MA TESOLE609 Approaches to Discourse analysis

Lecture 2Dr Helene Fatima IdrisUniversity of KhartoumDepartment of English

Language-in-action is always and everywhere

an active building processWe build and re-build our world not just through language, but through language used in tandem with actions, interactions, non-linguistic symbol systems, objects, tools, technologies, and distinctive ways of thinking, valuing, feeling and believing. Language-in-action is always and everywhere an active building process.

The ’seven building tasks’ of language

Whenever we speak or write, we always and simultaneously construct or build seven things or seven areas of ’reality’, i.e. seven building tasks of language. In turn, a discourse analyst can ask seven different questions about any piece of language-in-use. They are:1. Significance (What certain things have meaning and value?)2. Activities (What (activity) is going on here?)3. Identities (What identity/identities are being enacted for others to recognise?)4. Relationships (What sort of relationship does the writer/speaker have, wants to have or tries to

have with others?)5. Politics (What perspectives of social goods (values and belief systems in a soiety) is this language

communicating?)6. Connections (How does this language connect or disconnect things? Make things relevant or

irrelevant to each other?)7. Sign systems and knowledge (What specific sign systems (languages, varieties, images, videos, etc.)

and certin forms of knowing and believing (research, science, ordinary people’s experience, oral vs. written communication) are used (and preferred)?

An example of discourse analysis:Gee, J.P. An Introduction to Discourse

analysis: Theory and Method): p. 14-19.

We will now turn to your reading assignment used to uncover the seven building tasks of language at work. One device that helps us think about what something means is to ask in what other ways it could have been said or written. Once we see what alternatives existed, we can ask why the person said or wrote it as they did and not in some aternative ways.

Background to the project• A project by a history university professor (Sarah Miller) with middle- school

teachers to engage their students in local oral history. The children were supposed to interview realtives and neighbours about the history of their neighbourhood and city. The oral history should eventually inform an exhibition in the city’s history museum.• The univeristy (Woodson) was a small elite private university in the city

(New Derby), which was a working-class industrial city.• The middle-school teachers were of working class origins.• There were hisoric tensions between the university and the city, and

specifically tensions over status and committment to the city between people who taught at university and people who taught in the public schools.

The first meeting of the project:Background

• Participants: 4 teachers from the two middle schools in the project,the university professor (Sarah Miller), her 2 research assistants, a representative of the funding agency), and some other people.• Setting: Meeting held in one of the middle schools.• Chair-person: The representative of the funding agency.• Speaker: One of the teachers (Karen Jones) has been told by the chair to give some

background to this first official meeting of the project.• The university professor had contacted Karen’s school curriculum coordinator (Susan

Washington) to help on this project. • The ’Summer Institute’ Karen refers to was a workshop about research collaboration

between unversity teachers and local school teachers. The funders had hoped that the university professor and the teachers she was going to work with would attend that workshop.

The text to analyse:Karen Jones at the meeting

1. Last year, Susan Washington, who is our curriculum coordinator here had a telephone call from Sarah at Woodson.

2. And called me and said:3. ’We have a person from Woodson who’s in the History Department.4. And she’s interested in doing some research into black history in New Derby.5. And she would like to get involved with the school. 6. And here’s her number.7. Give her a call.’8. And I DID call her.9. And we BOTH expected to be around for the Summer Institute at Woodson.10. I did participate in it.11. But SARAH wasn’t abe to do THAT.

Significance• Sarah wasn’t at the Summer Institute. Hos did Karen make that significant?Karen uses langauge to create a clear contrast between herself and Sarah, and Sarah’s failure to attend the Summer Institute takes on significance in terms of this contrast. Karen portrays herself as a responsible person and someone who did what she was told by saying And I DID call her (instead of just saying I called her.) Karen says And we BOTH expected to be around for the Summer Institute, implying, maybe, that Sarah had ’been around’ but not bothered to come. She then stresses that she herself did participate (I did participate in it) insead of just saying I participated in it. Then Karen concludes But SARAH wasn’t able to do THAT, using but, SARAH an THAT to further contrast between herself and Sarah. Karen emphasises that Sarah wasn’t able to do THAT (instead of saying But Sarah didn’t come or Sarah couldn’t come). All this means that Karen finds Sarah’s absence from the Summer Institute significant.

