Contrarian Instincts # 5: FAIRCLOUGH, Semiotics Aspects of Social Transformation and Learning

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

Chapter 6 – Norman Fairclough, Semiotics Aspects of Social Transformation and Learning

“Social structures are abstract entities. One can think of a social structure […] as defining a potential – a set of possibilities. […] Social practices can be thought of as ways to control the selection of certain structural possibilities and the exclusion of others.” (p. 120)

I must admit that I found this article confusing in many parts. For example, the author introduces a personal definition of language and affirms that it “defines a certain potential, certain possibilities, and excludes others”. Then, he brings an example: “the book is possible as a phrase in English, book the is not.” Well, didn’t he just use it? What is his definition of “possibility”? Is it semantic? Semiotic? Syntactic?

Fairclough’s point of view seems to underestimate the influence of social elements. The movement “from abstract structures toward concrete events” appears itself as an imposition of an ontological hierarchy.

I don’t agree with the author, when he asserts that language “becomes increasingly overdetermined”. In my opinion, this is the very nature of language, almost its “essence”, and it cannot be “overdetermined”. Language is constructed, deconstructed and reconstructed in what I would call “the alleys of the concrete”.

His definition of “orders of discourse” (p. 120) seems very arbitrary too, as well as his definitions of style and ideology.

As opposed to his “mild” approach to the role of texts in the construction of the social world (social constructivism), I think that, in turn, the social world plays a fundamental role in the construction of texts. Furthermore (just to play his world-game), his construction of the argument against the social world as textually constructed appears like an abstract construal.

The rest of the article is based on these arbitrary assumptions, and the inordinate use of abstract terms and categories marked by strong personal overtones, makes the text cryptically abstruse.

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.

Contrarian Instincts # 3: TEN HAVE, Doing Conversation Analysis

(Book: Ten Have, P. (2007). Doing conversation analysis: A practical guide. (2nd edition). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage Publications) [Chapters 1-4]

Oh, thank you Paul for throwing at us a Jeffersonian transcription on page four.

And thank you for adding insult to injury with the related note (p. 13):

“On the art of transcribing conversations, see Chapter 5; for transcription conventions, see Appendix A. If you are not familiar with these, studying excerpts together with Appendix A might be a good way to learn to read transcripts.”

By the way, we are always impressed by an author quoting himself twenty times in a book.

And last, but not least, we are very grateful for the whole book, which, as you say, is a "manifestation" of CA's diffusion around the world. (p. 7)

Isn't it all amazing?

Contrarian Instincts # 2: MERCER, Words and Minds... (Chapters 5-7)

Book: Mercer, N. (2000). Words and Minds: How We Use Language to Think Together. Routledge. [Chapters 5-7]


Here we go again... I finished reading the book and I think that it has a lot of great content and references to different fields of study, but I feel like this effort has been obscured by the advocated existence of an alleged "collective thinking". Of course, this is my personal point of view and interpretation. Probably I am lacking some underlying concepts and theories, but from what I found in the book, I feel like I cannot agree with its main thesis, and I still have the sensation of the author continuously trying to support his idea with exemples that are exceptions and with paradigms that are related to his "interthinking theory" by mostly unjustified and disconnected "therefore's".

"The development of print, and subsequently of telecommunications, [...] made it possible for people to link their thoughts together." (p. 104)


This is true, but we may also reflect on the fact that it actually divided thought in separate "items", like books, as opposed to the "old" oral tradition.


In the paragraf titled "How communities enable collective thinking" (p. 106), the author cites as community resources for "joint intellectual activity": 1) history, 2) collective identity, 3) reciprocal obligations, and 4) discourse. I think that:
1) history: can be an obstacle to the evolution of a community, a "ball and chain" heritage that limits its otherwise natural progress and modernization.
2) collective identity: isn't the claim for a collective identity one of the most common causes for conflict and war?
3) reciprocal obligations: well, there is a "community of practice", based on reciprocal obligations, that comes into my mind. It is commonly known as Mafia...
4) discourse: it is defined by the author as "the specialized language of a community", which may be an isolating and self-confirming factor.


