Discoure and Social Interaction - Assignment Example

Introduction In this paper, we will analyze the work of Goffman which begun way back in the 60s as the original joint is worked out, Goffman therefore to search for new resources in order to push forward his work of as a sociologist. The paper will also analyze the work of Sacks who also made detailed research on discourse and social interaction (Mechanic, 2009). The paper will be all about critical analysis of the conceptual framework that has been dealt with by the two scholars. It ill also analyze on the similarities that exist in the two scholars as far as their research is concern. However, differences will be focused on in regard to social interaction studying the natural occurring settings. We will formulate a specific analytical concept that will be employed in the analytical paper (Levy, 2003). In the 60s, he was faced with problems that had been faced by ethno methodology posed by Garfunkel and Sacks analysis on conversation analysis. Sacks tried to prove that the terrain which resembled that of Goffman could be further be investigated through relevant techniques. In employing the transcribed taped data which made the observation details to be a discipline matter other that being a talent, thus leading to reproduction of its findings (Phillips, 2003). Literature review In the last two decades, analysis of discourse had realized a great deal in psychology. New methods of research had been introduced; research questions conceptualization had found new ways to comprehend on the nature of psychology. During this period, it had shifted by a group of scholars from marginal view which were commonly seen in theoretical and empirical journals, various conference presentations and moved to PhDs body. In conducting social psychological research can has done with much ease since the number of academics discourse analysis (Siegler, M. and Osmond, 1971). At the same period, discourse analysis had advanced ways. The discourse was complicated in terms of its terrain; that is it assumptions that were made were disparate on the fundamental topics like method, theory, nature of cognitive and discourse and its structure. In order to demonstrate the differences, we are required to not on the work of discourse and how close it is to the conversational analysis and others be based on the critical discourse analysis and later consider the post-structural with the mode of thinking as seen in other school of thought that exist. Social psychologists have been focusing on the real conduct on how an institution interacts during their conversation and their backgrounds (Levinson, 2008). There are times when tension tends to act on the various aims and the styles that they apply at work that is linked to them. We already have ideas on what is going on in the wider social science on the past studies of discrete method in general. It will be our responsibility therefore to ensure that we provide quality discourse work basing on our discipline, and hope that it will be useful the already done researches by ensuring that we give specific examples. In an interview, we will analyze the discussion and more so to the themes and interpreting the concept in detail that may have been extracted from the interview. In analyzing clinical materials elements such as ethnography, discourse analysis and grounded theory. Analyzing discourse will also entail defining the various approaches that are employed. It is therefore such process that positive results will be reached in analyzing. In many cases, implicit may be left on the fact on what analysis may not do. That is what the paper is after (Marx, 2004). The historical setting in relation to the analysis on the current situation of talk as far as social context is concern; it is diversified just as it is in orientation approach and discourse. Despite the fact that sociology and anthropology are emanates from a common discipline in this context, they only seem to differ, theoretically, methodologically and philosophically in its efforts to highlight the orientation cited to influence it are numerous. The study of natural discourse interest’s developments has been guided by the inscription on the signposts through formal sociology, sociology of everyday life, ethnography of speaking, micro-sociology, cognitive and qualitative sociology, symbolic interactionsm and phenomenology. The truth of the matter is that this introduction can not bring about the history or even sketch the real figure of its complexities and what will be caused in the future. It is rather better to therefore to illustrate on the general features of this work and also state on a clear framework that will define the course of this work. At the course of this work, we will try and analyze on the general concepts and fundamentals of the research. The dialogue analysis is made on the basis on how it really works in relation to the literature review in conversational and dialogical field analysis (Billig, 2007). The best way to bring about the conceptual framework and also background analysis on how natural talk works is first trying to understanding the interest of sociologists and ethnographers in their conversation, dialogue in institutions, gossips, stories and jokes. A detailed analysis is required on their mode of how they talk and write. An explanation will also be demanded on the methods employed to inquire into the world of sociology. Only key concepts can be mentioned, and because the number of monographs is increasing concerning the dialogue analysis, the task can be left. Rational that can be used to study talk in a sociological concept that seem critical in most time. Talk is considered a key of our day-to-day activities, and that and activity of each day are the key foundation of the social world (Rock, 2009). According to Sacks, 1974, he suggested that the day-to-day conversation such as the informal analysis entails not on the expressions of the participant alone but implications that that exists on the nature of interaction that are encountered. Contributions that made in series on the activities taking place of different social participants, for example, may raise concern on to the turn of the speaker. Methods that people tent to employ in order to organize