“Discourse: small-d, Big-D”

Summary

Right away, we are given a difference between “discourse” and “Discourse.” Discourse is “combinations of ways with words and ways with “other stuff” (bodies, clothes, objects, tools, actions, interactions, values, and beliefs) that can get people recognized as having certain socially significant identities” (2). On the other hand, discourse is “language in use among people” (1). The words themselves have been used interchangeably in the past when in fact there is a difference. Gee points out that in order to understand any kind of language, one must first understand the world around the language. The society and the roles that people play in it must be understood in order to grasp the language concept. Someone could speak and act like three different types of people and still be the same person, something Gee calls “social languages” (1). Gee points out that we inherit language from other people; we do not have our own unique language without it having borrowed from someone else’s. “Little “d” discourse analysis studies how the flow of language-in-use across time and the patterns and connections across this flow of language make sense and guide in interpretation” while ““Big ‘D” Discourse” analysis embeds little “d” discourse analysis into the ways in which language melds with bodies and things to create society and history” (2). People have their own “Primary Discourse” that they are born with and inherit from family. However, as they go out into the world and are involved in several different activities (school, friend groups, extra curricular activities, etc) they come to adapt to what’s called a secondary Discourse. One thing Gee points out in particular is that Discourses can mix or be ambiguous. How someone speaks around one group of people (family, for instance) is not how they would speak around a different group (friends).

Synthesis

It is very prevalent that the way someone speaks within a primary community is very different than how one speaks in a secondary. I know that I personally would never speak around my family the way I do when I’m speaking to my friends. My language use is a lot rougher than the language I use around my family. I’m a part of quite a few different online Discourse communities as well as the two jobs I shoulder and the Discourse of being a college student. The way I speak in each of these Discourses is not the same. The way I speak at my job is pretty polite and formal, whereas online I would use more slang and laid-back language in order to talk with my friends in those communities. Before reading this article I never would have thought that there would be a difference in these two discourses, but now that it has been explained to me I do see how there is. With this differentiation I can see how in my everyday life there is a prominent difference between the two.

 

Underlife and Writing Instruction Response

Summary

I feel as though this article, in short, talks primarily about a student’s identity in the classroom and how it is shaped. It discusses how the student’s identity and role in the classroom has a more powerful impact on him/her than the social roles that are typically placed upon the student. It brings the question of “what makes a student’s identity?” to light, which Robert Brooke describes as what he calls “underlife.” Underlife “can be understood as the activities (or information games) individuals engage in to show that their identities are different from or more complex than the identities assigned them by organizational roles” (142).He goes on to describe how identity is determined by social roles, information games, and organizational roles. For social roles, identity is determined by “(1) how they immediately appear to us through dress, bearing, accent, physical features, and the like; (2) what we know about their history; and (3) the stances they take towards the groups we assume they belong to” (142). The roles we play in society are already pre-determined because of how we dress, how we speak, our backgrounds, and how we interact with different groups. By “information games” Brooke means the information people choose to reveal about themselves which also determines one’s identity. We get a better understanding of someone and who they are when supplemented by additional information. It is also determined by the kinds of organizations we play a role in. For example, if someone was in clubs designed around core curriculum (math, science, etc) the person would automatically be deemed as “smart” by his or her peers. Underlife is also seen in the actual classroom; Brooke uses the writing classroom as an example here. Students’ personalities will shine in the classroom when they are given work or other assignments to do. He uses the example of students that continue on personal conversations while working on assignments and even hurrying to finish assignments (like journals) that are due that class period. The way students act in the classroom may seem like it’s disruptive, but in reality the students are connecting the lessons they are learning to their own lives in some form or fashion. They make connections with information gained from the lessons and activities. That may be something that isn’t necessarily seen outside of a classroom environment. There is enough information in this article to write pages upon pages of summary and review, but these are a few key points made in the article that I thought I would address.

Synthesis

While summarizing the entire article proved to be a challenge for me, I have no problem in relating the information in this article to my own life and experiences. I can relate to the students who may work on their assignments at the last minute while in class, whether before or during the lesson of the day, because I have done it – multiple times, in fact. I’ve taken a concept of a lesson and applied it to my life in some form or fashion – more than likely in a way that caused me and whoever sat by me to quietly fall into a fit of laughter. I can relate to this article because I was – and still am – a student. I understand when it talks about how students don’t stay on task in class and will do other things that should be called disruptive but aren’t. A student’s personality and social role isn’t strictly determined by what they wear, how they speak, and who their ancestors are. Their personalities are developed as they grow and are determined also by how they respond in a classroom setting. I know that I wouldn’t be who I am today without being placed in a classroom. I grew as a person and my identity flourished. I learned that I am a grade A procrastinator, but when I do focus on a task I am able to produce quality work. I’m shy, especially around new people but also when I have to stand in front of a group of people (no matter how long I’ve known them) and make a presentation. I lose interest quickly if the subject matter bores me or seems to difficult to comprehend at first. I can apply simple definitions and concepts to my own life in order for me to understand them better. I wholeheartedly agree that a student’s personality and identity is determined by more than their social roles, the information they provide, and the organizations they belong to. While in high school I only belonged to one club even though I had a slew of other interests. Had I had more free time I would have belonged to several more (I’ve had a job since I turned 16 years old.) The information I give someone is only useful if I provide it in a good qualitative and quantitative manner. Students are more than their social roles. They play an even bigger part that may not be easily seen at first.

