Syllabus

Syllabus: Discourse Analysis (LING 79600/SPAN 80100):

Housekeeping

Semester: Spring 2018
Departments of: Linguistics, Hispanic and Luso-Brazilian Literatures and Languages
City University of New York, Graduate Center
Instructor: Cece Cutler
Meeting time: Monday, 2-4 p.m.
Classroom: 6494
Email: [email protected]
Office hours: Monday by appt.
Office location: 7208

 

Course Description

Studying discourse means more than examining language use; it entails studying the use of language as a form of social practice, and a way of reflecting and shaping society. This course explores socially informed and critical approaches to analyzing language at the level of discourse (beyond the level of the sentence), including an overview of current theories and methods with an emphasis written data. With this set of tools, students will gain experience analyzing different forms of spoken and written texts such as computer-mediated interaction, print/online news and other forms of public discourse such as political speeches, graffiti, and online media. Students will develop their own projects and present their research at the end of the semester focusing on (but not limited to) examinations of micro structural patterns across texts, word-formation processes, lexical choice, and translanguaging, or macro level phenomena such as speaker intentions, and socio-cultural meanings in relation to ideology, identity, power, and gender.

TOP OF PAGE

Information & Links for Assignments

  • All articles and this syllabus are available for download on Google Drive, here; readings are also linked from their listings in the schedule below
  • Blog: Please subscribe and post your blog entries here. Be sure to choose the “student post” category.
  • Google Drive: Please upload your literature review, research presentation notes, and your research paper on google drive in the appropriate folder (TBD).
  • Discussion sign-up sheet (sign up to contribute a blog post and to lead a class discussion with 1-2 partners) 
  • End of semester research presentations sign-up sheet

Assessment

10%   Constructive, cooperative contribution to class discussions
10%   One blog entry of 500 words on a set of readings of your choice; your blog will be discussed in class. The topic can be your choice, including links and/or other content, but should link to thematic, argumentative, and/or theoretical issues/themes in the articles assigned for a given week.
10%   Lead class discussion with 1-2 other students on the readings assigned for one week. Discussions should be about 45 minutes long and cover at the assigned readings for the week. Give a brief summary of each article (2 minutes) followed by a discussion focused around 2–3 provocative questions per article. For guidance on leading a good discussion see How to Lead Discussion .
10%   Annotated bibliography (8-10 references) Due April 9th.
10%   Brief presentation of your research paper data (15 minutes) either on May 7 or May 14.
50%   Research paper (12-15+ pages) Due May 14.

Journals that publish discourse analytic research:
http://www.discourses.org/resources/journals/
Bibliographies:
http://www.discourses.org/resources/bibliographies/
Listserves, discussion forums and electronic journals:
http://www.discourses.org/resources/websites/
Societies and organizations:
http://www.discourses.org/resources/societies/

TOP OF PAGE

Classroom Civility and Rules of Engagement

One of my chief concerns as an instructor is to establish an environment of academic freedom in the classroom that fosters students’ personal and intellectual development. In order to do this, I support the rights of all students, faculty and staff to explore new ideas and to express their views. A necessary condition for this environment is an acceptance of the spirit of inquiry and a respect for diverse ideas and viewpoints. For true academic freedom to exist, this acceptance and respect must guide interactions in the classroom.

While the principle of academic freedom protects the expression and exploration of new ideas, it does not protect conduct that is unlawful and disruptive. There is a high standard for the students in terms of mutual respect and civility. While each member of the community holds a number of rights, privileges and responsibilities, those individuals who disrespect the rights of others or who act in a ways that discredit others violate the openness and the freedom of others in the classroom. As members of an academic community, we are obligated to be exemplary, both in our behaviors and in our attitudes. This obligation is especially important within the classroom context since this is one of the primary ways that learning and growth are fostered.

Expectations for Classroom Behavior
Learning and the exchange of ideas may take place in many settings, including the formal classroom, CUNY Commons, student blogs, social media and email. When students and faculty come together, the expectation is always that mutual respect and civility will prevail to ensure that every student has the optimum opportunity to learn and that each faculty member has the best opportunity to teach. Disruptions of any kind affect the atmosphere of civility that is expected and interfere with the opportunity for learning and growth to which both faculty and students are entitled.

Differences of opinions or concerns related to the class should be welcomed if presented in a mutually respectful manner. The challenging of viewpoints is part of the academic experience, but should occur in a manner that opens up dialogue and does not threaten any member of the learning community.

The instructor is responsible for the classroom environment, which includes creating a setting for the safe and open exchange of ideas by all students. Each student is responsible for ensuring that his or her own behavior promotes these goals. Disruption of the learning process will not be tolerated and may lead to disenrollment or disciplinary action, as outlined in the accompanying procedures.

