Memorable Quotes # 13: Silence

(Book: Wood, L.A. & Kroger. R.O. (2000). Doing Discourse Analysis: Methods for Studying Action in Talk and Text. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage Publications.)


“Silence is not just an absence; rather, it is an absence that is unexpected”. (p. 62)

Mighty Digests # 11: WOOD & KROGER, Doing Discourse Analysis

(Book: Wood, L.A. & Kroger. R.O. (2000). Doing Discourse Analysis: Methods for Studying Action in Talk and Text. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage Publications.) [Chapters 4-6]

In my opinion, some of the most interesting parts of these three chapters are:

1. The focus of DA is language in use (not abstract): “discourse refers to the words that were spoken, to the text that was written”. (p. 55)
2. The importance of details and fidelity in the data for DA. (p. 56)
3. An interesting statement about fictional discourse: “Fictional discourse (e.g., novels, plays, films) deserve attention, because it is naturally occurring in that its production is not instigated by the researcher. […] There are interesting parallels between fictional works and everyday conversation (Tanne, 1989).” (p. 58)
4. The “undue emphasis to the nonverbal”. (p. 59) Discourse analysts reject the opposing of the verbal and the nonverbal, and they consider them interrelated.
5. Discourse is always situated.
6. “We often seem to be asking participants to do our job rather than to speak in relation to their own experience.” (p. 73)
7. Relative importance of sample size and lack of random sampling.
8. Transcripts are not the data: the data are the recordings themselves.
9. The researcher makes the transcript!
10. It is important to identify a brief part to be accurately analyzed. 

Memorable Quotes # 12: Transcription Truths

(Book: Ten Have, P. (2007). Doing conversation analysis: A practical guide. (2nd edition). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage Publications):


“Making transcriptions is extremely time consuming.” (p. 110)


(Book: Wood, L.A. & Kroger. R.O. (2000). Doing Discourse Analysis: Methods for Studying Action in Talk and Text. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage Publications.) :


“Transcription is complicated and very time consuming.” (p. 82)


(Article: Jefferson, G. (2004). Glossary of transcript symbols with an Introduction. In G. H. Lerner (Ed.) Conversation analysis: Studies from the first generation. Philadelphia: John Benjamins.):


“Why put all that stuff in? Well, as they say, because it's there.” (p. 15)

Mighty Digests # 10: TEN HAVE, Doing Conversation Analysis

(Book: Ten Have, P. (2007). Doing conversation analysis: A practical guide. (2nd edition). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage Publications) [Chapters 5-6]

I think that some of the most important concepts that emerge from chapters 5 and 6 of ten Have’s book are:

1. the importance of an accurate sampling (almost with a “naturalistic” approach), observing as many cases as possible (“from as many sites as possible”).
2. The importance of the different contexts from which data emerge.
3. The field of interest of CA is not limited to the “main species” (it might be important to look at other, different species too, for comparative purposes).
4. Recordings are CA’s basic data, all the rest is “background information” (“the data is enough”, p. 75).
5. A researcher should always consider “issues of consent”.
6. Access to places and data is a key factor in the work of the (CA) researcher. These issues may be very controversal, and it is difficult to catch all their subtleties, especially if we are dealing with public recordings, TV/broadcasting, and the Internet.
7. “Transcriptions should not be taken as a substitute for the recordings.” (p. 95)
8. The problem of an “idealized”, standard orthography of the spoken language. (p. 99)
9. The timing of silence as an “internally consistent” phenomenon, not an absolute one. (p. 102)

A very interesting concept is that about “setting sensitivity” (p. 71), and the reflection the researcher should be considering about the influence of the setting on the observed interactions.

I like the notion of  “transcribable” (p. 88), as the minimum requirement for our recordings!

In my opinion (but this is probably due the short paragraph), the system proposed by Goodwin to represent visual information (pp. 108-109) is difficult to read and it somehow “breaks” the fluidity of a CA transcript.

Scary Words # 9: Conversation Analysis & Translations

Good Luck!

Little Big Question # 10: Video Killed by the Turn-Taking Star?

(Book: Ten Have, P. (2007). Doing conversation analysis: A practical guide. (2nd edition). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage Publications) [Chapters 5-6]

“Visual conduct […] tends not to have a neat turn-by-turn organization, as talk has been found to have overwhelmingly. This may be one reason why video analysis seems to be less used than one might expect, given its obvious importance.” (p. 72)

Are CA people dismissing video because it may undermine their turn-taking paradigm, or just because they don’t know how to fit visuals in it?

