Chapter 6 Summary: Discourse Models

This chapter is organized through the following inter-related parts: “Bachelor” as a

folk Model, Simulation in mind and Discourse Models, Local Meaning, Discourse Models in

Action and Conflict, and Types of Discourse Models.

In this chapter, the Author deals deeply with Discourse Models. According to him,

Discourse Models are the unconscious theories and stories that we use to make sense of texts

and the world. They are something that exists in our minds and in the world too. They are a

picture of a simplified world that captures what is taken to be “typical” or “normal” according

to the context and people’s social and cultural groups. Discourse models are significant tools

of inquiry; they mediate between the local interactional work we do in carrying out the seven

building tasks and discourses. They operate to create complex patterns of institutions and

cultures across societies and history. The role of Discourse models were clearly defined by

the linguist Fillmore (1975) who used the term “frame” instead of “Discourse models”.

Fillmore used a simple example: the term “bachelor” as a folk model. He argued that the

traditional definition of words such as “bachelor” were inadequate. The bachelor is a man

who has never been married, however, as Fillmore pointed out; the definition fails to explain

why we do not consider for example the pope to be a bachelor. Though the pope is unmarried

man, we are reluctant to call him a “bachelor” since we don’t use words based only on their

definitions but also based on stories, theories or models in our minds about what is “normal”

or “typical”. Discourse models often involve us in exclusions that are not at first obvious and

which we often make unconsciously.

In fact, Discourse models set up what count as central, typical cases, and what count as

marginal, non-typical cases. However, they can harm other people by implanting in thought

and in action unjust and rejecting assumptions.

Simulation in Mind and Discourse Models

 The author states that discourse models are linked to Simulations that help; us to think

about things and to prepare ourselves for action in the world. We humans can build

simulations in our minds according to the purpose in order to understand what we are

currently seeing, hearing, or reading and to be prepared for action in the world. For instance,

we act in the simulation and test out what consequences follow before we act in the real

world. In fact, the quality of simulation is the ability to think and imagine before taking

actions and that what makes us human “smart”.

The fact that our experiences in the world are shared with others who are members of

the same social and cultural groups as ourselves, our simulations of things come to overlap

with other people simulations which make it possible to communicate and act together . Thus,

all of us have the capacity to form prototypical simulations.

In this section, Gee makes a contrast between prototypical simulations and special case

simulations. We take prototypes simulation to capture what is “typical” and judge features of

our more special purpose simulation.

In general, discourse models are linked to simulations in our minds. But these models

are not just mental; they exist in books, media, knowledge gained through interaction, and

what we can infer from various social practices around us. In other words, we can’t handle all

the elements of discourse models, the reason why we rely on books, media. Nowadays,

Simulations used in many fields such as science, computer games etc…

Meaning is Local

Meaning, according to Gee, even literal meaning is wedded to local, on site, and

Discourse practices. It is not general and abstract, not something that resides in dictionaries or

even in general symbolic representations inside people’s heads. Rather, it is situated in

specific social and discourse practices; it is, in fact, continually transformed in those practices.

The Author encourages his readers to look beyond examples from their culture and bring in

language -in-action examples from other cultures in order to figure out situated meaning.

William Hank’s example: “English” of Mayans in Yucatán Mexico.

 Mayans have their own Discourse models of how physical and social space work and

how they are related. To really understand, even the literal meaning of words or sentences

used, we need to understand how social hierarchies, gender, meals, social engagements, and

daily working in local setting among Mayan community. For example, the word “drinking” is

used to mean eating since Mayans always take food with drink and vice versa. They used also

the word “seated” to mean that one is “at home” or “available”. The situated and local nature

of meaning is largely invisible to us. We think that, when we haven’t confronted other

language-at-work in languages and cultures far distant from our own, “setting” is just setting;

“drinking” is just drinking etc….

Discourse Models in Action

The Author demonstrates how Discourse Models and social class are connected, and

how political issues are implicated in the study of discourse models. The Discourse Models

are not fully in our heads; they are available in the culture and social class in which we live.

The study of Middle Class parents in Cambridge

When these parents talked about their children’s development and the desire to be

independent, two related and integrated Discourse models were noticed; “stage model” and

“independence model”. These models are fully in the culture and social class where those

parents live.

Discourse Models in Conflict

Gee argued also that people can have allegiance to competing and conflicting Discourse

Models. One powerful social class or group can influence a less powerful group through

discourse models.

Common American Discourse Model of “success” discussed by Andrade (1984) and

Strauss (1992):

In the us society, it is typical that if you put an effort into anything, you can get

ahead; if you want to succeed you will succeed, and if anybody disgraces with that, there is

something wrong with him. However, people from different social groups, respond to this
discourse model in a different way; very specifically, the white-collar professionals recognize

the success model as a set of values and judging themselves by this model means that they

haven’t been “successful” , consequently lower their self-esteem.

Sorts of Discourse Models

The distinction between Discourse Models based on how they are used and on the effects

they have on us. They are divided into four types:

1- Espoused models: Models we consciously support or believe in.

2- Evaluative models: Models we use consciously or unconsciously to judge ourselves or

others.

3- Models in action or interaction: Models that consciously or unconsciously guide our

actual actions and interactions in the world.

4- Master models: the same as Conversations, they help shape and organize large and

important aspects of experience for particular groups of people.

Discourse models can be partial and inconsistent

The partiality and inconsistency of Discourse models reflects the fact that we have all

had great many different and conflicting experiences; we all belong to different, sometimes

conflicting groups; and we are all influenced by a large array of groups , texts, institutions,

and media that may reflect our best interest more or less poorly.

Discourse models as recognition work

Discourse models flow from our experiences and our social positions in the world.

Through texts we attempt to get oneself and others to recognize and relate other people and

things like poverty, crime, fear etc…in a certain way. In other words, to take people and

things in the world and organize them in a specific pattern which is the joint product of our

experiences in the world and the discursive work we do in communicating in specific setting.

Discourse models as tools of inquiry

When we are confronted a piece of writing, talk, action, and interaction etc…Discourse

models lead us to ask the following questions:

1- What Discourse models are relevant here? As analyst, what I must assume that people

feel, value, and believe, consciously or not, in order to write (talk), act or interact this

way.

2- Are there differences between discourse models that are affected supported beliefs and

those that are affecting actual actions and practices? What sorts of discourse models

are being used here to make value judgment about oneself or others?

3- How consistent are the relevant discourse models here? Are there conflicting or

competing discourse models at play? Whose interests are the Discourse models

representing?

4- What other discourse models are related to the ones most active here? Are there

“master models” at work?

5- What sorts of texts, media, experiences, interactions, and institutions could have given

rise to these discourse models?

6- How are the relevant Discourse models here helping to reproduce, transform or create

social, cultural, institutional or political relationships? What discourses and

conversations are these Discourse models helping to reproduce, transform or create.

We always assume, until absolutely proven otherwise, that everyone has “good reasons” and

makes “deep sense” in terms of their own socio-culturally specific ways of talking, listening,

reading, writing , interacting, valuing, believing , and feeling.