their turn of talks have been place under many concerns in the ethno methodology study. He further stated that participants may posses or receive a turn and is followed by a series of strategies in order to allocate or assign the turns employing either verbal or nonverbal gestures. In other ways of dialogue, regulations for taking may vary. For instances, taking a case of a meeting where the speaker can have powers to exert control on the turn allocation can be applicable. Participation framework did not apply in anyway in the work of Goffman, in his description; the framework did not satisfy his requirements of hearership details. Hearers may either be ratified or not for instance, the over hearers, when the conversational will be in an encounter. They can also be addressed or unaddressed, for example, X is standing with Y and Z who are in a conflict. In his work, Goffman realized that participation framework was quite confusing and he could refer to participation to mean reception and production roles. Participation was therefore used to act as a general term to mean both. In another context, production format was supposed to be replaced with production roles. On the other hand, participation framework also was to be replaced with reception roles. Goffman disagreed with it and disaggregated speaker and roles of the hearer from the inroads and to elements that are situated socially (Billig, Condor, Edwards, Gane, Middleton, and Radley, 2008). Levinson, 1988 also stated that it is nothing having categories of participant roles, it is therefore important to specify on who represents a given role, identify every role; come up with time schedule in order to make the participant role relevant. This will increase the platform for complexity. The traditional concepts in disaggregation in a speaker as well as the hearer is still in the hands of Goffman, as it is till a type of role to be analyzed in examining the powers of participants. His weaknesses were that he failed to examine details on role enactment. The alignments were attained internationally since assignments are not unilateral. It is therefore important to consider record consultation on natural occurrence of interaction on the type collected by analysts. There are times when tension tends to act on the various aims and the styles that they apply at work that is linked to them. We already have ideas on what is going on in the wider social science on the past studies of discrete method in general. It will be our responsibility therefore to ensure that we provide quality discourse work basing on our discipline, and hope that it will be useful the already done researches by ensuring that we give specific examples. In an interview, we will analyze the discussion and more so to the themes and interpreting the concept in detail that may have been extracted from the interview. In analyzing clinical materials elements such as ethnography, discourse analysis and grounded theory. Analyzing discourse will also entail defining the various approaches that are employed. It is therefore such process that positive results will be reached in analyzing. In many cases, implicit may be left on the fact on what analysis may not do. That is what the paper is after (Antaki, 2004). The historical setting in relation to the analysis on the current situation of talk as far as social context is concern; it is diversified just as it is in orientation approach and discourse. Despite the fact that sociology and anthropology are emanates from a common discipline in this context, they only seem to differ, theoretically, methodologically and philosophically in its efforts to highlight the orientation cited to influence it are numerous. The study of natural discourse interest’s developments has been guided by the inscription on the signposts through formal sociology, sociology of everyday life, ethnography of speaking, micro-sociology, cognitive and qualitative sociology, symbolic interactionsm and phenomenology. The truth of the matter is that this introduction can not bring about the history or even sketch the real figure of its complexities and what will be caused in the future. It is rather better to therefore to illustrate on the general features of this work and also state on a clear framework that will define the course of this work. At the course of this work, we will try and analyze on the general concepts and fundamentals of the research. The dialogue analysis is made on the basis on how it really works in relation to the literature review in conversational and dialogical field analysis. The order of sociological concerns was an important element in Goffman’s research. What he loved most was his books that he had written; he focused patients with mental disorders, gender and stigma. What made Goffman popular were Stigma and Asylums apart from his books on sociology. These to books promoted endurance and liberty as he was developing his project. Data analysis Sociologists are not only supposed to stress there analysis on the high-level analysis as far as social systems are concern but should also be engaged on the abstract and be mundane focus, in addition, it will be able to bring about reality in the daily life by putting the analysis into practices in order to accomplish its micro-level in the social life. In his writings, Goffman also made some efforts to give understanding on gender which has been for a long time been misunderstood in advertising. He also mentioned on those people in the society that seen as indifferent, disadvantaged or even have been compromised in one way or another. Goffman’s work have lacked that can freely cover his aspects of analysis. Other scholars have termed it deviance as seen in Asylum and Stigma which contributed a great deal to promoting the theories of deviance. The theories could not be applied into conceptual because various rules of conduct were broken in the entire concept. Goffman introduced a new dimension on how to interact with patients that are mentally ill, gender, and stigma, thus producing a totally different mode of approach on treating sociological standards as far as the topic is concern. Applied is what may be considered in this context of interaction order. They are different from the other case studies that are done