GER 397P/ LIN 392: Discourse Analysis Spring 2004
Dr. Zsuzsanna I. Abrams Class meets: Mondays 2-4:30; CBA 4.346
Office hours: Tuesdays 1:30-3:30 and Wednesdays 1-3 Phone number: (512) 232-6374
E-mail: [email protected]
Course Description
The purpose of this graduate seminar is to introduce students to the varied field of discourse analysis. We will examine several approaches that take advantage of the insights discourse analysis can offer, such as the ethnography of communication, pragmatics, conversation analysis or interactional sociolinguistics. We will discuss how to apply these analyses to language teaching, as well as explore other contexts (e.g., forensic discourse analysis) in which discourse analysis can be used.
Required text (recommended purchase from Amazon.com):
Deborah Schiffrin. 1994. Approaches to Discourse. Cambridge, MA: Blackwell. Course reader. Available from IT Copying, 214 W. MLK Boulevard.
Grading:
class participation 20%
discussion leading 20%
term-paper 50%
oral presentation 10%
Class participation: This course draws much of the interpretive power from students’ own contributions. This is a graduate seminar and learning can only take place through collaboration, active discussion and an exchange of diverse ideas. For us to accomplish collaborative learning, all reading assignments are to be read prior to class so you can effectively participate in in-class discussions.
Discussion leading: With a partner, you will be responsible for leading the discussion on one of the main chapters from Schiffrin’s textbook (Chapters 3-8) or the other topics listed in the syllabus. Included in this syllabus you find a description of what you have to do when it is your turn to lead the discussion. Remember that you are not expected to be the expert, just that you guide the class in how to deal with the material. In addition to the chapter from the textbook, you will need to read further information on the topic. There are suggested additional readings next to each chapter, but feel free to substitute any of them for other sources you already know and like. On Monday, February 23, we have a guest lecturer, so that day (and the topic of Conversation Analysis) is off-limits for presentations .
Oral presentation/
Each presentation is based on the term-paper. The presentations should be 20 minutes long (max!) with a 10-minute discussion session following it. PowerPoint presentations and handouts are encouraged; they make your presentation more stimulating and easier to follow for your audience.
Special Needs
If there are any special circumstances of which I should be aware to ensure the class accommodates your needs, please let me know as soon as possible, but no later than the third week of classes.
Policy on Scholastic Integrity
Students who do not comply with University rules on scholastic integrity are subject to disciplinary penalties, including the possibility of failure in the course and/or dismissal from the University. Since dishonesty harms the individual, all students and the integrity of the University, policies on scholastic dishonesty will be strictly enforced. For further information, visit the Student Judicial Services web site, which offers excellent resources on how to cite sources and paraphrase (http://deanofstudents.utexas.edu/sjs/). The Graduate Writing Lab also has workshops and brochures that can help you develop skills on writing research papers.
Date Topics / Assignments Suggested additional
readings for discussion leaders (et al)
Monday, January 26 Introductions
Introductions; Introduction to Discourse Analysis
---Monday, February 2 Speech Act Theory Laura Felusiak & Sue Valentine
Read: DS – Chapters 1 (Overview), 2 (Definitions of Discourse) and 3 (Speech Act Theory)
Reader: read ONE of the following
Cynthia A. Berg, et al. 2003. Collaborative problem-solving interactions in young and old married couples. Discourse Processes, 15, 1, 33-58..
Thomas Tinkham. 1993. Sociocultural variation in Indian English speech acts. 1993. World Englishes, 12,2, 239-247.
John Austin. 1962. How to do things with words.
Cambridge, MA: Harvard UP and/or John Searle. 1969. Speech Acts. Cambridge, MA: Cambridge UP
Read DS – Chapter 4 (Interactional Sociolinguistics) Reader: read ONE of the following
Catherine E. Davies. 2003. How English-learners joke with native speakers: An interactional sociolinguistic perspective on humor as collaborative discourse across cultures. Journal of Pragmatics, 35, 1361-1385.
Andrea Tyler. 1995. The Co-construction of cross-cultural miscommunication. Studies in Second Language
Acquisition, 17, 129-152.
