1. Dr. Doris Correa Universidad de Antioquia Escuela de Idiomas Summer 2011 1

2. 1. Review of DA: Aims, characteristics, (50 mins) 2. Review of approaches =Matching exercise-approaches, interests, research questions – (40mins) 3. Comparison exercise: Differences between the research we engage in as reflected in trabajos de grado (40mins) 2

3. Questions for the four groups: (oral report) 1.What do we seem interested in? 2. How are our interests similar or different from those of written DA? 3. What kinds of questions do we ask? 4. How many are actually analyzing discourse? And if so, from what perspective do they analyze it? 5. What kind of analytic approach are they mostly using? (40 mins) 3

4. 4. CDA: aims, definitions, roots, etc: (complete the poster-60mins) 5. Gee, Fairclough & Halliday’s Models (45mins) 6. Making the questions more critical 7. Reflective memos: expectations, assessment criteria 4

5.  Anthropology: Ethnography of Speaking (ES) or (EC)  Philosophy: Pragmatics  Sociology and linguistics: Conversational Analysis (CA)  Linguistics and anthropology: Interactional sociolinguistics (IS)  Linguistics and critical theory: CDA 5

6.  DA- exploring texts for what they tell us about the purposes and functions of language use and the constraints operating on writers in particular contexts  Started in the 30’s with Firth  Before: interest only on surface lexico- grammatical features & correctness or on how isolated individuals struggle to create personal meaning 6

7.  Attempts to situate discourse in the purposes and contexts within which it is constructed and which it helps to construct 7

8.  Does not just look at how sentences fit together but tries to show how they are related to their contexts  Sees writing as the social actions of community situated members  Sees writers as social actors who bring personal and cultural histories to their writing and particular understandings of the texts they are asked to write  Looks at how particular groups of sts typically express certain meanings and approach rhetorical problems  Links discourse features to issues of writer purpose, identity, audience expectations, cultural schemata, multidisciplinary perceptions, and so on  Studies the meanings writers are trying to express through their choice and arrangement of forms 8

9.  Hyland Corpus linguistics Contrastive Rhetoric (CR): SFL:  Canagarajah: Multiliteracies (Multimodality)  Warschauer : Ethnography and corpus linguistics 9

10.  Hymes (1972) Heuristics for analyzing speech events: Setting, where the speech event is located Participants: who takes part Ends: purpose of the event Acts: what speech acts take part in the event Key: the tone or manner of the event Instrumentality: channel or medium of communication Norms: rules for producing and interpreting the speech acts Genres: the type of event 10

11.  The study of linguistic and social construction of interaction in different kinds of settings, especially those aspects that participants have little or no awareness of  Focus on variation and how conventions are used differently by different kinds of speakers  Differences in pronunciation, grammar, words between speakers of different class, race, ethnicity, gender, setting and topics 11

12. The way people code switch Aspects of interaction as turn-taking rules and conventions for indicating acknowledgement and agreement, etc Language variation Contextualization cues: including prosodic (intonation, pitch, stress) and paralinguistic features (hesitation, pausing, speed and volume), code switching, Extralinguistic features (eyes, face, limbs, torso’s signs) Formulaic expressions 12

13.  Concerns itself with the principles language users employ to determine the meaning behind words Illocutionary and perlocutionary force Face threatening acts 13

14.  Austin (1962): Three parts to speech acts: Locution: words being uttered, Illocution: intent Perlocution: effect  Grice (1975): Principle of interaction called co- operative principle. Four maxims: Quantity Quality: truthfulness and support Relation: relevance Manner: clarity Critique: that may not work in high context cultures ( such as Mexico) 14

15.  Focus: What participants in talk and conversation are doing  Not concerned with participants’ identities, routines, beliefs, gender, etc  Aims: to make explicit what ordinary conversationalists take for granted to find intricate patterning in the in the way these interactions are organized 15

16.  IRE patterns,  Turn taking  Renegotiation of the floor  Silences  Overlaps  Adjacency pairs 16

17. Text (local ) (Description) Social Practice (Societal) Discursive Practice (prod, distribution, consumption) (Institutional) (Interpretation) 17

18. 1. Analysis of texts: Interactional control, cohesion, politeness, ethos, grammar, trnsitivity, theme, modality, word meaning, wording, methaphors 2. Analysis of the discursive practice: intertextuality and interdiscursivity, coherence, conditions of discourse practice 18

19. 3. Analysis of the social practice of which the discourse is part: Orders of discourse, ideological and political effects of discourse 19

20. InterpretationDescriptionOr Back 20

21. Context of culture Context Of situation Field Tenor Text Mode Butt et al. (2000) 21

22.  Connection building activities that include:  describing,  interpreting,  explaining  the relationship between language bits (discourses) and cultural models, situated identities, and situated meanings 22

23. 1. Semiotic building 2. World building 3. Activity building 4. Socioculturally situated identity and relationship building 5. Political building 6. Connection building 23

24.  See chart 24

25. 25

26. 26

27. 1. Critical linguistics: practical ways of analyzing texts, attention to grammar and its ideological analysis, discourse of the press (Fowler, 1991), educational texts and spoken dialogue (Halliday, 1978,Kress, 1985, Martin, Knap & Watkins, Cope and Kalantzis, Knapp and Noble, Bloome et al.) 2. Social semiotics: mutli-semiotic character of most texts in contemporary society and analysis of visual images genre analysis and intertextual analysis (Kress, Fairclough, Lemke, Lankshear, Cope ), 3. Socio-cultural change and discursive change: creative mixing of genres and discourses, conversationalization of public discourse, 4. intertextuality (Fairclough) 5. Socio-cognitive studies: reproduction of ethnic prejudice and racism in discourse and communication, abuse and power and the reproduction of inequalities through ideologies (Van Dijk, Rogers) 6. Discourse-Historical method: integrates all available information into the analysis and interpretation of the many layers of written or spoken discourse, prejudice, racism, sexism (Wodak and Matouschek )