Language Inquiry

How does a teacher maintain a class with multiple discourses in relation to SE learning and home dialect? The reason I choose this question and then modified it is because I dont completely know how I would handle this situation but Fecho offered me some solutions, or at least directions towards solutions. Fecho talks about students as inquirers into language, and creating an environment in which students question where language comes from and how it works, especially within different settings. He gave three examples of students, Robert, Crea and some other girl whose name I forgot. The three students had different perspectives even though they came from similar environments. through discussion, after Crea gave her speech, the idea of when SE and when home dialect are appropriate came into the classroom. Some students saw SE as a means, some saw it as a problem, and some students offered (in their own words) the idea of crossing the borders and using both. Delpit offers the idea and some methods in which this is possible, and I agree with a chart. The chart would help the different student discourses and Luke is awesome!

Am I stuck in my discourse?

Gee introduces the idea of the big "D", and its composition. A person is comprised of a primary discourse and many secondary discourses, all falling under the umbrella of the big "D." A person's primary discourse is acquired without conscious knowledge. It is natural. Gee states that a secondary discourse can never truly be taught, because it can never be truly acquired. A person has to consciously register that they are trying to enter another discourse. This is where the water gets murky, and I find myself optimistically disagreeing with Gee. Delpit, the author responding to Gee, believes dominant discourses can be learned, and further used to further oneself in the "system." This helps students work outside their primary discourse and fit into a larger culture, without the effort showing. This is the ground on which I choose to stand as a teacher. Even if it is not true, I believe it important to holster the negative and register the positive and the possibilities that can be given to students through teaching students outside of their natural discourse. I also find it important to consider Delpits "not-teaching" and "not-learning" ideas, so when teaching, I can recognize is someone is not-learning or I am making the mistake of not-teaching, that way I can correct the error. I believe that having multiple discourses is what creates a complex and intelligent person, and I plan to offer that to my students.

Quickwrites before blog entry

Gee
Gee redefines discourse, or more so clarifies his vision of the defining aspects of the word. He changes discourse to Discourse. What could this possibly mean? Well, in the world, as in education, there are primary discourse and secondary discourse. Primary discourse is the first and foremost, the epicenter of a person’s language being. The primary discourse is first learned by a person, and therefore cannot be replicated. You cannot once again relive childhood and reacquire a language, attitude, style, and personality as a primary discourse. Therefore languages (or more so discourses) that are acquired after the primary discourse are secondary discourses. Both primary and secondary discourses fall under the large “D,” the new definition of Discourse. A person has many discourses in their lives, not just one. Gee argues that a person has many secondary discourses, but only one primary discourse. Now ask yourself, what is your primary discourse and what are your secondary discourses?

Delpit is independent, strong, and forceful. She reminded me of the saying, “stand for something, or fall for everything.” She disagrees with master Gee on the acquisitions of discourse, but agrees with him on the nature of it. There is also a dispute over function. One aspect of Delpit that I was at first confused about, but now see the light, is what she thought about not-teaching. After hearing her definition, which is against non-teaching (a logical negative), I don’t know where I stand. I don’t know if I agree with Gee, or want to take a more optimistic view with Delpit. Maybe there is a ground I can find in-between, where I can correct on papers, but not in the classroom.