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. Sociolinguistic Theories 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

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?