LITERACY DISCOURSE, AND LINGUISTICS: INTRODUCTION
IOURNAL OF EDUCATION, Volume 171 Nurnber i, i989LITERACY DISCOURSE,AND LINGUISTICS:INTRODUCTIONfamesPaul GeeDepartment of Lingtistics, Universitl, 6f ;\outhern California, Ins AngelesWhat I propose in the folio'adng papers,in the main, is a way of talkingaboutliteracy and linguistics. I believe that a new field of study, integating"psychd' and "socid' approachesto languageirom a variety of disciplines, isemerging, a field which we might call liceracy studies. Much of this work, Ithink {and hope}, shares at least some of the assumptions of the {ollowingpapers.These papers,though written at different timeg and for diffierent purposes,are, nonetheless, based on the ciaim that the focus of literary studiesor appliedlinguistics should not be langriage,or literacy,but socialpractices.This claim, I believe,hasa number of socially important and cognitively interesting consequences."Langu.agd'is a misleading term; it too often suggests"glamrnarl' It is atruism that a personcan know perfectiy the glammar of a languageand notknow how to use that language-it is not just r,r'&a;;'ou say,but how you sayit. If I enter my neighborhoodbar anclsayto nry tattooed drinking buddy,asI sit dowrr, "May I havea match pleaselj' my grarnmar is perfect,but what Ihavesaid is wrong nonetheless lt is lessotten rerrrarkedthat a personcouldbe able to usea languageperfectly and str-l?nqt make sense.It is not lust howyou say it, but what yon are and cJowhen yo\ say ir:.If I enter my neighborhood bar and say to my drinking buddy, as\ sit down, "Gime a nratch,wolldyaij'while placing a napkin on the bar stool to avoidgetting my newlypresseddesignerieansdirtli I havesaidthe right thing, but my \ayingdoing"r:ombination is nonethelessall wrons.I am deeply indebted to Candy Mitchell ior editing this collecl ion of papers,and to fim OBiienlbr copy diting ihe papersappearin3here {or the first tim:. The following peopleare responsible{they may be aghast to hear) Ior having helped to lead me to the views I bold. First, a set of peoplewhose writirqgs harreirupired me: ll'allace Cha{e,Michsel Cole, k'lul Gumperz, Shirley Brice Heth,Dell Hymes, William hbov, Roger and Su:rurne Scollon, Bri;ur Street, Gordon ldblls, and fim\{'ertsch. Second, a group of people not only whose writings hare inspired me, but whose discussion of the issues in these paners witb nre, a.lrell as whose friend-ship, has left me aln"aysin theirdebt: Elaine Andersen, Maria Brisk, Chip Bruce, Courtney Cazden, David Dickenson, StertKrashen, Stele Gordon, Stere Griffl'r, Henry Girorrx, Donel lo Macedq Sarah Michaels, BeaMikulecky, Eliiot Mishler, Candy Miti:hell. Catherine Snow,and Dennie 14blf. These papen ultimately all hale their origin in the kindness that SarahMichaels and Courtney Cazdenextendedto me when I first arrived irr Boston try rnviting mc to ta-kean interest in their concems.lor-rrnalo{ Education, Vo}umt l,tl, i".lrrniberl. t989.(:-,Trustees of Boston University
