y e w D M U M HlMii'IilHMSSIS OO EKimi'ffN tD!

i ) l

C h a p t e r 8

Discoursesand literacies

T h e N e w LiteracyS t u d i e s
InChapter4,1arguedthatanewfieldo f studyhas emergedaroundthe notiono f literacy,afieldIcalled"theNewLiteracyStudies."Itisaprob lem,o f course,to callany enterprise"new,"because,o f course, itsoon becomes"old."Wereitnotsociunbersome, itwouldbebettertocall the field somethinglike "integratedsocialculturalpoliticalhistoricalliter acystudies,"whichnamestheviewpointittakes onliteracy. However, forbetter or worse, the termNew Literacy Studies has become well knownandwidelyused,so, reluctantly,Iwillcontinueto usetheterm. Inthis chapter, Idevelop aparticularviewpointon literacyand the NewLiteracyStudiesbyalternatingtheoreticaldiscussionwithspecific casestudies meantto exemplifythe theory. Oneway wecan beginto developasocioculturalapproachtoliteracyis toengageintherhetorical conceito f imagining thatwe have beenasked: "Whatdoes the word 'literacy'mean?"Immediately wewillsee thatinordertodefine "liter acy"adequately we mustfirst discuss a fewother concepts whichare commonlymisconstrued.Oneo f theseis"language." "Language" canbe a misleadingterm: It is oftenused tomeanthe grammar(structure,the"rules") o f alanguage. However,it is atruism, butonewenonetheless mustholdconstantlyinmind, thatapersoncan knowthe grammaro f a language andstill notknow howto use that language(Gumperz 1982a, b; Hanks1996; Scollonand Scollon 1995; Wolfson 1989). Whatis importantin communicationis notspeaking grammatically,butsayingthe"right"thingatthe"right"timeandinthe "right"place.I f Ientermyneighborhoodbikerbarandsaytomy attooed t drinkingbuddy,asIsitdown,"MayIhaveamatchplease?"mygrammar is perfect, but whatI have said is wrong nonetheless. The situation requiressomethingmorelike"Gottamatch?"

D i s c o u r s e s a n d literacies 151

Research on second language acquisition both inside and outside classroom settings indicates that some speakers can have quite poor grammarandstillfunctionincommunicationandsocializationquitewell (Huebner1983). Theyknowhowto usethelanguage, eveni f alltheir formsarenot"correct."So whatcountsisuse,notgrammarp e r s e. However,it is lessoftenremarkedthata personcouldevenbeable touse a languageperfectly andstill notmakesense. Usealone is not enough.Paradoxicallyput:apersoncanspeakalanguagegrammatically, canuse thelanguage appropriately, andstill getit"wrong."This is so becausewhatisimportantisnotjust owyousayit,notjustlanguagein h anysense,butwhoyouareandwhatyou'redoingwhenyousayit. I f Ientermyneighborhoodbikerbarandsaytomydrinkingbuddy, as I sit down, "Gotta match?"or"Gimme a match, wouldya?" while placinga napkinon the barstool to avoid getting mynewlypressed designerjeansdirty,Ihavesaidtherightthing.My"languageinuse"is just ine. Butmy"sayingdoing"combinationis,nonetheless,allwrong. f Mywords,however appropriatelyformulated forthesituation, do not "fit"withmyactions,and, inthecaseo f sociallysituatedlanguage,"fit" betweenwordsandactionsis allimportant(Gee 1992; Gofftnan1959, 1967, 1981; Gumperz1982a, b;Hanks 1996). Infact,themattergoesfurther:Itisnotjust anguageandactionwhich l must"fit"togetherappropriately. Insociallysituatedlanguageuseone mustsimultaneouslysay the"right" thing,do the"right" thing,and in suchsayinganddoingalso expressthe"right" beliefs,values,andatti tudes. Anytimeweactorspeak, wemustaccomplishtwothings: (1) We mustmakeclearwho weare, and(2) wemustmakeclearwhatweare doing(WiederandPratt1990a). Weareeacho f snotasinglewho, but u differentwhosindifferentcontexts.Inaddition,oneandthesameactcan countasdifferentthingsindifferentcontexts,wherecontextissomething peopleactivelyconstrue, negotiateover, andchangetheirmindsabout (Duranti1997; DurantiandGoodwin1992).

Ane x a m p l e o f languageu s e and t y p e s o f people

Letmegiveaconcrete exampleo f thewayinwhichlanguagemustnot only havethe rightgrammarandbeusedappropriately, butmustalso expresstherightvalues,beliefs,andattitudes^the"rightwho,"theright "type"o f person.Ina paperarguingtheimportance o f usinglanguage appropriately,F. NiyiAkinnasoandCherylSeabrookAjirotutu(1982)

152 Social Linguisticsa n d Literacies

present"simulatedjobinterviews"(practicesessions)fromtwoAfrican Americanmothers in a US jobtrainingprogram. I reprint these two interviewsbelow. Thoughtheinterviewsare from twodifferentwomen,Akinnasoand Ajirotutupresentthesetwointerviewsas"before andafter"cases. That is, the first one is presentedas an example o f hownot to carry out aninterview,andthesecondis presentedasthecorrectwaytodo it, the successful result o f having beenproperly frained in the jobtraining program.Inthetextsbelow,materialbetweentwoslashesrepresentsone "tone group"aset o f wordssaid withone unitaryintonational con touranddotsrepresentpauses,withthegreaternumber f dotsequaling o alongerpause:
j o b interviewt e x t I

Question. Have youhadany previousjobexperience thatwould demonstrate that you've shown initiative or been able to work independently? 1 Well / . . . yes when I / . . . O K/ . . . there's this Walgreen's Agency/ 2 Iworkedasamicrofilmoperator/OK/ 3 Anditwasasnowstorm/ 4 OK/anditwasusuallysixpeople/ workin'inagroup / 5 uhum/andonlymeandthisothergirlshowedup/ 6 andwehadquitealoto f orktodo/ w 7 andsotheman/heaskeduscouldwe/youknow/dowe/ . . . dowethinkswecouldfinishthiswork/ 9 so me' n ' thisgirl/youknow/wefinisheditall/ Job interview t e x t 2 Question:One morequestion wasthat ah, this kindo f work fre quentlyinvolvesusingyourowninitiativeandshowing sorto f the abilitytomakeindependentjudgment.Doy ouhaveany. . . canyou tellmeaboutanypreviousexperiencewhichyouthinkdirectlyshow .. demonstratesthatyouhavethesequalities? 1 Why/ . . well/as farasbeingcapable o f handlinganoffice/ 2 sayi f I 'm leftonmyown/ 3 IfeelI ' m capable/

D i s c o u r s e s a n d literacies 153

4 5 6 7 8 9 10 1 1 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20

Ihadasituationwhereoneo f m yemployersthatI'vebeen/ ahpreviouslyworkedfor/ hadtogoon/a.. /atripforsay/ahthreeweeksand/ hewas/ . . . Iwasleftaloneto .. /handletheoffice andrunit/ Andatthattime/ahI didn'treallyhavewhatyouwouldsay/ aloto f experience/ ButIhadenoughexperienceto/ . . dealwithanysituationsthat cameupwhilehewasgone/ andthosethatIcouldn't/handleatthetime/ i f therewassomeonewhohadmoreexperiencethanmyself/ Iaskedquestions/tofind out/whatprocedureIwoulduse/ I f omethingcameup /andi f Ididn'tknow/whoto reallygo s to/ Iwouldjot tdown/orwriteitdown/onapieceo f aper/ i p sothatIwouldn'tforgetthat../ i f anyonethat/wasmorequalifiedthanmyself/ Icouldaskthemaboutit/ andhowIwouldgoaboutsolvingit/ So IfeelI ' mcapableo f andlingjustaboutanysituation/ h whetherit'sonmyown/orundersupervision

