Proposal: Project 3

Discourse Communities to Study

1. Facebook
2. Life Guard
3. Competitive All-Star Cheerleading

For my first choice, I would study the Facebook discourse community. Facebook meets all six of Swales’ characteristics of a discourse community.

• Broadly agreed set of common public goals:

o   To begin, Facebook is open to the public itself. The goals are to stay in contact with and reconnect with old friends and family, make new friends, find people with similar interests, share thoughts and ideas, and entertain. All members agree to the Statements of Rights and Responsibilities, Data Use Policy, and Community Standards upon free registration.

• Mechanisms of intercommunication among members:

o   The main mechanism for communication with members is the internet- via computer, cell phone, tablet, etc. Video chat, direct messaging, and public posting are available for correspondence and conversation to occur. Some detailed options include instant messaging, private messaging, wall posting, and photo-sharing.

• Uses its participatory mechanisms primarily to provide information and feedback:

o   As stated above, there are several communication options on Facebook. As for messaging, replies are expected. Wall posts express ones thoughts, ideas, or feelings. Pictures are posted for the same purpose. Both can be a source of entertainment to the viewer. Comment and “like” options are available for feedback on all wall posts and posted pictures. There are topic-specific “Pages” on Facebook as well that limit shared information and feedback to a particular subject.

• Utilizes and hence possess one or more genres in the communicative furtherance of its aims:

o   Genres utilized in relation to Facebook are- direct messaging, chat logs, web pages, wall posts, comments, e-mail, and image sharing. You can also create ads and Pages.

• Has acquired some specific lexis:

o   Lexis is essentially jargon. Jargon used on Facebook includes tagging (photos, location, and friends), wall, news feed, poke, message slang (such as txt me, brb, ttyl, etc.), emoticons (i.e. J, L), status update, like, and share.

• Has a threshold level of members with a suitable degree of relevant content and discoursal expertise:

o   Facebook has several administrators and employees that know everything there is to know about Facebook- especially the creator (Mark Zuckerburg) and support staff. Some members are daily users and know all the things you can do on Facebook. New members register everyday and they would be considered the novices. 

Reading Response: "Identity, Authority, and Learning to Write in New Workplaces"

Writing About Writing

Reading Response

“Identity, Authority, and learning to Write in New Workplaces” by Elizabeth Wardle

Summary:

In “Identity, Authority, and learning to Write in New Workplaces,” Elizabeth Wardle attempts to explain how identity and authority issues affect the process of enculturation for workers in new environments. Wardle argues that the issues of identity and authority can affect one’s assimilation in a new working environment and that miscommunication with the two can lead to one being viewed as a “tool” and stress.

To start, Wardle describes modern socio-historic theories describing identity and authority. She details the Activity Theory by David Russell, which says that as one encounters new activity systems they encounter new genres and must determine how and when or if to use them. Wardle notes that an activity system is essentially a discourse community. She also describes Etienne Wegner’s theory that details three interrelated modes of belonging: engagement, imagination, and alignment. Engagement can me negative or positive and is where newcomers and experts interact. Negative engagement for Wardle is called non-participation and it can marginalize the workplace. Imagination can enable a sense of belonging but can also cause disconnect if the imagination is not similar to the reality. Alignment is where the new comer aligns with the new discourse they are in. Basically, positive communication and effort on the behalf of both the newcomer and the existing workers is necessary for the newcomer’s success in the new workplace. For authority, Wardle expands on Wegner’s theory. Wardle claims that authority is an intangible thing but is nonetheless granted within institutions. She states that clear job position separation is necessary to avoid confusion of authority. When there is confusion, imagination can get in the way of alignment.

To end, Wardle presents a case study of sorts. She tells about Alan the computer specialist. He began working after graduating college in a department that he felt he had no authority in. He then worked for the department of the college from which he graduated. He claimed he was a “God” here and assumed that his only boss was the department chair. He sent vast emails regularly but lacked the language that the members of the department required. He eventually because the joke of the department and the other members in the activity system did not view his prestige in the same way he did. Alan’s story portrayed that the engagement process was flawed and combining that with his false imagination about his authority led to improper alignment in the workplace. Wardle used Alan to show that learning to write in new environments can require more than just new skills and ways of thinking- it requires involvement, understanding power, and effort to assimilate with the other members. 

Reading Response: "Literacy, Discourse, and Linguistics"

Writing About Writing (p. 481-494)

Reading Response

“Literacy, Discourse, and Linguistics” by James Paul Gee

Summary:

In “Literacy, Discourse, and Linguistics,” James Paul Gee attempts to explain “a way of talking about literacy” and “literacy studies.” He describes how a Discourse is not the same as discourse, details the different types of Discourses, and introduces several new terms to strengthen his argument. Gee’s overall claims, in his own words, is “the focus of literacy studies or applied linguistics should not be language, or literacy, but social practices.”

