COMM 6445
Communication & Culture
Fall, 2013
Wednesdays, 3.30-6.00 p.m., Hellems 77
Dr. David Boromisza-Habashi (dbh@colorado.edu, 303-735-5076)
Office hours: T 10-11, W 10-11, and by appointment
The focus of this graduate course is the life of culture in communication, and of
communication in culture. We will seek answers to these questions:



How can communicative practices be seen as cultural practices?
How is “culture” itself a product of communication?
What happens where divergent culturally specific communicative practices come into
contact?
We will cultivate an interest in the cultural forms and meanings of observable language use
chiefly, although not exclusively, in the tradition of the ethnography of communication. The
course has two main objectives: (1) to acquaint you with classic and contemporary readings
that engage the relationship between communication and culture, and (2) to introduce you to
ways in which you can adopt a cultural approach toward communication phenomena. Although
this is a survey and not a methods course, you will have the opportunity to use ethnographic
methodologies to develop new field-based research projects or to sharpen some aspects of
their existing projects.
The course comprises four units. Unit 1 focuses on classic readings. Unit 2 is concerned with
what it means to adopt a cultural approach to language use. Unit 3 reviews cultural approaches
to topics of concern to our department’s chief areas of study: rhetoric, discourse and society,
organizational communication, and critical/cultural studies. The focus of Unit 4 is intercultural
communication.
Required readings
Books (available from the CU Bookstore)
Boromisza-Habashi, D. (2013). Speaking hatefully: Culture, communication, and political action
in Hungary. University Park, P.A.: Pennsylvania State University Press.
Cameron, D. (2000). Good to talk? Living and working in a communication culture. London, U.K.:
Sage.
Carbaugh, D. (2005). Cultures in conversation. Mahwah, N.J.: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.
Cintron, R. (1997). Angels’ town: Chero ways, gang life, and rhetorics of the everyday. Boston,
M.A.: Beacon Press.
Book excerpts, chapters, and articles (available on D2L)
Agar, M. (1994a). Language shock: Understanding the culture of conversation. New York, N.Y.:
William Morrow.
Agar, M. (1994b). The intercultural frame. International Journal of Intercultural Relations, 18,
221-237. doi:10.1016/0147-1767(94)90029-9
Agar, M. H. (2008). The professional stranger: An informal introduction to ethnography (2nd
ed.). Bingley, U.K.: Emerald Group Publishing Ltd.
Baxter, L. A. (1993). “Talking things through” and “putting it in writing”: Two codes of
communication in an academic institution. Journal of Applied Communication Research,
21(4), 313-326. doi:10.1080/00909889309365376
Blommaert, J., & Rampton, B. (2011). Language and superdiversity. Diversities, 13(2), 1-22.
Boromisza-Habashi, D., & Parks, R. (in press). The communal function of social interaction on an
online academic newsgroup. Western Journal of Communication.
Carbaugh, D., & Hastings, S.O. (1992). A role for communication in ethnography and cultural
analysis. Communication Theory, 2, 156-165. doi:10.1111/j.1468-2885.1992.tb00035.x
Carbaugh, D., Gibson, T.A., & Milburn, T. (1997). A view of communication and culture: Scenes
in an ethnic cultural center and a private college. In B. Kovacic (Ed.), Emerging theories
of human communication (pp. 1-24). Albany: State University of New York Press.
Cooks, L. (2001). From distance and uncertainty to research and pedagogy in the Borderlands:
Implications for the future of intercultural communication. Communication Theory,
11(3), 339-351. doi:10.1111/j.1468-2885.2001.tb00246.x
Coutu, L. (2008). Contested social identity and communication in text and talk about the
Vietnam War. Research on Language and Social Interaction, 41(4), 387-407.
doi:10.1080/08351810802467845
Deetz, S. (2012). Preface. In M. Marchiori (Ed.) Faces da Cultura e da Comunicação
Organizacional (Faces of organizational culture and communication). São Paulo, Brazil:
Difusão.
Goodwin, C. & Duranti, A. (1992). Rethinking context: An introduction. In A. Duranti & C.