BOSTON L]NWERSIT}-F. Niyi Akirrnaso and Cheryl Aiirctuti1lf9!)'. nteylt "simulated iobjob training Pro8ram' r neinterviewg' from two lveifare mothers in a CETAjob,,askedwhether she has ever shown initiative in a previous;;-;;,Agenlv,I *"tk"1i:,1T-:::17therdsthis Walgreerlsr""p"rarhit"ff, y-es,peopleopJr"tor, OK. A;d it lvasa snow stonn, OK' And it was usually srxforth {p'34}'This womanis simply usingtheworkir/ in a group. . :' *J*;;"s t*;{ihewrong 'tiiabcrffor this tvp".of (t*dttt:;tl":,tlT:::ltlmotIt's a fJrfectly goodgrarnmar{diatect},it iust wodt getyou th-lstype loDthis type of societl'.The secondwoman {the authord "succesd'case}respondt-19.t .t*"]?treaxyquestion by saying:". . .I was lett alone to handle the office' ' ' ' l clrclrItBut I had enough experience to ded with any situafrarr. a tot ofthere-was"*p.ii.tt""'. . and those trrat t coutdat handle at the time, if;;.'up.;;a;qlSstronsto find outsomeonern-hohad more erperience than rnyself, I askedI drddt Know wnowhat procedure I would use' if something came up enclltI rvouldr/t forgetio ,""fiy Soto, I would iot it down . . .o', a pie"e of paper,sottratalf them aboutitr"i if iiy""" that was more qualified ihanrnysclf, I couldhrndling iusti .rra n *:l *ruid go about so lvingit. So I feel I'm capable ofJU""i*y .i*ation,"whether it's on hy ovrn or rurder superviti"d,' !p ,111} r].tgot a real problem with her grammar (remeab:r,thls ls speecn'woman ha sr1tsheputs tlatnot wziting), nor is there any real problem with the useto whichin chargesrasrmar, but sheis expressingthe wrong vaiues' Sheviews beingleft peopldd'nairelv., supervision bv "other;'a';;;sion,f.;;;;il;-;;;;knowledg"an lexpertise. ic form called for by such interviews' Using this responseit*"*.:ioi "successfultrainingl; is only possiblebecausethe authors',n.*"*pitthat""o*rr" th"t i"rr5uage is more.than grammar {namely, 'trsd'}, are unawarecommunicatiorris more th\ languageuse't"rrgu"g-ewe-mustsayor write the rightthingAt any !non'].ent\r aie"tlgto hold thein ttt" ,iglrt *"y while playing tf,e right iocial role and (appearing b"ti*ts, and attiiudes. Thus, what is important is not language,;i-d;"rfur,not granrmar,but saying -"iiiioA""r."Thesecombinaiions I call'Discoursesi'with a capital 'Tl' {' s,dj, to me, means connected stretches of language that;;"*.,, w-ith a little'Di5orrrs9!e1e] /:l)nlg!!g!{}g*"k ."rr"t, ,o "discoursd'is part of "Disc"*d\:in thelrorlG; !hef'are.A combined reierencelist for all the articles m this issueof the /ournal is bund at the back-oft}at originailv,Xpi"i'ir"rU: p"ffr"ir.a ,tticles that sfor the same,rrJt" o*ts it"rreb.in ,.,pd"tea'*lie.,pptopri"te'll.l.thecist of tt"t"tt.i'"rj' 'b';',"a;;J;f#,il"*.l.ot]tn"sligbtshift fromGedseallier- " Editols ncte:"Dissourse"lrsusedherervith a capital"D'rnarksain thrsvolume'useof the term. Set rheessav"WharIs Literacy?"
