COMMUNICATION
6410
(Spring, 2007)
Discourse
Analysis
Instructor & Class Information
|
Instructor:
Dr. |
Office
hours: M |
|
Sect
001 – 3:30-6 PM, Mon, 77 Hellems Sect
002 – 3:30-6 PM, Tues, D144 Muen |
Phone:
(303) 492-8461 |
|
Office:
89B Hellems |
E-mail:
Karen.Tracy@colorado.edu |
|
Home Page; http://comm.colorado.edu/tracy |
|
Seminar
Overview
Discourse
Analysis
points to a family of approaches to inquiry and a substantive area of study. In
communication, the substantive area of communication study is often referred to
as language and social interaction, "LSI." This class attends to both meanings, albeit
tilting toward discourse analysis as a method for the study of social life. The
seminar has two purposes, with each reflected in class activities and
assignments. A first purpose of the seminar is to enable you to do a discourse
analysis: To take instances of talk and text and arrive at interesting,
persuasive claims. To accomplish this purpose, you will be practicing the
technical and analytic skills that comprise discourse analysis (transcribing
and being able to read transcripts; developing a vocabulary that enables you to
comment on features of talk, language, and interaction; learning how to select
excerpts for analytic focus; developing your ability to explicate inferences
and make arguments; and building an insightful paper-length claim that
contributes to your academic community’s scholarly discussions. A second
purpose of the seminar is to provide you a sense of the variety of discourse
traditions while developing deeper understanding of three particular ones: (1) conversation
analysis, (2) action-implicative discourse analysis, and (3) critical discourse approaches. The
first part of the class will involve assignments with common texts. Then, in
the second part of the semester, students will work with a slice of
institutional, interpersonal, or on-line interaction that is of interest to you
to develop a discourse analytic research paper that would be suitable for
submission to an academic conference.
(1)
Jaworski, A., &
Coupland, N. (Eds.). (2006). The discourse reader (2nd ed.).
(2)
A set of journal articles
and book chapters. There are full citations in the seminar schedule. These
readings will be posted on CULearn, but if you would rather have hard copies of
all readings, you may purchase a reading packet from the UMC copy center.
Course
Assessment
Major DA
Research Paper (50%). The
culmination of the semester's work is to be a discourse analysis that is
similar in style, format, and scope to the published studies we will have read
as exemplars. The paper is to analyze and advance an argument related to
materials of your own choosing. It is assumed that most students will be
working with audio or video
Participation (1/6,
17%). This class is a seminar and your involvement
is vital to make the class work well. Everyone is expected to come to class
with questions and comments on the week's assigned readings and to contribute
to discussion of the day’s discourse data. Every week we will be looking
at/listening to audio, video, or textual
Weekly Homework
(1/3, 33%) Each
week you will have a homework assignment
(mostly written but occasionally oral). The assignments have three
purposes: (1) to give you experience with one or another DA practice/skill, (2)
to move you along in a timely fashion on the tasks that you will need to do to
write a strong major research paper, and (3) to help you develop your own position
toward important controversial issues in discourse study. Written feedback will
be given on assignments, but a grade will be reserved for the end. If the
assignments are done thoughtfully, adhering to the timetable of the class, you
can expect to receive a grade of A-/A. Late, missing, or perfunctory
assignments will result in a lower grade.
Miscellaneous
Course Information
Equipment: The Communication Department has equipment that is available for students
to checkout. Equipment includes laptops, digital VHS cameras, web cameras,
wireless Internet cards, transcribers, tape recorders, and more. Please see http://comm.colorado.edu/tac/resources/
for more information. For graduate students who are not in communication, you
will need my signature to check out equipment.
Data Sessions: On the 2nd
and 4th Wednesdays of each month from 11-11:50, faculty and grad
students from several departments will be gathering in Hellems 77 to have a “
Tentative
Schedule and Assignments
|
Class’s Topical Focus and Assignments |
|
|
Section I: Beginnings--Key Ideas and Practices |
|
|
Week 1 001: (1/22) 002 (1/16) |
Introductions
to classmates, DA, and data sessions Read--DR
Intro (pp. 1-37) Tracy, K. (2001). Discourse analysis in communication.
In D. Schiffrin, D. Tannen & H. Hamilton (Eds.), Handbook of discourse
analysis (pp. 725-749). |
|
Week 2 001: (1/29) 002: (1/23) |
Doing
Discourse Analysis Read--Antaki, C., Billig, M., Edwards, D., & Potter, J. (2002).
