Sociological Discourse Analysis: Method and Logic

8/17/2015
RuizRuiz
ForumQualitativeSozialforschung/Forum:QualitativeSocial
Research,Vol10,No2(2009)
Volume10,No.2,Art.26May2009
SociologicalDiscourseAnalysis:MethodsandLogic
JorgeRuizRuiz
Abstract:Sociologicaldiscourseanalysissharesmanyoftheproceduresofothersocialsciences.Yetsociologistsdiffer
greatlyintermsofhowtheyapproachdiscourseanalysis,thusleadingtoconfusionanddoubtsregardingthescientific
statusofsociologicaldiscourseanalysis.Inthisarticleweattempttoclarifythemethodologicalbasisofsociological
discourseanalysisbydifferentiatingitfromotherdiscourseanalysispractices.Todoso,weexaminewhatsociologists
actuallydowhentheyanalyzediscourse,whilefocusingonthecommonelementsandprinciplessharedbythedifferent
approachestosociologicaldiscourseanalysis.
Keywords:discourseanalysisqualitativesocialresearchtextualanalysiscontextualanalysissociological
interpretationabduction
TableofContents
1.Introduction
2.Discourse
3.LevelsofSociologicalDiscourseAnalysis
3.1Textualanalysis:Discourseasobject
3.2Contextualanalysis:Discourseasasingularevent
3.3Sociologicalanalysis:Discourseasinformation,ideologyandasocialproduct
4.TheLogicofSociologicalDiscourseInterpretation
5.AnalysisinPractice:AnExample
6.Discussion
Acknowledgments
Notes
References
Author
Citation
1.Introduction
Toalargeextent,sociologicaldiscourseanalysishasbeenbuiltupthroughtheadoptionand
adaptationofmethodsofanalysisdevelopedinothersocialsciences.Asaresult,
sociologicaldiscourseanalysissharesmanyoftheelementsfoundinanalysesconductedin
awiderangeofdisciplinesincludinglinguistics,ethnography,anthropologyandpsychology,
tonamebutafew.Thepeculiarmannerinwhichdiscourseanalysishasdevelopedin
sociologyhasledtoanenormousdiversityofstylesandformsofanalysis.Ratherthan
providingaparticularmethodforanalyzingdiscoursefromasociologicalstandpoint,
sociologistsresorttoaseriesofpracticesandproceduresthatareusedinverydiverseways
intheirprofessionalpractice.Abrieflookatthevarietyofmanualsthathavebeenpublished
onthistopicsufficestoconfirmthelackofconsensusconcerningwhatismeantby
sociologicaldiscourseanalysisorhowtoapproachit1).[1]
Thediversityofapproachesandthelackofaformalframeworkforsociologicaldiscourse
analysishavegivenrisetoconfusionandmisconceptionsamongthosewhoarefamiliarwith
thissocialresearchpractice.Thereareatleastthreereasonsforthis.Thefirstisthat
sociologicaldiscourseanalysishasbeenidentified,inafundamentalorexclusivemanner,
withoneoranotheroftheparticularproceduresassociatedwithit.Second,sociological
discourseanalysisisconsideredaresearchpracticelackinginrigorwhichdependstoa
lesserorgreaterextentonthecriterionoftheanalyst2).Finally,doubthasbeencastupon
sociologicaldiscourseanalysisasamethodofanalysisinitsownright.Itistherefore
necessarytoexplainwhatsociologicaldiscourseanalysisactuallyinvolvesataskthat
shouldaimtoanswertwoquestionswhichbasicallyrefertothesamething,namelywhat
featuresdistinguishsociologicaldiscourseanalysisfromanalysesconductedinother
scientificdisciplinesandwhatelementsaresharedbythedifferentproceduresinsociological
discourseanalysis,regardlessoftheirapparentdiversityofform?[2]
2.Discourse
http://www.qualitativeresearch.net/index.php/fqs/rt/printerFriendly/1298/2882
1/20
8/17/2015
RuizRuiz
Fromasociologicalstandpoint,discourseisdefinedasanypracticebywhichindividuals
imbuerealitywithmeaning.Whendefinedintheseterms,discourseisfoundinawiderange
offorms.Indeed,anysocialpracticefromadance,ritualorapieceofmusictoajobcontract,
mythorculinarycustomcanbeanalyzeddiscursively3).Yetthediscourseofgreatestinterest
tosociologistsisthatwhichtakesaverbalform,beitwrittenorspoken.Thereasonforthis
specialinterestinverbaldiscourseistwofold:apracticaloneandatheoreticalone.In
practice,verbaldiscourseisdiscoursethatcanbeaccessedandexaminedbytheanalyst.
Indeed,analysesofotherformsofdiscourse,forexamplevisualdiscourse,oftenreston
translatingthediscourseintoaverbalizedformatbymeansofdetaileddescriptions.In
theory,verbaldiscourseisaprivilegedmeansofproducingandtransmittingmeaning.
Althoughvisualdiscourse,andtoalesserdegreeharmonicandspatialdiscourse,is
becomingincreasinglywidespread,verbalcommunicationremainsthemostcommonwayof
producingandtransmittingmeaninginoursociety.[3]
Anotherbasicdistinctionliesinthedifferencebetweenspontaneousdiscourseandinduced
discourse.Spontaneousdiscoursereferstodiscourseproducedbysubjectsintheireveryday
lives.Books,recordsofcourtproceedingsortelevisionprograms,forexample,frequently
comprisethebasicmaterialofsociologicaldiscourseanalysis.Althoughthesediscoursesare
producedbysubjectsforspecificaimsandtheseaimsdifferfromthoseofsociologists,they
areappropriateforcertaintypesofresearchpurposes.However,induceddiscourses,
producedwithintheframeworkofresearch,aremoreoftenthefundamentalmaterialwhich
sociologistsworkwithwhenconductinganalyses.Inthemajorityofcases,sociologistsprefer
tofocusondiscourseinducedbysocialresearchmethodsasitenablesthemtomaintaina
relativelyhighlevelofcontrolovertheconditionsinwhichthesediscoursesemerge.This
typeofdiscourseisusuallyproducedintheframeworkofindepthinterviewsorviagroup
dynamics,particularlyintheformofgroupdiscussions.Forthisreason,wewillreferchiefly
toinduceddiscoursewhenexaminingthemethodsusedinsociologicaldiscourseanalysis,
whilebearinginmindthattheseapproachescanalsobeappliedtospontaneousdiscourse.
[4]
Theinterestindiscourseasameansofunderstandingsocialrealityisbasedonthenotionof
thesubjectiveorientationofsocialaction.Giventhatsocialactionisguidedbythemeaning
thatindividualsattachtotheiractions,wemustaccountforthismeaningwhenattemptingto
understandandexplaintheaction.Yetmeaningisnotonlyaproductofindividualconstraints
andbeliefs.Instead,themeaningsthatguideindividualactionsare,toalargedegree,
sociallyproducedandsharedpatterns.Inthissense,AlfredSCHUTZhighlightstheneedto
accountfortheindividual'sviewpointinordertoexplainsocialaction.Healsoindicatesthe
importanceofintersubjectivityasanessentialelementinthestructureofthecommonsense
world(SCHUTZ,1962,pp.3ff.1964,pp.3ff.).Theworldinwhichindividualsorientorproject
theiractionsisknownandunderstoodbythemtobeasociallyorganizedworld.Hencewhat
Iknowandunderstandaboutthisworldcoincides,tosomedegree,withtheknowledgeand
understandingoftheotherswithwhomIrelate.AsSCHUTZexplains:
"...fromthebeginningthisorientationthroughunderstandingoccursincooperationwithother
humanbeings:thisworldhasmeaningnotonlyformebutalsoforyouandyouandeveryone.My
experienceoftheworldjustifiesandcorrectsitselfbytheexperienceoftheotherswithwhomIam
interrelatedbycommonknowledge,commonworks,andcommonsuffering.Theworld,
interpretedasthepossiblefieldofactionforusall:thatisthefirstandmostprimitiveprincipleof
organizationofmyknowledgeoftheexteriorworldingeneral"(SCHUTZ,1964,p.9).[5]
ForSCHUTZ,thegoalofthesocialsciencesshouldbetoprovideanexplanationofsocial
actionbasedonthissubjectiveviewpoint.Inhisopinion,theproblemofthesocialsciences
liesinhowtoobtainobjectiveknowledgeaboutthissubjectivereality.Tothisend,he
proposestheconstructionofidealtypesasamethodforgainingscientificknowledgeabout
subjectivity.Thusalthoughheemphasizestheimportanceofintersubjectivityinthemaking
ofthissubjectiveviewpoint,hebelievesthatthesubstantiveresearchofintersubjective
knowledgeandunderstanding(systemsofsignificances,sociallysharedtypes)isnot
relevanttothescientificexplorationofsubjectivity.However,incontrasttothis,qualitative
socialresearchaimstoobtainobjectiveknowledgeaboutsubjectivityfromintersubjectivity.
[6]
Gainingobjectiveknowledgefromintersubjectivityleadstoaseriesofmethodological
problemsthatdifferfromthoseanalysedbySCHUTZwithrespecttoobtainingobjective
knowledgefromsubjectivity.Giventhatintersubjectivityisarequiredelementofsocial
interaction,itleavesanimprintontheoutcomeofsuchinteraction,particularlyonthe
2/20
8/17/2015
RuizRuiz
discoursethatistheproductofcommunication.AsSCHUTZstates:
"successfulcommunicationispossibleonlybetweenpersons,socialgroups,nations,etc.,who
shareasubstantiallysimilarsystemofrelevances.Thegreaterthedifferencesbetweentheir
systemsofrelevances,thefewerthechancesforthesuccessofthecommunication.Complete
disparityofthesystemsofrelevancesmakestheestablishmentofauniverseofdiscourseentirely
impossible"(SCHUTZ,1962,p.323).[7]
Ifcommunicationispossibleonlyintheframeworkofintersubjectivity,itsoutcomeor
product,thatis,discourse,embodiesthisintersubjectivityinanimplicitmannerandcanthus
beexplainedthroughanalysis.Qualitativesocialresearchfocusesitsattentiononthis
dimensionofsociallifeinsofarasthecontent,extent,limitsandstructureofintersubjectivity
constitutefundamentalelementsofthesubjectiveorientationofsocialaction.[8]
Ifwebearinmindthatthesocialuniverseislargelyaspaceofsharedmeaning,then
discursivepracticesareclearlyimportantforourknowledgeandunderstandingofsocial
reality.Discourseanalysisasasocialresearchmethodisthereforegroundedintwobasic
assumptions:1)theknowledgeofsocialintersubjectivityprovidesuswithindirectknowledge
aboutthesocialorderbecauseintersubjectivityisaproductofitandbecausethesocial
orderisformedandfunctionsthroughthissocialintersubjectivity2)discourseanalysis
allowsustounderstandsocialintersubjectivitybecausediscoursescontainitandbecause
socialintersubjectivityisproducedthroughdiscursivepractices.[9]
3.LevelsofSociologicalDiscourseAnalysis
Inordertointerpretdiscoursefromasociologicalstandpoint,discoursemustfirstbe
analyzedfrombothatextualandacontextualapproach.Thereare,therefore,threedifferent
levelsofanalysis:atextuallevel,acontextuallevelandaninterpretivelevel.Althoughtext
andcontextbasedanalysesareelementsofsociologicaldiscourseanalysis,theyarenotin
themselvessociologicalanalyses.Textualanalysisallowsustocharacterizediscourseasit
focuseschieflyontheutteranceandconsidersthediscourseasanobjectofstudy.
