How to deal with the importance of language and connotations in comprehending policy in any form

To analyse policy, its discourse, and its interpretation by practitioners, and the researcher analysing it we arguably need to engage with the concept of language (Fairclough & Fairclough, 2012), or how language is used to communicate ideas and thoughts, and at times instil compliance to a form of practice. Moreover, Raymond Williams (1977) noted that “[a] definition of language is always, implicitly or explicitly, a definition of human beings in the world. The received major categories-'world', 'reality', 'nature,' 'human'-may be counter-posed or related to the category 'language', but it is now a commonplace to observe that all categories, including the category 'language', are themselves constructions in language, and can thus only with an effort, and within a particular system of thought, be separated from language for relational inquiry.” (p.21). I.e., language is a linguistic and socio-cultural construct. Therefore, comprehension of language also extends to understanding science, evidence, and ideas of how we should for example educate people or how “evidence” is used to inform and justify policy and politics. In other words, the importance of language, is (at least) two-faced in the sciences, it pertains to how we can analyse empirical material and structure conceptual thought, as well as communicate our ideas to others.[1] This is of double importance when comparison is involved, as a common language is needed to enable comparison, and attention must be made that comprehension across cases is correct and that particular connotations are respected. This holds not only across language groups (e.g., English or French) but also across contexts of language use (e.g., the context of research, the context of teaching, the context of policymaking etc.) as they contain their own “parole” to use Ferdinand de Saussure’s well known concept (Thiberge, 2012).

The importance of connotations and concepts (the “heart” of a language) in a culturally diverse world is well illustrated by Daniel Tröhler (2014) who wrote: “Many of the participants at the OECD conference in 1968 had already met half a year earlier in Rome at a first informal meeting to discuss the problems of the future (see Hahn, 2006, p. 39.). At this meeting, a dispute over the notion of “system” broke out. Although no details are available, we know that the French participants defended connotations of their concept of système, whereas the Anglophone participants advocated for connotations of their own concept of system. Disagreement between these two parties was so strong that the conference ended with no result, despite the excellent quality of the wine, as Peccei (1977, p. 65) reports with regret. The planners of the harmonious globe could not even agree to harmonize their core concepts.” (p.8,). This view on connotations relating to language being cultural and hard to translate and even communicate is something that is also linked to the cultural evolution of thinking, connecting cognition to culture through language and connotations (Heyes, 2019; Jackson et al., 2019). Connotations are here understood as both ideas and emotions – the full definition of the word, arguably also illustrating how cognitions are felt, as our ideas become concrete and real (see previous chapter). I.e., ideas when expressed may invoke emotional responses relating to how we attach (connote) to a word. This is perhaps best explained through some relevant examples as I will now do, before continuing the inference of how language and connotations construct what we perceive (in given linguistic contexts) as “inherent truths” that guide our perception of reality.

Examples of how language and connotations articulate different across cases but also within cases.

To exemplify the importance of language across cases, what is it a teacher does, who are teachers, and so on are often taken for granted constructs (concepts) with their own inherent truths. A teacher for example is (using the English language as illustrator) someone who teaches, whose occupation it is to instruct, thus inherently a teacher instructs someone of something, a rather unambiguous word as defined. The same holds for the French “enseignant”, but the French language also incorporates other words such as “maître” which means either the same as “enseignant” in primary school, or a master of someone or something, arguably more ambiguous and less easy to defined through an inherent truth, unless it is equated to mastery over students or a classroom in which sense it is more defined than “enseignant” or another word for primary teacher, the "institutrice "that only pertains to “instruct”. These linguistic differences also extend to a separation between levels of education, with the maître or institutrice being a primary teacher, and a professeur de college for “middle schools” and professeur de lycée for upper secondary teachers, creating inherent linguistic separations between “types” of teachers.[2] This is of central importance if we proposition that language may reflect the society that made it (here it is also important to see language as a context dependent process, ever evolving across time and place).[3] An example of language reflecting society in practice (should it not be coincidence) would be the use of the masculine form “Ils” in French when addressing five women and one man and the “neutral” character of the English language in the same regard through the word “they”. Or the historic use of institutrice or maître/maîtresse for primary teachers and professeur de l’école/lycée for secondary teachers, where England uses “teacher” for all levels.

