Literacy, Discourse and Linguistics

In James Gee's article, "Literacy, Discourse and Linguistics," he talks about the tests and gates within discourse communities.  These tests are giving by the members of the discourse community to see if other members are native to their community.  If they do not pass the test the gates are used to exclude the non-natives.   This can be seen in pretty much any series of classes here on campus.  In order for you to enroll in a class you must meet all prerequisites and in order to meet the prerequisite you must have passed all required classes.  This is set in place to keep students who don’t understand the material well, the “non-natives”, from continuing on in the class series.  If they are able to pass the class and do well on test and quizzes then they have meet all requirements and are free to take the next class in the series, these students are like the natives to that discourse.   Discourses also often pay close attention to the “correctness” of others, rather than the meaning.   This is because it is quite easy to pick up on someone who doesn’t belong or is not ready to make it to the next step, or secondary discourse.  By the language they use alone it is easy to distinguish whether or not they belong.  Using the same example, when giving a presentation in class it is easy to distinguish whether or not the person know the subject matter well.  If they do not they won’t get the good grade needed to pass the class and help them advance to the next one.

The Concept of Discourse Community

A discourse community, as described by John Swales in “The concept of Discourse Community” has six defining characteristics:

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

Each discourse community has common purpose or goal that they are trying to achieve; this goal must be know by everyone in the community.  

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

   The discourse community has to have a way for its members to communicate with one another.  This communication can include all kinds of communication whether it be formal (i.e. weekly meetings or gatherings) or informal (i.e. emails or newsletters).  For example a sports team may hold a weekly or daily practice and a fraternity will hold a weekly chapter.  While a group of gamers might meet in a more informal way in a game room to play against one another.

3) “A discourse community uses its participatory mechanisms primarily to provide information and feedback.”

I take this to mean that one must be actively involved in the community in order to be considered a part of the discourse community.  You can say that your apart of a particular discourse community, but if you don’t take part in their means of intercommunication whether it be attending their meetings or reading their newsletters, then you are not truly a part of that community.  You have to know what is going on and stay involved.   

4) “A discourse community utilizes and hence possesses one or more genres in the communicative furtherance of its aims.”

The genres are texts specific to the discourse community.  These genres create a set of expectations for how the members of the community should interact and communicate with one another.  This must be done before the community can be recognized as a discourse community to others.

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

A discourse community may have its own jargon or technical language that must be understood by all of its members.  For instance on the class blog when it is said to read something in WAW, that isn’t a term used by everyone, people who aren’t in our class who may read that will have no idea what that means. Just as people in the medical profession have technical jargon that they use.   

6) “A discourse community has a threshold level of members with a suitable degree of relevant content and discourse expense.”

Membership will inevitably change over time, but the community cannot function and continue without a reasonable number of people who have been involved for a while and know how the organization is run stay involved. For instance a company who didn’t treat their employees well couldn’t function if all of their employees up and quit on the same day.  There would be no one to teach newcomers how the job is done.

From Pencils to Pixels: The Stages of Literacy Technologies

Sometimes Baron seems to shrug at technology and suggest that it's hard to imagine new technologies as fundamentally changing the shape or nature of writing. Do you agree that this seems to be one of his messages? If so, why do you agree with it?

After reading “From Pencils to Pixels: The Stages of Literacy Technologies” by Dennis Baron, I partially agree with you when you say that he “seems to shrug at technology and suggest that it's hard to imagine new technologies as fundamentally changing the shape or nature of writing.”  I do agree that he suggests that it’s hard for him to imagine new technologies that will arise.  However, I don’t think that he suggests that these new technologies won’t fundamentally change the shape or nature of writing.  In fact I think he suggests that changes in technology will absolutely change writing.  Baron says that writing on paper is a technology and then the computer came along and word processing fundamentally changed the way we write.  I don’t see him arguing that new technologies will not fundamentally change the way we write.  I just think he seems to suggest that he doesn’t want to waste his time imagining which technologies being researched will eventually be made public and change the way we view communication.  Although he does seem to suggest this kind of when he gave the example that Samuel Morse the creator of the telegraph didn’t see the use in Alexander Graham Bell’s telephone or how it would shape the way we communicate.  So, maybe I do agree with both of these points.

