An Introduction to Discourse Analysis, Second edition, chapters 4 & 5

What I read

In this chapter, Gee begins by talking about social languages, describing how the people doing the “talking” are driving what the language means. He uses the example of a warning label on a bottle of medicine to indicate that there are multiple voices speaking, with multiple agendas (“who-doing-what” combinations.) The set of voices are gesturing to a set of values (brand values—we are on your team; legal values—we previously got sued), and is “double voiced.”

Gee separates a social language from a Discourse, in that the language is the conversational part of a large story made up of objects, interactions, actions, and so-on. He gives several more examples of the social language in action, showing how people switch the language they are using or selecting based on the context of use. This language switching is not conscious, and Gee describes that it is “always acquired within and licensed by specific social and historically shaped practices.”

Gee then describes that there are two grammars; one is the formal grammar as a structure of language that is typically taught in grade school, while the other is the structure of language that’s used to create patterns, or containers of social languages. The example related to lung cancer and smoking is used, and Gee indicates that a simple phrase has at least 112 meanings, because the formal grammar provides for a number of accurate reads. But, the second form of grammar leads a reader towards one specific meaning, quickly, because it “unpacks” into a broader understanding of meaning that exists in culture through an ongoing discussion. He explains that “meaning is not merely a matter of decoding grammar, it is also (and more importantly) a matter of knowing which of the many inferences that one can draw from an utterance are relevant.”

Next, Gee describes intertextuality, or the way multiple languages are mixed together. The example of ebonics is used to show how a conversation unique to researchers is introduced into the context of a legal conversation, in order to drive a specific agenda. The mixing, in that example, is purposeful.

Gee then clarifies the use of the word discussion, as indicating a “Big C conversation.” This is the swirling around of ideas in a social group that group or contain a large set of ideas; specifically, Gee explains that these are the “public debates, arguments, motifs, issues, or themes.” Language that is selected can purposefully reference or use these Conversations. Gee notes that you can participate in a Conversation without knowing the background or history of it (or Discourse—the larger and more encompassing context of actions, values, etc.)

In the next chapter, Gee introduces the idea of situated meanings—that conversation changes depending on the context in which they are found—and discourse models, or the way we link various aspects of language into a way of being. First, he focuses on form and function: that the way language is structured and arranged impacts the meaning that is provided, or purpose of the words. He uses the idea of a hammer as an example of a physical use of form and function, where the shape indicates what it does, but it can also do other things.

He starts by discussing the first grammar that has been described, that which is formal and showing the way parts of speech and their arrangement can be arranged in different ways, purposefully, in order to drive different types of meaning. These aren’t explicit meanings—they are full of “meaning potential,” as they are still present in the context of use. This examination of context of use is context analysis, in order to extract the situated meaning. The word “coffee” is used as a simple example, to show that it can mean many things (liquid, physical, flavor) and that the meaning is uncovered through the space in which it is used.

Gee explores how a child learns meaning, as a way of illustrating how situational meaning-making can be. A child associates words with aspects of an idea, but because they are still building their patterning, they haven’t yet learned what to exclude in order to arrive at a more commonly understood (or contextually understood) definition. This is then used unconsciously, as the various words or attributes “hang together” in order to describe a larger whole. This is the acceptance of a theory that exists in a community, and the process of excluding and selecting attributes that go together is the acceptance of that theory. The theories are cultural, and aren’t accepted continually or consistently across groups. These theories are “Discourse models,” similar to stereotypes, and are used to understand complicated realities.

He uses the example of an experiment, where students were asked to explain various aspects of how a candle works. The researchers concluded that the students don’t understand scientific principles, because their answers were “wrong.” But Gee argues that the wrongness is just in the context of a scientific view of the question; their answers are correct, in that they answered from the perspective of an “everyday” context. This everyday context is called a lifeworld, compared to professional, approach.

Gee describes that situated meanings are assembled, often in the context of use or experience (“on the spot.”) Sometimes they require work, as the assembly is based on our previous experiences; if those experiences have been limited to the context, the assembly will struggle.

Gee spends time discussing the nature of the human brain as one that identifies patterns (as compared to rules.) Patterns can be general or specific, and situated meaning making is based on mid-level patterns: “Really effective knowledge, then, is being able to recognize, work on, transform, and talk about mid-level generalizations.” He concludes in stating that thinking and language is active, and through assembly, meanings are proposed and used. Sometimes these are routine, and other times, they require new work.

What I learned and what I think

I’m learning new things! What a dumb thing to note, but it’s been a while since I felt like I was challenged intellectually, and I think it’s because I stagnated on exploring outside of “design” stuff.

I’ve never thought of the idea of a shared and therefore almost automatic read of a given sentence or phrase as ignoring the other 111 (or however many) meanings there are for those words and in those sequences, but it makes sense that these “unpack” in the same way that a set of designed objects or artifacts “unpacks.”

A style of a lamp or a chair can be viewed in many ways, but we share an understanding of the time-period, and everything about it, in which the style existed. But, we need to know that style, and the same is probably true for the unpacking of language; we are bombarded with the Conversation of smoking, but not necessarily the Conversation of mid-century modern, unless we are in that particular social group that knows or cares about those things.

I appreciate the idea of that Conversation existing as a discussion in which we can participate. I feel like there’s an implicit acceptance of a thinness of participation here, as if every voice matters in the same way. In a humanistic sense that everyone exists and their contributions of existing are valuable, that is maybe true. But in practicality, the so vastly uninformed participation in Conversation (and through social media channels that reduce the actual discussion to ten seconds), isn’t worth much at all.

The warning label on the drugs was a lightbulb moment for me, and an indication of how social language works; same with the corporate values conversation in large corporations. Both of these are about conscious manipulation, which isn’t something he touches on yet; most of what’s here is objective, as an introduction to the ideas, but not as they are “used” (although the ebonics example starts to hit on agenda-making a little.)

The child learning, and essentially down-selecting different patterns until they conform to a reasonable (shared) view of things in a context, also resonates. I see connections to lateral thinking, in that we purposefully extend back those reasonable views to be unreasonable, or unshared (What if a x is like a y). The conformity part can be positioned against the imagination part, which is where creativity lives, too; the pattern reduction through correction makes it easier to get through life, but harder to question why life is the way it is.

I’m struggling a little with two parts. First, the candle example doesn’t sit well with me. I get and agree entirely with the fact that the researchers viewed a child’s answer as wrong because they viewed the experience through a different lens (and their answers are objectively correct, and even more imaginative; the sugar example is even better—the answer of “there is nothing left but the taste” is wonderful) than was intended. But the example, at least as provided, ignores one of the things Gee has continually discussed, which is context. In the context of an experiment, which the students must have understood based on shared understandings of how an experimenter shows up, it’s clear that the goal was to understand the shared scientific goal, and use the language appropriate. If the students couldn’t do that in that understood context, it does mean that they don’t understand the concepts (and are, unfortunately, “dumb” about that.) Why is it okay to ignore context in this example?

The other part is less of the work itself, and more of my block on memorizing and integrating labels for things (which I know is a problem.) I’m lost in the nuanced distinction of social language, conversation, intertextuality, situated meanings, discourse models, Discourse, assemblies, patterning, tools of inquiry, cultural models, language-context, form and function, and so-on. I’m all in on the concepts. I almost need flash cards for the individual terms, except at 47 years old, I know flash cards won’t work, and the only way I’ll get my head around Gee’s intended nuance is to use the words over and over, probably in a teaching context.

I’m enjoying this book a lot. I’ll keep working on it.