I would like to start my
post with a question. In Wootfit chapter, it is stated that significant price
reduction is a cultural convention. What I understood is that this is discourse
analysts’ perspective. Is this right? If so, how can these two related to each
other? And also how can a “laughter” be an evidence of significant price
reduction? I am asking these questions because they seem very important for
those who are interested in discourse analysis. It was really interesting me to
learn something from my life in Turkey has meaning. When we go outside for
shopping, my mother usually intend to see what happens when some people gather
around something. She says that there should be something interesting and
cheaper there. This situation is part of our daily life, but after I read it is a common practice among
market pitchers, I thought even these kinds of situations should have meaning.
I am wondering if it is just a result of observations or discourse analysis or
maybe conversation analysis because Clark and Pitch approached to selling as
interactional achievement rather than economic acts. Clark and Pitch is
demonstrated this interaction’s outcome as power. So, if the outcome of the
interaction is power, what is relationship between power and discourse? Because
we are trying to construct meaning from interactions. Therefore, I think
discourse should also be an outcome of interactions. Also, according to
Jorgensen and Phillips, “most discourse analysts (and probably most
researchers in general) would like to contribute, through their research, to
changing the world for the better.” However,
I am wondering how discourse analysis research may contribute to practice in
life or to practical life? For example, when I conduct a research on technology
integration in Turkey, I can recommend something to the Turkish Government to
improve technology integration process. I am wondering what kinds of
contribution that discourse analysis makes in practice. Finally, I am wondering
the relationship between reality and discourse. Is there anything that is
discourse but not real?
You are raising some important questions here...I'll tackle the question you pose around power and discourse. The relationship between the two is variable and related to the perspective that one takes up in relation to power and discourse. The Wooffitt text offered a CA orientation to power in which power is conceived of as being made real in the mundane, everyday activities of interaction. In other words, rather than (just) be situated within grander structures, CA scholars would be interested in how it is actualized in the talk itself. Thoughts on this?
ReplyDelete