Procedures Related to Disruptive Classroom Behavior
The instructor has the professional responsibility and authority to maintain order in instructional settings, which includes but is not limited to classrooms, libraries, group meetings, office hours, email and the CUNY Commons course blog. To assure the best presentation of the course material, the course instructor shall determine the manner and times during which students may ask questions, request clarification or express opinions or points of view in the instructional setting.

Student behavior or speech that disrupts the instructional setting or is clearly disrespectful of the instructor or fellow students will not be tolerated. Disruptive conduct may include, but is not limited to:

  1. rude or disrespectful behavior, e.g. insulting, scoffing at or belittling others (See Deborah Cameron’s blog for a good overview: https://debuk.wordpress.com/2016/08/22/familiarity-and-contempt/)
  2. demeaning forms of address; vulgar or obscene language, slurs or other forms of intimidation
  3. unwarranted interruptions
  4. failure to adhere to instructor’s directions
  5. physically or verbally abusive behavior

I will keep careful written records regarding any incident of disruptive behavior, including dates, times, names of those present, and details of the incident. Students are strongly encouraged to contact the instructor concerning any such incidents for a timely resolution. The instructor will inform the department Executive Officer and the Dean of Students of any such incidents and provide written documentation, if requested. The parties involved, in conjunction with the Executive Officer and Dean of Students staff will meet to formulate an acceptable solution or mediate appropriate intervention strategies.

Please see me about patterns in the classroom or in online interactions that are troubling or that may be impeding full engagement by you or others. Share your concerns with with your department chair (Linguistics: Gita Martohardjono, [email protected]; LAILAC: Fernando Degiovanni, [email protected]), as well as your academic advisor.

TOP OF PAGE

Schedule Spring 2018 

(* = optional)

week 1| 29-Jan | Introduction to the course and the field; Main topics and themes covered in the course; What do researchers study in DA? Units of analysis

  • Jaworski and Coupland, N. 2006.. Perspectives on Discourse Analysis, in The Discourse Reader (edited by Jaworski and Coupland), 1-32.
  • Cameron et. al. Power/Knowledge: The Politics of Social Science, in Jaworski & Coupland Ch. 8, 132-145.
  • Fairclough, N. Global capitalism and critical awareness of language, in Jaworski & Coupland, Ch. 9, 146-157.

week 2 | 5-Feb | Interactive and ethnographic approaches

  • Jaspers, J. Interactional sociolinguistics and discourse analysis (ch. 10) in Gee & Handford, 2012. The Routledge Handbook of Discourse Analysis. 135-145.
  • Smart, G. Discourse centered ethnography (ch. 11) in Gee & Handford, 2012. The Routledge Handbook of Discourse Analysis. 147-158.
  • Richland, J. Discourse analysis and linguistic anthropology (ch. 12) in Gee & Handford, 2012. The Routledge Handbook of Discourse Analysis. 160-172.

week 3 | 12-Feb | no class

week 4 | 19-Feb: no class; 20-Feb, Tuesday, make-up class | Critical approaches

  • Fairclough, N. 2012. Critical Discourse Analysis in Gee and Handford, in the Routledge Handbook of Discourse Analysis, Ch. 1 pp. 9-19.
  • Van Dijk, T. 2001. Critical Discourse Analysis, Ch. 22 in Tannen et al. 2015. pp.466-479.
  • Van Dijk, T. 2004. Defining ‘ideology’, ch. 1 pp. 5-10. in Van Dijk, Ideology in Discourse.
  • *Barker, Tools for Discourse Analysis, Ch. 3, pp. 62-85 in Barker et al. Cultural Studies and Discourse Analysis. Sage.

week 5 | 26-Feb | Semiotic and visual approaches

  • Graddol, D. 2006. The semiotic construction of a wine label., Ch 13 in in The Discourse Reader (edited by Jaworski and Coupland), 194-203.
  • Cameron & Panovic. 2014. Multimodal discourse analysis, ch. 8 in Working with Written Discourse. Sage. 97-111.
  • Cameron & Panovic. 2014. Multilingual discourse analysis, ch. 10 in Working with Written Discourse. Sage. 130-149.

week 6 | 5-Mar | Analyzing online discourse; Guest speaker: Matt Garley, York College

  • Garley, Matt. (in preparation). Choutouts: Language contact and US-Latin hip hop on YouTube.
  • Androutsopoulos & Herring 2015. Computer-Mediated Discourse 2.0. In The Handbook of Discourse Analysis, Second Edition. Edited by Deborah Tannen, Heidi E. Hamilton, and Deborah Schiffrin. 127-143.
  • *Swinehart, K. 2018. Footing and role alignment online: mediatized indigeneity and Andean hip hop. In Cutler and Røyneland, forthcoming, Multilingual Youth Practices in CMC. CUP.
  • *Cutler, C. 2018. “Pink chess gring gous”: discursive and orthographic resistance among Mexican-American rap fans on YouTube,  Cutler and Røyneland, forthcoming, Multilingual Youth Practices in CMC. CUP.

