Participants in the Linguistics module (https://cllr.com.au/product/linguistics-flyer-unit-21/) are near the last session next week and everyone has learned and practiced so much. One of the skills we have practiced is Critical Discourse Analysis (CDA). The use of language is neither neutral, objective or monosemic. All language just like all signs and symbols are interpreted (polysemic). The study of interpretation is called ‘hermeneutics’. This is the foundation of understanding messaging, communication and meaning in text (visual, verbal, symbolic or written).

In language, we see, hear and observe text (spoken, written, symbolic and para-linguistic). We call this discourse. Even the use of the word ‘discourse’ has many meanings depending on context. In SPoR, we focus on the surface meaning of text (discourse with lower case ‘d’ and the hidden meanings of text with an upper case ‘D’). In Discourse we note power embedded in text (visual, verbal, symbolic or written), hidden meaning in text in things such as politics, ethics, philosophy and ethnological meaning.

In SPoR, we use a CDA tool that provides a structure for analysis.

We use many tools/methods in SPoR that emerge out of a clear methodology (https://www.humandymensions.com/product/spor-and-semiotics/). Throwing together a few aspirations, principles and slogans is NOT a methodology, neither can such create a method. The CDA Tool is just one of many tools we use to reform the way we tackle risk and improve safety.

The CDA worksheet can be viewed below:

Without the appropriate education and learning undertaken in Linguistics, this tool wouldn’t make much sense. However, even at a basic level one can see that language and discourse are analysed in structure, grammar, syntax, lexical meaning, context and semiotic meaning.

This tool is copyright to SPoR.

There is no study like this undertaken in safety anywhere, yet it is so needed.

And so Safety, without proper analysis usually speaks nonsense to people (https://safetyrisk.net/safety-experts-in-speaking-nonsense-to-people/). Eg. ‘the first rule of safety culture is to not talk about it’.

In our work on Linguistics in risk we observe just how much the language of safety is dehumanising, focused on controls, telling and arrogance. Apparently, only Safety knows how to be safe, only Safety knows everything and only Safety can be trusted.

In our study in Linguistics we look at: ads, speeches, podcasts, flyers, posters, policies and presentations given by Safety across a range of contexts. It’s not a difficult task to analyse a presentation in HOP for example and discover that HOP is just traditional safety with different rhetoric (https://safetyrisk.net/new-rhetoric-but-same-old-dynamics-in-hop/).

Understanding the difference between rhetoric, discourse, Discourse, underlying philosophy, ethic and meaning is bread and butter for any CDA activity. This is often determined easily, not by what is spoken about but most importantly, by what is NOT spoken. Even a simple analysis of choice of metaphor demonstrates that HOP is traditional safety.

In CDA it is also important to tell the difference between discourse and Discourse. One can use the words ‘professional’, ‘learning’ and ‘different’ as much as one can, but that doesn’t make it so.

The purpose of all of this study of Linguistics is to improve the messaging of safety so that it is meaningful, consistent, positive and constructive.

Rambling on in some safety policy document about controls, performance, measurement, injury rates and spinning a few slogans doesn’t improve safety. Indeed, the constant repetition of all the old safety favourites just keeps manufacturing a deeper commitment to safety mythology.

In order to know what should be said in safety one needs to know one’s own disposition, ontology and methodology. In the methodology of SPoR we are always looking for language about: humanising persons, ethics, helping, care, wisdom, enactive meaning and learning but rarely find it. Such is the culture of safety (that we mustn’t talk about).