SFL для социологов: Рукайя Хасан об идеологии в изложении Аннабель Лукин

Очень простой и доступный текст для социологов, начинающих изучать системно-функциональную лингвистику доступен здесь

Внизу надо нажать на кнопку транскрипт. На всякий случай привожу его полностью внизу поста.

Надо обратить внимание на следующие вещи:

  1. Это в своей основе марксистский подход, сочетающийся с любимыми нами Вебером и Бурдье
  2. Есть авторы, которых мы знаем хорошо, но не соотносим их с социологией. Это прежде всего Выготский – научная звезда абсолютной величины на Западе и Волошинов, который либо принадлежал кругу Бахтина, либо это псевдоним самого Бахтина. Бахтин (Волошинов) так же как и  Выготский стали чуть не объектами почитания и обожания на Западе. В истоках этого явления нам еще предстоит разобраться
  3. Есть авторы, которых мы знаем меньше:
  • Базиль Бернстайн – известный социолог в области образования, у нас известен в основном узкому кругу специалистов, но для системно-функциональной лингвистики (SFL) и теории кодов легитимации (LCT) является создателем основополагающей концепции коммуникационных кодов, марксистской по духу.
  • Бенджамин Ли Уорф – яро критикуемый, но часто упоминаемый ученый, которому приписывается утверждение, что язык определяет мышление.

Концепция Хасан в чем-то перекликается с работами Мангейма.

В целом это концепция лингвистическая, несмотря на внешнее сходство с социологией. Для социологов она представляет интерес, потому что повлияла на становление критического дискурс-анализа и современного анализа влияния языка на все сферы социальной жизни.

См транскрипт презентации внизу:



Annabelle Lukin https://prezi.com/li9qrd1n7ghl/language-linguistics-semantic-variation-ideology/

Transcript of Language, Linguistics, Semantic Variation, Ideology

Bernstein on ideology
Bernstein …
“The unit for the analysis of codes is not an abstracted utterance, or a single context, but relationships between contexts” (Bernstein 1990: 15)“the specific text is but a transformation of the specialized interactional practice; the text is the form of the social relationship made visible, palpable, material. It should be possible to recover the original specialized interactional practice from an analysisof its text(s) in its context” (Bernstein 1990: 17).Some data
Ideology v ideologies
“ … ideology is not content. It is not that some ideas or attitudes are ideological, others are not; it is simply that through experience we develop a particular way of relating to whatever we encounter in life. The question is not whether someone has ideology or not; the question is simply what the ideology is actually like, how it is that one relates to one’s experience of living” (Hasan 2005a: 250).
Ideology is multimodal
“ideologies, like social facts, are orchestrated simultaneously at multiple levels of human existence” (Hasan 2005b: 268).
Who do you read on ideology? And why?
Why would you read Hasan on ideology?
Language, Linguistics, Semantic Variation, Ideology
Ideology: a Whorfian view
“If a specific configurative rapport – a constellation of linguistic patterns – is perceived as criterial in the context of some ideology, it is not because the system of language has forced these patterns together; its contribution lies in providing the resources. The configurative rapport comes into existence and acquires a life because of our fashions of speaking as our fashions of speaking are the bearers of our ideology. It is through these fashions of speaking that prehension between the patterns of a configurative rapport becomes established and we come to recognise that the deployment of such and such lexicogrammatical patterns constructs such and such a group of meanings, which finds support through such and such of our doings and thus perpetuates an ideology which we ourselves have created through our sayings and doings.” (Hasan 2005b: 274).
What does ideology look like? Where do we look for it? And how?
Read the texts below. How are they different?“If language is viewed as a system of systems of choices, then, in a manner of speaking, all its use has to be seen as ideological: in the final analysis, the actual choice, albeit unconscious, lies with speakers, who in the nature of things are socially positioned, and thus ideology-specific; their inclination towards this choice or that is a matter of their habitus, their mode of orientation” (Hasan 2003: 439-440).
She has argued that there is a continuity across terms such as consciousness (Marx & Engels, 1985), worldview (Whorf, 1956), mental function (Vygotsky, 1962; 1978), coding orientation (Bernstein, 1965), ideology (Vološinov, 1986) habitus (Bourdieu, 1990), and orientation to meaning (Hasan, 1989; 1992b), suggesting that though they are not synonymous, there is considerable overlap among them (Hasan 2005c: 336).
the state is the form of the human community that (successfully) lays claim to the monopoly of legitimate physical violence within a particular territory – and this idea of ‘territory’ is an essential defining feature. For what is specific to the present is that all other organizations or individuals can assert the right to use physical violence only insofar as the state permits them to do so. The state is regarded as the sole source of the ‘right’ to use violence. Hence what ‘politics’ means for us is to strive for a share of power or to influence the distribution of power, whether between states of between the groups of people contained with a state” (Weber 2004: 33)
“Lastly, there is rule by virtue of ‘legality’, by virtue of the belief in the validity of legal statutes and practice ‘competence’ based on rational rules. This type of rule is based on a person’s willingness to carry out statutory duties obediently. Rule of this kind is to found in the modern ‘servant of the state’ and all those agents of power who resemble him in this respect” (Weber 2004: 34)

Weber’s three forms of legitimate authority: customary, charismatic, legal/rational
Modernity has turned out to be “the most violent epoch in recorded history … notwithstanding the cruelty of pre-modern rulers, no tyrant of agrarian civilisation could match the brutal efficiency of mass slaughter in concentration camps or the scope and speed of carnage caused by machine guns, aerial bombardment or nerve gas. There is no historical equivalent in terms of numbers to all the revolutions, total wars and genocides of modernity. Yet it is this era more than any previous epoch that proclaims the emancipation and liberation of the human subject as its central and core value” (Malešević 2010b: 79).

Add Comment

Required fields are marked *. Your email address will not be published.