Conversation Analysis and Critical Discourse Analysis - Literature review Example

Using examples, outline the key differences in approach to the analysis of language in organisations exhibited by Conversation Analysis and Critical Discourse Analysis. Introduction 2 Conversation Analysis 2 Critical Discourse Analysis 4 Conclusion 5 References 7 Introduction The subjects of conversation analysis and critical discourse analysis are two complex as well as relatively difficult concepts to explain in that there are subtleties involved in each. As a result of the foregoing, there are key elements that need to be clarified in order to distinguish them. Briefly stated, the conversational analysis represents looking at the varied forms of interpersonal communication that range from ordinary conversation, a mixture of the foregoing and professional conversation formalized professional conversation, and the hybrid organisational context that has varying percentages of ordinary and professional conversation intermixed. Critical discourse analysis represents a more defined communication area in that text and or talk has a directed purpose to cause and or result in some type of action, which can be delayed and or immediate, but works toward an end. It is a power-oriented mode that has directives, terminology as well as influence, control, other authority, implied authority and or social standing attached. As a result, it stands outside of ordinary interpersonal communication and has a more defined purpose than found under conversational analysis. This study shall look into these two areas, seeking to outline the key differences in their approach with regard to language analysis as it occurs in organisations. Conversation Analysis Heritage (1997, P. 2) tells us “… the conversational analysis begins with the notion that conversational interaction represents an institutional order, sui generis, in which interaction rights and obligations are linked not only to personal face and identity but also to macro-social institutions”. In citing Garfinkel (1967) Heritage (1997, P. 2) advises that there are rules as well as practices that are present in the conversation. Drew and Heritage (1992. Pp. 3-65) help us to understand that there are differences in conversational interaction and context. The preceding is critical in that it helps to explain that there are differing conversational modes and levels that exist not only in ordinary conversation but in professional conversation as well as in the organisational contexts. Ordinary conversation represents interaction that does not require specialized terminology or represent a specialized setting such as an organisation (Heritage, 1997, P. 2). However, legal proceedings, meetings with an accountant and other similar conversations are departures from the ordinary conversation as there are formalities and or specialized language involved that is imparted in the course of the conversation thus restricting speech delivery (Heritage, 1997, P. 2). The exploration into organisational conversation and language is a relatively new development, first taking place in the late 1970s (Heritage, 1997, P. 2). In an organisational context, the setting has formalized elements in terms of terminology, positions of reporting, task assignments and terms that are used within this context that differ from organisation to organisation as well as industry type (Heritage, 1997, P. 2). Conversations in institutions of learning, corporations, and departments in corporations have specialized terminology and organisational culture (Heritage, 1997, P. 2). The preceding means that the modes of conversing entail accepted organisational culture norms whereby certain language, words and delivery are expected. The levels of adherence to more formalized conversational patterns can be found higher up the organisational ladder where more professional communication occurs. As one descends downward in the organisation hierarchy, the more formalized interactions and terminology lessen in keeping with the lowered educational and or professional skill set of the individuals and the nature of their work. Examples of the preceding are provided by the conversational manner between top executives, these executives and middle managers, middle managers and line supervisors, line supervisors and their staffs. The conversation pattern between forklift operators and their foreman differs from the conversational pattern between the head of the accounting and his staff, with the latter requiring more terminology and technical words as well as understandings as opposed to the more common language delivery a foreman uses. Critical Discourse Analysis In delving into critical discourse analysis, the first notable difference that exists between this and conversational analysis is that the former is a power-oriented language that uses conversational to a purpose. In fact, critical discourse analysis represents the pointed use of words, context, circumstance, and conditions to cause something to happen, thus representing a form of conversational analysis, but in a totally different view. To understand the foundational facets of critical discourse analysis Heritage (1984, Pp. 52-59) tells us that interaction patterns are a concept taken from ethnomethodology. Sacks et al (1974, Pp. 699-700) tell us that ethnomethodology represents a phenomenological approach with respect to sociology whereby it seeks to describe methods utilised by participants in culture to carry on conversations and communications. Key to the foregoing is that methods represent the manner in which social order is produced, thus permitting us to make sense of and operate in the world (Sacks et al, 1974, P. 705). Key to understanding critical discourse analysis in organisations is that there is an order to the conversation (Garfinkel, 2002, Pp. 92-93). Another important facet in understanding critical discourse analysis is provided by Potter and Wetherall (1987, Pp. 207-209). They tell us discourse theory represents what they term as a contested area they define broadly as the interaction that occurs between the written and spoken word, representing talk as well as text in terms of being a facet of social practices. Hutchby and Woolffitt (1998, P. 23) advise conversation analysis is well suited to illustrate what occurs in interactions in real time and represents a firmly established approach to the examination of social action by talking. Critical discourse analysis thus is the actualisation of words and or text into action through communication that is a product of power, authority, perceived authority, the right to advise, and our guide (van Dijk, 1995, P. 2). Taking the preceding further, van Dijk (1995, P. 21) advises us that a central notion of discourse, a core of