Responding to Gee and Delpit

Quickwrite #1



According to Gee, primary discourse is the discourse an individual first uses to make sense of the world. This can be from your parents or a language that was spoken in your household. Secondary discourse, on the other hand is all of the discourses spoken out side of the family setting. These are the languages primarily spoken in society or social institutions (such as school). Gee's argument is that once you are a part of a discourse, there is no way that an outsider to that discourse can fit into it. For example, if a student speaking language A as their primary discourse is tossed into a society speaking language B (secondary discourse), the student speaking language A would be considered an outsider to society's discourse. Further, the student speaking language A has no power or pull in the larger culture because they speak a non-dominant literacy in a world where dominant literacy and the people who are familiar with that dominant literacy have all of the power and control (specifically over those who are a part of non-dominant literacy). As far as teaching goes, this is relevant because a lot of students will be speaking a non-dominant language and will be outsiders to the secondary discourse used in schools. This would mean a student who grew up in a Spanish-speaking household will be an outsider to an English speaking school. As teachers, we need to make sure we are finding ways to include "outsiders" and finding ways to help them understand.



Quickwrite #2



Delpit argues that students who have different home discourse than the dominant discourse can learn to "cheat" and can fit into the dominant discourse. Teachers can show their students how to cheat around the system, letting them keep their home discourse while learning the superficial features such as grammar, mechanics, and other conventions of the dominant discourse. When students participate in not-learning they are choosing to stick to their home discourse, keeping their own identity and discourse. When teachers participate in not-teaching they do not teach superficial features of middle class discourse, which, according to Delpit is not empowering for the students.

BLOG ENTRY:
Gee and Delpit are trying to say that they approach discourse and its accessibility in different ways. Both speakers (Delpit and Gee) seem to be reliable and credible sources. Gee is obviously a well-learned linguist while Delpit carries more experience as a teacher. If Gee and Delpit were having a formal face-to-face debate on discourse, Gee would argue that outsiders to a particular discourse are always outsiders while Delpit would say that people can learn to operate within a discourse, improving their status. Personally, I feel that Delpit has a more comprehensive grasp on the reality of discourse. I can see both sides to the argument on discourse, but I find myself identifying more with what Delpit is saying. Nothing can ever be just black or white. An outsider to a particular discourse does not always have to be considered an outsider. There is always room for learning and finding ways around discourse. I do agree with Gee and Delpit in that society's discourse (secondary or dominant discourse) holds the most power. Those who can find their way in society's discourse will have access to more privileges (and ultimately more power and status).
As English teachers, we should keep discourse in perspective and remember the power it can hold over students (especially those that speak a different home or primary discourse). We must remember to help guide students so that they can benefit the most from education and language. The questions here would be: How exactly can we do this? I would guess that through time and experience we will have more insight and wisdom on how to help students.
In regards to language and literacy, I would like to explore more about how students coming from a different home discourse learn secondary discourse. What strategies are there for teachers here?