Conversation and Discourse Analysis

The module will introduce students to the study of language use as a distinctive type of social practice. Attention will be focused primarily on the methodological and analytic principles of conversation analysis. (CA). However, it will explore the debates between CA and Critical Discourse Analysis (CDA), as a means of addressing the relationship between the study of language use and the study of other aspects of social life. It will also consider the roots of conversation analysis in the research initiatives of ethnomethodology, and the analysis of ordinary and institutional talk. It will finally consider the interface between CA and CDA.

This module is designed for MPhil and PhD students as part of the Social Science Research Methods Centre (SSRMC) training programme - a shared platform for providing research students with a broad range of quantitative and qualitative research methods skills that are relevant across the social sciences.

Number of sessions: 4

• Session 1: The Roots of Conversation Analysis
• Session 2: Ordinary Talk
• Session 3: Institutional Talk
• Session 4: Conversation Analysis and Critical Discourse Analysis

• To introduce students to the study of langugage use as a distinctive type of social practice.
• To explore debates between CA and CDA as a means of addressing the relationship between the study of language use and other aspects of social life.
• To consider the roots of conversation analysis in research initiatives of ethnomethodology.
• To consider the analysis of ordinary and institutional talk

Presentations only

Session 1

• Garfinkel, H. (1967). Studies in Ethnomethodology. Cambridge: Polity.
• Garfinkel, H. & Sacks, H. 1970. On formal structures of practical actions. In J.C. McKinney & E. Tiryakian.(eds). Theoretical Sociology: Perspectives and Development. (pp. 338-66). New York: Appleton-Century-Crofts.
• Heritage, J. (1984). Garfinkel and Ethnomethodology. Cambridge: Polity
• Levinson, S. C. (1992). Activity types and language. In D.Weinberg Qualitative Research Methods. (pp.193-220). Oxford:Blackwell.

Session 2

• Heritage, J. (1984). Garfinkel and Ethnomethodology. Cambridge: Polity.
• Schegloff, E. (1991). Reflections on talk and social structure. In D. Boden & D. H. Zimmerman. (eds). Talk and Social Structure: Studies in Ethnomethodology and Conversation Analysis. Berkeley: University of California Press

Session 3

• Drew, P. & Heritage, J., (eds). (1992). Talk at Work: Interaction in Institutional Settings [especially Chapter One, pp. 3-65]. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

Session 4

• Schegloff, E. (1997). Whose text? Whose context? Discourse & Society, 8,(2):165-187
• Billig, M. (1999). Whose terms? Whose ordinariness? Rhetoric and ideology in conversation analysis. Discourse & Society, 10(4): 543-558
• Schegloff, E. (1999). Schegloff's texts as Billig's Data: a critical reply. Discourse & Society, 10(4): 558-572
• Billig, M. (1999). Conversation analysis and the claims of naivety. Discourse & Society, 10(4): 572-576.
• Schegloff, E (1999). Naivete vs sophistication or discipline vs self-indulgence: a rejoinder to Billig. Discourse & Society, 10(4): 577-582

All students are expected to give feedback for each module they take...

At the end of each module, students will be sent a link to a very short evaluation form. They will also be able to find this link on the Moodle page for their course. The survey takes a few minutes to fill in, and can even be done on a mobile phone. Students that do not respond to the survey the first time, will receive regular automated reminders until the survey is completed.

Students will not be given certification or proof of attendance for any module for which they have not provided feedback.

• To gain maximum benefits from the course it is important that students do not see this course in isolation from the other MPhil courses or research training they are taking.
• Responsibility lies with each student to consider the potential for their own research using methods common in fields of the social sciences that may seem remote. Ideally this task will be facilitated by integration of the SSRMC with discipline-specific courses in their departments and through reading and discussion.

Four sessions of one and a half hours each.

Once a week for four weeks.