Conversational Analysis

[moderatedbliss]

Is anybody in a current program studying conversational analysis or something similar? If so, would you mind sharing your experiences? 

If you're a prospective student interested in conversational analysis, feel free to contribute, voice apprehension, etc. 

[La_Di_Da]

What type of conversational analysis? Immediately brings to mind sociolinguistics. I once did a comparative analysis of conversations between male-female pairs as they went about the task of making dinner. Study findings supported typical male-female gendered conversational differences. Apart from this, I've done other work on gendered discourses within human organizations.

 

Tell me more.

[moderatedbliss]

From my understanding, it draws heavily on micro sociology. Goffman and Garfinkel are considered some of the "pioneers" with their work on social order/ethnomethodlogy. A lot of it focuses on 1 on 1 interaction.

UCLA is pretty well known for it from what I gather, here is a page from a related professor: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/John_Heritage

A page from UCSB: http://www.soc.ucsb.edu/research/conversation-analysis

[ThisSlumgullionIsSoVapid]

David Gibson (previously at UPenn but recently hired by ND) does conversational analysis. Perhaps look into his work. 

Edited April 28, 2013 by ThisSlumgullionIsSoVapid

[La_Di_Da]

I see. I don't separate conversational analysis from the broader field of sociolinguistics. Even hardcore linguists -- whether historical, semantic or otherwise oriented -- cross the sociological boundary. Like Heritage's revelation regarding the function of 'oh', one linguist I'm familiar with (she's the ex of a friend of mine) has done extensive study on the function and meaning of filler words: um, ah, erm, uh, etc.  So this type of work is occurring within an overarching social discipline.

 

I come from a strong anthropology and communications background, so I cannot help but see language in its sundry verbal and imagistic forms as a powerful sociocultural signifier and organizing principle. Conversational analysis can be particularly revealing, because it often points out imbalances of power, agentic motivation, and/or illuminates underlying cultural narratives that shape individual -- and by way of extrapolation, collective -- values, morality, and social conscience.

 

Are you considering specializing in conversational analysis? If you are, I'd also recommend reading up on sociolinguistic theory, that is, if you haven't already.

Edited April 28, 2013 by La_Di_Da

[moderatedbliss]

I see. I don't separate conversational analysis from the broader field of sociolinguistics. Even hardcore linguists -- whether historical, semantic or otherwise oriented -- cross the sociological boundary. Like Heritage's revelation regarding the function of 'oh', one linguist I'm familiar with (she's the ex of a friend of mine) has done extensive study on the function and meaning of filler words: um, ah, erm, uh, etc.  So this type of work is occurring within an overarching social discipline.

 

I come from a strong anthropology and communications background, so I cannot help but see language in its sundry verbal and imagistic forms as a powerful sociocultural signifier and organizing principle. Conversational analysis can be particularly revealing, because it often points out imbalances of power, agentic motivation, and/or illuminates underlying cultural narratives that shape individual -- and by way of extrapolation, collective -- values, morality, and social conscience.

 

Are you considering specializing in conversational analysis? If you are, I'd also recommend reading up on sociolinguistic theory, that is, if you haven't already.

That's more or less why it appeals to me. I am considering it, but I suppose I am considering quite a few things.. anything in particular you would recommend? Also, what are you studying? 

[gilbertrollins]

I read a bit of sociolinguistics last year.  I was frustrated by the lack of general model of communication.  There is no clear map between observable speech acts, and the data they provide, and cultural meaning. 

 

I understand these are foundational questions that the fields of pragmatics and semantics have been wrestling with for some time, but I still see very little consensus.  I wonder if some of this situation doesn't stem from the humanistic aversion to testing hypotheses, which would allow an empirical exercise of narrowing-down theoretical propositions.  And I further wonder if the humanistic aversion to testing hypotheses isn't motivated in large part by territorial political divisions and a crisis of identity -- in order to insulate themselves from social science and science broadly -- rather than the methodological and epistomological complaints it is put on as. 

 

William Labov's work is very good.  He's established some verified patterns of linguistic diffusion in groups.  He found that phoneme changes start often in modern America with women and girls, and move through the population from there.  (To me this stamps of evidence of the agency of women which has been under-appreciated by gender scholarship, but that's just me.) 

 

Also, there is a conversation analyst up at UW Madison Sociology who is apparently very good, but I forget his name.

[socscholar]

Doug Maynard at UW-Madison. They have CA classes and even a CA prelim.