RR #17 Wardle

Summary

            With “Identity, Authority, and Learning to Write in New Workplaces” Elizabeth Wardle attempts to stress the difficulties one faces when attempting to penetrate and absorb a new discourse community. She argues that a discourse community is capable of shaping a person’s identity, regardless of whether the person accepts that fact or doesn’t. Wardle, through her fictitious recent college grad and newly employed Alan, details the difficulties that come with immersion into a discourse community: identity, authority, rebellion. Newcomers must approach a discourse community with caution, Wardle suggests, but also with open-mindedness, determination and an acceptance of failure combined with the belief that failure doesn’t really mean failure.

Synthesis

            Wardle’s approach and analysis of the discourse community shares similarities with Swales, Gee and Devitt et al. But it also presents many differences and alternate, contrasting ideas. Alan does represent the idea of being either in or out through his difficulty accepting the community he’s entered. Either you’re naturally, inherently a part of that society or you’re not. There’s no in between. Or maybe there is. Wardle doesn’t exactly subscribe to that belief fully, but does help to substantiate it. Like Swales, she’s able to locate and identify specific criteria for community acceptance.

Project #3 Proposal

For Project 3, I’d like to research a community I feel I know very well, but not well enough: the film world. As an aspiring filmmaker, this community interests me like nothing else. Daily, hourly, I’m on Wikipedia, Indiewire, AV Club etc. reading about directors, future projects, Oscar hopefuls, release dates. It’s all I know and it’s all I want to know about. With this new, foreign environment of college I’ve been living in for the past two months, it’s become both a little more difficult and a little more satisfying when quenching my thirst for film. I’m at the Athena twice a week, I take a scriptwriting course and try to watch as many movies, TV shows, YouTube clips as possible. Film is a constant for me, and it is something I wish to continue to explore and experience for the rest of my life. Hopefully this statement doesn’t come back to haunt me in the future.

             I think the film community offers itself as an extremely ripe research topic. For starters, it’s universal. Everybody’s seen a movie. But it goes so far beyond that. There’s a film community in Los Angeles, in Austin, Texas, in Japan. It’s everywhere, and while there are common threads, each community has its differences as well. If you were to compare a mainstream Japanese film to a Hollywood blockbuster, there would be undeniable similarities, be they plot, characterization, music. But there would also be large, idiosyncratic differences between the two that would distinguish them as American or Japanese. That’s what I love. It’s all cultural and distinctly different but all very similar at the same time. Influence can be tenuous, explicit or somewhere in between, and as a cinephile, it’s what I think I love most about film. Being able to recognize a director’s inspiration, be it for one frame, a line of dialogue, or an entire plot point, is something every serious lover of film prides himself on. So with that ability to recognize outside influence comes a certain vocabulary that cinephiles employ regularly when discussing film. These terms range from filmmakers’ last names to a type of shot/camera movement or an era, such as the French New Wave, that’s had a particular influence on a filmmaker. This terminology is used all the time in scriptwriting, which, in itself, has its own vocabulary.

            With this discourse community, I believe I’ll be provided with many helpful resources that’ll strengthen my research. The Athens film community is large and welcoming. I frequent the Athena Theatre regularly, where there are many other movie lovers willing to talk about and discuss any particular facet of film. I have a screenwriting textbook in my room, which I read from for class, and when I go to that class, I’m met by a teacher equally as fascinated by film as I am. The Internet also offers an immeasurable amount of information rich with the vocabulary and idiosyncrasies that help distinguish the film community for what it is.

            With this amount of readily available resources, I truly believe that the film community is perfect for this assignment. It is what I’m interested in, and that is imperative when conducting this type of research. You must be engaged and willing to continue. And I will be. Film is always heavily debated, and that may be its greatest characteristic. It can be so powerful, so polarizing. Everyone has their own opinions and interpretations, and when two opposing ideas clash, it can result in something beautiful, and maybe even revolutionary.

RR #16 Devitt

RR #16 Devitt

                       

Summary

           

            With “Materiality and Genre in the Study of Discourse Communities” Amy J. Devitt, Anis Bawarshi and Mary Jo Reiff explain and examine genre analysis and the ways it can help students trying to comprehend discourse communities. Genre analysis allows the examiner to not only better comprehend the specific discourse community he or she is observing, but also the luxury of being very familiar with whatever genre the discourse community is based in, therefore eliminating a lot of starting and stopping. “Such analysis,” Devitt argues, “often reveals the conflicts between communities that use a genre, conflicts often invisible to analysis that looks at discourse in terms of its communities alone.”

Synthesis

            Obviously, this article shares many similarities to the past two readings we’ve written about for class. They all revolve around the concept of the discourse community. This one gives you a little insight on how to observe a discourse community more concisely. Genre analysis allows the examiner to observe and research his discourse community with an underlying sense of understanding.

