A Comparison of the Socio-Semantic and Socio-Cognitive Approaches
The socio-semantic approach looks at the semantic resources of discourse for social practices representation. It looks at the meaning of the language as used in textual processes in social life (Van Leeuwen, 2013). In this approach, social practices include a regulated way of doing something including traditions, role models, and prescriptions. Discourse refers to the socially specific methods of knowing the social practices and applied as resources for textual representation of social practices. The main elements of social practices include agents or social actors, actions making up the practice, performance modes, eligibility conditions, presentation style time, location, and resources. From my understanding of the socio-semantic approach, I found the main strength to be its definition of social practices and discourse as two separate entities. This is a strength because it provides clarity and reduces ambiguity. For example, in a case of suppression where textual representation of a social issue such as a terrorist attack leaves out the names of the perpetrators, the approach defines social practice, discourse and its interpretation in a societal setting. The usage of the socio-semantic approach is revealed through suppression in textual contexts. For example, an apology issued by the police department regarding the use of force in a public protests does not define who the apology is directed to and the perpetrators of the said actions. I find the suppression tactic to be the most effective exclusion strategy in the socio-semantic approach. It is very effective and noticeable when used.
The socio-cognitive approach uses cognition and a mediating layer in a three-dimensional methodology made up of social structures, discourse, and cognition (Van Dijk, 2017). Social structures are the powers that influence and change social arrangements in a society. Power plays avital role in altering the mechanisms in a social structure and is exercised on action and on the minds of the people. Power leads to direct control and influencing people’s minds and positions. I understood socio-cognitive to include how power influences the mind through access to the socially valued resources such as knowledge, wealth, and membership to groups, position, income, force, and social status. The elites, religious leaders, political powers and institutions wield this power. Socio-cognitive is effective in textual contexts when using categorization. They are applicable in categorizing people in different classes. This categorization also has a great benefit that enables a comparison between people or things in either a negative or a positive stance. For example, in the rhetoric following the Iran-US conflict, the ideological positions and strategies of both nations are presented differently depending on the author. Dissatisfaction, for instance, of the US with Iran is mentioned where a Western author is involved and vice versa. Categorization and comparison of policies taken by both nations is a function of the socio-cognitive, an influence and controlling of the mind using ideologies. In another example, socio-cognitive approach can be used in national self-glorification, for instance when a Chinese media praises the government for how it has put the interests of the Xinjiang people of all ethnic categories first. Here, socio-cognitive approach, according to my understanding, is used to create a positive representation of a group. First, the country and the government are isolated as an entity, then the policies made are mentioned, and then the specific groupings of the Xinjiang people is used to highlight the issue, thus creating emphasis on representation. The similarities of the two approaches are that they both focus on the social aspects of a people and their point of view. I found the two approaches as suitable given different contexts. The socio-semantic approach is different as it looks at the individual elements of a social structure while the socio-cognitive approach focuses on control and influence of the mind by other actors. The applications of the approaches are different, yet I find them to be suitable in their different usages.
References
Van Dijk, T. A. (2017). Socio-cognitive discourse studies (pp. 26-43). Abingdon: Routledge.
Van Leeuwen, T. (2013). The representation of social actors. In Texts and practices (pp. 41-79). Routledge.