Contextualanalysis,ontheotherhand,allowsustounderstanddiscourseasitcenterson
theenunciation,consideringthediscourseasasingularactorevent.Finally,interpretation
providesanexplanationofthediscourseasitaddressessociologicalaspectsandconsiders
discourseasinformation,ideologyorasocialproduct4).[10]
Thesethreelevelscouldbeconsideredasalinearprocessthatmovesfromtextualanalysis
tocontextualanalysisandfinallytointerpretationthelatterisunderstoodastheultimateaim
oftheanalysis.However,thisisonlysoinpart.Whileitistruethatthereisaprincipallineof
analysiswhichgoesfromtextualandcontextualanalysistointerpretation,inpracticethese
threelevelsdonotconstitutethreeseparatestagesormomentsofanalysis.Instead,itis
commonfortheanalysistobecarriedoutsimultaneouslyonallthreelevelsinabackwards
andforwardsmovementthatresemblesacontinuousdialogueamongthelevels.Itis
thereforenotalinearprocess,butonewhichiscircularandbidirectionalandonlyconcludes
whentheanalystconsidersthattheresearchobjectiveshavebeenachieved.Textual
analysesandcontextualanalysesgiverisetosociologicalinterpretations,whichare,inturn,
presentinamoreorlessimplicitmanneratbothlevelssinceitispreciselythese
interpretationsthatareofinterestorvaluetothesociologicalanalysis.Textualanalysis
involvescontextualanalysisinthatitrequirescontextualization,whilecontextualanalyses
orientnewtextualanalyses.Andallofthistakesplaceinacircular,ongoingprocessin
whichthedifferenttypesofanalysesfeedbackintooneanother(Diagram1).[11]
Inwhatfollows,wewilladdressthesethreelevelsofanalysisseparatelyandprovideabrief
overviewofthemostrelevantmethodsandproceduresofanalysisforeach.However,we
mustbearinmindthat,inanalyticalpractice,numerousrelationsarise,mergeandintertwine
betweentheselevels,makingitdifficultonoccasiontoassignaspecifictypeofanalysistoa
givenlevel.Forpurposesofclarity,however,wehaveassignedananalyticalprocedureto
thelevelsbasedontheparticularcharacteristicsofeach.
3/20
8/17/2015
RuizRuiz
Diagram1:Processofsociologicaldiscourseanalysis[12]
3.1Textualanalysis:Discourseasobject
Ataninitialstage,discourseanalysiscentersontextuality.Therelationshipbetween
discourseandtextisnotunivocal,thusthetwoconceptsshouldnotbeconfusedorequated.
Indeed,everypieceofdiscoursehasatextualformorcanacquireitthesametextmay
includedifferentdiscoursesorthesamediscoursemayadoptdifferenttextualforms.Textual
analysisconsidersdiscourseasanobject,givingittheappearanceofobjectivityandmaking
itespeciallyinterestingforthosewhoapproachdiscourseanalysisfrompositivistscientific
positions.Butthisobjectivityisonlysoinappearancebecausewhendiscourseisconsidered
exclusivelyasanobjectofstudy,theanalystisnoteliminated,buthidden.Indeed,behind
theseemingobjectivityoftextualanalyses,thereisatleastasubjectwhoreadsthetexts,
selectstherelevantelementsandestablishesthepertinentrelationsorsignificances.Textual
analysiscanthereforebeviewedasalevelofdiscourseanalysisinwhichthesubjectanalyst
isshieldedbehindstandardisedmethods,allowingherorhimtogounnoticed.Ontheother
hand,whileitistruethatdiscourseshaveanobjectivedimension,theyarenotonlyobjects.
Fromasociologicalstandpoint,therefore,thestudyoftheobjectivedimensionofdiscourseis
solelyonephaseorlevelofanalysis.Discoursenotonlyembedsmeaningbutalsoproduces
it.Itisanactandaproductaswellasanobject:forthisreasonthefirstlevelof"objective"
analysisisclearlyinsufficient.Inthisregard,theconfusionbetweentextanddiscoursecan
onlybeexplainedasanattempttoapproachtextualanalysisinatotalizingmanner.[13]
Veryfewdiscoursesofinteresttosociologistsappearinatextualforminanimmediate
manner.Onlydocumentsandpublications(books,journalsornewspapers)containprimary
textualizeddiscourse.Thusthefirststepthatisnormallytakenintextualanalysisisto
translatethediscourseintoatextualform.Thistranslationofnontextualdiscoursetoa
textualformconstitutesthefirstphaseoftextualanalysisandshouldthereforebedone
accordingtorigorouscriteriaandprocedures.Todoso,twoproceduresareused:
description,whichisappliedtononverbaldiscourse,andtranscription,whichisappliedto
spokendiscourse.Thefundamentalcriterionfortranslationofbothsortsisthatitbedonein
aliteralanddetailedmannersoastorecoverallthenuancesofthediscourseinthebest
possiblemanner.Itisimportanttoemphasizethatthetranslationofdiscourseintoatextual
formisnotonlyimportantforthefirstlevelofanalysis,butisalsofundamentalforcontextual
analysisandfortheinterpretationofdiscourse.Thus,bothdescriptionandtranscription
shouldincludealltheantecedentsandcontextualelementsofthetextthatcancontributeto
itsinterpretation.So,transcriptionshouldincludeallthenonverbalevents(momentsof
4/20
8/17/2015
RuizRuiz
silenceandtheirduration,modulations,emphasis,meaningfulgesturesandexpressions,
etc.)aswellastheverbalevents,whilstthedescriptionofadanceorritual,whichshouldbe
equallyasdetailed,shouldincludealloftheelementsofthecontextinwhichthediscourse
hasbeenconstructed.[14]
Textualanalysisinvolvescharacterizingordeterminingthecompositionandstructureofthe
discourse.Theaimoftextualanalysisisnottoprovideareducedversionofthediscoursein
ordertofacilitatestudy.Onthecontrary,textualdiscourseanalysismorecloselyresembles
anensembleapproachwherebyinformationisenlargeduponandmultipliedratherthan
reduced.Todoso,sociologistsusuallyresorttotwotechniques:contentanalysisand
semioticanalysis.Indeed,themainschoolsortrendsintextualdiscourseanalysishavebeen
foundeduponthesetwomethodsofanalysis.[15]
Forourpurposes,thesetwoapproachestoanalysisarenotintheleastincompatibleorin
oppositiontooneanother,butprovideveryvaluablematerialforthetextualcharacterization
ofdiscourse.Thechoiceofapproacheswilldependsolelyonthespecificaimsofthe
researcher.Themisuseorabuseofoneortheotherisusuallytheresultofahegemonic,if
notexclusive,methodofanalysis.[16]
Contentanalysismainlyconsistsofbreakingdownorfragmentingthetextintopertinentunits
ofinformationfortheirsubsequentcodingandcategorization.Contentanalysisisoften
consideredastrictlyinductivemethodandisevenreferredtoasaprocessoftheory
construction.However,theentireprocedureisgovernedbytheoreticallyestablished
categories:theinterestorvalueofthetext,howtobreakitdownand,mostimportantly,how
toclassifythefragmentsdependsonthetheoreticalaimsoftheresearcher.Althoughitis
truethattheinitiallyestablishedsystemofcategoriescanbeenrichedthroughtheanalysis,
thenotionthatthetextanalysesitselforsetsdowntheconditionsforanalysisisbutamere
illusion.[17]
Oncethetexthasbeenbrokendownandcoded,differentmethodsofanalysisareused5).
Originally,contentanalysiswasmarkedlyquantitativeinnatureasitcenteredonthe
manifestcontentofmessagesandwaslargelylimitedtoadescriptiveaim.Indeed,oneof
theclassicdefinitionsofcontentanalysisconsidersthemethodtobe"aresearchtechnique
fortheobjective,systematicquantitativedescriptionofthemanifestcontentof
communication"(BERELSON,1952,p.18).Thisquantitativebasedorientationhas
accompaniedcontentanalysistothepresentday,albeitthemultivariateanalysismethods
usedhavebecomeincreasinglysophisticated(multiplecorrespondenceanalysis,factor
analysis,etc.).[18]
Differenttypesofcontentanalysiscanbeuseddependingontheobjectivespursuedbythe
researcherorthecharacteristicsofthetextstobeanalyzed(e.g.,theanalysisof
spontaneousdiscoursesuchasnewspaperheadlines).Onetypeofcontentanalysisthatis
especiallyinterestingfordiscourseproducedinthecontextofsociologicalresearch(induced
discourse)isthematicanalysis.Thistypeofanalysiscentersonthethemesortopicsaround
whichthediscourseisdeveloped.Theselectionofpertinenttopics,theorderinwhichthey
appear,thetimededicatedtoeach,therelationshipsbetweenthedifferenttopicsorhow
theyemerge(inaspontaneousorsuggestedway)areveryimportantquestionstobearin
mindwhencharacterizingdiscourse.[19]
Inthe1960s,however,scholarsbegantopointtotheneedforqualitativeapproachesto
contentanalysis.Oneofthemostimportantcontributionsinthisregardiswhatisknownas
groundedtheory.OriginallydevelopedbyGLASERandSTRAUSS6),thebasicaimofthese
qualitativeapproacheshasbeentorecoverthelatentmeaningofdiscourseincontent
analysis.Thus,inadditiontowhatdiscoursessay(manifestcontent),itisalsonecessaryto
accountforwhatissuggestedbythemorevenwhatishiddeninthem7).Moreover,the
constantcomparativemethod(CCM)derivedfromgroundedtheoryemphasizestheneedfor
contentanalysistopaygreaterattentiontothetextualstructure(analysisofsemantic
networks,hierarchicaltrees,intensityanalysis,etc.)8).Thuswecanspeakofagrowing
interestinthetextualstructurewithincontentanalysisandwithindiscourseanalysisin
general9).[20]
Today,computerapplicationsusedindiscourseanalysishavelargelyfacilitatedthistypeof
analysis,leadingtogreaterprecisionandrefinement.Whiletheusefulnessofthese
computerapplicationschieflystemsfromthefactthattheyadaptwelltocontentanalysis,
5/20
8/17/2015
RuizRuiz
theyarealsousefulforstoringdataand,ingeneral,formakinginformationmore
manageableadvantagesthatareparticularlyimportantwhendealingwithalargeamountof
information.Butinadditiontotheseunquestionableadvantages,theuseofcomputer
applicationsforcontentanalysisalsohasitsshortcomings.Perhapsthemostimportantof
theseisthattheygiverisetoamechanizednotionofanalysisbywhichanalysisfollowsits
ownlogicwithouttheinterventionofthesubject/researcher.Thisideaofan"agentless"
analysisprovestobeveryappealingtothoseinterestedinastrictlyobjectiveanalysis.Inour
opinion,however,theuseofcomputerprogramsdoesnoteliminatetheneedforthe
subject/researcherbutitdoesservetoconcealtheresearcherasanagentintheanalysis
processbeyondtheroleofprogramexecutor.Althoughthisdoesnoteliminatethenecessary
interventionofthesubject/researcher,itpreventsthisinterventionfrombeingquestioned,
thuspermittinggreatermaneuverability.Objectivity,however,canonlybeachievedbytaking
intoaccounttheinterventionofthesubject,thusmakingtheinterventionexplicitandsubject
tocriticism.Forthisreason,themechanizationoftheresearchtaskmustnotbeusedasan
analyticalshortcut,asitalonedoesnotensureobjectivity.[21]
