The text attempts to convey how language is more than informing people. It states that language implies “being,” the identity one acquires by communicating with others, and “doing,” the engagement with certain activities. The arguments provided demonstrate the reality of these two aspects, although the author not always provides convincing examples to establish all the claims.
The author, attempting to show that language entails not only “saying,” but also “being” and “doing,” points to a game called Yu-Gi-Oh. He states that people cannot understand the game by reading the definition of its rules, and to really comprehend the practice one would need to play and watch it. However, the author might not be considering that the appropriate words could simply not have been used. The explanation about a certain trait of the game is quoted in the text to convey how words are not enough to make one understand how the game works, but an improved definition could be as effective as playing Yu-Gi-Oh. It is plausible to argue that a sophisticated text, capable of explaining all the steps within their contexts, could make the reader fully aware of the practice’s content, thus, denying the necessity of “doing” in this case. The fact that definitions from dictionaries would not help does not mean that language, in this case “saying,” could never be enough.
The text argues, nonetheless, that language’s meaning comes from practices. This is a different claim, and it is a more plausible one. It is reasonable to conclude that, although one could comprehend an activity by reading an appropriate description of it, language is always associated with an activity. The author claims that, without those activities, such as the game cited, the words describing them would be meaningless. However, this statement fails to recognize the role of fiction, as it describes events and activities that do not exist, but still have meaning. It would be more precise to state that language is always connected to any kind of activity, real or fictional. Hence, the author’s claim on language as “doing,” although reasonable to some extent, cannot explain every human activity, and it overestimates the role of “doing,” as in the case of suggesting that “saying” would not be enough to explain certain activities.
It is claimed that language is also “being.” When you are a student, people expect you to talk in certain ways. As in the games, the author suggests, every activity has rules, and, in order to be a good student, one needs to acquire this identity by following them. The arguments concerning the “being” aspect of language are sound: they demonstrate that “saying” is not the only goal of language. Language is used in those practices having social goods in mind. If one values being a good student and wants to be one, being a good student is a social good to this person. Thus, it is reasonable to assume that the person in this case is not using language just to inform her teachers. She is talking in a certain way to achieve another goal, that is, being a good student.
The author points that discourse analysis needs to be critical. It is not enough to describe language and its structure. Since language derives its meaning from social practices, as the author argues, it is important to approach the political elements of a text. This statement is supported by early evidence from the text, suggesting that meaning is always connected to certain activities. Thus, the point made by the text about language’s political relevancy is well supported by the evidence provided.
The text manages to establish some of its claims about language. The aspect of “being,” and the social goods related to it, is described in depth. Language as “doing,” although failing to respond to some objections, is shown in the relationship between language and practice. This relationship entails political elements, which imply the necessity of critical analysis.
Writing Studies Journey 