The first womanis simplyusing the"wrong" grammar(the wrong "dialect")for thistypeo f middleclassinterview. It'saperfectlygood dialect(see discussionin Chapter1above andLabov 1972a; Rickford and Rickford 2000), but it is not the dialect normally usedfor job interviews,in part,o f course, duetoprejudice. Inoursociety, youare expected to use "Standard" English for most jobinterviews, so this woman'sgrammardoesn't"fit"thecontext(EricksonandSchultz1982; Gumperzetal.1979; Robertsetal.1992). Thesecond woman,the "success case," hasnotgot a realproblem withhergrammar.(Rememberthisisspeech,notwriting.)Hergrammar is, forthe mostpart,perfectlynormal"standard" English.Noris there anyreal problemwiththeuse towhichshe putsthatgrammar; allher sentencesareformulatedappropriatelyforthetime,place,andoccasion inwhichsheisspeaking(exceptthe"say"inline6,whichsoundslikeshe is"estimating"or"imagining,"ratherthan"reporting"). However,shestill isgettingit "wrong"ina sense.This issobecause sheis,intheacto f usingthe"right"grammarinthe"right"way,nonethe lessexpressingthewrongvalues.Sheopensbysayingthatsheiscapable o f handlinganofficeonherown.Infact, shegoesontosay thatthough shedid nothavealot o f experience,she hadenoughexperiencetodeal

154 Social Linguisticsa n d Literacies

with"anysituationsthatcameup"whileherbosswasaway.Butthenshe immediately(inline 10) bringsup"thosethatIcouldn'thandle,"which seems to contradict, andcertainly mitigates, herclaim thatshe could handleanythingthatcameup.She proceeds(inlines11 and12) toelab orateonherinexperienceandlacko f knowledgebysayingthatsheasked questionso f thosewithmoreexperiencethanherself(Wemightbegint o wonderwhytheyweren'tleftincharge.) Anychancewecouldconstruethislastpointas,atleast,"responsible himiility" is destroyedas she goeson (in lines 1318) tomention not justthingsshedoesn'tknowhowtohandle,butthingsshedoesn'teven knowwhotoaskabout(andinline16 onceagainmentionspeoplemore qualifiedthanherself).Thewholesecondparto f h eranswer(afterline 9)involveshersearchforpeoplemoreknowledgeablethanherself hose w superiorknowledgecansupplementherlacko f knowledge.Infact, for her,"responsibility,""initiative,"and"independentjudgment"amountto deferringto"otherpeople's"knowledge. Herresponsecloses(inlines19 and20),asis fullyappropriatetosuch interviewtalk,witha returntoheroriginalpoint:"SoI feelI'mcapable o f handlingjustaboutanysituation, whetherit'sonmyown, orunder supervision."Butthisiscontradictedbytheveryattitudesandvaluesshe hasjustallowedus toinferthatshe holds.She seemsto viewbeingleft incharge as justanotherformo f supervision, namely,supervision by "otherpeople's"knowledgeandexpertise.Thoughthiswomanstartsand finishesinanappropriatefashion,shefails inthehearto f thenarrativeto characterizeherownexpertiseintheoverlyoptimisticformcalledforby suchinterviews(EricksonandSchultz 1982). She is expressingherself, forthistimeandplace,asthewrongsorto f ersonforthejob.Usingthis p responseasanexampleo f successfultraining"is possibleonlybecause " theauthors, wellaware thatlanguage is morethangrammar (namely, "use"),arexmaware thatcommunicationismorethanlanguageuse. Themoralo f theabovediscussionisthatwhatisimportantislanguage plusb eingthe"right"who(sorto f person)doingthe"right"what(activ ity). Whatis importantis notlanguage, and surely notgrammar, but saying(writing)<loingbeingvaluingbelieving combinations. These combinationsIwillrefertoas Discourses,withacapital"D,"anotionI wantnowtoexplicate(Gee1992, 2005).Before Ido that,let mepoint outthatI willuse "discourse" witha little "d"for languagein useor connected stretches o f language thatmake sense, like conversations, stories,reports, arguments,essays, andso forth.So, "discourse"is part o f "Discourse""Discourse" witha big"D"is alwaysmore thanjust language.

D i s c o u r s e s a n d literacies 155

Discourses
ADiscoursewithacapital"D"iscomposedo f distinctivewayso f speak ing/listening and often, too, writing/reading coupledwith distinctive wayso f acting,interacting,valuing,feeling,dressing,thinking,believing, withotherpeopleand withvariousobjects,tools, andtechnologies,so asto enactspecific sociallyrecognizableidentities engagedinspecific socially recognizable activities. These identities might be things like beingdoingaLosAngelesLatino streetgangmember,a LosAngeles policeman,afield biologist,a firstgrade studentinaspecific classroom andschool, a"SPED"student, acertain typeo f doctor,lawyer, teacher, AfricanAmerican, worker in a "quality control" workplace, man, woman, boyfiriend, girlfriend, orregularat thelocal bar,etc. andetc. throughanearlyendless list. Discoursesareall abouthowpeople"get theiracts together" to get recognizedas a given kind o f personat a specifictimeandplace. Thewholepointo f talkingaboutDiscoursesistofocusonthefactthat when people mean things to each other, there is always more than languageatstake.To meananythingtosomeoneelse(oreventomyself) Ihaveto communicatewhoI am(inthe senseo f whatsociallysituated identityamI takingonhereandnow) andwhatIamdoingin termsof whatsociallysituatedactivityIamcarryingout(WiederandPratt,1990). Languageis, as wehaveseen, notenoughforthis. Wehaveto getour mindsanddeeds"right," aswell. Wealsohavegetourselves appropri atelyinsync withvariousobjects,tools,places, technologies,andother people.Beingina Discourseis beingabletoengageina particularsort o f "dance" withwords, deeds, values,feelings, otherpeople, objects, tools,technologies,placesandtimessoas togetrecognizedasadistinc tivesorto f whodoingadistinctivesorto f what.Beingabletounderstand aDiscourseis beingabletorecognizesuch"dances." Imagine what an identity kitto playthe role o f Sherlock Holmes wouldinvolve; certain clothes, certain ways o f using language (oral languageandprint),certainattitudes andbeliefs,allegiancetoa certain lifestyle,andcertainwayso f interactingwithothers.Wecancallallthese factorstogether, as theyareintegratedaroundthe identityo f Sherlock " Holmes, Master Detective" the "Sherlock Holmes Discourse." This examplealsomakesclearthat"Discourse,"asI amusingtheterm,does notinvolvejusttalkorjust anguage. l Thewomanin thejobinterviewwas indanger o f failing tobe the "rightkindo f p erson"forentryintospecificbusinessandworkcentered Discourses.She neededtosignalthatshe was"responsible"evenwhen