Contentanalysistakesmeaningforgrantedasitisbasedontheassumptionthatthereisa
communityofmeaningorsetofsharedmeanings(language)whichdeterminethemeaning
ofthediscourseinanimmediateandproblemfreemanner.Incontrast,semioticanalysis
doesnotnegatetheimportanceofthesesharedmeanings,butproblematizesthem:the
meaningofdiscourseisnotdeterminedbylanguageoratleastnotinanabsoluteand
definitivemanner.Thereisnotahierarchicalorprogrammedrelationshipbetweenlanguage
andspeech(discourse),butratheramutuallydetermineddialecticalrelationshipinsofaras
discoursesuselanguage(sharedmeanings)asameansofexpression,butindoingsothey
alsomodifyorrenewit.[22]
Withinthefieldofsemioticanalysisitisalsopossibletodistinguishbetweentwobroadtypes
ortrends:structuralsemioticanalysisandformalsemioticanalysis.Structuralsemiotic
analysisattemptstorevealhiddenlinguisticcodesinordertodiscoveranddescribetheir
internallogic,whichisunderstoodasagenerativematrixthat"reproduces"thetext10).This
typeofstructuraldiscourseanalysiswaslargelydevelopedandgainedwidespread
acceptanceinthe1960sand1970s.However,sincetheendofthepastcentury,the
structuralanalysisoftextshasbeenwidelycriticizedandquestioned.Oneofthe
fundamentalcriticismsofthisapproachhastodowiththefactthatitviewsthetextual
structureofdiscoursesasbeingautonomousfromandexternaltothesubjectsthatproduce
them.Indeed,someofthebasicassumptionsofstructuraltextanalysisareclearlyabusive
andconsidertextualstructuresinatotalizingmannerapositionwhichisthenimposedupon
thediscursivepracticesofthesubjects.Accordingtotheseextremepositions,subjects
merelyupdatepreexistingdiscursivestructureswhicharereproducedoutsideoftheir
discursiveactivity11).However,thisdoesnotminimizetheinterestandusefulnessof
structuralanalysisforsociologicaldiscourseanalysis,provideditisconsideredbutanother
tooltobeusedintextualanalysisanddoesnotsupplantthesociologicalinterpretationof
discourse,whichaccordingtoourapproach,occursatadifferentlevel.Inotherwords,the
structuralsemioticanalysisoftextsisaveryusefultoolforsociologistswhenitisnotusedin
atotalizingmanner,thatis,providedthatitisrestrictedtothetextuallevelanddoesnotlead
tosociologicallyunwarrantedinterpretations.[23]
Certainpoststructuralistapproachesdo,however,meritstrongercriticisminsofarasthey
constituteanihilistreversalofstructuralismandtherejectionofboththetextuallogicand
truereferencesofdiscourse,thuseschewingtheexistenceofsocialstructures(ALONSO,
1988).Forsociologicalanalysis,deconstructionthemethodpreferredbypoststructuralists
islittlemorethanagameofsignifiersagameofintraandintertextualdifferencesthatmay
belotsoffuntoplay,butcontributelittletotheanalysis.Theycontributelittletosociological
discourseanalysisbecausedeconstructionattemptstodemonstratethatdiscourseisnot
transcendentanaimthatiscontrarytothatpursuedbysociologists,thatis,toprovide
evidenceforanddemonstratetheconnectionsbetweensocialdiscoursesandthesocial
realityinwhichtheyareproducedandinwhichtheycirculate.[24]
Formalsemioticanalysis,ontheotherhand,centersitsattentionontheeffectsofthe
meaningofdiscourseattheenunciationlevel.Itisthereforeafirststepforconsideringthe
contextinwhichthediscourseisproducedandinwhichitacts.Inthetext,formisas
significantascontentintermsofproducingmeaning.Theformalanalysisofatextinvolves
accountingfortherhetoricalfiguresitcontains:thetypesofdeixisused(I,you,us,here,
there,tomorrow),verbtensesandmodalstoindicatedoubt,requestsorcertainty,among
6/20
8/17/2015
RuizRuiz
others.Aswewillseebelow,thedifferencebetweencontextualanalysisandformalsemiotic
analysisliesinthefactthatinthelattertheserhetoricalelements"ratherthanreferringtoa
realenunciation,givesomeindicationaboutthetypeofcommunicationestablished,they
definetheframeworkofcommunication"(LOZANO&PEAMARN,1988,pp.295296).
Otherrelevantquestionsintermsoftheformoftextsaretheuseoflexis,rhetoricaldevices
(metaphorsandmetonymy)andsyntacticformsastheyaremechanismsforproducing,
constrainingorliberatingmeaning.[25]
Yetatextualanalysisthatmakesuseofalloftheaboveprocedures(contentanalysis,
structuralsemioticsandformalsemiotics)wouldinvolveenormouseffort,particularlyifthe
analysisisconductedinanexhaustivemannerandthenumberoftextstobeanalyzedis
large.Moresoifwebearinmindthattextualanalysisisonlythefirststepalbeitavery
importantoneintheprocessofsociologicaldiscourseanalysisproposedhere.Forthis
reason,itisrareforanalyststouseeachandeveryoneoftheavailablemethods.Indeed,
giventhattextualanalysisisthefirststageofsociologicalanalysis,analystsnormallyprefer
touseonlyoneoftheproceduresandsolelyresorttotheothersinapartialmannertogain
deeperinsightintoaspecificaspectofthetext.Althoughafullarrayoftoolsareavailable,it
isuptotheanalysttoselectandusethemdependingonhisparticularresearchobjectives,
theresourcesavailabletohim(particularlywithregardtotime)orevenhisownpreferences
ortheoreticalorientations.Ingeneral,however,itisadvisabletouseseveralmethodsof
textualanalysis,albeitaswehavesaid,toadifferingdegree.Byusingadiversityof
methods,theanalystwillbeabletogainabroaderperspectiveandcontrastavarietyof
elements,thusenrichingtheanalysis.[26]
3.2Contextualanalysis:Discourseasasingularevent
Thesecondlevelofsociologicaldiscourseanalysiscentersoncontext.Contextis
understoodasthespaceinwhichthediscoursehasemergedandinwhichitacquires
meaning.Onthislevel,discourseisunderstoodasasingulareventproducedbysubjects
whoareimmersedinaspecifictimeandplacewithinagivensymbolicuniverseandwho
havetheirowndiscursiveintentions.Accordingly,itispossibletomakeadistinctionbetween
twotypesofcontexts:situationalcontextsandintertextualcontexts,givingriseinturntotwo
typesofanalysis:situationalanalysisandintertextualanalysis12).[27]
Situationaldiscourseanalysisrequiresadetaileddescriptionofthecircumstancesinwhich
thediscoursehasbeenproducedandthecharacteristicsofthesubjectsthatproduceit.For
example,withregardtoinduceddiscourse(discourseproducedinthecontextofsocial
research),ifthediscourseisindividualorcollective,ifapriorrelationshiphasexisted
betweenthesubjectsresearchedorbetweenthemandtheresearcher,theavailable
resources(time,discursivecapacityanddiscretion)andeventhecomfortandhabitabilityof
thespaceare,amongothers,relevantquestionsforunderstandingthelocalmeaningofthe
discourse.[28]
Atthispoint,theanalysiscentersonthemorepragmaticaspectsofthediscourse.Thebasic
assumptionisthatdiscoursehasanintentionaldimensionandtheanalystmusttherefore
inquireastowhythediscoursehasbeenproducedandforwhataim.Situationalanalysis
thusgoesbeyondameredescriptionofdiscoursetoprovideaninitialexplanationatamicro
sociologicallevel.Situationalanalysisrequireshavingsufficientinformationandanadequate
understandingofthecircumstancesinwhichthediscourseisproduced,butalso,andmore
importantly,itfocusesontheinteractionsanddialogicalprocessesinvolvedinitsproduction.
Whilewhoproducedit,underwhatcircumstancesandwithwhatpurposearerelevant
questionsforunderstandingthelocalmeaningofdiscourse,itisalsoessentialtodetermine
howitwasproduced,thatis,whatsocialprocessesplayedaroleinproducingit.Asregards
induceddiscourse,oneofthemostimportantquestionstobeanalyzedistheroleofthe
researcherandespeciallytherelationshipbetweentheresearcherandthesubjector
subjectsinvolved.Duetothecomplexnatureofsituationaldiscourseanalysis,thesociologist
mustresorttodifferentprocedures,amongthemtheanalysisofdiscoursepositions,frame
analysisandconversationanalysis.[29]
Theanalysisofdiscoursepositionsisafirststeptolinkingspecificdiscourseswiththesocial
spaceinwhichtheyhaveemergedandisthereforeaninitialapproachtothesociological
interpretationofdiscourse.Discoursepositionsareunderstoodastypical,sociallydefined
discursiverolesthatsubjectsadoptintheirconcretediscursivepractices.Butcontextual
analysisisnotasinterestedinthemoreorlessgeneralizednatureofthesepositionsasitis
7/20
8/17/2015
RuizRuiz
inthediscursivestrategiesadoptedbysubjects13).Whenunderstoodassuch,discourse
positionspermitresearcherstoreconstructcommunicativeinteractionsthroughwhichthe
discoursehasbeenproducedandinthiswaygainabetterunderstandingoftheirmeaning
fromtheviewpointofthesubjectsthattakepartinthem.[30]
Frameanalysis,ontheotherhand,isaveryusefulprocedureforsituationaldiscourse
analysis.ItisaformofanalysisdrawnfromGOFFMAN(1986),whoadoptedtheconceptof
frameoriginallyformulatedbyBATESONinordertoextenduponandintegratethenotionsof
faade,performance,frontstage/backstage,roleandroledistance(HERRERA&SORIANO,
2004).Frameanalysisholdsthatthelocalnormsgoverningeverydayinteractionsmustbe
accountedforinordertounderstandandexplainsocialaction.Understandingdiscourseasa
productofcommunicativeinteractionthereforerequiresaccountingforthenormsthatgovern
theconcretesituationsinwhichdiscourseisproduced.Thesenormsareverydiverseand
bothexplicitandimplicit,rangingfromformalcodesofconducttoconventionsthatare
sharedtosomedegreebythoseengaginginthecommunication.[31]
Thegeneralframeworkofthecommunicativeexchangeinwhichdiscourseisinducedina
socialresearchsettingthroughinterviewsorgroupdiscussionsisestablishedbyexplicit
normssetdownbytheresearcherandacceptedbythesubjects14).Nonetheless,the
acceptanceoftheseintervieworgroupdynamicsisoftenlimited.Subjectsmayunderstand
whatisaskedoftheminanimpreciseanderroneousmanner,theymayopenlyquestionthe
researcher'sauthorityortheymayproposeothernormsdependingontheirownparticular
interestsordefinitionofthesituation15).Theseconsiderationsregardingthedialogicnatureof
discourseproduction,whichmayoccurtoalesserorgreaterdegreedependingonthe
circumstancesinwhichdiscourseisproduced16),opensituationalanalysistothepossibilityof
negotiatingthemeaningofthesituationitself.Inotherwords,theimplicitandexplicitnorms
thatgovernthecommunicativeeventinwhichdiscourseisproducedareinsufficientfor
characterizingthesituationinwhichsuchanexchangehasoccurred.Hence,theyarealso
insufficientforunderstandingthemeaningthatthediscoursehasforthesubjectsinvolved.
