“Materiality and Genre in the Study of Discourse Communities,” Amy Devitt et. al

IWA: 3/28/13

Summary: In their article, “Materiality and Genre in the Study of Discourse Communities,” Amy Devitt and colleagues attempt to tell their audience, mainly scholars, students, and teachers, that the idea of genre analysis can help people better understand their discourse community. They argue that becoming familiar with these different discourse genres will help professionals better associate with their discourse and become better equipped to fit in with the crowd and argue it through the use of their three essays, which each look at the idea from a different aspect.

Synthesis: This article is like Gee, Swales, etc. because they all discuss different pieces and concepts of the discourse community. This one showed us yet another piece of it.

QD 1: I suppose one of the discourses I am part of would be the English 1510 discourse community. Some of the genres imposed upon us are the horrible grading contract and scholarly language used in class such as discourse community. We are definitely forced into using these for any and all situations with the class.

QD 3: I would say some of the genre sets on campus would include things like sorority girls, frat boys, ROTC individuals, townies, or maybe even our grade level. Of all of these listed I would definitely fit in with the last one; freshman. However I’m sure I have many other genres but I can’t think of them.

AE 1: We clearly can see that sometimes in order to properly understand what a group is trying to tell you, you need to have some understanding of their discourse. Oftentimes you can become confused if say a member of a theatre company told you to sit stage right. You would probably sit on the right side of the auditorium when that is in fact house right (stage left). I’d say the misunderstanding definitely depends on the situation. In this case it’s simply a fact of not understanding the discourse and having a lack of knowledge on the material.

AE 2: Bawarshi essentially says genre is the language people use in a discourse community that would define the group while Swales says it’s a group’s language that guides the way they act. Although they seem to say the same I believe Swales’ makes it seem more like a guideline others in the discourse use and Bawarshi’s is a way of showing how others view them. For a classroom I would say Bawarshi’s is better.

MM: Ethnographic fieldwork is hands down the best way to understand a discourse community. I have always been taught that it is easier to learn something when you experience it hands on. Oftentimes while reading you can zone out or be confused on the wording so don’t get the full effect about what the author is describing.

Afterthoughts: I think this article will be very helpful for our project 3 and gives us more information to think about when examining our discourse communities. I also think it’s evident we can use this source since all three gave their own input with their essays. However I am really sick of reading about discourse community so my brain sort of went dead while reading this.

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

IWA: 3/22/13

Summary: In her article, “Identity, Authority, and Learning to Write in New Workplaces,” Elizabeth Wardle attempts to tell her audience, people entering a new job, that it is crucial to learn their way of writing since it is a new discourse. She argues that it is better to conform than to continue your own ways by telling us about “Alan,” a man with a lot of education who did not fit in with his new job and was seen as causing conflict at the job.

Synthesis: This article reminds me of Gee and Glenn because they both talk about different discourses and assimilation into them. It probably reminds me more-so of Gee because they're really only talking about one type of discourse.

QD 2: I have several examples and run into them nearly every day. People tend to be bias when it comes to their writing (whether they mean to or not) and can sometimes voice their opinions indirectly. In high school, for example, I was the editor in chief of our paper and had to read countless articles and quickly came to know the staff simply by their writing. Oftentimes when they had to write about politics they would lean one direction and give more positive quotes from one side than the other.

QD 3: I don’t think Alan’s experience ended well because of the way he handled the situation. Sometimes you need to realize there’s a time to speak up and a time to conform. When entering a new workplace it’s best to conform right away until you can work your way up and then voice your opinions. As opposed to being aggressive he should’ve acted calmer and talked in a more adult way. In addition he could’ve waited till he could be of more authority.

QD 5: I would have to side with Wardle on this one not only because I disagreed with Gee but because I have strong opinions when it comes to the corporate latter. I don’t think a new employee should speak up about how things are run or anything unless their life is in danger or it’s something extremely serious.

