Devitt et al. Summaries

Amy J. Devitt Summary:

Devitt uses the jury instruction as an example of a conflict between specialists and non-specialists. The jury instruction is written by lawyers and given to the juries, so that they can do their duty properly. However, the language of the instructions could use words in a different way, causing confusion among the jury. The rhetorical purposes between the ones who write the book and the ones who act according to the book are also different. In an ideal situation, both parties would want to have a just decision and verdict, but they also have other purposes. Lawyers want to build reputation and money while juries want to merely speed up the trial in order to return to their normal lives. Other examples Devitt uses are ballots and tax forms. Tax forms are designed by the IRS but people hire specialists to do them because they are so complicated. Voters do not understand how the machines work, so they may cause some sort of error that would make their vote invalid, which is why there would be a need for specialists at the voting place to correct those mistakes. Devitt argues that although genres are used as communication between specialists and non-members of the community, they can become troublesome due to difference between languages spoken between the two groups and their rhetorical purposes.

Anis Bawarshi Summary:

Bawarshi further explains the role of the genre and its purpose within the discourse community. He states that a genre "is in the sum of exchanges such as this one, exchanges constituted by the various and sometimes conflicting genres used in different settings, that individuals compose in and compose discourse communities" (552). The genre helps set up interactions between two people and establishes their roles. An example he uses is the Patient Medical History Form. The genre asks for various information of the patient. The doctor then uses this information as a way to identify how and what he should speak to the patient. Bawarshi argues, "In this way, the genre is a site for the exchange of language within which participants influence one another and identify their discourse communities" (551). A genre is a heavily important form of text that helps keep discourse communities active and communication alive.

Mary Jo Reiff Summary:

Reiff examines genres as an instruction on how students can interact within a discourse community. However, she argues that once the text is removed from the context, the real genre that should be studied is through real life interactions where the genre is applied. In addition, genres can also be used to learn. Marilyn lists three ways: "learning genres, or widening students' genre repertoires; learning about genres, or fostering awareness [. . .] and learning through genres, or using genres as tools for thinking and learning in particular situations" (555). By applying ethnography in the classroom, students become fluent in their communities. They become both observers and members of the discourse community. They also have a more in-depth understanding of the language used. In addition, by applying ethnography, students develop more advanced thinking about understanding particular situations.

Mirabelli Synthesis

In the Tony Mirabelli's article, "Learning to Serve: The Language and Literacy of Food Service Workers," unlike the other articles by Wardle, Swales, or Gee, he starts his essay in an online discussion revolving around persecution against waiters and waitresses. He then goes on a summary about these persecutions instead of talking about language as the other articles. As Swales has stated, a discourse community must have a genre of texts. For the restaurant, Lou's, the most important genre of text was the menu. Words in the menus could be considered lexis as it could have different meanings depending on the context of the restaurant. In Wardle's activity system, authority is given to members by members of higher fluency or through recognition. On the other hand, Toni Mirabelli argues that waiters and waitresses gain a bit of authority through the usage of language. He also states, "While my research has shown that waiters and waitresses can exercise some level of authority, skill, and wit through their use of language with customers, they must also interact with management and other staff where authority and control play out in different ways" (553). Waiters and waitresses have authority over the customers during a short interaction through the usage of language. By using "magic words," they can manipulate a customer to choose a food, or if they aren't too sure of the details and explain it in an unelegant way, then it may affect the customer to not choose that particular item. However, he argues that for the most part, customers have authority over the waiters and waitresses because how they experience the restaurant will affect what the waitress or waiter will do next. Managers on the other hand are not easily as manipulated by language as the customers. Instead, the waiter and waitress gains authority only through permission.

Wardle Synthesis

Wardle immediately starts out with a discussion about discourses involving the workforce.  In this case, the discourse she initially talks about is similar to Gee's "dominant Discourse," or a Discourse that is used to gain social goods like money. According to Wardle, it seems that there are conflicts between the identity and the discourses that adults join; however, Gee would argue that the identity is the primary Discourse. The identity that Wardle talks about can also be part of the speech community in Swales's argument as they are both initial make-ups for people's characteristics. While Gee and Porter focused on what discourses or discourse communities were, Wardles focused on what was going on after the neophyte, or novice, entered the workplace discourses. Besides identity, Wardle states that people have to negotiate their authority when one enters the discourse community as well. The authority is the accepted pronouncements that are granted by the institution but must then be maintained by the individual's speech and actions. Wardle states that in order to be a full participant of the discourse community, one would have to know when and how to talk or be silent in the same fluency as veteran participants. This kind of agreement is somewhat similar to Gee's argument of when the individual becomes fully part of the discourse community. An interesting question that Wardle brings up is what happens if the identity conflicts with the discourse institution so much that they are degraded to a tool of the institution instead of a participant? Wardle uses Alan as an example who was new to his community. His enculturation was a failure. His resistance was too high and as a result, he was not a part of the community. This example amplifies both Gee's and Wardle's point. It shows that people are either fully assimilated into the community or not and it demonstrates that people must negotiate their identity and authority in order to be a participant.

