"For me, the notion of "social language" sounds too verbal and too
communicative at expense of non-verbal and material aspects of activity.
Bill, can you elaborate how you deal with this issue?"
I actually agree that Bakhtin's notion of social language does have with it
the idea that social languages _belong_ to different spheres of activity, and
that the meanings of signs (verbal or otherwise) are inextricable from their
uses in these activities.
I have floated between using "social language" and "Discourse," in Jim Gee's
definition of the term--which includes not only verbal signs but also people,
objects, non-verbal signs, and the like, and which organize and are organized
by social practices--to describe what I see in my own work. Actually, I tend
to use Bakhtin's notion when describing them to practitioners, since it is
sometimes easier to see than the complex notion of a Discourse that involves
objects, language, and people.
But the youth Discourses themselves I see not only include verbal
representations of youth as "resources" or as "drains" on resources, for
example, but also have attendant strategies, participant structures, and
characteristic modes of disciplining of youth associated with them. More
unilateral Discourses, which see youth as needing to be kept in control, tend
to also use "point" systems, where youth get or lose points for bad behavior.
In this case, the participant structure reinforces the message "youth need
to be controlled," and both verbal discourse and the 'point system' often
converge to invite youth to see every situation as an opportunity to cross a
line; or make a decision about whether to build up points; or as in/out of
control.
So in short, I would not want to take "social language" to mean just verbal
expression either, though I'm not sure just how much Bakhtin (or those who
have interpreted him) have made this term inclusive of social practices.
Bill Penuel
________________________
PreventionInventions
PO Box 40692
Nashville, TN 37204