S641: Computer-Mediated Discourse
Analysis
|
Semester: |
Spring
2010 |
Instructor: |
Susan
Herring |
|
Time: |
Thursday
1-3:45 p.m. |
Office: |
Library
037 |
|
Place: |
LI
030 |
Phone: |
(812)
334-8883 |
|
Section: |
27046 |
Email: |
herring
@ indiana.edu |
|
Instructor's Office Hours: M & Th 4-5
p.m. and by appointment |
|||
|
Class listserv: cmda-l @ indiana.edu |
|||
Required
Reading:
The required readings for each week are listed in the Course Schedule at the end of this syllabus. Articles not accessible on the public web will be made available electronically on e-reserves or Oncourse.
1.
Course Description
Computer-mediated discourse (CMD) is
human-to-human communication carried out over computer networks or
wireless technologies; it is
produced by typing, speaking, or other means. It is the discourse that takes place via
computer-mediated communication (CMC) technologies such as chat, IM,
texting, MUDs, email, news groups, web boards, blogs, wikis, 3-D
virtual environments, and other digital media. Computer-Mediated
Discourse Analysis (CMDA) is a set of methods grounded in
linguistic discourse analysis for
mining CMD for patterns of structure and meaning.
CMDA methods can also be used to extract indirect evidence of
socio-cognitive phenomena related to networked communication, such as collaboration, disinhibition, engagement, identity,
power dynamics, and trust.
This is a methodology course. It provides practical training and hands-on experience
in applying computer-mediated discourse analysis methods (no previous knowledge required), in designing
research that make
use of such methods, and in interpreting their results. The focus of
the course is on
micro-analytic, quantitative methods. Systems for visualizing and
automating the analysis of computer-mediated discourse are also
presented.
2.
Course Objectives
The primary goal of this course is to
provide
training in applying a set of empirical analytical methods to
computer-mediated
discourse. A broader goal is to instill an understanding of the CMDA
process
that will enable you to design and carry out your own CMDA research,
and to modify
the methods or devise new methods as needed to address questions and
data of interest to you.
Specifically, as a result of completing
this course, you should
be able to:
• descriptively
classify a variety of CMC types
• apply
discourse analysis methods to analyze participation, structure,
meaning,
interaction, and social behavior in CMD
• design
and carry out an original CMDA research project that captures the nitty-gritty of language use, but also relates it to some broader phenomenon (e.g., social forces, community factors, cognitive/behavioral effects)
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 a
sample of computer-mediated data of your choice and report on your
findings. The oral
reports will be brief, about 5 minutes in length, and will require you
to be selective in your presentation of findings. The written reports,
which are due one week after the oral reports, should be 3-4 typed
pages long, excluding appendices. The written reports will follow the same
guidelines as
the oral reports, only your presentations of findings should be more
complete. Specific guidelines
for each report will be posted at least one week before
the oral reports are scheduled to be presented.
The
best kind of data to analyze
for the reports is one continuous log of interactive, text-based CMD. It is normally expected that you will use
the same sample for all five reports. An appropriate sample size for
asynchronous (email-type) CMD is 35-50 messages, depending on the
length of the messages. For synchronous (chat-type) CMD, an appropriate
sample size is about half an hour of chat or 200 messages, whichever is
longer. It is highly recommended that you collect and store more data from
your source than you will need for the purposes of the reports, as a
backup. We will
discuss possible sources of data in more detail during the first class
meeting.
The major
requirement for the course is a research paper, due at the end of the semester,
analyzing in
depth some feature or features of computer-mediated discourse in data
of your
choice. The data may or may not be of the same type as you analyzed for
the reports throughout the semester. They may include the sample you
already analyzed, plus additional data as determined by the nature of
your research question(s), or you may analyze a new sample. The written
paper should be in the range of 4500-7500 words long, not counting
references and appendices, and should follow the conventions for a
publishable-quality research article, including footnotes and citations
of
scholarly work in APA (American Psychological Association) style. For
examples of APA conventions, see articles in the Journal of Computer-Mediated Communication
(http://jcmc.indiana.edu/).
The last two weeks of the course will be
devoted to
conference-style oral presentations
(15-20 minutes, depending on the number of students enrolled) of your
term
paper research to the rest of the class. You will be expected to
prepare PowerPoint slides for all oral presentations.
4. Student
Evaluation
Your final grade in the course will be calculated as
follows:
|
Attendance
and participation |
20% |
|
Written
reports (5 x 5%) |
25% |
|
Oral
presentation of term paper |
10% |
|
Term
paper |
30% |
|
Total: |
100% |
Grading Policy
• A
late written report will be accepted once
during the semester, no questions asked, provided it is turned in two
days before the next class meeting, to allow me time to grade it. I
reserve the right to subtract one-third of a letter grade (from A to
A-, A- to B+, etc.) for each
day a report is late beyond the due date or this one-time extension.
