Contrarian Instincts # 4: GEE, Discourse Analysis: What Makes it Critical?

Rogers, R. (2011). An Introduction to Critical Discourse Analysis in Education, 2nd edition. New York: Taylor and Francis.

Chapter 2 – James Paul Gee, Discourse Analysis: What Makes it Critical?

Utterance-type meaning = range of possible meanings associated with an utterance. (e.g. “cat” has to do with felines).

Utterance-token meaning = the situated meaning of an utterance (in an actual context of use).

While I understand this distinction, and it makes a lot of sense on a superficial level, I think that there cannot be a single utterance-token meaning. There may be many situated meanings, connected, for example to a specific object. Let’s imagine that a family has a “live” cat and a big ceramic cat. They are moving to another city, there are boxes everywhere. The door is open. The wife asks her husband: “Where is the cat?” Her husband answers: “Outside”. Which cat are they talking about?

On the other side, I don’t think there can be a defined utterance-type meaning. This range varies, depending on the knowledge of the speaker and of the listener. And even if we consider “all the possible meanings” of an utterance, one could still add one to the range. Therefore, in my opinion, if a range is unlimited, it’s no longer a range. For example, if you and I agree that “cat” means “a black table on wheels”, that’s a situated meaning (utterance-token meaning), but it also breaks into the utterance-type meaning range, expanding it. One could even invent a new word and attribute a new meaning to it.

I also think that Gee “plays” with the structure of the sentence. If we consider a subject, it’s a subject, it’s not a “center of interest” or a “center of empathy”. He is applying meaning, which is not derived by a discursive analysis, but by an a-priori assumption. It looks like he is projecting the “meaning” of the sentence on a single word (the subject). He is “moving parts” between two different layers of analysis.

Therefore, one may say that every utterance is situated (in a specific context, situation, or culture), and there is no such thing as an “utterance-type meaning”.

Critical Discourse Analysis

“Critical approaches […] go further and treat social practices, not just in terms of social relationships, but also in terms of their implications for things like status, solidarity, the distribution of social goods, and power.” (p. 28)

“Language-in-use is a tool, not just for saying and doing things, but also, used alongside other non verbal tools, to build things in the world.” (p. 30)

Seven Building Tasks of Language = Seven Tools for Discourse Analysis

“Whenever we speak or write, we always and simultaneously build one of seven things or seven areas of “reality”. We often build more than one of these simultaneously through the same words and deeds. Let’s call these seven things the “seven building tasks” of language (Gee, 2011)”. (p. 31)

1. Significance = “Things are not trivial or important by themselves”
2. Activities (Practices) = encouraging, telling something about, etc.
3. Identities = taking on a certain identity or role.
4. Relationships = with people, groups, institutions.
5. Politics (distribution of social goods) = any situation where the distribution of social good is at stake
6. Connections = among elements in the discourse
7. Sign Systems and Knowledge = “We use language to build up or tear down various sign systems […] and ways of knowing the world.”

Theoretical Tools of Inquiry

Gee states:

“Our primary Discourse gives us our initial and often enduring sense of self and sets the foundations of our culturally specific vernacular language (our “everyday language”), the language in which we speak and act as “everyday” (nonspecialized) people.” (p. 38)

Is it possible? Is there really a neutral, nonsopecialized language? Aren’t we always building up a personal (experience) and situated (context) discourse? I think that we are never nonspecialized persons, even when we buy a bottle of milk.

In a shop we will talking “the shop language”, in a bar, “the bar language”, and so on. In my opinion, there is no such thing as an “everyday” language, or a “lifeworld Discourse”. I think that language is an organic entity, and assuming such a perspective, means not recognizing its ever-changing and adaptable nature.

Concluding his article, the author claims:

“Since Discourses and their interactions in time and space are inherently about the distribution of social goods […], discourse analysis is or should be inherently “critical” and even “political”.” (p. 43)

Inherently? Says who? …

I am a little bit perplexed about this abrupt and dogmatic ending of a very interesting and thought-provoking article.