PIERRE BOURDIEU

Key Concepts in LANGUAGE AND SYMBOLIC POWER (pp. 34-102)

Against every form of intellectualism or intellectualist approach to language (e.g. Saussure and Chomsky) Language is not simply an object of study.
Language is an instrument of ACTION and POWER (What does this mean?)

a) Bourdieus theory is a theory of practice b) Everyday linguistic exchanges are relations of symbolic power. c) To explain this, he adopts an economic perspective: language is not only used to speak about economic issues but is itself an economic fact: a speech act = a conjuncture, that is the encounter between the socially constructed dispositions of the linguistic habitus and the structures of the linguistic market. d) It follows that linguistics fails whenever it only focuses on linguistic competence (the ability to construct a grammatically orderly structure) and ignores the social role of language

e) Grammar cannot help define meanings f) The production of meaning is a socio-economic event g) Meaning depends not only on content but also on form, i.e. the way we package linguistic structures (e.g. advertisement). To what extent is this relevant to the practice of translation? h) Style is the individual deviation from the linguistic norm. Different styles are different ways of saying the same thing. We decide to say a thing in a given way according to the perceiving subject/the addressee/the audience. Style is the packaging of meaning. i) Result: distinction between denotation and connotation l) The connotation of a word depends on the specific social context (context of situation register) OR MARKET in which the word is used LSP

m) According to the market, a common word can acquire a specific meaning n) No neutral words. All words convey some form of ideology. How would you translate: la nostra organizzazione si occupa di disabili. o) No innocent words. p) Language is extremely creative. There is nothing that cannot be said and it is possible to say nothing. One can say everything in language, that is, within the limits of grammaticality. q) Through language, more specifically, legitimate language we can exercise our social competence, our social power, we can impose our authority. r) Legal discourse highly performative and creative. Language has the power to produce existence.

The Production and Reproduction of Legitimate Language

Bourdieu vs. Saussures langue and parole and Chomskys competence and performance. Why? Because a) both theorizations ignore the socio-historical and practical character of language. Language would be a pre-constructed object. b) They suggest the idealization of a set of linguistic practices, which leads to the illusion of linguistic communism (p. 43) inner treasure. c) According to Saussures perspective, it is language which defines space. Like Chomskys competence, Saussures langue exists and subsists independently of its users.

To follow Saussure and Chomsky, it means to accept the idea of the existence of a completely homogeneous language or speech community and to disregard the fact that language practices are the result of historical events and certain social conditions. legitimate/official/state language. In fact, the legitimate language is the result of a complex historical process, sometimes involving extensive conflicts (especially in colonial contexts) between a particular language, which emerges as the dominant one, and other languages or dialects, which are eliminated or subordinated to it.

To explain this point, Bourdieu mentions the case of French drawing upon Brunots Histoire de la langue franaise des origines nos jours. Different events for the langue dol and langue doc; differences between dialect and patois (negative, pejorative). The role of French Revolution in the policy of linguistic unification. Language as a means for upper classes to impose authority rather than to communicate (pp. 45-49)

Socio-Historical factors that caused French to become the national language. 1) Promoting the policy of linguistic unification those who spoke the official language became the dominant / those who spoke dialects the dominated 2) Normalization, inculcation and legitimation of the official language took place mainly thru two instruments: a) The development of the educational system b) The formation of a unified labor market Results: a) the school as the principal means of access to the labor market b) People speaking local dialects were induced to collaborate in the destruction of their instruments of expression. (p. 49) (what about English as a lingua franca?)

The generalized use of the dominant language is due to a variety of institutions and mechanisms. The recognition of the legitimacy of the official language is neither imposed nor conscious. It takes place through suggestions which are inscribed in the things, situations and practices of everyday life (pp. 51-2)

Distinctive Deviations and Social Value

Sociologically pertinent linguistic differences tend to reflect social and economic oppositions, i.e. linguistic differences (grammar, diction, pronunciation) re-translate social and economic differences.

