The Doing and Not Just Saying Tool

Language in Action: A Guide to James Paul Gee’s “Doing and Not Just Saying” Tool

When we analyze a text or a conversation, our first instinct is usually to look at the informational content. We ask, “What is the speaker trying to tell me?” While understanding the transfer of information is necessary, it is only the surface layer of communication. In his comprehensive framework for discourse analysis, James Paul Gee introduces the “Doing and Not Just Saying” tool, shifting our focus from language as a vessel for data to language as an instrument of action.

This tool builds upon the foundational insight that whenever we use language, we are simultaneously communicating information and executing social actions. By interrogating what a piece of text is actively doing in the world—how it builds relationships, asserts power, or constructs identity—we can uncover the deeper social realities that the language operates within.

What is the “Doing and Not Just Saying” Tool?

The “Doing and Not Just Saying” tool demands that analysts ask a fundamental question of any text or utterance: What is the speaker or writer trying to do, socially and relationally, by saying this in this specific way?

Linguists and philosophers, notably J.L. Austin in his speech act theory, established that certain sentences do not just describe reality; they alter it. When a judge says, “I sentence you to five years,” or a person says, “I promise to be there,” the words themselves are the action. Gee expands this concept beyond explicit performative verbs, arguing that all language is performative.

Language is the primary tool we use to enact social practices. When we speak or write, we are constantly “doing” things: we are building solidarity, asserting dominance, displaying deference, establishing ourselves as insiders, marginalizing others, offering comfort, or evading responsibility.

If a colleague says, “I see you used the older methodology in your report,” they are saying that the methodology is not current. However, what they are doing might be undermining your expertise in front of a committee, positioning themselves as more up-to-date, or challenging your authority. The “Doing and Not Just Saying” tool trains us to look past the informational payload to the social maneuver being executed.

Common Misconceptions

Because we are heavily conditioned to view language primarily as an exchange of facts, applying this tool often runs into a few conceptual roadblocks.

Misconception 1: “Doing” only applies to obvious commands or formal declarations.
It is easy to see the “doing” in a statement like, “Shut the door!” or “I resign.” The misconception is that declarative, informational sentences are neutral and merely “saying” things. In reality, even the driest recitation of facts is executing a social action. A textbook listing historical dates is not just conveying information; it is doing the work of establishing absolute authority, positioning the reader as a novice, and legitimizing a specific cultural narrative over others.

Misconception 2: The informational content (“saying”) is always the primary goal.
We often assume that people speak primarily to transfer data, and any relational maneuvering is a secondary byproduct. The “Doing and Not Just Saying” tool reveals that the reverse is frequently true. In many social interactions, the factual information is merely the vehicle for the social action. Small talk about the weather carries almost zero novel information, but it does the heavy lifting of building interpersonal rapport and acknowledging shared presence.

Misconception 3: Speakers consciously plan the social actions their words perform.
Analysts sometimes mistakenly assume a Machiavellian intent behind every grammatical choice, believing that if a speaker’s words functioned to marginalize a group, the speaker must have consciously plotted to do so. Much of what we “do” with language is unconscious, driven by our socialization into specific Discourse communities. We enact power dynamics and social identities habitually, using the linguistic templates our culture has provided us. The tool analyzes the function of the language, regardless of the speaker’s conscious intent.

Applying the Tool: A Practical Example

To see the “Doing and Not Just Saying” tool in practice, let us examine a genre of text that is ubiquitous in education and administration: the course syllabus.

Imagine analyzing two different instructors’ policies on classroom participation.

Text A:

“Students are required to speak at least once per class session. Failure to participate will result in a deduction from the final grade. The instructor reserves the right to call on students randomly to ensure compliance.”

Text B:

“Our classroom is a collaborative environment, and your unique perspective is vital to our shared learning. I invite you to share your thoughts regularly. If you ever feel hesitant to speak in a large group, please come chat with me so we can find alternative ways for your voice to be heard.”

If we look only at what is being said, both texts convey the same basic information: class participation is expected, and it matters for the course. However, using the “Doing and Not Just Saying” tool, we analyze the vastly different social actions these texts execute.

Analyzing Text A:

• What it is saying: You must talk, or you will lose points. I might call on you.

• What it is doing: This text is doing the work of asserting unilateral authority. By using legalistic, punitive language (“required,” “failure,” “deduction,” “compliance”), the instructor is building an adversarial relationship. It positions the student as inherently resistant or untrustworthy, needing to be forced into engagement. The text enacts a policing identity for the teacher and a subordinate identity for the student.

Analyzing Text B:

• What it is saying: I want you to talk. If you are shy, let me know, and we will figure it out.

• What it is doing: This text is doing the work of community building and mentoring. By using inclusive pronouns (“Our,” “we”) and welcoming verbs (“invite,” “share”), the instructor is building a cooperative relationship. It positions the student as a valued contributor with valid emotional states (“hesitant”). The text enacts an identity of a facilitator or guide for the teacher, rather than a police officer.

By focusing on the “doing,” the analyst reveals that these are not simply two ways of stating a rule. They are two distinct social realities being constructed through text. Text A builds a panopticon; Text B builds a community.

Conclusion

James Paul Gee’s “Doing and Not Just Saying” tool fundamentally alters the way we consume and analyze texts. It cures us of the illusion that language is a neutral conduit for facts. For educators, researchers, and anyone navigating complex social institutions, this tool provides a lens to see the active construction of power, identity, and relationships in real-time. By continuously asking what a text is actively accomplishing in the social world, we move beyond passive reading and become critical observers of the social actions that shape our reality.