- Original: One can use their knowledge from other discourses to fake being a part of the new discourse. Gee explains ‘apprenticeship into social practices through scaffolded and supported interaction with people who have already mastered the discourse’ as a process of becoming a member. Everyone who is trying to gain the literacy of the discourse go through the process what Gee says ‘Mushfake’. One can gain the chance to become a part of a discourse by mushfaking it. However Gee claims mushfaking cannot make a person become an ultimate part of the discourse. If one cannot acquire discourse through active social practice, and it is difficult to compete with the people who have already mastered it, Gee says true acquisition will rarely happen and only ‘mushfake discourse’ which is only partial demonstration of the discourse is possible.
Revised: If on cannot acquire discourse through active social practice, and it is difficult to compete with the people who have already mastered it, Gee says true acquisition will rarely happen and only ‘mushfake discourse’ which is only partial demonstration of the discourse is possible. These conclusions, which Gee discusses about the limit of mushfaking, add weight to the argument that one can fake that he has certain discourse, but in reality he does not.
2.
original: One can feel powerful by posing power nonverbals which is faking it. She says one can fake as if he has a particular discourse and this will eventually lead him to the mastery of the discourse. Believing in oneself and practicing will result in the mastery. This gain of literacy will happen only if he survived a competition and hard work.
Revised: One can feel powerful by posing power nonverbals which is faking it. She says one can fake as if he has a particular discourse and this will eventually lead him to the mastery of the discourse. Believing in oneself and practicing will result in the mastery. This gain of literacy will happen only if he survived a competition and hard work. I wholeheartedly endorse what Cuddy explains about the process to the mastery of a discourse. I think not only in the literacy of business, but also in language Cuddy’s idea applies.
3
Original: His story is a good example of Cuddy’s claim where she says “realized that she had not just faked it till she made it, she had actually faked it till she become it”. His story is an exact opposite example of Gee’s view on becoming literate in certain discourse. At first Gee could regard Tyler as a ‘pretender’ among the discourse of Korean language. However he improved the fluency of speaking Korean through years of participation and practice.
Revised: His story is a good example of Cuddy’s claim where she says “realized that she had not just faked it till she made it, she had actually faked it till she become it”. His story is an exact opposite example of Gee’s view on becoming literate in certain discourse. At first Gee could regard Tyler as a ‘pretender’ among the discourse of Korean language. However he improved the fluency of speaking Korean through years of participation and practice. This made him become literate in the Korean discourse. In Gee’s standard Tyler entered into the discourse at late timing, but still a lot of Koreans regard his ability of speaking Korean is as fluent as native speakers. Gee overlooks what I consider an important point about one’s effort and practice.
collreadwritie1b
