Language And Power:Power Behind Discourse LANGUAGE AND CULTURE SESSION TEN LANGUAGE AND POWER (2): POWER

BEHIND DISCOURSE Main points in this session: 1. Power behind discourse: Standard language 2. Power behind discourse: discourse types as effects of power 3. Power and access to discourse The idea of power behind discourse is that the whole social order of discourse is put together and held together as a hidden effect of power. Fairclough (1989) = three aspects of power behind discourse, i.e. of hidden effects of power: 1. Standard language 2. particular discourse types which can be considered effects of power and which are governed by conventions embodying particular power relations (e.g. medical, education, law, religious discourse types) 3. access to discourse and the power to impose and enforce constraints on access 1. Power behind discourse: Standard language The first dimension of power behind discourse (discussed here): standardization: -the process whereby a particular social dialect comes to be elevated into what is often called a standard or even national language; -we ought to see standardization as part of a much wider process of economic, political and cultural unification which is regarded as tied in with the historical evolution of both any language and that of community speaking it. Faircloughs (1989) example: standard British English: -standardization in the case of British English is seen as tied in with the emergence of capitalism out of feudal society in Britain; -the connection between capitalism and unification has an economic basis: the need for a unified home market if commodity production was to be fully established; -this need for economic unification required political and cultural unification; -and: standardization is of direct economic, political and cultural importance in improving communication because: -most people involved in economic activity come to...

http://www.aoua.com/vb/showthread.php?t=291172

Chapter 3: Discourse and Power. In exploring the various dimensions of the relations of language and power we focus on two major aspects: 1-power in discourse, and 2-power behind discourse Power in discourse is concerned with discourse as a phase where relations of power are exercised and enacted. Examples are Face-to-Face spoken discourse, cross-cultural discourse and the discourse of the mass media exercising hidden power. Power behind discourse, reflecting dimensions of the social orders of social institutions or societies, are themselves shaped and constrained by relations of power. Examples are the effects of power in the differentiation of dialects into standard and non-standard, the conventions associated with particular discourse types, e.g. classroom discourse. The final argument underlines the view that power, wherever it be in or behind discourse is never definitively held by any person or social grouping, because power can be won or exercised through the dynamics of social interaction in which it may also be lost. Fairclough takes a Marxist view in interpreting it all from the perspective of social struggle of classes. 1-Power in Discourse Face-to-face discourse where participants are unequal reflect an unequal encounter. Manifestations of this aspect are found in the number of interruptions by the powerful participant directed to constrain and to control the contribution of the non-powerful. Three types of constraints are exercised and enacted: a-constraints on content : enacted in the discourse b-constraints on relations: enacted in the discourse c-constraints on the subject position: that people can occupy in the discourse. All of these constraints are very closely connected, they overlap and co-occur in practice. All the directive speech acts (orders and questions) come from the powerful participant. The non-powerful has the obligation to comply and answer, in accordance with the subordinate relation of his role. The constraints derive from the conventions of the discourse type. It is the prerogative of the powerful participant to determine which discourse type(s) may be legitimately drawn upon. Thus, in addition to directly constraining contributions, powerful participants can further constrain discourse by opting for a particular discourse type.

Once a discourse type has been selected, its conventions would constrain and regulate the flow of the interaction/discourse exchanged. However, the more powerful participants may allow or disallow varying degrees of latitude to less powerful participants. Cross-cultural encounters: are unequal encounters where possibilities for culturallybased miscommunication are ample. In gate-keeping encounters, e.g. job interview, gate-keepers come from the dominant culture they constrain the discourse types which can be drawn upon to those of the dominant grouping, including all expected conventions of the exchange, linguistically (appropriate turn-taking strategies, phatic communion, sequencing of information, direct/indirect responses etc.) and extralinguistically (gaze, proxemics, head movement body position, etc. )

