Schiffrin & discourse analysis approaches
Schiffrin & discourse analysis approaches | Jerry Talandis | March 27th, 2004
I'd like to start a discussion that builds on a thread started by Mike McDonald last year, "ASI Approaches".
As all of you who've taken (or are taking) IIC know, Schiffrin's book "Approaches to Discourse" (1994, Blackwell Publishers Ltd, Oxford) outlines various ways to analyze discourse (see a chart summarizing these approaches here).
My question about all this is in relation to the IIC assignment- when we do that project, which of the approaches in Schiffrin's book are we to use? Only one of them, or more than one? Does anyone have any advice about how to determine which approach is best? I suppose it depends on the type of focus you have, and what you want to look at. Each approach can uncover different things. For those of you who've done IIC, which approach did you take, and why?
Jerry Talandis Jr.
Toyama, Japan
Re: Discourse analysis approaches | Mike McDonald | March 28th, 2004
Jerry,
I hope you don't mind me sending a copy of this to the MSc discussion list, since I think it might be relevant to others doing IIC. In your message, you asked about the various approaches in the Schiffrin book:
So, how did you end up reconciling them? That's something I'm struggling with right now. I don't know what to do with all of them.
Well, that grid you referred to and the attached diagram I did showing the mutual influences of analysis methods helped me to sort out how the methods related to each other, and what they attempted to do. If you look at the attached diagram, you'll see that the boxes in the middle, microethnography and ethnographic microanalysis, have the most arrows leading to them, so it seems fair to assume that they are the most eclectic of all the approaches. Schiffrin says that the ethnography of communication potentially embraces all the others, but I think to do a "pure" EOC study requires an enormous amount of data and a book-length report.
How do you determine which one to use when it comes time to do your assignment?
Keith said in on of his postings to the DL that he almost never gets a "pure" conversation analysis assignment, and that he doesn't expect CPs to confine themselves to one method of analysis. I think we have to be realistic about the possible scope of our assignments: learning to use all the tools of EOC or CA well enough in a few short months to meet the research standards of either field just isn't on. On top of that, we should remember that none of these methods was designed to cope with L2 communication. I think the most suitable approach for IIC is to view each method as providing a set of tools that can be used eclectically in our classrooms, though of course we may rely more on one set than another. We shouldn't feel we need to be "doing CA" or "doing the EOC" - at least, that's my understanding.
For ideas on how to apply the various approaches to our classrooms, you could take a look at the "pedagogic issues" sections in "Sociolinguistics and Language Teaching" (ethnographic microanalyis p. 297 ff., interactional sociolinguistics p. 322 ff., etc.). There is also a useful-looking book on how to conduct discourse analysis activities in the classroom, called "Discourse Analysis in the Language Classroom: Vol. 1, The Spoken Language", by Heidi Riggenbach, Univ. of Michigan Press. When I did my assignment, I used analysis tools from various sources including CA and EOC. I'd be interested to hear if others used a similarly eclectic approach.
All the best,
Mike McDonald
Re: Discourse analysis approaches | Jerry Talandis Jr. | March 28th, 2004
Hi Mike,
Thanks for your reply.
I think to do a "pure" EOC study requires an enormous amount of data and a book-length report.
Yes, I think you are right. Since life is infinitely complex, I don't see how you could ever get totally to the bottom of something using EOC... I suppose you'd have to get to a place that is "good enough" and leave it at that.
Keith said in on of his postings to the DL that he almost never gets a "pure" conversation analysis assignment, and that he doesn't expect CPs to confine themselves to one method of analysis. I think we have to be realistic about the possible scope of our assignments: learning to use all the tools of EOC or CA well enough in a few short months to meet the research standards of either field just isn't on.
This is very helpful advice. Now I won't worry about choosing one approach and focus instead on using whichever one(s) work best. I'll be analyzing discussion list messages, so perhaps conversation analysis would be a good approach to start with... we shall see.
In putting together the DL Archive, I had a hard time classifying discussion threads into categories. This was primarily because topics were often not clearly on one module or another. In addition, discussions often start out on one topic, and then branch out into different ones. So, if I want to archive a particular thread, do I keep it all together or chop it up and put each branch in a separate page or category? I think a deep analysis of some threads could give me some better insight into how this process takes place. When does a topic shift? At what point can branches stand alone? Hopefully if I can use some of the approaches I'm learning in IIC to really get a grasp on what happens on this list, I can do a better job of archiving messages.