Volurne l7l }trumber l' 1989TURNAL OF EDUCAflON,posliTlwell h thecomeswhichkit''of"identitvasortisto act' talk' and often write' sot'owot'io"'ii't*ctandappropriatecostumettto,c"o: 'B*"H "tt"-"1':it-1asto takeon ilpartrcurar;t b;;;;;.Yryfiink' andactlikea linguist' anotorr".*"iil;ff;;;,,'f"rrles of Discourses: (enact'i-o'5o*t ot ntr-exam.*nt" t"o]"Jo "-'p""t'recogrize otheoa member of a cero'.t"*Russian'aorAmencaning) being an" ""oman' e:acuti\re' a doctor"a-boarrlroom.r""",'"ir.;;;;;k;rain socioecono*"student otan admrnistrator' ()r a student' aor a hospital patient, "i""i""a setins circle' a club a strcet;;;t"il.tfiit'Jltt]t:t'orohvsicsor a st,ra."tut atlharrmartvtocalbar'o'" "s'1" "' "!ans,alunchti-" 'o"ia J"ti'JiiJ"Discourses' "-io*out that much that is claimed'outro rlisc'lr trqefltao." one acquire' a Discouniei It tumssituatecla:rgua,geacquir;ition or sociallycontroversiar.ry,to be true oi secondKrashen'tpsr Crosiean'1982;cosrition tseebe,rgss; DJav];;';;##n'ipga; nogoffe' Lave'1984)Larre'1983;i e-82.l 98sa,t98sb;xrash*#'; e;; li'Discou es'Discourses;;;;' "quisitionofobviousli;;moreiat:t,is, inandhardlylesssottranlanguages'by ot'ent#tt"ti'"" t"* "arenot rnasteredsirtins in a ;1\t*fibyencuttuatior,rrasteredthe Discourse*5" tti'i*'iti-nto-i3ltintc'"""oosupponedlreadvts howweall acquired'ournatillanguagetCazden,1988;Heath,f lSai' fno'we'acquireall later' rnole puDuchowisftoittontt"'and our home-basedt()trteJocialpractice'youdodtgetIly#t i'"t'orientedDisco""t'''"ttttrr' voi *-'-',o**soorrr navc it'xDiscourse, youvou;;;;;; '"* lflj ::::t"'TTl,the Discourse,inin thebodies ofnot ffilJ;,.i,"'oo* ?t ":tv*'!:t*tt ,Dffi" areijt*."*.," phYsicqPllikeknowyou ca!th F to be aThe qlost You l4rl do is ,,r",r.tioo"lftdlvnoti"s *i.t"; X":i"-"1;"""1an.,;#ffioriili"ffol language';:,nffi " ;iliin which we ";:;'** :{"jl*:ffiwellintegrateocreaturssuur;too, whjle we arerve do T:*ffiJ;;{rrJthusmost Discourses assum(LUuq*' e-- -iThe various ljlscounies w urL'ing and often are not lulyLwrrrrollrrepresent. Thus, there is r'rer; theie is often conflicti.nteractional styles, uses- ---,: :.6 r c "irl"i';;;;th;oC',in hct,in them].)offfion-ea1-ry#r*-r;r*t*ff.r*socicirz{tfta\ -'-' 'n., rrrro.ul,ourpnl'nrzry'Disccurst:' lms initid Discourse'peer gro{]p,which I c;rllthe world and inte: initialwithitrt"t.cense- o{to make n7',' senseof. .
BOSTON UNTVERSITYoriginai asd home-based sense of identity, and, I believe, it can be seenwhlnerrer \ ie are interacting with "intimated' in totally casual {unmonitored}social interaction. l{binsamemberFurtherDiscourse, nota"cariet''later in l! . PrimarYDiscoursesvarious social lcultural, ethnic, regional, and economic),@"*tf""rossgroups in the United States.ift"t o* initial socialization furour home colnmunity, each of us interactswith various non-home-basedsocial institutions-institutions in the public sphere,beyond the family and immediate kin and peer group' These maybe local siores and churcheq schools, community groups, state and nationalbusinesses,agenciesand organizations, and so forth. Each of these social institutions commands and demands one or more Discourses and we acquirethese fluently to the extent that we are given accessto these institutions andare allowed apprenticesbips within them. such Discourses I call secondaryDiscourses.We can also rrake an important distinction betweendominant Discowsesand nondominant Dticourses. Dominant Discourses are secondary Discourses the mastery o{ which, at a particular place and tirne, brings with itthe (potentiali acquisition of social "goodd' {mc'rrey,prestige,statuqetc'}' Nondoruinant Discogrses are secondary Discourses the mastery of which oftenbrings solidarity with a parricular social network, but not wider status arrdsocial goods in the society at large.findb, and yet more importantly, *e can always ask about how muchtension or conflict is pfesent between a y two of a persods Discourses(Rosaldo,i989). We have argued abovc that some degreeof conflict and teniion {il only becauseof the discretehistorical origins of particular Discourses)wilI almost dways be present. Howevel, some people experience more o'lertand direct conllicts between two or more of their Discourses than do othersfeminist{for example, urany \r/omen academicsfeel conflict between certainliterastraditionalbis"o,o.r artd certain standardacademicDiscoursessuchary criticism . I argue that w-hensuch conflict or tension exists, it can deteracquisition of one or the other or both of the conflicting Discourses-,or, at least,affectthe fluency of a masteredDiscotuseon certain occasionsof use {e.g',irrstressfi.rlsituations such as interr.ier 's).Very often dominrnt groups in a sociery apply rather constant "testd' olthe fluenry of the dominant Discourses in which their por*er is symbolized.Tnese testi take on two frrnctions: they 41etests of "natiled' of at least, "fluentuserdr of the Discourse, and they ete Satestoexclude "non-natived' {peoplewhose very conilicts with dorninant Discourses show they were not, in fact,"borrf' to them]- The sorts of tension and conflict we harrcmentioned here areparticulariy acute when they involve tension and conflict between ondsprimarl' Discourse and * dr-rminantsecondaryDiscourse.
