On College English Reading Teaching from VanDijk’s Socio—cognitive Perspective

Guo Huanhuan

【Abstract】According to Van Dijk， there must be certain hidden ideologies and power relations under a text. Exploring VanDijks socio-cognitive perspective and mining the hidden ideology， students could easily discover inequality， ideologies， injustices， discrimination， bias in discourse， and improve their critical reading abilities.

【Key words】Critical Discourse Analysis； socio-cognitive； discourse

【摘要】Van Dijk的“社會(huì)—認(rèn)知”理論認(rèn)為語篇必然隱藏著一定的意識(shí)形態(tài)和權(quán)力關(guān)系。在大學(xué)英語閱讀中，引入并探討該理論，以挖掘文本背后的隱藏的意識(shí)形態(tài)屬性，能夠極大地促進(jìn)學(xué)生的批評(píng)性閱讀能力的提高。

【關(guān)鍵詞】批評(píng)性話語分析 社會(huì)-認(rèn)知 語篇

Ⅰ. Introduction

In the late 1970s， Western linguists， such as Roger Fowle and Gunther Kress developed a new textual research method： Critical Discourse Analysis （hereinafter referred to as CDA）. It aims at exploring the relation between language， power and ideology through the superficial linguistic forms， and reveals the hidden ideology and power relation in the discourse.CDA is a new stage of linguistics discourse after critical linguistics. While， about the relation between language structure and social structure， different scholars have different ideas. Critical linguists argue that language structure and social structure are connected in a direct way， while CDA thinks there must be a medium between them， it is commonly called ‘social cognition， which is studied mostly within the discipline of social psychology （Fiske and Taylor， 1984； Wyer and Scrull， 1984）.

To discover the hidden hidden ideology and power relation in the discourse could improve students critical abilities in their English reading. While how to apply CDA to the teaching is a matter of question. Although domestic scholars， such as Liu Chengyu， Ding Jianxin， Liao Yiqing， Xin Bin have done some researches， further research and practice still be needed on it.

II. Discourse and socio-cognitive

Discourse is the systematic point of view， which expresses the meaning and value of social institutions， defines， describes and restricts what can be said， or what cannot be said， thus it embodies the ideology. While， the form of ideology is the meaning structure （reproduction of social structure）， and the meaning is inseparable from a set of practice with meanings. Therefore， the analysis of discourse ideology must fully explain the invisible and natural ideology embodied in discourse practice. The purpose of critical discourse reading is to uncover the writers attitude， emotion and cognition underneath the discourse. That is， to make invisible， natural ideology to be dominant， non-natural.

Van Dijk takes discourse as a communicative event. As he points， CDA should be discussed according to a reasonable context theory. Meanwhile， Van Dijk regards cognition and society as two aspects of discourse context， and figures that a detailed study about them is essential for thorough discourse analysis. Therefore， his CDA theory is often called as “The discourse-cognition-society triangle”.

According to him， discourse is linked with cognition by a solid line， the same is true of cognition and society， but the line between discourse and society is dotted. We can say there is a directed relation between discourse and cognition， between cognition and society， but an indirect relation between discourse and society， which needs a medium “cognition” to link each other.

Van Dijk stresses， “Here ‘cognition includes both social cognition and individual cognition， comprises evaluation， emotion， beliefs and goals as well， and contains any other mind and memory structure characterization or process related to discourse and communication.”Van Dijk thinks， in social psychology “socio-cognitive” category consists of three aspects： knowledge， attitude and ideology.

Van Dijk insists that discourse analysis should be cognitive， and figures that socio-cognitive should be treated carefully when conducting a thorough analysis of relation between language structure and social structure. Peoples understanding of social events， social institutions and power relations are also established based on their shared social cognition. According to Van Dijk， the understanding of discourse cannot be separated from the habitual and social cognition with ideology. Only through psychological construction and mind-read can social structure link with the discourse structure.

Ⅲ. Analysis frameworks of socio-cognitive

Among the analysis frameworks of CDA， Van Dijk argues joint analysis between the semantic structure and form structure. The author thinks that， Van Dijk analyzes mainly from three aspects， that is， context analysis， text analysis and context model： context analysis emphasizes the event background； text analysis includes vocabulary， rhetoric， and argumentation； and context model stresses accurately psychological expression through concrete text and style.

