Category: Uncategorized

 

Paraphrase and Summary

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. This made him become literate in the Korean discourse.

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. ‘Fake’ means trying it at first when learning something new. He practiced Korean as a way of faking it. This made him become literate in the Korean discourse.

1. 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

 

1. Me-Primary discourse is the foundation for many other discourses and one can be automatically included in this discourse.

Shamus-“Why is primary discourse the foundation and what does it consist of””

 

Explain more about primary discourse

 

According to Gee, primary discourse is the one people first use to make sense of the world and interact with others. It would be better for readers to understand the exact difference of primary and secondary discourse if I add more explanation here. One can gain primary discourse at home early in life and he form primary identity. This becomes the base for one to gain other discourses in the future.

 

 

 

2. Me-his story is a good example of Cuddy’s claim

Shamus-“Maybe just give a few words to wrap it up on why it is a good example”

 

Relation between Cuddy’s claim and example of Tyler

I think for the readers it would be better to add some explanations of Cudd’s claim and example of Tyler. At first I just ended up with one sentence after giving example of Tyler. Unlike Gee Cuddy thinks one can ultimately be in the discourse if he goes through constant involvement and practice. Tyler successfully entered into Korean discourse through solid process.

 

3. shamus-‘Maybe you could explain what mushfake is to give a better understanding instead of the reader being ‘blind’ while reading it

 

Me-one can fake as if he has a particular discourse and this will eventually lead him to the mastery of the discourse.

Shamus-“Why is this”

Explanation of mushfake and the mastery of discourse

The part where I annotated about mushfake could be added to this part of revision. By mushfaking, one can gain an opportunity to experience what a discourse is like. If he cannot acquire the discourse through this process, only limited mastery is possible. People only who successfully went through the acquisition can gain the literacy of the discourse. I will add more standard for the sentence above to make sense.  

 

Discourse is formed when people who share common values, beliefs gathers. A person who is a part of certain discourse could engage in multiple discourses as time passes. Primary discourse is the foundation for many other discourses and one can be automatically included in this discourse. Secondary discourse does not come easily as primary discourse. Examples of secondary discourses could be sports, club activities, jobs or businesses. These groups have standards that separate outsiders and insiders. If certain person in the group do tasks without meeting the standards of discourse, he is considered as faker or an imposter. Gee and Cuddy explains about their own way of getting into the secondary discourse.

Nonverbal behavior is one of the key factors to those who are going to enter the discourse of business. In the business field it is important to interact with various people and confident attitude is essential. Showing full range of power non verbal is important for one to gain the literacy of business. In Gee’s passage, he implies about his own definition of ‘Literacy’. If a person is fluent in the discourse of the business, he has the literacy of business. He suggests notion of ‘Mushfake’, and provide mechanisms for gaining the literacy of a discourse. He said “partial acquisition coupled with meta-knowledge and strategies to ‘make do’ “. Meta knowledge is pre selected knowledge. 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 process of becoming a member. Everyone who is trying to gain the literacy of the discourse go through the process what Gee says ‘Mushfake’. Cuddy agrees with this argument by saying “we could get people to fake it and it would lead them to participate more”. 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 discourses 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. One can fake that he has certain discourse, but in reality he does not. Only with an inborn ability and guided practice can make a person master the literacy of certain discourse.

This idea contrasts with Cuddy’s idea. She emphasizes the idea of performing nonverbals. Nonverbals govern the way we think and feel ourselves. Our bodies change our minds and minds change behavior and behavior can change the final outcomes. She implies about powerful people saying “they are more assertive and more confident, more optimistic”. 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 think not only in the literacy of business, but also in language Cuddy’s idea applies. There is an American student named ‘Tyler Josef’ from Vermont who is living in South Korea. He graduated Chicago University and that’s the place where he first studied Korean language. After that he moved to South Korea for graduate school and got degree in diplomacy. He can use proper grammar flawlessly and the level of word usage is not like those who speak Korean as a second language. In the TV shows he can even use Korean metaphor to explain certain concepts and Koreans are often stunned by his fluency. He even lectures in Korean in front of native speakers who are considered as the masters of Korean language discourse. His ability is not inborn though, during high school years he struggled with reading that he had to meet with an academic counselor to solve this problem. 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. There are even people who thinks he speaks better Korean than themselves. He surpassed those who were in the discourse since they were born. I think a person can gain a literacy of discourse through competition and hard work like Tyler. There are many other fields including sports where Cuddy’s idea can be applied.

