Literacy, Discours~ and Linguistics: Introduction JAMES PAUL GEE

Literacy, Discourse, and linguistics: Introduction.” Journal of Education 171.1 (11)89): 5-17. Print.

Fr rmlng the Reading I,UtIt ., Paul Gee (his last name is pronounced like the “gee” in “gee whiz”) is the 1,I’.hl,lMorgridge Professor of Reading at the University of Wisconsin at Madison. 111’1′ has taught linguistics at Stanford, Northeastern University, Boston University, “Id the University of Southern California. His book Sociolinguistics and Literacies (I’I’IO) was important in the formation of the interdisciplinary field known as “New Iltl I.Icy Studies,” and he’s published a number of other works on literacy as well, uu ludlng Why Video Games Are Goodfor Your Soul (2005). Based on his research, It.·o” ,1 widely respected voice on literacy among his peers.

III this article, Gee introduces his term Discourses, which he explains as “say- IIIH (wrltlng)-doing-being-valuing-believing combinations” that are “ways of being 111 lilt’ world” (para. 5). (The capital D is important for Gee, to make a Discourse ,”‘,I lnct from discourse, or “connected stretches of language” that we use every day II I ( omrnu nicate with each other.) Gee spends a lot of time working to make these d”I,”11 Ions clear, using a variety of examples. A number of other terms crop up as w,·” In his work: dominant and nondominant Discourses, primary and secondary 111’,( ourses, literacy, apprenticeship, metaknowledge, and mushfake, among fllh”IS. Probably the most useful way to read this article for the first time is to try III (I) define terms and (2) apply what Gee is saying to your own experience by tltluklng of related examples from your own life.

‘here is one particularly controversial argument in the article. Gee insists that Villi can’t “more or less” embody a Discourse-you’re either recognized by others l’ ,I full member of it or you’re not. Many readers can’t make t ItI.. .ugument line up with their perceptions of their own expe- 111″”'((‘5 In acquiring new Discourses; they haven’t experienced Iltl .. “,111 or-nothing” effect. It’s also possible to read Gee’s arti- , h’ ,”> undermining itself: He explains that we are never “purely” 111I’Il1bc’rs of asingle Discourse but, rather, that agiven Discourse h IlIfhll’lIcod by other Discourses of which we’re also members. Ity Ihi’. Ilw,ol1lng, there may be no such thing as embodying a 1)1( 0111′,(‘ hilly or perfectly,

1482 Chapter 4

The important thing is this: When you encounter that subargument, or oth ers you might have trouble accepting, your job as a reader is to stay engaged in the overall argument while “setting aside” the particular argument you’re not sure about. As you know from your own experience, people can be wrong about smaller points while still being right about bigger ones. Further, scholarly argu ments are made very precisely with very careful language; Gee’s argument might work if you read it exactly as he intended it to be understood, without trying to apply it too broadly. But you should also read critically and test his claims against your experiences.

If you are interested in seeing and hearing from Gee directly, you can watch ,. short MacArthur Foundation video of him talking about games and learning by searching YouTube for “James Gee games learning.”

Getting Ready to Read

Before you read, do at least one of the following activities:

• Google the term mushfake. What comes up? • Consider two or three activities you take part in that are very different from each other, having different languages and purposes (for example, college, volunteering, and a hobby like gaming). Does one activity influence the way you participate in the others, or do they remain distinctly separate in your life? Explain.

As you read, consider the following questions:

• Why is Gee so concerned with how people learn Discourses? What does this have to do with education?

• Are there alternative explanations for the knowledge Gee describes? Could we have similar knowledge for some reason other than that there are Dis- courses?

• Does Gee’s discussion of Discourses sound similar to ideas you’ve encoun- tered in other chapters in this book? If so, which ones?