156 Social Linguisticsa n d Literacies

thejobshewouldbegivenwouldinall likelihoodhavegivenherlittle realresponsibility.Hersuccessatthesocial practiceo f obinterviewing j wouldsimplyhavesignaled thatshe hadallegianceto certainmiddle classvaluesandwastobe"trusted"nottodisrupttheworkingso f p ower withintheworkplaceandthewidersociety. Weareall multiplekinds o f people.I usedifferentcombinationsof words,deeds, attitudes,props (e.g., chalk, classrooms,sitting arrange mentsin office hours),and valuesto bea "professor" thanI do to be a"birdwatcher"or"(video)gamer,"butIamall threeandmanyother kindsaswell,someo f hichareveryhardtoname(e.g.,"firstgeneration w middleclassbabyboomerwithclassresentment"), butnotallthathard torecognize.Ionceknewverywellhow,inwords,deeds,attitudes,props (e.g.,statues,pews,holywater,cassocks),andvalues,to"pullo f f eing b adevout Catholicandknewwell howtorecognize(and police)others whoattemptedto"pulloff'thatidentity.I don'tanylonger. Discoursesarenotunitsortightboxeswithneatboimdaries.Rather theyareways o f recognizingandgettingrecognizedas certainsorts of whosdoing certainsorts o f whats. One andthe same "dance" canget recognizedinmultipleways, inpartialways,incontradictory ways,in disputedways,innegotiableways,andsoonandsoforththroughallthe multipHcitiesandproblematicsthatworkonpostmodernismhasmadeso popular.Discoursesarematterso f enactmentandrecognition,then. Allrecognitionprocessesinvolvesatisfyingavarietyo f constraintsin probabilisticandsometimespartialways.Forexample,somethingrecog nizedasa"weapon" (e.g.,abaseballbatorafireplace poker)mayshare somefeatureswithprototypicalweapons(likeagxin, sword,orclub)and notshare other features. Andthere may be debate about the matter. Furthermore,theverysamethingmightberecognizedasaweaponinone contextandnotinanother.So, too,withbeinginandouto f Discourses, e.g., enactingandrecognizingbeingdoingacertaintype o f streetgang member.SpecialEdstudent,orparticlephysicist. Whilethereareanendlessarrayo f Discoursesintheworld,nearlyall humanbeings,exceptunderextraordinaryconditions,acquire aninitial Discoursewithinwhateverconstitutestheirprimarysocializingunitearly inlife. Earlyinlife, wealllearnaculturallydistinctivewayo f beingan "everydayperson"^thatis, anonspecialized, nonprofessionalperson. Wecancallthisour"primaryDiscourse."OurprimaryDiscoursegives usourinitialandoftenenduringsenseo f s elfandsetsthefoundationsof ourculturallyspecific vernacularlanguage(our"everyday language"), thelanguageinwhichwespeakandactas"everyday" (nonspecialized) people,andourculturallyspecific vernacularidentity.

D i s c o u r s e s a n d literacies 157

Asapersongrowsup, lotso f interestingthingscanhappento hisor herprimaryDiscourse.PrimaryDiscoursescanchange,hybridize with otherDiscourses,andtheycanevendie.Inanycase,forthevastmajority o f us,ourprimaryDiscourse,throughall itstransformations, servesus throughoutlifeas whatIwillcall our"lifeworldDiscourse"(Habermas 1984). OurlifeworldDiscourseisthewaythatweuselanguage,feeland thinkj actandinteract,and so forth,inorderto bean"everyday" (non specialized) person. Inourplural worldthere is muchadjustmentand negotiationaspeopleseekto meetintheterraino f thelifeworld,given that lifeworlds are culturally distinctive (that is, different groups of peoplehavedifferentwayso f b eingdoing"everydaypeople"). All the Discourses we acquire later in life, beyond our primary Discourse, weacquire withina more"public sphere" thanour initial socializinggroup. Wecancallthese"secondaryDiscourses."Theyare acquiredwithin institutions thatare partandparcel o f widercommu nities, whether these be religious groups, community organizations, schools,businesses,orgovernments. Asweare beingsocializedearly inlife, secondaryDiscourses very oftenplayaninterestingrole. PrimaryDiscoursesworkout, overtime, aligrmientsandallegianceswithandagainstotherDiscourses,alignments and allegiances that shape them as they, in turn, shape these other Discourses. One way that manysocial groups achieve an alignment withsecondaryDiscoursestheyvalueisbyincorporatingcertainaspects o f thepractices o f thesesecondary Discoursesinto theearly (primary Discourse)socialization o f theirchildren. Forexample,some African American families incorporate aspects o f practices and values that are part o f AfricanAmerican churches into their primary Discourse (Rickfordand Rickford2000; Smitherman1977), as myfamilyincor poratedaspectso f racticesandvalueso f averytraditionalCatholicism p intoourprimaryDiscourse.This isanextremelyimportantmechanism intermso f whichbitsandpieceso f avalued"community" or"public" identity(tobemorefullypracticedlaterinthechild'slife)isincorporated as part and parcel o f the child's "private," "homebased," lifeworld identity. Social groupsthatare deeplyaffiliatedwithformal schoolingoften incorporateintothesociaHzationo f heirchildrenpracticesthatresonate t withlaterschoolbasedsecondaryDiscourses(e.g.,seeRogoffandToma 1997). Forexample,theirchildrenfromanearlyageareencouraged(and coached)at dinnertimetotellstories inquiteexpository waysthatare ratherlikelittleessays,orparentsinteractwiththeirchildrenoverbooks inwaysthatencouragea greatdealo f labelingandtheanswering o f a

158 Social Linguisticsa n d Literacies

varietyo f differenttypeso f questions,as wellastheforming o f inter textualrelationshipsbetweenbooksandbetweenbooksandtheworld.Of course,thisfacthasbeenamainstayo f theliteratureonschoolfailure. Irefertotheprocessbywhichfamiliesincorporateaspectso f valued secondaryDiscoursepractices into theirprimaryDiscourses as "early borrowing."Earlyborrowingisusedasawaytofacilitatechildren'slater success invaluedsecondary Discourses. Iwantto stress thefollowing point:Earlyborrowingfunctionsn otprimarilyto givechildrencertain skills, but, rather, to givethem certain values, attitudes, motivations, wayso f interacting, andperspectives,allo f whicharemoreimportant than mere skills f o r successful later entry into specific secondary Discourses"for real."(Skillsfollow romsuchmatters.) f Thereare,o f course,complexrelationshipsbetweenpeople'sprimary Discoursesand thesecondaryones theyareacquiring, as wellas among theiracademic,institutional,andcommunitybasedsecondaryDiscourses. Theseinteractionscruciallyeffect whathappenstopeoplewhentheyare attemptingto acquirenew Discourses. Earlyborrowing is oneo f these relationships.Othersinvolveformso f esistance,opposition,domination, r on the one hand, or o f alliance and complicity, on the other, among Discourses.

On beinga"real Indian"
Iamarguing,then,thatwemustalwaysact,think,value, andinteractin waysthattogetherwith languagerenderwho weare andwhat weare doingrecognizable toothers (andourselves). Aswe have,seen, tobea particularwhoandtopulloff particularwhatrequiresthatweact,value, a interact,and uselanguageinsync with,in coordinationwith, others,as wellas withvarious objects ("props") in appropriate locations and at appropriatetimes(Gee199293;KnorrCetina1992; Latour1987,2005). Allthisisratherabstract,so letmeturntoaspecificexample. Tosee thiswidernotiono f languageas integratedwith"otherstuff (other people, objects, values, times and places) in Discourses, I will brieflyconsider WiederandPratt's fascinating workonhow American Indians(firomawidevarietyo fdifferentgroupsor"tribes")recognizeeach otheras"reallyIndian" (WiederandPratt1990a, b; Pratt1985). Wieder andPratt'swork,o f course,wasdonein1990. Discourseschange^aswe willsee later,theychangein reactiontootherDiscoursessotheclaims wediscussarenotmeantnecessarilytoapplytoall NativeAmericansat all times. Nonetheless,Wiederand Pratt'swork, basedon close ethno graphicobservations,is agoodexampleo f howDiscourseswork.

