One of the best things of this book is that it gives you accurate definitions of general and particular topics, quoting different authors. One of the most useful is, of course, the definition of Discourse Analysis.
Discourse Analysis
Wood & Kroger:
“Discourse analysis is a perspective on social life that contains both methodological and conceptual elements. Discourse analysis involves ways of thinking about discourse (theoretical and metatheoretical elements) and ways of treating discourse as data (methodological elements).” (p. 3)
“The emphasis in discourse analysis is on what talk is doing and achieving.” (p. 5)
“The task of discourse analysis is not to apply categories to participants' talk, but rather to identify the ways in which participants themselves actively construct and employ categories in their talk.” (p. 29)
Potter (1997):
“[Discourse Analysis] has an analytic commitment to studying discourse as texts and talk in social practices. That is, the focus is not on language as an abstract entity such as a lexicon and set of grammatical rules (in linguistics), a system of differences (in structuralism), a set of rules for transforming statements (in Faucauldian genealogies). Instead, it is the medium for interaction; analysis of discourse becomes, then, analysis of what people do. (p. 146)” (pp. 3-4)
Tracy, 1995:
“Discourse analysis can help to identify alternative practices, ways that things could be done differently.” (p. 14)
The definition of “language as medium for interaction” was key to situate Discourse Analysis and differentiate it from other field of enquiry. A good way to define it it also “what people do with words” (p. 9).
Utterances
Another important reference was that to Austin's utterances, as bringers of meaning and action:
“Austin pointed out a feature of language that is known implicitly by all language users: Utterances not only have a certain “meaning” (i.e., they refer to states, persons, events, etc.), they also have force, that is, they are not only about things, they also do things. In other words, talk (and language use more generally) is action. Specifically, utterances can be considered in terms of three features: (a) their locutionary or referential meaning (what they are about), (b) their illocutionary force (what the speaker does with them), and (c) their perlocutionary force (their effects on the hearer).” (pp. 4-5)
But if we accept the first part of his definition, isn't *everything* action?
I don't understand why Austin distinguishes illocutory and perlocutory forces, as what the speaker does *is* the effect on the hearer. I also think that in this definition the "intentional" category is missing, and without this categories I see point (b) and point (c) as one conduit with two extremities: the speaker and the hearer.
This is emphasized by what the authors argue on page 9:
“We cannot adequately analyze single utterances in isolation from the context in which they are produced.”
I also think that there is some incoherence between what the authors say on page ix (“Talk is always better than pushing and shoving. Talk protects us from the often horrendous consequences of aggressive physical action.”) and what they state on p. 5 (“Social science and everyday discourse make an unfortunate distinction between talk and action”).
One big question I have regards “what can be done with words”. My question is: can we override the concept of meaning, when we talk about language as action? If I think about it, a word doesn’t do anything to me. The meaning I attach to that word as a receiver does. And the same word can have different meanings (therefore, different actions), depending on the speaker, the receiver, the context, and so on. Even the bare sound of a word I may not understand doesn’t produce an effect: it recalls a meaning that triggers an emotional state.
Furthermore, while I may find it fascinating to compare language to action, I would not consider it an “event”. (see p. 11) In my opinion, it’s a vibrant entity, always in motion, that leaves some traces of its everburning existence.
Variability
An important point dor Discourse Analysis and qualitative research is discussed on page 10:
“Talk constructs different versions of the world and is oriented to different functions; variability is therefore to be expected not only between persons, but within persons. [...] Variability is something to be understood, including the way in which participants use variability to construct their talk for different purposes, for different audiences, and for different occasions.” (p. 10)
Variability is, therefore, not only something to accept, but also something to embrace.
A useful distinction between the systemic and the analytic approaches is presented on page 29:
Data analysis: systemic vs. analytic
“We contrast the two approaches to data analysis in terms of synthesis versus analysis. In the systemic approach (conventional qualitative analysis), one first reduces the data by grouping it into categories (at which point analysis usually stops) and then proceeds to look for relationships among the categories. In the analytic (discourse-analytic) approach, one essentially expands the data by breaking it down and examining relationships among the components in order to identify function.” (p. 29)
"One big question I have regards “what can be done with words”. My question is: can we override the concept of meaning, when we talk about language as action? If I think about it, a word doesn’t do anything to me. The meaning I attach to that word as a receiver does. And the same word can have different meanings (therefore, different actions), depending on the speaker, the receiver, the context, and so on."
ReplyDeleteDA doesn't focus on what a word "does" to "you" as an individual, and we can never know what meaning you may attach to it as a receiver, so we don't worry about that. What we worry about is what a word "does" in the conversation, what action is performs, and how it is taken up (in an observable way) by the participants.