Literacy, Discourse, and Linguistics

In “Literacy, Discourse, and Linguistics” Gee discusses the “constant tests” for individuals whose discourse in question is not their dominant.  An individual develops a dominant discourse through their initial socialization, based on their position, culture, or status.  In order to interact properly in situations that don’t require their primary discourse, individuals must develop secondary discourses through interaction.  These can be thought of as almost different languages, or at least different ways of speaking and interacting.  For example, my neutral language is fairly casual, with the use of colloquialisms and other unique language elements.  However, when I am in a formal interview or other situation, I adopt a much more formal, ‘correct’ way of speaking.  This would be a secondary discourse for me. 

The purpose of the “tests” is for individuals to determine whether others do indeed possess the proper discourse and belong in the situation that they are in within the community.  This is described at as being the “right” person, in the “right” place, at the “right” time.  This implies that possessing a secondary discourse involves more that language skills, but specific situational social skills as well.  An example of this would be when one starts a new job.  It is always difficult for me when starting a new job to figure out the correct way to speak and act while performing the job.  One must aquire the skills and experience to act and speak correctly in certain situations.  In addition, coworkers are constantly applying the “tests” to determine if you are going to be a good employee; if you possess the proper discourse for the situation.

The concept of a Discourse Community

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

The discourse community has a set of goals that extend beyond the scope of the group itself.  Even though there may exist division or even competition within the group, the overall goal is always the ultimate purpose of the group.  The discourse community within Wikipedia strives for the goal of increasing the accurate knowledge available on the site.

A discourse community has mechanisms of intercommunication among its members:

Members of the community have some means of two way communication with each other.  This can be directly, such as in person, or indirectly. 

A discourse community uses its participatory mechanisms primarily to provide information and feedback:

The exchange of information within the discourse community defines its purpose and membership.  People who read online forums for information, but do not post cannot be said to belong to that discourse community.

A discourse community utilizes and hence possesses one or more genres in the communication further hence of its aims:

Each discourse community must have defined functions and methods of operations called genres.  Genres can be borrowed from other groups, but they must be adapted to the specific purpose of the group in question.

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

The discourse community utilizes its own specific set of terms and vocabulary that applies to their specific field.  Those involved in engineering research for example have a vast set of abbreviations and terms that apply to specific topics within the field and community.  These may have little significance to those not involved in the community.

A discourse level has a threshold level of members with a suitable degree of relevant content and discourse experience:

The people within the group must have some amount of experience or skill.  They may be inexperienced when they join the group, but they will become experts in the end.

From Pencils to Pixels

After reading the selection by Baron, I would agree with the assessment that he shrugs at the idea that technology will fundamentally change writing.  It seems to me that technology has already done this.  The use of technology allows for a much more streamlined writing process, with a vastly increased ability to edit work.  In addition, as we witnessed on the first project, integrating technology into writing allows for a new and unique sort of collaborative writing environment.  To say that one cannot imagine technology fundamentally changing the way we write seems to be a very shortsighted observation.

In addition to simply the use of technology to facilitate the basic process of writing, much of the time digital writing includes other forms of media.  Using technology allows for the integration of pictures, videos, animations, links and other visual forms to be integrated into the work.  Given the extent to which this is already done in pieces of writing on the internet, it is fair to say that this is changing the nature of writing through technology.  In general, I would claim that in point in time, it would be false to claim that technology isn’t going to fundamentally change every aspect of our lives to some degree.

The Future of Literacy

“The Future of Literacy” raised some very interesting points about how our perception of literacy is constantly evolving.  Having been born in the 90’s and experienced various forms of digital media my entire life, I find this very interesting.  I would say my experiences are closest that of Brittney Moraski.  Just like her, I was exposed to computers and technology at a very young age, and both our parents encouraged us to learn with it.  I remember as a small child playing video games on the computer whose goal it was to teach me reading, writing, math and other subjects.  In addition, as early as first grade, there was definitely technology integration in my public school experience. 

Just like Brittney, I had parents who were fairly well educated and strongly encouraged us to learn.  In addition, it seems as though I grew up at a time, when technology was becoming much more strongly integrated into education, and society as a whole.  Now days, I feel very old compared to current high school students merely because I remember floppy disks and dial-up internet.  Along with an encouragement from my parents to learn using technology and alternate forms of literacy, we also had the resources that allowed me to do this.  As far as I can remember, we have owned a computer.  Both the encouragement from my parents as well as the access to this sort of technology influenced how I have developed my literacy.

Malcolm X and Sherman Alexie

The authors of the selections “learning to read” and “Superman and me.”  Find themselves both gaining literacy, but in very different life situations.  The most obvious difference is when they are learning these skills in the course of their lives.  Sherman begins to gain his literacy as a young child, reading comic books and other writing that his father has around the house.  He is motivated only by his intense curiosity and motivation to learn.  Malcolm X on the other hand speaks of acquiring this literacy much later in his life; well into being an adult.  At the time, he is in prison and utilizes the resources available to him there in order to begin to read and write better.  While he also teaches himself this, his motivation is much more specific at first.  He initially is motivated by his desire to write better letters to Mr. Muhammad.

