- This topic has 7 replies, 8 voices, and was last updated 9 years, 8 months ago by
.
-
Posts
-
-
Right away I knew this article would cover new topics I have never heard of before. Gee starts off by describing the word Discourse, which at first was hard to understand based on his original definition, but eventually, I came to the conclusion it is all about the way something is communicated. The example at the bar is what really helped me understand Gee’s definition. Discourse is not just about the language, but it is how you use it in a certain situation. Both the literal language and the way it used in context to a situation must match and this is what is meant by the “saying-doing combination”.
I like how in the beginning of the reading it wants you to be active by either doing further research or mentally thinking outside of what you are reading. I feel like this interaction kept the reading slightly less boring and actually kept my attention. One of the choices for the ‘Before you read’ was to look up the word mushfake but I wasn’t able to find any reliable sources for a good definition other than the one that is quoted from the article. In the reading, the word mushfake is a prison term “do with something less when the real thing is not available”. What about you guys, did you find a good definition for the word other than what was in the article?
Gee also discusses how one can learn proper Discourse and I agree with him. He says “Discourse isn’t learned from sitting in the classroom, at most you can do is let them practice being a linguist with you”. Basically, the only way to learn how to be a linguist is to practice socially because it is not something that will always be a distinct way. Many influences affect the proper language and actions in a specific situation.
I got really confused when Gee broke down the different subtypes of Discourse such as primary, secondary, dominant and nondominant. I understand the words individually but how Gee uses them in context was really difficult to grasp. Also I never fully wrapped my head around the difference between Discourse and discourse. Why is it so important to Gee that discourse be capitalized all the time and what is the difference between the two? Also, it was hard for me to distinguish the differences between Gee’s theorems. In my head, they are all very similar and the style Gee’s uses to explain doesn’t make sense to me. Did you guys feel the same way?
I don’t necessarily agree with many things Gee talks about and to me, this reading gave off a negative feeling. I guess I have a different way of looking at things compared to Gee, but he made the 5-year-old girl telling a story seem like a negative thing but I naturally considered it a positive thing. People aren’t just born with a mastery of Discourse. We must learn and many people learn by the concept of building blocks. If you were to give a child in a book of literature from a college level, that child would be completely lost. They must learn the basics before they can become a master. I consider the girl adapting her story about her birthday to be a good thing because it is showing signs of advancement and she is learning which is crucial for children.
Overall, I was not a big fan of this reading as it was very hard to relate to the author’s style and tone throughout the article. Many of his main concepts didnt make sense to me the way they were used in context or I had a different personal opinion on what Gee was saying. What did you guys think of this reading? Did you find it easy or difficult to follow and what were your opinions on Discourse?
-
I agree that when I first saw the article, I would learn new terminology. The article’s title even had the word Discourse in it, which was an unfamiliar term! To me, discourse comes off as how we communicate effectively and the idea of kairos – the appropriate time and space to say certain phrases. Verbal and nonverbal communication plays a huge role in discourse because it impacts the response you will get from whoever you are communicating towards. Discourse is something we learn throughout experience more so than in a classroom setting; we learn how we should act within certain boundaries and effective communication.
I could not find a more reliable definition for “mush fake”; Urban Dictionary had a definition that I definitely did not deem reliable.
When Gee mentioned primary and secondary discourse, it made me stop and think for a moment but now I understand it. Primary discourse is our natural way of acting and our discourse when we are comfortable. Secondary discourse is what we learn through situations and not our natural discourse, or way to present ourselves. For example, I am laid back at home and informal, but at a job interview I would act more professional and formal so that the interviewer will take me seriously.
Overall, this reading was boring and I was not a fan of it. I kept getting distracted. I did learn more about discourse and I understand what Gee was conveying. The pages were just long and the text was too small. It was hard to concentrate on the reading for some of the sections.
-
This article was confusing at first, but when I read it over multiple times, it became less confusing. I liked the way Gee started off by talking about how saying something whether while writing, or speaking, is not without a consequent action. That emphasizes the importance of context which is a very necessary concept to understand in life. One must say or write something while being in the correct “social role” to which that thing requires. It makes perfect sense to me since I have taken sociology in the past. The sociology class that I took last semester, Contemporary Social Issues, talked about social roles and the way society classifies us. For example, when one wants to become a teacher, (a social role) they would have to student teach. That what Gee means when he discusses learning a Discourse. It is interesting to me that he tied it so neatly into sociology because language is the most essential part of society. It is how we communicate and it is what makes us human.
When Gee explained discourses and Discourses, it took me a while to understand. Little stretches of language; the discourses are a part of the bigger category of Discourses. That concept is very similar to writing and actions which he talked about before. It makes sense that certain dominant groups in a Discourse would create tests to see whether someone is new or not to that Discourse. People would not want somebody who is new or as Gee puts it, “non-native” to get too involved because they may have a harder time understanding and navigating that Discourse. However, with the first theorem about Discourses, I do not understand why people will not give their “social goods” to those who are not fully in the Discourse. I do partially understand that one has to be either fluent or not at all, even though that seems black and white.
