The Road to hell… and all that: how intentionality and social and discursive loci of the words you speak can act as a window onto your values.

Understandings of the concepts of "language" and "discourse" are slaves to what might be called “common sense” – the notion that through adherence to a logic of social norms we might better navigate surrounding social orders. 

“Words are just words”, “sticks and stones…”, “actions speak louder than words”, are generally considered strong guiding principles in relation to people's attitude towards, and understanding of the purpose of language.



Outside those pedagogies about language, the meta-linguistics, the function and purposes of language, or the locating of discourse constructs, do not interest society at large.  Language just is! It is used to communicate information about the more centrally important “real” definitions, and actions in which we engage.  Little thought is given to the design of social and political policies that are wholly linguistic constructions and are located both geopolitically, culturally and discursively within discourse genres. “Genre” here is defined as a socially functional, goal oriented discourse construction.  For example, Law maintains a discourse that directly controls the socially pertinent actions which one can and cannot take.  Along with the threat of force law is largely linguistic in its power.  Law and policy creation are just two examples of powerful institutionalised linguistic genres.  One must also consider the day to day powers of language which work to persuade, question, imply, denounce, criticise, discredit, enthuse and motivate amongst many other functions.  Certain discourses, types of rhetoric and illocution, or modes and manners of speaking, will function more effectively in certain contexts and certain geographical locations. This is true of language everywhere.  Also, discourses are fluid, dynamically changing constructions that constantly evolve.

Comprehension of language begins with development of identificatory associations between symbols and objects. As associations grow in complexity, human cognitive development of social and physical concepts are positioned within a history of language and discourse.  Historical and social positioning constructs perspectives relative to given associations.  One might or might not be aware, that their own perspectives have been coded into specific discourses over time and place.  As Billig (1995) suggests, they become so banal and common-place as to slip below the radar of awareness.  This can be so whether referring to self-awareness or social/group awareness.  A term that encapsulates this concept quite well is the notion of the social echo-chamber: a communicative environment stuck in a feedback loop which simply regenerates self-confirming discourses.  With this in mind remember that discourse both constructs and is constructed by our social surroundings.  The words we use and the way in which we use them indicates the positioning of our values within those social surroundings.

Language affects and is affected by social norms! Locating individual discourses can uncover both individual, political, and social values and conventions.

Lera Bordotisky of University California Berkley is currently conducting informative research into the effects of language on cognition and perception, and the function of cognition in terms of language construction. She has researched the differences in perceptions of space, direction and interpretation relative to the variances of the mode and structure of the linguistic register in use. Her empirical findings have implications for highly theoretical fields of research such and Critical Discourse Studies (CDS) suggesting and going someway to proving the power of language and the use of language as that which enacts, maintains and creates power relations in society.

…when you're learning a new language, you're not simply learning a new way of talking, you are also inadvertently learning a new way of thinking. Beyond abstract or complex domains of thought like space and time, languages also meddle in basic aspects of visual perception — our ability to distinguish colors, for example. Different languages divide up the color continuum differently: some make many more distinctions between colors than others, and the boundaries often don't line up across languages. (Boroditsky 2009)

Language affects the way we think and can indicate the values we tend not to allow the world to access? Marketing experts and barristers would agree that the words we use in defending a case in front of a jury, or the words we use in presenting a product to people, go a long way in producing the desired result.  Yet the ‘common sense’ view of language persists as that which creates a lexicon that holds a direct relational representation of reality.

The purpose of this article is to explore the meaning and function of intentionality in language and discourse in relation to social order and power relations in society.  Expressions, clauses, turns of phrase and discourse structures are learned within specific contexts, throughout life.  They index certain values, and therefore certain modes of text and talk located within social structures reveal political views and normative, guiding values by which people conduct themselves.  The following will explain my current thesis further.

The meanings of actions are defined by the underlying intentions upon which they are based or perceived to be based. Intentionality of the sort defined by what we use discourse and language to achieve is separable from recognition, ascription and definition as function.  That is to say that the identification of extralinguistic reality as such and such is a creative function of the human drive to make sense of environmental surroundings.  From the perspective of evolutionary psychology this function is for the purposes of survival.  However, identification and utilisation of extralinguistic concepts in discursive practice, and intentional use of them in discursive practice are where extralinguistic reality and power-based discursive construction of reality twist and bend into, through, and around each other, through the sharing of narratives within prevailing “regimes of truth” and “orders of discourse”.  “Regimes of truth” is a term Michael Foucault used to describe the way power constructs truth through discourse in relation to culture, politics and society.  “Orders of discourse” is a term used by Foucault to describe the manner and structure of words, clauses, and phrases in particular contexts.  For example: it is unlikely that you would talk to a Judge in a courtroom in the same manner that might talk to a close friend in the pub.

Language is always used with the intention to do something regardless of whether that intention is ultimately realised and successful. CDS regards discourse as a form of action, in that it affects social orders and power structures.  In other words it affects the conduct of others.  However, given the power structures of the legal system for example, it is unlikely that a defendant will wield much discursive power over a Judge in a courtroom scenario.