OURN,\L OF EDUCATION,Voi':rne l7l Number l, 1989Discourseq primary and secondary,can be studied, in some ways, likeIanguages.And, in fact, some of what we know about secondlanguageacquisition is relevant to them, i.{oniy in a metaphorical way.TtaroDiscourses cantnterfete wirh one anotheq like tw-olanguages;aspectso{ one Discourse canbe tansferrcl" to another Discourse, asone can tr.rnsfr.ra grammatical fuaturefrom one language to enother. Iior instance, the primary Discourse of manymiddie-class homes has been influenced by secondary Discourses like thoseused in schools and business.This is rrruch lesstrue of the primary Discoursein rnany lower socio conomic black hornes, though this primary Discoursehas inlluenced the secondary Discourse used in black churches.Furthermore, if one has not mastered a particular secondary Discoursewhich nonetheless one must try to use, several things can happen, thingswhich rather resemblewhat can happenwhen onehasfuiled to fluendy mastera second tanguage.One can fall back on r:nds primary Discourse, adiustingit in various waysto try to fit it to the neededfunctions; this responseis verycornmon, but almost always socially disastrous. Or one can use another,perhaps related, secondary Discourse . Or one can use a simplified or stereotyped version of the required secondaryl)iscourse. Theseprocessesaresimilarto those linguists study under the rubrics of /angr agecontact, pidginization,and creolization.I belierc that efiy socially useful definition of "litereqy'' must be couchedin terms of the notion of Discourse. Thus, trdefine "literacy'' as the masteryof or fluent control over a secondary Drscourse.Therefore, literacy is alwaysplwal: fiteracr'es{there are many of them, since there arc many secondaryDiscourset and we all haw some and hil to haw others).I{ vrewanted to be ratherpedantic and literalistig then r ecould define "literacy'' as"mastery of or fluentcontrol o\Er secondaryDiscoursaslrra./v:ngpnnl' {which is alrnost all of themin a modem society . But I seeno gain foomthe addition of the phrase"involvurg printi other than to assuagethe feelings of people committed {asI am notfto reading and writing as decontextualized and isolable skills. Wb can talkabout domina nt litetacies andnondominailt literacies intemrs of whetherthey involle mastery of domin'nt or nondominant secondaryDiscourses.Wecan also talk atrout a literacy b engliberating {"powerful"f il it can be used asa "meta-languagd' ia set of rneta-words, meta-values, meta-beliefsf for thecritique ol other literacies and the way they constitute us as persons and situate us in society. Liberating literacies can recon-stitute and resituate us.IvIy definition of "literad' rnay seem imrocuous, at least to someone already corwinced that decontextualized views of print are meaningless.Nonetheless, several 'theorems'' follow from it, theorems that have ratherdirect and unsettling consequeirces.First theorem: Discourses {andtherefore literaciesl arenot like languagesin one very important regard. :.-rmeonecan speak English, but not fluently.However, someone carinot cngagein a Discourse in a less than fully fluentmanner. You are either in it or vodre not. Discourses are connected with dis-
