L665: Computer-Mediated Discourse
Analysis
|
Semester: |
Fall 2003 |
Instructor: |
Susan Herring |
|
Time: |
Thursday 5:45-8:30 p.m. |
Office: |
Library 005 B |
|
Place: |
PY115 |
Phone: |
(812) 856-4919 (voice mail) |
|
Section: |
7751 |
Email: |
herring @ indiana.edu |
|
Instructor's Office Hours: Tuesday and Thursday 4-5
p.m. and by appointment |
|||
|
Class majordomo list: herring_cmd @indiana.edu |
|||
Required Reading:
Photocopied
articles to be made available on e-reserves or in the SLIS library.
(Note:
We will read several chapters from S. Herring (ed.), Computer-Mediated
Communication: Linguistic, Social and Cross-Cultural Perspectives, 1996, John Benjamins. They will be placed on print reserve
in the SLIS library, but for greater convenience, you may wish to purchase a
copy of the book.)
1. Course Description
This course provides practical, hands-on experience
in applying discourse analysis methods to interactive, text-based
computer-mediated communication (CMC), in designing research studies that make
use of such methods, and in interpreting their results. The approach,
computer-mediated discourse analysis (CMDA), is theoretically grounded in
linguistic discourse analysis, adapted to the characteristics of
computer-mediated communication systems. The focus of the course is on
micro-analytic methods, both quantitative and qualitative, that shed light on
the dynamics of online communication and the social, cultural, and cognitive
factors that shape it.
2. Course
Objectives
The immediate goal of this course is to provide
training in applying a set of empirical analytical methods to computer-mediated
discourse. The broader goal is to instill an understanding of the CMDA process
that will enable you to design and carry out your own research project, and to modify
the methods or devise new methods as needed to address your questions and
analyze new data.
Specifically, after completing this course you should
be able to:
• descriptively
classify a variety of CMC modes
• systematically
sample CMC data
• apply
and interpret discourse analytical methods at the structural, semantic,
interactional, and social levels
• design
and carry out original CMDA research
3. Student
Requirements
The assigned readings are to be completed before class each week. You will
not be tested on the readings or be asked to keep notes on them, but you will
be expected to apply concepts and techniques from them, so it is important that
you read and understand them fully.
There will be five oral and written reports during the semester in which you will apply methods
of discourse analysis from the readings and the class lectures to an
interactive, text-based computer-mediated data sample of your choice. (We will
discuss appropriate sources of data during the first week of class.) The oral
reports will be 5-10 minutes in length, depending on the number of students
enrolled in the course. The written reports (intended to capture in writing the
content of the oral reports, plus any feedback or reflections occurring after
the oral reports) should be 2-4 typed pages long, excluding appendices.
The major
requirement for the course is a research paper, due at the end of the semester, exploring in greater
depth some feature or features of computer-mediated discourse in data of your
choice. The paper should be in the range of 4500-7500 words long, not counting
references and appendices, and should follow the formal conventions for a
publishable-quality research article, including footnotes and citations of
scholarly work in APA (American Psychological Association) style.
The last week of the course will be devoted to
conference-style oral presentations
(10-15 minutes, depending on the number of students enrolled) of your term
paper research projects to the rest of the class.
4. Student
Evaluation
The final grade
for students enrolled in the course will be calculated as follows:
|
Attendance and participation |
20% |
|
Oral & written reports (5 x 8%) |
40% |
|
Oral presentation of term paper |
10% |
|
Term paper |
30% |
|
Total: |
100% |
Grading Policy
• Late
reports will be accepted only with advance permission from the instructor. I
reserve the right to lower your grade by one-third of a letter grade (from A to
A-, A- to B+, etc.) for each day a report is late.
• Class
participation means being willing and able to speak intelligently in class
about the topics under discussion. (This does NOT necessarily mean speaking a
lot—you may be penalized if you habitually dominate class discussions, as
this could cause the environment to be less conducive to other students'
learning.) In order to be able to speak intelligently about a topic, you will
need to have done the readings for that topic before class. You will also need
to be physically present and alert. Participation cannot be made up if you miss
a class.
• Oral
reports will be graded with a check mark to indicate a satisfactory
presentation. A satisfactory presentation is one that makes a good faith effort
to address all the questions in the guidelines given in advance for each
report, even if the report contains some errors. This method of grading is
adopted to encourage you to try to apply the methods even if you feel uncertain
how to do so, e.g., because a method has just been introduced.
• Written
reports, the oral presentation of your term paper research, and the written
term paper will be assigned letter grades (A, A-, B+, B, B-, C+, C, etc.). A
composite grade such as A-/B+ means that the grade is between an A- and a B+ (i.e., around 90%). Grades in the 'A'
range indicate outstanding work. Grades in the 'B' range indicate very good to
good work. Grades in the 'C' range indicate average work, and a grade of 'D' or
below is poor work. Graduate
students are expected to perform at a 'B' level or above.