Monday, February 16
Ethnography of Communication
Kendra Lewis
Read DS – Chapter 5 (The Ethnography of Communication) Reader: read ONE of the following
Alessandro Duranti. 1992. Language and bodies in social space: Samoan ceremonial greetings. American
Anthropologist, 94, 3, 657-691.
Nancy J. Smith-Hefner. 1988. Women and politeness: The Javanese example. Language and Society, 17, 535-554.
Dell Hymes. 1974. Foundations in Sociolinguistics: An Ethnographic Approach. Philadelphia, PA: University of Pennsylvania Press. and/or Muriel Saville-Troike. 1989.
Read DS – Chapter 7 (Conversation Analysis) Reader: read ONE of the following
Gail Brendel Viechnicki. 1997. An empirical analysis of participant intentions: Discourse in a graduate seminar. Language and Communication, 17, 2, 103-131.
Carmen Taleghani-Nikazm. 2002. A conversation analytical study of telephone conversation openings between native and nonnative speakers. Journal of Pragmatics, 34, 1807-1832.
Harold Garfinkel. 1967. Studies in Ethnomethodology. Engelwood Cliffs, JH: Prentice Hall. and/or John Gumperz & Dell Hymes. 1972. Directions in
Sociolinguistics (the chapter by Harvey Sacks and Emanuel Schegloff).
Monday, March 1 Pragmatics
Read DS – Chapter 6 (Pragmatics) Reader: read ONE of the following
Shoshana Blum-Kulka. 1997. Discourse Pragmatics. In T. A. Van Dijk, ed. Discourse as social interaction. Sage.
Kate Burridge & Margaret Florey. 2002. ‘Yeah-no He’s a Good Kid’: A discourse analysis of Yeah-no in Australian English. Australian Journal of Linguistics, 22,2, 149-171.
H. Paul Grice. 1957. Meaning. Philosophical Review, 67, 377-88. and/or H. Paul Grice. 1968. Utterer’s meaning, sentence-meaning, and word-meaning.
Foundations of Language, 4, 1-18. and/or
H. Paul Grice. 1981. Further notes on logic and
conversation. In P. Cole (ed.) Radical Pragmatics.
Academic Press.
Monday, March 8 Variation Analysis
Read DS – Chapter 8 (Variation Analysis) Reader: read ONE of the following
Penelope Eckert. 1996. The whole woman: Sex and gender differences in variation. In D. Brenneis and R. K. S. Macaulay (Eds.) The Matrix of Language. Westview Press.
James Paul Gee et al. 2001. Language, class, and identity: Teenagers fashioning themselves through language. Linguistics and Education, 12, 2, 175-194.
William Labov. 1972. Sociolinguistic Patterns. Philadelphia, PA: University of Pennsylvania Press.
Monday, March 22 Critical Discourse Analysis
Paper proposals
Chia-Chien Chang
Reader: read TWO of the following
Jan Blommaert & Chris Bulcaen. 2000. Critical discourse analysis. Annual Review of Anthropology, 29, 447-466.
Katy Day et al. 2003. Women who drink and fight: A discourse analysis of working-class women’s talk. Feminism and Psychology, 13, 2, 141-158.
Thomas Huckin. 2002. Textual silence and the discourse of homelessness. Discourse and Society, 13,3, 347-372.
Discussion of paper proposals Monday, March 29
Forensic Discourse Analysis
Carolyn Moore & Ulrike Bathe
Reader: read TWO of the following:
Malcolm Coulthard. 1992. Forensic discourse analysis. In M. Coulthard (Ed.) Advances in Discourse Analysis. Routledge.
Clare Macmartin. 2002. (Un)reasonable doubt? The invocation of children’s consent in sexual abuse trial judgments. Discourse & Society, 13, 1, 9-40.
Peter Tiersma & Lawrence M. Solan. 2002. The linguist on the witness stand: Forensic linguistics in American courts.
Term-paper proposals are due Monday, April 5
Classroom Discourse
Yoon-Kyu Kim & Ann Keller-Lally
Read: Heidi Riggenbach. 1999. Discourse Analysis in the Language Classroom. Ann Arbor, MI: The University of
Michigan Press.
(on reserve at the PCL)and ONE of the following from the reader:
Julia Davies. 2003. Expressions of gender: an analysis of pupils’ gendered discourse styles in small group classroom discussions. Discourse & Society, 14, 2, 115-132.
