Mirabelli begins his article differently than, for example, McCarthy and Wardle do. What is different about it? What are the effects of his choices on the audience? What can you infer about his audience(s) and purpose(s) given the way he begins?

What is the “traditional” view of literacy, according to Mirabelli, and what is the view of literacy that New Literacy Studies takes? What are multiliteracies?

What seems to be Mirabelli’s research question and where does he state it? What kind of data did Mirabelli collect to analyze the diner discourse community? What seem to be his primary findings in answer to his research question?

Mirabelli spends a good deal of his analysis focusing on the genre of the menu, and in doing so, he also discusses the diner’s lexis and methods of intercommunication. All of these, as you should remember, are aspects of a discourse community as defined by Swales. Why does Mirabelli focus on the genre of the menu? Is this an effective focus for him as he attempts to answer the research question you identified above? Why or why not?

Mirabelli argues that literacy in the diner includes not only reading the menu but also reading the customers. Do you agree that reading customers is a form of literacy? Why or why not?

Do you now or have you ever participated in a discourse community that is strongly stereotyped in the ways that restaurant work is stereotyped (for example, a football team or a sorority)? What are the stereotypes? Using Mirabelli, consider the various “multiliteracies” of this discourse community.