QD 7: Yes  indeed. Some of my managers at my job have made me realize they aren’t necessarily suited to be in charge. Oftentimes they let customers walk all over them (which I understand the customer is SUPPOSEDLY always right) but they’ll give them lower prices when the sticker price (located directly underneath the item and labeled with the item’s name and the date the tag was printed) clearly states the price the cashier rang up. When they lost this authority over the customer it made me realize I shouldn’t necessarily rely on them.

MM: I think these relate to authority because it is the leader of a discourse and the model other members of the discourse follow. It can help me as a writer because it shows me the way to “properly” write according to the authority figure and basically give me brownie points because I assimilated.

Afterthoughts: I think this piece was very informative for not just English use but practical use. It shows that sometimes it’s best to conform with an authority figure to help you better your chances of working up the corporate ladder.

“Constructing Consumables and Consent: A Critical Analysis of Factory Farm Industry Discourse,” Cathy Glenn

IWA: 3/22/13

Summary: In her article, “Constructing Consumables and Consent: A Critical Analysis of Factory Farm Industry Discourse,” Cathy Glenn attempts to tell her audience, the general public, that meat companies are basically horrible people who mistreat their animals and such. She argues that many people in power use “double speak” to trick their audience into believing something that is awful is really actually decent.

Synthesis: This article reminded me of “The Sticky Embrace of Beauty” because it discusses, in a way, proper ways to advertise and look good to the public. It also reminded me of the recent articles we read (Swales and Gee) because it discuses discourse.

QD 1: Glenn says the main characteristic of the factory farm discourse is what she calls doublespeak. This basically means companies (like in this discourse) will use advertising slang to their advantage to make something awful sound wonderful. It sanitizes the practice by basically misleading the public as to what is going on. To me it’s not really ethical because, even though it’s technically telling the public the truth, it’s doing so in a way that would mislead them. It’s just like a lot of PR people do. It’s not the Estate Tax, it’s the Death Tax. They mean the same but they sway you in two very different ways.

QD 2: Basically what Glenn means is that good companies know what the public wants and so will basically lie to them to make them seem like the good guys. Obviously if people saw how their food was being treated before it ended up on their plate and they happened to be animal activists, they’d probably be ticked off and would no longer support the company. I guess in a way I did participate in this because I’d rather NOT see the chicken concentration camps and what’s really in the food I eat because that makes me nauseous. However at the same time I don’t participate in this because I do know what goes on and every once and a while when I’m enjoying my dinner I look at that piece of chicken and think, “wow…this guy went through hell…” and then procede to eat.

AE 2: My company is McDonald’s. I did some quick research and found they do in fact use factory farms. Of course the public probably is not well informed about this. It was fairly easy to find out when I googled it. It was the first thing to pop up. From what I can tell they never advertise a “family farm”.

AE 3: Basically they use words the general population would not understand or misinterpret and believe to be good. It’s all about advertising.

AE 5: I would say very rarely do we have home grown foods anymore. We’re becoming more local though I would say with increased farmer’s markets and everything. Other cultures I feel like grow a lot of their own food to put on the plate and it appears they do treat their meat properly.

MM 1: I would say my views haven’t really changed. I mean I’m still going to eat my hamburgers and everything. It does make me sick to my stomach though because it makes me think of “Supersize Me” and makes me think about the food we put in our systems is awful.

Afterthoughts: This article made me feel very ill in a way. It also ticked me off because it made me think a lot about how companies manipulate the public to seem like a great corporation if they’re not.

“Literacy, Discourse, and Linguistics,” James Gee

IWA: 3/20/13

Summary: In his article, “Literacy, Discourse, and Linguistics,” James Gee attempts to tell his audience his viewpoint on what a discourse community is. He argues that a person is really only part of one discourse community and if they claim to belong to more than one they are essentially lying because people can only dedicate their time fully to one.

Synthesis: Gee’s article is like Swales piece in that they both discuss discourses. Granted they discuss them in opposite ways but they still discuss them.