Words, sentences, communicative noises, speeches, discourses, lectures, poems, news casts, pod casts, demands, questions, orders, pontifications, descriptions etc. all function on a meta-linguistic level to persuade, convince, question, encourage, empower, disempower, halt or allow people to conduct themselves in ways that indicate their societal values and norms.  Each of these functions exists within an “order of discourse”.

Language is commonly regarded as primarily a method of faithfully representing the world around us directly.  Broadly this is known as the correspondence model of language: the words and sentences we use correspond truthfully with the world around us. We know that a 'dog' is a dog because it has four legs, a tail, hair, ears, a nose, and conducts itself in certain predictable ways that are associated with what people consider to mean ‘dog’.  Of course, conceptual comprehension becomes far more complicated once one begins to analyse the meaning of, for example, ‘justice’, ‘right and wrong’, or ‘the golden rule’. 

Language is a medium through which people can represent their conscious experience of both the physical and the social world.  On a societal level there is a tacit agreement that certain words and combinations of words have specific meanings.  A ‘dog’ – which fits the ‘standard’ criteria for defining a dog – would likely be recognised and identified as a ‘dog’ by most people in the English speaking world.  Indeed it is widely recognised that identification of the physical properties of the world is the first order of learning in language acquisition.  Conceptual systems grow rapidly in complexity as people learn to navigate different aspects of world.  ‘Frames’ provide associations and context for learning about these different aspects. 

As communicative capabilities move from understanding physical characteristics of the world, to understanding social characteristics of the world so too does the need develop to understand what VanDijk (2008) refers to as our ‘communicative environment’.  ‘Communicative environments’ encompass understanding context. Context according to VanDijk (2008) can only ever be “a mental model in episodic memory’.  This is an essential part of meaning construction.  ‘Mental models’ are first person subjective, experiential understandings of concepts as developed through experience and retained in memory.  Mental models do not presuppose relativism but rather suggest, in line with Prado (2006), necessary ‘minimal aspectualism’.  ‘Minimal aspectualism’ encapsulates first person, subjective experience of physical and social concepts as necessarily unique. Of course consensuses and agreements exist on various levels notwithstanding ‘minimal aspectualism’.  The highest level of conceptual consensus and agreement arguably exists amongst the scientific community.  

The scientific community are afforded a high level of power by virtue of the level of rigour to which they adhere in their search for meaning.  Experiments must be replicable with consistent results, and the methods, processes and theoretical underpinnings must be clearly defined.

Science looks to define the physical world and the relations between its constituent parts through rigorous experimentation.

The language of science is held in high regard.  It is a powerful language.  It is considered a true reflection of the physical world.  One which avoids ambiguity or obfuscation.  However, the real world is not at question here. It is as it is.  The results of a scientific experiment which prove that X are devoid of meaning without human agency.  X is tautologically X.  This is not to belittle scientific discovery, but it is discovery and definition.  What society uses X for is what gives X social meaning.  Although many aspects of the real physical world might exist outside our social sphere, once they enter our consciousness they become part of our array of mental models through association and ascription of purpose and function.  This is perhaps the antithesis of the Buddhist search for “oneness” which attempts to surpass the socialisation of the world around us.

This brings me back to language, discourse and power and how intentionality in language can reflect who you are in relation to discursive surroundings and the way those discursive surroundings, or 'communicative environments' recognise discourses in particular ways. As mentioned above, Boroditsky (2009), Sperber and Wilson (1996), Lakoff (2009), Levinson (2004) and VanDijk (2008) have produced both theoretical and empirical studies that show on various levels how language affects the way we think.  Critical Discourse Studies view language from a perspective which views individual identity as part of broader discursive constructions, socially realised through discourses.  The question which Critical Discourse Studies addresses then is not so much how does language indicate who a person might be, or how they might think, but rather where might a person be positioned within sets of discursive genres and themes and what does this reflect about that persons values and mores as part of a social group. 

Let me put this another way.  We are all born into particular geographic language types, French, Mandarin, Urdu, English, etc… : let’s call these macro linguistic variables.  We are also born into particular sets of, socially constructed, linguistic dialects, upper class, political class, working class etc…: let’s call these the meso linguistic variables. We are also born into particular sets of localised colloquialisms, and linguistic methods of identification with certain social groups: let’s call these micro linguistic variables.  Parallel to this we are also born into particular temporally cogent narrative genres. An example of some dominant narratives of our age would be corporatist discourse, legalease, standard family unit discourses.  Amongst many others these are the discourses of the current era which have constructed and are constructed by the socio-discursive conventions of the world into which we begin to adopt and express conceptual and social norms discursively.

Using multi-modal methods of analysis CDS endeavours to uncover social norms and values and reveal the inequalities in power relations which they maintain in society.  Individual texts, discursive constructions and verbal communications exist as part of broader discourses and are therefore locatable, and identifiable as expressing and maintaining particular values, political stand points and comprehensions of social order.  “Common sense” is not a single unitary concept that describes an absolute natural order.  There are many different modes of common sense.  They exist relative to discursively constructed social and communicative environments.  The road to hell may well be paved with good intentions but in the end it’s not the destination but the journey, as experienced and constructed through language and discourse that matter!

Through this blog I will, over the proceeding months, years, and decades, continue to review various literature and provide examples of CDS analysis along with anecdotal thoughts and experiences which I find relevant.