critical discourse analysis, is represented by power, as evidenced by social power in institutions and or groups. Delving further into the preceding, van Dijk (1995, P. 21) states that the preceding is a complex philosophical as well as the social realm, which he defines as social power representing control. Gramsci (1971, P. 110) helps us to understand the power in groups by telling us that dominant pockets of society have such integrated into rules, laws, habits, laws and organisational matrix that he terms as hegemony. Ehrlich (1995, P. 32) helps to bring clarity to the foregoing in telling us that the exertion of this power is subtle as well as privileged, representing accession up the ranks of an organisation through the mastery of language as well as knowledge and other informational, action and interaction forms. Critical discourse analysis is a difficult term to define, as it rests upon the aforementioned use of real or assumed power as they are geared to cause and or make things happen through their organisational structure and reason for being. Fairclough (1995, Pp. 12-13) tells us that rather than representing a particular method, discourse analysis can be looked at as a way of thinking and or approaching a problem. Critical discourse analysis addresses problems that are social in nature, understand that power relations tend to be discursive. He adds that discourse includes culture and society, it is historical, is also explanatory and interpretative, along with representing a type of social action (Fairclough, 1995, Pp. 12-13). Fairclough and Wodak (1997, Pp. 271-280) as well as Drew and Heritage (1992, Pp. 34-36) concur with the preceding, stating that it represents a means to uncover ontological as well as epistemological assumptions inherent in a project, or statement as a means to help reveal hidden motivations in a text or language statement/use. As a result, critical discourse analysis seeks to make connections and linkages in language that usually is opaque. Conclusion This examination of conversation analysis and critical discourse analysis in an organisation has uncovered that the active structure of that setting imposes certain expected conditions. As has been brought forth herein, organisations have a purpose and their own cultures as well as languages that use terminology, authority, position as well as a privilege as a means to achieve their ends. In the conversational analysis, it was uncovered that varied forms of ordinary, professional as well as different mixtures of the preceding are used. The above is based upon the participants, their level in the hierarchy, and the type of communication being transmitted. Ordinary conversation exists in organisations in non-work related communications that represent a portion of interactions. By and large, the conversational norm entails different levels of technical / professional communication as represented by interactions relating to the work function. As pointed out herein the level and type of conversation that occurs between a foreman and a forklift operator and the manager of the accounting department and his staff are both formalized in terms of the use of language. The latter example however, is more formalized, meaning less informal words and delivery are used as befitting the educational level as well as the function of the positions. Critical discourse analysis does not concern itself with the degrees of formality in the communication, but rather the effectiveness of incurring action and or results. It is a power-oriented language form that rests in social order and structure. In this instance, the organisation represents that structure. The communication is purposeful and is either immediate and or leads to an end as a result of written and or the spoken word. Van Dijk (1995, P. 2) phrased this as the actualisation of words into action whereby the communication carries the power of authority, immediacy, or perceived authority. It, critical discourse analysis brings social order and structure, which is an organisational setting is needed to generate results or actions. It is, as brought forth by Fairclough and Wodak (1997, Pp. 271-280), a means of thinking or approaching a problem or situation whereby communication pushes through either solution or a means to achieve results. It can include elements of conversational analysis, however, conversational analysis stands on its own. References Drew, P., Heritage, J. (1992) Analyzing Talk at Work: An Introduction. In Drew, P., Heritage. J.. Talk at Work. Cambridge University Press. Cambridge, United Kingdom. Pp. 3-65 Drew, P., Heritage, J. (1992) Talk at work: Interaction in institutional settings. Cambridge University Press. Cambridge, United Kingdom. Pp. 34-36 Fairclough, N. (1995) Critical Discourse Analysis: The Critical Study of Language. Longman Press. London, United Kingdom. Pp. 12-13 Fairclough, N., Wodak. R. (1997) Critical Discourse Analysis. In van Dijk, T. Discourse Studies: A multidisciplinary introduction, discourse as social interaction. Sage Publications. London, United Kingdom. Pp. 271-280 Garfinkel, H. (1967) Studies in Ethnomethodology. Prentice Hall. Englewood Cliff, N.J., United States Garfinkel, H. (2002) Enthnomethodology’s Program: Working Out Durkheim’s Aphorism. Rowman & Litteflied Publishers. Lanham. MD, United States. P. 115 Hardy, C., Palmer, I., Phillips, N. (2000) Discourse as a strategic resource. Vol. 53, No. 9. Human Relations. P. 1227 Heritage, J. (1984) Garfinkel and enthnomethodology. Polity Press. Cambridge, United Kingdom. Pp. 52-59 Hutchby, I., Wooffitt, R. (1998) Conversation Analysis. Polity Press. Oxford, United Kingdom. P. 23 Merriam Webster Online (2010) discourse. Retrieved on 3 January 2010 from http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/discourse Oswick, C., Keenoy, T., Grant, D. (1997) Managerial discourses: Words speak louder than actions? Vol. 6, No. 1. Journal of Applied Management Studies. Pp. 6-7 Potter, J. (1996) Representing Reality. Sage Publications. London, United Kingdom. P. 86 Potter, J., Wetherall, M. (1987) Discourse and Social Psychology: Beyond attitudes and behaviour. Sage Publications. London, United Kingdom. Pp. 207-209 Sacks, H., Schegloff, E., Jefferson, G. (1974) A simplest systematics for the organization of turn taking for conversation. Vol. 50, No. 4. Language. Pp. 699-700 van Dijk, T. (1995) Discourse Analysis as Ideology Analysis. In Schaffner, C., Wenden, A. Language and Peace. Aldershot Publications. London, United Kingdom. P. 17 van Dijk, T. Discourse Studies: A multidisciplinary introduction, discourse as social interaction. Sage Publications. London, United Kingdom. Pp. 271-280 Widdowson, H. (1995) Discourse analysis: A critical view. Vol. 4, No. 3. Language and Literature. P. 159 Read More