COMPORTAMIENTO PRODUCTIVO

As noted in Chapter Five, a we-you discourse constructs an identity for a particular

other. It is grounded in a binary opposition that is established between what van Dijk

(1998) calls an us and a them. The binary of the we-you discourse is constructed around two positions – the us or the we-discourse position, which is positive, and the them or the you-discourse position, which is negative. Thus, in the DHA, the we-you discourse reveals the binary opposition between two agents or two groups of agents. The first group of agents is represented through the we-you discourse position as the

we/us. The second group of agents is represented through the you-discourse

position as the you/them. Tracing the we-you discourse identifies the strategies that speakers use to define those who belong and those who do not (cf. Matouschek et al., 1995 in Titscher et al., 2000).

In these terms, there are two groups, one represented positively, and the other represented negatively. It was noted in Chapter Five that, while there is only one we- you discourse, there may be multiple groups positioned as the we and multiple groups positioned as the you. Thus, as will be seen below, in the we-you discourse constructed in the accounts of staff, there were multiple you-positions within the same we-you discourse.

In all of the staff accounts, the we positioned Australian students positively because they were the group against which all other students were compared. The use of the we-discourse position to represent Australian students positively is in line with Matouschek et al. (1995) and van Dijk (1998), who argued that the us or the we is the positive representation of a binary. It is noted that, with the exception of the account from Corrine, Australian students were not explicitly described in the extracts of data. Thus, silence was the strategy through which students were positioned as

the we. In the interviews, opportunities were given for staff to discuss their

experiences when dealing with all students, not just the Eastern Asian international student cohort. Rather than describing their experiences with the Australian students, the staff chose to focus their interview discussions on their experiences with the Eastern Asian cohort. The Eastern Asian students were explicitly named in the staff accounts. All of the students who were explicitly named in the accounts were

positioned as the you. In these staff accounts, several agents were represented through multiple you-discourse positions. As it was noted above, the questions facilitated a discussion of all students at the school, including the domestic or Australian students, however, the staff responded by describing the Eastern Asian students they dealt with at their schools and ignoring or rarely mentioning the Australian students.

The staff positively positioned the Eastern Asian students because they were able to teach Australian students about their Asian neighbours (cf. Corrine Johnson) and to help them to learn about other cultures (cf. Sarah Fitzpatrick) and were a representation of multiculturalism (cf. Matt Llewellyn). However, in naming the Eastern Asian students’ influence on the school, they constructed the you-discourse position. While there were positives associated with the you-discourse position, it was generally associated with representing Eastern Asian international students as having problems or as a negative influence at the schools. These students were positioned as a ‘you’ or other because they were identified with a variety of problems. For example, Corrine Johnson nominated that these students lie quite blatantly to

save face … they tend to take a lot of time off, they tend to come late, they tend to skip classes. In this account, Eastern Asian international students were represented

In other accounts, the you-discourse position was constructed through a focus on different problems, such as a failure to engage with the school (cf. Matt Llewellyn, Dan White and Catherine Hackett), a failure to behave properly (cf. Simon Peter) and previous failures at other schools (cf. Suzanne Smith, James Huang and Eleanor Ga). Thus, the accounts established a binary opposition between the Eastern Asian international students, who caused the staff problems, and other students,

presumably Australian students, who did not. Binary oppositions are used to represent those groups who are identified with causing problems for the dominant group as a nuisance (cf. Corrine Johnson) or a problem (cf. Catherine Hackett).

The binary opposition constructed through a we-you discourse was also illustrated in Peter Scott's account. His account was not concerned with current problems at the school. Rather, he focused on the long-term consequences for Australia if the enrolment of Eastern Asian international students continued. He nominated that the Eastern Asian international students from Mainland China were here because they’re … sapping everything they can get. The we-you discourse of his account involved a binary opposition, representing one group positively at the expense of the other, which is represented negatively. The Mainland Chinese other was the group that was represented negatively because these students were in Australia sapping ideas and innovations. By contrast, the Australians were depicted positively in the short-term, as the group whose ideas and innovations were sought. Beyond this, Australians were represented in the long-term as victims of the other, who were trying to steal those ideas and innovations. The representation of the Mainland Chinese group was particularly problematic because sapping implies that the students were undercutting and undermining the schools. However, this is difficult

to reconcile with the large amounts of money that the Eastern Asian students were paying in fees in order to be exposed to these ideas and innovations.

A binary opposition was not constructed in all extracts. In particular, where the accounts concerned the Eastern Asian international students at School B, multiple you-discourse positions were constructed. This was because staff at this school identified exceptional international students. The Papua New Guinean students and Fred were positioned as a positive you, because they were the students whose behaviours and interests were most like those of the Australian students. The you- discourse position through which they were represented was different from the

negative you-discourse position through which the Eastern Asian student majority (at this school, the majority of international students were from Mainland China) was represented.

The positive you-discourse position was associated with students who were not identified as having specific problems; they were the ‘safe’ Eastern Asian

international students. These students did not present a challenge to the Australian school because they were engaging with the school in ways that were acceptable or expected because they were the same ways that Australian students engaged with the school. Rather than obviate how the Australian school was changing, because of the different cultures associated with the negative you-discourse position, the positive you-discourse position represented those students who, while different, were not challenging the dominant discourses of the school. Dominant discourses were discussed in Chapter Three where it was noted that dominant discourses reinforce the dominant social order, which in turn reproduces the social and political power. By stopping in and saying hello to staff, being ockers, playing competitive sports, being Catholic and having a tradition at the school, Fred and the Papua New Guinean

cohort were seen to be more like the ‘us’ of the we-discourse position, in opposition to the negative you-discourse position through which the Eastern Asian student majority were represented. It was noted in Chapter Five that there was one we-you discourse and multiple positions within that discourse, however, the dichotomy between good and bad proposed by Matouschek et al. (1995 in Titscher et al., 2000) and by van Dijk (1998) is unable to account for the multiple you-discourse positions evident in the accounts from School B staff. As such, this study found that there were positive you positions and negative you positions constructed by the accounts.

Reification was also seen in these accounts in much the same way that it was evident in the work of Doherty and Singh (2005). They identified how reification constructed Eastern Asian international students negatively as needing to change and adapt, while Australian students were constructed positively. In much the same terms, the staff extracts analysed above demonstrated how Australian students were constructed in positive terms and were the group against which all other students were compared. The Australian students were reified because they were the model students who were the we with whom the you was compared.