Lack of competence of the legitimate language entails exclusion from the mainstream society or silence. By lack of competence B. means not so much lack of linguistic or grammatical competence as lack of practical competence. This is not the Chomskyan competence, that is the capacity to generate an unlimited sequence of grammatically well formed sentences, but rather a capacity to produce expressions which are appropriate for particular situations, that is, a capacity to produce expressions propos. This is the capacity to make oneself heard, believed, obeyed, and so on. It is the recognition of the right and authority to speak. The legitimate competence functions as linguistic capital within the linguistic market. Such capital produces a profit of distinction during each social exchange. (pp. 55-7)

Linguistic capital is unequally distributed. Linguistic relations of power take place through different expressive styles. Only some speakers possess legitimate styles that may be considered as authoritative and, hence, capable of determining the good usage of language. Instruments to impose official language are genres, styles, manners, rhetorical devices. ( genres) Writers, grammarians and teachers are the authorities that contribute to the production, consecration and imposition of a distinct and distinctive language, of the legitimate language (pp. 58-9)

The legitimate language is a kind of semi-artificial language whose main characteristics are two (pp. 60-1): Distinction, i.e. deviation from the most frequent, ordinary, vulgar, usages Correctness, which is carried out by special institutions and individual speakers. These contribute to safeguarding the constancy of legitimate language through time and preventing it from simplification. Correctness is made possible thru an incorporated grammar, that is a set of rules inductively obtained from the observation of actual facts.

Mastery of the legitimate language can be acquired thru familiarization (i.e. exposure to the legitimate language.) and inculcation of explicit rules. The main contexts or markets where language can be acquired are the family and the educational systems. The dynamics of the legitimate language depends on the disparity or inequality between speakers (division of labor) The legitimate language also evolves because deviations from the standard use of language takes place. (pp. 61-4)

Price formation and the Anticipation of Profits

Definition of linguistic exchange (p. 66). This is not simply a relation of communication between a sender and a receiver, but it is, first and foremost, an economic exchange. Bourdieu uses the economic terminology to describe this exchange: power, producer, capital, consumer, market, profit, price (also p. 67). Utterances are both signs of wealth and signs of authority. Language does not function as a pure instrument of communication. It is aimed at gaining symbolic profit.

To Bourdieu, the linguistic relation of power is not only a linguistic fact but also a social one: the whole social structure is present in each interaction (p. 67) Strategies of condescension: symbolic power is drawn through equality and solidarity and negation of the hierarchy of languages rather than through status stratification. (p. 68) (what about multilingualism in the EU?) Strategies for the subversion of language and culture hierachies are strategies of condescension too (p. 69). Who is entitled to subvert the hierarchy?

The same discourse may receive variations in the price on different markets (p. 69) Depending on the market and the relations of power (formal to informal situations), the same discourse may produce different effects (profit/price). This also depends on the degree of legitimacy that the speaker has on the market. For instance, in a very formal market, the speaker must have the authority and the legitimacy to speak. What is legitimate competence? (p. 69) Legitimate competence is the capacity of an authorized person to use the legitimate language on formal occasions.

When language is used by an authorized person it becomes performative, effective. The symbolic relation of power depends on both socially determined linguistic properties and non-linguistic properties: voice, titles, clothing (uniform), institutional attributes (spatial structure). The formality of a situation emphasizes the role of the dominant linguistic competence as linguistic capital in a particular market (pp. 70-1) The more linguistic capital (legitimate competence / authority) one possesses, the greater his capacity to manipulate the market The less linguistic capital one possesses, and the more formal the situation, the higher the possibilities to be excluded from the market or to be silenced.

BOURDIEU AND AUSTIN (pp. 72-6) Bourdieus approach to language is quite similar to Austins speech act theory. Performative utterances: I do, I name this ship. These are a case in point of the symbolic domination occurring in all linguistic exchanges. Each speaker has his own symbolic capital, which depends on the recognition he receives from the group. The sine qua non in order for the symbolic capital to be imposed is the convergence of social conditions.

