my final I added more of my thoughts and ideas relating to the acquisition of a Discourse. I didn’t have many quotes from Cuddy and I actually hardly used her in my essay at all so I sent back and added her thoughts to help strengthen my argument. As far as new paragraphs go, I didn’t really add a completely new one, however, I did split one or two long paragraphs into two shorter paragraphs. Towards the end of my paper I realized a paragraph would make more sense earlier in the paper so I swapped the two. Overall I feel that the adjustments I made strengthened my paper.
Two Barclay’s Formula Paragraphs
Gee defines literacy as “the mastery of or fluent control over a secondary Discourse” (Gee 9). Secondary discourses are challenging to acquire in a sense that they are difficult to master. Many secondary Discourses are acquired throughout our lives though we are not completely fluent in all of them. Gee has two theorems to describe this. The first states that “someone cannot engage in a Discourse in a less than fully fluent manner” (Gee 9). Meaning if we can not part take in the Discourse to the fullest meaning of the word then we are not members of the Discourse at all, thus leaving us a “pretender” in the eyes of those who are. The second theorem discusses primary Discourses as being limited. Multiple Discourses need to be acquired in order for a primary Discourse to be critiqued or analyzed. Metaknowledge is a term Gee uses to describe this type of critiquing or analyzation. Social psychologist Amy Cuddy also discusses this type of analyzation in her Ted Talk. I find this to be very important as it is the first step to fixing or adjusting anything that may warrant it in a Discourse.
As well as primary and secondary, there are also dominant and nondominant Discourses. “Dominant Discourses are secondary Discourses the mastery of which, at a particular place and time, brings with it the (potential) acquisition of social “goods” (Gee 8). Acquiring a dominant Discourse can come with certain benefits such as wealth, prestige, and status in your community or even larger. This is the Discourse that is most appealing, the Discourse that one should strive for. However, there is a different path for everyone and there is a Discourse for that too. “Non Dominant Discourses are secondary Discourses the mastery of which often brings solidarity with a particular social network, but not wider status and social goods in the society at large” (Gee 8). Non dominant Discourses won’t necessarily lead to money, power and prestige like dominant Discourses will, however, they can lead to a comfortable life in a chosen community, though will most likely not have much status or recognition. Personally, I would make it a goal of mine to acquire a Dominant Discourse but perhaps that is not part of every individuals plans.
- Dominant/NonDominant Discourse
- Acquiring a secondary Discourse
- Metaknowledge/Mushfake
Connecting Gee and Cuddy
Gee discusses two theorems in his study on Discourses. The first theorem states “someone cannot engage in a Discourse in a less than fully fluent manner”. This means that if a particular Discourse is not mastered, than it is not a Discourse at all. Gee says “your very lack of fluency marks you as a non member of the group that controls this Discourse”. I believe this to be controversial because one may argue that acquiring parts of different Discourses can make you a member of each Discourse. However, I agree with Gee in that exemplifying the lack of a certain discourse can leave you a “pretender” in some eyes. Gee’s second theorem states “primary Discourses are limited”. In order for a primary Discourse to be critiqued or analyzed, more than one Discourse needs to be developed. This can be viewed as controversial because the idea of “limited” and unable to expand on a particular Discourse might not sit well with certain people.
“Understand Annotation” Gee states “Mushfake” is making do with less. Therefore “Mushfake” is a certain type of Discourse. (Gee 13)
“Text-to-World Annotation” : The lack of fluency in a certain Discourse can leave you a “pretender or beginner”.
“Understand Annotation”: Gee’s second theorem states a primary Discourse can not be critiqued or analyzed until other Discourses are developed.
“Text-to-Text Annotation” : This is similar to Cuddy’s belief of “Fake it till you believe it”. If one can manipulate themselves to express confidence and knowledge others can be made to believe it.
Reading Responses – Question 3
Gee describes Discourses in a few different ways. There is primary and secondary discourses and dominant and non dominant discourses. Primary discourses are the ones that we acquire early in life. “Our primary discourse constitutes our original and home-based sense of identity”. Primary discourses are a foundation for the discourses we develop later in life, these discourses are know as secondary discourses. Secondary discourses are our interactions “with various non-home-based institutions-institutions in the public sphere, beyond the family and immediate kin and peer group”.
Dominant discourses are secondary discourses once mastered at a particular place and time can lead to “the acquisition of social “goods””. On the other hand non-dominant discourses are secondary discourses but the mastery of which “often brings solidarity with a particular social network, but not wider status and social goods in the society at large”. I believe this means that dominant discourses can lead to money, power and status while non dominant leads to living an average life.
Reading Responses – Question 2
Gee writes “while you can teach someone linguistics, a body of knowledge, you can not teach them to be a linguist”. This means you can give someone a guide to act or perform like a linguist but in order for them to become a linguist, they have to do it themselves. “Discourses are not bodies of knowledge like physics or archeology or linguistics”. For example, you can give someone a book about basketball and they can learn the rules and understand the game but for them to become a basketball player, they need to play basketball.
Hello world!
Welcome to UNEPortfolios. This is your first post. Edit or delete it, then start blogging!
