Gee - Swales Dilactical Journals

Greg Warman

10-29-12

Eng 1510

Gee Dialectical Journal

“Language is a misleading term; it often suggests ‘grammar’” -483

-          James Paul Gee goes on to explain how a person can perfectly know the grammar aspects of a language, but still not know how to use that language. I agree with his point here that the word “language” is often misconstrued as a synonym for “grammar”, however, by declaring that a person knowing grammar may still lack the skill to articulate expressions in the language is a bit too much. They may not “perfectly” present their ideas, responses, thoughts, etc. in language, but if what they are presenting, whether it be acceptable by Gee or not, is understood by the listener or reader, then I do believe they know how to use the language: They have successfully transferred their message to another person, though, it indeed may not have been presented as “perfect” as Gee thinks they could have presented it.

“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 right values, beliefs, and attitudes.” -484

-          Gee is explaining his idea that as a bearer of knowledge, to communicate with others in the most efficient and understandable way, one must act as sort of a chameleon, if you will, in that they must mold and shape the way they talk, how they talk, what they talk about, and how they present it.  The different combinations of ways one can fit into a certain role are called Discourses, or “identity kits” as Gee refers to them as.

“…there is no real sense in which we humans are consistent or well integrated creatures from a cognitive or social viewpoint, though, in fact, most Discourses assume that we are.” -485

-          Gee is explaining that human beings, as a whole, all come together in specific groups called discourse communities.  Each one of these communities have their own ways of functioning, and though many communities are similar and share the same traits, there is no real sense that anyone has the same exact social viewpoint.

“Though true acquisition is probably not possible, “Mushfake” Discourse is possible.”  - 490

-          When one has grown up “maladapted”, they indeed are less competent in the functionality of language, but also, it leads to the creation of something with otherwise less efficient things.  An example would be a prisoner making a shiv out of a toothbrush.

 

Swales Dialectical Journal

“Whatever the genealogy of the term discourse community, the relevant point in the present context is that it has been appropriated by the ‘social perspectivists’ for their variously applied purposes in writing research. “ -468

-          No matter what it exactly means or what it should be used for, a discourse community was founded by people in writing research.

“The absence of any one (different subject areas, conflicting procedures, no interaction, and multiple discourse conventions) may be enough to prevent discourse community formation – as international politics frequently reminds us.” -469

-          It only takes one thing different in a discourse community to cause it to flutter and fail.  Also, it’s often very small things (or at least they seem small) that can lead to a colossal difference in two discourse communities, as he explains we see in international politics.

“We need then to clarify, for the procedural purposes, what is to be understood by discourse community and, perhaps in the present circumstances, it is better to offer a set of criteria sufficiently narrow that it will eliminate many of the marginal, blurred and controversial contenders.” – 469

-          Swales is reiterating the fact that it’s better to have a set of “rules, to-do’s, laws, requirements” in each discourse community to get rid of gray areas and allow for a specific running of the community and it keeps it distinguished from other communities.

“The precise status of conflictive discourse communities is doubtless a matter for future study, but here it can at least be accepted that discourse communities can, over a period of time, lose as well as gain consensus, and at some critical juncture, be so divided as to be on the point of splintering.” -478

-          Swales is saying how this idea of discourse communities is definitely in need of being further researched, but by what he has gathered in his research, the next person who researched discourse communities can go into knowing a few things: they can lose/gain consensus, become divided as much as to splinter.