About the research carried out by Julian Orr (pp. 108-111), I think that his study on photocopier repair technicians focuses more on the importance of storytelling as an "unveiling tool" of tacit knowledge, rather than on its "social" and "community" qualities. Furthermore, the importance of the "war stories" shared among the technicians,  is significantly increased by the fact that they have been collected and spread on a large scale. And I would not define storytelling as “an important tool in the language tool-kit” (p. 111). In my view, Storytelling is a natural expression of life through language.


On p. 112 the author explains that:


"Soldiers in special units responsible for torturing "opponents of the regime" went through initiation procedures which included the learning of a special in-group jargon. [...] By using language this way, members of military communities are thus able to use language to jointly redefine the moral significance of their actions and emphasize their joint identity." (p. 112)


Actually, I see it like a technique imposed "from above", which may have worked for individuals as well. 


In the paragraph titled "The nature of CMC as a medium for collective thinking" (p. 126) the author quotes exceptions to the differences between synchronous and asynchronous CMC (like instant messages answered hours or days later) and presents them as a basis for a "happy" blending of speech and written communication.


On p. 140 the author quotes Vygotsky to sustain his theory:


"Vygotsky suggested that the usual measures of children's intellectual ability, such as IQ tests, are too static and decontextualized to be of real educational value. [...] By measuring the difference between the original independent capability of each child and what they were able to achieve when given some intellectual guidance and support, educators could make a more useful, dynamic assessment of these children's educational potential and needs."


Then, on p. 165, he proudly speaks of the success of his "Talk Lessons" and notes:


"The lead school in our project was specially congratulated by the Secretary of State for Education on its improved educational standards (as measured by the performance of our "target" children on national tests)."


I see no coherence in these statements. How can he invoke a "dynamic assessment", and then speak of "educational standards",  praising his project on the basis of high scores "on national tests"?


This is a pity, because I think his vision of the teacher  as a "community builder" (p. 161) could be a good starting point to rethink the classroom and the relationship between the teacher and the students. In my opinion, the ideas of "continuity", "comprehensible purpose", and "active participation", are all important for a new paradigm of social-reflective education.

Contrarian Instincts # 1: MERCER, Words and Minds...

Book: Mercer, N. (2000). Words and Minds: How We Use Language to Think Together. Routledge. [Chapters 1-4]

First of all, I want to stress the fact that I enjoyed reading these first four chapters of the book, and it made me think a lot, which is usually a characteristic of a good book. I think this is a great introductory reading to start a reflection on language and on its use in dialogical settings. I really like the fact that the author presented a wide range of conversations, taken from a variety of real-life settings, and I enjoyed a lot the paragraphs on language and persuasion.

I tried to follow the author’s line of thought, but I came to the conclusion that I don’t agree with the main assumption of the book. In my view, “collective thinking” (p. 103) does not exist! While I may agree with a vision of “language as a tool for thinking”, I don’t agree with the idea of “language as a tool for thinking together”:

“Our use of language for thinking together, for collectively making sense of experience and solving problems.” (p. 1)

And:

“Language is a tool for carrying out joint intellectual activity” (p. 1)

Referring to the “solving the crosswords together” example, the author states:

“Using the tool of language, the three people together transform the given information into new understanding.” (p. 2)

It is important to note that the people in the example are using words to discuss about words, and language in this case is the meta-topic. I don’t see a sign of “new understanding”. It looks more like a sequence of words activating a mnemonic function. Shared information, not language, is the key to the solution of the problem. The power here is in the minds of the participants, in their ability to link ideas. The role of language, in this context, is to “translate” and “transfer” those ideas to the other people involved in the discussion. Language, in my view, is an iconic system, it’s the “money” with which you can buy and sell ideas, concepts, commands, desires, etc.
Language is the vehicle, not the agent, and if we agree with that, I think that we cannot agree with the thesis of book.

