Project 3

The concept of discourse community is one that has been extensively discussed among many scholars throughout literary history, and is one that is still greatly debated to this day. Before I define what discourse community will mean for this article, it is important to reference the main schools of thought that are prevalent to this large topic. Swales discusses discourse communities as an entity with rules and structure. To make an analogy, he treats them as countries; corporeal entities that anyone can enter and learn the rules and become a citizen. It is possible to be a multi-citizen in many different countries, and similarly Swales states that it is possible to be a member of more than one community. Following this analogy, you still have a main “country” that you are best versed at and stay at the most. This whole concept is very different from the one that Gee presents, that of Discourses, where he presents the opportunity for another wonderful analogy. He states that there are multiple Discourses, and though we many learn the rules of others and visit them, we truly only have one main discourse. This is similar to the states in the US, where you can go back and forth between the states and must follow all of the laws in said state, but you only live in one state at a time. These two different views on the same concept show the opposite sides that exist, and in reality there is a more moderated concept that fits a wider audience.

Reading Response 17

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

Summary

In her article, “Identity, Authority, and Learning to Write in New Workplaces,” Wardle attempts to show that in jobs, it is important to adjust your writing to the new “discourse community” of your work because it will be beneficial. She argues this through an example of a computer specialist in an English department at a college, and shows where things would’ve been better if the new person had conformed or at least met halfway.

Synthesis

This work is very much based on the work of Swales and Gee, use their idea of discourse community/Discourse. While she uses Swales terminology, she is vague enough to pull bits from each scholar. This basis forms a large part of her concept, because it wouldn’t exist without the idea that there are separate discourse communities with different conventions. Though loosely used, the idea of learning to write differently to be accepted into the community is very similar in part to Devitt et al and their work on genre, the genre in this example being his writing. To have the authority he feels he deserves, he needs to be in their genre so that they can recognize him.

Project 3 Prposal

I would like to study the discourse community of Wookiepedia and those that use it. I feel that this would be an interesting topic because of my deep connection with said discourse community. It qualifies under Swales 6 characteristics. It has a broadly agreed upon set of public goals; to try and inform people about the Star Wars universe and to organize all of the information therein. It has mechanisms of intercommunication; forums and other online chatting, but also conversations between fellow users face to face. It also uses mechanisms to provide information and feedback; the whole purpose is to provide information, and if you information is wrong it can be removed from the site by other people fixing it, in other words feedback. All kinds of people are present in the discourse community, since Star Wars is such a far stretching audience. This allows for a broader influx of different genres assist in the furtherance of its goals. In no other area of fiction than that of the science variety is there more lexis specific to the community. Since it is all based around fiction, there are alot of events, names, and other such lexis that are unique only to this community. While many people know somethings about Star Wars, there are many things that only someone who used Wookiepedia would know, which then includes them in the discourse community. Finally there are members with a suitable degree of relevant content and discoursal expertise, since it is constantly updated by the administrators of the site to keep everything as factual as possible; factual to the universe that is. My one weak spot is I don't have any idea who to interview. I feel that a face to face interview rather than a chat with a random person online would be better, so I will have to find another person on campus who uses Wookiepedia. A set of texts that could be analyzed would be for one, any article, to show how they make sure that information is being passed, and two, a discussion board to show how all of the information is debated upon to prove it's validity

Reading Response 16

Devitt et al – “Materiality and Genre in the Study of Discourse Communities”

Summary

In their articles, “Materiality and Genre in the Study of Discourse Communities,” the authors attempt to redefine genre as it applies to the discourse community. They argue that genre is what defines the differences between each discourse community

Synthesis

This being the first compilation article, it is obviously different from the rest of the articles we’ve read. However, it does go along with the Swales piece nicely, taking what he had stated on discourse communities and adding their own spin to it.

Thoughts

This piece was if-y, if that’s a word. While it had some good points, there wasn’t much to talk about, as seen by my short parts above. The whole third article was quotations by people who use even bigger words than the authors do, which was slightly aggravating. All in all a very modest piece.

Reading Response 15

Gee – “Literacy, Discourse, and Linguistics: Introduction”

Summary

In his article, “Literacy, Discourse, and Linguistics: Introduction,” Gee attempts to define his concept of “Discourse” and to show it is separate from “discourse.” He argues that you learn a primary Discourse, and then all of your secondary Discourses that you learn throughout life are only imitations; you aren’t truly a member of that secondary Discourse.