• Written
reports should be concise (2-4 typed pages) and written in continuous prose
(NOT outline style). Rhetorically-crafted introductory and concluding paragraphs
are unnecessary, but each report should begin with a statement of the topic
that the report will address, and insure that all questions asked in the
guidelines for the report have been explicitly answered by the end. DO include
examples from your data and/or summary tables and graphs of your analytical
results in your report, to support your claims. If including these supporting
materials in the report would disrupt its flow, they may be appended to the
report as an appendix. An 'A' quality written report is written clearly and
concisely, answers all the questions asked, applies the methods correctly, and
interprets the results plausibly and convincingly.
• The
oral presentation of your term paper research will be graded primarily on form:
how well it is organized, how informative it is, and how clearly and
professionally it communicates to your audience (i.e., the rest of the class).
An 'A' quality oral report conveys an appropriate amount of information given
the time allotted for the presentation, is presented in a clear and concise
manner, and is logically organized (usually following the schema:
identification and motivation of your research question, brief background, data
studied and methods of analysis, your findings, and some interpretation of the
findings).
• The
written term paper will be evaluated on content, including the quality of the
project design—originality of the research question, appropriateness of
the data and methods used to investigate the question, plausibility of your interpretations—and
form—organization (similar to that for oral presentations), clarity and
quality of written expression, and appropriate use of scholarly conventions
such as citations and footnotes. An 'A' quality term paper addresses an interesting
research question, makes use of an appropriate empirical method to analyze real
CMC data, and interprets the findings thoughtfully, in addition to being
well-organized and clearly and professionally written.
Academic honesty: Most of your activity in this course
will involve producing original research. However, in writing about your
research, it will sometimes be necessary to contextualize it with reference to
previous work. In accordance with the policies of Indiana University,
plagiarism, copyright infringement, and other types of academic dishonesty will
not be tolerated. As a rule of thumb, when in doubt, cite the source!
5. Course Schedule
(Subject to change with advance notice)
----------
|
Week 1 (9/4): |
Differentiating and classifying types of computer-mediated
communication. Selecting data for analysis for the course. |
|
Read: |
1. Herring, S. C. (2002). Computer-mediated
communication and the Internet. Annual Review of Information Science and
Technology, 36, 109-132. 2. Herring, S. C. (n.d.). A classification scheme
for computer-mediated discourse. |
|
NOTE: |
The instructor will be attending a symposium in
Minneapolis on 9/4; class will not meet. You are expected to spend the
equivalent of the class time reading the assigned articles and posting your
ideas about the type of CMC you will analyze for the course to the class
discussion list (by 9/7). |
----------
|
Week 2 (9/11): |
Data sampling. Coding and
counting. Using qualitative data analysis software. Getting approval from the
Human Subjects Committee (HSC) to conduct your research. In class: Describe the type of interactive, text-based CMC you will analyze
in the class. Tentatively classify it in terms of the medium and situation
variables presented in Herring (n.d.). |
|
Read: |
1. Herring, S. C. (In press). Computer-mediated
discourse analysis: An approach to researching online behavior. In Designing
for Virtual Communities in the Service of Learning, S. A. Barab, R. Kling, and J. H. Gray (Eds.). New
York: Cambridge University Press. |
|
Do: |
Take the Human Subjects Protection test at: http://www.indiana.edu/~rcr/ |
----------
|
Week 3 (9/18): |
Basic descriptive
statistics: Participation patterns. Finalize your data sample. Submit request for HSC approval. |
|
Read: |
1. Hert, P. (1997). Social
dynamics of an on-line scholarly debate. The Information Society 13, 329-360. 2. Herring, S. C. et al. (1998). Participation in
electronic discourse in a 'feminist' field. In Language and Gender: A
Reader, ed. by J. Coates. Oxford:
Blackwell. |
----------
|
Week 4 (9/25): |
Structural analysis: Word
and utterance length; word frequencies. 1st Oral and Written Report: Basic descriptive statistics about your data.
What do they reveal about participation and activity level? |
|
Read: |
1.
Cho, N. (In press). Linguistic features of electronic mail: A comparison with
memoranda. In S. Herring (ed.), Computer-Mediated
Conversation. Cresskill, NJ:
Hampton Press. 2. Ko, K-K. (1996). Structural characteristics of
computer-mediated language: A comparative analysis of InterChange discourse. Electronic
Journal of Communication/Revue électronique de communication 6(3). http://www.cios.org/www/ejc/v6n396.htm |
----------
|
Week 5 (10/2): |
Structural analysis
(cont.): Comparing CMC with spoken and written language. 2nd Oral Report: Structural analysis of your data sample. |
|
Read: |
1. Werry, C. (1996). Linguistic
and interactional features of Internet Relay Chat. In S. Herring (ed.), Computer-Mediated Communication:
Linguistic, Social and Cross-Cultural Perspectives (pp. 47-63).