I think nonverbal behavior is important to those who are going to pursue in the business field. In the business field it is important to interact with various people, and confident attitude is essential. Making themselves small is not a proper behavior. Showing full range of power Non-Verbal is important. In Gee’s passage, he implies about his own definition of ‘Literacy’. If a person is fluent in the discourse of the business, he has the literacy of business. One can fake that he has a certain discourse, but in reality he does not. Only with an inborn ability and guided practice can make a person has the literacy of certain discourse. This idea contrasts with Cuddy’s idea. She says one can fake as if he has a certain discourse and this will eventually lead him to actually possess that discourse. Believing in himself and practicing will result in gaining particular discourse. This gain of literacy will happen only if he survived a competition. I think not only in the literacy of business, but also in sports Cuddy’s idea applies. There are many examples that a person gained a literacy through competition and hard work.

 

collreadwrite1b

I tried to spend at least twenty minutes at various places in my dorm. At first I worked on my literacy narrative in my room. It was comfortable to work in familiar environment, making it easier to concentrate. I went on to other people’s room on my floor. The basic arrangement of the desks was different at almost all of them. For me I needed some legroom when I sit. Some of the desks I sat on had no legroom so I had to leave after just spending ten minutes on it. One of the rooms I visited was messy, since that was the place where all people on the floor meet on the weekends. The environment was not suitable for doing some works that required concentration. The last place I visited was the lounge. It was wide room with some couches, and a large desk was located near the window. I could keep on my work for over thirty minutes there with no other noises. Overall based on my experience I think the place well organized with no noise is the best place for me to work.

 

collreadwrite1b

-Critique Own and Other’s work

I made my own critique of work based on the given peer reviews. First, I decided to add more explanation on the general background of my literacy. I didn’t clarify the relationship of two close characters in my narrative. Also I paraphrased the part where I explained the reason of my chosen answer. This part took up a lot compared to other parts. Last, I slightly changed the lesson I learned from this event. First lesson I came up with was broader than what most of the people would think. I also gave my feedback to other students. I tried to emphasize on which parts they did well and also suggested for some changes that could lead into better literacy narrative. For example, Mike’s narrative was about his behavior change toward learning English after he met new teacher. I commented on his specific explanation about the teacher that this helped reader understand more about the reason of behavior change. Then I spotted that if he organize the overall part where the teacher affected Mike it would be better. I commented on that at the end of his narrative.

 

-Active reading, critical reading, and informal reading response

In Cuddy’s ted talk, she first explains about the concept of nonverbals. I found out that by listing common examples of nonverbals in our daily lives, she emphasized the hidden effects of nonverbals. Without the purpose of doing that, people judge each other through nonverbal behaviors. She then contrasts between power nonverbals and powerless nonverbals. Students in business school shows certain power nonverbals, and I realized how important power nonverbal is to those who would purse in the field of business. In the business field it is important to interact with various people, and confident behavior is essential in this. Powerless nonverbals which makes themselves smaller is not a helpful behavior. Showing full range of power nonverbals is what brings them success in the field. I found some connections between Cuddy’s texts and extended those ideas into my own lesson of the lecture. Other texts I annotated was about discourse. From the text of Gee I learned notion of language discourse and found out it can be divided into two different ones. They are primary discourse which can be gained by being a member of closest socializing group, and secondary discourse which is beyond the immediate peer group. From this annotation I understood the key concepts of the passage.

-Writing as a recursive process

I revised my narrative based on my and peer review. I came up with three concrete ideas for revision based on what I thought about my narrative. First I decided to work on explaining the general background of the literacy. I explained more about two key characters in the story. How they met, and where the two characters met had to be explained to better frame the narrative. Also, I paraphrased the part where I explained the reason of the decided answer. That part at first seemed to take up a lot in my narrative compared to other parts. I could balance my narrative by making that specific part shorter.  Next I changed and introduced new lesson from my story. At first my lesson seemed to be extended from what could have originally extracted from the narrative. My story was generally about multiple choice exam, and it evaluated the ability to interpret a literature. My original lesson was ‘literature education should be aimed to accept different people’s views’ which was broader than the modified lesson. It was revised to ‘Literature interpretation ability should not be assessed by multiple choice exams’. These revision process made my narrative into more organized and effective story than before.