Gee begins by describing that “language” is not particularly grammar- but it is what you say, how you say it, and what you are and do when you say it. To demonstrate this first claim he describes two responses by women in an interview that show different dialect. A great quote from this article that helps to formulate Gee’s claims of what a Discourse actually is this:

 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 to hold right values, beliefs, and attitudes. Thus, what is important is not language, and surely not grammar, but saying (writing)-doing-being-valuing-believing combinations. (484)

 Gee describes that a Discourse is like an “identity kit.” He also says that we all have many.

To acquire a Discourse, Gee states that you cannot learn by instruction but by apprenticeship. “Apprenticeship” is one of Gee’s terms that simply apply to the social practice of that particular Discourse to become familiar with it. Next, Gee explains how there is tension and conflict among one’s Discourses. All this means is that the ways of one Discourse may interfere with the ways of another, and you are ultimately who you are based on a combination effect.

Gee uses several terms to go in depth about Discourses. Primary socialization, or the acquisition of our Primary Discourse, is what we obtain from our families and growing up and it affects our world-view the most. Secondary Discourses are acquired by apprenticeship in the community (social institutions). Dominant discourses are secondary discourses that bring forth “social goods.” Non-dominant Discourses are secondary discourses that “bring solidarity with a particular social network.”

Another one of Gee’s claims is that a dominant discourse can be used as a test- a test for natives and a gate for non-natives (fluent uses v. newcomers). Gee also goes into detail about how primary and secondary discourse acquisition is similar to learning a new language. The first and second language can interfere with each other, but learning the second can strengthen the primary.

Gee’s definition of literacy is, “the master of or fluent control over a secondary Discourse.” In his argument, literacy is plural since everyone has more than one. Literacy can be “liberating” in the sense that bring about a meta-language that can be beneficial.

Furthermore, Gee presents two theorems to his argument. First, someone cannot engage in a Discourse in a less than fluent manner. Second, primary Discourses cannot be liberating literacies.

Finally, Gee ties all of his terms together with an example of a story created by a 5-year-old. The story is written in lines and stanzas, demonstrates filtering and transferring, and shows practice of a Discourse. Detail is given about the child’s primary Discourse and how it is affected, and how it affects her literacies.

Synthesis:

Gee’s article seemed to be more of a textbook read to me. It contained all new material with several definitions, examples, and implications. I believe my summary is lengthy due to the fact that Gee covered so much ground with his article. His work relates to the work of Swales because Swales defines discourse community, which is essentially a community of fluent members involved in a secondary Discourse. I feel that Gee and Swales collaboratively describe everything there is to know about defining the terms of discourse and Discourse. There is a separation between the two terms. Also, in Gee’s terms- I feel the Factory Farm Industry, or atleast the people involved in it, are in a dominant secondary Discourse. It is dominant because the “goal” (as required be Swales) is to raise profits. All three articles from this section so far are connected. I feel you will either understand all of them or none of them- that’s just an opinion though. 

Reflection of Meatrix Video

To be honest, I have never watched The Matrix. I didn't really have the background knowledge needed to completely understand the video. However, from what I have learned in class, I could follow along well enough. I did, though, read Glenn's article on the Factory Farm Industry and it definitely related to the video. Glenn used a lot of the same terminology as the the characters in the video did. They also expressed the same concerns- meaning both were against the treatment of animals and the industry in general.
I never really thought I'd be talking about The Matrix, The Meatrix, and the Factory Farm Industry in English class. It sounds a little outlandish to outsiders I presume, but learning about each has honestly helped me understand the concept of discourse community and the strategies implemented in them. 

Reading Response: "The Concept of Discourse Community"

Writing About Writing (p. 466-480)

Reading Response

“The Concept of Discourse Community” by John Swales

Summary:

In “The Concept of Discourse Community,” John Swales attempts to establish the true definition of a discourse community. Swales argues that there is a difference between a speech community and a discourse community and that there are six defining characteristics for a group to be a discourse community. He then gives an example and discusses further issues regarding the concept of a discourse community.

To begin his argument, Swales touches on all of the past definitions of what a discourse community is. He goes on to distinguish the difference between a discourse community and a speech community. Swales identifies a speech community as a group that shares similar linguistic goals, similar use of language, or both –as quoted by Hymes, “a community sharing knowledge of rules for the conduct and interpretation of speech” (470). Swales also notes that there are sociolinguistic and sociorhetoric speech communities. The definite separation between speech and discourse communities lies in the fact that speech communities inherit members, whereas discourse communities “recruit its members by persuasion, training or relevant qualification” (471).

The six defining characteristics that make a group a discourse community, as stated by Swales (471-3), are as follows:

1.     A discourse community has a broadly agreed set of common public goals.

2.     A discourse community has mechanisms of intercommunication among its members.

3.     A discourse community uses its participatory mechanisms primarily o provide information and feedback.

4.     A discourse community utilizes and hence possess on or more genres in the communicative furtherance of its aims.

5.     In addition to owning genres, a discourse community has acquired some specific lexis.

6.     A discourse community has a threshold level of members with a suitable degree of relevant content and discoursal expertise.