week 7 | 12-Mar | Guest speakers: Syelle Graves, CUNY Graduate Center, “Is starting a sentence with ‘so’ condescending?” Rapid change in use of and attitudes toward discourse marker ‘so’; Eric Chambers, SUNY New Paltz, Dumb Jocks and Coaches: Language and authentication within a community of male erotic hypnosis practitioners

  • Heyd, T. (2014). Folk-linguistic landscapes: The visual semiotics of digital enregisterment. Language in Society, 43(5), 489-514.
  • *Schiffrin, D. OH as a marker of information management, in Jaworski & Coupland. The Discourse Reader, Ch. 19, 272-283.
  • Chambers,Eric. Dissertation proposal pp. 1-27

week 8 | 19-Mar | Populist discourse

  • Wodak, R.  2014. Populism and Politics: transgressing norms and taboos, in The Politics of Fear, Ch. 1, pp. 1-25.
  • Wodak, R.  2014. Protecting borders and the people; the politics of exclusion, in The Politics of Fear, Ch. 3, pp. 46-69.
  • Montgomery, M. 2017. Post truth politics? Authenticity, populism and the electoral discourses of Donald Trump. Journal of Language and Politics 16:4 (2017), 619–639.

week 9 | 26-Mar | Discourses of Trumpism: elitism, post-truth, nostalgia

  • Lakoff, R.  2017. The Hollow Man: Donald Trump, populism, and post-truth politics Journal of Language and Politics 16:4 (2017), 595–606.
  • Goldstein, D. M., & Hall, K. 2017. Postelection surrealism and nostalgic racism in the hands of Donald Trump. HAU: Journal of Ethnographic Theory, 7(1), 397-406.
  • Wodak, R. 2017. The “Establishment”, the “Élites”, and the “People”Who’s who? Journal of Language and Politics 16:4 (2017), 551–565.
  • *Santa Ana, O. 2017. The Rhetoric of Our Celebrity Demagogue. Aztlán: A Journal of Chicano Studies, 42(2): 265-281.

week 10 | 2-Apr | Spring Break

  • Work on an abstract for your research paper; gather 5-10 references on your topic

week 11 | 9-Apr | Discourse in the courtroom/sexual harassment

  • Submit abstract and reference list
  • Mendoza-Denton, N. 1995. Silence and authority in the Anita Hill-Clarence Thomas hearings. Gender Articulated: Language and the Socially Constructed Self. Kira Hall and Mary Bucholtz, eds, 51-66.
  • Cameron, D. 2017. Men behaving inappropriately (blog)
  • Carlan, H. 2015 (April). “Dented, Painted, and Proud”: Satire on Indian Social Media after the 2012 Delhi Gang Rape. In Proceedings of the 23rd Annual Symposium about Language and Society-Austin.

week 12 | 16-Apr | Class visit: Angela Reyes, Hunter College

  • Reyes, and Wortham (2016) Discourse Analysis Across Events. Ch. 1, pp. 1-14. In Reyes & Wortham (2016), Discourse Beyond the Speech Event. Routledge.
  • Reyes, A. 2011. ‘Racist!’: Metapragmatic regimentation of racist discourse by Asian American youth. Discourse & Society, 22(4), 458-473.

week 13 | 23-Apr | White racist discourse in the US

  • Hill, Jane. 2008. Covert Racist Discourse: metaphors, mocking and the racialization of historically Spanish-speaking populations in the United States,, Ch. 5 in The Everyday Language of White Racism, John Wiley & Sons.
  • Hill, Jane. 2008. Everyday language, white racist culture, respect, and civility, Ch. 7, in The Everyday Language of White Racism, John Wiley & Sons.
  • Rosa, J. (2016). From mock Spanish to inverted Spanish: Language ideologies and the racialization of Mexican and Puerto Rican youth in the United States. Racio-linguistics: How language shapes our ideas about race, 65-80.

week 14 | 30-Apr | Classroom discourse

  • Adger & Wright. 2015. Discourse in educational settings, in The Handbook of Discourse Analysis, Tannen, et al. 858-873.
  • Rhymes, B. 2016. Dimension of discourse and identity, Ch. 2 in Classroom Discourse Analysis: A Tool for Critical Reflection, pp. 19-53.
  • Freire Ch. 1. 43-69. Ch. 2, 70-86.
  • Garcia-Sanchez, I. M. 2016. Multiculturalism and Its Discontents. Raciolinguistics: How Language Shapes Our Ideas About Race, 291-307.
  • *Gee (2010) sample analyses of classroom discourse, Ch. 10, 12 (148-163; 176-192)
  • *Bucholtz, M. 2016. On being called out of one’s name. Indexical bleaching as a technique of deracialization, in Alim et al. Raciolinguistics. 273-289.

week 15 | 7-May | Research presentations

  • 15-minute presentation + 5 min. Q & A

week 16 | 14-May | Research presentations

TOP OF PAGE