Hostname: page-component-6898cfcb55-kwdml Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2026-11-11T12:19:23.366Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Comprehensive discourse analysis: An instance of professional peer interaction*

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  18 December 2008

Allen D. Grimshaw
Allen D. Grimshaw
Affiliation:
Department of Sociology, Indiana University
Get accessRights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

While studies of written text continue to engage students from a number disciplines, investigations of naturally occurring talk have increased exponentially in the last decade. This paper reports on such an investigation, comprehensive discourse analysis of talk among professional peers (in a doctoral dissertation defense), attending to an instance of problematic communication and to some possible implications and interpretations of such nonsuccesses in social interaction. The method employed is an adaptation Labov and Fanshel. (Communicative nonsuccess, comprehensive discourse analysis, interaction among professional peers, naturally occurring talk, social structure, and language use.)

Information

Type
Articles
Information
Language in Society , Volume 11 , Issue 1 , April 1982, pp. 15 - 47
Copyright
Copyright © Cambridge University Press 1982

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

Article purchase

Temporarily unavailable

References

REFERENCES

Agar, M. (1980). Stories, background knowledge and themes: Problems in the life history narrative. American Ethnologist 7: 223–39.Google Scholar
Austin, J. L. (1961). A plea for excuses. In Austin, J. L. (ed.), Philosophical papers. London: Oxford University Press. 123–92.Google Scholar
Brown, P., & Levinson, S. (1978).Universals in language usage: Politeness phenomena. In Goody, E. N. (ed.), Questions and politeness: Strategies in social interaction. Cambridge University Press. 56–289.Google Scholar
Cicourel, A. V. (1974). Theory and method in a study of Argentine fertility. New York: Wiley Interscience.Google Scholar
Cicourel, A. V. (1980). Three models of discourse analysis: The role of social structure. Discourse Processes 3 101–32.Google Scholar
Corsaro, W. (1981). Communication process in studies of social organization: Sociological approaches to discourse analysis. Text 1: 5–63.Google Scholar
Dennett, D. C. (1969).Language and understanding. In Dennett, D. C. (ed), Content and consciousness. New York: Humanities Press. 179–90.Google Scholar
Feinberg, J. (1970). Action and responsibility. In Feinberg, J. (ed), Doing and deserving: Essays in the theory of responsibility. Princeton: Princeton University Press. 119–51.Google Scholar
Goffman, E. (1971). Relations in public: Microstudies of the public order. New York: Basic Books. Footing.Google Scholar
Goofman, E.. (1979) Footing. Semiotica 25: 1–29.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Goody, E. N. (1978). Toward a theory of questions. In Goody, E. N. (ed), Questions and politeness: Strategies in social interaction. Cambridge University Press. 17–43.Google Scholar
Grice, H. P. (1975). Logic and conversation. In Cole, P. & Morgan, J. (eds.), Syntax and semantics, volume: Speech acts. New York: Academic Press. 43–58.Google Scholar
Grimshaw, A. D. (1969). Language as obstacle and as data in sociological research. Items 23: 17–21.Google Scholar
Grimshaw, A.. (1970). Some problematic aspects of communication in cross-racial research in the United States. Sociological Focus 3: 67–85.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Grimshaw, A..(1973). Comparative sociology - In what ways different from other sociotogies? In Armer, M. & Grimshaw, A. D. (eds.), Comparative social research. New York: John Wiley. 3–48.Google Scholar
Grimshaw, A..(1980a). Social interactional and sociolinguistic rules. Social Forces 58: 789–810.Google Scholar
Grimshaw, A..(1980b). Mishearings, misunderstandings and other nonsuccesses in talk: A plea for redress of speaker-oriented bias. Sociological inquiry 50: 31–74.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Grimshaw, A.. (1981). Instrumentality selection in naturally occurring conversation: A research agenda. In Werth, P. (ed), Conversation, speech and discourse. London: Croom-Helm. 41–72.Google Scholar
Gumperz, J. J. (forthcoming). Conversational inference. Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Halliday, M. A. K., & Hasan, R. (1976). Cohesion in English. London: Longman.Google Scholar
Hare, A. P. (1962). Handbook of small group research. New York: The Free Press.Google Scholar
Henry, J. (1965). Pathways to madness. New York: Random House.Google Scholar
Higgins, F. R. (1980). Personal communication.Google Scholar
Hymes, D. H. (1980). Personal communication.Google Scholar
Labov, W., & Fanshel, D. (1977). Therapeutic discourse; Psychotherapy as conversation. New York: Academic Press.Google Scholar
Liberman, K. (forthcoming). The economy of Central Australian aboriginal expression: An inspection from the vantage of Merleau-Ponty and Demda. Semiotica.Google Scholar
Scheflen, A. E. (1973). Communicational structure: Analysis of a psychotherapy transaction. Bloomington: Indiana University Press.Google Scholar
Silverman, D., & Torode, B. (1980). The material word: Some theories of language and its limits. London: Routledge and Kegan Paul.Google Scholar
Strawson, P. F. (1964). Intention and convention in speech acts. The Philosophical Review 73 (4): 439-60.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Tyler, S. A. (1980). On what is between words. American Anthropologist 82: 831–38.Google Scholar