Language, Discourse, and Linguistics: A Report on Gee’s Ideas

Verified

Added on  2022/12/19

|3
|558
|59
Report
AI Summary
This report examines James Paul Gee's theories on language, discourse, and linguistics. It focuses on the concept that one can be linguistically correct yet still be wrong, highlighting the importance of considering both verbal and non-verbal communication in conveying meaning. The report explores how context and non-verbal cues, such as body language, can contradict verbal statements, leading to a misunderstanding. It also contrasts Gee's ideas with traditional grammar instruction, asserting that while schools teach grammar, they often overlook the broader aspects of communication, which include cultural and contextual elements. The report references works by Dayter and Gee to support its arguments, emphasizing the significance of the "saying-doing combination" and the potential for miscommunication when these elements are misaligned.
Document Page
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
tabler-icon-diamond-filled.svg

Paraphrase This Document

Need a fresh take? Get an instant paraphrase of this document with our AI Paraphraser
Document Page
Student’s Last Name2
conventional higher and secondary schools. We are taught about non-verbal correspondence
in discourse classes’. Despite the fact that they are not all assembled in one single class we
assimilate these ideas and use them as "one" in our day-to-day lives.
In the last theme, Gee contends that you can verbally say something in the correct manner,
however, do the wrong thing by actions. This is called the "'saying-doing combination'" (para
2). It presents a conundrum when someone’s verbal response does not match up with their
non-verbal actions. For example, when a person claims to be confident, but fidgeting betrays
their claim (Dayter).
Document Page
Student’s Last Name3
Works Cited
Dayter, Daria. "Book Review: James Paul Gee, An Introduction To Discourse Analysis:
Theory And Method And James Paul Gee, How To Do Discourse Analysis: A
Toolkit". Discourse Studies, vol 17, no. 6, 2015, pp. 772-774. SAGE Publications.
Gee, James Paul. "Literacy, Discourse, And Linguistics: Introduction". Journal Of Education,
vol 171, no. 1, 1989, pp. 5-17. SAGE Publications.
chevron_up_icon
1 out of 3
circle_padding
hide_on_mobile
zoom_out_icon
[object Object]