Goodwin (Eds.), Rethinking context: Language as an interactive phenomenon (pp. 1-42).
Cambridge University Press.
Gumperz, J. J. (2001). Speech community. In A. Duranti (Ed.), Linguistic anthropology: A reader
(pp. 43-52). Malden, M.A.: Blackwell.
Hymes, D. (1972a). On communicative competence. In J. B. Pride & J. Holmes (Eds.),
Sociolinguistics: Selected readings (pp. 269-293). New York: Penguin Books.
Hymes, D. (1972b). Models of the interaction of language and social life. In J. J. Gumperz & D.
Hymes (Eds.), Directions in sociolinguistics: The ethnography of communication (pp. 3571). New York: Holt, Rinehart and Winston.
Jørgensen, J. N., Karrebæk, M. S., Madsen, L. M., & Møller, J. S. (2011). Polylanguaging in
superdiversity. Diversities, 13(2), 23-38.
Leeds-Hurwitz, W. (1990). Notes in the history of intercultural communication: The Foreign
Service Institute and the mandate for intercultural training. Quarterly Journal of Speech,
76(3), 262-281. doi:10.1080/00335639009383919
Leighter, J. L., & Black, L. (2010). "I'm just raising the question": Terms for talk and practical
metadiscursive argument in public meetings. Western Journal of Communication, 74(5),
547-569. doi:10.1080/10570314.2010.512281
Liberman, K. (1995). The natural history of some intercultural communication. Research on
Language and Social Interaction, 28, 117-146. doi: 10.1207/s15327973rlsi2802_2
Martin, J. N., Nakayama, T. K., & Carbaugh, D. (2012). The history and development of the study
of intercultural communication and applied linguistics. In J. Jackson (Ed.), The Routledge
handbook of language and intercultural communication (pp. 17-36). Milton Park,
Abingdon, Oxon; New York, N.Y.: Routledge.
Meyer, C. (2009). Precursors of rhetoric culture theory. In I. Strecker & S. Tyler (Eds.), Culture &
rhetoric (pp. 31-48). New York, N.Y.: Berghahn Books.
Milburn, T. (2004). Speech community: Reflections upon communication. Communication
Yearbook, 28, 411-441. doi:10.1207/s15567419cy2801_11
Philipsen, G. (1992). Speaking culturally: Explorations in social communication. Albany, N.Y.:
SUNY Press.
Pike, K. L. (1967). Language in relation to a unified theory of the structure of human behavior.
The Hague, Paris: Mouton & Co.
Pratt, S., & Wieder, D. L. (1993). The case of saying a few words and talking for another among
the Osage people: ‘Public speaking’ as an object of ethnography. Research on Language
and Social Interaction, 26(4), 353-408. doi:10.1207/s15327973rlsi2604_1
Scollo, M. (2011). Cultural approaches to discourse analysis: A theoretical and methodological
conversation with special focus on Donal Carbaugh’s Cultural Discourse Analysis. Journal
of Multicultural Discourses, 6(1), 1-32. doi:10.1080/17447143.2010.536550
Sextus Empiricus (2000). Outlines of skepticism. Cambridge, U.K.: Cambridge University Press.
Strecker, I. (2010). Ethnographic chiasmus: Essays on culture, conflict and rhetoric. Berlin,
Germany: LIT Verlag.
Tracy, K., & Robles, J. (2013). Everyday talk: Building and reflecting identities (2nd ed.). New
York, N.Y.: Guilford Press.
Tyler, S., & Strecker, I. (2009). The Rhetoric Culture project. In I. Strecker & S. Tyler (Eds.),
Culture & rhetoric (pp. 21-30). New York, N.Y.: Berghahn Books.
Urciuoli, B. (2010). Entextualizing diversity: Semiotic incoherence in institutional discourse.
Language & Communication, 30(1), 48-57. doi:10.1016/j.langcom.2009.10.005
Vagle, M. D., Hughes, H. E., & Durbin, D. J. (2009). Remaining skeptical: Bridling for and with
one another. Field Methods, 21(4), 347-367. doi:10.1177/1525822X09333508
Course assessment
Review (10%). I will ask you to submit a review of one of the readings we will encounter in this
course. Your 3-5-page review should include the following:
 What is the author’s intellectual background?
