Wednesday, February 23, 2005

Language and Discourse

There is no simple correlation between the set of possible sentences and the set of possible statements. Michel Foucault has perhaps been the most active exponent of the difference, suggesting, in fact, that these sets are defined by altogether different operations. Sentences are possible or impossible within the order of language, while statements are possible or impossible within the order of discourse. The crucial difference here is the role of knowledge.

Now, in one sense, knowledge is essential to all language. What defines a "discourse", however, is the degree of specialization. If we define "style" in the simplest possible terms, namely, the choice and combination of one's words to achieve particular effects, then we can already see how the acquisition of knowledge (scientific competence) is an acquisition of stylistic mastery. After all, one learns not just the meaning of a set of specialized words (vocabulary), but also the suitability of more colloquial expressions, the necessity of illustration with concrete examples, the demand for formal expression in statistics and formulae. As Foucault points out, part of the style of a discipline also lies in a particular "play of metaphor". While it is certainly not the whole story, these stylistic elements (from vocabulary, to context sensitivity, to figurative language) help to define a field of research and limit participation in it.

For students working on the basis of English as a first language, the task of acquiring scientific certification is largely one of passing from a generalized linguistic compentency to a specific discursive style. In Foucault's terminology, the idea is to master (if always partially) a particular "enunciative modality", which constitutes part of the "discursive formation" of a field. Most fields also depend on a selected linguistic competence, of course. Thus, some fields are difficult to work in without a working understanding of French or German. But for the very great majority of academic disciplines, English is the only real linguistic prerequisite for any serious participation in research.

For students working with English as a second language, or as a foreign language, there are two immediate challenges where others have only one. Or rather, the division of tasks comes into starker focus. (Most students with English as a first language need to improve their linguistic competences during their studies, even after entering a PhD programme; but their improvement is less noticable here and more often attributable to practice than concerted study). It is often possible to structure this task in accordance with the specific demands of the field. As a start, I will suggest that students make lists of words that are often used in the writing of their chosen discipline, and that they then learn these words, their grammar, and their etymologies. This means looking them up in a good dictionary (The Oxford English Dictionary is good). A slightly more difficult task is to try to determine a list of words that is rarely or never used to name particular phenomena. What kind of economist you are will depend on how you use the word "capital", for example.

Learning how to construct appropriate expressions within the specific academic discourse you want to work in begins with constructing sentences that employ its vocabulary. The good news is that a discourse generally has fewer words than a language. The bad news, of course, is that they are "hard".

1 comment:

Andrew Shields said...

[I decided to begin reading your blog from the beginning]

1. "There is no simple correlation between the set of possible sentences and the set of possible statements. ... Sentences are possible or impossible within the order of language, while statements are possible or impossible within the order of discourse. The crucial difference here is the role of knowledge."

Sentences; statements; knowledge: now, in 2012, you would talk about "claims." How does your current use of that word relate to this use of "statements"?

2. "... the acquisition of knowledge (scientific competence) is an acquisition of stylistic mastery": this does not seem straightforward to me, neither in my own terms nor in terms of your more recent ideas. This makes it sound like acquiring knowledge leads to style, but surely there are far too many examples of knowledgeable people who have not mastered the conventional styles of their own subfields, let alone of "elegant style" in general (or the mastery of multiple styles implied by "classic prose").

And from my reading of your recent ideas, you have developed a methodology that bridges the gap between knowledge and style by making the expression of knowledge into a conscious cultivation of style as something to practice, the way a musician practices an instrument. In a sense, if there is no gap between knowledge and style, there's no need for you, the writing consultant.

3. Here, you emphasize helping scholars who are not native speakers. Am I correct that you have downplayed this point in the ensuing years?

4. "Learning how to construct appropriate expressions within the specific academic discourse you want to work in begins with constructing sentences that employ its vocabulary": when I began to discuss philosophy and literary theory with my Dad (a mathematician), he was struck by how I seemed to know the terminology without really understanding it. But of course that's what you have to do: try it out to see how it feels to use the new words. And in grad school, I knew I'd begun to understand ideas when I began to parody them.