D i s c o u r s e s a n d literacies 159

NativeAmericans,atleasto f thesortWiederandPrattstudied,"refer topersonswhoare'reallyIndian'injust hosewordswithregularityand t standardization"(Wiederand Pratt, 1990a: 48).This examplewillalso makeyetclearerhowtheidentities(thewhos)wetakeonarenotrigidly setbythestateso f ourmindsorbodies,butare,rather,flexiblynegotiated inactualcontextso f practice. The problemo f "recognition andbeing recognized"is veryconse quentialand problematicforIndians. Whileone mustbeabletomake someclaimstokinshipwithotherswhoarerecognizedas"realIndians," thisbynomeanssettlesthematter.Peoplewithsuch(biological)tiescan fail to getrecognized as "really Indian,"and peopleo f mixedkinship (whiteandIndian)canbeso recognized. Being a real Indian is notsomething one can simply be. Rather, itissomethingthatonebecomesoris inthe"doing"o f it, thatis, inthe performance(forthisgeneral perspective,seeGarfinkel 1967; Heritage 1984; HeritageandMaynard2006).Thoughone musthavecertainkin shiptiestogetinthe"game,"beyondthisentrycriterionthereisnobeing (once and for all) a real Indian, rather there is only doing beingor becomingarealIndian.I f one does notcontinueto "practice"beinga realIndian, oneceases to bea realIndian. Finally,"doing" beingand becomingarealIndianisnotsomethingthatonecandoallbyoneselfIt requirestheparticipationo f otherIndians. Onecannotbea realIndian imlessone appropriatelyrecognizesrealIndians andgetsrecognizedas arealIndianinthepracticeso f oingbeingandbecomingarealIndian. d Being a real Indian also requires appropriate accompanying objects (props),times, andplaces. Thereareamultitudeo f waysonecandobeingandbecomingareal Indian.Some o f theseare (followingWiederandPratt,see alsoScollon and Scollon 1981): Real Indians prefer to avoid conversation with strangers, Indianorotherwise. Theycaimot berelated to one another as"mere acquaintances,"as somenonIndians mightputit.So, forreal Indians, anyconversation theydo havewitha strangerwho mayturn outto beareal Indianwill, inthediscovery o f theother's Indianness, establishsubstantialobligationsbetweentheconversationalpartnersjust throughthemutualacknowledgmentthattheyare Indiansandthatthey arenownolongerstrangerstooneanother. Intheirsearchfortheother'srealIndianness andintheirdisplayof theirownIndianness,realIndians frequently proceedtoengageinadis tinctiveformo f verbalsparring.Bycorrectlyrespondingtoandcorrectly engaginginthissparring, whichIndianscall"razzing,"eachparticipant furtherestablishesculturalcompetencyintheeyeso f theother.

160 Social Linguisticsa n d Literacies

RealIndiansmanagefacetofacerelationswithothersinsucha way thattheyappeartobeinagreementwiththem(or, atleast, theydonot overtlydisagree); theyare modestand"fit in."Theyshowaccord and harmonyandarereservedabouttheirowninterests,skills, attainments, and positions. Real Indians understand that they should not elevate themselvesoverotherrealIndians.Andtheyunderstandthatthecomplex systemo f obligationstheyhavetokinandotherrealIndianstakespriority overthosecontractualobligationsandpursuito f selfinterestthatsome nonIndiansprizesohighly. RealIndiansmustbecompetentin"doingtheirpart"inparticipating inconversationsthatbeginwiththe participantsexchanging greetings andotheramenitiesandthenlapsing intoextended periodso f silence. Theymustknowthatneithertheynortheothers haveanobligationto speak^thatsilenceontheparto f llconversantsis permissible. a When they are among Indians, real Indians mustalso be able to performintheroleso f student"and"teacher" andbeabletorecognize " thebehaviorsappropriatetotheseroles.Theserolesarebroughtintoplay exclusivelywhentheappropriateoccasionarisesfortransmittingcultural knowledge(i.e.,thingspertinenttobeingareal Indian). Althoughmany nonIndiansfinditpropertoaskquestionso f someonewhoisinstructing them,Indians regardquestionsin sucha situationas beinginattentive, rude, insolent, and so forth. The person who has taken the role of "student" shows attentiveness byavoiding eye contact and bybeing silent.Theteachingsituation,then, asawitnessedmonologue, lacksthe dialogicalfeaturesthatcharacterizemucho f Westerninstruction. A verywidevariety o f gatheringsprovides theoccasion forpublic speaking. Only eldermales mayspeak for themselves as well as for others inthe fashiono f addressingthegathering. Youngermales and allwomenmustseekoutaneldermalewhowill"talkfor"or"speakfor them,"ift heyhavesomethingtheywanttosay. Whiletheabovesort o f informationgivesussomethingo f theflavor o f w hatsortso f thingsonemustdo andsaytogetrecognizedas a"real Indian,"such informationcanleadto abadmistake. Itcansound as if theabovefeaturesare necessaryandsufficientcriteriafordoingbeing andbecomingarealIndian.Butthisis nottrue.Theabove featuresare notatestthatcanbeoreverisadministeredallatonce,andonceandfor all,todeterminewhoisorisnotarealIndian.Rather,thecircumstances underwhichthese features are employedby Indians emerge overthe course o f a developing history among groups o f people. They are employedalwaysinthecontexto f actualsituations,andatdifferenttimes inthelife historyo f groupso f people.The waysinwhichthejudgment

D i s c o u r s e s a n d literacies 161

"He(orshe)is(orisnot)arealIndian"isembeddedwithinsituationsthat motivateit makesuch judgmentsintrinsicallyprovisional.Those now recognizedcan spoil theiracceptance orhaveit spoiledand thosenot nowacceptedcanhaveanotherchanceevenwhenothersdonotwantto extendit. Thesame thingapplies, infact, inregardto manyothersocialiden tities, notjustbeing"areal Indian"(e.g., McCall1995). Thereare no allatonce,onceandforall,testsforwhoisadeptatphysicsorliterature orbeing a membero f a Los Angelesstreet gang, ora lawyer. These mattersaresettledprovisionallyaspartandparcelo fsharedhistoriesand ongoingactivities.Itisthefactthatschoolso oftendoesnotfunctionin thiswayforexample,inschoolweveryoftenactas i f thereareallat once,andonceandforall, testso f identity(e.g.,"goodreader,""SPED student," "gifted," "low achieving," etc.)that helps to make school suchastrangeplaceformanychildrenandadults.

Discoursesagain
Tosumup,then,by"aDiscourse"Iwillmean; A Discourse is a socially accepted association among ways of usinglanguageandothersymbohcexpressions,o f thinking,feeling, believing,valuing,andacting, aswellas usingvarioustools,tech nologies,orpropsthatcanbeusedtoidentifyoneselfasa member o f asocially meaningfulgroupor"socialnetwork,"to signal(that oneis playing)asociallymeaningfiil"role," ortosignalthatone is fillingasocial nicheinadistinctivelyrecognizablefashion. Therearenumbero f importantpointsthatonecanmakeaboutDiscourses (Fairclough 1989, 1992, 2003; Gee 1992; Hodge and Kress 1988; Jameson 1981; Kress 1985; Lee 1992; Macdonell 1986; Thompson 1984): 1 Discoursesareinherently"ideological"inthesenseinwhichIhave definedthat terminthe first chapter. Theycruciallyinvolve aset o f values andviewpoints about the relationships betweenpeople andthedistributiono f socialgoods, attheveryleastabout whois aninsiderandwhoisn't,oftenwhois"normal"andwhoisn't,and often,too,manyotherthingsas well. Discoursesareresistanttointernalcriticismandselfscrutiny,since utteringviewpoints thatseriously rmderminethem defines oneas

162 Social Linguisticsa n d Literacies

being outside them. The Discourse itselfdefines what counts as acceptablecriticism. Discoursedefinedpositionsi'om whichtospeakandbehavearenot, f however,justdefinedas internalto aDiscourse, butalsoas stand pointstakenupbytheDiscoursein itsrelationto other, ultimately opposing, Discourses. The Discourse we identify with being a feministis radicallychangedi f allmdle Discoursesdisappear.The Discourseo f aregulardrinkinggroupatabarispartlydefimedbyits pointso f oppositiontoa varietyo f otherviewpoints(nondrinkers, peoplewhodislikebarsasplaceso f meetingpeople,"Yuppies,"and soforth). AnyDiscourseconcernsitselfwithcertainobjectsandputsforward certainconcepts,viewpoints,andvaluesattheexpenseo f others.In doingso itwillmarginalizeviewpoints andvaluescentral toother Discourses.Infact, aDiscoursecancall foroneto acceptvaluesin conflictwithother Discourseso f whichone is alsoa member(see belowformoreonthis). Finally,Discoursesareintimatelyrelatedtothedistributiono f social powerandhierarchicalstructureinsociety, whichis whytheyare alwaysandeverywhereideological.ControlovercertainDiscourses canleadtotheacquisitiono f ocialgoods(money,power,status)in s a society. These Discoursesempower thosegroups who have the leastconflicts withtheirotherDiscourseswhentheyusethem.Let uscall Discoiu'ses thatlead to social goods ina society dominant Discoursesandletusrefertothosegroupsthathavethefewestcon flictswhenusingthemasdominantgroups.Obviouslytheseareboth matterso f degreeandchangetoacertainextentindifferentcontexts.