ActivitiesWhat is Karen using language to do here? What social activity is she trying to enact?Karn tries to contrast her responsible behaviour and commitment to a proect she didn’t ask to be on with Sarah’s less responsible behaviour and commitment to her own project. Karen’s social activity here is positioning herself in certain ways in front of the group and for the project to come and positioning Sarah in other ways. Note the pattern: And I DID…. We BOTH expected…. I DID participate… But SARAH wasn’t able to do THAT (a main clause). She could have formulated her language quite differently, had she wanted to. E.g. I was able to come, but Sarah couldn’t make it (a subordinate clause) would have softened the contrast a bit. .

IdentityWhat identity is Karen trying to take on or enact? Ww have already seen that Karen takes on the identity of a responsible do-er.In addition, she contextualises this identity in the dialogue with the curriculum coordinator who said: We have a person from Woodson….. sounding as they have a problem on their hands. She turns to Karen as the responsible part to handle this matter: Give her a call. The dialogue implies that Karen is the teacher with the most expertise and responsibility to deal with a university professor who wants to do research ’on black history in New Derby’ and ’get involved with the school’.

RelationshipWhat relatonship is Karen trying to enact in regard to Sarah?Karen is enacting a distanced, but not particularly deferential (=respectful), relatonship with Sarah.In addition to Karen showing herself as a ’responsible do-er’, she uses Sarah’s first name. She also uses the phrases ’a person from Woodson who’s in the History Depament’ rather than, for example, ’a Woodson history professor’, thereby avoiding the prestigious title….

Politics What sorts of implications for the distribution of social goods does Karen’s language have?1. Karen’s and Sarah’s reputation as responsible, trustworthy people. 2. Their reputation as ’do-ers’ (Karen) or failing to do things (Sarah).3. At a later meeting, teachers make clear that the pupils are ’our

children’ and that the professor should have contacted the teachers directly regarding the project, and not go through the curriculum coordinator and ’ordering’ the teachers into the project (which the teachers see as a breach of protocol). This view (feeling) can be heard in Karen’s language.

ConnectionsHow does Karen connect things or make them relevant to each other?How does Karen disconnect things and make them irrelevant to each other?1. Karen makes her presence and Sarah’s absence at the Summer

Institute connect and relevant to each other: I DID …. We BOTH expected…. I DID….. But SARAH wasn’t able to do THAT.

2. This contrast is relevant to Sarah’s initial call to the curriculum coordinator to set the project in motion (without Karen’s initiative) and Sarah’s failure to show up at the Summer Institute (that was meant to facilitate the project and ensure Karen’s involvement).

Sign systems and knowledgeHow is Karen privileging or disprivileging different sign systems (languages, styles of languages, non-verbal sign systems) or specific ways of or claims to know and believe?This is the beginning of a long struggle enacted in and through language as to whether teacher knowledge and university profssor knowledge in regard to history, teaching history, classrooms, children, and the community is to be privileged – and when, where and why. 1. This process already starts with the contrast of using the coordinator’s first and last names (Susan Washington), but only the first name of the university profssor (Sarah). 2. The vague description of the professor (not giving her authority of title/rank) and the project (not explaining it in more detail): a person from Woodson and interested in doing some research on black history in New Derby.

All building tasks are linked to each other

It is clear that all building tasks are integrally linked to each other and often mutually supported by the same words and phrases.Some hypotheses have been generated from this small piece of data, based on mutual considerations of context and language-in-use.In turn, these hypotheses would guide us though additional data from the same group of people in subsequent meetings and we gain more and more evidence for our hypotheses.If we see our hypotheses further confirmed in other sorts of data – perhaps in other encounters among university professor and teachers in this and other cities – then our confidence will rise yet more. Until dicconfirming evidence appears, we will accept our hypothses.

What was the benefit of this discourse analysis?

This particular project was failing, at various points, and discourse analysts could understand why and how. That allowed them to help make things work a bit better. Could they make it ’perfect’? Of course not. Som of the problems and issues (largely to do with status, power and institutional conflicts) are entrenched problems in the real world and would require substantial social and institutional changes to remove.

Today’s seminar1. Your analysis of Minutes mean money for

Sudanese student….2. My analysis of the above web page. 3. Conclusions

Minutes mean money for Sudanese student

1. Significance: Help poor people and contribute to development.2. Activity: Commercial to attract attention to the company. Show also

that Ericsson contributes to development (not only makes a profit).3. Identities: A modern socially aware and responsible company (by contributing to economic development among poor people). A company aware of the image of Sudan abroad (= civil war, conflicts, refugees) and Sudan as not ’politically correct’ to make business with. That’s why the text mentions especially South Sudan and Darfur and the positive influence of telecom there.

