Introduction, EDPY 631, Discourse Analysis Fall, 2013

Hello! My name is Hollie Nawrocki, and I am a third year doctoral candidate (early stage) in Theory and Practice in Teacher Education.  I have ‘officially’ finished my coursework, and I am currently working on my comprehensive exams, but I am enrolled in this course in order to earn my Qualitative Research Certificate. I am earning a Ph.D. in Literacy Studies with a concentration in English as a Second Language (ESL) Education.     

I have always had an interest in Discourse Analysis, although until a couple of years ago, I did not know the name of the field.   I love words.  I was a high school English teacher in Columbus, Ohio for ten years before coming back to school.  To me, words are chameleons creeping in a dense, meandering jungle, blasting their changes or subtly shifting nuances as they navigate spaces.  Take the simple word, ‘fine’.  It can mean multiple things, especially if you are a woman (I know that is gender-biased, but I accept that bias and acknowledge it as I am of the female persuasion).  If I look at my kids, and say, “Oh, that’s fine if you have a snack while doing your homework”, that shows the most used definition of the word, as in, ‘acceptable’, or, it is fine.  On the other hand, if I am upset with my husband and he is pleading his case, and I say, “Fine” (in a brusque, guttural tone), certainly it is not fine.  That one word can have so many subtle nuances, based on pronunciation, volume of the spoken word, and facial or body expression that accompany it.  That is just one word!  We have tens of thousands of words that can have that shift-shaping potential!  That is almost impossible to imagine, let alone research and write about.  Printed words are ambiguous compared to those spoken, and while reading printed material, I have ‘voices’ that read text to me in my mind, much like an audiobook.  My perception of those words written and the way I make meaning of those words may not be the same as anyone else’s.  Although the “intended” (for lack of a better term) themes may emerge for many people reading the same text, there will be subtle differences in how we process what we see, hear, and read.  This idea (along with many more) is discussed in Mercer, 2000.

I have said this before in other courses.  I appreciate Mercer’s book.  His approach is straightforward, his writing is clear, he provides multiple examples (transcribed interviews, conversations, etc.).  It is amazing what I take for granted after reading some of the provided examples, the collective meaning of the crossword puzzle solution in the beginning of the book, the insurance call in chapter 4 (how scripts are designed to persuade people), and the examination of the rape victim (how the lawyer tries to paint the picture of the woman who was almost soliciting a sexual encounter).  I will be honest—I have this book on borrowed download, and I have not fully completed it, but it is on its way, as I think this can help me in my own work as I am using many interviews to gather ‘experiences’ of participating in a particular teacher licensure program.  Examining what was said by my participants will be in my analysis, but those printed words will not carry the same meaning as the recording (whether it be video or audio), and those feelings will be difficult to capture and convey in my work.  Also, as I said earlier, my interpretation will be what is produced, so then when others read what I have interpreted it, they will interpret my work in a myriad of different ways.  As in EDPY 604; Mind=Blown.  I am excited for the course.