DeVitt Response

BEFORE YOU READ:

•     computer
•     cell phone
•     verbal
•     print (notes, books, worksheets)

SUMMARY:
In Devitt's part of the article she talks about jury instructions as a genre. She talks about how language and jargon effect the outcome of court cases. She talks about how a single word can mean one thing to the court and another thing to the jury. She talks about how the jury must break down and process the terms they are presented with properly and individually so that they can make the proper verdict.

SYNTHESIS: 3
I tied Devitt's article to Gee with the way they both talk about discourses, and how they need the participants to be fully involved. I also tied this to Porter who is the foundation for all of our readings on discourse. I also tied this to Swales with the ties to language and the "lexus" and jargon and how each community has their own language.

DIALECTICAL NOTEBOOK: 5

RESPONSE	QUOTES
Discourse communities are primary and secondary groups. If it is your primary group, it is very small, intimate, and almost impossible to leave or for outsiders to enter. This makes us see that outsiders typically do not understand as well as members.	Abstracted from real social situations, discourse communities may appear stable to advocates and critics assuming an imaginary consensus and a shared purpose that do not reflect real experience within communities. page 98
For people who are not as used to ethnography as another, things can be hard for them to find their footing and a place to start. By teaching students how to do it properly we can be assured that they will be able to use their findings properly.	The process of sifting through the massive quantities of information gathered and attempting to stake out some analytical claims can present a major hurdle, particularly for student ethnographers. page 98
When individuals bring outside and unrelated interests into the community it can cause tension for other members who are not interested in them.	But it is when genres encompass participants beyond a narrow community that the effects of those interests become most troublesome. page 99
This sparks the idea that we should not select random citizens to be jury members. Jury duty should be conformed into a career where schooling and some bases of legal education are needed. If we create this into a job, we will not have the problems faced by misunderstandings of jargon.	As a result, juries do not and cannot interpret the genre the way it's creators intended, as lawyers would, and cannot render verdicts that follow those instructions fully and accurately, thus resulting in significant consequences, particularly for defendants. page 100
This also highlights on the above quote. When outside members of the community are involved wires become crossed and mis-communications occur and we lose focus.	Part of the difficulty when specialized communities write to nonspecialists users lies in technical language, a difficulty commonly recognized and often addressed through defining key terms, but most of he difficulty comes from differences of interest and value that definitions cannot control. page 101

META MOMENT:

·         I think that you need both to properly be involved. You really can not do anything with out getting a second opinion or having a second source. Much like in doing research you need to be somewhat involved in the actual action you are researching for better understanding and to become a better sponsor for the subject. 

THOUGHTS:
I liked this article to an extent. I think that she makes a good point in stating that because of language and legal jargon can confuse common folk citizens that are selected for jury duty. If this is a problem, why do we not have a "jury career" with college courses and it is a part of the legal field. I think that this would make much of the "mistrials" and "wrongfully accused" cases disappear. I think if we treat it like any other type of job court cases would go a lot smoother.