Media discourse is characterized by the use of hidden power for participants who are separated in time and place. The discourse used in television, ratio, film and newspaper involve hidden relations of power. Media discourse is one-sided as opposed to face-toface interaction, where discourse is exchanged between two participants. In Media discourse, producers exercise power over consumers by determining what is included and excluded and how events are represented. An interesting manifestation of power in mass media is the perspective whose perspective is adopted. In British media, the balance of sources and perspectives and ideology is overwhelmingly in favour of existing power-holders. Media operate as a means for the expression and reproduction of the power of the dominant class and bloc. The mediated power of existing power-holders is also a hidden power, because it is implicit in the practices of the media rather than being explicit. Linguistic strategies reflecting power include Nominalization and causality. A process is expressed as a noun, with the effect of hiding crucial aspects of the process through the grammar form selected. Media discourse is able to exercise manipulative and powerful influence on social reproduction, but people do negotiate their relationship to the ideal subjects proposed by media discourse. However the exercise of media power by power holders is perceived as professional practices. Hidden power can sometimes be a characteristic of face-to-face discourse. A close connection between requests and power is identified, as the right to request someone to do something often derives from having power. There are however, many grammatically different forms for making requests. Some are direct and mark the power relationship explicitly, while others are indirect and leave it more implicit. Direct requests are typically expressed grammatically in imperative sentences. Indirect requests can be expressed grammatically in questions of various degrees of elaborateness and corresponding indirectness, including hints.

The power behind discourse is also a hidden power, in that the shaping of orders of discourse by relations of power is not generally apparent to people. 2- Power behind discourse The social order of discourse (the connections of the exchange) is put together and held together as a hidden effect of power. Example, standardization, whereby a particular social dialect, is elevated into what is called a standard, or even a national, language. Standard Language Standardization is a part of a much wider process of economic, political and cultural unification. We can think of its growth as a long process of colonization, whereby it gradually took over the major social institutions of literature, government and administration, law, religion and education. Standard English emerges as the language of political and cultural power, and as the language of the politically and culturally powerful. Standard English was regarded as correct English, and other social dialects were stigmatized not only in terms of correctness but also in terms which indirectly reflected on the lifestyles, morality and so forth of their speakers. Standard English moved to pre******ion through codification and was portrayed as the national language, although it remains a social dialect. The power behind discourse: a discourse type portray through the discourse conventions particular power relations associated with the discourse of the participants. Power and access to discourse. The constitution of orders of discourse and their component discourse types brings an interest in the study of who has access to them and who has the power to impose and enforce constraints on access. There is a plethora of constraints on access to various types of speech and writing. Religious rituals, medical examination, lessons, litigation are examples of discourse types that are constrained. Access to a high level of literacy is a precondition for a variety of socially rewarded goods including well-paid jobs. However, literacy is not equally distributed. There is constraint on access and the exclusion of people from particular types of discourse, who remain unfamiliar with the conventions. Constraints on access: formality Formality is best regarded as a property of social situations which has effects upon the language forms used. It manifests three types of constraints associated with the exercise of power: a-Constraints on contents: the discourse in formal situations is subject to constraints on topic, relevance and fixed interactive routines.

b-Constraints on subjects: the social identities of those qualified to occupy subject positions in the discourses of formal situations are defined. c-Constraints on relations: formal situations are characterized by an exceptional orientation to and making of position, status, and face. Power and social distance are overt and consequently there is a strong tendency towards politeness. Politeness is based upon recognition of differences of power and degrees of social distance. Moreover, consistency of language forms is also a characteristic of formal situations that influence the vocabulary that has to be selected from a restricted set throughout. Recently, there has been a shift from the explicit making of power relationship in a discourse towards a system based upon solidarity rather than power (tu/vous) hiding power is a strategy that is sometimes used for manipulative reasons. Conclusion Discourse is part of social practice and contributes to the reproduction of social structures. If., therefore, there are systematic constraints on the contents of discourse and on the social relationships enacted in it and the social identities enacting them, these can be expected to have long term effects on the knowledge and beliefs social relationships and social identities of the institutions and societies. Constraints Structural effects Contents Relations Subjects Knowledge and Beliefs Social Relationships Social Identitie