Amsterdam: John Benjamins. 2. Yates, S. (1996). Oral and written linguistic
aspects of computer conferencing.
In S. Herring (ed.), Computer-Mediated Communication: Linguistic,
Social and Cross-Cultural Perspectives (pp. 9-46). Amsterdam: John Benjamins. |
----------
|
Week 6 (10/9): |
Meaning analysis: Speech acts (functional moves). 2nd Written Report due: Structural analyses of your data. What do they
reveal about the degree of 'orality' or 'written-ness' of the sample? |
|
Read: |
1. McLaughlin, M. (1984).
Ch. 4. Conversation: How Talk Is Organized. Sage. 2.
Francis, G. & S. Hunston (1992). Analysing
everyday conversation. In M. Coulthard (Ed.), Advances in Spoken
Discourse Analysis (pp. 1-34). London:
Routledge. 3. Herring, S. C. & Nix, C. (1997). Is "serious chat" an
oxymoron? Pedagogical vs. social uses of Internet Relay Chat. Paper presented at the American
Association of Applied Linguistics, Orlando, FL, March 11. |
----------
|
Week 7 (10/16): |
Guest lecture: TBA. |
|
Read: Practice: |
TBA Coding speech acts (in class). |
----------
|
Week 8 (10/23): |
Meaning analysis (cont.): Sequences. 3rd Oral Report: Acts and sequences in your data sample. What
kinds of communicative activities are the participants engaged in? |
|
Read: |
1. Condon, S. & Cech,
C. (1996). Discourse management strategies in face-to-face and
computer-mediated decision making interactions. Electronic Journal of
Communication/La revue électronique de communication 6(3). 2. Herring, S. C. (1996). Two variants of an
electronic message schema. In S. Herring (ed.), Computer-Mediated
Communication: Linguistic, Social and Cross-Cultural Perspectives (pp. 81-106). Amsterdam: John Benjamins. |
----------
|
Week 9 (10/30): |
Interaction management: Topic development and depth. 3rd Written Report due: Acts and sequences in your data sample. What
kinds of communicative activities are the participants engaged in? |
|
Read: |
1. Herring, S. C. (2003). Dynamic
topic analysis of synchronous chat. Paper presented at the Symposium on
New Research for New Media,
University of Minnesota, September 6, 2003. 2. Wiley, D. A. (2002). A proposed measure of
discussion activity in threaded discussion spaces. http://wiley.ed.usu.edu/docs/discussion09.pdf |
----------
|
Week 10 (11/6): |
Interaction management (cont.): Coherence. 4th Oral Report: Topic development and depth in your sample. Discuss term paper research ideas in class. |
|
Read: |
1. Herring, S. C. (1999). Interactional coherence
in CMC. Journal of Computer-Mediated Communication, 4 (4). http://www.ascusc.org/jcmc/vol4/issue4/ |
----------
|
Week 11 (11/13): |
Social behavior: Politeness and conflict.
Face-threatening acts. Mitigation. 4th Written Report due: Topic development and depth in your sample. |
|
Read: |
1. Brown, G. &
Levinson, S. (1987). Politeness:
Some Universals in Language Usage
(pp. 59-84). Cambridge University Press. 2. Herring, S. C. (1994). Politeness in computer
culture: Why women thank and men flame. In M. Bucholtz, A. Liang, L. Sutton,
& C. Hines (Eds.), Cultural Performances: Proceedings of the Third Berkeley Women and
Language Conference (pp. 278-94).
Berkeley: Berkeley Women and Language Group. |
----------
|
Week 12 (11/20): |
Social behavior (cont.): Qualitative analysis of
politeness and conflict. Turn in 1-2 page
proposal for term paper research, describing your topic, research question,
data, methods, preliminary observations, and including a minimum of five
references. 5th Oral Report: Politeness and conflict in your sample. |
|
Read: |
1. Weber, H.L. (In press).
Missed cues: How disputes can socialize virtual newcomers. In: Computer-Mediated
Conversation, ed. by S. Herring.
Cresskill, NJ: Hampton Press. 2. Herring, S. C. (1999). The rhetorical dynamics
of gender harassment on-line. The Information Society 15(3), 151-167. |
----------
|
THANKSGIVING BREAK |
----------
|
Week 13 (12/4): |
Synthesis and review 5th Written Report due: Politeness and conflict in your sample. Prepare for oral presentations. |
----------
|
Week 14 (12/11): |
Oral presentations |
----------
|
Week 15 (12/17): |
Term papers due by 5:00 p.m. *Wednesday* |
----------
Last
updated: 8/25/03