Is Van Leeuwen relying too much on disclose? Using it to explain almost everything?
He focuses a lot on the social regulation of discourses, what is permitted and what is sidelined. Investigating discourse seems to bring ideological interests to surface.
We determine elements of discourse from actual texts. Locate able by ngrams.
Summary p 95 P 97-8
Method of historical analysis pp 99ff
## discourse history Observation that certain social crises provide moments for changes in discourses, the emergence of new ones. 102.
## discourse as the realization of social practice 102 ff. Discourses derive from what we do: material practices. They represent thos practices. "Understanding is ultimately based on doing." 103. But discourses transform those practices in ways that safeguard the interests at stake in a specific context. 104. Esp when aimed at public outside of peers.
But in representing those interest, the doing may be repressed. Example p 104 of be-verb for how that became known.
## the anatomy of discourse Discourses are about why we do things. the practices PLUS ideas and attitudes attached on context. 104.
We can see elements of these in discourses. The can be realized in language, visually, etc. they are added to the practice by discourse. 106
- Evaluations - Purposes - Legitimations
Practice consists of these concrete elements. They may be represented or not, depending on the interests of the producers of the representation. Pp 108ff.
- actions - manner - actors - presentation - resources - times - spaces
This is to say we can represent the practices with statements involving these elements. When we do, there are some added statements - those above that represent the ideals and interests. See how he parses statements on p 109.
Brings in idea of scenario, and markup for representng scenarios. 109-10
## Let's look at the scenario markup
NB: as before, we start with language and use it as a basis for constructing a model that can be realized in other media and modes. The scenario markup should be applicable to images, film, diagrams.
Four types of transformation in discourses
- exclusion - exclude elements, such as victims - rearrangement - addition - here's where eval, purpose, and legits come in. - substitution - concepts for concrete elements. Doing into being. 111. Etc.
But might it be possible to not substitute? Such as a cooking video? Or is this objectification? 111
NB: semiotic discourse doesn't escape its ideology. van l is pretty clear that he's looking at statements that do these things as they are presented in the specific texts that represent discourses. Using van l's scheme, We are interpreting the function of the statement as an eval, purpose, actor, etc - but the statement is present, can be considered by others and given alternative function. What is at issue is the social/rhetorical/semiotic function assigned, not the existence of the statement. By using a well-designed system, semiotics gains legitimacy in the eyes of structuralists and empiricists more than romantics, for instance.
Then ADDED TO these are - Evaluations - Purposes - Legitimations
## example analysis Pp 112ff using game as target.
### exercises
Exercise 2, p 115 is good.
Exercise: imagine a discourse of heart as risk factor that highlights commercial interests. That focuses on medical. That melds heart as risk factor and heart as pump.
Exercise: look at a discourse of web writing as easily consumed.
Exercise: discourses of mission statements.