Inventing the University: Response and Synthesis

Summary

To be quite honest, I am still struggling to understand the meaning of this article. There were a few concepts that I believed I could comprehend, but all in all the article itself confused me. What I took away from the article was that Bartholomae believes that in the writing students do, they write to the standards they believe they have been given. An example he gives is one of a student who was assigned a paper on creativity – rather, something he’s done that he can define as creative and draw conclusions from. Because he was assigned this by professors – those he sees as scholarly, on a higher level of education than he is – he attempted to write in accordance to what he thought they’d want to read. The essay he submitted was written for them. Was it necessarily written in his own voice? Possibly. But it was a prime example as to how he shaped his writing due to it being written for scholars. There wasn’t much else that I completely understood about this article aside from Bartholomae explaining that when a student responds with “I don’t know” it doesn’t mean that they are unintelligent – it simply means that they aren’t in a position to discuss the topic at hand. They don’t have adequate knowledge to contribute to the discussion. When students write they have to decide what type of audience they are writing for and adjust their writing accordingly. “Describe baseball to a Martian” was used as an example; if someone was describing this sport to an outsider (the Martian) they would explain it in simple terms rather than using all of the elaborate terminology associated with it. It’s all about writing to the appropriate audience – inventing the University, as he states.

Synthesis

It’s going to be difficult for me to synthesize with this article because of my very basic understanding of just a couple points made inside it. I can relate to wanting to write for my audience depending on who has assigned the paper to me. The way I would write – my voice, tone, style of writing, vocabulary I use – would change greatly if I was assigned something by my work supervisor compared to an essay assigned to me by a college writing professor. I would be “inventing” my own “university” in each of the ways I would write these assignments. Just as I would differentiate my styles of writing depending on who gave me the assignment, I would also differ in whether I write something complexly or simply. I wouldn’t hand in a complex, analytic essay for an assignment where I just had to explain how to do a simple task; on the other hand, I wouldn’t hand in a simple one-page essay over a specific theme in the novel The Scarlet Letter due to the novel’s complexity in its ideas.

The Ethics of Reading: Close Encounters response

Summary

After my initial reading of “The Ethics of Reading: Close Encounters” by Jane Gallop, I was left with not only a sense of a shallow understanding but also with a sense of confusion due to it being only my first time reading through the 11 pages. Gallop promotes what she calls “close reading” which is “looking what is actually on the page, reading the text itself, rather than some idea ‘behind the text'” (7). Rather than looking at what the author is trying to say or the meaning behind the words, readers will study and look at the actual words on the page. The reader will notice things inside the writing including typos, strange vocabulary, footnotes, and the actual formatting of the text (italics, for example). She goes on to explain that these things that are focused on during close reading are those that seem marginal or unimportant in most English classes, which focus on the meaning of the text, not the text itself. Close reading applies not only to works by other authors but to our own work as well. She goes on to explain that “close reading is not just a way of reading but a way of listening” (12). Close reading allows us to “hear” what the person really said rather than project our own thoughts and ideas into their words to fit what we believe is really trying to be stated there. Gallop believes that close reading – which is also a form of listening – leads the way for students and readers alike to see the ethics in works of literature. By close reading, the student may notice certain elements of diversity in works that may not have stood out before, and in turn these observations give way to noticing certain good – and bad – issues like racism, sexism, degradation of women, etc. Gallop believes that although this may cause students to begin to read works solely to seek out those issues – whether determined to find the bad in works originally thought to be that of brilliance or to find good in works that were initially deemed horrible as far as content was concerned – “if we do not pay close attention to what we read, our reading for diversity will only end up projecting such positive stereotypes” (15). Close reading is simply another way of fighting prejudice by “fighting one’s pre-judgments through close encounters with the other” (16). Overall she means close reading to become a way for people to treat each other in a more just and fair manner and to read more ethically.

Synthesis

I am aware of what Jane Gallop means when she says that once people start to look for the bad (or good) in a piece of literature that we conform it to our own ideals and prejudices in order to fit what we think we see behind the text. As an English major, I have read a lot of Shakespeare and I understand why she uses him as a prime example of this. Shakespeare was a fantastic writer, which is why he is still essentially required reading in English classes from 9th grade through college. I’ve read multiple works of Shakespeare including poems and plays and I see why people may read him a couple of times and like him – and then once the issues of sexism and racism are pointed out they immediately dislike him and find any and all reasons to do so. I have not once read Shakespeare in the close manner that she discusses in the article, which is probably why I project some of my own thoughts and ideas into his writing instead of looking at what exactly the words on the page are saying. I know that I have a difficult time not projecting my own thoughts/ideas onto the words of an author dead for a long time. I begin to think I know what is being said when in reality I don’t. I haven’t read the works in a closer way in order to get a better ethical understanding. We are taught in class to pay attention to a couple of the things that Gallop says are important in terms of close reading: repeating words and images/metaphors. She explains that “a more substantial benefit of close reading is the effect it can have upon a student’s reading of her own writing” (9). She says that whenever we read something we have written we are more often than not reading what ought to be on the page rather than what actually is, which I wholeheartedly believe is true. There are times that I have read through an essay or another assignment for a class and my mind doesn’t see the words I have written; instead I see what I should have put on the page. I don’t take the time to read my own writing closely in order to see what I actually said before I go in and revise the words. Revision would be easier if I did a close reading of something I wrote and figured out the difference between what I actually wrote on paper and what I meant to write down. I would be able to then edit it to match what I intended to write and at the end it would become a better paper. Close reading seems like something that I would take upon myself to try to start doing in the hopes that it would make me not only a better reader but also a better writer in the end.