Discourse analysis means doing analysis: A critique of six analytic
shortcomings. Discourse Analysis Online, 1(n1), 1-24. Drew, P. (2006). When documents "speak": Documents, language
and interaction. In P. Drew, G. Raymond, & D. Weinberg (Eds.), Talk
and interaction in social research methods (pp. 63-80). Pomerantz,
A., & Fehr, B. J. (1997). Conversation analysis: An approach to the study
of social action as sense making practices. In T. A. van Dijk (Ed.), Discourse
as Social Interaction (pp. 64-91). Wilkerson, S. (2006). Analysing interaction in focus groups. In P.
Drew, G. Raymond, & D. Weinberg (Eds.), Talk and interaction in social
research methods (pp. 50-62). Wooffitt, R., & Widdicombe, S. (2006). Interaction in interviews.
In P. Drew, G. Raymond, & D. Weinberg (Eds.), Talk and interaction in
social research methods (pp. 28-49). HW: Develop
an analytic point about a feature of, or practice within, the Rather-Bush
exchange ( ~2 pages) |
|
Week 3 001: (2/5) 002 (1/30) |
Transcribing
Basics AND a few key LSI ideas/theories Read--DR chapters 2-6, and 10-11 Aakhus, M., & Aldrich, A. (2002). Crafting communication activity:
Understanding felicity in "I wish Anderson, D. L. (2005). "What you'll say is . . .":
Represented voice in organizational change. Journal of Organizational
Change Management, 18, 63-77. HW: (a) Work through Schegloff’s transcription
tutorial (see CULearn url) and do the first minute of the posted telephone
call. |
|
Section 002 –No class on February 6 |
|
|
Week
4 (2/12
& 13) |
Narratives and
more on Transcribing Read
DR chapters 14, 15 Roberts, F., & Robinson, J. D. (2004). Inter-observer agreement on
"first-stage" conversation analytic transcription. Human
Communication Research, 30, 376-410. Hsieh, E. (2004). Stories in action and the dialogic management of
identities: Storytelling in transplant support group meetings. Research on
Language and Social Interaction, 37, 39-70. Holmes, J. (2005). Story-telling at work: A complex
discursive resource for integrating personal, professional and social
identities. Discourse Studies, 7, 671-700. Recommended Readings/Oral Reports: DR, chapter 28 Sandel, T. L. (2004). Narrated relationships: Mothers-in-law and
daughters-in-law justifying conflicts in Wagner, HW: Improve your
transcript of the first minute and finish the 2.5-minute telephone
conversation using the CA transcript system. |
|
Week
5 (
2/19-20) |
Distinctive
Words, Phrases, and Formulations Visitor:
Prof. Bob Craig Read
DR chapter 19 Billig, M., & MacMillan, K. (2005). Metaphor, idiom
and ideology: The search for ‘no smoking guns’ across time. Discourse
& Society, 16, 459-480. Craig, R. T., & Sanusi, E. (1999). "I'm just
saying": Discourse markers of
standpoint continuity. In F. H. van Eemeren, R. Grootendorst, J. A. Blair,
& C. Willard (Eds.), Proceedings of the 4th ISSA conference on argumentation
(pp. 103-108). Craig, R. T., & Sanusi, A. L. (2002). "So what do you guys
think?" Think talk and process in student-led classroom discussions. In
P. J. Glenn, J. S. Mandelbaum, & C. D. LeBaron (Eds.), Studies in
language and social interaction in honor of Robert Hopper (pp. 103-117). Drew, P. (2003). Comparative
analysis of talk-in-interaction in different institutional contexts. In P. J.
Glenn, C. D. LeBaron, & J. S. Mandelbaum (Eds.), Studies in language
and social interaction: In honor of Robert Hopper (pp. 293-308). Recommended
Readings/Oral Reports: Thurlow, C.,
& Jaworski, A. (2006). The alchemy of the upwardly mobile: Symbolic
capital and the stylization of elites in frequent-flyer programmes. Discourse
& Society, 17, 99-135. Tracy, K.