Moreover, the French word "formation" that is used by all French actors in relation to teacher

education differs from both Initial Teacher Education and Initial Teacher Training, the two dominant English conceptions. Formation, as Foster (1999) pointed out when comparing practices in ITE/ITT in England

and France, is from the perspective of teacher trainees a more encompassing word than either ITE or

ITT are on their own, formation is both education and training. To illustrate, according to a recent

report on teacher education by the French national education inspectorate IGEN-IGAENR: “[Former” that is to mould, modify behaviour. “Formation” is an action which voluntarily moves someone to

evolve their practices and even transform them.]” (IGEN-IGAENR 2019 p.11). Thus, “formation” is a

word that alludes to the forming of an individual to perform something specific (e.g., learning to

teach or learning to use Microsoft Word – the span of contexts (activities) the word “formation” can

be used in is wide) and to form intellectual thought. Formation then encompasses both education

and training and is a more encompassing word than “education” which is usually used in reference to

the upbringing and transfer of knowledge to children. It is reflected also in the French version of

continued professional development, which is called formation continue or formation continuée

depending on where in the career it is undertaken, and as such may refer to the English word

“development” as well.

To exemplify the importance of connotations within a case, we may look at how the possible implications of language on conceptualizations of the teacher and how sentiments may be articulated differently in policy discourse, we may look to the English word “craft” that has garnered much attention since Michael Gove made a statement on teaching being a craft in 2009 (Childs & Menter, 2013). In the wake of Gove’s statements, many academics were outraged and attacked the statement without much qualification as to what was the problem (how Gove used the word to equate teaching with “apprenticeship models” so the issue was perhaps with “apprenticeship”, but for cultural reasons expressed as outrage at “craft”). These developments are interesting when seen in comparison to Robin Alexander’s (2001) reasoning of why teaching is a craft and not an “art” or a “science”. Alexander, using a completely different take on “craft”, believes teaching to be a craft precisely because it is at the intersection of both art and science, in the sense that it has a scientific foundation but is dynamic and “artful” in its application in a classroom, traits he equates with a craft. The notion of craft can also take on different meanings in relation to the separation of the head and the hand as discussed by both Arendt (2018 [1958]) and Sennett (2008), with differing emphasis and different implications for how for example teaching can or cannot be conceptualized as a craft. Here then we see one word, which can be constructed to mean vastly different things, and that is also made up of other concepts (art and science) to create different inherent truths as to what it is. Moreover, this serves as an example of the cognitive difficulties we may encounter when the political use and academic use of a word are misaligned. Furthermore, such misalignment between author and reader, speaker and listener is also more common than one may think (for a myriad of reasons such as bias, strong connotations, or a failure to adequately historicise a text). Thus it is important to come to terms with an author (here reading differs from dialogue) where the reader must understand how the author has used a word such as a political or research concept (e.g. Craft) to be able to partake in the discourse and analyse, critique, and learn from a text (see (Adler & Van Doren, 1972) for a more extensive discussion on this topic). We may also take note of how this entails understanding the speaker, but also that you are discussing with the words of the speaker not the person. Therefore, who said something is important for understanding what is meant, but not inherently important for the validity of the statement. One would want to avoid ad hominem after all. In other words, the analysis must go beyond the words themselves, and attempt to understand both their intended use and their reception, which may have led to a change in wording (but not substance) in subsequent policies.

Implications of language and connotations when analysing policymaking comparatively

These examples serve as an illustration as to how words have socially constructed inherent truths (a teacher teaches because that is inherent in the conceptualization and use of the word teacher), rooted in connotations, that are contextual, and relate to how individuals react when faced with words. Connotations are also why synonyms are not of an exact similar meaning in terms of communication, and why the same word can be said to not be the same either dependent on both the context it was used it and the people involved in communication (author – reader, speaker –listener, actor-observer). With that in mind, we should also recognise that words can be appropriated and have their meanings changed by actors engaged in discussion, as a means of controlling an argument or moving the shared understanding (the meaning of the words) towards their own preferences. Here we see the difference between communication tout court and discussion. Thus, comparison of contexts (time or space) requires, a commonality of language that the researcher must construct. Alternately, words with too diverging connotations must be, and were, coded as separate entities. For these reasons, the analysis did not attempt to compare in a direct sense the language used between England and France, as the connotations are likely different and “lost in translation”. Instead, each case was analysed in isolation in comparison to the analytical framework, and then compared. In a sense then, the French and English language were both translated into the language of this thesis, before they were compared. Thus, all words are to an extent socially constructed concepts, they mean something and that meaning has inherent truths and differs based on both speaker and listener.

