Commentaries on “Multiple Discourse Analyses of a Workplace Interaction”

The web journal occasionally publishes brief commentaries on issues that are of interest to the TESOL/AL community. In this issue, we asked contributors to respond to the article, Multiple Discourse Analyses of a Workplace Interaction by Stubbe, Lane, Hilder, Vine, Vine, Marra, Holmes, and Weatheral...

Full description

Bibliographic Details
Main Author: Santoi Leung
Format: Article
Language:English
Published: Columbia University Libraries 2003-12-01
Series:Studies in Applied Linguistics & TESOL
Online Access:https://journals.library.columbia.edu/index.php/SALT/article/view/1627
id doaj-144f6d889c7d46ff8de6414c36c822a6
record_format Article
spelling doaj-144f6d889c7d46ff8de6414c36c822a62020-11-25T02:39:38ZengColumbia University LibrariesStudies in Applied Linguistics & TESOL2689-193X2003-12-013210.7916/salt.v3i2.1627Commentaries on “Multiple Discourse Analyses of a Workplace Interaction”Santoi LeungThe web journal occasionally publishes brief commentaries on issues that are of interest to the TESOL/AL community. In this issue, we asked contributors to respond to the article, Multiple Discourse Analyses of a Workplace Interaction by Stubbe, Lane, Hilder, Vine, Vine, Marra, Holmes, and Weatherall (2003). The article presents an exercise rarely seen in scholarly discourse analysis journals. The authors analyze the same piece of data from a number of different approaches: conversation analysis, interactional sociolinguistics, politeness theory, critical discourse analysis, and discursive psychology. The data is a nine-minute audio recording of a naturally occurring workplace interaction between a male manager and a female subordinate. Although there are broad similarities between the analyses, the authors suggest that there are significant differences in the aspects of interaction focused upon, leading to the diplomatic conclusion that the different approaches “are not necessarily in conflict with one another – rather, they are complementary in many ways, with each approach capable of generating its own useful insights” (p. 380). https://journals.library.columbia.edu/index.php/SALT/article/view/1627
collection DOAJ
language English
format Article
sources DOAJ
author Santoi Leung
spellingShingle Santoi Leung
Commentaries on “Multiple Discourse Analyses of a Workplace Interaction”
Studies in Applied Linguistics & TESOL
author_facet Santoi Leung
author_sort Santoi Leung
title Commentaries on “Multiple Discourse Analyses of a Workplace Interaction”
title_short Commentaries on “Multiple Discourse Analyses of a Workplace Interaction”
title_full Commentaries on “Multiple Discourse Analyses of a Workplace Interaction”
title_fullStr Commentaries on “Multiple Discourse Analyses of a Workplace Interaction”
title_full_unstemmed Commentaries on “Multiple Discourse Analyses of a Workplace Interaction”
title_sort commentaries on “multiple discourse analyses of a workplace interaction”
publisher Columbia University Libraries
series Studies in Applied Linguistics & TESOL
issn 2689-193X
publishDate 2003-12-01
description The web journal occasionally publishes brief commentaries on issues that are of interest to the TESOL/AL community. In this issue, we asked contributors to respond to the article, Multiple Discourse Analyses of a Workplace Interaction by Stubbe, Lane, Hilder, Vine, Vine, Marra, Holmes, and Weatherall (2003). The article presents an exercise rarely seen in scholarly discourse analysis journals. The authors analyze the same piece of data from a number of different approaches: conversation analysis, interactional sociolinguistics, politeness theory, critical discourse analysis, and discursive psychology. The data is a nine-minute audio recording of a naturally occurring workplace interaction between a male manager and a female subordinate. Although there are broad similarities between the analyses, the authors suggest that there are significant differences in the aspects of interaction focused upon, leading to the diplomatic conclusion that the different approaches “are not necessarily in conflict with one another – rather, they are complementary in many ways, with each approach capable of generating its own useful insights” (p. 380).
url https://journals.library.columbia.edu/index.php/SALT/article/view/1627
work_keys_str_mv AT santoileung commentariesonmultiplediscourseanalysesofaworkplaceinteraction
_version_ 1724784796183298048