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.
Good, clear proposal, Joe.
ReplyDeleteThe specific characteristics about this community are interesting and it's a good sign that you're already able to apply them to some of the concepts we've been discussing in class. I think it's obvious that you'll have plenty to write about here. Furthermore, I think you'll be able to use this specific discourse community to make broader generalizations about d.c.'s overall.
Your questions coming toward the end caught my eyes as well: "Where is the line between a discourse community and the individual?...can any individual be a perfect fit for a particular discourse community?"
Your claim that Gee doesn't examine the individual is a good impulse because it shows you're trying to find a niche. I wouldn't be too quick to dismiss Gee, though. He does a lot in that article. I think you're right that he doesn't talk specifically about the individual, partly because he's focusing on "social practices" rather than individual literacies. Still, his discussion of primary (home) discourse (485) does seem to relate to what you're talking about. Further,Gee addresses this "perfect fit" question somewhat as well when he argues that it's impossible to fully acquire a secondary discourse, that only mushfake is possible.
Further illustration, analysis, and complication of either of these claims using examples from a discourse community, however, would be highly valuable and I encourage you to keep up this mode of interrogation.
Good luck!