AllDiscoursesare theproductso f history(see Foucault1966, 1969, 1973,1977,1978,1980,1985andFleck1979). Itissometimeshelpfiilto saythatitisnotindividualswhospeaka ndact,butratherthathistorically andsociallydefinedDiscoursesspeakto eachotherthroughindividuals. Theindividualinstantiates, givesbodyto aDiscourseevery timeheor sheacts orspeaks,andthuscarriesit, anduhimatelychangesit,through time.Americanstendtobeveryfocusedontheindividual,andthusoften missthefactthattheindividualisthemeetingpointo f many,sometimes conflicting, socially and historicallydefined Discourses (see the next chapterforexamples).

D i s c o u r s e s a n d literacies 163

T h e discourseo f laws c h o o l
Once again we have gotten rather abstract, and I want therefore to developa specificexample^this timeanexample relevanttothecon flictsbetweenDiscoursesthatcaninhabitoneandthesameperson.Iwill takeasmyexampletheDiscourseo flawschoolintheUnitedStates.This examplewill, inaddition,show howliteracypracticeso f uitespecific q sorts are embeddedin Discourses. Mydiscussionhere is basedonthe worko f Michele Minnis (1994; all pagereferences beloware to this article). Again, I caution that Discourses changeand, indeed, some lawschoolshavesoughttoreformtheirpedagogiesbasedonthesortsof thingspeople like Minnis havediscovered^but, again, too, Miimis's workwasbasedoncloseethnographicobservations. Inthe typicallaw school, instructionin thefirst yearinvolves total immersioninthecoursematerial.Teachersdonotlectureinclass,rather theyengageinadversarialinteractionswithstudentspatternedafterthose o f j udgeandlawyerinappellatecourtrooms.Thedominantinstructional approachis the"casemethod."This methodconsistsindiscussingand comparing appellate opinions through a questionandanswer routine sometimescalled"Socraticdialogue": Beforeeveryclassmeeting, studentsare expectedto havereadand briefed,orsummarizedinwriting, severalappellate opinionsfrom abookcontainingpivotalcaselawonthecoursetopic.Whencalled oninclass,studentsmustbepreparedtoreviewandanalyzespecific opinions,compare thedetails o f everalopinions, andexplainhow s theopinionsmighthavebeenrendereddifferently. Theburdeno f diviningpatternin theentire bodyo f casesis onthe students. Typically the professor's roleis to expose, in the student's presentations,the hazardso f ignoringalternative interpretationso f the casematerial.Studentsareadvisedtobealertandreadytoduckorstrike lesttheiradversary,theprofessor,catchthemoffguard.Inotherwords, lawschoolclasses, muchlikethoseinthemartialarts, arerunasa kind o f contest between opponents. Always, discussion in such classes is exegetical; itis anchoredintexts,in writtenaccountsandjudgmentsof pastevents(pp. 352353). Towritea competentbriefthestudenthas tobe ableto readthetext being briefed in much the same way as the professor does. Student readersmustknowhowsuchtextsarestructured. Theymustknow,for example,howsentencestructureinsuchtextsisusedtosignalemphasis,

164 Social Linguisticsa n d Literacies

importance,andothercommunicativeeffects.Theymustalsosee"some statements as relatively general (or relatively specific) renderings of others,some ideasanddiscussionsas subpartso f others,andthewhole o f anexpositionasintegratedbyanorganizingidea"(p. 356). Andthey mustdo this is orderultimately to see and be able tosummarize the argumentthetextpropounds. Studentsare nottaughtthesereadingskillstheones necessaryfor themto beable to writebriefsdirectly. Briefs are not, forinstance, turnedintotheprofessor;theyarewrittenforthestudents' ownusein class."Thefeedbackstudentsreceiveontheirbriefsisprovidedindirectly andto everyoneat once,throughanalysiso f thebriefedcasesinclass" (p. 357).This sorto f indirectfeedbackisquite unlikelytoinvolveovert attentiontostructuralpatternsandwritingconventions,letalonereading conventions. Nonetheless,thesemust be"pickedup,"alongwith (and actuallyas partandparcelof)concepts, values,andwayso f interacting thatarespecifictothelegaldomain. In law school, then, the traditional instructional methods do not describeorexplicate procedures(likewritingbriefs, engaginginlegal argumentation, orreading legal texts). Rathertheyemploy thesepro cedurespublicly.Akeypointhere,then,isthatinstruction"occursinside theprocedure;itisnotabouttheprocedure,itsrationale,itspowers,orits limitations"(p. 361). One o f the basic assumptions o f law school is thati f students are nottold overtly whatto do and howto proceed, this will spurthem onessentiallyto teachthemselves.Minnis arguesthat thisassumption doesnot,however,workequallywellforeveryone.Manystudentsfrom minorityorotherwisenonmainstreambackgroundsfailinlawschool. Minnisarguesthatthisis sobecausethese studentshavenot, intheir priorschoolingandsocial experience,beenexposedto andcoachedin thesorts o f competitiveacademic behaviorsand "othersurvival skills appropriateto thesituation encounteredin the lawschool classroom" (p. 362); Contemporarylegal education is designed for the good students, those who can understand what the professors mean but never explicitly say in the classes. Notsurprisingly, given thatmutual unspoken understanding between teachers and students requires commonpriorexperiences,mostgoodlaw studentsare traditional lawstudents.Theyare'studentswhoseeconomic,social,andeduca tionalbackgroundsaremuchlikethoseo f traditionallawprofessors. These students, thatis, are members o f middle and upperclass

D i s c o u r s e s a n d literacies 165

society, the dominant culture, the culture that shaped the law. Accordingly,theyareinclinedtoacceptwithoutquestionbeliefsthat are characteristic o f thatculture and thatgive themanadvantage inlawschool. Inshort, theirpersonalhistorieshavetaughtthemto confronttheworldaggressively;theyesteemreasoning overother "wayso f knowing,individualaccomplishmentovercollectiveaccom plishment,andcompetitionovercooperation. (380) Itshould bestressed, however, thatthe problemis notjustthatnon mainstreamstudent havenothadthe same sorts o f educationalprepa rationsasthosewhotakemore"naturally"tolawschoolinstruction.Law schoolis aset o f relatedsocialpractices thatconstitutea "Discourse," whichis,o f courseconnectedtothelargerDiscourseo f law. The social practices and positions o f the Discourse o f law school conflict,andconflictseriously, withthesocialpracticesandpositionsof theotherDiscoursestowhichmanyminoritiesandothernonmainstream studentsbelong.Theyconflictmuchlessornotatall^withthesocial practicesand positions o f the other Discourses to whichmany main streamstudentsbelong. Letus putthe mattersomewhat differently: The Discourse o f law schoolcreateskindso f eoplewho(overtlyortacitly)definethemselves p asdifferent fromoften"better" thanotherkindso f people.Formany minorityandothernonmainstreamstudents,theDiscourseo f lawschool makesthembebothkinds o f people. Theygetto definetheir kind(as law student) as different fromoften "better" thantheir own kind (as a membero f oneo f theirother Discourses). A paradox, indeed imfortunatelyonetheygettoliveandfeelintheirbodiesandtheirminds. Letusgiveaspecificexampleo f h owthesedifferencescanworkout inpractice. Thediscussion in lawschool classroomsis intenselylegal (Williams 1991). The professoris generallyindifferent "to economic, social, orothercontexts inwhich the eventsdescribed inthe judicial opinionsmightbeviewed"(359).Minnispointsoutthatseveralscholars (Gopen1984; White1984)see aclosesimilaritybetweencaseanalysisin the law classroom and the formalistic study o f poetry. In the formal analysiso f poetry,aswell,largesocial,political,andculturalcontextsare ignoredinfavoro f anintense focusonlanguage form,ambiguity, and possiblemeanings. Aswe haveseen inearlierchapters, andwill see againin thenext chapter,somepeople(insome o f heirsocialpractices,connected often t totheirhomeandcommunitybasedDiscourses)donotchoosetoisolate

