Power & Language: Cultural Capital

1. Power & Language: Cultural Capital Ellen Manos and Dusty Hiles

2. Goals & Objectives • Define Critical Sociolinguistics • Explore theories of Critical sociolinguistics • Variation Theory • Critical Discourse Analysis Theory • Discuss Critical Sociolinguistics in terms of Micro- and Macro-Linguistic interactions • Define Bourdieu’s ‘Cultural Capital’ Model • Discuss Domination through Language and Resistance to this Power of Language.

3. Critical Sociolinguistics • Critical Linguistics is interested in: • Ideology, • Hegemony • Resistance • In terms of resistance this means: denaturalizing ideology & viewing discourse in terms of registers, which vary according to context instead of holding true in all spaces and times.

4. School of thought that “language reflects society”—a.k.a.: “variation theory” Chambers (1995): argued: ‘variation arises from biological & territorial needs for identity.’ Saussure: ‘language as a system of socially neutral signs’ Critical Discourse Analysis Voloshinov (1929; 1973): ‘the forms of signs are conditioned by interaction.’ As a result, language has a certain political or ideological dimension There are values at play & consequences Sociolinguistic Theories

5. What Does the Emphasis On CONTENT Enable Us to See? • Beyond form & function, this perspective allows us to think about the ways in which language conventions may be dysfunctional for certain groups. • According to Mesthrie, Critical Linguistics allows us to more easily frame questions like: • Which social group is dominant in public speech and writing? • Which groups are merely ‘represented’ and by what means? • Levels of Analysis: Micro & Macro

6. Macro Power: “Critical Language Awareness in Action” 2 major examples: • Newspaper Reporting • “Smart Bombs,” “Surgical Strikes,” “Collateral Damages,” “Counterinsurgencies.” • Activity: G. Lakoff (1991) Metaphor and War: The Metaphor System Used to Justify War in the Gulf • Sexist Language • Activity [what, if any, are the political consequences of using “patriarchal/sexist” language?]

7. “Micro-Power” in Linguistic Interactions • Consequences of Content & “Concision” • Chomsky Clip (Special Features Menu, #1, 14:30-> End) • To what extent do we see: • Language Tactics for Dominating the Guest? • Emotional Language? • Simplification of Reality? • Repetition? • Is this Micro-Propaganda? • Underlying Question: Do characteristics of content determine power relations? Always? Sometimes? How so?

8. Bourdieu’s Conception of Power:The Cultural Capital Model

9. Domination & Resistance • Anti-Language • Halliday (1978): • ‘Metaphor for everyday language’ • Slangs that are overlexicalized: • in Calcutta 21 words for ‘bomb’ & 41 for ‘police’ • Except that it has the function of: revealing oppositional status in reference to a dominant society • Serves the purposes of: resistance, rebellion, secrecy & humor • This may further influence the development of new language systems—i.e.: Flaaitaal in South Africa; teenager talk • How might this be accurate or misleading as a feminist tactic of re-appropriating patriarchal assumptions/language conventions? • 340: personhole; persondate—for manhole; mandate • herstory

10. Conclusion • Beware of over-determinism • Be savvy to more subtle forms of power relation & their perpetuation across social reality • “implicit in the linguistic sign is the potential for domination and resistance” • Recall Bourdieu’s analogy of the ‘linguistic marketplace’ • What are the consequences of this theory within ESL contexts?