Having outlined how the relationship between the individual and the subject of discourse is conceived of, we should now turn to the method whereby discourse analysis reveals meaning and tacit knowledge. Recognising how these are produced and the analysis of their nature should allow their operation to be clarified. Viewing social practice as the effects of discourse, and recognising the relationship between the stability of discourse and the normative order, allows us to uncover the nature of tacit knowledge and the ‘negotiation’ of meaning in terms of the subject/object relationship. That is, it is seen by reference to social parameters. Analysis proceeds from two directions – exposing the internal unwinding of the discourse; and the social action which the discourse supports.  These are carried out by the enonce, and not by the rational intentions of the locuteur.

It can be argued that linguistic form is akin to a normative order in the sense that its codification derives from the direct observation of linguistic behaviour. Of course this has been modified by the process of corpus planning and standardisation but, nonetheless, ordinary language involves institutionalised, patterned behaviour.   However, there is a difference between syntactic grammar and deictic grammar. The later fixes subjects and objects in relationship to one another by reference to time, person and place. Social deixis is the means whereby discourse is able to operate in social reality. Modalities, on the other hand,  pertains to a ‘truth’ value in the sense that within discourse or text there is a subject who situates what she says in relation to the certain, the possible, the probable etc. or in relation to judgements of value. To this extent language is always a reflexive exercise involving the enonciateur in relationship to language. Each enonciative act is made visible through a series of marks which are capable of being analysed.

Wittgenstein’s language play which sees language games as a form of life, involves the signification of a word as its use in language (Wittgenstein, 1969). Language is given a material existence, imposing its ambiguity on speaking subjects, their consciousness and their experience, and it is here that the social is most evident.    Language play indicates that language acts are structured in the sense that they are linked to genres of life or social practices. There is a difference between signification and meaning. The former is linguistic whereas the later involves real effects and pragmatic understanding. Signification involves a systematic structure of places in relationship to the formal dimensions of time, person and place or of diverse   modalities.  In connection with effective situations, it allows language to perform the role of operator of interaction, situating the discourse in relation to a series of places of enonciateurs, where the taking in charge of the discourse by the locuteur has the effect of carrying the system along. Social interaction occurs where the locuteurs, in taking the enonces in charge, establish a relationship between the enonces which conforms with those relationships which the formal apparatus of enonciation implicates between the enonciateurs. Between the signification which interpolates the enonciateur, and meaning, which constitutes the real of the allocutaire, are the act and the event which are constructed on the internal structure of the enonces.

The social construction of meaning involves the materiality of language and the integration of linguistic form and their functioning in social interaction. Discourse is viewed as language process as social process such that the social/language distinction does not exist. Language production puts in play both the social structure, and the elements of the individual personality which occupies that social structure. Thus, one is obliged to seek the effects of discourse in the social production of meaning of discourse and not in the production of discourse. Meaning is already constituted before the subject’s existence.

The objective of analysis is to reveal how meaning is the consequence of a practical confrontation of social groups around signification and language play. The analysis involves focusing on the marked nature of the discourse. This involves the deictic markers and modalities or the truth value of the discourse. Enonciative linguistics explores how interaction is constructed into language, rather than being an innate, preformed performance. The marks of discourse designate the nature of the interaction. Modalities are analysed by reference to how they imply a certain ‘attitude’ of the enonciateur by reference to what is said. This is not rationalism, but is an expression of the constant interaction involving the co-enonciateur. They indicate affinity with others through the signification of ‘reality’ and the enactment of social relations. There is also the free or unmarked part of the discourse. It is ‘free’ in the sense that it does not reveal any relevant deictic marks nor modalities. By reference to this aspect of discourse the enonciateur and locuteur must take account of the place they assume in the interpretation of the existing situation, but do have a degree of latitude.

The individual is constituted as a subject through the relationship between interpolation, signification and the taking in charge of discourse, with signification interpolating an enonciateur into meaning when the enonciateur takes charge of the discourse. The act of language supported by the construction of meaning and the enonciateur who takes the discourse in charge are linked. The taking in charge derives from the marks in discourse, with the ‘I’/’you’/’we’ opposition regulating boundaries.  When the individual identity changes so also does signification. However, signification itself is not akin to meaning and must be accompanied by the real effects of discourse. The act and the event involve the relationship between signification and the real effect, and involves how the enonciateur is transformed into the locuteur occupying a real social place. The formal apparatus of enonciation operates when locuteurs are taken in charge, implying a social interaction premised upon shared meaning and the implication of a relationship between the enonce and the situation.  Similarly, modalities link the constituted subject and the situation.

7. Conclusion