Suppose that every time I do a jab, I resolutely and predictably follow it up with a cross. My opponent therefore learns to understand very well my 'discourse'. S/he knows that the meaning of a jab is preparing to defend against a cross, because I am just about to deliver one."
This, then, is what I understand concerning what it means to speak within a mode of discourse. One speaks in a mode that is recognisable, certainly. However, the recognizability of one's mode of discourse is premised upon the predictability of what follows next. Should I fail to follow my jab punches with my cross punches, I am no longer relating to my opponent in a way that is inherently as intelligible. This failure means that s/he will not "understand" me quite so well, then.
But what is assumed, and what certainly is far from proven, is that failure to speak in terms of a recognisable discourse will reduce the efficacy of the speaker.
LET'S LOOK AT THE ISSUE IN ANOTHER WAY:
My faithful adherence to following up every jab with a cross may well be appreciated by my opponent -- for it makes me more easy to read and understand and therefore easier to respond to. Yet we are barely struggling at the peripheries of bland conformity when we seek to assure that everything we do occurs in line with common discursive practices.
Should I fail to follow the route of predictability sometimes, by occasionally mixing up my techniques and manuevers, I can be certain that I will not always be immediately 'understood'. My efficiency, however, is likely to increase.
No comments:
Post a Comment