17

Mirabelli’s argument is that the assumptions that waitresses and waiters are ignorant and stupid are incorrect. He argues that there is complexity and skill that may go unrecognized by the general public. Mirabelli states his argument after the first story from bitterwaitress.com.  The data in the chapter came from, “direct participation, observation, field notes, documents, interviews, tape recordings, and transcriptions, as well as from historical and bibliographic literature”. He also pulls from his personal experience as a waiter, both part and full time.  The data was taken from Lou’s restraint and the three waiters; John, Harvey, and the author.  The overwhelming data type is transcripts. Mirabelli explains the importance of menu knowledge and the complexity of the menu, but he uses more examples from customer interaction to point out the intricacies of the craft of waiting tables.  Mirabelli’s conclusion argues that the menu is the catalyst for interaction between the staff and customers, but ultimately, the customer has authority over the waiter or waitress. This idea of servitude can be tied to the general view of waiters and waitresses. The knowledge they hold isn’t valued because the discourse community they’re in is seen as inferior. I was a waiter in high school and I can argue from experience that while no formal education is needed to be a waiter; the ability to do a good job hinges on knowledge of the discourse community. The ability to read a customer and understand what mood they’re in and how to respond isn’t something that can be taught in a classroom.

Proposal

My proposal for the discourse community analysis is the Civil Engineering program at Ohio University.  The difference in dress and interaction between the engineering students and other parts of the college; like the Scripts school of journalism or the business program, is substantial. The program is composed primarily of white middle class men. I can literally count the number of women and minorities with ten fingers. The program is a professional program, but the typical dress is more of something you’d see at a construction site.  I am a member of the discourse community and have been for two years.

Analysis of the civil engineering program is useful because it clearly highlights conventionalism and anticonventionalism. (Johns). We dress and speak extremely informally while working on projects, but presentations and interviews are a professional affair and we treat them as such. The program breaks general stereotypes about the Appalachian student. Most of the CE students come from rural areas with poor dialects, but we take every calculus class offered, advanced courses in physics and chemistry, and statics and dynamics classes, like thermodynamics or structural analysis. If you passed a CE student on the street they would look like a construction worker, but that same student could hold a conversation about advanced concrete design, computer programming, and real estate law.

The civil engineering program is an interesting case because the discipline exists all over the world. The discourse community of civil engineers in Korea is completely different from the discourse community in England. The same holds true for the discourse communities at different colleges. An interesting case of this difference was apparent at the Ohio Valley Student Conference. Each university prepared a technical paper and presentation. The language used by Appalachian schools was different from those outside Appalachia. From the outside, all civil engineering seems to be under the same envelope, but citing Ann Johns and her idea of varying levels of community, we can see that each university and area of the world has its own discourse community.  The interesting question is; where the line between a discourse community and the individual. Furthermore, can any individual be a perfect fit for a particular discourse community. Gee doesn’t explore the concept of the individual, but an individuals’ background has a serious bearing on their ability to join a discourse community.

I’m going to cite Ann Johns, “Discourse Communities and Communities of Practice”.  I’m going to cite James Paul Gee’s “Literacy, Discourse, and Linguistics”.  For general information I will cite John Swales’ “The Concept of Discourse Community”.

Bibliography

Gee, James Paul. "Literacy, Discourse, and Linguistics." Elizabeth Wardle, Doug Downs. Writing About Writing. Boston: Bedford/St. Matin, 2011. 482-494.

Johns, Ann M. "Discourse Communities and Communities of Practice." Elizabeth Wardle, Doug Downs. Writing About Writing . Boston: Bedford/St. Martins, 2011. 499-517.

Wardle, Elizabeth. "Identity, Authority, and Learning to Write in New Workplaces." Elizabeth Wardle, Doug Downs. Writing About Writing. Boston: Bedford/St. Martins, 2011. 521-533.

16

The three interrelated modes of belonging are engagement, imagination, and alignment. Engagement is the common work the new member of a community and veteran members. Imagination is using your mind to imagine a world changed by your work. It can be aligned with what will really happen, or be completely different from the true outcome. Alignment is the bridge between the other two. Alignment shifts our imaginative scenario to the engaged scenario. This can be a good or bad thing depending on the original imaginative idea and the true alignment of the work. When I was hired at the bank I work at I didn’t understand my role completely and had to imagine what being a bank teller would be like behind the scenes. When I started running my own window and began to understand the scope of my engagement with customers and coworkers I had to align myself accordingly. I had imagined a lot more phone calls and responsibility, but the work proved otherwise. At first I fought it, asking for more responsibility; but, as time went on I realized that the added responsibility didn’t translate to respect or income. I slowly crawled back into my role as a peon, accepting my place in the discourse community. The Civil Engineering Department’s rules of engagement are simple. I am a student, I learn from the professor. That’s well and good except for the students’ self-image isn’t one of a lump of clay. I came in to the discourse community expecting to contribute more in and out of the classroom than I do. I learned that what I had imagined to be the CE department is slightly off. The courses are focused more on conceptual work than hands on. With concepts there is only one right answer, but in the real world there is more than one way to get things done.  

