1. 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 simulated jobs interviews. He explains how one person can say the right thing, use the right words and everything but still screw it up with the wrong attitude or how they present themselves. For example  The man in the bar, asking for a cig  in a “cool” way but puts a napkin on his lap to not get his pants dirty. This relates to what Gee says about “it’s not just what you say but how you say it”
  2. 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?                                                                                                                                       He explains that the first lady to be interviewed is simply using the wrong grammar “ok, and it was a snow storm, ok and theres usually 6 people working” to get that type of job in this type of society.  He adds that the second lady to be interviewed, the “success” story said all the right things but expressed the wrong values by failing to characterize her own expertise. “if anyone was more qualified than myself I could ask them. I think he gave this study a lengthy portion right off the bat because it explains what he’s talking about so well. When I read this it made total sense when he brought about this simulated job interview and how the author is unaware that communication is more than language use.
  3. 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?                                                                                                                                           It’s important to distinguish the combination from just language because his whole theory is based on this combination- attitudes, beliefs, values etc. It’s so much more than just the “language” that most of us associate with the word. This quote helped me understand discourse further “at any moment we are using language we must say or write the right thing in the right way while playing the right social role and appearing to hold the right values, beliefs, and attitudes.”. An example of discourse is Body language, something Gee hasn’t yet touched on but I believe it would go along with his idea of discourses. For example someone who is hunched over all the time and has their head down. I understand what Gee says about “enculturation” and how you can’t just learn it, you need to experience it. “Hands on training”
  4. 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?                                                                                                                                              By experiencing and doing the action is the best way to become a linguist, for example hands on training like someone who’s in trade school. Any sort of internship or apprenticeship where your required to do what your being trained for. For example Gee says he doesn’t believe anyone learned a second language from just being in the classroom. You gotta go out and talk to people and interact. That is something in my experience that holds true. I went to Greek School in Seattle  when I was younger and every summer my mother would take my brother, sister and myself to Greece. Where of course we interacted with everyone in Greek.

This is the photo of my workspace in the library

 

A comment I made in the margins of the essay was “summarizes discourse” the quote i was referring to was                         “at any moment we are using language we must say or write the right thing in the right way while playing the right social role and appearing to hold the right values, beliefs and attitudes.” I chose to annotate this because this best summarizes discourse to me

 

Another comment I made in the margins was “what about when people change their discourses” I was referring to the quotation “We all have many discourses” I’m curious as to why and how people change their discourse and what affect that has on them