normally. He further failed to give an account on the sociological standards on specified population that he selected to study such aspects as demography and sociology. Sacks, 1964 were later influence by Goffman to begin fieldwork at the casinos when they were students. The life of Goffman was practical in the sense that his wife died of serious mental problems, and took her life. This is what inspired him to work on the disadvantaged, gender and stigma in most of his writings. His trips that he usually frequent was also another centerpiece to his work, for instance, a trip that he made to Harvard University and engaged in a dialogue with game theorists. Sacks and Goffman motivated one another in their writing. In majority of their work, they could cover what they had experienced rather than researches. There work was more of conceptual framework other than theoretical. The reason was that it was a real life experience and not formulated from past research studies. Numerous questions have arisen on where Goffman uniqueness in sociology emerged from. If we focus on his originality, it did not just emerge from nowhere. In fact it is important to analyze the entire work that he did in order to reach at an answer. For instance, the second chapter was extracted right from his theses when he was a student at the Doctorate Degree. The chapter focused on communication conduct in an isolated community. It explains his efforts of abiding influences on his thinking sociologically at the Postwar University of Chicago illustrate how his writing greatly affected his earliest work that he published. When he was still young in sociology, what came into relief were his traditions, crucial and permanent influences that was included in furnishing his ideas. He gained strength after he completed his doctorate; that is where he emerged with full strength in sociology. Both papers with the commercial reports that were published by Goffman gave him an insight as he enters into the social world. The topics were seemingly disparate, for example, how class status is displayed, how service station dealers perceive their work situation and how people adapt to failure. All the three published books had common themes in them. His early writing was concerned with fraud and deception. The status symbol highlight the capacity on sociology that can be instilled in a person during an ordinary communication and basically how the person is expected to be treated by his/her colleague. Contrary to collective status, that group people together without putting into considerations their differences and placing them into a one moral community. The status symbols have divided people into social classes, thus building solidarity in a given category and amongst other existing groups. This was strongly figured out by Goffman by stating that status symbol may be falsely used by other people to symbolize a category that they do not fit in. the paper was concern with analyzing pressures enacted and the resulting behavior and the fact that symbol of status is not always a good tool to in testing the status of individuals and groups. That was the time when he decided to stress on class status symbol being a sub-set of the status symbol. The routine nature of daily activities practically indicates that the implicit methods people that people employ are not taken with seriousness as a way of social knowledge. Occasionally, problems may be experienced, their performance may be high but affected at some point because seriousness is not taken with much consideration. In this case therefore, conversation is slightly different from the encounters of mundane. This does not therefore mean that problems are not encountered in business when one id talking with another person. The problems can be analyzed intuitively and be solved in a routine manner. Limitations Basing on a well and poorly established criticism of analysis, a question may be asked as to why one has a feeling on the need to outline on what seem direct. There are two key reasons to it. On the first case, discourse analysis is always not well understood by scholars who were in qualitative analysis schools. It is because quantitative researchers take it as anything goes generally with its quality, and specifically the discourse analysis. However, that is not the way out. Although we assume discourse work to be variable just likes any other work. It is not shocking to have it in such a way. The numbers of researchers are working on numerous theses, articles and reports thus compromising on the discourse analysis. They complete some of their work by engaging on self-education, but probably in environments of an institution that is characterized by either direct hostility or discourse analysis. Secondly is the issue that researches are continuously produced, others are being submitted to the journals for publication thus leading to basic problems. When a comparison is done on notes on experience of journal refereeing and submissions with a varied range of discourse and social psychology journals it came to our notice that a given range of limitations appear in a regular manner. In such a situation, it is quite important to formulate a statement that will stress on basic studies of discursive. A statement of that kind may add quality to those learning the business. Moreover, researchers may be prevented from becoming quality researchers on the basis of discourse analysis of anything goes. The performance of discourse analysis can be done on a varied talk and text. To be relevant, an extracts was produced from the interview, this does not grant interview the preference as a source of data collecting. Analysis mainly is performing something with the use of data, and not anything as may be described. An analyst who deals in quantitative research may present a selected raw data that is graphical in nature with the notion that readers will be in a position to analyze the trend, that means that nothing will have been analyzed statistically using the data required. A qualitative analyst on the other hand, will have the same mess if the data used is summarized. Nevertheless, in summarizing the data may mean that the typical interaction is not concern with any form of analysis of discourse that is being used (Sharrock, 