(forthcoming). Ordinary democracy: Argument and emotion in school board
meetings. HW: (1)View the first 30-min of the same-sex marriage appeals NY court
case AND (2) write up a paragraph description of the discourse data (or 2-3
possible choices) that you will analyze for the major semester paper. |
|
Week
6 (2/26-27) |
Questioning AND
more on transcribing Raymond, G. (2006). Question at work: Yes/no type interrogatives in
institutional contexts. In P. Drew, G. Raymond, & D. Weinberg (Eds.), Talk
and interaction in social research methods (pp. 115-134). Clayman, S.,
& Heritage, J. (2002). Questioning presidents: Journalistic deference and
adversarialness in the press conferences of Eisenhower and Reagan. Journal
of Communication, 52, 749-775. Tracy, K., & Naughton, J. (1994). The identity work of questioning
in intellectual discussion. Communication Monographs, 61, 281-302 Wang, J. (2006). Questions and the exercise of power. Discourse
& Society, 17, 529-548. Recommended
Reading/Oral Reports Drew, P. (1992). Contested evidence in courtroom cross-examination: The
case of a trial for rape. In P. Drew & J. Heritage (Eds.), Talk at
work (pp. 470-520). Jiang, X. (2006). Cross-cultural pragmatic
differences in us and Chinese press conferences: The case of the HW:
Develop an analytic point related to questioning OR distinctive
phrases (~2 pages) |
|
Week 7 (3/6 & 7) |
Membership
Terms & Identity-work Read:
DR chapters 16, 29 Francis, D., & Hester, S. (2004). An invitation to
ethnomethodology: Language, society and interaction. Fitzgerald, R., & Housley, W. (2002). Identity, categorization and
sequential organization: The sequential and categorical flow of identity in a
radio phone-in. Discourse & Society, 13, 579-602. Tracy, K., & Anderson, D. L.
(1999). Relational positioning strategies in calls to the police: A dilemma. Discourse
Studies, 1, 201-226 Recommended
Readings/Oral reports Kitzinger, C. (2005). "Speaking as a heterosexual": (How)
does sexuality matter for talk-in-interaction? Research on Language and
Social Interaction, 38, 221-265. Widdicombe, S. (1998). "But you don't class yourself": The
interactional management of category membership and nonmembership. In C.
Antaki & S. Widdicombe (Eds.), Identities in talk (pp. 52-70). HW: Develop an
analytic point related to questioning OR membership/identity-work in the
Same-Sex Marriage Court Appeals ( ~2 pages). |
|
Week
8 (3/12
&13) |
Face,
Politeness, and Frames DR
chapters 20-22 and 24 Agne, R., & Tracy, K. (2001). "Bible babble": Naming the
interactional trouble at Recommended
Readings/Oral Reports DR
chapter 23 Ostermann, A. C. (2003). Communities of practice at work: Gender, facework,
and the power of habitus at an all-female police station and a feminist
crisis intervention center in Tracy, K., & Tracy, S. J. (1998). Rudeness at 911:
Reconceptualizing face and face-attack. Human Communication Research, 25,
225-251. HW: (1) Paragraph
describing (a) the body of discourse that comprises your base materials, (b) the
30-90 mins. that you will transcribe for analysis, and (c) the features you will include in your transcript and
why. (2) A transcript of the 4-7 minutes segment of your materials you will
use for the class data session. |
|
30-Minute
Data Sessions with your data 3/19-4/30: ~Two students per class |
|
|
Week
9 (3/19
& 20) |
Artifacts
and Embodied Action in Discourse RD:
chapter 26 Goodwin, C., & Goodwin, M. H. (1997). Contested vision: The
discursive constitution of Rodney King. In B.-L. Gunnarsson, P. Linnel, &
B. Nordberg (Eds.), The construction of professional discourse (pp.
292-316). Kidwell, M. (2006). "Calm down!" The role of gaze in the
interactional management of hysteria by the police. Discourse Studies, 8,
745-770 Mirivel, J (in press). The physical examination in cosmetic surgery:
Communication strategies to promote the desirability of surgery. Health Communication. Recommended
Readings/Oral Reports Trix, F., & Psenka, C. (2003). Exploring the color of glass:
Letters of recommendation for female and male medical faculty. Discourse
& Society, 14(2), 191-220. Scheffer, T. (2006). The microformation of criminal defense: On the
lawyer's notes, speech production, and a field of presence. Research on
Language and Social Interaction, 39(3), 303-342. HW: Revised
and elaborated development of one of the earlier analytic point papers with
the same-sex marriage appeals (~4-5 pages) |
|
Week
10 (3/26 & 27) |
SPRING
BREAK—ENJOY!! |
|
II:
Approaches to Discourse Analysis |
|
|
Week
11 (4/2
& 3) |
Conversation
Analysis Read DR chapters 17-18 & chapter 36 Clayman, S. E., & Gill, V. T. (2004). Conversation analysis. In M.
Hardy & A. Bryman (Eds.), Handbook of data analysis (pp. 589-606).
