Model+3+-+Post+Modern


 * __Post Modern Model of Language Learning__**

This is the most recent model of human communicative behaviour to emerge. It is in response to the Sociolinguist Model (2) which looks linguistic structure alone. The Sociolinguist model cannot explain or determine meaning – therefore, a social theory was required. It seeks to understand the fragmentary changes in language without ‘idealising’ the basic mechanisms of language. Instead, it attempts to compartmentalise and understand the nature of these fragments. It differs from the Sociolinguist model in the way it conceptualises language and also in the way it envisages society and an individual’s identity. Notably, it considers human identity to be __diverse, inconsistent and unstable.__ It has a lot in common with **__Post Structuralism.__** The PM approach to language reflects the wider tends in our understanding and perception of the universe and the natural and social order of the world. The features of language are now seen as much more ‘’complex labyrinths’’ than in the previous 2 models. Hence, the PM approach does not necessarily //deny// the existence of structure – it just visualises it in ways that are more up to date with our new understandings of science and the universe. PM theories tend to take a wider **semiotic** view (the study of sign processes in communication) of what language consists of. It is more concerned with the ‘signs’ of music, pictures, clothing, cuisine, consumer goods, etc. These can been seen to be part of the many processes of human communication that are __language-like.__ __ *** PM** model does not define a boundary between language and non-language. __ Therefore, with the PM model, communication is a much more unstable phenomenon compared to the previous 2 models. It arose from the transitory, intimate and the briefly existing interactions of context and the social norms amongst mankind. Utterances and texts of language have no singular and unproblematic meaning. Instead, different hearers and readers with respond to the ‘materiality’ of language in unique ways, according to their ideological states and previous world experiences. In essence, //meaning// is not fixed for each participant in the communication process. Instead, the //subject// is open to further social negotiation which takes place in relations of power (between participants). Thus, the utterances and texts of language are jointly produced and their meaning is negotiated amongst its participants. Within the PM model, texts are simply not read and understood but are ‘consumed, used and exploited’ and provide a site of struggle. It assumes that scholars can never discover //what// texts mean – they can only build theories of //how// texts mean. This would require ethnographic studies of the social practices of the participants to take place. In conclusion, the PM language user cannot be said to have particular ideas, intentions and meanings which can be encoded into language. It assumes that we, who are the participants and language users, are **not** the authors of our own meaning //**but are more co or multiauthors**//.
 * __ Background: __**
 * __ Overview of Post Modern (PM) Model: __**