Thanks again for your response.
Jerry
Toyama, Japan
Re: Schiffrin & DA approaches | Keith Richards | March 30th, 2004
Hi
I've enjoyed the exchanges on this and would like to make three small contributions:
1. To recommend Mike's diagram: it's clear, helpful, and it makes an excellent basis for discussion. There are no simple answers to these issues, but this is an excellent way of approaching the options.
2. As an additional resource, you can access the following paper online via the library. It's a useful example of five different approaches (conversation analysis, interactional sociolinguistics, politeness theory, critical discourse analysis and discursive psychology) to the same bit of data:
Stubbe, M., C. Lane, J. Hilder, E. Vine, B. Vine,
M. Marra, J. Holmes & A., Weatherall 2003
Multiple discourse analyses
of a workplace interaction Discourse
Studies 5(3) 351-388
3. If you're interested in interactional sociolinguistics, which is in some ways short-changed in the module in terms of references, Benjamins have just brought out a new book with some interesting things in it:
Eerdmans, S. L., C. L. Prevignano, P. J. Thibault (eds.) 2003 Language and Interaction. Discussions with John J. Gumperz. Amsterdam: John Benjamins
Hope that helps.
All the best
Keith
Re: Schiffrin & DA approaches | Jerry Talandis | March 30th, 2004
Thanks, Keith for those helpful references. The Stubbe et al article is especially helpful. I'm printing it out as I type (thanks to my nifty Athens password!). Here is the abstract to that article, just in case some CPs may not be able to access it. I think this is a very helpful supplement to the required reading for unit 1:
Multiple discourse analyses of a workplace interaction
MARIA STUBBE, CHRIS LANE, JO HILDER, ELAINE VINE, BERNADETTE VINE, MEREDITH MARRA, JANET HOLMES, AND ANN WEATHERALL
VICTORIA UNIVERSITY OF WELLINGTON
Discourse Studies Copyright © 2003
ABSTRACT
This article explores the contributions that five different approaches to discourse analysis can make to interpreting and understanding the same piece of data. Conversation analysis, interactional sociolinguistics, politeness theory, critical discourse analysis, and discursive psychology are the approaches chosen for comparison. The data is a nine-minute audio recording of a spontaneous workplace interaction. The analyses are compared, and the theoretical and methodological implications of the different approaches are discussed. KEYWORDS:conversation analysis, critical discourse analysis, discourse analysis, discursive psychology, interactional sociolinguistics, politeness theory, pragmatics, workplace interaction.
Thanks again.
Jerry
Japan
Re: Discourse analysis approaches | Maria Leedham | March 29th, 2004
Hi Jerry, Mike, and others.
I was eclectic in my IIC. I tried to use CA but link it in with everything else and I think I got a bit out of my depth there. I kind of felt I ought to mention other stuff.... but CA was my basic methodology. There seemed to be so much to disentangle in differing approaches. I thoroughly enjoyed analyzing interaction line-by-line and have used recordings in several assignments - it's fascinating to focus on what is really going on. I'd like to spend all day listening to people talking and analyzing what the pauses mean...
But right now I have to feed my 4 year old.
Maria
Re: Discourse analysis approaches | Jenny DeSonneville | March 31st, 2004
Jerry,
Have you seen the very interesting responses to this article at http://www.tc.columbia.edu/tesolalwebjournal/forum2_2003.htm ?
Jenny
Re: Discourse analysis approaches | Jerry Talandis | March 31 st , 2004
Cool! A fight- politely, of course :-)
Thanks for the link to these very interesting articles. I'm reading Stubbe right now. It's very helpful.
Jerry
Stubbe et al article | Susy | April 1st, 2004
Hi Jerry
I've been following this discussion eagerly as I'm currently writing on my IIC assignment that is on agreeing and disagreeing in a teachers meeting. I would love to get hold of the Stubbe article but somehow I don't know how to search for it. I do have an Athens password. Can you give me instructions, please? Thanks a lot.
Susy
Switzerland
with 
and 