Pomerantz, A., & Mandelbaum, J. (2005). Conversation analytic
approaches to the relevance and uses of relationship categories in
interaction. In K. Fitch & R. Sanders (Eds.), Handbook of language and
social interaction (pp. 149-171). No written
homework |
|
Week
12 (4/9
& 10) |
AIDA and
Design Theory Aakhus, M., & Aakhus, M. (2001). Technocratic and design stances toward communicative
expertise: How GDSS facilitators understand their work. Journal of Applied
Communication Research, 29, 341-371. Tracy, K., & Craig, R. T. (in press). Studying interaction in order
to cultivate practice: Action-implicative discourse analysis. In P. Thibault
& C. Prevignano (Eds.), Interaction analysis: Discussing the state of
the art. Tracy, K. (2005). Reconstructing communicative practices:
Action-implicative discourse analysis. In K. Fitch & R. Sanders (Eds.), Handbook
of language and social interaction (pp. 301-319). HW:
Transcripts of the 30-90 mins of discourse that will be your semester paper’s
data. |
|
Week
13 (4/7 & 8) |
Critical
Discourse Analysis DR
chapters 8-9, 35 Erickson, F. (2004). Talk and social theory: Ecologies of speaking
and Listening in everyday life. Hammersley, M. (1997). On the foundation of critical discourse
analysis. Language & Communication, 17, 237-248. HW: Analytic
point with your project materials (~2 pages) |
III: Debates within Discourse Study |
|
|
Week 14 (4/16-17) |
Political
Commitments in Research: CA vs. CDA Read DR
chapters 32 & 36 Billig, M. (1999). Whose terms? Whose ordinariness? Rhetoric and
ideology in conversation analysis. Discourse & Society, 10,
543-557. Schegloff, E. A. (1999). 'Schegloff's texts' as 'Billig's data': A
critical reply. Discourse & Society, 10, 558-572. Billig, M. (1999). Conversation analysis and the claims of naivety. Discourse
& Society, 10, 572-576. Schegloff, E. A. (1999). Naïveté vs. sophistication or discipline vs. self-indulgence: A rejoinder to Billig.
Discourse & Society, 10, 577-582. HW: For weeks 14 and 15, do a position paper
one week and then the outline/rough
draft the other. You pick the week you want to do each. A:
position paper (~2 pages): What role (if any) do you see for political commitments in your research? B:
Outline/Segment/ Draft of the final paper. Turn in a couple of pages up to a full
draft—whatever you would like feedback on. |
|
Week
15 (4/23-24) |
The
Usefulness (or not) of Cognition in Discourse Analysis van Dijk, T. A. (2006b). Introduction: Discourse, interaction and
cognition. Discourse Studies, 8, 5-7. Edwards, D. (2006). Discourse, cognition and social practices: The rich
surface of language and social interaction. Discourse Studies, 8,
41-49. Fitch, K. L. (2006). Cognitive aspects of ethnographic inquiry. Discourse
Studies, 8, 51-57. Graesser, A. C. (2006). Views from a cognitive scientist: Cognitive
representations underlying discourse are sometimes social. Discourse
Studies, 8, 59-66. Kitzinger, C. (2006). After post-cognitivism. Discourse Studies, 8,
67-83. Levinson, S. (2006). Cognition at the heart of human interaction. Discourse
Studies, 8, 85-93. Lynch, M. (2006). Cognitive activities without cognition?
Ethnomethodological investigations of selected cognitive topics. Discourse
Studies, 8, 95-104. Maynard, D. W. (2006). Cognition on the ground. Discourse Studies, 8,
105-115. Van Dijk, T. A. (2006a). Discourse, context and cognition. Discourse
Studies, 8, 159-177. HW: Do One. A:
reaction paper (~ 2 pages): Select a point in the discussion about cognition
with which you agree/disagree; explain why. B:
Outline/Segment/ Draft of the final paper. Turn in a couple of pages up to a
full draft—whatever you would like feedback on. |
|
Week
16 (4/30-5/1) |
The Role of
Context in Analysis Tracy, K. (1998). Analyzing context: Framing the discussion. Research
on Language and Social Interaction, 31, 1-13. Fitch, K. L. (1998). Text and context: A problematic distinction for
ethnography. Research on Language and Social Interaction, 31, 91-107. Goodwin, C., & Duranti, A. (1992). Rethinking context: An introduction.
In a. Duranti & C. Goodwin (eds.), Rethinking context: Language as an
interactive phenomenon (pp. 1-42). HW: 3-minute oral report. Explain how you are
defining and using context in your semester paper. |
|
Finals
Week Both Sections Monday
May 7 3:30-6 |
Informal
gathering at my house to chat, have snacks and drinks, and turn in the final
research paper. |