10BCSTON I.INIVERSFYplays of an identit7j failhg to fully display an identity is tantarnount to annor-rncing 1cu donlt harc that identity, that at best yor.rlrea pretender or abeginner. Very often, learners of second languages"fossilizd' at a stageof development significantly short of fluenry. This cadt happen with DiscoursesIf yor/w fosilized in the acquisition of a Discourse prior to full "fluel{' {rttaare no longer in the prcrcessof apprenticeship!, then your verv lack of fluenrymarks you as a nonlmembe.r of *re group that controls this Discourse. Thatis, you dodt harrcthe identity or social role which is the basisfor trheexistenceof ttre Discourse in the fust place. In fact, tle lack of flr'rencymay very wellmark you as a pretender to the social role instantiated in the Discourse {anoutsider with pretensicns to being atinsiderl.There iq thus, no t'orkable "affirmative actiorl' for Discourses: you carltbe let into the game after missing the apprenticeship and be expectedto havea tair shot at playing it. Socialgoups will not, usually, give their vrcial goodswhether these are status or solidarity or both-to those who are not "natiw:d'or "{luent lrsery' {though "mushIake," discussedbelow.,may sometimes provide a way for non-irritiates to gain access .While this is an empirical clatrn,I belierie it is one rastly supported fu the sociolinguistic literature {Milroy,1980, 1987rMilroy &, Milroy, 19851.This theorem {that there areno people who are partially literate or semiliterate, or, in any other \tr'ay,literate but not fluently so) has one practicalconsequence: notions like "functional literad' and 'tompetenry-basedliterad' are simply incoherent. As far as literacy goes,there are only "fluentspeakers'ard "apprenticed imetaphorically speaking,becausereme:nber,Discoursesare not iust rvayso{ talking, but waysof talking, acting, thinking, valuing, etc.).Secondtheorem: Prirnary Discourses,no Inatter whose they are/can neverreally be liberadng iiteracies fur a literary to be liberating it must contain boththe Discotuse it is going to E'ritiqueand a set of meta-elements{language,words,attitudeq values in terms of which an analysisand criticism can becarried out. Prirnary Discoursesare initial and contain only themselves.They1\can be embeddedin later Discoursesand critiqued, but they can nelrerserve'{ras a meta-languagein terms of which a critique of secondaryDiscourses cand\*JsrI be carriedout. Our secondtheorem is not likely to be wry popular.Theoremf,\i'I 2 saysthat ali primary Discourses are limited. 'Liberatiod' {"powe1'},in theN r 1 senseI am using the term here,residesin acquiring at least one more Discoursein tenns of which ow own primary Discourse can be analyzed and critiqued.This is aot to saythat primary Discoursesdo not contain critical attitudesand critical language {indeed, nuny of thern contain implicit and explicitracism and classisml. It is to saythat they cannot carry oro;tertauthen;tr'ccriticisrn, because*rey cannot r,erbalize the words, actt values,and attitudes theyuse,and they cannot nobi-lize enplicit meta-knowledgc.Theorem 2 is quitetraditional and conser tive-it is the analogrreof SocrateCstheorem that the
JOURNAL OF EDUCAfiON, -',blume17i Nurrrber l, 1989lluncxamined hfe is not *'orth living. tnterestingly enough,\'ygotsky (1987,chapter 6 comes very closely to statlqg this theorem explicitly.Other theorems can be deducedfrom the theory of literacy here developed, but these two shor.ild make clear what sorts of consequencesthetheory has.It should also make it quite clear that tJretheory is not a neuttalmeta-languagein terms of which one can argue for iust any conclusionsaboutliteracy.Not all Discourses involve w::ithg or readiag, dtough many do-However,all vrnting and readir.g is embedded in some Discc,urse,and that Discoursealways involves more than writing arrd reading {e.g.,ways of tdking, actinS,valuing, and so fonh). You cannot teach anyone to write or read outside anyDiscourse (there is no such thing, unless it is cdled "moving a per/' or "typing" in the caseof writing, or "movilg onds lipd' or "mouthing wordd' in thecaseof reading .Within a