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.

Chapter 6: Discourse Analysis

In this chapter, the author introduces discourse analysis as a method for exploring and understanding spoken language. Speakers modulate and control the formality of their speech, as “the degree to which one uses the less prestigious form in more casual styles also marks one’s membership in and solidarity with one’s local social group(s)” (118). The author’s more fundamental argument is that speakers actively manage their speech, and “all speakers are actually signaling, in many subtle ways, identification with a number of different ‘social networks’ to which they belong, ranging from society as a whole through a number of intermediate groups to the family unit” (118). The speaker is not typically aware of this manipulation, and speech is a form of self-discovery: “[The speaker] may know more about herself than most other hearers… but she never knows enough to render the text completely determinate or to rule out further discoveries about herself or the world that would lead her to take a different view on what she meant” (128). Speech is, in part, an act of trying on language, but without necessarily being aware of it until it has occurred.

Chapter 8: Discourses and literacies

In this chapter, the author introduces the idea of Discourses with a capital D: “saying (writing)—doing—being—valuing—believing combinations” (154) that include language but position it in the context of a larger social context. Use of language is not enough to successfully make sense, “because what is important is not just how you say it, not just language in any sense, but who you are and what you’re doing when you say it” (151).

Discourse is about engaging in the world in a way that is believable and recognizable to others in a group. When a Discourse is engaged successfully, an identity is enacted that is socially understood. This success is “being able to engage in a particular sort of ‘dance’ with words, deeds, values, feelings, other people, objects, tools, technologies, places and times so as to get recognized as a distinctive sort of who doing a distinctive sort of what” (155). The “props” of a Discourse are used to identify oneself as a member of a group. As design students find themselves immersed in a culture of studio, they are forced into participating social experiences like critique, public work, and constant making; they learn the dance through action, and if they are successful in enacting it—if it is understood by other students and faculty—then they adopt the Discourse as a secondary Discourse to their initial way of being: they adopt a second form of identity.

A Discourse, the author argues, is always about power. They are “intimately related to the distribution of social power and hierarchical structure in society, which is why they are always and everywhere ideological” (162). Those who can pull off a Discourse successfully are rewarded, and enacting that Discourse is deeply embedded in existing social and cultural norms. When a primary Discourse (such as one learned at home, growing up) conflicts with a second Discourse (such as one learned in the studio), there is struggle; for example, a student may be challenged to engage in a broad discussion of a pursuit of self interest if they have learned to value a sense of community responsibility.

Education is a place where the adoption of a Discourse is required, and immersive teaching (such as master-apprenticeship, or role play in a law school) “ensures the learner takes on perspectives, adopts a world view, accepts a set of core values, and masters an identity often without a great deal of critical and reflective awareness about these matters” (167). Success in studio demands a successful engagement and enactment with the new Discourse, but students are unlikely to be introduced to the Discourse explicitly. The most successful way for that introduction to occur is through apprenticeship, which the author names “acquisition” and describes as a process of “exposure to models, a process of trial and error, and practice within social groups, without formal teaching” (169). To engage in acquisition means trying on a Discourse in its natural setting. Instructors work hard to simulate the natural setting of designing in the studio, and hope for and encourage enculturation, as (if they are, or were practitioners), they are “people who have already mastered the Discourse” (169). The author goes so far as to argue that if acquisition goes on in a classroom, it is only because of apprenticeship and practice.

A large part of successful apprenticeship is through meta-knowledge: having awareness that a new Discourse is actively being acquired, and that it may conflict with a primary Discourse. A challenge occurs in studio, as if someone has not yet mastered the Discourse of being a real designer, they may “use a simplified, or stereotyped version of the required secondary Discourse” (175). Mastery only comes through acquisition and experience. It cannot exclusively be taught in a traditional model of knowledge dissemination; the Discourse of studio and design must be tried on and practiced.