Discourse Ks – Gonzaga Debate Institute 14

No Link – Language is Complex

Representations matter, but it is too complex to say that oppression is packaged up into a single word

Braye, Graduate degree in Communications, 3

[Kerry, 6/20/03, Kelta Advance Learning, “Why do Representations Matter?”, http://110.164.64.200/FreeWare/program/www.keltawebconcepts.com.au_clipart.htm/www.keltawebconcepts.com.au/erep1.htm, accessed 7-5-14, PAC]

The world consists of many different cultures involving a diverse range of beliefs, ideas and practices. Members within these cultures communicate through a system of signs, sharing meanings with each other and other cultures. These meanings can only be shared through a common access to language (conceptual maps). However language alone does not produce meaning. Although representation through language is 'central to the process by which meaning is produced' (Hall, 1997: 1), there are many other interrelated systems such as discourse and ideology that construct and instruct individuals in making sense of the world around them, organise and regulate social practices, influence conduct and have real, practical effects (Hall, 1997: 3). It is the aim of the following discussion to show how important representation is in constructing not only individual meaning and identity but also the culture to which those individuals belong, in other words, why representations matter.

The world today and its many technologies have meant that people are exposed to an array of visual representations representing just about anything. According to Urry (1990), the postmodern person (post World War II) is a voyeur, someone who sits and gazes. 'This a looking culture' he says, 'organised in terms of a variety of visual images portraying all things imaginable' in magazines, television, cinema and the Internet (Urry, 1990: 135) among others. In other words, representations, especially visual, have become an important part of daily life that influences and constructs meaning about the world people live in. How meanings are constructed is not a simple process. It is not a simple matter of gazing at a picture in a magazine, taking meaning from it and then assuming that everyone else will interpret it the same way. On the contrary, representations change and shift with context, usage and historical circumstances. They are never finally fixed nor are they always real (fantasies, mermaids, fairies and so on). Instead 'they are always being negotiated and inflected' (Hall, 1997: 9-10).

Hall's (1997) definition of representation is, 'the process by which members of a culture use language to produce meaning' (Hall, 1997: 61). This may appear quite simple however the words 'culture', 'language' and 'meaning' involve certain complex systems of representation. Language for example, involves the process of semiotics (symbols, signs and codes) (Palmer, 1991: 8-9); culture involves the process of shared sets of concepts, images and ideas (Hall, 1997: 3). It 'is communication', according to Duncan (1962: 35). Meaning derives from individual experiences, knowledge and understanding, creating conceptual maps that enable people to relate to 'objects, people, events, abstract ideas' and so on (Hall in During, 1997: 19). Knowledge and power are related as Foucault (1980) explains. To him, 'elements (discourses, institutions, regulations, morality and so on) are always related to power which in turn generates knowledge............people acquire their knowledge within institutional frameworks and this knowledge influenced by power, enables the deciphering, interpreting and understanding of representations' (Foucault, 1980: 194-196). Institutional frameworks, according to Althusser (1971), 'function by 'ideology'' (Althusser, 1971: 136). They involve apparatuses of culture or what Althusser refers to as 'ideological state apparatuses' (ISAs). These ISAs are the apparatuses of communication of which images, meanings and slogans (among others) define the worlds in which people live. Taken as a whole ISAs guide, define, and expropriate experience; give meaning to them (Denzin, 1992: 98).

Within a constructional approach, systems of representation are 'organised, clustered, arranged and classified', thus establishing complex relations between them (Hall, 1997: 17). There are many forms of representation and as Hall (1997) explains, representations may be physical, mental or symbolic and they vary in abstractness. Physical (visual) representations may be picture-like such as photographs, drawings, maps and diagrams. They can be language-like, such as natural human languages like English or French and technical such as computer languages (Hall, 1997: 17-18). These languages may be in the form of words, facial expressions and gestures (Hall, 1997: 5). Mental representations include emotions, ideas and concepts. Symbolic representations include any object that symbolises one (sign) or a number of things (icons) - the simulcra (Palmer, 1991: 8; Denzin, 1992: 98).

Although signs and icons may belong to the same form, they differ in the way they work. A sign such as the letter 'T' has no meaning in itself; neither does the sign 'R' or 'E'. Even when placed in a sequence such as 'TREE', the word still has no meaning. It is only when the word is constructed and fixed by a code, does its meaning make sense and then not to everyone. For example, those who do not recognise the signs that make up the English language will not recognise the word 'TREE'. It is in the visual sign of a 'TREE' that concepts may be shared (Hall, 1997: 19-21). The visual sign in this case is called an icon. Meanings attached to an icon are not fixed. They may be simple such as the 'TREE' (it can be assumed that most people understand what a tree is) or complex such as sporting champions. For example, Hayley Lewis (Australian Olympic swimming champion) is often referred to as an Australian icon. To many subjects, Haley represents success, femininity (textually-mediated discourse), health, family, motherhood and marriage (positive regimes of representation). For others she represents depression, obesity (not that she was grossly overweight) and oppression (an object of desire for men within a patriarchal society) (negative regimes of representation). For any individual, each of these institutional representations involve different and varied emotional responses. Considered as an Australian icon, Hayley is required to conduct herself as representative of what constitutes being an Australian. Shane Warne is perhaps an example of what can happen if this representation is tainted, in other words, the power within representation (cost him his vice-captaincy and much of his admiring public, not only within Australia). Whatever the case may be subjects identify with what is being represented through a process called 'interpellation' (Woollacott, 1986: 206-209; Greenfield and Williams, 1991: 125).

Language and discourse change depending on context—you cannot pin down the meaning of words

Lascarides, University of Edinburgh Division of Informatics Professor, 07
(Alex, Nicholas Asher (Department of Philosophy, University of Texas at Austin), 2007, The University of Edinburgh, “Segmented Discourse Representation Theory: Dynamic Semantics with Discourse Structure*”, date accessed 7-5-14, CLF)
At least two important ideas emerged from research on discourse interpretation in the 1980s.

First, dynamic semantics changed the way linguists think about meaning: instead of viewing

the content of a discourse as the set of models that it satisfies (e.g., Montague (1974), Davidson

(1980)), dynamic semantics views it as a relation between contests knows as the context change potential or CCP (eg., Kamp (1981), Groenendijk and Stokhof (1991)). Secondly, Al-based research demonstrated that discourse structure is a necessary component of discourse interpretation (eg., Hobbs (1985), Mann and Thompson (1987), Grosz and Sinder (1986)). Both these insights address the need to model how the interpretation of the current sentence is dependent on the interpretation of the sentences that precede it, but they differ in their aims and execution. Dynamic semantics typically explores a relatively restricted set of pragmatic phenomena, focusing on the effects of logical structure on anaphora of various kinds. For example, it predicts the difference in acceptability of the pronouns in (1a) vs. (1b): Discourse structure in dynamic semantics is thus determined entirely by the presence of certain linguistic expressions such as if, not, every, and might. The process of constructing logical form is equally simple, either using only syntax and the form of the logical forms of clauses but not their interpretations (e.g., Kamp and Reyle (1993)), or using in addition notions such as consistency and informativeness (e.g, van der Sandt (1992)). In contrast, many Ai approaches to discourse interpretation aim to model implicatures generally. Including the interpretation of pronouns (eg., Hobbs et al. 1993)). These theories emphasize the roles of the commonsense reasoning with non-linguistic information such as domain knowledge and cognitive states. For example, Hobbs (1985) argues that such reasoning is necessary for inferring the he in binds to Bill rather than John.