Daniela Camponovo, siquiatra infanto-juvenil

The concept of recontextualization originates in Bernstein’s work on pedagogical discourse (Bernstein, 2003, 1981). His work revolves around the idea that unequal distribution of power stems from how social relationships are structured. In turn, these structures have repercussions on the dynamics of social groups, their conceptions of social order and reality, their practices and the divisions of social labour. In his research, Bernstein develops the hypothesis that class relations are at the core of social

organization. He is interested in “how class regulation of the distribution of power and of principles of control generates, distributes, reproduces, and legitimates dominant and dominated principles regulating the relationships within and between social groups and so forms of consciousness” (2003, p. 10).

He identifies three interdependent contexts that affect and determine pedagogic discourse, its practices and organization. First, there is the context in which a text is originally developed to suit a particular context thus creating a particular “‘intellectual field’ of the educational system” (i.e. primary context) (Bernstein, 1981, p. 363). Second, there is a process in which some aspects of this primary context are chosen and

strategically reproduced, constituting the “field of reproduction” (i.e. secondary context) (1981, p. 363). Finally, there is the process in which the discourse, after being developed and selectively refocused in the previous two processes, is relocated into the secondary context, constituting the “recontextualizing field” (i.e. recontexualizing context) (1981, p. 363). For example, when a student collective meets, they write minutes of the session. This is meant to help them record their debates and follow up their demands and action- plans (i.e. primary context). The acts are made public, and the media usually report on them. However, they do not faithfully replicate the act due to space constraints and editorial decisions. Thus, they read through the acts and select the most important points in line with their own criteria (i.e. secondary context) and write a report in which that information is also included yet is accompanied by other information as well (i.e. recontextualizing context).

Another important concept is the “principle of decontextualizing” (Bernstein, 1981, p. 363). This principle determines the changes in the text and its context so that the original text is never the same as the resulting one. The process consists of changes in

48 how the text relates to other texts and practices from that of the original, as it undergoes modifications in its focus, foregrounding and/or backgrounding specific codes and

practices to suit its new context. Thus, the resulting text has not only been repositioned in a new context, within new codes and practices, but its original focus and purpose has changed, regulating its “new ideological positioning” (1981, p. 363). Both processes of decontextualization and recontextualization occur simultaneously in pedagogic discourse. However, the idea that these processes are unique to the educational field is limiting as it can be easily applied to other social fields, especially in news discourse (Sagayo, 2015). In the example of the reporting of the students’ act, the selection of the most important aspects of it is framed by the purpose of the resulting news article, the editorial line of the newspaper, and the multimodal aspects surrounding this news piece (i.e. pictures,

advertisements, headlines, fonts, etc.). Therefore, the act is first decontextualized from its original objective and context and recontextualized into the news genre to fit other purposes.

Van Leeuwen draws on Bernstein’s understanding of recontextualization and broadens its applications outside the field of education, under the premise that “all

discourses recontextualize social practices, and that all knowledge is, therefore, ultimately grounded in practice, however slender that link may seem at times” (2008, p. vii). In the case of its application to the field of news, news discourse also “establishes and

reproduces categories, hierarchies, levels of relevance and modes of development (which are more or less exhaustive, more or less explicative, more and less objective” as the discourse of education (Sagayo, 2015, p. 581). Therefore, everything can be interpreted as a re-presentation of social action in the Social Actor Approach, even the most abstract form of being or action (Van Leeuwen, 2008; Van Leeuwen & Wodak, 1999). For

instance, the reports of Chilean student protests are a re-presentation of the actual actions and practices performed by the students into the format of news report. In this process, some aspects of the protest might be excluded, suppressed or foregrounded to fit its new context (and genre) accordingly.

The analysis of the representation and attribution of motive inevitably brings up issues of how language is conceived. It raises issues of the role of language in the

49 core of social movements and the development of their political conflict. Throughout this research, I adopt a critical stance towards the object of study in the light of how the Social Actor Approach has applied these concepts. There are two particular theoretical and methodological influences that explain why I have chosen this approach to Discourse Studies and not another. On the one hand, there is Halliday’s Systemic Functional

Grammar (2014; see also Thompson, 2014) and its understanding of language as a system of choices (section 4.2). On the other, there is the role of Social Semiotics (Hodge & Kress, 1988, 1993; Van Leeuwen, 2005) and its influence on how meaning is understood in relation to a system of social signs that determine social interaction and the broader social order. In particular, I draw on their understanding of how ideology, power and hegemony are realized in social interaction (section 4.3). These will be explained accordingly in the following sections.