Here Lies Sacks, the Fairest Unicorn of Them All

Trena warned us in class that we'd either love or hate Conversation Analysis, and I can understand how people can respond to CA like that. But I've been known (and sometimes "accused," I should say) of being too "hard" on texts, so I'll approach this week's post with a bit of English composition theory by Peter Elbow. Elbow argues that we should be critical of a text in two polemic ways: as a believer and as a doubter. In this way, critiques are situated with both positive and negative commentary. Nothing is ever totally a waste of writing or a waste of reading. As a composition teacher, it's a good policy to read student papers with this lens, so I'll try it with CA.

Believing commentary:

I absolutely think it's phenomenal that we have a methodology that focuses on the act of transcription. It's such an underrated skill for qualitative research because novice or intermediate researchers are so caught up on learning how to conduct qualitative projects, from setting up research questions to analyzing data, that they forget the details. One of those details that gets buried is the act of transcribing. If the data is the primary source used to respond and answer the research questions, transcription should be done with some precision and accuracy. I like that Hutchby and Wooffitt highlight that, "transcription is done by the analyst him or herself. Transcription thereby becomes an integral part of analysis, since in repeatedly listening to the tape one begins to hear and to focus on phenomena that may subsequently form part of an analytic account" (71). Yes! It's the very act of engage with one medium--a recording--and turning it into another one--a written document--that requires systemization by the researcher.

If we pay attention to the style of word exchange, then it's only fitting that we create vocabulary to detail conversations. Sack's (and Hutchby and Wooffitt's) coding of conversational hallmarks was pretty awesome. I especially liked the discussion on "turn-taking" because I never thought of binding a conversation in the now. Limiting a conversation to its time means every utterance is possible. So the fact that we only get one conversation per time implies that the conversation is important since we only have one chance at it.

Doubting commentary:

But at the same time, saying that the conversation is only now? Nope, that doesn't fit. That means there's no background to our speakers. But the very literacy capabilities of a speaker plays into the conversation. Frankly, my experiences impact where I go, with whom I speak, and on what topics I discuss.

Additionally, I find his methodology utterly self-serving. He wasn't sure that this would actually lead anywhere, but it did fuel his research goals. Maybe it's Hutchby and Wooffitt's fault, but it seems that Sacks' was a bit arrogant about why people should utilize CA.

Moreover, his theory does not lie in either linguistics or sociology. I'm more familiar with the former than latter, but not by that much. I find it problematic that he can't build a methodology that reacts to a disciplinary field. Don't get me wrong, I don't think that we should, or even have to, organize under these disciplinary categorizes. (I mean, I am a College of Arts and Science student running wild in a College of Ed class.) The reason, however, that these disciplinary standards are referred to is because it sets up a contextual frame for which concepts are issued, and then debated. Everyone talks about identity, but the ways in which we assign "identity" and the conversations around is are unique. This uniqueness isn't without merit since it ensures that our audience can actually engage in the conversation. Another 20th century rhetorician established the metaphor of "entering the parlor": the idea is that when one enters a dinner party, you listen to hear conversations then engage with your stance. Not that you just enter a room, and start hurling opinions, regardless of what is being said.

Biggest Question: 

I'm not sure I like entirety of CA. It has some hinky standards that mess with my definitions of parole. But I'm having a hard time discerning how the analysis in CA is different from DA? There's an example in the book that analyzed a speaker's choice of words (37). The analyst (I think it's Sacks' work) says that it's important the speaker started to "girl," but then changed to say "chick." But isn't the change that happened based on the speaker's sense of langue? I'm not sure how the CA-analyst can make any judgments on a speaker's choices. So apart from the transcription, what's the difference in the analysis between CA and DA?

Sorry--one more question: the first time I heard about CA it was in terms of second language acquisition. It made sense to me that these teachers try to focus and pinpoint how, and if, their students have made it to a native or native-like speaking standard. But doesn't CA automatically discredit speaker's ability because that's part of the CA? I think I'm missing something here. Also, is that ethical to use CA in a non-native speaker's moment, since it discredits contextual factors? 

Hmmmm. I need a cookie. 

*****

Hutchby, Ian, and Robin Woffitt. Conversation Analysis. 2nd ed. Cambridge, UK: Polity, 2008. Print.