Discourse)'ou arealwaysteaching more than writingor reading. When I say "teacH' here, I mean "apprentice someonein a masterapprentice relationship in a sccial practice {Discourse}wherein you scaffoldtheir growing ability to say',dc, value, beliele, and r;oforth, within thet Discourse,through demonstratirg your mastery and supporting theirs e'venwhenit barely exists [i.e.,you make it look as if they can do what they really carltdo)1'That is, you do much the samething middleclass, "super bab/' producrng parentsdo when they o books' with their child1sn.Now, there are many Discourses connected to schools {different onesfordifferent rypesof school activities and dilferent pans of the curriculum) andother public institutions. These "middle-classmainstreant'' sorts of Discoursesoften carry with them power and prestige.It is often ftlt that goodlistenersand good readersought to pay attention to maaning and not Socuson the pettydetails of mechanicg "correctness/' the superficial fuatures of language.Unfortunately, many
LITERACY DISCOURSE, AND LINGUISTICS: INTRODUCTION fames Paul Gee Department of Lingtistics, Universitl, 6f ;\outhern California, Ins Angeles What I propose in the folio'adng papers, in the main, is a way of talking aboutliteracy and linguistics
Traditionally, Literacy means the ability to read and write. But there seems to be various types of literacy. Such as audiovisual literacy, print literacy, computer literacy, media literacy, web literacy, technical literacy, functional literacy, library literacy and information literacy etc. Nominal and active literacy too focuses on
Systemic Functional Linguistics and Discourse Analysis as Alternatives When Dealing With Texts Based on that situation we decided to imple-ment the use of discourse analysis and, particularly, systemic functional linguistics (SFL), which is a useful tool in identifying which aspects o
Korean: Papers and Discourse Date Discourse and Grammar Asian Discourse and Grammar Discourse Transcription East Asian Linguistics Aspects of Nepali Grammar Prosody, Grammar, and Discourse in Central Alaskan Yup'ik 15.00 Proceedings from the fIrst 20.00 Workshop on American Indigenous Languages Proceedings from the second 15.00
A critical approach to discourse analysis has roots in systemic functional linguistics (Halliday, 1973, 1985) and critical linguistics (Fowler et al, 1979), and is closely related to critical language study, critical language awareness (CLA) (Burns, 2001), and literacy studies, including critical literacy and new literacy studies (Coffin, 2001).
Computational Models of Discourse Regina Barzilay MIT. What is Discourse? What is Discourse? Landscape of Discourse Processing Discourse Models: cohesion-based, content-based, rhetorical, intentional
Introduction to English Language & Linguistics 0. Introduction to language and linguistics 0.1. grammar linguistics from school 0.2. linguistics thinking about language 0.3. features of human language 1. Phonetics & phonology 2. Morphology & word formation 3. Syntax and grammar 4. Semanti
Darrell Larsen Introduction to Linguistics. What Is Language? Linguistics What Is Linguistics? What Do Linguists Examine? Competence vs. Performance Linguistics Miscellania Sound Structure / Intuitions (7)Which are possible English
ANATOMI EXTREMITAS INFERIOR Tim Anatomi (Jaka Sunardi, dkk) FIK Universitas Negeri Yogyakarta. OSTEOLOGI. OS COXAE 1. Linea glutea posterior 2. Ala ossis ilii 3. Linea glutea anterior 4. Cristae illiaca (a) labium externum (b) lab. Intermedia (c) lab. Internum 5. Facies glutea 6. SIAS 7. Linea glutea inferior 8. SIAI 9. Facies lunata 10. Eminentia iliopectinea 11. Fossa acetabuli 12. Incisura .
