Gee and I Go Way Back...

When I stop to think about what I'm doing with my life--literacy, (socio)linguistics, Deafness,  research, I'm always amazed.  I never really imagined any of these things for my life.  When I was 18, I thought I'd never sign again and certainly wasn't interested in education.  But slowly my curiosities lead me in this direction, I found these things I'm passionate about, and now I can't really imagine doing anything else with my life.  Along the journey there have been these moments that have guided me along this path.  And once upon a time, Gee was part of one of those moments.  I was teaching middle school language arts to deaf students in Florida and started taking courses in Literacy at UNF in my desperation to figure out how exactly I was supposed to teach my deaf students to read and write.  I felt like there was more to understand about the connections between language and literacy.  I was searching for something that could help me understand and articulate the ideas I had when I read some article by Delpit that cited Gee's theories on Discourses.  It piqued my interest immediately because it seemed to be describing my thoughts on Deafness, language, and literacy.  So I went hunting and started to check out JPG's work.  And, well...I quickly developed a bit of a research crush on Gee.  His work gave me a new and fitting way to approach my work in the classroom.  As I read more and more of his work, I realized that Gee and I don't see eye to eye on everything and that he annoys me very much when he tries to be a know-it-all in literacy when his work is based on theory and not practice, but his work really helped to point me to sociolinguistics, in general...and for that I have to thank him.

I've read much of his work including his Introduction to Discourse Analysis several years ago, so I had a pretty good idea of what I'd find in this book and figured I'd find it helpful.  It was a pretty easy read.  (Well, intellectually not physically...that print is tiny! But, anyway...)

I liked the way the book is set up because it helps me think about (27!) different ways to look at the same data.  Plus, he throws in the grammar interludes, and I spend my days look at looking at written language with Systemic Functional Grammar Analysis and Structural Analysis of Written Language...so it helps to find a bridge and not feel forced to think of DA and SFGA/SAWL as entirely contradictory.  Of course, in my current analysis the grammar isn't all that helpful since most of it isn't relevant to a signed language that has its own (very different) grammar.  But as I venture farther into SFG/L land it's good to know.  There were a few tools that stood out to me that I think are important for me to think about when using DA to examine deaf education classroom talk.

Disclaimer--As I read about the tools I was wrestling with how they might apply to and be useful for discourse analysis of ASL.  In many cases, the examples Gee uses don't work the same way in a signed language.  Below you will find my meandering thoughts about the intersection of various tools and ASL.  Many of these ramblings may carry little meaning, or be confusing/inaccessible to a person who is not familiar with the linguistics of ASL.  You have been forewarned.  Carry on...

LANGUAGE & CONTEXT

Diexis.  What signs might act as diectics in ASL?  There are no articles.  And pronominalization is done mostly through the use of indexing and pointing.  This makes me think about how classifiers must first be defined.  But I also wonder if the fact that context is typically given up front in ASL or how conceptually accurate signs make what would be implied (in some languages) explicit changes how diectics work or appear.  But then I can think of examples of multiple meaning signs where context could potentially act in the way he describes.  In any case...this is a tool that might be very helpful in examining how a shared understanding is co-constructed through dialogue in the classroom.
Intonation. Intonation clearly doesn't exist in ASL in the typically understood use of the term, BUT nonmanual markers (NMM) could function in the same way(s).  NMMs consist of head nods, raised or furrowed brows, head tilts, non-voiced and voiced mouth morphemes, eye shifts, eye gazes, facial expressions, and body shifts/movements.  I think there is potential for any one of these NMMs to act as intonation.  But I think mouth morphemes and some facial expressions would be of particular interest.   I'm not sure this is something I can do for this project since my video quality (in Atlas especially) doesn't allow for me to examine this closely...but it could be helpful in the future...  Some sign characteristics such speed or duration could also function as "intonation." This is something I could likely note in my video.

SAYING, DOING, & DESIGNING

Doing and Not Just Saying.  I think this is very helpful in classroom talk analysis.  Particularly when looking at what the teacher's language-in-use is doing.  Often a teacher asks a question that is really a command, that will become evident in the students' response.  (Next turn proof.)  This is definitely something I want to pay attention to.
Stanzas.  When ASL is written in English gloss is doesn't include some of the shifts in tone or idea.  It seems really choppy and can be hard to read/analyze, especially for a person unfamiliar with the nuances of signed language.  In analysis of spoken/written language stanzas may be used to help separate ideas...in ASL it would do the same...but it would also help to strengthen the connections between phrases and turns that may seem absent when ASL is written.  It could provide structure to something that might on the surface seem disjointed.

BUILDING THINGS IN THE WORLD

Context is Reflexive.  I like this tool, because it's recognizes my perspective on context.  I think it is important because it shapes dialogue, but I also think dialogue shapes context.  The other authors and methodologies that we have read seem to want to take one stance more than the other, but I think it's important to recognize both.  I think there are specific moves that teachers make when using SIWI that create a classroom context that is different from other classroom contexts...but I'm not sure exactly what those moves are.  This tool could help me recognize those.  

Identities.  When looking at classroom interactions with deaf students, I am particularly interested in noticing how the identities they are constructing are related to their deafness and/or preferred mode(s) of communication.  How do they use language to position themselves as part of Deaf and/or hearing culture?  How do they use language to define or relate to their "hearing impairment."
(Really Long Sidenote:  Do you know how many times since this semester has started I have caught myself identifying as visually impaired?  I really wouldn't have thought that it was a large part of my identity.  In those activities where you make those drawings of yourself or come up with nouns or adjectives to describe yourself...I've never include anything related to my vision...I didn't really think it was an important "part of me."  But now that this class has made me overanalyze language interactions including my own, I keep catching myself identifying as visually impaired.   Starting phrases with "I'm blind..." (e.g. I'm blind, I have no idea what that says.) Or referring to myself as "the blind girl" (e.g. Blind girl hates SPSS.)  I suppose it's possible that I've always (unknowingly) identified as visually impaired.  Or it's possible that surgery #10 and the prognosis that followed a year ago have made me finally accept that it's part of my identity.  But I think that really it's become more relevant now because the tasks I'm faced with in my life as a research associate and student make it suck so much harder to ignore.  It enters into my conversation because the contexts I am in have made it relevant.  So then context not only shapes our language but also our identities by determining what is or isn't relevant.  See this is why I can't ignore context.  It's too important to me.)  

Politics and Sign Systems.  In deaf education I often think about the languages, ideas, practices, and cultures are privileged.  I think this is particularly relevant during when SIWI is used because in this instructional approach both ASL and English are supposed to be privileged modes of communication.  Having the opportunity to not only use, but also explicitly talk about both of these languages, allows for a lot of discussion that constructs the values of the group participants.  This is particularly relevant when a hearing teacher is the one who holds the power to give turns and control the conversation in other ways.  Is English valued over ASL?  Or vice versa?  Who decides?  How do we know?  

THEORETICAL

Social Languages.  There are a lot of things that can be enacted in social languages.  I think the features of the language used in SIWI create a language specific to the context.  How does this language act to allow the participants to communicate in ways that they couldn't without this language? What features make it unique?  

Discourses.  This tool sort of combines all of the tools I've already discussed.  It is useful for me because I am interested in examining the intersection of language, culture, and identity and in examining language (and all the things that come with it) as action that helps to construct both culture and identity.