Thepossibilityofnegotiatingthesituationandthenormsthatgovernit(and,inabroader
sense,theverymeaningofthediscourse)meansthatwemustturntoconversational
analysis.Aswesaidabove,thisisthethirdprocedureusedtoanalyzethesituationalcontext
ofdiscourse.[32]
Conversationanalysisviewseverydaycommunicativeeventsasaprocessofnegotiating
meaning.Whatisnegotiatedisthemeaningofthecommunicativesituationitselfandwithit,
themeaningofthediscoursethatisproduced.Thistypeofanalysisfocusesonthe
pragmaticcomponentoflanguage:throughlanguagesubjectsnotonlysaythings,butalso
dothings.Andoneofthemostimportantthingsthatsubjectsdowithlanguageistodefine
thesituationsinwhichtheyareimmersed.Thisnegotiationofthemeaningofasituationisof
crucialimportanceforunderstandingdiscourseasitpermitsustodeterminehowthose
involvedinterpretthecommunicationanditsproduct.Conversationalanalysisproblematizes
aquestionthatisevidentinoureverydaylives:whatdospeakerswanttosaywhenthey
communicatewithus.Negotiatingthemeaningofthesituationsweengageininour
everydaylivesisaprocessthatgoespracticallyunnoticed.Onlywhenthereisserious
disagreementastothemeaningofasituationdoweuseexplicitmechanismstorepairit(for
example,byaskingfororofferingexplanations)orwechoosetoputanendtothe
communication.However,whensociologistsanalyzediscoursetheyshouldnottakefor
grantedtheprocessesofcommunicativealignmentthatoccursamongspeakers.Ontheone
hand,theseprocesseshaveaveryimportantsubstantivevalueforouranalysis,inthatthey
enableustodeterminewhatisbeing"talked"aboutwhileontheother,theyareanelement
ofthecommunicativesituationthatisfundamentaltoourunderstandingofwhatthesubjects
wanttosay17).[33]
Beingattentivetothediscursiverolesadoptedbyspeakers(theanalysisofdiscourse
positions),theimplicitandexplicitnormsthatgovernthecommunicativeeventsinwhich
discourseisproduced(frameanalysis)andtheprocessesofnegotiationinadiscursive
situation(conversationanalysis),enablesustocharacterizethesituationalcontextofthe
discourseandthusgaindeeperinsightintowhatitmeansforthesubjectsthatproduceit.
Butthecontextofdiscourseisnotonlysituationalitisalso,aswesaidbefore,intertextual.
Alldiscourseisembeddedinasymbolicandculturaluniverseinwhichitacquiresmeaning.
Thusintertextualanalysispermitsustounderstanddiscoursebyreferringtoallofthe
discoursesthatcirculateinthesocialspace.[34]
8/20
8/17/2015
RuizRuiz
Twoformsofintertextualanalysesareespeciallyinterestingforsociologistswhoanalyze
discourse.ThefirstofthesewasoriginallyputforwardbyNormanFAIRCLOUGH(1995).
Thisapproachconsistsofseekingthepresenceoffeaturesfromotherdiscoursesinthe
discoursetobeanalyzed.Thisconceptofintertextualityisbuiltonthenotionthatsubjects
resorttodiscoursescirculatinginthesocialspaceinordertoproducetheirowndiscourse.
Discursiveactivitythusunderstoodisequivalenttoselectingandcombiningelementsfrom
otherdiscourses.Intertextuality,whichisunderstoodasadiscursivebricolage,led
FAIRCLOUGHtointerpretdiscourseasasymptomofideologicaldomination:subjectsare
reducedtobeingmerereproducersofdominantdiscourses18).Aninterpretationofthistype
clearlylimitstheinterestthatthisapproachholdsforsociologicaldiscourseanalysis.Of
greaterinterestistheconceptofintertextualityproposedbyFOUCAULT(1973).Ratherthan
identifyingexternaldiscourses,thismethodisbasedoncomparativeanalysis:themeaning
ofdiscourseemergesinreferencetootherdiscourseswithwhichitengagesindialogue,be
itinanexplicitorimplicitmanner.Theanalystmustask"eachfragmentofananalyzed
discourseaboutitspresuppositions,whichotherdiscoursesitdialogueswithandthuswith
whichotherdiscourseordiscoursesithasanassociativeorconflictiverelationship"
(ALONSO&CALLEJO,1999,p.49).Thevalueofdiscoursethereforestemsfromits
similaritiesanddifferenceswithrespecttootherdiscourses.[35]
Thecontextualanalysisdescribedhereisundoubtedlyofenormousinterestinitself.As
highlightedabove,thistypeofanalysisoftenattemptstoprovideanexplanationforthe
communicativeprocessesthatoccurineverydayinteractions,thusofferingscientificinsight
intooneofthemostimportantprocesseswhich,fromamicrosociologicalview,governs
sociallife.However,fromthestandpointofsociologicalanalysis,interestincontextual
analysisismerelyinstrumental.Thecontextuallevelofanalysispermitsustounderstandthe
meaningthatdiscoursehasforthosewhoengageinitandthereforecentersonhowthe
subjectsinvolvedinterpretthesocialsituationsinwhichthediscoursesemergeandinthe
discursivespheresinwhichtheyareprojected.Sociologicaldiscourseanalysismustaccount
forthesubjects'interpretationsoftheevent.Thatis,itisnecessarytounderstandthe
meaningthatthediscourseholdsforthem,butonlytoformulateone'sowninterpretationan
interpretationwhichmustbecompatiblewiththoseinterpretationsbutisnotdirectlyderivable
fromthem.[36]
3.3Sociologicalanalysis:Discourseasinformation,ideologyandasocial
product
Atthefinallevelofsociologicalanalysis,discourserequiresinterpretation.Yetwhile
interpretationconstitutesathirdlevelofsociologicaldiscourseanalysis,itisalsopresent
throughouttheanalyticalprocess,thatis,inthetwopriorlevels.Theestablishment,for
example,ofasystemofcategoriesforcontentanalysisorthetextualstructureofthe
discoursealreadyinvolvesacertainprocessofinterpretation.Asstatedabove,thisisso
becausealthoughinterpretationisthefinallevelofanalysis,andassuchtheculminationof
thesociologicalanalysis,analysisisconductedinaconstantandbidirectionalmanner
amongthesethreelevels.[37]
Thesociologicalinterpretationofdiscourseinvolvesmakingconnectionsbetweenthe
discoursesanalyzedandthesocialspaceinwhichtheyhaveemerged.Theselinksor
connectionscanbeverydiversedependingontheanalyst'sowntheoreticalorientation.In
practice,however,sociologicalinterpretationsofdiscoursearelimitedtothreetypes:those
whichconsiderdiscourseassocialinformation,thosewhichconsiderdiscourseasa
reflectionoftheideologiesofthesubjectswhoengageinit,andthosewhichconsider
discourseasasocialproduct.Yetthesethreetypesofinterpretationsarenotmutually
exclusive.Indeed,analystsoftenuseacombinationoftwoorevenallthreeformsof
interpretation.[38]
Afirsttypeofsociologicalinterpretationfocusesontheinformativedimensionofdiscourse.
Themerefactthatsubjectsareinvolvedin,andhavecontactwith,thesocialrealityunder
investigationmeansthattheyarefamiliarwithandknowledgeableaboutit.Discourses
containthisknowledgeofsocialrealityhencetheanalysisshouldproviderelevant
informationaboutit.Thistypeofinterpretationattemptstoexplaindiscourseintermsofthe
socialcompetenceofsubjectsasinformants,namelytheirknowledgeofthereality,their
expositorycapacity,etc.[39]
Thequalityofinformationaboutthesocialrealitythatiscontainedindiscoursevaries
9/20
8/17/2015
RuizRuiz
accordingtothelevelofknowledgethateachindividualhasaboutthissocialreality.Butthis
qualityislimitedsincetheinformationthatsubjectshaveaboutsocialrealityispartialina
twofoldway.Firstbecauseitreferstoalimitedparcelofthisrealitytheparcelsubjectsare
incontactwithandtheirdegreeofcontactdependingonthepositiontheyoccupywithinthe
socialstructure.However,thislimitationcanbeovercomebyresortingtoarangeof
informantswhocanofferaglobalvisionoftherealitythatisofinteresttous.Butthe
informationthatsubjectsprovideaboutthissocialrealityisalsopartialinsofarasitisfiltered
bytheirownparticularpointofview.Inadditiontotheinformativecomponent,discourses
includeanideologicalcomponent.Toputitanotherway,discoursescontainknowledge
aboutthesocialreality,butthisrealityisperceivedfromtheviewpointofthesubjectsthat
engageinthem.Nonetheless,analystscangetaroundthislimitation,oratleastmitigateit,
byabstractingintheinterpretationalloftheaspectsofthediscoursethatareattributableto
thesubjectivepositionoftheinformants.[40]
Inspiteoftheselimitations,itiscommonpracticetointerpretdiscourseasinformationanda
veryusefuloneforthepurposeofsociologicalanalysis.Indeed,thistypeofinterpretationis
prevalentinanalysesbasedonthegroundedtheoryapproachortheanalysisofexpert
discoursesinappliedresearch.Thereasonforthiswidespreadinterestintheinformative
interpretationofdiscoursecanbesoughtinitsusefulnesssince,inpractice,socialdiscourse
analysisprovidesuswithvalidandrelevantinformationaboutthesocialreality.Inthe
followingsectionwewillreturntothisimportantquestionwhendiscussinginductiveinference
asthelogicuponwhichthesetypesofinterpretationarebased.[41]
Incontrast,theideologicalpartialityofdiscourse,whichisalimitationtoitsinformative
interpretation,isthebasisforinterpretingdiscourseasideology19).Whatisofinteresttothe
analystinthistypeofinterpretationisthesubject'sparticularviewpoint.Thisviewpointisnot
consideredtobeasubjectivistbiasofthediscoursebutanindicationofideological
constructs,whichareunderstoodasintersubjectivemodesofperceivingtheworldand
findingone'splaceinitaprocesscommontosubjectsimmersedinconcretesocialand
historicalcontexts.Thistypeofideologicalinterpretationisacharacteristicfeatureofcritical
discourseanalysis(CDA),whichaimstodemonstratehowsocialdiscoursesare
impregnatedbydominantdiscoursesprojectedfromsourcesofpower(VANDIJK,1999).
Discourseisthereforeunderstoodtomirrormechanismsofideologicaldomination.But
discoursecanalsobeconsideredapotentialmechanismofliberation.Discourseinthiscase
isproducedbythecriticalanalystwhorevealsormanifeststhesemechanismsofideological
dominationinanattempttoovercomeoreliminatethem.[42]
CDAhasgrownoutofapproachesmoreakintopsychologyorsocialpsychologythan
sociology,althoughthisdoesnotmeanthatitislackingininterestforsociological
interpretation.Indeed,thepresenceofdiversementalconstructssuchassharedpatternsof
understandingandinterpretation,interpretativerepertoires(POTTER&WETHERELL,1987)
ormentalrepresentationscanbederivedfromdiscourseanalysis.Inanexplicitmanner,
BILLIG(1991)referstothesementalconstructsasideologies.Thistypeofinterpretation
placesemphasisonthecognitivestructuresinvolvedindiscoursewherethesestructuresare
understoodassharedpatternsofmeaningorcommonwaysofperceivingreality.
Nonetheless,thesociologicalinterestofCDAislimitedinthatitconsidersthepragmatic
effectsofdiscourseinrelationtotheimmediatesocialcontext,butdoesnotlinkittothe
broadersocialcontext.[43]
TheideologicalinterpretationofdiscourseisalsocharacteristicofPierreBOURDIEU's
analysisofwhathetermslinguisticmarkets(BOURDIEU,1991).AccordingtoBOURDIEU,
discoursereflectsthehabitusofthesubjectwhoproducesit.Inthissense,habitusis
understoodasthediscursivecompetenceofthesubject,whichderivesfrombelongingtoa
givensocialgroupandfromthesocialexperiencethatisconditionedbythisbelonging.
