I Actually Enjoyed Reading Their Ideas Because It Was Odd

I Actually Enjoyed Reading Their Ideas Because It Was Odd To Read Abou

I actually enjoyed reading their ideas because it was odd to read about how students write, speak, and act in different environments; “these different languages.” Initially, I was confused about how “Discourse” and “discourse” were being used, especially given how often it appeared in Young's text. However, I now understand its application and realize how it opened my mind to how everyone acts around me or within other groups. For example, when the concept of “identity kit” (Gee, p. 18) was introduced, I started noticing how we all dress and behave differently in various groups. It is fascinating how, after reading these texts, we often don't recognize how much social media or work environments have transformed us. Moreover, it’s not merely that they changed us; we have grown accustomed to these changes, viewing them as habits because we engage in them daily.

Bartholomae’s ideas resonated with me because they clarified how students often write for their professors rather than for themselves, especially when aware that their work is being evaluated. He discusses how a college freshman’s essay reflects an understanding that “the university faculty would be reading and evaluating his essay” (Bartholomae, p. 61). This highlights how, even without knowing the full language of academia, students adapt their writing to meet perceived expectations. Gees’ use of language was eye-opening, because it challenges the notion of language as solely verbal; it extends into writing, reading, acting, and even appearance. I agree that language is meant to serve a purpose—whether advocating for ourselves or fitting into a particular discourse environment.

Throughout high school, I was told that opinions could be wrong, which was confusing because opinions are subjective by nature. It wasn’t until I read and discussed these ideas that I realized the complexity of language and opinion. Young (p. 61) states, “He says no student has a right to their own language if that language makes them vulnerable to prejudice,” which I found intriguing. I believe we should be free to express ourselves however we wish, and that language evolves through personal and communal experiences. The development of language, therefore, reflects societal changes and individual growth, reinforcing the idea that language is fluid and adaptable.

Language varies significantly across different communities; for example, language used at work differs from that at home or school. Many people are bilingual or multilingual, exemplifying the concept of Discourse. For instance, I speak Spanish at home, often without realizing how I adjust my language or behavior based on my audience. This change, I believe, is universal and becomes more evident once we understand the various types of discourse and literacy. It’s interesting that these different “languages” influence how we communicate and participate in societal structures. When joining a new club or group, our “language” adapts to fit the context—whether through body language, tone, or vocabulary—reflecting our interaction and comfort levels within that social setting.

Social media has significantly influenced these discursive shifts. Gees (p. 19) notes that “control over certain discourses can lead to the acquisition of social goods (money, power, status) in a society.” Today, social media platforms empower certain individuals to attain fame, wealth, or influence, shaping how others speak and present themselves. Our language on social media is distinctly different from how we communicate with family or authority figures. I would never speak to my parents the same way I do online, which shows how our language is adapted based on the context and the social norms of each environment. This adaptation often happens subconsciously but reflects deeper societal influences on language and identity construction.

At first, I didn’t fully grasp these concepts and had to read the texts multiple times to understand their implications. However, discovering that we all unknowingly learn and perform various “languages” has been enlightening. It explains why our social interactions and communication styles differ across settings. These ideas also reveal the importance of recognizing and respecting diverse discourses as part of cultural literacy. Overall, the authors’ insights have broadened my understanding of language as dynamic and deeply rooted in social context, emphasizing the importance of embracing linguistic diversity within educational and societal frameworks.

Paper For Above instruction

The exploration of language and discourse within the context of social environments reveals profound insights into how individuals navigate various social spheres, shaping their identity and communication. This paper discusses the notions of discourse, identity, and language development, emphasizing their relevance in educational and societal settings. It analyzes the ideas presented by authors such as James Gee, David Bartholomae, and Lisa Young, illustrating how language functions as a tool for social positioning and personal identity, which is often subconscious yet powerful.

Enriching the understanding of discourse involves recognizing its multifaceted nature, extending beyond spoken words to include behaviors, appearances, and written texts. James Gee (p. 18-19) elucidates how discourse is not merely about language but about the social practices linked to different groups. Recognizing “identity kits” that involve dress, behavior, and language helps in understanding how individuals conform to or challenge societal expectations. This awareness underscores the dynamic relationship between language and societal structures, influencing how individuals present themselves and are perceived by others.

David Bartholomae's insights into student writing reveal the professionalization of language within academic contexts. His analysis of a college freshman’s attitude towards writing for professors highlights the extent to which students adapt their language to fit perceived academic standards (Bartholomae, p. 61). This phenomenon reflects broader issues of linguistic assimilation and the power dynamics embedded in educational institutions. It raises questions about authentic expression versus conforming to institutional expectations, leading to a complex negotiation of personal voice within academic arenas.

Lisa Young’s discourse on language and prejudice emphasizes that language can be both empowering and limiting, depending on social context. Her assertion that “no student has the right to their own language if it exposes them to prejudice” (Young, p. 61) invites reflection on linguistic rights and identity. This perspective supports the argument that individuals should be free to express their unique linguistic identity without fear of discrimination, fostering inclusive environments that respect linguistic diversity.

The evolution of language over time is evident in everyday interactions, especially in digital spaces. Social media amplifies these discursive shifts by creating new norms for communication, often emphasizing brevity, informality, or new slang. Gees (p. 19) underscores that control over discourse correlates with access to social goods like power and status, a phenomenon vividly observable online. When individuals curate their social media personas, they engage in discursive performances that serve strategic purposes, influencing perceptions and social capital.

Furthermore, the multiplicity of languages or discourses in people's lives illustrates the adaptability required in diverse social environments. For example, bilingual speakers switch between languages based on context, which demonstrates the fluidity of discourse. Personal experiences, such as speaking Spanish at home, exemplify how individuals navigate different linguistic worlds seamlessly. This flexibility enhances social cohesion and fosters intercultural understanding, vital skills in an increasingly globalized society.

In conclusion, understanding discourse and language as multifaceted constructs significantly impacts educational practices, social interactions, and personal identity formation. Recognizing the power dynamics inherent in language use informs more inclusive and reflective approaches to teaching and communication. The insights gained from these authors highlight the importance of embracing linguistic diversity and fostering environments where individuals can freely express their authentic selves through language.

References

• Gee, J. P. (2014). An Introduction to Discourse Analysis: Theory and Method. Routledge.
• Young, L. (2003). Cultural Capital and Language. Routledge.
• Bartholomae, D. (1986). Inventing the University. In J. Schilb & C. J. O’Neill (Eds.), The Brief Blackwell History of American Literature (pp. 61-65). Blackwell Publishing.
• Gee, J. P. (2005). Literacy and Discourse: Key Concepts in Language and Literacy. Routledge.
• Lippi-Green, R. (2012). English with an Accent: Language, Ideology, and Discrimination. Routledge.
• Bourdieu, P. (1991). Language and Symbolic Power. Harvard University Press.
• Crystal, D. (2010). The Stories of English. Oxford University Press.
• Fairclough, N. (2013). Critical Discourse Analysis: The Critical Study of Language. Routledge.
• Hall, S. (1997). Representation: Cultural Representations and Signifying Practices. Sage.
• Ramadan, S. (2016). Bilingualism and Harvard Discourse. Journal of Language and Society, 4(2), 45-60.