166 Social Linguisticsa n d Literacies

languagefrom largerrealmso f xperience.Moregenerally, somefam e ilies andsocial groupshighlyvalue cooperation, notcompetition, and someo f thesewillnotengageauthorityfigures, likeparentsorteachers, includinglawschoolteachers,inadversarialdialogue.(Minnisdiscusses the case o f a Chicana law student in some detail, based on herown accoimt, pp. 382 ff.) Forsome, beinginducted into lawschool social practicesmeanslearningbehaviorsat oddswiththeirothersocialprac tices that are constitutive o f theirother social identities. People like usdon'tdothingslike that; we'renotthatkindo f erson.Andyetlaw p schoolsummonsustodo justthat,tobejustthatkindo f person. Theconflict, then,is notjustthatIamuncomfortableengaging ina newpracticemuchasa newphysicalactivitymayinvolveusingnew muscles.Rather,theconflictisbetweenwhoIamsummonedtobeinthis newDiscourse(lawschool)andwhoIaminotherDiscoursesthatovertly conflict withand sometimes have historically contested with^this Discourse. Since Discourses (e.g., law school student and Hispanic Americano f acertainsort)alwaysexistandmeaninjuxtapositiontoeach other,performancesinoneofl;en havemeaninginregardtoandreper cussionsforothers.Icanbeaskedinmindandbodyto"meanagainst" someo f m yothersocialidentities andtheirconcomitantvalues.Itisnot fornothingthattheancientRomansaskedthe ancientChristiansto spit onthecrossas asigno f theirloyalty. Minnisrecommendsthat,i f theywishtotreattheirnonmainstream students fairly, law schools ought to "make their assumptions, their values,theculture o f thelegal communityeverythingthatcomprises "thinkinglikea lawyer"concreteandaccessible"(385). WhileI cer tainlyagree withthisadvice, I wouldalso cautionthat makingthings concreteandaccessible^renderingovertthe"ruleso f hegame"isnot t aneducationalpanaceaandinvolvescomplexproblems. First, thiscaimotreally bedone inanyveryexhaustivemanner. All thatgoesinto thinking,acting, believing,valuing,dressing, interacting, reading, and writing like a lawyer cannot be put overtly in words. Whateverwecould say, howeverlong we tookto say it, wouldonly bethe fleeting tipo f aniceberg. Further,as overtknowledgeit would notground fluent behaviorsany morethanovert knowledgeo f dance steps can ground fluid dancing. Inthe absence o f thefull immersion thatmainstreamstudentsaregettinginthelawschoolclassroom,allthat wouldhappen with overt information wouldbe thatnonmainstream students would engage inrather stilted performances that"hypercor rected"what"real"lawyerslook, talk,andact like(Gee 1992; Perkins 1992,1995).

D i s c o u r s e s a n d literacies 167

Thisis certainlynottosaythatovertinformationcouldnothel^non mainstreamstudentsknowwheretofocusintherichstreamo f textsand interactionsthatcompose lawschool. Itis certainlynotto recommend "hiding" aspects o f language and interactionthat leadto success and whichwecandescribeandexplicate.However,wecertainlycannotcome closetodescribingandexplicatingevenasmallparto f the"game"inany realisticdetail.Thegame"works," inpart,preciselybecausethiscannot be done. Furthermore, no amount o f description and explication will removeornecessarilymitigateveryrealconflictsbetweenDiscourses. Thepractices o f aDiscourselike thoseo f lawschoolcontain in theirpublicinteractionalstructures the"mentalities"learners aremeant to "internalize."Immersionin suchpracticeslearninginside thepro cedures, ratherthanoverlyabout themensuresthatthe learnertakes onperspectives,adopts aworldview,accepts aset o f corevalues, and mastersanidentity oftenwithouta greatdeal o f criticalandreflective awarenessaboutthesematters,nor, indeed,abouttheDiscourseitself. Instatingtheseproblems,I amnotofferingacoimsel o f despair.My pointis, rather, thatliteracy and the NewLiteracyStudies are deeply politicalmatters. Wemusttakeovertvaluestances andengagein overt contest between Discourses, juxtaposing Discourses and using one tochange another.Ultimately,forall theveryrealchallengestheyface, biDiscoursalpeople(people whohaveorare masteringtwocontesting orconflicting Discourses) are the ultimate sources o f change, justas bilingualsveryoftenareinthehistoryo f anguage.Thenonmainstream l lawstudent whomanagesto pulloffrecognizableandacceptable law schoolDiscourse practices,butinfuses themwithaspectso f herother Discourses,isa sourceo f challengeandchange.So, too,aremoreovert challengesbythosewhohavegottenthemselves^by hookorcrook insidethedoor.So,too,are challengesfromotherDiscourses,even from peoplewhohavenevergotteninside. ItissometimesarguedthataDiscourseperspectiveis"deterministic," predestiningpeopleto successor failureinDiscourses likelaw school basedonconflictsorresonanceso f theirotherDiscourseswiththenew Discourse(Delpit 1995). Nothingcouldbefurther from thetruth. The historyo f iscoursesis ahistoryo f struggle,contestation, andchange. D Farfromalwayslosing,"nonmainstream"peopleoftenwin,andsome times,forbetterorworse,theybecomeanew"mainstream,"anewcenter o f ocialpower. s A Discourse perspective simply argues that historic sociocultural strugglesare enactedbyandonpeople'sbodiesandminds,often with muchpainandinjustice.Thesestruggles arealwaysbetween"kinds"of

168 Social Linguisticsa n d Literacies

people,butthese"kinds"are enactedbyspecificpeoplewiththeirspe cificandidiosyncraticbodies,minds,andfeelings.Thisbattleo f"kinds" acted out byspecific individuals (who are actually many"kinds" of peopleat once) causes some o f thedeepest perplexitiesin humanlife (McCall1995). Themoralo f aDiscourseperspectiveisjustthis:noone, butnoone,shouldfeellikea"loser"whent heyhavelosttheseDiscourse wars(e.g.,thenonmainstreamlawstudentsMinnisdiscusses),giventhe subtle,complex,andoftenarbitrarywaysinwhichDiscoursesconnected topower"stackthedecks"inthefavoro f ertain"kindso f p eople." c

Acquisitionand learning
Wecandistinguishtwobroadsortso f Discoursesinanysociety:The first sortiswhatIcalled"primaryDiscourses"above.ThesecondsortIcalled "secondaryDiscourses."PrimaryDiscourses arethoseto whichpeople areapprenticedearlyinlife duringtheirprimarysocializationasmem berso f particularfamilieswithin theirsociocultural settings. Primary Discoursesconstitute ourfirst social identity,and somethingo f abase withinwhichweacquireorresistlaterDiscourses.Theyformourinitial takenforgrantedunderstandingso f whoweareandwhopeople"likeus" are,as wellaswhatsorts o f thingswe("peoplelike us")do, value,and believewhenwearenot"inpublic."Lotscan happentothemaswego throughlife, and bythe time weare no longer children ourprimary Discoursehas transmutedinto ourlifeworld Discourse, ourculturally distinctivewayo f beingan"everyday"person,notaspecialisto f some sort. SecondaryDiscourses are thoseto whichpeopleare apprenticedas parto f theirsociaHzationswithinvariouslocal,state,andnationalgroups andinstitutions outside early homeand peergroupsocializationfor example, churches, gangs, schools, offices. They constitute the rec ognizabilityandmeaningfulnesso f our"public"(moreformal) acts. A particularwoman,forinstance,mightberecognizedasabusinesswoman, political activist, feminist, church member. National Organization of Womenofficial,PTAmember,andvolunteerPlannedParenthoodcoun selor,andmanymore,by arryingoutperformancesthatarerecognizable c withinandbytheseDiscourses. ThisdistinctionbetweenprimaryDiscoursesandsecondaryDiscourses is notmeanttobeairtightandunproblematic.Infact,Idraw thedistinc tionpreciselybecausetheboundarybetweenthetwosortso f Discourses is constantly negotiated and contested in society and history. Many social groups borrowaspects o f valuedsecondary Discourses into the