 Who is the author’s target audience?
 In a couple of sentences, how would you summarize the author’s main argument?
(What does the author want to teach her or his reader about what?)
 How does the author support her or his main argument?



Have you found the main argument convincing? Why, and/or why not?
What could the author have done to craft a more powerful argument?
Would you use this reading in an undergraduate class? Why, or why not?
Statement of cultural approach (10%): On week 5 I will ask you to submit a brief (2-3-page)
statement about (1) the nature of the data you will use for your final paper, (2) your interest in
the data, and (3) the conceptual / theoretical framework you plan to bring to your study.
Annotated bibliography (10%): The annotated bibliography for your final research paper is due
on week 7. Your bibliography should consist of three parts: (1) readings establishing your
theoretical and methodological foundations, (2) the body of existing scholarship that (a)
addresses your communicative phenomenon (or phenomena) of concern, and that (b) you
would like to engage in your final paper, and (3) existing studies of your communicative
phenomena (or phenomenon) of concern. As a model, you can use the sample APA entry
posted here: http://owl.english.purdue.edu/owl/resource/614/03/
Sample analysis (20%): Your 6-8-page sample analysis is due on week 9. Your analysis should
include (1) a rationale for using a particular type of analytic framework, and (2) the analysis of
at least 2-3 brief data excerpts.
Final paper (40%): Your final paper is due on the final class day. This paper should articulate
the various facets of your work (your interest in a particular body of data, taking a cultural
approach, methodological choices, findings, claims) in this course. This final paper should be
structured as a traditional social science research paper (length 8,000-9,000 words).
I recognize that not all students in this course will have expertise in ethnographic methods or
qualitative methods in general. I am therefore happy to work with you on developing either a
field-based research project that makes use of elements of ethnographic research
methodology, or a non-field-based project that demonstrates a coherent cultural approach to
your communication phenomena of concern.
Please submit a hard AND an electronic copy of all written assignments. To submit electronic
copies, use the Dropbox feature of D2L.
Participation (10%): This class can only succeed if you help me make it lively, engaging, and
organized. I ask you to come to class prepared to discuss the readings and to ask questions, and
to post on the class Pinterest board (http://pinterest.com/boromiszahabash/communicationculture/) from time to time. I will ask one of you each week (1) to identify a “rich point” (a
particular moment that you found deeply interesting and highly confusing at the same time) in
the week’s readings and to use it to lead a brief discussion of the readings, and (2) to initiate a
discussion on D2L based on the conversation in class that day.
You can expect to earn an A- in this course if you do everything I ask you to do. The A grade is
reserved for students whose work in the course is outstanding.
Course schedule
The course schedule will remain subject to revision throughout the semester. Potential changes
will be the outcome of negotiations between you, the students, and I, the instructor.
Week
UNIT 1: Classics and foundations
Week 1 – Introduction
8/28
Reading
Week 2 – Skepticism and culture
9/4
Selections form Sextus Empiricus (2000)
Vagle (2009)
Selections form Agar (1994a)
Week 3 – “Communication” as a cultural
catagory
9/11
Cameron (2000)
UNIT 2: Adopting a cultural approach
Week 4 – Language in context
9/18
Hymes (1972a, 1972b)
Goodwin & Duranti (1992)
Week 5 – Studying culture
9/25
Pike (1967)
Selections from Agar (1996)
Carbaugh & Hastings (1992)
Week 6 – Speech communities
10/2
Gumperz (2001)
Milburn (2004)
Blommaert & Rampton (2011)
Jørgensen et al. (2011)
Week 7 – Speech codes, cultural discourses
10/9
Selections from Philipsen (1992)
Carbaugh, Gibson, & Milburn (1997)
Scollo (2011)
UNIT 3: Topics
Week 8 – Rhetoric I.
10/16
Tyler & Strecker (2009)
Selections from Strecker (2010)
Meyer (2009)
Week 9 – Rhetoric II.
10/23
Cintron (1997)
Week 10 – Discourse & Society I.
