CA: A microscopic vision that discloses the deep secret of human intelligence

I wish I had read Antaki et al. at the beginning of this course so that I would know from the very beginning what is not analysis, or conversation analysis. Conversation analysis is a difficult course because it is counter-intuitive and deceiving by its name. When I was first enrolled in this course, I had conceptualized it in a totally different way than it unfolded itself later in the following learning processes. I’m probably not alone. Looking back at the data sessions and into the google data sharing pages, it’s so easy to find various type of under-analysis profiled by Antaki et al. and honestly it really gave me the impression that “everything goes”, as I mentioned in one of my earlier posts that I was bewildered by our data sessions for its afternoon tea type of comments. Of course I was not immune to this myself as a newbie. I think it is fine because we learn by mistakes as beginners, and because, as it is mentioned, even the published works are vulnerable to the various type of fallacies. Indeed, those are fallacies in a logical sense, which are easy to make if the practitioner is not properly trained.

Two major under-analyses (through summary and through taking sides) are especially interesting and relevant to me. This reminds me of how easy it is for us, as an immature qualitative researcher, to be always carried away by the contents of any language materials and ignore the mechanics and features through which our inner most thoughts are conveyed and delivered, probably because they are so embodied and so integral part of our “communicative competence” that it is not easy for us to see. This also reminds me of another similar situation in Y521, in which interviewing skills were trained. We all confessed that it was so hard to resist the temptation to get involved into the respondent’s talk and take sides now and then. This is what I mean by “counter-intuitive.”

Equally beneficial to me is to know the tautology fallacy, which is termed the circular identification of discourses and mental constructs. This agrees with Heritage’s insistence on an endogenous view of context within the talk itself, that is, the mutual orientation of the participants of the talk shapes the ways in which they speak (I would like to add “behave” here) and thus they talk the context into being. So when doing analysis, we do not simply declare, take my case for example, the participants are teaching and learning so that it is a pedagogical interaction, or it is a pedagogical interaction, because one is teaching and the other is learning. And I think it is CA that has empowered me with a special kind of microscopic vision to allow me to see the interwoven fabrics that constitute the discourse from within. This inspiration also gives me a vision in an attempt to seek a cooperation between MDA and CA, both of which are concerned with embodied actions and discourses, to merge discourse analysis from both without and within.

I also wish I could tell Saussure how wrong he was when he dismissed the “parole” as transient, unworthy of scientific study, telling him that human interactions that mobilize all available semiotic resources are the real key to the deep secret of human intelligence. But I know that would be a little bit anachronistic. A more positive way for me would be to think what I will be able to achieve with the advantage of standing on the shoulders of those giants.