COMM 6200-003

Fall 2008

Seminar

Metadiscourse and Communication Theory

6:15-8:45 p.m. Wed., Hellems 77

Overview

Metadiscourse is discourse (talk or text) that comments reflexively on something in a contextual discourse. The prefix “meta” (from a Greek word meaning with, across, or after) here denotes a shift to a higher-order frame of reference. Metadiscourse shifts the focus of attention from ongoing communication, putting some stretch of discourse in a different frame that influences the meaning and practical conduct of communication.

The frame shift performed by metadiscourse is most often local and momentary, as when a speaker uses the word “first” to frame an immediate following point as the first in a series of points or says “I understand completely” to mark another’s statement as understood and accepted, or when a journalist uses “horse race” language in the lead paragraph of a story, thus framing a political election as a strategic contest. Extended episodes of metadiscourse also occur, for example, when a couple sits down to talk over a problem in how they have been talking with each other. Discourse about discourse-in-general is also metadiscourse. People trading stories about poorly run business meetings or blogging about rules of etiquette for the use of mobile phones in public are engaged in metadiscourse in a relatively broad scope. So are scholars writing academic books and articles about media, language, and communication. All of these forms of metadiscourse participate in the ubiquitous social processes through which meanings and norms for the practice of communication are continually negotiated. With a growing cultural emphasis on the importance of communication in modern societies, explicit talk about how we talk seems to have become increasingly prevalent. A “communication culture” has evolved that “generates large quantities of metadiscourse” (Cameron, 2000).

In communication theory, Ruesch and Bateson (1951/1968) introduced the idea that all communication involves metacommunication, a reflexive level of signaling in which communicators implicitly negotiate about the meaning of what they are doing as they interact. The self-referential property of communication makes the process inherently paradoxical (like a painting that pictures its own frame), uncertain, and potentially creative. Erving Goffman, in Frame Analysis (1974) and other works, developed a conceptual apparatus for describing self-referential communication in social interaction.

This seminar will explore the rich connections between interdisciplinary studies of metadiscourse, framing, and related concepts and communication theory. Common readings will include classic and recent studies of metadiscourse and metacommunication across several fields. Taking communication theory itself as a form of metadiscourse that critically reflects on everyday talk about communication, we will also examine “the rhetoric of communication” as it appears in public discourse on communication problems framed in terms of “dialogue,” “rhetoric,” “information,” etc.

In addition to common readings, students will pursue individual projects in which they will be encouraged to relate seminar themes to their own fields of interest. Illustrative research topics might include discourse markers, reported speech, language ideology, rhetoric of  communication, political meta-campaigning, news frames in the media, framing in conflict negotiation, or interactional paradoxes.

Note: COMM 6200 - Metadiscourse and Communication Theory may apply for credit toward the graduate certificate in Culture, Language, and Social Practice. See http://www.colorado.edu/linguistics/faculty/kira_hall/clasp/index.html  for information on the CLASP certificate program.

Assigned Readings

Books ordered through the UMC Bookstore:

1. Bateson, G. (1999). Steps to an ecology of mind: Collected essays in anthropology, psychiatry, evolution, and epistemology. Chicago, IL: University of Chicago Press. ISBN: 978-0-226-03905-3 (pbk)
2. Cameron, D. (2000). Good to talk? Living and working in a communication culture. London, UK: Sage. ISBN: 0-7619-05771-5 (pbk)
3. Goffman, E. (1986). Frame analysis: An essay on the organization of experience. Boston, MA: Northeastern University Press / University Press of New England. ISBN: 0-930350-91-X (pbk)
4. Jaworski, A., Coupland, N., & Galasinski, D. (Eds.). (2004). Metalanguage: Social and ideological perspectives. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter. ISBN: 3-11-017878-8 (pbk)

Other readings will be distributed by email and/or posted electronically on our CULearn course website.