Moreover, we may think of arguments over “labels” of concepts in academia with their own connotations and taken for granted linguistic truths, that differ across contexts. E.g. should W. R. Scott’s (2013) “carriers” instead be called modes of dissemination or transmitters? Or, is “dimension” better understood through the label “ensemble”? A word must be understood in its context and the meaning granted to it by the speaker and his audience. For example, should the intended audience see the word “craft” as a problem, then it is a problem, however should a non-intended audience see it as a problem then it is not, while it is also the audiences responsibility to try to understand the intent of the speaker. Thus, if the use of “craft” was intended as a positive remark on teachers, it should be seen as such, rather than reading something into it that is not inherently there.

Thus, what is a teacher and his education is may in part be found in the language employed to denote amongst other things teacher, teaching, and education. Particularly should they be taken for granted or as inherent truths of the common language. Moreover, contestation over the meaning of words through discussion and argumentation may also drive conceptualizations in one direction or the other. This is central to understanding policy. By logical necessity, first, one must come to terms on language, and then one can understand, analyse, and comment on a text (Adler & Van Doren, 1972). Hence, understanding how actors connote to policy discourse has to be at the centre of policy analysis.

Bibliography

Adler, M. J., & Van Doren, C. (1972). How to read a book (2nd ed.). Amazon Kindle: Touchstone.

Arendt, H. (2018 [1958]). The Human Condition (second edition ed.). Online: Kindle.

Childs, A., & Menter, I. (2013). Teacher education in 21st century England. A case study in neoliberal public policy. Revista Española de Educación Comparada, 22, 93-116.

Fairclough, I., & Fairclough, N. (2012). Political Discourse Analysis a Method for Advanced Students. London and New York: Routledge.

Heyes, C. (2019). Précis of Cognitive Gadgets: The Cultural Evolution of Thinking. Behavioral and Brain Sciences, 42, 1-58. doi:10.1017/S0140525X18002145

Jackson, J. C., Watts, J., Henry, T. R., List, J. M., Forkel, R., Mucha, P. J., . . . Lindquist, K. A. (2019). Emotion semantics show both cultural variation and universal structure. Science, 366(6472), 1517-1522. doi:10.1126/science.aaw8160

Scott, W. R. (2013). Institutions and Organizations: ideas, interests, and identities (4th ed.). Los Angeles: Sage.

Sennett, R. (2008). The Craftsman. London, England: Allen lane.

Thiberge, M. (2012). Langage, Langue, et Parole. Empan, 88, 69-75.

Tröhler, D. (2014). The medicalization of current educational research and its effects on education policy and school reforms. Discourse: Studies in the Cultural Politics of Education, 36(5), 749-764. doi:10.1080/01596306.2014.942957

Williams, R. (1977). Marxism and Literature. UK: Oxford: Oxford University Press.

[1] Saunders (ed) 2007 contains some interesting discussions on how scientists do (or may) communicate their research with policymakers for example. [2] In English, one can say a (school) teacher is a teacher (in a school) is a teacher (of children), that is not possible the same way in France for example through the use of the word “maître” or professeur. Also note the use of the word “professor” from middle school and up in France, a word that is only used at a higher education (university) level in English. [3] In Spanish, another Latin-origin language, teacher is “maestro” or “maestra” depending on the gender, or profesor – profesora de escuela, similar to French but with less variation and the added gender differentiation that only appears for “institutrice” in French. Thus, we may also talk of language as historical constructs that can be seen in relation to the Roman Empire, the Germanic tribes and so on and so forth.