Scary Words # 8: “Naturally Occurring Interactions”

(Book: Ten Have, P. (2007). Doing conversation analysis: A practical guide. (2nd edition). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage Publications) [Chapters 5-6]


“The interactions recorded should be “naturally occurring”, that is “non-experimental”, not co-produced with or provoked by the researcher.” (p. 68)


But also:


“Data that seem to be “artificial”, in terms of their content being provoked by the researcher, or the situation of being recorded, may be considered "natural" in terms of the ways in which the participants interact while responding to this provocation.” (p. 69)

Mighty Digests # 9: BENWELL & STOKOE, Constructing discussion tasks in university tutorials...

Article: Benwell, B. & Stokoe, E.H. (2002). Constructing discussion tasks in university tutorials: shifting dynamics and identities. Discourse Studies 4 (4), 429-453.

University tutorial sessions, and in particular its task-setting sequences, are the object of this article. One of the assumptions of the article is that language facilitates learning, and its keyword may be “talking-for-learning”, or language as the site of action (p. 430).

The participants of this research are classes from three British universities. It is, therefore, an institutional context.

The data (audio and video recording) have been analyzed using Conversation analysis (student-student and student-teacher discussions), with the help of the Jeffersonian transcription system.

The study focused on patterns emerging from the interactions, and it found that the opening turns of the tutor were followed by a three-part sequence:

1. initiation: the teacher asks a question
2. response: a pupil answers the question
3. follow-up: the teacher acknowledges and evaluates the response

The study also illustrated that students displayed discursively their unwillingness to take part in the discussions.

I found it very interesting to discover how certain patterns may emerge in an institutional setting, if compared with an informal one. The stronger the conventional context, the more defined the patterns seem to be, almost as an unwritten ritual. Even more interesting, was the discovery that through CA this model can be challenged and different “cross-patterns” can made be visible (for example, through the analysis of “dispreferred turns”).

This is probably one of the best examples I have found so far, unveiling the power of Conversation Analysis, and how it goes under the surface of discourse, challenging the previous findings in the literature.

It made me also reflect on how important it is to “master” the literature to be able to challenge it, or to search new ways to do it, and in my opinion this article does it very well.

I was also thinking if the awareness of such interactional constructions may influence the learning dynamics and outcomes, especially in an academic setting, where the participants have the mental and cultural tools to reflect on their learning experiences, and a certain freedom of expression in discussion sessions.

Mighty Digests # 8: YOUNG & MILLER, Learning as changing participation...

Article: Young, R.F. & E.R. Miller (2004). Learning as changing participation: Discourse roles in ESL writing conferences. The Modern Language Journal, 88, iv, pp. 519-535.

The article remarks a different interpretation of learning a second language: . a situated co-constructed process vs. a cognitive process (in the mind of the learner). It quotes different attempts to overcome the separation between language and context.

The authors report “how a novice learned to participate in one unfamiliar discursive practice. […] The novice was a Vietnamese learner of ESL, and the new practice was revision talk in weekly writing conferences between the student and his ESL writing instructor.” (p. 521)

The author quotes Conversation Analysis and microethnography as privileged methods of analysis in a framework considering language and context as mutually constitutive phenomena.

The authors identify a pattern, or “sequence of acts”, in the interaction between the student and the instructor.

Once again, I have this sensation of the authors trying to “sell” their idea…

In the attempt to adapt the theory of legitimate peripheral participation (that generally works for communities of practice, i.e. in peer-to-peer interactions) in a teacher-student relationship, they put together categories that sometimes overlap (p. 522), while not supporting their claims with a convincing explanation (p. 526). In other words, it looks like they are forcing an asymmetrical relation (teacher/student) in a community-oriented paradigm.

I don’t see the “co-construction of their (student/teacher) roles” and the instructor as a “co-learner”(p. 533), nevertheless, it is noteworthy to observe how the talk-in-interaction shapes the conversations and the points of intervention in the learning process.

Mighty Digests # 7: GRAFF, Classroom talk: co-constructing a ‘difficult student.’

Graff, N. (2009). Classroom talk: co-constructing a ‘difficult student.’ Educational Research 51(4), 439-454.

The article focuses on a teacher-student relationship in a grade seven class, and shows how classroom talk can help to reveal difficult relationships.

The research method was participant observation and micro-analysis of data through CA, DA, and “Goffman’s discussion of participation frameworks” (p. 439).

The author tries to answer to this question:

“What role does the public nature of classroom talk play in casting the relationship between a particular teacher and a particular student as “difficult”?” (p. 440)

The article stresses the importance of talk as a means of establishing relationships and building knowledge in the class.

The research demonstrates that the difficulty of a relationship can be alimented by the class.

The author of the article is really insightful in the analysis of the “violation of norms”, and how they are balanced and “redirected” by the teacher in the classroom. Like in the article by Cromdal et al. the axis is between a student, his peers, and the teacher:

“Often tense relationships between teachers and students develop lives of their own”.