This penalty also applies to the final paper.
• Class
participation means speaking in class in an informed way
about the topics under discussion. A good rule of thumb is to try to
speak at least twice in each class session. 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 attentive (e.g., NOT surfing the Web or
reading email). 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 intended to encourage you to try to apply the methods, even if you feel
somewhat uncertain
how to do so.
• 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., 89.5%). 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 (3-4 typed pages) and written in continuous
prose
(NOT outline style). Elaborate introductory and concluding paragraphs
are unnecessary, but each report should begin with a statement of the
topic
that the report will address and should be sure to answer explicitly all questions asked in
the
guidelines for the report. 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 sample 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
address the research question(s), applies the method(s) systematically,
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, and especially in your final paper, it may be necessary to
reference
previous work. As a rule of
thumb, when in doubt, cite the source! In accordance with the policies of Indiana
University,
plagiarism, copyright infringement, and other types of academic
dishonesty will
not be tolerated.
5. Tentative Course Schedule
(Subject to change with advance notice)
----------
|
Week 1 (1/14): |
Introduction to the course. Types and classification of
computer-mediated discourse. Selecting data for analysis.
|
|
Read (if you haven't taken S543): |
1. Herring, S. C. (2002). Computer-mediated communication on the Internet. Annual Review of Information Science and Technology, 36, 109-132. http://ella.slis.indiana.edu/~herring/arist.2002.pdf 2. Herring, S. C. (2007). A faceted classification scheme for computer-mediated discourse. Language@Internet, 4, article 1. http://www.languageatinternet.de/articles/2007/761/index_html |
----------
|
Week 2 (1/21): |
CMDA as
empirical social science. Data
sampling and management. 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 this course. Classify it in terms of
key medium and situation variables as presented in Herring (2007).
|
|
Read: |
1. Herring, S. C. (2004).
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. http://ella.slis.indiana.edu/~herring/cmda.pdf 2. Finish reading articles from Week 1 if
you haven't already.
|
|
Do: |
Take the Human Subjects Protection test
at: http://www.indiana.edu/~rcr/ |
----------
|
Week 3 (1/28): |
Analyzing
participation: Descriptive statistics.
Finalize your data sample. Submit request for HSC approval. 1st Oral Report: Basic descriptive statistics about your data. (Tip: Read this week's articles before preparing report.)
|
|
Read: |
1. Herring, S. C., Johnson, D. A., & DiBenedetto, T. (1998).
Participation in electronic discourse in a 'feminist' field. In: J. Coates (Ed.), Language and Gender: A Reader (pp. 197-210). Oxford: Blackwell. [e-reserves] 2. Lipponen, L., Rahikainen, M., Lallimo, J., & Hakkarainen, K. (2003). Patterns of participation and discourse in elementary students' computer-supported collaborative learning. Learning and Instruction, 13, 487-509. [Oncourse]
|
----------
|
Week 4 (2/4): |
Analyzing
structure: Word and utterance length; word frequencies.
1st Written Report due: Basic descriptive statistics about your
data. What do they reveal about participation and activity level?
Guest Presentation:
Muhammad Abdul-Mageed
|
|
Read: |
1. Cho, T. (In press). Linguistic features
of electronic mail: A comparison with memoranda. In
S. Herring (ed.), Computer-Mediated Conversation. Cresskill, NJ: Hampton Press. [e-reserves] 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). [Oncourse]
|
----------
|
Week 5 (2/11): |
Structural
analysis (cont.)
2nd Oral Report: Structural analysis of your data sample.
|
|
Read: |
1. 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. [Oncourse] 2. Herring, S. C., & Paolillo, J. C. (2006). Gender and genre variation in weblogs. Journal of Sociolinguistics, 10(4), 439-459. Preprint: http://ella.slis.indiana.edu/~herring/jslx.pdf Demo: The Gender Genie and LIWC |
----------
|
Week 6 (2/18): |
Analyzing meaning: Speech acts.
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. [e-reserves] 2. Francis, G., & Hunston, S. (1992). Analysing everyday conversation. In M. Coulthard (Ed.), Advances in Spoken Discourse Analysis (pp. 1-34). London: Routledge. [e-reserves] 3. Herring, S. C., Das, A., & Penumarthy, S. (2005). CMC act taxonomy. http://www.slis.indiana.edu/faculty/herring/cmc.acts.html (Look over.)
Practice coding speech acts in class. |
----------
|
Week 7 (2/25): |
Meaning analysis (cont.): Functional moves.