It is interesting when Gee says that teachers should politicize teaching by teaching their students to use mushfake while learning secondary Discourses. However, I do not really see how mushfaking and politics connect. Evonne, you said that you think Gee made the little girl reading the book seem like what she was doing was negative, but I do not see it like that. I see it as him giving an example as to how she is acquiring a secondary Discourse. It describes how a master-apprentice relationship can benefit the child when, after imitating her mother reading a storybook, the child then goes to school, where reading is taught. She looks like a “quick study” emphasizing Gee’s idea of how being an apprentice is extremely helpful. All in all, Gee’s article was confusing at times, but it was also interesting.
-
When I first read the title of the reading I thought to myself I have never heard anything about literacy, discourse, and linguistics. The thing that I liked off the back of this reading was how they had given a little background of the writer. I think that sometimes it is important to have an introduction of the person who wrote something because a person can get to know a little bit about them and also they usually tell you other books, or pieces that person has published. The one thing that I did not like off the back was how it was a textbook that was copied on. It made the piece a little difficult to read because the print was small like a textbook and also faded a little bit. Also another thing that I did not like about this reading was how it had the “getting ready to read” section. I feel like if we are reading a piece it should by the end tell us what they wanted us to look for. This reading has left me confused and needing clarification in class. I wish the author could have used relatable examples so that I could have understand the text and not be so confused as to what I read. To understand this text more I feel like maybe we should have discussed it a little bit in class so some of our questions could have been answered so then when we read the text we could have grasped the text better. Overall, I was not the biggest fan of this text. If it was explained better I feel like this text could have been helpful and not left me so confused. Also I was more not a fan of this text than a fan. There was some good things about it but I feel like there was more not good things to me personally.
-
When I first opened the link to this article, I skimmed over everything and I thought to myself ‘wow this will be a hard one to read.’ I thought this because there were no pictures, nothing seemed interesting just by skimming it over. All i saw was text. I agree with Evonne because you say how you didn’t really understand the difference between Discourse and discourse and I don’t get it either. When he classified the different types of Discourse I didn’t really get how he applied those words to the text. It was hard to understand the deeper meaning of all the words that were defined. I think linguistics is just something we can learn from one another just by communicating. I think without communication it would be very hard to understand the meaning of certain words. Communication with others can help boost your vocabulary which is a win win situation in this case. Words can be very confusing and I like how Gee says it’s not about what you say, it’s about how you say it. I felt this article was long in context which made it very hard to follow along and keep my attention. I think Gee could have been a little bit more detailed in the terms used because I felt confused and lost towards the end of this reading. I think if the article wasn’t as long as it is, it would be much easier to follow along and maybe put meaning and understanding to the words that were discussed. I think if some examples were used for college kids for example, it would be much easier to go along with. Overall, I was not a huge fan of this reading. I thought it was kind of hard to get on the same page as the author.
-
I totally agree with Evonne. I think this article was pretty hard to understand. It was unlike some of the other readings we have done this semester, where they help us understand the concepts with examples. In this piece, I think there was a bunch of words thrown at us all at once, which made things overwhelming. I have heard about some of the terms in the article before, but I forgot what the meant. Once I read through it a couples times, I had understanding of the simple concepts like grammar and what Discourse was, but everything else was still pretty confusing. Before the reading, I also looked up “mush fake,” but I could not find anything as well. The only think that came up was the urban dictionary and different things from Gee.
I understand that Discourse is the way of being in the world and all of the interactions that a person has. Then he started talking about how there is two different types of Discourse: discourse and Discourse. At first I thought discourses would just be subgroups of the main topic Discourse, but that is not true because there is primary Discourse, secondary Discourse, non dominant Discourse, and Dominant Discourse. I sort of understand primary Discourse, which is how we make sense of the world, but I got lost when it came to secondary Discourse.
I think the example about the 5 year old girl wasn’t meant to be negative. Even though the story was not happy, it was just showing the readers how secondary Discourse builds up. She was learning from what her mother was doing.
This seems to be an unpopular article among the class. I think if we had an article like the comics about this particular subject, less people would be confused. I really tried to understand the definitions and concepts in the article, but I couldn’t get it. I hope we can discuss this in class more, so everyone can understand better.
-
I like the fact that, they introduce the author right in the beginning of the article because that help me understand a little about the author and his point of view base on the background information. while I was glancing through, I thought it will be something boring and will not interest me after all. however, it actually caught my attention in a way throughout. I never knew the word language can have all this different term. which I found very informative. I also like the examples the author gave to explain. I believe that’s what made me understand his point clearly. communication is very important in our everyday life, whether is at work place/school or even our social life. that’s what makes reading this article very important. Gee gave us a proper explaining on how a word can be determine base on where it was said or how it is used in communication. the only thing I didn’t really like about the article, I feel like it was too long which kind of throw me off around the end. overall it was an interesting article for me and I learn a lot from reading it.
-
When I read the article I was also confused but also intrigued about the new terminology. For me, I never learned about discourse or linguistics. I have however heard of literacy. I agree with Ashley on how the reading was difficult to read due to the copy of the textbook into a PDF form but I found the reading to be very informative. The background on the author I found was sort of unnecessary. It is nice to learn about the author some, but it wasn’t needed for this article. If it was something written about the author, it would have helped to have background knowledge, but for information on literacy, discourse, and linguistics, the author didn’t need an intro. The reading was informative, like I said, but it was also difficult to follow. Evonne said that the authors tone was difficult to follow and I agree 100%. Overall, the reading did help me understand the vocab more, but it was difficult to follow and understand.
-
- You must be logged in to reply to this topic.