Minutes mean money for Sudanese student

4. Relationships: Marketing by creating a general positive image about the company among the readers and potential customers.

5. Politics (social goods):• Help poor people (start business and/ or support health, education

and family reunification in South Sudan and Darfur).• Contribute to economic development.• Help people stay in touch with each other.

Minutes mean money for Sudanese student6. Connections:• Connection with science, and academics (Columbia University).• Connections with poor people in the reality (Hiba, the student).• Increases credibility (= make people believe the text).7. Sign system and knowledge:• Standard English (not slang/colloquial) – international, neutral.• Sudanese Arabic (in the video) – authentic.• Prestigious knowledge in this text: 1) academic knowledge (Jeffrey Sachs, Columbia University - report) and 2) experience from the reality: Hiba - innovative business by her mobile

and South Sudan/Darfur/refugee camps – telecom supports health, education and family reunification.

Conclusions of assignment 1 and seminar

Coursework information:1. Assignment topic

Write an essay of 3000 ± 10% word limit on the following topic:Applications of Discourse analysis (as teaching mehods and course materials) in TESOL in SudanChoose from these approaches:• Speech act theory• Interactional sociolinguistics• The ethnography of communication• Pragmatics• Classroom discourse• English for academic purposes• Conversation analysis• Critical discourse analysis

2. Marking criteriaGood work should generally show evidence of the following qualities:• A good understanding of the main point(s) of the assignment question. • Good coverage of the main aspects of the topic without unnecessary digression.• High level of consistency, coherence and integration in argumentation.• Well stated introduction and conclusion.• Proper use of numbered headings and subheadings throughout the text.• Ability to write in a concise, precise and well structured way.• Proper and consistent in-text citation throughout.• Proper and consistent listing of sources in the bibliography (at least 5 references). • Follow the APA Manual.

3. Other formal requirements• You MUST type your assignment on a Microsoft Word

document with 12 Font Size, Times New Roman Font, 1.5 Line Spacing and 2.5 left-right Page Margins.• You MUST include a word count on the title page of your

assignment.

4. Assignment submission guidelines

You MUST submit two copies of your assignment. A soft copy must be sent via email to helenefatimaidris@gmail.com and a hard copy must be handed in to the module instructor during classes or at any other alternative place the instructor may designate.

5. Submission deadline and penalties for late submission

• You MUST submit your assignment before or on Wednesday, 12th October, 2016) If you submit later than the specified date, you will be subject to mark reduction penalty of ONE mark reduction of every single day of delay.• Please be aware that no extensions are granted so make sure you

submit your assignment on the specified date.• If you need more information on the assignment please feel free to

pop into my office at the Department of Linguistics during the office hours. Alternatively, you can email me at: helenefatimaidris@gmail.com

Tools of inquiryI would like to continue to give you some tools to work with during discourse analysis with the ’seven building tasks of language’. They are:1. ’Social languages’2. ’Discourses’3. Intertextuality4. ’Conversations’

’Social languages’Everybody uses different sets of language to enact different identities in different setting, and these are “social languages”. The every-day language, colloquial language is one social language, a technical, academic language is another social language. Investigating how different social languages are used and mixed is one tool of discourse analysis.

’Discourses’

People build identities and activities not only through language, but also together with ‘other stuff’. Example: Belonging to a street-gang. It does not only requires you to speak in the ‘right’ way, but to act and dress in the ‘right’ way as well. You have to share common beliefs, values, opinions, etc. and do the right activities, have the right symbols (such as tattoos), the right tools (such as weapons) and the right objects (e.g. street corners).

Example of ’discocurse’

IntertextualityWhen we speak we often refer to other ‘texts’, i.e. what others have said or written. One spoken or written text alludes to, quotes or, in any way, relates to another one.

’Conversations’Sometimes when we talk or write we allude to themes, motifs, and debates that have been in focus of much talk and writing in our social group or in our society as a whole. These themes, motifs and debates play a role in how language is interpreted.

Assignment 2 (for next week’s seminar/group

work)1. Read Gee, J.P. Introduction to Discourse Analysis, p. 20-28.2. Discuss (critically) what being ’real’ means in this context.3. Analyse I know I’m Sudanese if……. using the seven

building tasks of langauge and the four tools of inquiry above.

4. Discuss (in the group) what being a ’real Sudanese’ means.5. Present your findings at the next seminar.