THE DISCOURSE OF BALLET TEACHING AS SOCIAL SEMIOTIC IN THE SINGAPOREAN CONTEXT

Abstract

This research study aims at a descriptive cum interpretative analysis of language as a 'main resource' for creating the academic and social meanings within the Ballet classroom and constructing for Ballet students a picture of what learning Ballet is about. A proposed theoretical framework has been formulated from social, descriptive and pedagogic models with the objective of unveiling firstly, the social order and organization of the Ballet teaching community; secondly, the process in which knowledge, skills and social (attitudinal values are transmitted and lastly the classroom orders and social practice of teachers. The results show that Ballet training can be seen analytically as comprising three stages - learning the technical labels, understanding the principles of dance and learning to dance. These three stages, together with the pedagogic beliefs and social and classroom practice of teachers are interestingly signalled by recognisable linguistic markers which act as indexes to the social and cultural orders and institutional matrices of the Ballet teaching community. It is surprising to note that although Ballet is essentially a non-verbal activity, Language plays a very important role in the transmission of knowledge, skills and values, grooming students; creating new dance sequences; and preserving and perpetuating a cultural heritage as well as in establishing interpersonal relationship within Ballet classrooms. This study makes no claims to findings representative of all Ballet teachers in Singapore. The observation represents at best individual teaching styles and preferences. It will be unfair to make generalization about all Ballet teachers in Singapore. The criteria evaluated are a small selection from a very wide range of variables and models proposed by linguists and are, therefore, not comprehensive guides to the social semiotic of the Ballet community. It is important to note that the formal properties of a text cannot be mechanically described without interpretation and explanation because we are essentially 'engaging with human products in a human', and therefore 'interpretative', way. The researcher's as well as the reader's interpretation are influenced to a large extent by their socio-cognitive resources such as knowledge of language, representations of the natural and social words we inhabit; values, beliefs and assumptions about culture, social relationships and social identities. It is however, hoped that the proposed evaluative framework will offer some useful pointers in discourse analysis in general.