Socialdiscourseswillnotonlyvary,inthesensethattheywilldependonthesocialposition
oftheindividualwhoengagesinthem,buttheywillalsohaveadifferentsocialvalue.This
ledBOURDIEUtospeakoflinguisticmarketsasmechanismsthatestablishandmaintainthe
unequalvalueofdifferentsocialdiscourses.Thediversityofsocialdiscoursesistherefore
consideredareflectionofsocialinequalityandaculturalmechanismofdominationora
meanstopreservethesesocialinequalities(ALONSO,2002).[44]
Athirdtypeofsociologicalinterpretationconsidersdiscourseasasocialproduct.Every
productreflectsthesocialconditionsunderwhichithasbeenproduced.Byanalyzingthe
product,fundamentalaspectsoflifeandthesocialstructurearerevealedtousinanindirect
10/20
8/17/2015
RuizRuiz
manner.Ifthisissoforanyproduct,itshouldholdevenmoresofordiscourseinthat
discourseisaproductthatcarriesaheavysymbolicload.Thekeyquestionsforthistypeof
interpretationare:Whyhavecertaindiscoursesbeenproduced(andnotothers)?What
socialconditionshaveallowedcertaindiscoursestoemergeandnotothers?Thistypeof
interpretationinvolvestakingalargersteporbreakingawayfromdiscourseinthatit
establishesaconnectionwiththewidersocialcontext.[45]
Theinterpretationofdiscourseasasocialproductispresenttoagreaterorlesserdegreein
practicallyallsociologicaldiscourseanalyses.InthesphereofSpanishsociology,the
interpretationofdiscourseasasocialproductisasalientfeatureoftheclassicapproaches
ofJesusIBEZ(1979,1985)orthemorerecentapproachesofFernandoCONDE(2002,
2007).ItisalsocharacteristicofFoucaultianAnalysis,althoughthisparticularapproachis
usuallycombinedwithanideologicalinterpretation.
"ThestartingpointoftheFOUCAULTiananalysisofstatementsisthusthediversityofall
statementswhosepositivityisinneedofinvestigation.Thepointhereistoanalysethehistorical
conditionsoftheactualexistenceofstatements.(...)Firstheaskswhichobjectorareaof
knowledgeisdiscursivelyproducedsecond,heasksaccordingtowhatlogicistheterminology
constructedthird,heaskswhoauthorizeditandfinally,heaskswhichstrategicgoalsarebeing
pursuedinthediscourse"(DazBoneetal.,2007,p.5).[46]
Unquestionably,interpretationistheaspectofsociologicaldiscourseanalysisthathas
arousedgreatestsuspicion.Thisisbecauseinterpretationrequiresmovingbeyondthe
specificdiscoursebeinganalyzed.Butalthoughaleapmustbemadewheninterpreting
discourse,itisnotaleapinthedark.Ontheonehand,itisgroundedintextualand
contextualanalyses:theinformationaboutthediscourseproducedinthetwopreviouslevels
providesastrongfootholdfortheinterpretativeleap.Ontheotherhand,althoughanalysts
haveplentyofroomtomanoeuvreinsociologicaldiscourseanalysis,theiranalysesare
conductedaccordingtoastrictscientificlogicwhichwillbediscussedinfurtherdetailbelow.
Typeof
analysis
Viewof
discourse
Levelof
analysis
Methodsor
proceduresof
Objectives
analysis
Textual
Asobject
analysis
Utterance
Contentanalysis
Characterization
level
Semioticanalysis
ofdiscourse
(structuralandformal)
Contextual
Assingular
Enunciation frameanalysis,
Understanding
analysis
event
level
discourse
analysisofdiscourse
positions,
conversationanalysis,
intertextualanalysis
Sociological
As
interpretation information,
ideologyand
Sociallevel Inductiveinference,
abductiveinference
(Sociological)
explanationof
discourse
socialproduct
Table1:Summaryofthelevelsandproceduresofanalysis.[47]
4.TheLogicofSociologicalDiscourseInterpretation
Thesociologicalinterpretationofdiscourseisbasedonalogicthatisuncommonoratleast
differentfromthelogicfollowedinthemajorityofscientificinferences.Onoccasion,thishas
ledtotheviewthattheinterpretationsarepoorlyfoundedorevenarbitrary.Withaviewto
correctingthesemisunderstandingsandmisconceptions,wewilldiscussthelogicorlogics
usedinthisresearchpracticespecificallyinductivelogic,abductivelogicoracombinationof
both.[48]
Attimessociologicalinterpretationsofdiscoursearepresentedintheformofinductive
inferencesinsofarastheyaregeneralizationsbasedonobservations20).These
generalizations,however,havesomepeculiarcharacteristicsinthecaseofsociological
discourseinterpretation,particularlywithregardtothenumberofcasesanalystsworkwith.
Althoughalargenumberofcasesallowinductionstobeverifiedwithagreaterdegreeof
certainty,sociologicalinterpretationofdiscoursedoesnotrequirealargenumberofcasesto
makeinductiveinferences.Infact,itispossibletomakeinductiveinferenceswithasmall
numberofdiscoursesinthatsocietyisacomplexsystem.Thedifferentelementsofsuch
11/20
8/17/2015
RuizRuiz
systemsarenotisolatedfromoneanother,butareintertwinedwithotherelementsofthe
systeminsuchamannerthattheinformationtheypossessaboutitisdirectlyderivedfrom
thepositiontheyoccupywithinthesystem.Hencetheinformationoneindividualprovidesis
interchangeablewiththeinformationprovidedbyanyotherindividualinthesameorasimilar
socialposition.Itisthereforesufficienttoexamineasmallsampleofdiscoursesproducedby
subjectswhooccupypositionsthataresignificanttotheresearchinquiry21).[49]
Thepeculiarformadoptedbyinductioninthesociologicalinterpretationofdiscoursehas
importantconsequencesintermsofhowunexpectedorunforeseencasesaredealtwith.
ContrarytowhatPOPPER(1965)claims,whentheevidencedoesnotfitintothetheory,we
mustnotnecessarilyabandonorrefutethetheory.Instead,unforeseeableresultsshould
leadustomodifyandprogressivelyrefineourtheoriestoexplainthesenewfindings.Thus,
newdiscoveriesdonotalwaysquestionthevalidityofwhatisalreadyknown,butenableus
toenlargeuponourknowledge.[50]
Whileunexpectedorunforeseeableresultsdonotalwaysleadustorefutethetheoretical
frameworkuponwhichourpredictionsarebased,onoccasiontheydo.Whenunexpected
resultscannotbereincorporatedbyextendingthetheory,wemustabandonitandseeka
newtheorythatservestoexplainthediversityofwhatisreal22).Thissearchforanewtheory
bringsustothesecondlogicbasedapproachtosociologicaldiscourseinterpretation:
abduction.Althoughinterpretationbyinductionisaveryfrequentandfruitfulpractice,
interpretationbyabductionisthemajorcontributionofsociologicaldiscourseanalysis
(ALONSO,1998).Abductioncanbedefinedasaninferenceinwhichtheconclusionisa
hypothesis.ThetermwasoriginallydefinedbyPEIRCE,whoheldthat:
"acceptingtheconclusionthatanexplanationisneededwhenfactscontrarytowhatweshould
expectemerge,itfollowsthattheexplanationmustbesuchapropositionaswouldleadtothe
predictionoftheobservedfacts,eitherasnecessaryconsequencesoratleastasveryprobable
underthecircumstances.Ahypothesis,then,hastobeadopted,whichislikelyinitself,and
rendersthefactslikely.Thisstepofadoptingahypothesisasbeingsuggestedbythefacts,is
whatIcallabduction"(PEIRCE,1901,p.202)23).[51]
Clearly,thisisaweakformofinference.Thisweakness,however,isnotaproblemfor
PEIRCE,whoneverquestionedthelogicalnatureofabductiveinference24).Indeed,oneof
PEIRCE'smaincontributionswastodemonstratethatreasoningisnotlimitedsolelyto
deduction,butalsoinvolvesinductionandabduction(DEBROCK,1998).Moreover,
abductiveinferenceisofspecialimportancetoscientificmethodinthatitistheonlyprocess
bywhichnewideascanbeintroducedinscienceandisthereforethelogicalbasisof
scientificcreativity.Henceabduction,aswellasdeductionandinduction,areprocessesof
inferenceorreasoningthatconstitutethreeinterdependentstatesofscientificresearch.
Scientificresearchstartsfromabductivelyinferredhypotheses,isfollowedbydeductively
inferredimplicationsofthosehypothesesandconcludeswiththeinductivelyinferred
empiricalverificationofthoseimplications.Whileinduction(anddeduction)respondstoa
logicofscientificverification,abductionrespondstoalogicofscientificdiscovery
(HOFFMAN,1998)25).[52]
Thisweaknessisnot,however,themainproblemofabductiveinference.Therealproblem
liesinhowtoformulateanabduction.PEIRCEwasnotespeciallyclearonthispointwhenhe
referredtoa"flashofunderstanding"orwhenattributingabductivecapacitytoanadaptive
instinct:abductionemergesfromaneed(theneedtoexplainsurprisingorunexpectedfacts)
anddependsonacapacitydevelopedbyhumanbeings,particularlyscientists.Yetmaking
theformulationofabductionsdependonaninstinctwouldseemtocontradicttheverynature
oflogicalinference.However,asPEIRCEdidnotbelieveaformalprocedurewasnecessary
toformulateabductions,hedidnotconsiderthisquestionaproblem.Infact,laterattemptsto
formalizeabductionhavenotobtainedverypromisingresults.Theformalizationofscientific
creativityisnotonlydifficultandevencounterproductive,butinPEIRCE'sopinion,is
unnecessaryasitdoesnotcompromisethelogicalnatureofscience.[53]
AlthoughPEIRCEdoesnotestablishprocedurestoformulateabductions,hedoessetdown
criteriatodistinguishbetweenagoodandabadabductionasortofpragmaticguidefortheir
formulation.Specifically,heprovidesthreecriteria:theneedforabductiontoproposetruly
"new"ideasorexplanations,theneedtoderiveempiricallycontrastablepredictionsfromthe
hypothesesandtheneedforthehypothesestofitinwithorgiveanadequateaccountofthe
socialandhistoricalcontextinwhichtheyemerge.Thefirstoftheseconditionscautionsus
againstfalseabductions,thatis,thosewhich,inthestrictsense,areaveileddeductionin
12/20
8/17/2015
RuizRuiz
thattheyarebasedonananalogyofproperties(DEBROCK,1998).Thesecondcondition
focusesontheroleofabductionwithintheprocessofscientificresearch:forabductiontobe
adrivingforceofscientificresearch,itmustpermitderivationthroughthedeductionof
empiricallycontrastablepredictions(SANTAELLA,1998).Finally,thethirdconditionalludes
toscientificintersubjectivityasacriterionthatpermitsthesetofpossibleabductionstobe
established(HOFFMAN,1998).[54]
Becausesociologicalinterpretationsofdiscourseadoptthelogicalformofanabduction,they
provideanexplanationofthediscourseasanindicationorsymptomofbroadersocial
phenomena.Inthissense,abductionisakintodetectivereasoninginthatdetectives
interpretcluesthatpermitthecourseofeventstobereconstructed(ALONSO,1998).