                The he cases of both writers, it is obvious that their literacy is affected by their race, class or socioeconomic status.  Malcolm X, as an adult has received very little formal education on account of being an orphan and growing up on the streets.  The act of him gaining the literacy described in the story is a way of him to overcome his fairly powerless situation.  As for Sherman, he is a Native American living on as reservation.  He makes it obvious that being Native American automatically makes him less important at school.  He is one of the smartest students. But he is expected to keep quiet and be stupid because of his race.  This clearly shows that race and socioeconomic status has a significant effect on literacy

Sponsors of Literacy

It’s interesting for me to consider who my literary sponsors are and were.  I don’t often think about who is responsible for allowing me to end up where I am now.  Before reading this article, I hadn’t much at all considered giving a significant amount of credit for my literacy education.  The author however, makes a very compelling point about the extent to which personal circumstances contribute the type and degree of one’s literacy.

The obvious choice would be to claim that my main sponsor was the education that I got in public school up until this point.  The entire point of public education is to promote literacy, and my skills were definitely developed and improved through my schooling.  However, we discussed in class that literacy can come in many forms my other than the stereotypical reading and writing.  Given that my current focus in life is engineering, I would contend that the technical literacy that I gained has had a significant impact on my being where I am now.  This, I would have to attribute to my parents, my dad especially who is an also and engineer.

While my sponsors were great and I was allowed to develop a high degree of literacy, which is not always the case.  As the article talked about, literacy and the access to sufficient education is still used a means of social segregation.  While education continues to improve and make available literary sponsors for people across the country and the world, there is still a lot of discrepancy.  While my experience hasn’t been perfect, I’ve been afforded all the access to literacies that I’ve needed and more.  Examining this topic really makes me appreciate that.

My Wikipedia Article

Elephants, prog rock, the berlin wall.  What do all of these things have in common?  They’re just a few of the millions and millions of topics discussed on the world’s largest online encyclopedia; Wikipedia.  With such a vast and varied collection of information in one place, it’s easy to become lost.  Merely click on one tempting live link and you may find yourself wading through a mire of obscure foreign bands or classic mathematical proofs.  Far from being intimidated, many approach Wikipedia with a sense of adventure.  Fearlessly, they dive right in, working to clear the undergrowth and build structures of knowledge as editors.  As Nicholson Baker illustrates in his essay “The Charms of Wikipedia, “It was like a giant community leaf-raking project in which everyone was called a groundskeeper” (page 1).  Creating my own article for this last project has exposed me to the unique culture of those who contribute, as well as the internet knowledge organism itself; Wikipedia.

Initially, I had a difficult time getting a foothold on the project.  The more and more I browsed articles, looking for inspiration for my own, the more convinced I became that everything one should want to know was already on the site.  However, once I had established what my article was going to cover, Wikipedia provided many resources to help with composing.  For example, I like to have a template or some idea of how to setup and organize my work.  With millions of articles to read and examine, there is no shortage of material for inspiration.  By using the edit button, anyone can see how an article is coded.

Wikipedia spends a lot of effort making sure that the information on the site is accurate, or at least highly referenced.  The “Article Wizard” is a very helpful initial tool in assessing the practicality and the relevance of a proposed topic.  While I didn’t directly use it when creating my article, I read through it and got some important information and tips.  Another resource that was used and discussed is the “drawing board.”  The drawing board would be great for someone who has a very specific topic, but isn’t sure if it belongs on the site.  We all used the drawing board through this project, but I didn’t take it as a significant factor in my planning process.

I was surprised by how quickly I was able to go from nothing to a shell of what very much resembled a real article on Wikipedia.  Since I was writing about something local that I was familiar with, I was able to take my own photographs and didn’t have to worry of copyright issues when adding them to my article.  We discussed how the addition of a photograph or two can add a significant amount of notability to a potential article, and it was absolutely true.  Once I figured out how to go through the hassle of uploading and linking photos from Wikimedia Commons, I had two pictures to go along with my article.  It really changed the look from merely a few paragraphs on an obscure subject to a legitimate article that I could easily have seen myself reading and trusting.  I guess in some ways that’s what surprised me the most throughout this project, the revelation that I personally had contributed a legitimate article and added to the knowledge on Wikipedia.  Also though, it did make me realize that many of the articles I had read and fully trusted over the years may have been put together by people that didn’t know what they were doing any more than I did at that moment.  It was something to think about for sure.

Given that composing this article was a fairly significant literary project, some of my writing skills seemed to be challenged.  A significant portion of the work for the article went into retrieving and compiling the actual information and facts.  As hard as it is for some younger people, such as myself, to believe, not all information that you might be interested in finding is available from a Google search.  I was able to find almost all of the information I used from sources available on the internet, but I know several individuals had to research from printed material.  Ultimately, the goal of the project is in fact to make as much correct information freely available on the internet as possible.