Synthesis

This piece is similar to Swales’ piece, because they are talking about the same topic, albeit they each make their own definitions that are basically the same. The difference is that they are on different sides of the issue. Gee doesn’t feel that you can full master one Discourse, let alone more than one, and thus because of this different parts of different Discourses transfer back and forth. Swales has his little formula you plug into, and by it you can be in infinitely many discourse communities.

Pre-reading

Two or three activities that I participate in are college, reading Star Wars books, and socializing with friends. College influences how I participate in the other two things, because I always try and get my class work done first, so that will influence who I can socialize with and when I can read. There aren’t totally separate, but not inseparable either.

QD

1. Gee means that there are situational obstacles when communicating, as well as cultural ones to take into account. In English class they try to get rid of all of this when they teach grammar, but sometimes improper grammar has an extra meaning that isn’t in the “textbook.”

Thoughts

This piece was a lot more interesting than I thought it was going to be – I thought it was going to be a repeat of Swales. Instead, it was a thoughtful piece that was almost a key to Swales, and allowed me to understand not only his points, but the differences between the two.

Reading Response 14

Swales – “The Concept of Discourse Community”

Summary

In his article, “The Concept of Discourse Community,” Swales attempts to explain to the reader the concept of the discourse community, and the various permutations that exist among the various scholars. He argues that there are differences between several different concepts and gives his criteria for what he calls a discourse community.

Synthesis

This piece isn’t really like much of the rest of the pieces we’ve read, even his intro piece we did. This is very organized and structure, like a couple of the more scientific pieces, but he jumps around too much to be compared to them. Same for the vice versa. His topic is similar to several others, but he takes his own, rather dry, angle so it’s hard to compare.

Pre-reading

I feel out of place whenever there are sports on television and I’m forced to stay in the room. This is because I don’t find sports to be entertaining or exciting like many of my male counterparts.

QD

5. A discourse community that I belong to is the one that contains followers of the Star Wars continuum. It is connected to all of its members through all of the different media, be it media, books, comic books, video games, ect. The main setters of the rules are George Lucas himself and Leland Chee, the Continuity Database Administrator. The goals are the expansion of the continuum and its maintenance. Because of the large number of authors in this discourse community, there is lots of different ideas, so lots of different material to bring to the table.

Thoughts

This piece was so boring the framing the reading section warned me that it was boring. If a frame of a piece of literature takes two pages just to sum up that the piece is boring, then maybe we should fine a more interesting piece that says the same thing, I’m sure there’s one out there somewhere, that’s what Google’s for.

Reading Response 13

Wysocki – “The Sticky Embrace of Beauty”

Summary

In her article, “The Sticky Embrace of Beauty,” Wysocki attempts to analyze the concept of art and how it has different effects on people and their perceptions based on details held within pictures. She argues that our predetermined notions of beauty can both give us pleasure as well as anger from a picture. She breaks it down into a very descriptive analysis of what you feel when you see anything

Synthesis

This doesn’t really have much in common with anything that we’ve read. It discusses literacy a little, such as in how your experiences influence what you see in art, as well as how position, shading, and other factors influence what you receive from a picture. It relates to Berger in that it analyzes art, and the one that Wysocki looks at a lot is about a nude, basically. However she widens her approach beyond just nudes and applies her concept to all art.

QD

2. Visually, it is a low-visual text because other than the picture in question and the following diagrams, there are very few pictures or any defining features to the article to help convey anything more than “essay.” Aside from her longer quotes that are indented from her main essay, it flows like any other essay.

3. No it doesn’t work as a consumer. It interests me on a purely biological level, but it doesn’t make me want to either purchase the book or learn more. I have much better things to spend time on, such as finishing this reading response.

A&E

2. Beauty is most definitely in the eye of the beholder, as some people find some things appealing whiles others don’t, and vice versa. I don’t agree with can’t because there are very few things that are truly universal. Based on culture and your own personal experiences, you come up with your own idea of what beauty is. Wysocki was correct by saying that it is subjected to social forces.

MM

This statement fits her article well, because although she refers back to her original argument about the Peek article, her reasoning can be applied to a plethora of different art types. Her deductions could be applied to anything with  a picture in it, such as her statement about the difference between placements, as well as discussing how when you make something it becomes more universal.

Thoughts

I didn’t like this text much, though I did agree with her final statements on the subject. My tiresome complaint of the argument being stretched is coming back again. Her sources are reference in a way that she expects us to know what she’s talking about, and her vocabulary is excessively complex. I honestly didn’t fully understand what most of her article was about til I reread the Framing the Reading section of the apparatus.