PSYC358: Midterm #1 Flashcards
Discourse analysis
Approach to studying psychological phenomena (developed in 70s and 80s)
Developed out of social psych + social constructionism
Examines language in use (not psychological factors like attitudes, memory, emotions etc which underlie talk)
Looks at text, convo, visual communication
How language organizes the world/behaviour/identity
Two parts of discourse analysis examination
1- CONSTRUCTION: language is constructing (not mirroring) reality
2- FUNCTION + SOCIAL ACTION: people use language to achieve goals in specific contexts
Discourses (discourse analysis)
Systems of meaning that are related to the intersectional and wider sociocultural context; operate regardless of the speakers intentions
Other parts of discourse analysis
- variability in people’s accounts
- rhetorical aspects/functions of talk
- context of interaction
- subject positions (has consequences for sense of self and experiences of subjects)
- institutions (legitimize and maintain social practices)
- power
Common views of discourse theorists
Social constructionism (reality/identity systematically constructed and maintained through systems of meaning and through social practices) Relativist view (no objective grounds on which truth of claims can be proven; value of knowledge should be evaluated through criteria like applicability, usefulness, clarity) OR critical realist view bc other view social critique (knowledge mediated by social processes but propose underlying enduring structures do exist and can be known through their effects)
Language as a mirror (metaphor)
Language = reflecting reality
Language as a construction yard (metaphor)
Language = used to construct versions of things, people, ideas and events
Words aren’t neutral
Category entitlement (tools for building a speaker’s credibility)
When you give certain categories more credibility with what they say because of their title (ex: believing everything a doctor says about health)
Concession (tools for building a speakers credibility)
Provided by speakers when they outwardly acknowledge potential counter-claims
This makes what they say sound more reasonable and robust because they considered both sides
Consensus (tools for building a speakers credibility)
Transforming a description into a “fact” by producing agreement of reliable witnesses
Disclaimer (tools for building a speakers credibility)
Explicitly denying a stance or opinion a speaker subsequently advocates (I’m not racist but… I’m not sexist but…)
Footing (tools for building a speakers credibility)
A speaker can either put themselves as the source of info that they are presenting or relay it as someone else’s message to shift responsibility
Stake management (tools for building a speakers credibility)
A version of events could be undermined of the speaker can be shown to have a vested interest in the particular account they provide (parent says their kid is gifted - other parent says of course because all parents think their kids are gifted!)
Stake confession (tools for building a speakers credibility)
A speaker acknowledges their vested interest (I know I’m his dad and all dads are proud but he really was special today)
Stake inoculation (tools for building a speakers credibility)
Speaker rebuts the potential claim that they have a stake even before they are challenged on it (at first, I was sceptical about the new cream bc it seemed too good to be true, but it actually works!)
Active voicing (tools for building the case)
Use of a direct quote from another source to make the reporting of their words seem more reliable
Categorization (tools for building the case)
When a speaker offers a description, choices are available to them about how to name or categorize their subject and their choice can make a difference on how they’re perceived (terrorist vs freedom fighter)
Detail (tools for building the case)
Builds specificity and presents an account as informed, reliable and accurate
Vagueness (tools for building the case)
Supports broad claims and it’s difficult to ‘pin down’ or undermine
Generalizations (tools for building the case)
Allows a speaker to stretch a particular interpretation across an indefinite number of instances (girls used to fall for him and then he would just dump them)
Gerrymanding (tools for building the case)
Means offering selective description of something that includes particular details as relevant while ignoring others that don’t support your argument
Intention-promoting verbs (tools for building the case)
Certain verbs can be chosen to make intention explicit (James tripped so his team lost VS James helped the team lose)
Making evidence ‘speak for itself’ (tools for building the case)
A speaker can increase the credibility of their evidence by presenting it as obvious; downplays their role in collecting/interpreting it and personifies the evidence as though it makes the case (ex: it’s obvious that… The facts show… Etc)
Maximization and minimization (tools for building the case)
Used for emphasis or de-emphasis (to establish blame or to downplay accountability)