Gee's Concept of 'Wrong Nonetheless' and its Relation to Grammar

Student’s Last Name1
Student’s Name
Professor’s Name
Subject
DD MM YYYY
James Paul Gee| Literacy, Discourse and Linguistics
What does Gee mean when he says that you can speak with perfect grammar and yet be
“wrong nonetheless”? The second, does this conflict with what you’ve been taught in
school about grammar?
Talking about the primary point, being "wrong nonetheless". He is expressing that, what is
the combination of "Discourse" of significant, "saying (composing), doing, being, esteeming,
accepting" are for the bits of the riddle that impact correspondence. For instance, using the
right speech or non-verbal communication or expressions that may negate what is being said
(Dayter). An example of this could be that a person is talking to an individual who is from the
center east like Saudi Arabia or someone from Southeast Asia like Nepal. If we were sitting
in the seats opposite to one another and I told that individual that I regarded his
trustworthiness and business ethics; but my body language implies otherwise. I had my legs
crossed and the base of my shoe was right in front of his face. There is an obvious language
and communication barrier involved in this particular situation (Gee). These two things, i.e.
the verbal and the nonverbal correspondence would repudiate one another. Demonstrating the
base of one’s foot is considered as an affront all around the world. It portrays that the
individual is beneath one’s foot or isn't worthy of respect.
The subsequent theme, does this content with what you've been educated in school about
punctuation? I state "no" in light of the fact that we are shown appropriate punctuation in the