I liked the numerous references to the literature, and a constant contextualization of the problem in a broader scenario.

I am not totally convinced by the “message, interaction and pattern” model. (p. 442) I think that both messages and interactions may be considered patterns. Furthermore, the recognition of patterns in a talk-in-action scenario is subjective. And can we consider the exchange of utterances as interaction? This “foggy” distinction and categorization is confirmed by other “groupings” by other authors, like den Brok, who merges message and interaction.

Mighty Digests # 6: CROMDAL et AL., ‘Doing reluctance’: managing delivery of assessments in peer evaluation

Article: Cromdal, J., Tholander, M. & Aronsson, K. (2007). ‘Doing reluctance’: managing delivery of assessments in peer evaluation (pp. 203-223). In A. Hepburn & S. Wiggins (Eds.) Discursive Research in Practice: New Approaches to Psychology and Interaction. Cambridge University Press.

“The present analysis mainly draw on a single extract of talk, taken from a twenty-minute evaluation session involving a group of five eighth-grade students and their teacher” in a Swedish school.

The article aims at demonstrating “how students display reluctance in relation to the institutional activity as such”. (p.203)

The article presents, through the analysis of discourse, the different means of showing reluctance in a peer-constructed response to the request of the teacher.

In fact, the biggest dilemma faced by the students is the individual versus the collective benefit/danger of evaluation.

The main topic of the article is “peer assessment and evaluation”. The evaluation doesn’t  assess learning outcomes, but instead focuses on the process of learning.

The discourse presented (and constructed) is between “the educational order of the school and the social order of the peer group”. (p. 218)

In my opinion, some of the most interesting points are:

1. The use of the teacher’s rhetoric construct “I was thinking…” to summon students to action.
2. A negative assessment seems to be a dispreferred type of action.
3. The transformation performed by the teacher of a “dunno”, which is neutral, into a “nothing (negative)”. (p. 215)
4. The ambiguous nature of laughter, which is always difficult to interpret. In some cases, as emerged from the article, it may be a supporting tool among peers.
5. Students striving to fulfill the explicit and implicit requirements of both the institutions, represented by the teachers and by their peers.

The article shows “how public displays of reluctance serve as practical resources for participants to handle a set of institutional dilemmas.” (p. 219)

The article was rich in insightful interpretations, but, in my opinion, it could be presented in half the number of pages.

I also find it hard to agree with the very first statement of the article: “School is the home of peer culture”. (p. 203)

Is it?

Mighty Digests # 5: BUTTNY & RATH, Discursive practices in talking problems...

Article: Buttny, R. & Rath, S.K. (2007). Discursive practices in talking problems during a school-family meeting (pp. 247-262.) In A. Hepburn & S. Wiggins (Eds.) Discursive Research in Practice: New Approaches to Psychology and Interaction. Cambridge University Press.

The article “examines a meeting between family members and a high-school co-director […] for a returning student-mother.” (p. 247)

The article seems to be directed to counseling students or professionals.

The key topic is the conflicting positioning of the girl as a young mother, as a teenager with friends, and as a schoolgirl with homework.

Discourse analysis in this context considers school and family as part of a dialogical, discursive construction, which is consistent with the increasingly blurred boundaries between these two social institutions. These boundaries may be considered as a discursive object themselves.

The author points the attention to the lexical choice of the participants (for example, the use of indexical terms, or the ambiguous referencing to a situation or emotional state).

It looks like the discourse is extremely conditioned by the setting (school), the positioning of the participants (hierarchical, or at least asymmetrical), and by the different goals of the two parts. The dominating goal seems to be the one of the family: everybody in this group tends to minimize the problems, underlining the fact that the overall situation is slowly, but constantly, improving.

One of the techniques used by the co-director as a “call to discursive action” is the “candidate problem plus query” approach.

If I had to quote a phrase of this article, I would probably choose this one:

“How Johnny was positioned through the talk-in-interaction seemed more compelling than Johnny’s positionings.”

I see it as a crucial point of the article, because it draws the attention from the “static presence” to the “constructive evolution” through the discourse.

Along this path, the “meaning” of the discussed topics is not “frozen”, but it is rather set up by talk-in-interaction, which also helps to mark the unmarked silences and references, directing the flow of the discourse. This “control of direction” could be considered as the privileged field of intervention in a counseling process, as opposed to predetermined states or behaviors.

One of those “a-ha” moments regards the elaboration of the problem in a discursive way, as opposed to a clash of positions, or even a negotiation. Personally, as I am becoming more aware of the function(s) of DA, I am starting to see it as an ontologically superior process that overshadows the bare concept of “negotiation” (a term I have always disliked). 