2006). Summary is using the detail to come up with short notes of the original form; the real meaning will have been distorted if summary is fully employed. In the real sense summary is always short and tidy. The phrases that will be used will be emanating from the mind of the analyst and not from the speakers original words. Information will therefore be lost and none will be added. Summary usually fails just like the failures that are experienced in unplanned interviews. It is easy to summarize what the respondent will be saying. An interview will not provide anything in addition but only summarize what has been said by the respondent. In fact what was said by the speaker is lost. An interview for example may lack to draw attention on the reaction from the respondent on the asked questions and the troubles that may be experienced by the client at the course of the interview. The discourse employed by the speaker may not be analyzed if the words are summarized. The analyst may concentrate to some themes and discussing them in detail thus leaving others untouched. This is basically not discourse analysis. It rather provides the means of analysis but does not provide it. Analysis may be impeded if the original work is distorted through speakers’ presentation to be consistent, briefer and smoother than it may have been. In a case where an analyst is required to produce additional data, it does not mean that the additional information is an analysis of the speakers work. What will be considered as analysis is the content within the summary, it also not a must that every added information to the analysis content is discourse analysis. It is considered by analysts as any additional offering will be a moral, personal, political stand that the quoted speaker is saying. It is also not considered discourse analysis. If they engage in such analysis then the will end up providing a low quality analysis. The debate engaged in by the discourse analysts on whether stands should be taken concerning the materials being use in the study is sort of an irrelevancy; the main issue is whether they actually take that stand when analyzing their own work. They may have distant themselves from their targets to whom they are to study such analysis are not recommended. In fact it is important to analyze the entire work that he did in order to reach at an answer. For instance, the second chapter was extracted right from his theses when he was a student at the Doctorate Degree. The chapter focused on communication conduct in an isolated community. It explains his efforts of abiding influences on his thinking sociologically at the Postwar University of Chicago illustrate how his writing greatly affected his earliest work that he published. When he was still young in sociology, what came into relief were his traditions, crucial and permanent influences that was included in furnishing his ideas. He gained strength after he completed his doctorate; that is where he emerged with full strength in sociology. An interview will not provide anything in addition but only summarize what has been said by the respondent. In fact what was said by the speaker is lost. An interview for example may lack to draw attention on the reaction from the respondent on the asked questions and the troubles that may be experienced by the client at the course of the interview. The discourse employed by the speaker may not be analyzed if the words are summarized. The analyst may concentrate to some themes and discussing them in detail thus leaving others untouched. This is basically not discourse analysis. It rather provides the means of analysis but does not provide it. Analysis may be impeded if the original work is distorted through speakers’ presentation to be consistent, briefer and smoother than it may have been (Mechanic, 2009). In such a situation, it is quite important to formulate a statement that will stress on basic studies of discursive. A statement of that kind may add quality to those learning the business. Moreover, researchers may be prevented from becoming quality researchers on the basis of discourse analysis of anything goes (Rock, (2009). The performance of discourse analysis can be done on a varied talk and text. To be relevant, an extracts was produced from the interview, this does not grant interview the preference as a source of data collecting (Priest, 2008). References Antaki, C (2004) Explaining and Arguing: The social organization of accounts London: Sage Billig, M. (2007). Rhetorical and discursive analysis: how families talk about the Royal Family. In N. Hayes (Ed.) Introduction to Qualitative Methods, Sussex: Lawrence Erlbaum. Billig, M. (2007). From codes to utterances: cultural studies, discourse and psychology. In P. Golding and M. Ferguson. (Eds) Beyond Cultural Studies London: Sage. Billig, M., Condor, S., Edwards, D., Gane, M., Middleton, D. and Radley, A.R. (2008). Ideological Dilemmas. London: Sage Publications. Levy, S. (2003) ‘Roots of marketing and consumer research at the University of Chicago’, Consumption, Markets and Culture 6: 99–110. Levinson, S.C. (2008) ‘Putting linguistics on a proper footing: explorations in Goffman’s concepts of participation’, in P. Drew and A. Wootton (Eds) Erving Goffman: Exploring the Interaction Order, Cambridge: Polity Marx, G.T. (2004) ‘Role models and role distance: a remembrance of Erving Goffman’, Theory and Society 13: 649–62. Mead, G.H. (2004) Mind, Self and Society, From the Standpoint of A Social Behaviorist, Chicago, IL: University of Chicago Press. Mechanic, D. (2009) ‘Medical sociology: some tensions among theory, method and Substance’, Journal of Health and Social Behaviour 30: 147–60. Perry, N. (2004) ‘The two cultures and the total institution’, British Journal of Sociology 25: 345–55. Phillips, J. (2003) ‘Goffman’s linguistic turn: a comment on Forms of Talk’, Theory, Culture and Society 2: 114–16. Priest, M. (2008), Personal communication, 18 October. Rock, P. (2009), The Making of Symbolic Interactionism, London: Macmillan. Sharrock, W.W. (2006) ‘Review of Frame Analysis’, Sociology 10: 332–4. Shilling, C. (2003) The Body and Social Theory, London: Sage. Siegler, M. and Osmond, H. (1971), ‘Goffman’s model of mental illness’, British Journal of Psychiatry 119: 419–24. Read More