An Introduction to Discourse Analysis, Second edition, chapter 6

What I read

In this chapter, Gee describes Discourse Models in more detail; he explains that these are the theories, or ways of thinking, that help us make sense of the world around us.

Gee starts with several examples of how a Discourse Model works in action, using the example of the word, and model, bachelor. This is cited from work by Charles Fillmore, who explored this as well (but using the word frame instead of discourse model.) Fillmore asked rhetorical questions about what defines a bachelor, or what the word bachelor provides (for example, the frame is confusing, when it is placed in the space of the Pope or a divorced person.)

Discourse models are simplifications about the world, and the bachelor example is used to show how those simplifications occur even with such a small and seemingly insignificant word. These simplifications are explored in our minds through simulations, or the ability to imagine what we feel is contained inside of the word itself; to explain not just what the word means, but how that frame of reference of the word then leads to actions that occur, or the predicted and standard and typical experiences.

Gee explains that we build different simulations in the actual context in which they are used or experienced, too. The simulations are “purpose-built” with a focus on making sense of the situations we are in, specifically. He uses the example of simulating the game of cricket, and how for him, the idea unpacks with an overlap on the game baseball, which is incorrect, but the one he simulates.

A prototypical simulation is what supports a Discourse model, because it then casts things that aren’t included in the simulation is atypical, or even deviant. In this case, Gee explains this is dangerous, and that this notion of deviance is moving from typical to less typical, and less typical is considered “not right.”

Discourse models aren’t the same as simulations, because the models also exist in the built world around us (such as in media) and in the things we see happening in our context.

Next, Gee offers an example showing the unique nature of language and models in another country and culture. This indicates the way references (drinking, there, seated) have very different meanings, and the meanings are related to the behavior that occurs, and the information we need to know and understand in order to internalize the difference into our own set of simulations or models. The conclusion Gee provides is that meaning is situated in a context, and is used “against a rich store of Discourse knowledge.”

Gee provides additional examples of how Discourse models work. He shows how two parents read a situation that is very similar in very different ways, driven by the Discourse models around how a child “should” be growing or changing. Both examples are related to championing independence, and Gee juxtaposes that to some working class families that champion family, implicitly referencing independence as willful or selfish. The next example shows how Discourse models work in the idea of the American story around success, where hard work theoretically leads to ability, success, and self-satisfaction. While the discourse shows up with both lower and higher socioeconomic individuals, it is juxtaposed as being “in order to support my family” as compared to “my family gets in the way of my achieving it.”

Another example Gee provides is from a spouse using the metaphor of investment to describe their marriage, and this is used to show that metaphor often is used to “signal” Discourse models, although in a subconscious manner.

Next, Gee shows that Discourse models can be inconsistent, because they may incorporate different values, and sometimes those values are applied from someone outside of the group being evaluated or examined. An example is given of a student discussing success between Hispanic families and white families; her Discourse model is that of how homes socialize a child into a set of social practices, which resonate with a particular school. The school honors these and diminishes others.

The last example Gee provides is related to the perspective teachers have related to gangs. One of the teachers (a professor) pushes a view of gang violence as being a larger problem then just showing up in her city. The other teacher takes a localized view, that focuses on the individual people involved in gang violence. This perspective identifies children as being individual actors, which indicates that their actions of violence are theirs (and are their fault.) The professor “trades” on Discourse models that move her away from the people in the city, while the teacher “trades” on models that put her closer to the localized event.

Gee concludes the chapter by discussing the way Discourse models are a “tool of inquiry.” He provides six ways to approach text or actions in order to understand the model that is used and the role it is playing. These include:

• What models are relevant?
• Are there differences between the models people are saying they are using, and those that are actually being used?
• How consistent is the use of models? Are multiple models being used that conflict?
• What other models are related?
• What sort of cultural artifacts could have given rise to the models?
• How are the models changing social, cultural, institutional, and political relationships?

What I learned and what I think

The idea of simulations being related to the models is interesting; I’m not sure I entirely understand the point he’s making about the role these play, except to say that we have conceptual frameworks of the world, and those frameworks tend to constrain the imaginative simulating. I do wonder how “creative people” change the way this theory works, given that we’ve learned that it’s acceptable to simulate things that are weird or unlikely; lateral thinking really is providing room for simulations to play out that make no sense when considered through a typical lens.

I am noticing myself thinking more about the way these models are projected, though; I just wrote “creative people” and “we’ve learned.” I know the way this frame is elitist, and the “we’ve learned” even sort of rejects “creative people who haven’t learned.”

It’s the identity part of a job; “I’m the type of designer who does this…” It’s in the brand presentation of the work and company itself, and probably enhanced by the fact that my company is me, in many ways, since it’s mine (shared: I think Chad and Swava have this same sort of overlap, too.) It probably also both shapes and diminishes the work itself, because when we solve problems, we’re saying “we solve problems in this way” which is also saying “we don’t solve problems in this other way” and “we’re the type of designers who behave like this.”

I note that I’m gravitating towards “frame” (as a shortcut of “frame of reference” or “from this perspective,”) as compared to “discourse model.” Maybe perspective is more passive, and that’s why Gee’s using something more active (but a model isn’t active.) He went out of his way to separate the two words previously, but didn’t really explain why that distinction would be valuable.

I’m also thinking about how a discourse model works, or doesn’t work, during introspection. If I’m not talking or writing or making something, the model is still guiding the way I reflect on things. What about during flow and creative activities? What about sitting looking off into the distance?

I’m also wavering on the expansiveness of the ideas vs the expansiveness of the book here used to present them. It’s a lot of words to say something simple, I think, or I’m not giving the intricacy of the ideas their due, or I already think this way, or some of all of these things. The language constructs of various pieces and parts of the theory that I mentioned yesterday still aren’t gelling for me, and those would be the separators of the ideas that would show me it has more depth than just “it’s the frame through which we see the world, the frame is active, we have multiple frames, the frames impact our behavior.” It’s also true of any book that it can be summarized into something stupid small and that isn’t fair to the ideas.

The end of the chapter is getting more pragmatic, and I appreciate things like that. It’s actionable; I can see myself using this framework to look at a situation or transcript and better interpret it, or interpret with more depth and rigor.

Maybe it’s a “I’m the type of person who likes pragmatic things….”