The Future of Literacy

Of the four case studies presented in the book the one I felt the most connected to in terms of reading was Danielle DeVoss.  My parents always encouraged my brother, sister, and I to read. When I was younger they always read us a story before bed and as I was learning to read they would make me read a story to them before bed each night.  They would also take us to the library every few weeks.
In terms of being computer literate the case study I felt the most connected to was Brittney Moraski.  My dad is really into technology and we had a computer in the house when I was very young.  My dad got my brother and me education computer games for us to play and I became comfortable with computers at a young age.   As I entered school and I began to learn more about the technology, I increased my literacy. 

Comparing Malcom X and Sherman Alexie

Both Sherman Alexie and Malcom X were quite similar.   They were both self-taught how to read and were both from poor socioeconomic situations.  But both were in quite different situations as well.  Malcom X taught himself to read while in prison.  He used the dictionary and copied down every word from the first page and then read the page over and over again.  Then he continued to do this until he had copied the entire dictionary.  When finished, he read books to help to continue his literacy.  Sherman Alexie taught himself to read but at a much younger age.  He would read every book available to him.  If he was able to get his hands on it he would read it, whether it be a comic book, newspaper, manual, or anything with words on it.  This is quite an astonishing task for a young child to teach himself to read. 
Their race, class, and socioeconomic statuses played a huge role in situations.  Both Alexie and Malcom were from poorer and lower socioeconomic families.  Also both were minorities; Sherman Alexie was Native American and Malcom X was African American.  People from lower socioeconomic situations are not given the same educational opportunities that people from higher socioeconomic situations.    

Sponsors of Literacy

Deborah Brandt applied the term literacy to not just one’s ability to read and write, but to a plethora of things that one may learn to do throughout their lifetime.  Research suggests that the higher the literacy achievements one has the higher their socioeconomic status.  This makes perfect sense the more knowledge someone has the higher their socioeconomic status is that not why we are all here at school? In order to gain more knowledge, so that we can earn higher paying jobs.  This brought about a different thinking of the term literacy. Thinking of literacy in these terms, I have many literacy sponsors not just one.  The main literacy sponsors I have would have to be my parents.  They worked to help to teach me not just to read and write, but to be a civically minded person.  They taught me the first things I can remember about religion and to perform countless tasks among many other things.  They helped a great deal to shape me into who I am today.  In addition to my parents I also have several other primary literacy sponsors such as my teachers as well as the educational institutions I have attended, my family, friends, and church I attend.  All of these people and things help to further my knowledge in certain areas. I feel that the access provided by my many sponsors has been more than adequate.  They have shaped me into the person I am today and have given me many things that I couldn’t do without.  One literacy that I wish I had would have to be the ability to write in other forms of programming languages other than C++ and Java.

Wikipedia Reflection Essay

I learned numerous things during our first project, writing a Wikipedia article.  I learned not just how to write an article using the wiki syntax or how to site sources within Wikipedia, but I also learned a great deal about the writing processes.  It allowed me to see just how dynamic the writing process really is.  I gained insight into what it means to write as a social and use the five functions of writing, which we read about in Writing about Writing.  I became more knowledgeable about sources and source retrieval, as well as, evaluating and incorporating those sources into my writing. 

Although I found writing a Wikipedia article to be both a rewarding process and an informative way to introduce me to the readings we have done in Writing about Writing; it was also quite a frustrating process.  I quickly learned how sometimes it might look as if there is a copious amount of information out there about a particular topic, but that may not always be the case. In fact, it may just turn out to be several news sources reporting on the exact same event.  Due to this, I had a great deal of trouble getting my article to meet the length requirement, and I ended up having to make two articles instead.  This actually turned out to be a good thing though because it kept me from having to stretch out the information. Also, it made my articles much more useful to the readers, as well as, made my writing better.