Abductionalsoresemblesadoctor'sprocessofreasoningwhenmakinginferencesaboutthe
presenceofillnessbasedonsymptoms26).Abductionhasasitsfunctiontoreturnrationality
totheworldwhenthisrationalityhasbeenlostorquestionedduetothepresenceof
surprisingorunexpectedfacts.Butbydoingso,italsocontributestoourknowledgeofthe
worldbyrevealingandmanifestingaspectsofthatworldthatwerenotpreviouslytakeninto
consideration.Surpriseisnottheconsequenceofdefectiveoranomalousscientificpractice,
butisinsteadthebasisofscientificdiscovery.Qualitativemethodologyprovidesthe
conditionsfortheunexpectedtoemergeindiscourseinsofarasitisanopenandflexible
methodologythatencouragesthemanifestationofwhatisimplicitandthatwhichmust
emerge.Thesociologicalinterpretationofdiscourse,inthatitisanapplicationofabductive
logic,thereforeprovidesuswithtoolstodealwiththeunexpectedinascientificmanner.[55]
5.AnalysisinPractice:AnExample
Inpractice,thesociologicalanalysisofdiscourseisconductedsimultaneouslyonthethree
levelsdescribedabove(textual,contextualandinterpretive)inanongoingcircularprocess
betweeneachofthelevelsuntiltheresearchobjectiveisachieved.Inordertobetterexplain
thisanalyticalprocess,inthissectionanexampleispresentedaswellasasummaryof
someaspectsoftheanalysisofatextfragment27).Nonetheless,itshouldbenotedthat
sociologicalanalysisonlyfocusesontextfragmentsatanadvancedstageoftheoverall
analysis.Inafirstinstance,thesociologistundertakesacompletereadingoftheliteral
transcriptionsandmakesnotesabouttheanalysiswithaviewtounderstandingthemeaning
ofthediscourseasawhole.Afterthisthoroughandcompletereadingofthetranscription,
thetextisbrokendowninalogicalmanneraccordingtotheresearcher'sunderstandingof
thetextsandcontextsaswellashisorherresearchobjectives.[56]
Thefragmentoftextpresentedinthissectionistakenfromthetranscriptionofadiscussion
groupwithmanualworkerswhoworkincooperativesinatownonthecoastofAlmeria,
Spain28).Althoughtheinitialtopicproposedwas"immigration,"thediscussionprogressively
focusedonquestionsofparticularinteresttotheresearchaim.Thediscussiongroupslasted
betweenapproximately70100minutes.Thegroupfromwhichthefragmentisdrawnlasted
78minutes.Theselectedfragmentcomesfromacentralpartoftheencounter,whichtook
placearound35minutesafterthediscussionhadbegun.
W1:I...,mybeautician...,she...,Moorishwomen29)haveeyebrowsuptohere,don'tthey?And
moustachesdowntohere.Buttheyhavetoshavetheirtwats.(laughter)
W2:Theirhusbandsmakethemdoit.
W3:Yeah,it'strue.
W2:Theirhusbandsmakethemdoit.Haveitshaved.
W4:Really?
W2:Yeah.
W1:Haveitshaved.See,theyreallyareracist,huh?See,theyreallyareracist.Theycan'tpluck
theireyebrowsbuttheyhavetoshavetheirtwats.Andyouhavetogoandeatitwithhairs!
(Laughter)[57]
Fourwomenofthegrouptakepartinthisfragment.Oneofthem(W1)playsacentralrole,
commentingonthesupposedaestheticandhygieniccustomsofMoroccanwomen,whothey
refertoaslasmoras.Theothersactasachorus,twoofwhomagreewiththecomments
madebythefirst(W2andW3)andathird(W4)whoshowssurpriseatthecustoms.Yetthe
13/20
8/17/2015
RuizRuiz
commentmadebythelastwomansupportstheargumentofthefirst,sincebyexpressing
hersurprisesheisreaffirmingtheoddnatureofthecustomsthatthewomenarespeaking
about.Oneofthemostsignificantfeaturesofthediscussiongroupfromwhichthisfragment
hasbeendrawnisthespontaneousandpracticallyimmediateunanimityoftheparticipants
duringtheencounter,thusindicatingamonolithicdiscoursewithoutfissuresinwhichdissent
ordisagreementdonotoccurandwidespreadconsensusisreachedamongtheparticipants
ontheproposedtopic(immigrationandimmigrants).Thegeneraltoneoftheconversationis
arelaxedoneinwhichfunismadeofimmigrantsofMoroccanorigin.Thelaughterattheend
ofthisfragmentindicatesthattheparticipantsfindthecustomsofMoorishwomenstrange
andfunny,aswellindicatingthegeneralagreementamongthegroupregardingthis
comment.[58]
ThefragmentwascodedasacriticismofMoroccanimmigrants,withapejorativeorinsulting
overtone.However,aclosereadingofthefragmentleadsustocodeatwofoldcriticism:on
theonehandthewomencriticizethesupposedchauvinismofMoorishmen,whileonthe
othertheyalsoimplicitlycriticizethesupposedsubmissivenessofMoorishwomen.This
argumentstemsfromthefactthattheparticipantsinterpretthehygienicandaesthetic
customsofMoorishwomenasbeingimposedbytheirhusbandsorpartners.Theyare,
therefore,derogatorycommentsdirectedspecificallyatMuslimimmigrants.[59]
Thecriticismofimmigrantscanbeinterpretedasasignofrejection(racismand/or
xenophobia).Thisrejectionisparticularlyevidentinthepejorativemannerinwhichthe
membersofthegroupunanimouslyrefertotheimmigrants.Moreover,thederogatory
commentsexpressedbythisgroupcanbeinterpretedasasignofrejectionnotonlybythe
socialspherewherethisgroupwasformed(asmalltownonthecoastofAlmeria),butalso
bythesocialgrouptowhichtheybelong(lowskilled,middleagedworkerswithalow
educationallevel).[60]
Inthemajorityofthediscussiongroupsthatwereconducted,participantsdirectedmuchof
theircriticismtowardsimmigrants.Onlytwooutofallthediscussiongroupsmadeno
pejorativecomments,althoughveiledcriticismsweremadeinallofthemtoalesseror
greaterdegree.Inthegroupfromwhichtheabovefragmentwasdrawn,46derogatory
commentsweremadeaboutimmigrants,ofwhich35referredspecificallytoMuslim
immigrants.Thisgreaterfrequencyofpejorativereferencesisdue,inpart,tothegroup
dynamicsproposedbythemoderator,whoprogressivelyfocusedthetopicofconversation
towardsMuslimimmigrants.Consequently,25minutesafterthediscussionhadbegun,the
conversationcenteredalmostexclusivelyonMuslimimmigrants.Forthatreason,thisisone
ofthediscussiongroupsinwhichagreaternumberofpejorativecommentstowards
immigrantsweremadeingeneralandtowardsMuslimsinparticular,althoughmanynegative
commentswerealsomadeintwoothergroups.[61]
Aswehavesaid,thefragmentwascodedinatwofoldmannerasacriticalderogatory
allusiontowardsMuslimimmigrantsregardingtheiraestheticandhygieniccustoms:the
supposedchauvinismofthemenandthesupposedsubmissivenessofthewomen.
However,adetailedreadingrevealstheexistenceofathirdcriticismofMuslimimmigrants,
namelytheirsupposedracism.Indeed,inherlastintervention,W1referstotheracismof
Moorishmen("See,theyreallyareracist"),inwhatappearstobeaconfusion:itseemsthat
whatshereallymeanttosaywas"sexist,"sincethiswouldbethetermthatcorrespondsto
herargumentandwhatsheactuallysaysbearsnorelationto"racism."Thisconfusionmay
havearisenduetoametonymictransferofthemeaning:"racism"and"sexism"belongtothe
samecategoryofattitudesthatarecondemnedorlookeddownuponsocially.[62]
However,therearecontextualelementsthatleadustosuspectthattheconfusionisnotdue
toamatterofproximity,butrathertoaconceptualstretching:inrealityshewantedtosay
"racist,"althoughthislabeldoesnotcorrespondtohercriticismoftheaestheticcustomsof
Moorishwomen.Therearecontextualreasonsforthinkingthatthismetonymicdisplacement
isnottheresultofconfusion,butratheranargumentalstrategyinsofarasthespeakeris
interestedindemonstratingtheracismofMuslimimmigrants.[63]
Firstly,wemustbearinmindthedefensiveattitudetakenbythegroupregardingthetopic
proposedbythemoderator.Initially,thegroup'sdiscoursedevelopedalongverymoderate
lines,withonlyafewgeneralcriticismsbeingmadeaboutthegrowingnumberofimmigrants
comingtoSpaininrecentyears.Butasthediscussionprogressed,thediscoursetooka
moreradicalturnwithanincreasinglylargernumberofderogatoryorinsultingcomments,as
14/20
8/17/2015
RuizRuiz
thefragmentshows.Thedefensiveattitudeshownbytheparticipantsislikelyduetotheway
theyinterpretedtheencounterandtheproposedtopicofdiscussion.Inotherwords,they
perceivedthefactofbeingbroughttogethertospeakaboutimmigrationasanimplicit
accusationofracism.Indeed,thewidelyreportedracistoutbreakthatoccurredintheyear
2000inanearbytown(aneventthattheparticipantsexplicitlyrefertoattheendofthe
discussion)isanotherfactorthatheightenedtheirdistrustorsensitivitytowardsthetopicas
theresidentsintheareafeelthattheyhavebeenblamedfortheoutbreak.[64]
Becausetheparticipantsperceivethattheyarebeingaccusedofracisminaveiledmanner,
thegroupinitiallyusesastrategytoconcealtheiropinions(bymoderatingthem).However,
asthediscussionprogresses,rejectionofimmigrantsingeneral,andimmigrantsofMuslim
origininparticular,becomesincreasinglyevident.Thus,thegroup'sdiscourseconverses
with(orrespondsto)thedominantdiscourseinsocietycondemningracism(intertextuality).
Althoughthishasnotbeenexplicitlyproposed,itisimplicitlyassociatedtothepurposeofthe
encounterandtothequestionposedbythemoderator.[65]
Followingthisinitialstrategyofconcealment,thediscoursedriftstowardsacounter
argument.Nolongerdotheparticipantsattempttonegatetheirrejectionofimmigrants,but
toexplainorjustifyit.Thustheargumentturnsintooneofinversionthroughexaggeration:
thetermsareinvertedbyexaggeratingandgeneralizingsupposedconcretecases.For
example,theparticipantsstatethattheSpanisharediscriminatedagainstcomparedto
immigrantsintermsofaccesstopublicresources.Accordingtothem,notonlyare
immigrantsnotdiscriminatedagainst,buttheyaregrantedspecialprivilegesintermsof
publicservices.Anotherexampleofthistypeofargumentthataroseinthemajorityofthe
discussiongroupsistheaffirmationthatimmigrantsaremoreracistthanweare'.Toa
certaindegree,thissupposedlygreaterracismwouldexcuseandjustifyours.Itisprecisely
thissecondargumentthatarisesinresponsetotheaccusationofracismwherereferencesto
theracismofMuslimsisanalyzedintermsofconceptualstretching.Giventheparticipant's
interestindemonstratingsuchracismandthedifficultiesinvolvedinprovidingproofofit,her
argumentsbecomeincreasinglystronger.Itisnotthatshemeanttosay"sexist"andoutof
confusionsaidracist.Whatshereallymeanttosaywasracist,eventhoughtherewasno
directrelationshipbetweenracismandhercriticism:themeaningismetonymicallydisplaced
tomakeitcoherentwiththeargumenttheparticipantwishestomake,evenifthismeansthat
theargumentisunfoundedandlargelyincomprehensible.Thefragmentanalyzedshowsthe
difficultiesthegroupencounterswhenattemptingtodefendthesupposedracismofMuslim
immigrants,butitalsoshowshow,inspiteofthesedifficulties,thegroupdevelopsdiscourse
strategiestosustaintheirargument.Inshort,theanalyzedfragmentcontainsthreecriticisms
ofMuslimimmigrants:thesupposedsexismofthemen,thesupposedsubmissivenessofthe
womenandthesupposedracismofboth.[66]
Theanalysispresentedherepermitsustomakethreeinterpretiveconjectures.These
conjecturesarenotputforwardsomuchasempiricalevidence(tocontrastwiththe
hypothesis),butasindicatorsofunderlyingrealitiesandsocialprocessesthatexplainthe
discoursesstudied(toformulatethehypothesis).Theseconjecturesarerevisedand
contrastedintheprocessofanalysis,thatis,incomparisonwithothertextualfragmentsand
aspartofthefullanalysisofthetranscriptions.Specifically,wehighlightfourinterpretive
conjecturesoftheanalysisofthistextualfragment:
1. Theexistenceofracistandxenophobicattitudesinthesocialsphereofthediscussion
group(atownonthecoastofAlmeria)andamongthesocialgrouptowhichthe
participantsbelong,(lowskilled,middleagedworkerswithaloweducationallevel).