15

The “conversation” starts off with Gee and Swales talking amongst themselves over by their lockers in a 1980’s high school setting. This nosey little eighth grader, named Ann Johns, is hiding around the corner listening in. She takes notes and goes home to write about what she heard in her diary. Three years later some guy at wiki-links got hold of the diary and realized it was some next level shit. At this point you have to understand that I haven’t read the article, just the intro. I didn’t know we had a post due until 9 AM. I skimmed and I’d imagine I could bull crap my way through, but honestly I’m having a bad day already, might as well let it ride. She defines several communities much like the other two, real original there. She brings up interesting points with the cost of affiliation. You have to act a certain way to be in the group.

Post 14

Gee makes the argument that primary discourse groups have a type of test, or rite of passage, that signals whether an individual is worthy of being in the community. It’s a conscious or sub-conscious test that people use to gauge an individuals’ knowledge of how the community works. It can be used to verify a member of the community or bar outsiders. It can also be used to examine whether or not an “apprentice” was put in the right place at the right time. Analyzing their knowledge and how well they communicate their knowledge is key here. We go through these tests every day. When you sit in a lecture hall it’s expected of you to act a certain way. An extreme example would be if I started bouncing in my seat and laughing I would be judged as a weird kid and the professor would probably take note of my crazy behavior. On a more subtle note, if I would just sit in the front row and turn and talk to the kid behind me I would be singled out again. I wasn’t doing anything absurd, but it’s not proper etiquette for a large lecture hall. The same thing will happen when we go for interviews. The interviewer is going to bring up key words and gauge our knowledge. For me as an engineer it will be something to do with the profession. It will go something like, “Mr. Cook, what can you tell me about CPM?” To which I would respond,” Critical path method is the primary method of analyzing schedules to maximize efficiency within the scope of the project”. If I were not part of the discourse community I would respond like this,” CPM is great, I love that band”. With that I can rest assured I’ll never get a job as an engineer.

Post 12

I agree with Barton’s argument that technology isn’t changing the face of writing. Of course there will be shorthand written via texting and e-mails. Have you ever taken a look at the notes you write in your lecture classes? They are written in shorthand without anything more than a pencil and piece of paper. Whether you’re writing on a computer or simple sheet of notebook paper the final essay is still graded on organization and correct grammar. Writing with a computer doesn’t let you misspell words as easily, but I’ve always had access to a dictionary while writing. The great thing about computers is ease of access and use. The ball point pen was invented to make writing easier than some POS feather dipped in ink. Language will evolve much as it did over the past several centuries, but a fundamental shift to acronyms and a lack of punctuation don’t seem to be possible. It’s not only a question of educators embracing new technology; it’s the question of what makes sense and is understandable to all who read our writings. I can’t throw in a random lol and expect my 78 year old grandmother to understand, so I write something she can understand like, “I laughed”.  Technology makes it easier, but you can’t fundamentally change thought. It’s a regression, if this than this.

Post 11

The four case studies seem extremely similar to me. Each of the four people was introduced to computers at a young age and 87.5% of the group is white middle class. I understand that this article is about the future of literacy in technology, but the four chosen are all about website or game design.  I would call myself computer literate, but not once in my childhood did I ever design a web page or game. I connect to Charles Jackson the most because he at least mentions that he built his computers. As a child I was very hands on. I took apart everything from hair dryers to lawn mowers just to understand how they worked.  Compared to these four cases I was raised in the stone ages. I played outside EVERYDAY. I didn’t start playing video games until my teens and didn’t set up my first e-mail until I was fourteen. I’ve seen my girlfriends younger sisters grow up around computers though, and they thrive in front of the computer screen. They play outside, but not like I did. I played from 9 AM to 9 PM. They might spend three hours outside, but they also play The Sims or Webkins, or make posters on paint for their pretend dog show.  I see a computer as a time waster most of the time. I can jump on Facebook or Stumbleupon for hours. Of course there is the work aspect with computer aided drafting and structural analysis, but my computer lifestyle, aside from academia, is almost completely centered on entertainment. Sure it’s a lucrative business, but not for me.