10/30
Selection from Tracy & Robles (2013)
Pratt & Wieder (1993)
Leighter & Black (2010)
Coutu (2008)
Week 11 – Discourse & Society II.
11/6
Boromisza-Habashi (2013)
Week 12 – Organizational Communication
11/13
Deetz (2012)
Baxter (1993)
Urciuoli (2010)
Boromisza-Habashi & Parks (in press)
UNIT 4 – Intercultural Communication
Week 13
11/20
Leeds-Hurwitz (1990)
Martin et al. (2012)
Cooks (2001)
Week 14 – FALL BREAK
Week 15
12/4
Selections from Carbaugh (2005)
Agar (1994b)
Liberman (1995)
Week 16
12/11
Presentation of final papers
Policies and accommodations
Disability
If you qualify for accommodations because of a disability, please submit to me a letter from
Disability Services in a timely manner (for exam accommodations provide your letter at least
one week prior to the exam) so that your needs can be addressed. Disability Services
determines accommodations based on documented disabilities. Contact Disability Services at
303-492-8671 or by e-mail at dsinfo@colorado.edu.
If you have a temporary medical condition or injury, see Temporary Injuries under Quick Links
at Disability Services website (http://disabilityservices.colorado.edu/) and discuss your needs
with your professor.
Religious observance
Campus policy regarding religious observances requires that faculty make every effort to deal
reasonably and fairly with all students who, because of religious obligations, have conflicts with
scheduled exams, assignments or required attendance. Please let me know about possible
conflicts within the first week of the semester and we can negotiate the appropriate
accommodation.
See full details at http://www.colorado.edu/policies/fac_relig.html
Classroom conduct
Students and faculty each have responsibility for maintaining an appropriate learning
environment. Those who fail to adhere to such behavioral standards may be subject to
discipline. Professional courtesy and sensitivity are especially important with respect to
individuals and topics dealing with differences of race, color, culture, religion, creed, politics,
veteran’s status, sexual orientation, gender, gender identity and gender expression, age,
disability, and nationalities. Class rosters are provided to the instructor with the student's legal
name. I will gladly honor your request to address you by an alternate name or gender pronoun.
Please advise me of this preference early in the semester so that I may make appropriate
changes to my records. See policies at http://www.colorado.edu/policies/classbehavior.html
and at http://www.colorado.edu/studentaffairs/judicialaffairs/code.html#student_code
Discrimination and harassment
The University of Colorado Boulder (CU-Boulder) is committed to maintaining a positive
learning, working, and living environment. The University of Colorado does not discriminate on
the basis of race, color, national origin, sex, age, disability, creed, religion, sexual orientation, or
veteran status in admission and access to, and treatment and employment in, its educational
programs and activities. (Regent Law, Article 10, amended 11/8/2001). CU-Boulder will not
tolerate acts of discrimination or harassment based upon Protected Classes or related
retaliation against or by any employee or student. For purposes of this CU-Boulder policy,
"Protected Classes" refers to race, color, national origin, sex, pregnancy, age, disability, creed,
religion, sexual orientation, gender identity, gender expression, or veteran status. Individuals
who believe they have been discriminated against should contact the Office of Discrimination
and Harassment (ODH) at 303-492-2127 or the Office of Student Conduct (OSC) at 303-4925550. Information about the ODH, the above referenced policies, and the campus resources
available to assist individuals regarding discrimination or harassment can be obtained at
http://hr.colorado.edu/dh/
Honor Code
All students of the University of Colorado at Boulder are responsible for knowing and adhering
to the academic integrity policy of this institution. Violations of this policy may include:
cheating, plagiarism, aid of academic dishonesty, fabrication, lying, bribery, and threatening
behavior. All incidents of academic misconduct shall be reported to the Honor Code Council
(honor@colorado.edu; 303-735-2273). Students who are found to be in violation of the
academic integrity policy will be subject to both academic sanctions from the faculty member
and non-academic sanctions (including but not limited to university probation, suspension, or
expulsion). Other information on the Honor Code can be found at
http://www.colorado.edu/policies/honor.html and at http://honorcode.colorado.edu