Personal Response

            This wasn’t awful. It was alright. It’s particularly alright right now because we’re about to begin researching specific genre communities, so this along with the past two readings will be very helpful. However, interesting only goes so far, and I don’t intend for this to be a cop out, but more and more, the paragraph requirement for these personal responses grows increasingly tedious. I like the idea of familiarizing yourself with your subject matter, and tips on how to do that, but I don’t know. I’m not sure.

RR #15 Gee

RR #15 Gee

Summary

           

            With “Literacy, Discourse, and Linguistics” James Paul Gee attempts to discern the difference between a discourse and a Discourse. There is a difference, he argues, one that goes much further than upper and lower cases. He goes on to argue that there is a difference between language and grammar, and that one should not be synonymous with the other, that a Discourse isn’t something you can willingly penetrate and embody–it’s something you either inherently belong to or don’t.

Pre-Reading

            I love to watch movies and play soccer. And though these two activities are radically different from each other in many ways, they’re also kind of similar. They’re both exhilarating experiences, and visual ones too. I love film more than I do soccer, so even when I’m on the field, I tend to picture things through the lens of a camera. Film is so prevalent in my life that even when I’m partaking in completely non-related activities, I’m still thinking about it in various ways.

Synthesis

            “Literacy, Discourse, and Linguistics” reminded me of Swales’ piece. The Discourse Community is something that needs its own definition. It is also something you can’t really force yourself into. And with the idea that speech communities and discourse communities are really no different, it makes it easier for one to assert his  or her self as a member of one of these communities.

Questions for Discussion and Journaling

1) What Gee is trying to say is that your surroundings are just as important as your speech patterns. It’s all circumstantial, all relative and always different. There are certain ways to talk in class, certain ways to talk outside of class, in front of your parents, with your friends etc. etc. The settings you speak most comfortably in while maintaining the “correct” way of talking is most likely the Discourse you belong to.

Personal Response

            I agree with Gee, and what he’s saying. It’s so very true that there really are different types of grammar. It all depends on your setting. I complain about the length in almost every personal response, so I won’t mention it this time, even though I sort of just did inadvertently. This concept could make for a really great research paper. There is so much material, and so many different stances one could take. It’s worth looking into.

RR #14 Swales

RR #14 Swales

Summary

            With “The Concept of Discourse Community” John Swales strives to define the discourse communities and the academics that comprise them. Swales argues that there should be a solid, identifiable difference between the speech community and the discourse community, and that this difference should be made explicit. Swales takes action, and tasks himself with labeling the discourse community and what it means to be a part of one.

Pre-Reading

            Almost always, I don’t feel at home. So, when trying to distinguish genuine discomfort from a sort of dull out-of-place-ness, I must be in either a very foreign setting, or a setting whose circumstances affect me greatly. The most recent encounter I’ve had with this out-of-place nausea isn’t exactly singular–it’s just when I’m with a friend or two on the weekend and we enter a house whose owner we don’t know in the least. And usually, when we don’t know the owner, we don’t know most of the house’s occupants as well. This always leads to awkward standing, feigned distraction etc. etc. It really never gets better, and always leads to a hot face and a loss for words.

Synthesis

            “The Concept of Discourse Community” shares similarities to “Intertextuality and the Discourse Community”, James Porter’s article detailing the relationship all texts share with each other. With “Intertextuality” the theory that all texts are related to each other is the primary focus, while “Concept” focuses on the community itself, instead of the material it produces. I could see reading “Concept” and then moving on to “Intertextuality” being largely beneficial. The reader would have a clear portrait of the discourse community and the intricacies of its movements.

Questions for Discussion and Journaling

5) I’m not sure if I truly belong to a film discourse community, but it is the closest thing I know. I discuss and research film on a daily basis. My friends are familiar with the terminology I use when talking about film, and they employ the same vocabulary when we converse. I’m most alert and attentive when I’m in Scriptwriting, and also very vocal. In Scriptwriting, we come together to discuss films we like, things we’re writing, how we can better convey ideas etc. etc. If there is a place where I almost never feel out of place, like I mentioned in the pre-reading, it’s in any setting where I’m talking movies.

Personal Response

            I enjoyed this. The concept of the discourse community is attractive to me. I’m not sure why. I’ve always sort of liked the exclusiveness a club or organization presents. That may be pretentious, but pretentiousness isn’t always a bad thing when handled with modesty, empathy and an awareness of social circumstances. Once again, the length is a bit harsh, but there isn’t much I can do. And it really isn’t a bad thing. Length can venture towards meandering, but it can also be a sign of simple thoroughness. And thoroughness is key. With this type of article, interpretation is invaluable, but on the flip side, too much ambiguity isn’t necessarily a plus. Your point needs to be made.