, , , , , , ,

Gee jumps headfirst into his description of Discourse where he emphasizes that Discourse is made of many small, interworking factors that go beyond basic grammar and language. A discourse, in its most basic form can be described as a state of being which is built up from the combination of various factors. Factors such as communicating not grammatically, but by using the right “what” at the right “time” in the right “place” is key. For example in the reading, the use of proper grammar in a biker bar to ask for a match is incorrect, because it is far from the norm of the environment. Gee implied language should be disregarded as long as information is accurately conveyed, and I have to agree myself, within reason. Grammar still has purpose depending on the location in which the discourse occurs, where intent is not enough to convince an audience. In law school a professional discourse is the preferred–if not the only correct form to use. The courtroom setting would not look well upon the lack of correct decorum and way of presenting information, and might vote against your case. There may be some moments in which I disagreed with his statements because language is very important, and while he seems to find that it has no use, there are words that can be used to convey an idea in concise manner. He also seems to imply that there is a sort of societal and mainstream discourse in which most people fall under. Society is a  subject which can be infinitely complex, and cannot be marginalized simply. There are many kinds of people and thus there is no one discourse deemed the norm. Discourses varies by person and the location in which they are placed.