I think it would have been very useful to have a more detailed, parallel, “non-verbal” transcription of the meeting. For example, it would have been interesting to know where the brother is looking at when he speaks about Johnny, if the participants are nervous, stressed, tired, etc. The analysis of proxemics would also be very helpful, as a coexisting layer of understanding.

I would have also enjoyed a more concise style by the author, who tends, in my opinion, to quote to many parts of the discourse (see p. 256): the risk of such an approach is to bury under a veil of words the meaningful parts of the discourse and the sought-after “so what” questions (and answers).

Memorable Quotes # 11: Critical Discourse Analysis

(Book: Wood, L.A. & Kroger. R.O. (2000). Doing Discourse Analysis: Methods for Studying Action in Talk and Text. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage Publications.) 


“[For] critical discourse analysis (CDA; Fairclough & Wodak, 1997) [...] the emphasis is [...] on the understanding of discourse in relation to social problems; to social structure variables such as race, gender, and class; and above all power.” (p. 21)

Little Big Question # 9: Changing behavior?

(Book: Wood, L.A. & Kroger. R.O. (2000). Doing Discourse Analysis: Methods for Studying Action in Talk and Text. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage Publications.) 


If Discourse Analysis aims at changing behaviors, or identify ways that things could be done differently, if we don't look into the mind, spirit, and conscience of the speaker, how can we make structural and profound changes? If we teach somebody to say or do A instead of B, because B is bad, it doesn't mean we have eradicated the cause of B. I think that changing a behavior is not equivalent to changing its cause.
I see DA as a powerful unveiling principle, but with no real interest for the unveiled. 

Mighty Digests # 4: EDWARDS, Discourse, Cognition and Social Practices...

Article: Edwards, D. (2006). Discourse, cognition and social practices: the rich surface of language and social interaction. Discourse Studies 8 (1), 41-49.

The article is an apologetic description of Discursive Psychology (DP).

Discursive psychology (DP)

“Discursive psychology (DP) approaches discourse not as the product or expression of thoughts or mental states lying behind or beneath it, but as a domain of public accountability in which psychological states are made relevant. […] Discursive psychology (DP) approaches the topics of cognition, mental states and psychological characteristics as matters under active management in talk and text. […] DP rejects the assumption that discourse is the product or expressionof thoughts or intentional states lying behind or beneath it. Instead, mental states, knowledge, thoughts, feelings, and the nature of the external world, figure as talk’s topics, assumptions and concerns.” (p. 41)

“DP has focused on examining in close empirical detail how common sense topics such as what people think, intend, feel or want, are handled and managed in everyday talk as part of everyday interactional business.” (p. 42)

The author stresses the importance of the practical, categorial and indexical nature of language (p. 42), but it is not clear to me what the author intends with “indexicality” and “categoriality” (p. 42)

I am not sure if I can agree, at this point, with the statement that:

“There is no realm of subjectivity, unconscious feelings, or objective reality, that language does not reach – indeed, the writings of those who are primarily concerned with such ostensibly language-independent and almost ineffable matters, is reflexive testimony to the adequacy of language for dealing with them.” (p. 42)

Reading this article, I am starting to think about CA, DP and ethnomethodology as the Gestalt of language in social context...

“Whatever people say is always action-oriented, specific to its occasion, performative on and for its occasion, selected from a indefinite range of options. […] There is therefore no point, for example, in picking quotations out of context and presenting them as what somebody thinks.” (p. 46)

Guess what? I just did it, and it sounds completely fine to me!

I don’t know, sometimes it looks like in these articles authors are trying to defend the undefendable, challenging common sense and use of language, and at the same time invoking it as evidence of their statements. I can see the value of DP defining discourse as “performative social action”, which underlines its pragmatic and social dimension, but I don’t agree the overall rejection of what lies “beneath and beyond”.

Further reading is required...

Contrarian Instincts # 3: TEN HAVE, Doing Conversation Analysis

(Book: Ten Have, P. (2007). Doing conversation analysis: A practical guide. (2nd edition). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage Publications) [Chapters 1-4]

Oh, thank you Paul for throwing at us a Jeffersonian transcription on page four.

And thank you for adding insult to injury with the related note (p. 13):

“On the art of transcribing conversations, see Chapter 5; for transcription conventions, see Appendix A. If you are not familiar with these, studying excerpts together with Appendix A might be a good way to learn to read transcripts.”

By the way, we are always impressed by an author quoting himself twenty times in a book.

And last, but not least, we are very grateful for the whole book, which, as you say, is a "manifestation" of CA's diffusion around the world. (p. 7)

Isn't it all amazing?