 

-Control Individualized Error Pattern

At first I tended to have basic punctuational errors in the essays. Some of the connection between the words were not suitable. I have some examples of errors in my old writing. ‘It overturns the student’s world before they got education’, word ‘got’ had to be revised into ‘get an’. In a sentence ‘The institution for higher learning is represented as university’, I had to put an ‘a’ after as. Also, I had to revise the form of sentence to make it better. At ‘University helps creation of the prepared minds for the society’, I had to rewrite into ‘University helps create the prepared minds for the society’ to make it more natural. All the errors I made were fundamental so I could reduce these kinds of errors through practice. In later drafts it was hard to find punctuational errors.

1. What is the difference between a primary and a secondary Discourse? Why is Gee’s distinction between dominant and nondominant discourses important?

Primary discourse is gained by being a member of a closest socializing group. Through this, one interact with others and make particular sense of the world. Secondary discourse is more broader than primary discourse, it is beyond the family and close peer group. Dominant discourses are the ones which bring the acquisition of social ‘goods’ while non dominant discourses focus on one’s social network.

2. Cuddy’s research explores nonverbal communication, as she tells us (para. 4). Why is this nonverbal behavior important to those who would be in the Discourse of business? Be sure to provide evidence from Cuddy in your response.

 

Non verbal behavior is important to those who would be in the discourse of business. In the business field it is important to interact with various people, and confident attitude is essential in this. Making themselves smaller is not a helpful behavior. Showing full range of power non-verbal is important.

3. Take close-up photos foursubstantive annotations you have made to Gee’s (pp. 7-9) article and Cuddy’s transcript. (At least two for Gee and two for Cuddy.) Be sure to explain what you are doing in each of those four annotations. (Don’t quote the annotation.

1. I explained why the given examples in the passage are proper to emphasizing the hidden effects of nonverbals. Through people’s nonverbal behavior they judge each other without the purpose of doing so.
2. I explained why nonverbals is important to those who would be in the discourse of business.
3. I explained the difference between dominant and non dominant discourses
4. I explained the difference between the primary and secondary discourses.

 

collreadwrite1b

1. Gee defines discourses as saying-doing-being-valuing, believing combinations. Explain why this ‘combination’ is important for Gee? Offer my own example of a discourse in my response.

When we use language, what matters most is not the grammar. To talk, and write to convey our thoughts to others we need to communicate in a proper way. Even if one is using perfect grammar he might fail to characterize his own opinions. This is the reason why the way how we speak is more important than what we speak. Gee presents a certain combination, and it is comprised of five steps. which makes the connected stretch of language understandable. When I was told to submit an essay about certain topic, it was important to catch the purpose of the topic. If I didn’t grasp the original purpose of the question and wrote in my own way, I was asked to rewrite or revise certain parts. My essay made sense in my way, but it didn’t fit the original purpose of the topic.

2.  “While you can teach someone linguistics, a body of knowledge, …….If so, how does one become a linguist, a sociologist, biologist, etc?

For a linguist, sociologist, biologist, and a historian, they all need different kinds of discourse as it is kind of an “identity kit”. Discourse is not attained by someone else. Each one of the society has to take social practices through the interaction with the people in the society. This is the reason why discourse is not a sort of knowledge that can be taught by others. The best role others can Gee2Gee2 take is making people practice on being certain professional.

3. Gee2Gee devotes two paragraphs to two person’s article. While those authors…..Gee disagrees with their assessment. Why does he disagree?

For Ajirotutu, she presented proper grammar use but could not fully answer to the given interview question. This response was inappropriate for the kind of job she applied. For Akinnaso, she had to characterize her own strength in her job field. What she said was only related to the help she got from the other people. She responded certain value, but it was the wrong value.

collreadwrite1b

 

Reading particularly challenging texts

Contemporary feminist debates over the meaning of gender lead time and again to a certain sense of trouble, as if the indeterminacy of gender might eventually culminate in the failure of feminism. Perhaps trouble need not carry such a negative valence.

 

When I face particularly challenging text like this, it is hard to find out what view the author is discussing. The author’s idea is not immediately identified in those words. I get intimidated by the tough usage of words. To understand I would repeat the passage over until I spot the arguments. I then reconstruct the sentences based on my words. The thing what I have to be careful about is I shouldn’t misunderstand the author’s idea to the typical ideas that most of us are familiar with. For example when I read the passage above, I couldn’t connect the meaning of the words in the sentences. After repeated readings, I could grasp the meaning of the passage that it was explaining the true meaning of feminism.

 

collreadwrit1b