I also learned many additional things about sources and source retrieval throughout not only my experiences during the writing process, but my classmates’ experiences as well.  What Wikipedia considers a good source was not necessarily what I had considered a good source in the past.  The issues that several of my classmates were encountering brought an entirely new light on what I now think of as a good source.  What I mean by this is now when I think of a good source I no longer just think “Oh, it’s a newspaper.  This is a great source.”  I now see that where the newspaper is located also plays a bit of a role. 

Something I found with many of my classmates was that they were writing on local events and were using local newspaper articles as sources which the Wikipedia editors did not like.  This is because they were looking for unbiased third party sources.  While the newspaper articles that they found were probably for the most part unbiased, these newspapers were not third party sources.  Since the newspapers where local papers, the writers and the paper itself stands to do better when the local economy is better.  Events such as the ones the newspapers were writing about stand to bring tourists into the city, which in turn helps the local economy and therefore, helps the newspapers and their writers.  In this sense no local newspaper article written about such events can be truly unbiased.   So, thinking of it in that way, I can now see why they say that they are looking for ‘third party sources’ as well, and not just ‘unbiased sources’.  

Wikipedia also gave me a great deal of insight into understanding the readings we have done in Writing About Writing.  It allowed me to get a better view of the writing process from the start, or the shitty first draft all the way to being finished.  Although, the finished part is never technically finished because it is always open for more edits.  As Barbara Tomlinson pointed out, we can think of writing as John Fowles does, “‘fluid,’ molten, during the time he can revise it, becoming ‘solid’ only with the final casting – publication.”  This says a lot about Wikipedia and its possibilities; articles on Wikipedia will always be subject to the casting and recasting part of Tomlinson’s metaphorical stories.  And with this comes the possibility for major reformulation of any article at anytime, allowing Wikipedia to change to fit the times and the writers.  This then brings new light to what Tomlinson means by sewing and tailoring.  She asserts that, “text can be divided into elements or components, into which major sections can be inserted even as the text nears completion (Tomlinson 255-257).  This is also much like Wikipedia where new writers can come and add whole new sections of knowledge to an article, even though the article may seem to others to be complete.   

Wikipedia was a great example in furthering my understanding of the Murray reading, and without having written the articles in Wikipedia I would have never been able to see it in that way. “We are autobiographical in the way we write,” Murray proclaimed, “my autobiography exists in the examples of writing I use in this piece and in the text I weave around them (Murray 58).”  We all draw on are past experiences when writing.  This was at first quite hard to see with Wikipedia; in fact I thought it was going to be the down fall to Murray’s argument. Wikipedia, which is supposed to be an unbiased source, does not call on the writers and editors to draw from their past experiences.  After thinking long and hard about what Murray had to say, I feel that he is correct, because is what we read on a particular subject not a previous experience?  Do we not gain experience from what we read? I think that we certainly gain insight about topics from reading, and because of this I was able to see that Murray’s argument is not in fact faulty, but quite well founded.  

Wikipedia is forever changing the way we see knowledge and how it is distributed in the twenty-first century.  It allows us to see the dynamic process that is writing, and demystifies the processes behind the writing.  Before Wikipedia we were never able to see the whole process from start to finish.  We were only able to see the finished product, the ink on the pages that had been printed only after several edits and revisions. Also, it took several editors looking over it with a fine tooth comb to check and see that the writer hadn’t missed any mistakes they may have made, for once the article is printed it can no longer be revised; it is forever cast in stone.  Now, with Wikipedia we can look back to an articles poor first draft all the way to its much more robust and meaty current state. 

Wikipedia is an entirely different entity that the world has never seen before.  While it takes the form of an encyclopedia, it has been transformed into so much more.  It is a place for writers to collaborate, a place where an average person can share their knowledge, a place where the information can change to fit the world as it is today.  The articles on living people can change daily to reflect any current accomplishment or changes in their lives.  For example, Steve Jobs. When I heard that Steve Jobs had died, I immediately looked for an article on this by typing “Steve Jobs Death?” into the Google search bar.  The first result I got wasn’t one of many of the numerous newspaper articles on this tragic event, but Steve Jobs Wikipedia article that had already been changed to reflect this event.  This ups the bar from a regular encyclopedia that wouldn’t be able to make a change like this until the next edition is printed years later. 