2. Theseattitudesmayconstituteadefensivestrategyagainsttheincreasing
competitivenessinthesocialsphereandjobmarketduetothegrowingnumberof
immigrants:bydenigrating"theother,"theparticipantsbecomestronger,atleast
symbolically.
3. Theexistenceofintensesocialpressureagainstracistand/orxenophobicattitudes.
4. Theresistancebythosewhoholdthesebeliefstodesistinorchangethem,including
inconsistentdiscoursestrategies,thusmaintainingtherejectionof"theother"inspiteof
evidenceorpersonalexperiencestothecontrary.[67]
6.Discussion
15/20
8/17/2015
RuizRuiz
Twoquestionswereposedintheintroduction.Firstly,beyondtheirapparentdiversity,what
elementsdothedifferentapproachestosociologicaldiscourseanalysisshare,andsecondly,
whatdifferentiatesthissociologicalapproachfromotheranalyticalapproaches?Inthis
article,wearguethattheelementstheseapproacheshaveincommonarepreciselywhat
differentiatethemfromotherapproaches,namely:a)theireclecticcharacter,inthattheyare
allstructuredaroundmethodsofadiverseoriginandanalyticalnatureandb)thetypeof
interpretationtheypropose,thatis,thelinkingofdiscoursewithbroadersocialrealities.[68]
Whilediverseformsoftextualandcontextualanalysisareapartofsociologicaldiscourse
analysis,theyarenotinthemselvessociologicalanalysessincewhatdistinguishesthese
fromotherapproachestodiscourseisthetypeofinterpretationtheypropose.Sociologists
frequentlyresorttodifferentproceduresfortextualandcontextualanalysis.Accordingtothe
approachweproposehere,however,theseareonlyintermediatestagesorphasesof
analysisaimedatprovidinganinterpretationthatconnectstheanalyzeddiscourseswiththe
socialcontextinwhichtheyhaveemergedandcirculate.[69]
Onoccasion,exclusivelytextualorcontextualanalysesarepresentedassociological
discourseanalyses.Inthiscase,thesociologicalinterpretationofdiscourseisimplicitly
derivedinadirectorimmediatemannerfromthetextualorcontextualanalysispresented.
Theformulationofthistypeofinterpretationdoesnotdiffersubstantiallyfromthesociological
analysisproposedhere.Theproblemliesinthefactthatwhenthejumptointerpretationis
madeinanimplicitway,criticismisimpededor,isatleastmadedifficult.Moreover,
sociologicaldiscourseanalysisisbasedonacombinationofbothtextualandcontextual
techniquesandproceduresofanalysisinordertoimprovethereliabilityofthe
interpretations.Forthisreason,sociologicalinterpretationsofdiscoursethatareformulated
onthebasisofasingleprocedureofanalysisareriskyatbest30).[70]
Thevalidityofsociologicaldiscourseinterpretationsderivesfromacriterionof
intersubjectivity:oncethematerialsofanalysishavebeenexamined,theinterpretation
shouldbeconsideredvalidbyanyonewhoevaluatesitinacriticalmanner.Onlyifthis
requisiteofintersubjectivityisfulfilledwilldiscourseanalysisachieveitsobjective,thatis,to
furtherourunderstandingandknowledgeofsocialphenomena.Itisforthisreasonthat
interpretationmustbeformulatedinanexplicitmanner.Forthissamereasonitisalso
importanttoexplainthelogiconwhichtheseinterpretationsarebasedsincetheyare
uncommon,littleknownandoftenrecognizedasproblematic.[71]
Acknowledgments
Thisarticleexploresthetheoreticalcriteriaandpresuppositionsofdiscourseanalysisbased
ontheauthor'sownresearchexperienceattheQualitativeUnitoftheInstituteforAdvanced
SocialStudies(IESA/CSIC).Thispaperhasbeenmadepossiblethankstothework
conductedbytheauthorinconjunctionwithhiscolleaguesngelRAMREZ,JosAntonio
CERRILLOandLusRODRGUEZMORCILLO.TheauthorisalsogratefultoFernando
AGUIAR,whosevaluablecommentsandcriticismshavecontributedgreatlytoimprovingthe
paper.
TheauthorisgratefultoMarthaGAUSTADforhertranslationfromSpanishintoEnglishof
thispaper.
Notes
1)ThisdiversityofwhatisunderstoodbysociologicaldiscourseanalysisisreflectedinpaperspublishedbyFQSinrecent
years.Forexample,articlesandbookreviewsaboutqualitativecontentanalysis(SPANNAGEL,GLSERZIKUDA&
SCHROEDER,2005MAYRING,2000FAUX,2000),automaticdiscourseanalysis(HELSLOOT&HAK,2007),grounded
theory(MERLINO&MARTNEZ,2006KELLE,2005),Foucaultiandiscourseanalysis(DAZBONE,2005ROMN,2007
AMIGOT,2007),criticaldiscourseanalysis(KENDAL,2007DIRKS,2006),conversationalanalysis(ASHMORE&REED,
2000HAVE,2006BERKENBUSCH,2009),orinterpretativevisualanalysis(SCHNETTLER&RAAB,2008)haveall
featuredinFQS.Furthermore,FQShasevenpublishedanarticlededicatedtopositioninganalysisasortofmiddle
groundpositionbetweencriticaldiscourseanalysisandconversationanalysis(KOROBOV,2001).Accordingtothe
approachdefendedhere,farfrombeingaproblem,thisdiversityrevealsthewealthandpossibilitiesofdiscourseanalysis
forsociology.<back>
2)Itisnotdifficulttofindexamplesofsociologicaldiscourseanalyseswhichlackinrigor,areinsufficientlygroundedor
evenclearlyinaccurate.Inthissense,aninterestingreviewandcritiqueofthesenonrigorousanalyticalpracticescanbe
foundinANTAKI,BILLIG,EDWARDSandPOTTER(2003).However,itwouldseemunjustifiedtoextendthiscriticismto
themajorityofdiscourseanalysesconductedbysociologistsorevenasignificantportionofthem.<back>
3)Forexample,RolandBARTHES'analysesoneatingasadiscourseareclassics.Foracriticalreviewoftheseanalyses
seeALONSO(2005).<back>
4)ThistieredapproachtosociologicaldiscourseanalysisissimilartothatproposedbyALONSO(1998).Nonetheless,
16/20
8/17/2015
RuizRuiz
thereareimportantdifferencesbetweenthetwoapproaches.Ontheonehand,thefirsttwolevelsproposedbyALONSO
theinformationalandthestructurallevelareenglobedinourapproachataninitialtextuallevel.Ontheotherhand,we
refertoasecondcontextuallevelwhichALONSOincludesinhisthirdlevel,thestrictlysociologicalorinterpretivelevel.In
spiteofthis,thetwoapproacheshavemoresimilaritiesthandifferencesintwoways:bothconsidertheinformationaland
thestructurallevelsofanalysistobeinsufficientormerelycomplementarytothesociologicalanalysisandbothconsider
sociologicalinterpretationasadistinctiveorspecificelementofthissociologicalanalysis.<back>
5)ForamoreindepthreviewofthemethodsofcontentanalysisseeNAVARROandDAZ(1994)andANDREU(2002).
<back>
6)ThemainprinciplesandproceduresofGroundedTheorycanbefoundinGLASERandSTRAUSS(1967).GLASER
(1992)providesareviewandupdatedversionofgroundedtheory.SeealsoVALLES(2000)andANDREU,GARCA
NIETOandPREZCORBACHO(2007).<back>
7)Althoughthetermstextualandliteralmay,onoccasion,beusedinterchangeably,thelatentmeaningsofdiscourse
revealafundamentaldifference:textscan,andinfactusuallydo,includemeaningswhicharedifferentorevencontraryto
theirliteralform.<back>
8)Theattentionpaidtothetextualstructuremeansthatgreaterconsiderationisgiventothecontextinwhichthetextual
"fragments"arefound.Whenspeakingofcontextinthissense,werefertotherelationshipsbetweenthedifferent
elementsofthetextwhenconsideringthetextasawhole.Thisistheintratextualcontext(utterancelevel),whileother
"contexts"areconsideredatotherlevelsofanalysis.Hereweconsidertheintertextualandthesituationalcontextata
secondcontextuallevel(enunciationlevel),whilethebroadersocialcontextisconsideredatathird,strictlysociological
levelofanalysis(levelofsociologicalinterpretation).<back>
9)ForareviewoftheapplicationsofnetworktheorytotextualdiscourseanalysisseeLOZARES,VERD,MARTand
LPEZ(2003).TheoryofArgumentationisofspecialinteresttosociologicalanalysis(ANSCOMBRE&DUCROT,1994).
PracticalapplicationsofthistheorycanbefoundinMART(2006).<back>
10)Variousmethodsorproceduresareusedtoconductstructuralsemioticanalysis,themajorityofwhicharedrawnfrom
linguistics,inparticular,structurallinguistics.Aspeciallyinterestingoverviewoftechniquesforsemioticsanalysiscanbe
foundinABRIL(1994).<back>
11)ForareviewofthemaincriticismsofstructuralsemioticanalysisseeALONSOandCALLEJO(1999).<back>
12)Wecanalsospeakofanintratextualcontextasthelargestunitofthetextofwhichanelementofthattextformspart.