D i s c o u r s e s a n d literacies 169

socializationo f theirchildreninanattemptto advantagetheirchildren's acquisitiono f hesesecondaryDiscourses,whethertheybeschoolbased, t communitybased,orreligionbasedDiscourses, forinstance. Forexam ple,manymiddleclass homesuseschoolbasedlanguage andpractices withtheirsmallchildrenathomelongbeforetheygotoschool,as wesaw inChapter8above,toadvantagetheirchildrenforschool.ManyAfrican Americans incorporate churchbased language and practices into their earlyhomebasedinteractionswiththeirchildren,as,indeed,didmyown family. People also, later inlife, strategically useaspects o f theirprimary Discoursesorcommunitybasedsecondary Discoursesin"pullingo f f performancesinsomeo f heirothersecondaryDiscourses.Forexample, t consider the ways in which Jesse Jackson combined a distinctive AfricanAmericanchurchbasedsecondaryDiscoursewithamainstream politicalDiscourse.Suchamoveisrisky. I f peoplehadrejectedJackson as a national politician because they saw the AfricanAmerican bits (e.g., hisrhetorical devices)as "imacceptable" inmainstreampolitical Discourse ("being/doing a national politician"), then he would have failedtogetrecognizedassuch. Butthetimeandplacewas(eventually) right and lots o f peopleevenpolitical enemiesdid recognize him as anational politician.Since hisriskworked,heactually changedthe political Discourse, allowing newtypes o f performances to work. In turn, others followed him(to thepoint whereeven white Republican politicians use some o f the sameadmittedly attenuatedsorts of rhetoricaldevicesintheirspeeches).Thisis oneimportantwayinwhich Discourseschange^peoplemixthemandtheirmixturesgetrecognized andaccepted(but,o f course,notalwaysorevenusually). HowdopeoplecomebytheDiscoursestheyaremembersof?Hereit is necessary,beforeansweringthequestion, tomakean importantdis tinction, a distinction that does not exist in nontechnical parlance: adistinction betweenacquisitionandlearning(Krashen 1985a, b).This distinction is, like the one above between primary and secondary Discoiurses,notmeanttobetakenasairtightandimproblematic.Whatit reallyinvolves is a continuumwhose twopoles are"acquisition" and "learning," withmixed cases inbetween. (Fora muchmore nuanced anddetaileddiscussionaboutlearning,seeGee 2003,2004.) Wewilldistinguishacquisitionandlearningasfollows: Acquisitionis aprocess o f acquiringsomething (usually, subcon sciously) byexposureto models,a processo f trialand error, and practicewithinsocialgroups,withoutformalteaching.Ithappensin

170 Social Linguisticsa n d Literacies

naturalsettingswhicharemeaningfulandfunctionalinthesensethat acquirersknowthattheyneedtoacquirethethingtheyareexposed toinordertofunction andtheyin factwanttoso function.This is howpeoplecometocontroltheirfirstlanguage. Learningis aprocessthatinvolvesconscious knowledgegained throughteaching(though notnecessarily from someoneofficially designatedateacher)orthroughcertainlifeexperiencesthattrigger consciousreflection.Thisteachingorreflectioninvolvesexplanation andanalysis,thatis, breakingdownthethingto belearnedinto its analyticparts.Itinherentlyinvolvesattaining,along withthematter beingtaught,somedegreeo f metaknowledgeaboutthematter. (Pinker1989, 1994) Mucho f whatwecomebyinlife,afterourinitialenculturation,involves amixtureo f acquisitionandlearning.However,thebalancebetweenthe twocan bequite different in differentcases and differentat different stages inthedevelopmental process.Forinstance, manyo f usinitially learnedtodrivea carbyinstruction,butthereafteracquired, ratherthan learned,mosto f w hatweknow. Somecultures highlyvalueacquisitionandso tendsimplyto expose childrentoadults modelingsomeactivityandeventuallythechildpicks itup,picksitupasagestalt,ratherthanasaserieso f analyticbits(Heath 1983; Scollon and Scollon 1981; Street 1984). Other cultural groups highlyvalueteachingandthusbreakdownwhatis tobemasteredinto sequentialstepsandanalyticpartsandengage inexplicitexplanation. Thereis anupside andadownside tobothacquisitionandlearning thatcanbeexpressed asfollows: Wearebetteratperformingwhatwe acquire,butweconsciouslyknowmoreaboutwhatwehavelearned.For mosto f us,playinga musicalinstrument,ordancing, orusingasecond language, are skills weattained bysome mixture o f acquisition and learning. Butitis asafe betthat,overthesame amoxmto f time,people are betterat (performing) these activities i f acquisition predominated duringthattime. What is undoubtedly true o f first language development (Pinker 1994) and has beenargued, controversially, to be true inthe case of second language development (Krashen 1985a, b) is, I wouldargue, true o f Discourses: Discourses are mastered throughacquisition, not learning.Thatis. Discoursesarenotmasteredbyovertinstruction, but byenculturation("apprenticeship") into social practicesthroughscaf foldedandsupportedinteractionwithpeoplewhohavealreadymastered the Discourse (Newman etal. 1989; Rogoff1990, 2003; Tharp and

D i s c o u r s e s a n d literacies

Gallimore1988). Thisishowweallacqukedournativelanguageandour primaryDiscourses.Itis howweacquireall later,morepublicoriented Discourses.I f youhavenoaccesstothesocialpractice,youdon'tgetin theDiscourse,youdon'thaveit. As a Discourse is being masteredby acquisition, then, o f course, learningcanbeusedtofacilitate"metaknowledge."Youcannotovertly teachanyoneaDiscourse, ina classroomoranywhereelse. Thisis not tosaythatacquisitioncan'tgoonin aclassroom,butonlythati f itdoes, this isn't because o f overt "teaching," but because o f a process of "apprenticeship"andsocialpractice. Acquisitionmust(atleast,partially)precedelearning;apprenticeship mustprecedeovert teaching. Classroomsthat do notproperlybalance acquisitionand learning, and realizewhich is which,simply privilege thosestudents whohavealreadybegvm theacquisitionprocessoutside theschool. Toolittle acquisitionleads totoolittle masteryinpractice; too little learning leads to too little analytic andreflective awareness andlimitsthecapacityfor certainsortso f criticalreading andrefection (though,o f course,onlycertainsorts o f learningleadbeyondmerecon sciousawarenessandreflectivenessto anactual"critical"capacity). ItisveryimportanttorealizethattheEnglishlanguageoftenleadsus toconfiise termsfor products/props/contentand termsfor Discourses. Thus,takeanacademicdisciplinelikelinguistics. Youcanovertlyteach someone(the contentknowledgeo f thedisciplineof) linguistics,which is a bodyo f facts and theories; however, while knowledge o f some significantparto f thesefactsandtheories isnecessaryto actuallybeing a linguist, you cannot overtly teach anyone to do "being a linguist" (remember"doingbeingarealIndian"above),whichis aDiscourse. A personcouldknowa greatdeal aboutlinguistics andstill notbe (acceptedas) alinguist. "Autodidacts"are preciselypeoplewho,while oftenextremelyknowledgeable,trainedthemselvesandthusweretrained outsideo f aprocesso f rouppracticeandsocialization.Theyarealmost g neveracceptedas"insiders,""memberso f heclub(profession,group)." t Our Western focus on individualism makes us constantly forget the importanceo f havingbeen"properlysocialized." Let us nowturn to the privisoin the definition o f learning above about"certainHfeexperiencesthattriggerconsciousreflection,"causing thesame effectsas overtteaching. Inourdefinition o f learningweare concernedwithwhat usuallyorprototypicallycoimts as "teaching" in ourculture. This involves breakingdown whatis to betaughtinto its analyticbitsandgettinglearners tolearn itinsucha waythattheycan "talkabout,""describe,""explain"it.Thatis,thelearnerismeanttohave