What I propose in the following papers, in the main, is a way of talki”Jlabout literacy and linguistics. I believe that a new field of study, intcgrat ing “psycho” and “socio” approaches to language from a variety of disciplines, •• emerging, a field which we might call literacy studies. Much of.this work, I think (and hope), shares at least some of the assumptions of the following papers. These papers, though written at different times, and for diffort’nt purposes, arc, IlOllt’ theless, based on the claim that the focus of literacy sludll”i or npplicd linguistic N should not be language, or literacy, hut SOcilllllr.lrllll’, ‘1111″vl.iim, I believe, h,III n number of socially impormnt nnd COjlIiliv!’i)’ 11111’11”,1111″UIII’C’qllt’IIl’l”,

””11.1

“Lnngunuc” ,.. ,I 11t1″II·.lllrng term; il too oftcn suggests “grammar.” It is a 2 truism thai :1 pen,oll ~,II know perfectly the grammar of a language and not !-1I0W how to lISC that language. It is not just what you say, but how you say it. II I enter my neighborhood bar and say to my tattooed drinking buddy, as I sit down, “May I have a match please?” my grammar is perfect, but what I have ,1 it! is wrong nonetheless. It is less often remarked that a person could be able 10 lise a language perfectly and still not make sense. It is not just how you say II, hut what you are and do when you say it. If I enter my neighborhood bar .uid say to my drinking buddy, as I sit down, “Gime a match, wouldya?,” while placing a napkin on the bar stool to avoid getting my newly pressed designer [euns dirty, 1 have said the right thing, but my “saying-doing” combination is nonetheless all wrong.

E Niyi Akinnaso and Cheryl Ajirotutu (1982) present “simulated job 3 uucrviews” from two welfare mothers in a CETA job training program. The iln.t woman, asked whether she has ever shown initiative in a previous job, u-sponds: “Well, yes, there’s this Walgreen’s Agency, I worked as a microfilm uperator, OK. And it was a snow storm, OK. And it was usually six people workin’ in a group … ” and so forth (p. ,4). This woman is simply using the wrong grammar (the wrong “dialect”) 11)1′ this type of (middle-class) interview. 11 a perfectly good grammar (dialect), II just won’t get you this type of job in Ih is type of society.

The second woman (the authors’ “‘iIlCCCSS” case) responds to a similar q ucstion by saying” … I was left alone III handle the office. I didn’t really have ,I lot of experience. But I had enough experience to deal with any situations 1 h.u came up … and those that I couldn’t handle at the time, if there was ~cuncone who had more experience than myself, J asked questions to find out what procedure I would use. If something came up and if I didn’t know who to u-ally go to, I would jot it down … on a piece of paper, so that I wouldn’t for- ‘~I’Ithat if anyone that was more qualified than myself, I could ask them about ” .ind how 1 would go about solving it. So I feel I’m capable of handling just

r:nguage” is a misleading term; it too often suggests “grammar.” It is a truism that a person can know perfectly the grammar of a language and not know how to

use that language. _j 4

1,1111deeply indebted to Candy Mitchell for editing this collection of papers, and to jim O’Brien for copy- ,’d” hIll the papers appearing here for the first time, The following people are responsible (they may be 11111.11to hear) for having helped to lead me to the views I hold. First, a set of people whose writings have 1I1′.phI’d me: Wallace Chafe, Michael Cole, john Gumperz, Shirley Brice Heath, Dell Hymes, William Labov, 1!1If1I’rand Suzanne Scollon, Brian Street, Cordon Wells, and jim wertsch. Second, a group of people not Itilly whoso writings have inspired me, but whose discussion ofthe issues in these papers with me, as well ,I. WIiIlM’ friendship, has left rY1I’ nlway~ in their debt: Elaine Andersen, Maria I3risk, Chip Bruce, Courtney 1 1/(lr’ll, I1nvlcl Dickenson, <;1f'vI' KIoI',IIf'n. 51rve Cordon, Steve Griffin, Henry Giroux. Donaldo Macedo, ',,11,111Mldl"('I~, nco MlkulC't ky, 111101MI~III!'I, ( .indy MllCl1cll, Catherlne Snow, and Dennie Woll. fhcI' 11,111"1',Ilithll,lll'ly nlilltiV(' Ih,'11 111111111Ii, IIII' ~1111111""IIldl <;.11