Language is a Social Practice

1
Language is a Social Practice

• 11307501
• EED112
• Assignment 2 Essay

2
Introduction..

• we learn to do literacy as we learn how to
  behave and belong in our families and communities

• Being an active part of a family and its
  community, is where the birth and formation of
  ones language begins. Language is a social
  practice.

3
Introducing topics in intro

• The unavoidable involvement in belonging to
  discourse communities,
• How socio-cultural factors shape the development
  of ones language.
• Schooling is a tool to assist one in their
  ability to be an insider in different discourse
  communities.

4
Discourse Community..
Defining Discourse-

• Ones discourse in the words of Gee (1991), it is
  an identity kit.
• Discourse communities are made up of groups of
  people who share the same interest, values and
  beliefs.

5
Discourse Communities..
Primary and Secondary Discourse Communities-

• Primary discourse communities may be immediate
  family, where one is born into the discourse.
• Secondary discourse communities are clubs,
  school, church, friendship circles and digital
  (internet) groups.
• These secondary discourses build and extend on
  primary discourses.

6
Socio cultural Theory..

• The Socio cultural theory demonstrates that ones
  discourse varies according to the different
  orientations or background of the groups within
  cultures.

7
Socio cultural Theory..
Theorist-

• Vygotsky argues that a childs development cannot
  be understood by the study of the individual.
  believes we must examine the external social
  world in which that individual life has
  developed.
• Adamson and Chance (1998) argue that Caregivers
  cultural knowledge is a guide to the infant. They
  teach through the zone of proximal development
  process, using scaffolding.

8
Schooling..

• It is a teachers job to assist students to
  become insiders in the discourse communities.
• They may build on the students existing knowledge
  of their community and world environments through
  introducing them to new discourse communities.

9
Conclusion..

• As language is a social practice, the
  relationship of the theories of discourse
  communities, and the relation to socio culture
  awareness is important in schooling. Even though
  the students may not need to know to in depth
  about it, it is important for the teacher to
  consider the ways in how to incorporate this into
  the learning. After all, it is their business to
  assist their students to become insiders, for
  their own benefit. Students come to school with
  knowledge and language they have built and
  carried from their primary discourse community.
  As they come to this secondary discourse,
  teachers will teach, model and build on their
  existing knowledge. Overall, language is a
  social practice, an unavoidable factor in our
  everyday lives.

10
References..

• Adamson, L.B. Chance, S. E. (1989). Coordinating
  attention to people, objects, and language. In A.
  M. Weatherby, S.F Warren, J. Reichle (Eds.),
  Transitions in prelinguistic communication.
  Baltimore, MD Paul H. Brookes. Pp.15-38.
• Breen, M, Louden, W, Barratt-Pugh, C, Rivalland,
  J, Rohl, M, Rhydwen M, Lloyd, S Carr, T 1994,
  Literacy in Its Place Literacy Practices in
  Urban and Rural Communities, electronic version,
  Clearinghouse for National Literacy and Numeracy
  Research, Griffith University, Qld, viewed 19th
  November 2003, http//www.gu.edu.au/school/cls/cle
  aringhouse/1994_place/content01.html.
• Droga, L Humphries, S 2003, Grammar and
  meaning An introduction for primary teachers.
  Target Texts, Berry, NSW.
• Gee, J. P. 1985. Units in the production of
  discourse, Discourse Processes, 9, Pp.391-422.
• Gee, J. P. 1990. Discourse and Literacy two
  theorems, Social linguistics and literacies
  Ideology in discourses, The Falmer Press,
  Hampshire. Pp137-163.

11
More References..

• Hammond, J (ed) 2001, Scaffolding teaching and
  learning in language and literacy education.
  Primary English Teaching Association, Sydney.
• Johns, A. M. 1997. Text, Role and Context
  Developing Academic Litaracies, Cambridge
  Cambridge University Press.
• Knobel, M 1999, Everyday literacies Students,
  discourse and social practice. Peter Lang, New
  York. Pp.208-217.
• Kublin, K. S. Wetherby, A. M. Crais, E. R.
  Prizant, B.M (1989). Prelinguistic dynamic
  assessment A transactional perspective. In A.M.
  Wetherby, S. F. Warren, J. Reichle (Eds.),
  Transitions in prelinguistic communication.
  Baltimore, MD Paul H. Brookes. Pp.285-312.
• Love, K, Pigdon, K Baker, G, with Hamston, J,
  2002, BUILT building understandings in
  literacy and teaching. 2nd edn. CD-ROM.
  University of Melbourne, Melbourne.
• Porter, J. E. 1986. Intertexuality and the
  discourse community. Rhetoric Review 5/134-47.
• Reid, J with Green, B English, R 2002,
  Managing small-group learning. Primary English
  Teaching Association, Sydney.

12
More References..

• Swales, J. M. 1990. Genre Analysis English in
  Academic and Research Settings. Cambridge
  Cambridge University Press.
• Swales, J. M. 1990. Genre Analysis English in
  Academic and Research Settings. Cambridge
  Cambridge University Press.
• Swales, J. M. 1998. Other Floors, Other Voices
  A Textography of a Small University Building.
  Mahwah, NJ Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.
• Trupe, A. L. 2001. Effective Writing Text
  Discourse Communities. Online posted August
  29,2001 .url http//www.bridgewater.edu/atrupe/E
  NG101/Text/discom.htm accessed 29th March 2004
• Vygotsky, L. 1986. Thought and language.
  Cambridge, MA The MIT Press.