Gee Summary & Synthesis

Summary:

Gee redefines the term, "language." He argues that the term has too much of a connotation that suggests grammar. Instead, he puts focus on how the language is used instead of what it is. It is the combination of speech (writing), actions, existence, and beliefs. These combinations are also called Discourses, "ways of being in the world; they are forms of life which integrate words, acts, values, beliefs, attitudes, and social identities as well as gestures, glances, body positions, and clothes" (484). There are two different types of Discourses: the primary discourse and the secondary discourse. The primary Discourse is also known as the initial Discourse. It is what makes up our identity that we developed at home. The second Discourse is developed from social institutions outside of our homes. These Discourses allow "apprenticeships" or students achieving fluency within that particular language. Gee also redefines the definition of "literacy." He argues that it is "the mastery of or fluent control over a secondary discourse" (486). Two theorems evolve from this definition. The first theorem is that one is not able to engage in a Discourse without being fluent. The second theorem is that primary discourses can never be "liberating literacies." Gee states that for literacy to be liberating, it must be able to critique the Discourse and have a set of meta-elements including language, words, attitudes, and values. For liberation, a person must have the ability to criticize and analyze the literacy. Secondary Discourses are important because it can help the person gain a realization of his or her primary Discourse. What truly is liberation is metaknowledge. The result of classroom instructions of compositions, study skills, writing, critical thinking, etc. Students who are ill-prepared can use the metaknowledge to become "smarter" than students who are prepared. Gee proposes a big question. How can we help students gain metaknowledge and resistance and also develop their Discourse at the same time if they entered it at a later time? Gee cannot offer a solution, but what he can offer is an experiment. He hypothesizes that by "mushfaking," or making do "with something less when the real thing isn't available" (490). Gee finalizes his argument by saying that successful students can be produced by teaching them "mushfake," resistance, and metaknowledge.

Synthesis:

Gee's theory on Discourse contrasts quite a bit from Swales's opinion on a discourse community. First, the reader must identify Gee's term of Discourse. It has two main types: the primary and the secondary. The primary Discourse revolves around the member's identity and that it is developed at home. We can argue that it is actually similar to Swales's initiation of the speech community. In the speech community, people are entered by birth. The second Discourse is developed through social interactions and institutions outside of the home such as churches, schools, clubs, etc. which resembles more of Swales's discourse community. The difference between these two discourses, however, is that Swales believe that a spy can become a part of the community while Gee's discourse is harder to enter. A spy cannot be a part of Gee's discourse because he or she would not be completely fluent. Swales's requirements for a discourse to be a discourse community is also more numerous, but he insists that a discourse community does not affect the identity of the person. Gee disagrees. He believes that the identity of a person is made up of his or her Discourses.

Summary: "The Concept of Discourse Community" by John Swales

Summary:

In this article, John Swales talks about the concepts and the differences between the discourse and the speech communities. His goal is to clarify the differences between them and identify a need for a discourse community. The first difference between the two is the medium: speech communities rely on the vocal interactions between the participants while discourse communities rely on the writing (470). The second difference is that speech communities are sociolinguistic while discourse communities are sociorhetorical. That means that speech communities are determined by a social group, and in contrast, a discourse community is determined by a group of people with a common goal or interest. The final difference is that a speech community is centripetal (people are absorbed into the general fabric) and a discourse community is centrifugal (people tend to be separated by into occupation or special-interest groups). In a speech community, people are admitted by birth or accident, while in a discourse community, people are admitted by persuasion, training, or qualification. There are six characteristics of a discourse community: "a discourse community has a broadly agreed set of common public goals, has mechanisms of intercommunication among
its members, uses its participatory mechanisms primarily to 14 provide information and feedback, utilizes and hence possesses one or more genres in the communicative furtherance of its aims, has acquired some 16 specific lexis in addition to owning genres, has a threshold level of members with a suitable 17 degree of relevant content and discoursal expertise" (472-473). Swales argues that a discourse community is convenient because it does not include the same tensions as a speech community, liberating the writer and giving him or her freedoms.

AW2:

Dear student,

A discourse community is a group of people with a common interest or goal and achieves this through communication. In this community, there is a common theme and language that the individuals must follow if they want to participate. Discourse communities can be both professional and unprofessional. A discourse community I partake in is the Athens High School Archery team. In this community, we communicate through facebook, emails, and text messages. We share information on how to improve our skills and abilities, regulations and rules that have changed, and how to hold fundraisers for our trip to the national and state tournaments. This is a discourse community because we have a common interest and goal, and we preserve this community through communication. Without it, it would not exist.

Sincerely,
William Vu.