Readings Oct. 24

Gee, J.P. (2011). How to do discourse analysis: A toolkit. New York: Routledge. 

*********************** 

     As I read the introduction to this book, I couldn't understand why Trena didn't like Gee's work. Then, I read Unit 1 and 2. The organization is choppy, the content takes a cognitive stance, and the work's focus is grammar. I am not a fan of reading about grammar. My eyes started rolling back in my head. I was making mad and angry faces at the pages. I included mean-spirited expletive notes in the margins. I am not a Gee fan.

     However, to follow the rules, here is a summary and a synthesis of the reading. Gee outlines 12 of 27 tools for discourse analysis. I can imagine when I am in the midst of data analysis, perusing these 27 tools to help me look at my data with a fresh lens. However, the tools are repetitive (p. 55, Gee admits that "the why this way and not that way tool" is "not really separate from the Fill in Tool or the Doing Not Saying Tool") and several are based on grammatical structures (stanzas, subjects, and topics and themes.) I believe that I would use The Making Strange Tool. This goes back to critical discourse analysis and taken for granted discourse. I can see the benefit of examining assumptions and what was not in the talk. Also, the Deixis and Intonation Tools seem useful, and I've seen this is some of our other readings. 

     Part of DA research is that as a constructor of discourse, I am an expert on understanding the action of talk and text. Gee mentions this as well on p. 13 that the task of analyzing discourse is similar to the task of being engaged in discourse. I do not feel like I am an expert at grammar (in the sense that Gee is) and cannot imagine myself delving into participants use of clauses, stanzas, subjects, and predicates. (Although, I can see how some people might do just that.)

     Here's hoping that Units 3 and 4 are more big picture like Gee describes, because I don't think the margins of my book can take any more profanity.