Richard Watson Todd. 1998. Topic-based analysis of classroom discourse. System, 26, 303-18. Discuss term-papers and analyses
Monday, April 12 Discourse and CMC
Ming-Lung Yang & Katerina
Theodoridou
Reader:
Dorothy Chun. 1994. Using computer networking to facilitate the acquisition of interactive competence. System, 22,1, 17-31.
Mark Darhower, 2003. Interactional features of synchronous computer-mediated
communication in the intermediate L2 class: A sociocultural case study. CALICO, 10, 2, 249-277.
Monday, April 19 Presentations of term-papers (4)
Monday, April 26 Presentations of term-papers (4)
Monday, May 3 Presentations of term-papers (4)
Monday, May 10 Term-papers (in hard-copy) due in EPS 3.102 by 4:30 p.m.
OTHER RECOMMENDED READINGS:
Gillian Brown & George Yule. 1983. Discourse Analysis. New York, NY: Cambridge UP.
Penelope Brown & Stephen C. Levinson. 1987. Politeness: Some Universals in Language Usage. New York, NY: Cambridge UP.
Courtney B. Cazden. 2001. Classroom Discourse: The Language of Teaching and Learning (2nd Ed.). Portsmouth, NH: Boynton/Cook.
Paul A. Chilton & Christina Schäffner (Eds.). 2002. Politics as Text and Talk: Analytic Approaches to Political Discourse. Philadelphia, PA: John Benjamins.
Jennifer Coates. 1986. Women, Men, and Language. New York, NY: Longman.
James Paul Gee. 1999. Discourse Analysis: Theory and Methods. New York, NY: Routledge. Evelyn Hatch. 1992. Discourse and Language Education. New York, NY: Cambridge UP.
David Horwath, Aletta J. Norval & Yannis Stavrakakis (Eds.). Discourse Theory and Political Analysis: Identities, Hegemonies and Social Change. New York, NY: Manchester UP.
Barbara Johnstone. 2002. Discourse Analysis. Malden, MA: Blackwell.
Eleanor Kutz. 1997. Language and Literacy: Studying Discourse in Communities and Classrooms. Portsmouth, NH: Boynton/Cook.
Michael McCarthy & Ronald Carter. 1994. Language as Discourse: Perspectives for Language Teaching. New York, NY: Longman.
Jan Renkema. 1993. Discourse Studies: An Introductory Textbook. Philadelphia, PA: John Benjamins. Stephen Harold Riggins (Ed.) 1997. The Language and Politics of Exclusion: Others in Discourse. Thousand
Oaks, CA: Sage.
Deborah Schiffrin, Deborah Tannen & Heide E. Hamilton (Eds.). 2001. The Handbook of Discourse Analysis.
Malden, MA: Blackwell.
Discourse Analysis Spring 2004
GER 397P / LING 392
Assignment for leading a discussion:
DATE______________________ TOPIC ____________________________________
On the day you (and your partner) are responsible for leading the discussion, you need to come prepared to cover at least 1.5 hours of the entire class period. You are, naturally, NOT expected to be an expert at the topic, but rather should lead the class discussions and activities to promote a collaborative development of
understanding. Please submit your lesson plan to the instructor at least 4 days prior toyour presentation.
Discussion leading responsibilities consist of
a) posing discussion questions that the class can answer either collectively or in smaller groups (you should aim for this to take about 30 minutes* or so)
b) providing additional information on the background of the particular approach to or use of discourse analysis – you can prepare for this by reading one or two of the key original source(s) that Schiffrin refers to (presentation should be about 15 minutes or so, and can precede or follow the class discussion) c) selecting of activities from the end of Schiffrin’s chapters --- you decide what you want the class to complete and practice (ca. 20 minutes)
d) bringing a sample of discourse that the group can analyze, using that particular approach or focus (either authentic or created materials, depending on the appropriate position of the approach); the sample can be from the Internet, TV/radio programs, newspapers and magazines, audiotaped real-life conversations or transcripts thereof, borrowed from the original sources which you have read for your presentation day, historical documents, music or any other material with the instructor’s approval (ca.25-30 minutes)