When describing these characteristics, Swales notes several things. Goals can be published in documents or be implicit; high level or abstract. Communication can be through text or confrontation. Information exchange is relative to the common goals. Discourse communities develop around the genres upon which it establishes itself. Lexis is essentially a compilation of vocabulary, so each community has its own terminology specific to that group. There should be a reasonable ratio between experts and newcomers. (To demonstrate such characteristics, Swales describes his discourse community called the Hong Kong Study Circle.)

In his closing thoughts, Swales talks about how discourse communities do not necessarily change it’s members world view, members can be spread out as opposed to a speech community who are likely to be close together, and that academic classes are not particularly discourse communities at start but the goal is to become one by end. He also notes that some discourse communities are well established, or norm-developed, while others are new and shifting, or norm-developing.

Synthesis:

This article is strongly connected to the article by Glenn. Glenn’s article was all about the Factory Farm Industry Discourse. This article, though not about a specific group, detailed what “discourse” and “discourse community” actually is. In Swales’ terms- the Factory Farm Industry is in fact a discourse community. Glenn’s explanation of doublespeak would be a prime example of Swales’ characteristic, “a discourse community has acquired some specific lexis. “ (Note: lexis- the total stock of words in a language). Swales would also say that the industries goals would be sales, it communicates to outsiders via advertisement, and is relatively norm-developed. Glenn essentially gives another example of a discourse community and goes further by describing how the was of a community can actually be negative (in terms of how animals are treated and outside consumers are intentionally misled). 

Reading Response: "Constructing Consumable and Consent. A Critical Analysis of Factory Farm Industry Discourse”

Readings on Writing (p. 144-154)

Reading Response

“Constructing Consumable and Consent.

A Critical Analysis of Factory Farm Industry Discourse” by Cathy Glenn

Summary:

In “Constructing Consumable and Consent. A Critical Analysis of Factory Farm Industry Discourse,” Cathy Glenn attempts to describe how “doublespeak” and advertisements promote a particular way of knowing nonhuman animals. She argues that Americans view farm animals as objects for use and consumption rather than living subjects. Glenn establishes her concern when stating, “Ultimately, I argue that this factory farm industry discourse helps construct how USAmericans think about animals in ways that- tacitly and often times unintentionally- endorse industry practices even in the face of serious concerns raised by environmental and animal advocates” (145).

Glenn begins by analyzing studies done by William Cronon and explains the different discursive strategies involved in the industry. Cronon offers the ideas of “Nature as Commodity” and “Nature as Virtual Reality” Both terms are essentially metaphors that explain the ways in which the industry influences thoughts of humans in regard to nature. Nature as Commodity is promoted by doublespeak in a sense, considering the jargon used by the industry. Glenn describes doublespeak as terminology that is “intentionally misleading.” For example, the industry states “animals as units”- thus objectifying animals. Nature as Virtual Reality refers to technology and advertisement used to personify animals. The example for this is the Happy Cow advertisements that portray a talking cow: the cow is personified by having language but the virtual reality is not like the actual reality.

Glenn concludes by stating her thoughts and suggestions. She states that factory farms are hazardous to the environment and she believes that doublespeak and strategic advertisement are used to disguise such hazards. Glenn quotes Dunayer and suggests that “relanguaging” can be used to shift from objectifying animals to portraying them as living subjects. Also, she wants to relanguage some of the doublespeak so that hazards are not covered. Some examples are saying “nonhuman animals” instead of “animals” and changing “animals that” to “animals who.” Glenn also refers to Coe and suggests that strategies for reading, understanding, and decoding doublespeak should be taught early in public school. Finally, Glenn talks about Cronon’s suggestion to “find the middle ground between nature and wilderness.”

Glenn exposes the discursive strategies within the Factory Farm Industry Discourse. She explains how certain methods can be used to essentially “cover-up” bad things and other methods can be used to make some things appear to be okay. Strategies can very from one discourse community to the next. 

Synthesis:

Considering this is the first reading for this unit, there is not much to relate it to. However, there is a connection to one past article in particular. This article can be distantly related to that of Brandt. Brandt describes how we have sponsors of literacy and as American consumers- our literacy of the Factory Farm Industry is strongly “sponsored” by doublespeak and advertisement. The different discursive strategies implemented by any discourse community influences the literacies of those whom are exposed to them. 

Important Elements for Handout

For our project, we are presenting via video. A handout will be given to the class to facilitate ease in following the video as well as a guideline for the general argument. The handout will essentially be an outline and it  needs to be visually appealing and easy to read. In other words- no crazy format, crazy colors, crazy phrases, or crazy font.  The first few points will be the introduction to the topic, our standpoint on it, and how it relates to texts we have. Following that will be "Our Stories"- or how the topic relates to each group member. Next will be "Interviews" for the people we collect opinions from. Finally we will provide our input and conclude the argument.

The other articles were more geared toward websites. They talked about page titles, headlines, hpyerlinks, and copyright infringement. Also, the acronym CRAP refers to contrast, repetition, alignment, and proximity.