1st Body Paragraph:

Gee and IMRaD are quite similar in the aspect in which they connect one another’s philosophies together. Gee breaks down discourse into two different branches. One primary and the other secondary. Primary is primitive. Gee likes to describe it has “the one we first use to make sense of the world..” (Gee LDL). It’s more of the primitive interactions that have built up within relationships such as family, friends, lover, the “intimates” (Gee LDL). Secondary discourse is discourses acquired later in life through schools, institutions community groups and etc. Gee is also big on how discourses are extremely similar to language. “Even less so than languages, and hardly anyone ever fluently acquired a second language sitting in a classroom..” (Gee LDLI). That is why she is so distinct in dominant and nondominant factors due to the similarities. IMRaD concepts are what make Gee’s work compact.IMRaDdiscovers that there are multiple factors including personality, relationships, political status..etc, to describe the different factors that contribute to entering a discourse. 

2nd Body Paragraph:

Connecting some of Gee’s elements about Discourse in relation to some more specific material in Hass’ article about more concrete factors that allow one to enter into a Discourse. When Gee wrote, “While you can teach someone linguistics, a body of knowledge, you can’t teach them to be a linguist.”, this statement relates to similar fields such as being a sociologist, a veterinarian, biologist etc…That is true because it takes a certain kind of mind for each of those fields. It’s in the genetics and it’s about what you value in life. Those are inherently part of you, it’s just something becomes you. For example, Gee stated that “a discourse is a sort of identity kit” (Gee LDLI), just like linguistics, it becomes an identity. How you speak, how you represent yourself more holistically begins to matter more and more.