GER 397P/ LIN 392: Discourse Analysis
Spring 2004
Dr. Zsuzsanna I. Abrams
Class meets:
Office hours:
Phone number:
E-mail:
Mondays 2-4:30; CBA 4.346
Tuesdays 1:30-3:30 and Wednesdays 1-3
(512) 232-6374
zsabrams@mail.utexas.edu
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
discussion leading
term-paper
oral presentation
20%
20%
50%
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 .
Term-paper: you have two possible tracks for the term-paper. You may write either a literature-review type
paper or conduct an actual study, analyze the data and write up the results. Ph. D. students are very much
encouraged to choose the second option and try to publish their findings or present them at a professional
conference. The paper must be 12-20 pages long (towards the lower end for review of literature type papers, and
the higher end for the research-based papers). You will have to turn in a proposal Monday, March 29, and the
final paper (with incorporated feedback) on May 10. The paper must be typed, double-spaced, carefully proofread, with size 10-12, Times New Roman or similar font, with 1-inch margins. If you are indeed getting it ready
for publication, please indicate that on your final draft and attach a description of the journal / conference
specifications you want to prepare it for (I’ll give you very detailed feedback, and will be happy to read several
subsequent drafts of your paper as well).
1
Oral presentation/
Each presentation is based on the term-paper. The presentations should be 20 minutes long (max!) with a 10minute 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
Monday, January 26
Introductions
Introductions; Introduction to Discourse Analysis
Monday, February 2
Speech Act Theory
Read: DS – Chapters 1 (Overview), 2 (Definitions of
Discourse) and 3 (Speech Act Theory)
Laura Felusiak & Sue
Valentine
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..
Suggested additional
readings for discussion
leaders (et al)
---
John Austin. 1962. How to do
things with words.
Cambridge, MA: Harvard UP
and/or John Searle. 1969.
Speech Acts. Cambridge,
MA: Cambridge UP
Thomas Tinkham. 1993. Sociocultural variation in Indian
English speech acts. 1993. World Englishes, 12,2, 239-247.
Monday, February 9
Interactional
Sociolinguistics
Kirstin Engelhardt &
Simone Hanesch
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.
Erving Goffman. 1974.
Frame Analysis. New York,
NY: Harper & Row. and/or
John Gumperz. 1982.
Discourse Strategies.
Cambridge, MA: Cambridge
UP
Andrea Tyler. 1995. The Co-construction of cross-cultural
miscommunication. Studies in Second Language
Acquisition, 17, 129-152.
2
Monday, February
16
Ethnography of
Communication
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.
Kendra Lewis
Nancy J. Smith-Hefner. 1988. Women and politeness: The
Javanese example. Language and Society, 17, 535-554.
Monday, February
23
Conversation
Analysis
Presentation by
Professor Jürgen
Streeck
Monday, March 1
Pragmatics
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.
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.
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.
Dell Hymes. 1974.
Foundations in
Sociolinguistics: An
Ethnographic Approach.
Philadelphia, PA: University
of Pennsylvania Press. and/or
Muriel Saville-Troike. 1989.
The Ethnography of
Communication. Cambridge,
MA: Blackwell.
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).
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.
William Labov. 1972.
Sociolinguistic Patterns.
Philadelphia, PA: University
of Pennsylvania Press.
James Paul Gee et al. 2001. Language, class, and identity:
Teenagers fashioning themselves through language.
Linguistics and Education, 12, 2, 175-194.
March 15-20
Spring Break
3
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
Read: Heidi Riggenbach. 1999. Discourse Analysis in the Language Classroom. Ann Arbor,
MI: The University of
Michigan Press. (on reserve at the PCL)
Yoon-Kyu Kim &
Ann Keller-Lally
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
Reader:
Dorothy Chun. 1994. Using computer networking to facilitate the acquisition of interactive
competence. System, 22,1, 17-31.
Ming-Lung Yang &
Katerina
Theodoridou
Mark Darhower, 2003. Interactional features of synchronous computer-mediated
communication in the intermediate L2 class: A sociocultural case study. CALICO, 10, 2, 249277.
Discuss term-papers and analyses
4
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.
Deborah Tannen (Ed.). 1993. Gender and Conversational Interaction. New York, NY: Oxford UP.
Teun A. Van Dijk (Ed.). 1997. Discourse as Social Interaction. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
Linda A. Wood & Rolf O. Kroger. 2000. Doing Discourse Analysis. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
5
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 to your 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)
*these time amounts are suggested only; feel free to rearrange the sequence of activities and the amount of emphasis you
want to place on either. For example, if you have a longer piece of discourse you want the class to analyze, you might want
to reserve the entire second half of the class for that activity.
6