While being apart of the dominant secondary discourse of dentistry there are ways of transferring.It is possible for someone to transfer the ideas, or values learned to a different part of the discourse. In dentistry there are subunits within the discourse. This sub units use the same language to make connections between specific practices within dentistry. Understanding the language in a discourse is important because it shows ways of fluency, which is important for identity. This identity is commonly shown by a DMD, that is required for everyone that is in the dentistry discourse. Although not everyone has to participate in the same practices in order to be fluent in a discourse. As talked about there are many sub units in dentistry that require different techniques. These techniques are offered by specialties that all require that identity of a DMD, but can have a certification in ; orthodontics ;maxillofacial surgery; pediatrics ;etc. The connections between these subunits and the overall discourse are shown through a common language. Having a accredited DMD, shows that you are a part of a dominant secondary discourse, but having a speciality certifications allows you to practice in different aspects of the discourse. However, being a dentist, orthodontist, or any other personal that holds a DMD will have an honorable name in their community, which can be a way of prestige. This prestige shows that they are specifically a part of dominant secondary discourse according to the scholar Gee.time on task: 25 mins
Does my analysis of this particular Discourse have components that do not quite fit into a straightforward application of Gee’s ideas? What are they? (If so, perhaps you have something important to ADD to – or even CHALLENGE Gee’s sense of – the ways that Discourses work.)
The idea of connections, doesn’t automatically come to my mind when I think about the discourse of dentistry. Although the idea of transferring did, which made me think of the building task connections. I really think that the building task connections will add to Gees ideas of transferring within the discourse. I think this is important because if it wasn’t for the connections between the different levels within one discourse, not every patient would be taken care of properly. I think this being one of my main claims, would benefit my paper.
Are there reasons to consider the ways your Discourse works very similarly to other, perhaps related Discourses? Maybe your Discourse is a subset of a broader set of Discourses. (If so, perhaps your analysis may be able to tell us about this broader set of Discourses.)
It depends if I do being a dentist as a separate discourse as an orthodontist or any other dental specialty then get they do work very similar because they work together through the connections they have in the separate discourse. I do think that my discourse can be the broad term of dentistry then talk about how their are sub parts of this discourse that are still within the same discourse by the building task of connections and knowledge. Although the ways of practicing and doing aren’t totally the same because one might be better in one part of the discourse than one other. Also not everyone within the same discourse have to have the same ideas are another in the discourse.
Our Discourse analyses are all limited by the source material from which we’ve drawn. Hopefully, you’ve chosen really good artifacts that help you reveal some key features of the Discourse. But there are probably some important LIMITATIONS that you can see. What are they? These are possibly areas for further inquiry should one pursue the project further.
I think I need to find some better artifacts to explain the connections between the sub parts of the discourse. I think some of my artifacts need to be changed to better my explanation between the connections with the other building task. Also how they differ, but are still a part of the same general discourse of dentistry. Time on Task 30 mins
Point 1: In the first body paragraph my main claim is showing the discourse I will be discussing is a dominant secondary discourse.
Point 2: I currently talk about identifies and relationships, but I want to change that to changing it to the ideas of connections throughout a discourse. Also mention Gees Ideas of transferring.
Point 3: I would then change just discourse the filtering to instead talking about the similar ways of identities within the subunit and the overall discourse.
Point 4: I would then like to discuss how that even though they practice different they overall use the connections to bring the best care to each patient, by referring them to to someone with better knowledge in that specific part of a discourse.
time on task: 20 mins
collreadwrit2e
overall time on task 1hr and 15 mins ishhh
