Ensayos y Modelos del Comportamiento Sísmico de Relaves Espesados

What is the case, then, is that inductively oriented approaches do not sufficiently imbue the analysis with a comprehensive and holistic understanding of the dialectical relationship between discourse and social practice. This, however, does not mean that they cannot be used; on the contrary, these approaches offer useful tools, especially at the

22

textual level of analysis. What it does mean is that they are better incorporated into other deductively oriented approaches, as is the case in the current study and its focus on the socio-cognitive level (SCA). As aforementioned, the SCA can offer more insights into the wider context beyond the textual level. The leading name behind this approach is van Dijk (2009), who draws on the theory of social representation (Moscovici, 2000) and proposes a theory of context. According to Moscovici, social representations can be defined as a set of ‘propositions’ allowing the classification of things or persons, the description of their features, an explanation of their actions and attitudes, and the like (ibid:152). Such propositions are dynamic and fuzzy by nature, which means that they are subject to change. With SCA drawing upon such a perspective, it is possible to see the link between SCA and CDA research examining social change.

2.3.3.1. Mental models and context models in SCA

As the name suggests, the SCA centres on the discourse-cognition-society triangle (van Dijk, 2009: 64). Central to this triangle is the notion of mental models, which derives from Moscovici’s work on social psychology. Mental models are stored in ‘episodic’, i.e. personal or autobiographic, memory and defined as ‘subjective representations of the events and situations observed, participated in or referred to by discourse’ (van Dijk, 2009: 65). In this sense, mental models in general are ‘semantic’ as they do not interfere with the communicative phenomenon; and hence, general though they may be, they cannot all be described as being directly involved in the aforementioned mediation between discourse and society. What controls this mediation is what van Dijk refers to as ‘context models’ ( 1998: 82), which are a specific kind of mental models that, in addition to being subjective representations, have the responsibility of ‘controlling discourse processing and adapting discourse to the social environment so that it is situationally appropriate’ (van Dijk, 2009: 65). In context models, then, semantics is replaced by ‘pragmatics’, as it incorporates how language use is implemented and adapted in accordance with the social environment.

An example of this is the second person plural in Saudi Arabic, antom, which semantically means that the number of addressees is more than two and hence it is

23

expected that this reference will be invoked in the semantic event model. However, in the context model, this changes according to the authority and status attributed to the addressee. He or she may be only one person but should be addressed with the plural pronoun in accordance with his or her social position. That said, the current study is more concerned with context models, as they are better suited to CDA than event models. In fact, it is context models that signify power distribution in a given discourse as they go beyond the linguistic level to the larger social and contextual one. In addition to this, keeping in mind the properties of discourse highlighted earlier in the previous section, context models can be utilised as a suitable tool to examine discourse. This is especially accurate if one links the view of discourse as contextually situated and how context models at the same time signify the necessity of context. Hence, it should be pointed out that any reference to mental models later in this thesis is linked to pragmatic context models and not semantic ones.

2.3.3.2. Cognition in SCA

It is essential to incorporate here a definition of cognition as it forms the cornerstone of the SCA via the existence of context models as cognitive constructs. Cognition is justified in this triangulation since social power, which has been established as a main concern of CDA, is controlled through cognition, not merely actions (Strauss & Feiz, 2013). Broadly speaking, cognition can be defined as a ‘set of functions of the mind, such as thought, perception and representation’ (van Dijk, 2009: 64). While this perception of cognition is consistent with the more general notion of mental models, context models are deeply rooted in the notion of social cognition, which clearly signifies a narrower scope for cognitive functions. Van Dijk defines these as social representations too since members of a certain group share them with other members of the same group, whether these representations are norms, values or even ideologies (van Dijk, 2009).

This definition can be linked to the notion of mental models, discussed in more detail in Chapter Three. However, in brief, the two sets of models in the current study consist of a broader, socially shared category within Saudi society, which is in charge of maintaining the discriminating status quo. The other category reveals a narrower set, which is

24

particular to a sub-group within the same society. In this sense, the second set is shared too but to a lesser extent as it is not as dominant as the other one and, to a large extent, it is presented as resisting such dominance. Due to this duality within the cognitive aspect, the current study is critical in its examination of power struggle as embodied within the first set of models, while at the same time adopting what Martin (2004) classifies as a positive stance within CDA. The following section will examine how this duality is possible within CDA studies and how the analysis can be both critical and positive in a complementary and not necessarily contradictory manner.