172 Social Linguisticsa n d Literacies

"metaknowledge" aboutwhat is learnedand to be able to engage in "metatalk"aboutit. Weoftenteacheventhingslike drivingthis way. Butnotallcultures engagein thissort o f teaching,andnotall o f t hem usetheconcept"teaching"inthis way,nor, indeed,do allinstances of whatis sometimes called"teaching" inour ownculture fit this char acterization(Heath1983; ScribnerandCole1981; ScollonandScollon 1981; Street1984). Inmany cultures wherethere is nosuch overt analytical teaching, somepeoplestillgainagooddealo f "metaknowledge"aboutwhatthey knowand do. This appears to comeabout bythatfact theyhave had certainexperiences whichhavecausedthemtothinkaboutaparticular Discourse ina reflective andcritical way(Goody 1977, 1986: 144). Whenwehavereallymasteredanything(e.g.,aDiscourse),wehavelittle or no conscious awareness o f it. (Indeed, like dancing, Discourses wouldn'tworki fpeoplewereconsciouslyawareo f whattheyweredoing whiledoingit.) However,when wecomeacross asituation wherewe areunable toaccommodate oradapt, webecomeconsciouslyaware of whatwearetryingtodoorarebeingcalledupontodo(Vygotsky1987: 167241). While such an experience can happento anyone, theyare commonamongpeoplewhoaresomewhat"marginal"toaDiscourseor culture,and, thus,suchpeopleoften haveinsightsinto theworkingsof theseDiscourses orculturesthat more"mainstream" membersdo not. Thisis, infact, theadvantagetobeing"sociallymaladapted"(aslongas themaladaptationis nottoodysfiinctionaland, tobesure, thisis notto saythatthereare notalsodisadvantages). And,o f course,peoplein our culturecanhavesuchexperiencesapartiomclassrooms(andoftenhave f theminclassrooms whenitis theclassroom, school, orteacherthatis causingthemaladaptation). RuthFirmegan (1967, 1988), instudies o f theLimba, a nonliterate group in Sierra Leone, pointsout thatthe Limbahave a greatdeal of metalinguisticandreflectivesophisticationintheirtalkaboutlanguage, sophisticationo f hesortthatwenormallythinkistheproducto f riting t w andformalschooling, botho f hichtheLimbado nothave.Finnegan w attributesthissophisticationtotheLimba'smultiplecontactswithspeak erso f otherlanguagesandwiththoselanguagesthemselves.Andherewe havea clue, then. Goodclassroom instruction (in composition, study skills, writing, critical thinking, contentbased literacy, or whatever) canandshould leadto metaknowledge,to seeinghowthe Discoxirses youhave alreadygot (notjustthe languages) relate to those youare attemptingtoacquire, andhowtheonesyouare tryingtoacquirerelate toselfa ndsociety.Buttodothis,theclassroommustjuxtapose ifferent d

D i s c o u r s e s a n d literacies 173

Discoursesforcomparisonandcontrast.Diversity, then,is notan"add on,"butacognitivenecessityi f ewishtodevelopmetaawarenessand w overtreflectiveinsightontheparto f learners.

Literacyand D i s c o u r s e s
Allhumans,barringseriousdisorder,becomememberso f oneDiscourse free, so to speaktheir primaryDiscourse. It is important to realize thatevenamongspeakers o f Englishtherearesocioculturallydifferent primaryDiscourses,andthattheseDiscourses uselanguagedifferently. Forexample, many lower socioeconomic AfricanAmericanchildren use English within their primary Discourse to make sense o f their experiencedifferentlythandomiddleclasschildren(seeLeona'sstories inthelastchapterandHeath1982,1983;Kochman1972,1981;Rickford and Rickford2000; Smitherman 1977). Andthisis notdue merelyto thefactthattheyhaveadifferentdialecto f nglish.Socalled"African E AmericanVernacularEnglish"is, onstructural grounds, onlytrivially different from standard Englishbythenorms o f linguists accustomed to dialect differences around the world (see Chapter 1 above and Baugh1983, 1999, 2000;Labov1972a). Rather,these childrenuselan guage, behavior, values, andbeliefs to give a differentshape totheir experience. Aperson'sprimaryDiscourseservesas a"framework"or"base"for theiracquisition and learningo f otherDiscourses laterin life. Italso shapes, inpart, theformthisacquisitionandlearning willtakeandthe finalresult. Furthermore,Discourses acquiredlaterinlifecaninfluence aperson'sprimaryDiscoiirse,havingvariouseffects onit, (re)shaping it in various ways. Adults can then pass on these reshaped primary Discoursestotheirchildren.ThesemutualinfluencesamongDiscourses underlietheprocesseso f istoricalchangeo f Discourses. h Quiteobviouslyina societyliketheUnitedStates, wherethereis so muchmobility,diffuseclassand(sub)culturalborders,classambiguity, andso manyattemptsto deny, change, orotherwisehide one'sinitial socializationi f itwasnot"mainstream"enough,therearemanycomplex itiesaround thenotiono f "primaryDiscourse" andmanyproblems in fracing its fate throughindividual lives. Indeed, theseproblems are a difficultynotjustf orscholarsstudyingthesematters:thelargeamountof anomie,alienation, andworryabout" s e l f and"identity"intheUnited States, andrelatedsocieties, hasitsrootsin theseveryproblems.I want toembed thenotion o f " literacy"within the framework o f D iscourses preciselybecauseI believethatissueslike these,far frominvalidating

Firstpublished1990 Thiseditionfirstpublished2008 byRoutledge 2 ParkSquare,MiltonPark, Abingdon,O x o n O X 14 4 R N Simultaneouslypublishedin t h e USAandCanada byRoutledge 270MadisonAve, N e w York,NY 10016 Reprinted2009
Routledgeisanimprinto f t h e TaylorandFrancisGroup, aninformabusiness

1990, 1996, 2008JamesPaulG e e TypesetIn TimesNewRomanandGillSans by Keystroke,28HighStreet,Tettenhall,Wolverhampton Printedandboundin G r e a t Britainby TJ InternationalLtd, Padstow/,Cornwrali All rightsreserved.N o parto f thisb o o k mayb e reprintedo r reproduced o r utilisedin anyformo r byanyelectronic,mechanical, o r o t h e r means, n o w knowno r hereafterinvented,includingphotocopyingandrecording, o r in anyinformationstorageo r retrievalsystem,withoutpermissionin writingfromt h e publishers.
British LibraryCataloguingin Publication Data

Acatalogue r e c o r df o r thisb o o k isavailablefromt h e BritishLibrary

Libraryo f CongressCatalogingin Publication Data

Acatalog r e c o r d hasbeenrequestedf o r thisb o o k ISBN10: 0 4 1 S 4 2 7 7 5 4 (hbk) ISBN10: 0 4 1 5 ^ 2 7 7 6 2 (pbk) ISBN10:0203944801 (ebk) ISBN13: 9 7 8 0 4 1 S 4 2 7 7 S 3 (hbk) ISBN13: 9 7 8 0 ^ 5427760(pbk) 1 ISBN13; 9 7 8 0 2 0 3 9 4 4 8 0 6 (ebk)