To Austin, performative utterances are not ways of reporting or describing a state of affairs, but rather ways of acting or participating in a ritual. It is not important that utterances are true or false but rather felicitous or infelicitous. To be felicitous, utterances must be uttered by an appropriate person in accordance with some conventional procedure. It follows that, to Bourdieu, the efficacy of performative utterances relies on the existence of an institution which defines the conditions (e.g. the place, the agent, the time) that must be fulfilled in order for the utterance to be effective.

What is an institution to Bourdieu? Not necessarily a particular organization (e.g. a family, a factory), but rather a set of social relations which endows individuals with power, status and resources of various kinds. To sum up: the efficacy of the performative utterances presupposes a set of social relations, an institution, by virtue of which a particular individual, who is authorized to speak and recognized as such by others, is able to speak in a way that others will regard as acceptable in the circumstances

It follows that: symbolic devices (robes, ritual expressions) that accompany occasions of a more formal or official kind are not irrelevant distractions. They are the very mechanisms thru which those who speak attest to the authority of the institution which endows them with the power to speak. (the mystery of ministry) (p. 75)
The felicity condition in order for utterances to be performative is the market (p. 76)

The Anticipation of Profits (76-81) The existence of a discourse depends not only on the grammatical correctness but also on the laws of price formation in force within the market or the laws of the social conditions. These social conditions are: production, circulation and reception of the discourse. In order for the discourse to be successfully received, it is necessary that the speaker anticipates the sanctions of the market whether he produces the discourse in a manner rather than another.

Anticipation is another aspect of the linguistic habitus. In other words, what is the most profitable way for the speaker to utter/produce his discourse? The speaker must self-censor his utterances, i.e. which code do I have to use? What can I say? How much can I say? (pp. 77-8)

Our way of speaking is a compromise between what is to be said and what we are allowed to say (censorship) our discourses are euphemisms. (pp. 78) A euphemism is a polite word or expression that is used to refer to things which people may find upsetting or embarrassing to talk about, for example sex, the human body, or death. (c) HarperCollins Publishers. In other words, the legitimacy of our utterances in very formal markets relies not only on contents but also on form. Each market situation has its own adequate form. (business letters)

Euphemization of discourse entails to account for the power relations between speakers, the hierarchy of their capitals, their sex and age. Stress is to be placed not so much on the form of discourse as on the form of the social relationship. We build our discourse according to the anticipation of profits. That is, what would be our profit/gain if we used language in a certain way rather than another?

The Linguistic Habitus and Bodily Hexis

The key concept that B. employs in developing his approach. Aristotelian and scholastic origins. A set of dispositions which incline agents to act and react in certain ways. The dispositions generate practices, perceptions and attitudes which are regular without being consciously co-ordinated or governed by any rule. Dispositions are inculcated, structured, durable, generative and transposable.

Dispositions are inculcated in the sense that they are gradually acquired in early childhood, thru training and learning Dispositions are structured in the sense that they reflect the social conditions within which they were acquired. So, the similarities and differences that characterize the social conditions of existence of individuals will be reflected in the habitus Dispositions are also durable, in the sense that they are part of the life history of the individual. They are generative and transposable in the sense that they are capable of generating a multiplicity of practices and perceptions in fields other than those in which they were originally acquired

The habitus also provides individuals with a sense of how to act and respond in the course of their daily lives. It orients their actions and inclinations without strictly determining them. It gives the individual a linguistic sense of place (p. 82), i.e. the sense of what is appropriate to say in each different circumstance and what is not, a practical sense. The practical sense is not so much a state of mind as a state of the body, a state of being, that is bodily or corporeal hexis.

Bodily hexis is a durable way of standing, speaking, walking, and thereby of feeling and thinking.

Hexis is a Greek word, important in the philosophy of Aristotle. It stems from a verb related to possession, and Jacob Klein, for example, translates it as "possession". It is more typically translated in modern texts as "state" (e.g. Rackham) but "disposition" is perhaps the least controversial choice. Joe Sachs, who in the tradition of Klein tries to be as literal as possible, translates it as "active condition". For the meaning of hexis and the related term diathesis, see Aristotle Categories viii, and Metaphysics V.xx.2.1022b, compared with V.xix.1022a. It becomes clear that what is important in being a hexis is having a stable arrangement of parts.