Another statement I strongly disagree with is that:

“Few, if any, major achievements in the arts, sciences or industry have been made by isolated individuals.” (p. 3)

I will quote just a few names: Dante, Leonardo, Michelangelo, Archimedes, Mozart, Edison, Tesla…

In more than one point in the book, it looks like the author is trying to “sell” us the idea that:

“Almost always, significant achievement depends on communication between creative people. (p. 3)

And you see this "selling" sensation emerging very clearly when he quotes the “literature of the Brontës” (p. 3) as an example of “creative collectives”. What about the 99.9% of the “non-collective” writers? He takes an exception and presents it as an example of a general rule.

On page 5 the author argues that:

“The act of communicating is always a joint, creative endeavour.” (p. 5)

On page 6 he states that:

“Language is designed for doing something much more interesting than transmitting information accurately from one brain to another: it allows the mental resources of individuals to combine in a collective, communicative intelligence”. (p. 6)

And on page 15 he insists:

“Language […] is not simply a system for transmitting information, it is a system for thinking collectively”. (p. 15)

I don’t think that language is a system for “thinking collectively”. And just like the term “interthinking” (p. 16), it sounds more like a catchy phrase…

I think that knowledge is an individual achievement that can be shared in a situated context, and it lives independently from the language. I use language when i want to communicate or share something. I also think that my “inner language” is different from the “external language”. I have to put my inner language in a "translator" to share it with other people. Therefore, if misunderstanding happens, it’s largely due to the non-perfect character of language and of this “translator”.

I may position my language, and my flow of thoughts, to welcome you into the discussion, still we are not thinking together. About the “dancing together” example: the fact is that we can dance with many partners, still, we are one dancer. Doing something together, in my opinion, is an extremely situated phenomenon and there is no such thing as “thinking together”. The author himself states that:

 ““context” is created anew in every interaction between a speaker and listener or writer and reader” (p. 21). 

And, by the way, I don't agree with the idea of a context that excludes the surrounding elements (p. 19 and p. 44), and I think that we should also consider “the inner context”, which may not be shared.

************************************

Minor glitches: 

The year of death of Vygotsky is 1934, not 1933 (p. 10). On p. 65 the author quotes “elaborations”, as a technique used by teachers which was discussed before, but this is really the only instance in the whole text. I think that on p. 67 the author is talking of “Concordancers” (not “Concordances”), referring to a particular type of software. Last, but not least, I don’t like the way the author introduces “autistic disability” in the discourse, on page 103.

************************************

On page 20 the author states that:

“According to systemic linguists, a text […] has its context of use defined when it is generated, and so carries the stamp of its intended function in its form.” (p. 20)

My question is: what if a text is created to be delivered in another place and/or time? 

Personally, I don’t like the term “Cumulative Talk” (p. 31). I see conversation, reading, listening, like a “clarifying” activity, not a cumulative one. It looks like the process  (for example, two friends sharing information) is confused with the “cumulative construction of knowledge”.

On page 102, the author, on the three kinds of talk discussed (“cumulative”, “disputational”, “exploratory”) affirms that:

“No system of categories could ever really do justice to the natural variety of language, and even short stretches of dialogue may have characteristics of more than one of each of these types of talk. But this categorization is nevertheless useful for making sense of the messy, category-defying reality of conversation.” (p. 102)

In my opinion, it is not a very useful categorization: either we find falsifiable categories fitting all kinds of linguistic interactions, or it’s just “an exercise of style”. This is even amplified by the following quotation reported by the author, that sounds like a very nice, euphemistic and justificatory way to say “I don't know”:

“Rupert Wegerif has elegantly expressed it: in exploratory talk, the instant, uncritical “yes” of cumulative talk and the instant, self-defensive “no” of disputational talk are both suspended.” (p. 102)

On the same page the author states that:

“We can use language to join our intellects in an uncritical, non-competitive and constructive way.” (p. 102)

Constructive and uncritical? I don’t think so… :-)