![Sample our Language & Literature journals, sign in here to start your FREE access for 14 days]({"type":"image" , "src" : "/sda/5941/TOC-Subject-Sample-2021-Language-Literature.jpg"})
Abstract
This essay opens a conversation in the Journal of Multicultural Discourses on cultural approaches to discourse analysis. Culturally-inclusive approaches to discourse analysis and communication that critique Western-biased theories and methods are covered including Jan Blommaert's Critical Discourse Analysis, Shi-xu's Cultural Approach to Discourse, and Asian communication theories. An extensive review of the historical development of Donal Carbaugh's Cultural Discourse Theory and Analysis is given as well as an explanation of its current practice today. All four approaches are compared and contrasted in terms of their definitions, objectives, methods of data collection and analysis, and the role of critique. It is hoped that the essay will invite future extended discussions of culturally-inclusive approaches to discourse analysis in the journal.
Acknowledgements
The author would like to thank Shi-xu for the opportunity to write this essay as well as his helpful guidance on it. The author would also like to thank Donal Carbaugh for the opportunity to write the essay, his superb scholarship and teaching, as well as the many helpful conversations and guidance concerning the essay. Lastly, a special thanks to Trudy Milburn for her review of the essay.
Notes
2. This is perhaps easier for me to argue as a white, middle-class female born and raised in the United States.
3. Cultural Discourse Theory (abbreviated as CDT) refers to the theory that Carbaugh has developed over several years of research (first officially termed this in Carbaugh, Gibson, & Milburn 1997). Cultural Discourse Analysis (abbreviated as CuDA) refers to analysis conducted with this theory.
4. This period is roughly from the first publication of Philipsen's (1975) ethnographic study of Teamsterville communication patterns to publications by Carbaugh, Gibson, and Milburn (1997) on Cultural Discourse Theory and Philipsen (1997) on Speech Codes Theory.
5. This essay in no way downplays the importance of Speech Codes Theory, its role in the Ethnography of Communication, or its role in the development of Cultural Discourse Theory. Both have developed in tandem, inspiring each other en route to a way of analyzing and theorizing communication culturally. The focus of the present essay is Cultural Discourse Theory, therefore Speech Codes Theory is not discussed at length. For more information on Speech Codes Theory see Philipsen (1986, 1992, 1997) and Philipsen, Coutu, and Covarrubias (Citation2005).
6. Hymes's (1972) descriptive theory, the basis of most ethnographic studies of communication, consists of a set of social units of analysis (Speech Community, Speech Situation, Speech Event, Speech Act, Speech Style, Way of Speaking) and their components (Situation, Participants, Ends, Acts, Key, Instrumentalities, Norms of interaction and interpretation, Genre) that can be used for descriptive and interpretive analysis of any communication anywhere and also for native, comparative, and global theorizing.
7. See Leeds-Hurwitz (Citation1984) on the distinction between the Ethnography of Speaking and the Ethnography of Communication.
8. Interestingly, the publication of Talking American was held up in litigation for approximately one year by Donahue's lawyers (Carbaugh, personal communication, December 2009).
9. On the role of critique in the Ethnography of Communication, see Carbaugh (1989/1990). See Carbaugh (Citation2002b) for a critique of some features of US American conversation.
10. Specifically, he posits the universal components of “deep agony” as: “The functional aspects: deep agony functions culturally through models of personhood and sociation, which mediate (and momentarily resolve) the social tensions of autonomy and union; The structural aspects: deep agony is structured linguistically through the juxtaposition of two clusters of symbols, which creates an interrelated semantic system of contrastive meanings; The cultural aspects: the models of personhood and sociation, the valuing and elaboration of autonomy and union, the juxtaposed symbols and their meanings, vary from scene to scene, culture to culture, time to time” (Carbaugh 1988/1989, 206).
11. Trudy Milburn (personal communication, March 2010) has suggested that in some studies it may be useful to focus on just one of these constructs in depth (i.e., communication practice, scene, discourse), while elaborating the others in later studies. Further, she notes that it is important to let the data, the local case, lead the researcher to what is most important to focus on, empirically emerging in the course of study.
12. See, for example, work on Blackfeet (Carbaugh 1995a, 1999, Citation2001, Citation2002a), Finnish (Berry, Carbaugh and Nurmikari-Berry 2004; Carbaugh 2002b; Carbaugh and Berry 2001; Carbaugh and Poutiainen 2000), and US American (Berry, Carbaugh and Nurmikari-Berry 2004; Carbaugh 1995a, 2002b; Carbaugh and Berry Citation2001; Carbaugh and Poutiainen 2000) cultures.
13. See, for example, research on Blackfeet “listening” (Carbaugh Citation1999), Finnish-American introductory events (Carbaugh & Poutiainen 2000), Blackfeet narrative (Carbaugh 2001), and Blackfeet “talking Indian” (Carbaugh 2002a).
14. See, for example, Berry, Carbaugh & Nurmikari-Berry 2004, Carbaugh 1995, Carbaugh & Berry 2001, Carbaugh & Poutiainen 2000.
15. Carbaugh (2005) is careful to locate culture in communication practice, rather than peoples’ minds or qualities of groups of people (see also Carbaugh 2007a, 2010).
16. For more information on how to conduct descriptive and interpretive analysis and the methodology of the Ethnography of Communication in general see Carbaugh and Hastings (1995). For explanation of descriptive and interpretive analysis in cultural discourse theory see Carbaugh, Gibson, and Milburn (1997) and Carbaugh (2007a, 2010). For discussion of descriptive and interpretive analysis of intercultural communication in cultural discourse theory see Carbaugh (2005, 2007a).
17. See pp. 4–5 (Carbaugh 2005) for a conceptualization of cultural premise and suggested questions for how to formulate them. See Carbaugh (2007a) for an explanation of cultural premise and related concepts for interpretive inquiry in cultural discourse analysis including symbols, cultural propositions, semantic dimensions, and norms. See also Carbaugh (2010) for explanation of cultural premises.
18. See Carbaugh (2007a, 2010) for similar lists of questions regarding each dimension of meaning in cultural discourse theory which may be useful for cultural discourse analysis.
19. For those interested in the Ethnography of Communication research program, a short list of key pieces to read include: Hymes (1962, 1972), Philipsen (1990), Carbaugh (1995b), Philipsen and Carbaugh (1986), and Carbaugh and Hastings (1995).
20. Interested readers should see the (1989/1990) special issue of Research on Language and Social Interaction on the role of critique in the Ethnography of Communication.