Wikipedia has an advantage over most encyclopedias. It is like a hybrid-cross that has never been created before.  Most searches that I complete in Google yield a Wikipedia article as one of the top results.   This really says something.  Wikipedia definitely has an advantage over more traditional methods and allows much easier access to the users than traditional methods offered.  It has allowed the encyclopedia to adapt to fit the ‘now’ world we live in here in the twenty-first century.  In an age where computers are everything and the world is at your fingertips, Wikipedia makes room for the encyclopedia to fit within these contexts.

Works Cited

Murray, Donald. "All Writing is Autobiographical." Writing about Writing. Ed. Elizabeth Wardle and Doug Downs. Boston:Bedford/St. Martin, 2011. Print.

Tomlinson, Barbara. "Tuning, Tying, and Training Texts." Writing about Writing. Ed. Elizabeth Wardle and Doug Downs. Boston:Bedford/St. Martin, 2011. Print.

Shitty First Drafts

In “Shitty First Drafts,” Lamont is trying to get her audience to reconsider the assumption that good writers create first drafts that are almost perfect and that need very little revision.   Because in reality all writers write shitty first drafts that need lots of revision and re-revision to get them up to par with what we expect from them.  This is an easy assumption to fall into; it’s easy to look at a piece of writing from someone else and see this great piece of writing that flows together so perfectly and think, "wow, writing comes so easily to them."  That they just sat there and wrote it all at once and the words just naturally flowed onto the page.  But in all reality they spent just as much time as we do trying to draft their writing.  I feel that part of the reason this assumption is so prevalent is because in school writing classes we are always told to bring a rough draft in as part of the writing process.  But this rough draft is often the first time we are putting the words into sentences and paragraphs and this draft is usually expected to be the majority of the paper written down.  So it’s easy to get the mindset that our rough draft is our first draft.  And the rough draft is usually one of the final most drafts of our paper and is written much better then the strings of ideas we had before sitting down and writing.   These strings of ideas could be more seen as our first drafts.  Lamont believes the actual process of writing goes a little more like the first draft is the draft where you just get everything down on paper.  The second draft you fix it up and the third draft is where you check everything.     

Wikipedia allows us access to people’s shitty first drafts by allowing us to view history.  We can look at how the article looked in the very beginning which in some cases is just a few sentences about the topic.   This is beneficial because it allows us to see the writing process in use and in a different way.  It’s not always easy to see the writing process when looking back on our own writing.  But when you’re looking at an article that was edited by many people over time it allows us a better picture of the writing process at work.

Tuning, Tying, and Training Texts: Metaphors for Revision

In “Tuning, Tying, and Training Texts: Metaphors for Revision” Tomlinson gives eight metaphorical stories: refining ore, casting and recasting, sculpting, painting, sewing and tailoring, tying things off, fixing things, and cutting.  I would use some of these sculpting, painting, and sewing and tailoring. 

Of the metaphorical stories the one that seems true in my experience is sculpting.  As Tomlinson said “Goyen’s comparison to sculpture provides clear directions for a workable revising strategy: start first to shape the whole text, then cycle back to work at finer levels for revision”.  When I write I first look back at my draft as a whole to check that it flows well from paragraph to paragraph.  Then I go back through again and take a closer look at each individual paragraph to rework each one.

We can learn a lot about revision by examining the view history and discussion tabs of any particular article on Wikipedia.  The view history allows us to see what has needed to be changed in the past.  It allows us to see what has worked and what has not.  By viewing the history of changes that have been made it allows us to think about the composing process in terms of the metaphorical stories for revision.  We can think about how and why it was changed.  Which then allow us to start to think about and see what other kinds of things could use revision as well.  The discussion tab of an article allows the writers/people making revisions to discuss what works and what doesn’t it allows them to collaborate better to make the article the best that it can be.  In some cases it may even allow us to see the composing process from start to finish, well to the article in its current state.  We can see what kind of things the writers were discussing and then check to see what kind of revisions were made to reflect their discussion.