Assignments and Evaluation

Participation, weekly writing, and presentations (50%)

Reading will average 100-200 pages weekly. Students are expected to complete the assigned readings, participate in seminar discussions, and submit written assignments as due. Come prepared to summarize the assigned readings and with questions and 'talking points' for discussion.

Weekly writing

Beginning with week 2, write a short (1-3 page) argumentative essay on something in the text of each week's reading. For example, you might interpret and comment on a passage that you found especially important, provocative, debatable, or obscure. You might argue for or against the author's position or compare/contrast it with another position. You might discuss the reading's theoretical or practical implications, or a research idea that it suggests. Weekly writing will be used as a basis for seminar discussions. Be prepared to summarize and discuss your essay. Handouts or other presentation aids are not required but are always welcome when helpful. 

Seminar presentation on project-related literature

Later in the semester several weeks will be devoted to presentation and discussion of readings related to student seminar projects. Each student will be scheduled for half a class period. The student will assign and make available one or more readings (no more than 100 pages in total) from literatures central to the student's seminar project. Readings can be scanned electronically by department staff and put online if submitted to me far enough in advance. The student will prepare a presentation introducing the the project topic and related literatures, to be followed by general discussion. Weekly writing will be due as usual except for students presenting that week.

Final project presentation

If possible the final exam period will be scheduled off campus, probably at my home, with refreshments provided. The business part of the occasion will include an oral summary and discussion of each student's final paper.

Final seminar paper (50%)

Each student will write a scholarly research paper (up to 25 pages plus notes etc.) on a topic relevant to the seminar. The goal is o produce a paper of potentially publishable quality. I hope several of these papers will be presented at next year's NCA convention (submission deadline early February). Papers will be due no later than the final exam period, and will be submitted both in hard copy and electronically (MS Word).

Course Outline

Weeks 1-5: Metadiscourse

Weeks 6-9: Metacommunication and Framing

Weeks 10-16: Extensions and Applications

Final exam period - Wednesday, Dec. 17, 7:30-10:00 p.m. (TBA)

References

Bateson, G. (1999). Steps to an ecology of mind: Collected essays in anthropology, psychiatry, evolution, and epistemology. Chicago, IL: University of Chicago Press.

Cameron, D. (2000). Good to talk? Living and working in a communication culture. London, UK: Sage.

Craig, R. T. (1999). Metadiscourse, theory, and practice. Research on Language and Social Interaction, 32, 21-29.

Craig, R. T. (2008). Meta-discourse. In W. Donsbach (Ed.), International Encyclopedia of Communication (Vol. VII, pp. 3707-3709). Oxford, UK, and Malden, MA: Blackwell Publishing.

Craig, R. T. (in press, 2008). The rhetoric of ‘dialogue’ in metadiscourse: Possibility-impossibility arguments and critical events. In E. Weigand (Ed.), Dialogue and rhetoric. Amsterdam & Philadelphia: John Benjamins.

Goffman, E. (1981). Footing. In Forms of talk (pp. 124-159). Philadelphia, PA: University of Pennsylvania Press.

Goffman, E. (1986). Frame analysis: An essay on the organization of experience. Boston, MA: Northeastern University Press / University Press of New England.

Hopper, R. (1991). Observer: Steps to an Ecology of Mind. Communication Theory, 1(3), 267-268.

Jaworski, A., Coupland, N., & Galasinski, D. (Eds.). (2004). Metalanguage: Social and ideological perspectives. Berlin and New York: Mouton de Gruyter.

Simons, H. W. (1994). Going meta: Definition and political application. Quarterly Journal of Speech, 80, , 468-481.

Tannen, D. (1993). What's in a frame?: Surface evidence for underlying expectations. In D. Tannen (Ed.), Framing in discourse (pp. 14-56). New York:: Oxford University Press.

Taylor, T. J. (1997). Theorizing language: analysis, normativity, rhetoric, history. Amsterdam-New York-Oxford: Pergamon.