1. Context analysis

According to the definition， context means the words that come just before and after a word， phrase or statement and help you to understand its meaning （Advanced Learners English-Chinese Dictionary）. It often consists of background， environment， framework， setting， or situation surrounding an event or occurrence. Neither article nor word can exist without a certain context， they must be generated under certain circumstance， and represent some kind of perspective. Thus， the word or article must be understood from their social background. Therefore， the theory of social cognition should care about not only cognition or about people as information processors， but also society and people as social members.

2. Text analysis

First is the vocabulary choice， which mainly includes the analysis of words， the choice of words and the use of pronouns. Among them， particular attention should be paid to the use of pronouns. Social cognition allows language users to form and use their representations of social groups， classes， institutions and their relationships， also those of dominance and power. In most contexts， the user generally uses pronouns such as “us” and “them”， to distinguish in-groups and out-groups. From the cognitive perspective， the user always deals with a group belonging cognition by using pronouns.

Second is the rhetorical figure. Since very ancient times， rhetoric has been regarded as an important means of persuasion and argumentation. Rhetorical figures could help speakers express themselves easier， so they could be understood better by listeners. From the cognitive perspective， metaphor， simile， irony， hyperbole rhetoric and argumentation strategies could control the recipient to compare and merge multiple mental models in the brain， thus affecting peoples understanding of significance for the event. Thus readers should mind-read rhetorical figures in their reading process to uncover the hidden expression.

Third is the syntactic structure. In the syntactic structures， people always use some strategies such as the deletion rule of accidental information， the deletion rule of inductively recoverable information， the generalization rule， and the construction rule to control listeners understanding， affect their construction of emotional model， and fully express the specific theme to them. In the specific text analysis， the speakers real theme is always expressed through the title， abstract， introduction and some summary sentences.

Fourth is the argumentation. From the cognitive point of view， argument is an actual process that users control listeners mental model to convince the listeners. Topos is the most basic and typical way among all argument methods. It is a means for people to use speech to coordinate all parts. Often， the shared values between discourse users and audience provide a strong basement for him， namely， it is based on the common social cognition.

3. Context models

Traditional sociolinguistics and critical linguistics believe that the psychological process of discourse production and social structure is directly linked. In contrast， Van Dijk focuses his views on the indirect relationship between society and discourse. He thinks the medium between society and discourse is constructed and renewed by the participants constantly， and defines subjectively the communicative context based on it. In other words， discourse connects the society through the context models. Furthermore， Van Dijk focuses the cognition as the medium between discourse and society， and emphasizes its key role in controlling discourse production and understanding.

Ⅳ. Conclusion

As we all know， exploring specific analysis methods and mining hidden ideology could help students uncover inequality， ideologies， injustices， discrimination， bias， etc. in discourse， and improve their critical reading abilities. While the application of CDA to teaching practice still lack of further and detailed study. Through the above interpretation of Van Dijks socio-cognitive， a further conclusion could be made， that is， ideology always links group members social status and conditions. Therefore， in cultivating students critical reading ability and improve their critical ideologies， a socio-cognitive is essentially and necessarily.

References：

[1]田海龍.語篇研究的批評(píng)視角：從批評(píng)語言學(xué)到批評(píng)話語分析[J].山東外語教學(xué).2006（02）：40-47.

[2]Kress，G.& R.Hodge Language and Ideology.London：Routledge&Kegan Paul L td.1996：68.

[3]Van Dijk，T.A.2009.“Critical Discourse Studies：a sociocognitve approach”.In Wodak，R.and Meyer，M.（Eds.）2001.Methods of Critical Discourse Analysis.（2nd edition）London：SAGE.

[4]Van Dijk，T.A.2001.Multidisipinary CDA：a pleafor diversity.In Wodak，R.and Meyer，M.（Eds.）2001.Methods of Critical Discourse Analysis.London：SAGE.

[5]田海龍.語篇研究：范疇、視角、方法[M].上海：上海外語教育出版社，2009.

作者簡介：郭換換（1986-），女，河南周口人，助教，碩士，研究方向：應(yīng)用語言學(xué)。