SIMILARITIES AND DIFFERENCES

SIMILARITIES AND DIFFERENCES

By Yenny Bautista Pinzón

This paper aims to address the similarities and differences between conversational analysis and discourse analysis; it is important to mention that these two concepts share assumptions and approaches to some extent. When some other issues emerge about the focus of research and the methodological concerns, which inform empirical analysis, the differences start to appear.

Similarities

The similarities are organized taking into account the following topics: talk as topic for analysis, attention to properties of data, the influence of ethnomethodology, and accusations of triviality.

Talk as topic

Phycologist tends to focus on the cognitive and developmental aspects of language but in this part both, conversational analysis and discourse analysis, they focus specifically on language as social interaction. Critical discourse analysis examine discourse as a theme in its own right, and not as a reflection of wider structural conditions. Their prime concern was with language in use, the ways it was being used and what it was being used to.

Attention to properties of data

Conversation and discourse analysis pay attention to the properties of how language is used. The research questions derive from observations on features exhibited by the data. What data reveals is important in these two processes.

The influence of ethnomethodology

Both concepts DA and CA reflect concerns about ethnomethodology, where social interaction is accomplished through the participant`s use of tacit, and practical reasoning skills and competences. They are important in the way they inhabit the weave of social life.

Accusation of triviality

It is said that at the beginning both CA and DA were criticised for making trivial claims,

It was considered that Ca and DA are unimportant may be beause they fail to address what people intuitively recognize to be important issues. It was supposed they attended matters of little wider relevance. Anyway, according to Zimmerman and Boden, (1991) talk is at the heart of human existence. It is pervasive and central to human history, in every setting of human affairs, at all levels of society, in virtually every social context. In this sense, CA and DA are essential in any social scientific enterprise, and are necessary starting points for any social science.

Differences

This part about the differences will be discussed around various substantive and methodological issues.

Substantive issues

To put things simple, in conversation analysis, the topic of research is the social organization of activities conducted through talk. CA seeks to discover sequential patterns of interaction, analysis of any particular utterance proceeds by examining its placement in the turn-by-turn development of interaction. On the other hand, discourse analysis is concerned with accounts in this non-technical sense. In discourse analysis is focused on the empirical analysis of the organization of talk, (and texts), based on wider interpersonal or social functions served by a passage of talk.

Both topics discourse analysis and conversational analysis have different disciplinary homes. Discourse analysis emerged in the sociology of scientific knowledge; it primarily flourished in social psychology. In addition, conversational analysis has clear overlaps with linguistics it is branch of sociology.

Methodological issues

This part of the discussion is organized around three themes: influences, data, the formality of empirical analysis and warranting analytic claims.

Influences

To put things simply, it must said that Sacks started conversation analysis. CA emerged because of his further reading. Sacks began working with his colleagues, Emmanuel Schegloff and Gail Jefferson. Discourse analysis drew from observations and insights form different disciplines and approaches: ethnomethodology, sociolinguistics, structuralism, speech act and literary criticism.

In the introduction to DA Gilbert and Mulkay made no reference to CA research, but in their discussion about DA in the context of social psychology, Potter and Wetherell used the term CA as an important source. Conversational analysis has been an important influence in discourse analysis. It is indispensable to have those concepts clear in order to know how to proceed as analysts.

Data

Two points separate CA and DA, first, conversation analysis examines audio, or  video recordings of naturally occurring talk in interaction, and transcripts are used as an aid in that analysis. DA however, considers a much wider range of empirical materials: newspaper articles, statement made by politicians, informal interviews.

Secondly, DA gives more prominence to disputes or controversial events, whereas CA focuses on the mundane and routine. Da papers are more likely to examine discourse surrounding controversial events and CA focuses on routine features on the management of interaction.

Warranting analytical claims

Justify claims of natural occurring interaction can be a real problem in many kinds of qualitative research how can we know that researchers` interpretations are valid? It is not a matter or validity in DA and CA is more important the here a now, there is not a single way to do research.

 As a summary it can be said that there are clear similarities between conversational analysis and discourse analysis, those are aligned on their focus on discourse and language use as a topic on his own right. However, once we go deeper how that focus is mobilised in empirical research we can observe there are significant differences; in what is studies and how is it studied.