Social Linguistics and Literacies: Ideology and discourses

Critical Analysis

Chapter 1: Meaning and ideology

In this chapter, the author introduces the fundamental basis for understanding and engaging with language—that language does not have a set of fixed meanings, and that “words are connected more to knowledge and beliefs, encapsulated into the stories or theories that constitute cultural models, than they are to definitions” (9). Words and phrases have multiple meanings, and the meanings are contextual. Additionally, they are negotiated both locally (in the context of a given conversation and statement) and broadly (over time and across culture). Power is integrated into a conversation of language negotiation, as is ideology: language provides a place for conversations (and arguments) related to finding a common ground.

The author provides six primary assertions related to this fundamental argument of language as socially negotiated. Words and meaning varies across context, and meaning is made of change; the change exists in cultural models. These are “rooted in culture”, and become stabilized when there is agreement by people in a group. They are conventions, but those conventions can be changed. And, it takes “social work” for words to become conventions, or to change.

Chapter 5: Meaning

Languages are social, and each time we speak, we must indicate who we are and what we are trying to do. This implies that we have multiple answers to both questions, and “different social languages… make visible and recognizable two different social identities, two different versions of who one is” (92). In a conversation, identity shapes the way words and intention are understood, and so identity must be established in some way to make spoken language accessible. This is how meaning is established, where “what we mean by a word depends on which other words we have available to us” (98). If we have never learned or integrated a particular word or phrase into our vocabulary, we struggle to communicate appropriately.

The author offers four key principles related to meaning making with regards to word choice and availability. First is the idea of inclusion and exclusion: a given word or phrase works to delineate the scope of its meaning, and there are borders between social languages but the borders are not discrete. Sometimes, the borders of inclusion and exclusion are not even understood by each speaker. The second principle, the “guessing principle,” indicates how we make sense of those borders. This leans heavily on context, and also local and global precedent, and context is the third principle the author argues leads to meaning-making: “Words have no meaning in and of themselves and by themselves apart from other words” (101). Linguistic choices become habitual based on routine as one becomes a member of a social group.

The last aspect of meaning is a theory of social practice that the author refers to as a cultural model. The theory is a container of understanding based on repeated use of language; in a given culture, “we have picked up certain ideas and assumptions about [social practices], ideas and assumptions that we use to make things go smoothly in the practices” (103). Cultural models are views of a normal reality, and they serve to establish an understanding of “what counts as central, typical cases, and what count as marginal, non-typical cases” (105).

Different linguistic cultural models can compete on what is acceptable behavior. Where they share assumptions is called a “master myth” and comes to feel inevitable or immutable. These master myths feel “right” and “natural.”

In education, cultural models become central to learning. While the author refers specifically to language studies, all disciplines rely on cultural models and master myths; immersion in a design studio introduces students to language specific to design, and “one learns cultural models by being acculturated, by being open to and having experiences within a culture of social group” (113). An educational context provides an opportunity for students to “try on” the language of new cultural models, and students learn the models “by practicing language and interaction in natural and meaningful contexts” (113). Beginning to appropriate the cultural model comes with risk, as the models are loaded with values and perspectives, and these conflict with what a student may bring with them to the studio. It is the educator’s job to bring the conflicts to the forefront and engage in discussion about the cultural norms, while the cultural models are being learned and tried.