QD 2: Basically what Gee means is that in order to belong to a discourse community you not only have to walk the walk but talk the talk so to speak. You have to speak the way your discourse community does and dress similar to them too.

QD 4: A primary discourse is the one people use initially to make sense of the world. Secondary discourse is basically a public place. It’s a place where you interact with people because you have to (like a grocery store) even if you don’t belong to that discourse. The dominant discourse is the secondary discourse only you get benefits (aka a job). The non dominant discourse is a secondary discourse that would have a facebook page or twitter you follow but that’s about the most interaction you have with them.

QD 7: Essentially he’s saying older members of a discourse have to test their new members as to whether or not they will fit in with the group. An example would be any campus group that invites in freshmen. They have to see whether or not they will be able to fit in with their rules, “customs,” activities, etc.

QD 10: He defines enculturation as basically an apprenticeship where newer members of a group learn how to “fit in” with their new found group.

QD 11: Metaknowledge is basically knowledge about knowledge. Gee believes it is important because it helps us express ourselves more easily with a discourse.

QD 13: It’s hard to become a part of a group if you don’t know anybody in it because you won’t be able to figure out what is “acceptable” in the group as easily. The friends you make within the group aid you the most but oftentimes you do feel like a “pretender” if you don’t typically act the way they do. Sometimes you become what you’re not.

AE 1: I’d write a conversation between them but I feel like eventually what would be said would become too violent to be posted on a blog. The two have very different ideas about a discourse community. Gee believes you can truly be a part of one and Swales says you can be part of many. The only thing they could agree on is that we are part of a discourse community and that there are such things as discourse communities.

AE 4: You can navigate between these discourses by essentially being yourself. To me if you are part of a discourse community you should be in your natural environment and not have to pretend to be something you’re not. So I guess I never have to “dodge and weave” to become a different person. I’m me. And if a group doesn’t like it then I don’t take part in it.

MM: My feelings haven’t changed after reading Gee because I think he is wrong. I believe we can be part of several discourses and shouldn’t have to “force” ourselves to fit in. Honestly, I probably won’t use anything he “taught” me in another setting because I like the way I am.

Afterthoughts: Gee ticks me off. I mean yeah we saw discourses in another light but I don’t agree with what he said at all. If anything it might help me use some “smart people” terms in my paper about a primary discourse and such.

"Introduction to Primary Research: Observations, Surveys, and Interviews,” Dana Driscol

IWA: 3/14/13

Summary: In her article, "Introduction to Primary Research: Observations, Surveys, and Interviews,” Dana Driscoll attempts to tell her audience, first year college students, how to gather information for a research project. She argues that it is necessary to use primary sources to successfully write your piece and discusses the proper ways to go about getting this primary information. She believes that properly going about a research paper helps writers make a name for themselves and seem more credible.

Synthesis: This article reminded me of Stedman’s piece because they both discuss properly using sources. Even though Stedman’s was more about citing and Driscoll tells us how to conduct research they both tell us ways to seem more credible in our research papers. I also thought of Kantz’s piece because they both tell us how to write research papers.

1: Interviews and surveys are often used in news writing. It’s impossible to write a legitimate article without some form of interview and oftentimes feature stories will use surveys to prove some point they are trying to make. I have also seen surveys used in scientific/psychology reports and studies to help show the researcher’s results.

2: Another ethical consideration researchers need to take into account would be the subjects’ themselves. I know if you’re interviewing someone for a news article you should appear to be interested for several reasons. It makes you more focused on the article and proves to the interviewer you have respect for them. If they feel disrespected you are not being ethical.

3: Really anything could be investigated using primary research methods. I guess one major thing could be what the university is doing with renovated dorms, redoing South Green, and renovating Jeff Dining Hall. You could interview anybody in charge of the project to see what all they’re doing. In addition you could use a survey to get student insight as to what they would like seen done to the dining hall.

Afterthoughts: I thought this article applied to me a lot because it made me think a lot about my future career, the ethical guidelines I need to follow, and methods to go about getting research for possible articles. It should prove to be very beneficial.