3rd Oral Report: Acts in your data sample.
|
|
Read:
|
1. 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. [e-reserves] 2. Osman, G., & Herring, S. C. (2007). Interaction, facilitation, and deep learning in cross-cultural chat: A case study. The Internet and Higher Education, 10, 125-141. Preprint: http://ella.slis.indiana.edu/~herring/osman.herring.pdf
Practice interrater reliability assessment in class. |
----------
|
Week 8 (3/4): |
Analyzing conversational interaction:
Topic development.
3rd Written Report due: Acts 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. In: New
Research for New Media: Innovative Research Methodologies Symposium
Working Papers and Readings. Minneapolis, MN: University of
Minnesota School of Journalism and Mass Communication. [e-reserves] 2. Herring, S. C., & Kurtz, A. J.
(2006). Visualizing Dynamic Topic Analysis. Proceedings of CHI'06. ACM Press. http://ella.slis.indiana.edu/~herring/chi06.pdf |
----------
|
Week 9 (3/11): |
Interaction analysis (cont.): Turn-taking
and coherence.
4th
Oral Report: Topic
development in your sample.
|
|
Read:
|
1. Herring, S. C. (1999). Interactional
coherence in CMC. Journal of Computer-Mediated Communication, 4 (4). http://jcmc.indiana.edu/vol4/issue4/herring.html
|
----------
----------
|
Week 10 (3/25): |
Analyzing social behavior: Politeness and
conflict.
4th Written Report due: Topic development and coherence in your sample.
Discuss term paper research ideas in
class.
|
|
Read:
|
1. Brown,
G. & Levinson, S. (1987). Politeness:
Some Universals in Language Usage (pp. 59-84). Cambridge University Press. [e-reserves] 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. [e-reserves]
Practice politeness coding in class. |
----------
|
Week 11 (4/1): |
Social analysis (cont.): Critical Discourse Analysis.
Turn in
a 500-word proposal for term paper research, describing your topic,
research question, data, methods, preliminary observations, and
including a minimum of five references.
|
|
Read:
|
1. Van Leeuwen, T. (2009). Critical Discourse Analysis. In: J. Renkema (Ed.), Discourse, of course: An overview of research in discourse studies (pp. 277-292). Amsterdam/Philadelphia: John Benjamins. [Oncourse]
|
----------
|
Week 12 (4/8):
Read: |
Applications of CMDA. Automating discourse analysis.
5th Oral Report: Politeness and conflict in your sample. 1. Newman, M. L., Pennebaker, J. W., Berry, D. S., & Richards, J. M. (2003). Lying words: Predicting deception from linguistic styles. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 29, 665-675. [Oncourse] 2. Twitchell, D. P., & Nunamaker, J. F., Jr. (2004). Speech act profiling: A probabilistic method for analyzing persistent conversations and their participants. Proceedings of the 37th Annual Hawaii International Conference on System Sciences. Los Alamitos, CA: IEEE Press. [Oncourse] 3. Spertus, E. (1997). Smokey: Automatic recognition of hostile messages. Proceedings of Innovative Application of Artificial Intelligence (IAAI) '97. American Association for Artificial Intelligence. http://citeseerx.ist.psu.edu/viewdoc/download?doi=10.1.1.37.3057&rep=rep1&type=pdf |
----------
|
Week 13 (4/15):
|
Challenges for CMDA: Media convergence; dynamic visual interfaces; Voice-over IP. 5th Written Report due: Politeness and conflict in your sample.
1. Zelenkauskaite, A., & Herring, S. C. (2008). Television-mediated conversation: Coherence in Italian iTV SMS chat. Proceedings
of the Forty-First Hawai'i International Conference on System Sciences. Los
Alamitos, CA: IEEE Press. http://ella.slis.indiana.edu/~herring/hicss08.pdf
2. Herring, S. C., Kutz, D. O., Paolillo, J. C., & Zelenkauskaite, A. (2009). Fast talking, fast shooting: Text chat in an online first-person game. Proceedings of the Forty-Second Hawai'i International Conference on System Sciences. Los Alamitos, CA: IEEE Press. http://ella.slis.indiana.edu/~herring/hicss.bzflag.pdf
3. Wadley, G., Gibbs, M., & Benda, P. (2007). Speaking in character: Using voice-over-IP to communicate within MMORPGs. Proceedings of the 4th Australasian conference on Interactive entertainment, article 24. Association for Computing Machinery. [Oncourse]
|
----------
|
Week 14 (4/22): |
Oral presentations |
----------
|
Week 15 (4/29): |
Final papers due 5:00 p.m. |
Last updated: 3/24/10