The component of composing the article that stood out most to me was the collaborative writing environment that was emphasized both in the project description as well as Wikipedia in general.  The entire philosophy of Wikipedia is collaborative composition; quite different from my normal style.  I feel as though I take on a sort of ‘lone wolf’ philosophy when I write.  Once I have a concept, I sit and crank out writing, and subsequently revise.  I see myself as Barbara Tomlinson’s Sculptor, as described in “Tuning, Tying and Training Texts,” “Chiseling and shaping a large block of material” into my work. (WAW 256)  I have always been reluctant to let anyone see my work until I felt confident that it was presentable.  The idea of having others, especially strangers on the internet, read and revise my work before I feel its complete puts me somewhat out of my writing comfort zone.  In that sense, this project has possibly made me more open to using a more collaborative writing style in the future. 

In her work “Shitty first Drafts,” Anne LaMotte asserts that, “Everyone writes a shitty first draft. “I know some very great writers….and not one of them writes elegant first drafts.”  (WAW 301)  This has been a significant concept that I have taken away from this project.  My discomfort at having others examine my writing before it has reached perfection was due to the fact that I thought it was, well, “shitty.”  The idea that everyone writes these sort of initial drafts and the fact that no one is expected to write well at first is significant.  This, as well as my experiences using revision tools on Wikipedia has shown me how writing is much more of a social, collaborative activity then I ever imagined.

Twenty years ago, the only way to reach stardom was with a major record deal; today internet superstars are made every day.  Ten years ago, massive bookstore chains ruled literature; today, Amazon and the Kindle reign supreme.  Technology not only changes the way we see the world, it changes the world itself.  This is the context in which Wikipedia and the internet has changed the way we view and create knowledge in the 21^st century.  First of all, knowledge is free.  Anyone with an internet connection can access unimaginable vast amounts of information.  More importantly though, anyone can contribute to this cache of knowledge.  No longer does one need to hire a publisher in New York, or Boston, or Los Angeles, anyone can share their knowledge and opinions to the world. 

It’s obvious that this shift has negative as well as positive implications.  Given the cost of publishing something the traditional way, it is reasonable to assume that many fact-checkers were employed to make sure the print going out was correct.  On the opposite end, a blogger can write whatever they want to the internet without contributing any fact-checking.  Given this, the reliability of information found on the internet most often be highly questioned; even information from Wikipedia.  However, the negative aspects of this new system are far outweighed by the positive.  Suddenly, everyone in the world has a voice that deserves to be heard.  Everyone has the ability to contribute positively to human knowledge.  This is the ideal that Wikipedia was founded on and in some ways, thanks to the internet; this may well be an ideal that defines the 21^st century itself.

References:

Baker, Nicholson. "The Charms of Wikipedia." The New York Review of Books.

 NYREV., 20 March 2008. Web. 8 October 2011.

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

Lamott, Ann. "Shitty First Drafts." Writing about Writing. Ed. Elizabeth Wardle and Doug Downs. Boston:Bedford/St. Martin, 2011. Print.

Shitty First Drafts - late

The blinking cursor of Microsoft word is a cruel master, outlined by the harsh desert of a blank page.  This is how it feels when we must write, but no words come to us.  This feeling, experienced by all writers at some point in time, has lead to the widespread misconception that some people are just great writers and others (those of us lost in the desert of the blank page), are not.  In her piece “Shitty First Drafts,” Anne Lamott seeks to expose this notion as the damn lie that it is.  The truth is, no one creates great work on a first draft.  Accordingly, those of us who can ought to be despised.  Her cure for a mental block when starting a writing is quite simple; write something… anything.  If your first draft is going to suck anyway, why waste time agonizing over it.  The real process of writing, she contends, is through a series of revision.  Panning for gold in the muddy water of our first draft, if you will.  If one expects to create a masterpiece in a single stroke, they will be staring down that blinking cursor for a very long time.

The “view history” tab on Wikipedia adds a unique dimension to the writing process.  Where as normally one is almost never permitted to peek at initial revisions of a piece, merely the final polished result, “view history” shows us the whole story.   By seeing how the article has evolved over time, the importance of a revision process becomes clear

tuning, tying, and training texts

I feel that the sculpting metaphor described in the Tomlinson piece speaks most closely to my writing style.  The idea that a work of art is chiseled out of a solid block of stone seems a very accurate description of the writing process.  When I initially draft, I simply put down as many thoughts as I can before I lose them.  This creates the rough outline of the work that I want to write.  This is also true of the sculptor.  Initially, he would use a very large rough tool to remove large amounts of excess material and form the general outline of the sculpture that he is trying to form.  After the initial rough outline of my writing has been formed, I’ll go back and smooth over the rougher sections with a more precise process.  True to the metaphor, after the initial outline of the sculpture has been roughed out, the sculptor will use much more precise tools for finishing the work.  I would definitely use this sculpting metaphor to describe my writing process.

The idea of “view history” and “discussion” tabs on Wikipedia articles add a very unique element to the revision process.  Not only do they provide a snapshot of initial versions of the article, they can show you how the writing has evolved over time.  Most of the time, the works we are exposed to are the final draft of many revisions.  This Wikipedia feature allows a look behind the revision process.  Utilizing this knowledge could allow one to get a better idea of how the information in an article came to be there and what the significance of it is.