Nonetheless,textualanalysisaccountsforthiscontext.Forthisreasonwehavereferredtoitabovewhendiscussingthe
contributionofqualitativeapproachestocontentanalysisinrelationtotheneedtocontextualizetheanalysis.<back>
13)Theanalysisofdiscoursepositionsalsosuffersfromcertainlimitationsthatchieflyaffecttheanalysisofcollectiveor
groupdiscourses.Theanalysisofthediscoursepositionsheldbysubjectswithinadiscussiongroupcannotbe
understoodastheatomizationofdiscoursestofacilitateanalysis.Forexample,wecannotspeakofafemalediscourse
withinmixedgroupdiscussions.Tocapturefemalediscourseonagiventopicwemusthavediscussiongroupsthatare
differentiatedbysexinordertoobtaindifferentdiscoursesandcomparethem.Toputitanotherway,thediscourse
positionadoptedbywomenonagiventopicinamixeddiscussiongroupdiffersfromthefemalediscourseonthissame
topic.<back>
14)Interviewsordiscussiongroupscanbeunderstoodassituationsofcommunicativeexchangethatareregulatedor
definedbythesocialresearcher.<back>
15)Ifthisistrueforformalsituationsestablishedintheframeworkofsocialresearch,itisevenmoresoforinformal
situationsinwhichsubjectsproducediscourseonaneverydaybasis.<back>
16)Thedialogicnatureofdiscoursesituationsbecomesclearerandstrongerwhencommunicativefeedbackispossible
amongthesubjectsinvolved.Thisisthecase,forexample,offacetofaceconversations.Nonetheless,itisa
characteristicofallthesituationsinwhichdiscourseisproduced,includingmonologues,opinionarticlesorinthe
discourseofadvertisingallofwhichareproducedundersituationsinwhichthediscoursewouldseemtorespondsolely
tothediscretionalwillofthesender.Thedialogicnatureofthesituationiscommontoalldiscursiveproductionwiththe
exceptionperhapsofindividualswithseriouspsychiatricproblems.<back>
17)Aninterestingandthoroughreviewoftheproceduresandprinciplesofconversationanalysiscanbefoundin
GALLARDOPALS(1996).AlsoseeANTAKIandDAZ(2003),LEVINSON(2004)andTUSN(1997).<back>
18)InthefollowingsectionwewillreturntotheideologicalinterpretationofdiscoursethatischaracteristicofCritical
DiscourseAnalysis(CDA),ofwhichFAIRCLOUGHisaprincipalfounder.<back>
19)Foraninterestingreflectionupontherelationshipbetweenknowledge,ideologyanddiscourseseeVANDIJK(2005).
<back>
20)Inthestrictsense,inductioninvolvesverifyingthepredictionsthathavebeenderiveddeductivelyfromthetheory.
However,thisinductioncumgeneralization"weinducewhenwegeneralizefromanumberofcasesthatsomethingis
true,inferringthatthesameistrueforalltheclass"(SANTAELLA,1998,p.6)doesnotdiffersubstantiallyfromthe
verificationofatheoreticalprediction.Indeed,generalizationsareformulatedbasedonourpriortheoreticalconceptions,
whichdirectourinteresttowardsspecificinformationinthediscourse.Inthissense,theyarelittlemorethanthe
provisionalacceptanceofatheoreticalpremiseprovidedthatthereisnoempiricalevidencetothecontrary.<back>
21)Thischaracteristicofsocialdiscoursesamplesand,ingeneral,ofqualitativesocialresearchhasbeendealtwithina
veryclarifyingmannerbySACKS(2000)throughananalogywiththestudyofgrammar:byanalyzinghowanindividual
useslanguage,wecanknowinaverybroadandcertainmannerthegrammaticalrulesofthatlanguage.Itisnotsomuch
aquestionofaccumulatingempiricalevidence,butofdetectingindividualswhoduetotheirparticularuseoflanguage
canpresentvariationsonthegrammaticalrulesthattheyuseintheirspeech.<back>
22)Wecanthereforespeakoftwotypesofunexpectedorunforeseeableresultsinsociologicaldiscourseanalysis:those
thatbroadenourknowledgeofthesocialrealityandthosethatmodifyourvieworconceptofit,thatis,ourtheoriesabout
whatisreal.<back>
23)IntheseventhandlastofhislecturesgivenatHarvardon14May1903,PEIRCEformulatedaprocessforabductive
inferenceinthefollowingterms"Theformofinference,therefore,isthis:Thesurprisingfact,C,isobservedButifAwere
true,Cwouldbeamatterofcourse,HencethereisreasontosuspectthatAistrue(PEIRCE,1903,p.189).<back>
24)AsPIERCEexplainedatthissamelecture,
"Itmustberememberedthatabduction,althoughitisverylittlehamperedbylogicalrules,neverthelessislogical
inference,assertingitsconclusiononlyproblematicallyorconjecturally,itistrue,butneverthelesshavinga
perfectlydefinitelogicalform.(...)Onlyindeductionthatthereisnodifferencebetweenavalidargumentanda
17/20
8/17/2015
RuizRuiz
strongone.(...)Anargumentisnonethelesslogicalforbeingweak,provideditdoesnotpretendtoastrengththatit
doesnotpossess(PEIRCE,1903,p.192).
Thesuspicionsarousedbysociologicaldiscourseinterpretationcanbeunderstoodasaconsequenceofthisjumpto
abductiveinterpretation:sociologicalinterpretationsays"somethingmore"than,orgoes"beyond"thecontentsofthe
discourse,butforthisreasonitdoessoinaweakmannerasahypothesisorconjecture.<back>
25)However,inductioninsociologicaldiscourseanalysisalsorespondsmoretoalogicofdiscoverythanalogicof
verification.<back>
26)Thetypeofreasoninginwhichfactsareinterpretedassymptomshasrecentlybecomeverypopularthankstothe
televisionseriesHouse,whichdealswithcasesoccurringinahospitalunitspecializedindifficultdiagnoses.Thesecases
containalltheingredientsofabduction:asurprisingfactintheformofanillnessthatisdifficulttodiagnose,the
"interpretive"leaptowardsdiagnosesbasedonthepatients'symptomsandtheverificationorempiricaltestingof
diagnosesformulatedinanabductiveorhypotheticalmannerthroughavarietyofmedicaltests.Thisisagoodexampleof
abductivethoughtintheformoftentativereasoningwhich,operatingthroughaseriesofattempts,orientsandrequiresthe
continualempiricalverificationandprogressiverefinementoftheformulatedhypothesesuntilaplausibleexplanationfor
thesurprisingfactisfound.<back>
27)Forreadersinterestedinmoreindepthexamplesofsociologicaldiscourseanalysis,seethepublicationsofCONDE
(1999,2002,2007).<back>
28)ThisisoneofelevengroupsthatparticipatedinastudyconductedbytheIESACSICundercommissionoftheState
SecretariatforImmigrationandEmigrationonperceptionsandattitudesaboutIslamandMuslimsinSpain.Thefieldwork
wasconductedfromDecember2007toJanuary2008,whiletheanalysisandreportswerecompletedfromFebruaryto
Mayofthissameyear.<back>
29)IntheoriginaltextinSpanish,theparticipantsrefertoMoroccanmenandwomenaslosmorosandlasmoras,
respectively.ThisisaderogatorytermusedinSpanishtorefertoMuslimsofNorthAfricanorigin.Herewewillusethe
term"Moorishmen"or"Moorishwomen"giventhatitcarriessimilarnegativeconnotations.<back>
30)Inthisregard,thecaseofframeanalysisisillustrativesinceitisverycommontoderiveideologicalinterpretationsfrom
situationalcommunicativeframeworks,thatis,toderivethepresenceofideologiesheldbythesubjectsinvolved.Thereis
nothingwrongwiththistypeofanalysis,providedthattheprocessofinterpretationisclearlyexplainedandjustified.
<back>
References
Abril,Gonzalo(1994).Anlisissemiticodeldiscurso.InJuanManuelDelgado&JuanGutirrez(Eds.),Mtodosy
tcnicascualitativasdeinvestigacinencienciassociales(pp.427464).Madrid:Sntesis.
Alonso,LusEnrique(1988).Entreelpragmatismoyelpansemiologismo.Notassobrelosusos(yabusos)delenfoque
cualitativoensociologa.RevistaEspaoladeInvestigacionesSociolgicas,43,157170.
Alonso,LusEnrique(1998).Lamiradacualitativaensociologa.Barcelona:Fundamentos.
Alonso,LusEnrique(2002).LosmercadoslingsticosoelmuyparticularanlisissociolgicodelosdiscursosdePierre
Bourdieu.RevistadeEstudiosdeSociolingstica,3(1),111132.
Alonso,LusEnrique(2005).Mitologasalimentariascotidianas:unarelecturadeRolandBarthes.RevistaInternacional
deSociologa,40,79107
Alonso,LusEnrique&Callejo,Javier(1999).Elanlisisdeldiscurso:delpostmodernismoalasrazonesprcticas.
RevistaEspaoladeInvestigacionesSociolgicas,88,3774.
AmigotLeache,Patricia(2007).Msalldeldiscurso:Anlisisgenealgicodeunprocesodetransformacin
intersubjetivadegnero.ForumQualitativeSozialforschung/Forum:QualitativeSocialResearch,8(2),Art.9,http://nbn
resolving.de/urn:nbn:de:0114fqs070295[Dateofaccess:29.03.09].
Andreu,Jaime(2002).Lastcnicasdeanlisisdecontenido:unarevisinactualizada.Sevilla:FundacinCentrode
EstudiosAndaluces.
Andreu,JaimeGarcaNieto,Antonio&PrezCorbacho,AnaMara(2007).Evolucindelateorafundamentadacomo
tcnicadeanlisiscualitativo.Madrid:CIS.
Anscombre,JeanClaude&Ducrot,Oswald(1994).Laargumentacinenlalengua.Madrid:Gredos.
Antaki,Charles&Daz,Flix(2003).Elanlisisdelaconversacinyelestudiodelainteraccinsocial.InLupicinio
iguez(Ed.),Anlisisdeldiscurso:manualparalascienciassociales(pp.125140).Barcelona:UOC.
Antaki,CharlesBillig,MichaelEdwards,Derek&Potter,Jonathan(2003).Elanlisisdediscursoimplicaanalizar:crtica
deseisatajosanalticos.AtheneaDigital,3,http://antalya.uab.es/athenea/num3/antaki.pdf[Dateofaccess:17.01.09].
Ashmore,Malcolm&Reed,Darren(2000).Innocenceandnostalgiainconversationanalysis:Thedynamicrelationsof
tapeandtranscript.ForumQualitativeSozialforschung/Forum:QualitativeSocialResearch,1(3),Art.3,http://nbn
Berelson,Bernard(1952).Contentanalysisincommunicationresearch.Glencoe:FreePress.
Berkenbusch,Gabriele(2009).Elanlisisconversacionalcomomtodoparalainvestigacindelaprendizaje
interculturalresumendeunproyectoextracurricularcombinandoaprendizajeeinvestigacin.ForumQualitative
Sozialforschung/Forum:QualitativeSocialResearch,10(1),Art.33,http://nbnresolving.de/urn:nbn:de:0114fqs0901335
[Dateofaccess:29.03.09].
Billig,Michael(1991).Ideologyandopinions.London:Sage.
Bourdieu,Pierre(1991).Elsentidoprctico.Madrid:Taurus.
Conde,Fernando(1999).Loshijosdeladesregulacin.Jvenes,usosyabusosenlosconsumosdedrogas.Madrid:
CREFATCruzRoja.
Conde,Fernando(2002).Lamiradadelospadres:Crisisytransformacindelosmodelosdeeducacindelajuventud.
Madrid:CREFATCruzRoja.
Conde,Fernando(2007).Metropolizacin,territorioyviviendaenAndaluca.Culturaseidentidadesurbanas.Sevilla:
ConsejeradeObrasPblicasyTransportes.
Debrock,Guy(1998).Elingeniosoenigmadelaabduccin.Analoga:RevistadeFilosofa,InvestigacinyDifusin,
18/20
8/17/2015
RuizRuiz
XII(1),http://www.unav.es/gep/AN/Debrock.html[Dateofaccess:23.01.09].
DazBone,RainerBhrmann,AndreaD.GutirrezRodrguez,EncarnacinSchneider,WernerKendall,Gavin&
Tirado,Francisco(2007).ElcampodelanlisisdeldiscursoFoucaultiano.Caractersticas,desarrollosyperspectivas.
ForumQualitativeSozialforschung/Forum:QualitativeSocialResearch,8(2),Art.30,http://nbn
Dirks,Una(2006).Howcriticaldiscourseanalysisfacesthechallengeofinterpretiveexplanationsfromamicroand
macrotheoreticalperspective.Reviewessay:GilbertWeiss&RuthWodak(Eds.)(2003).Criticaldiscourseanalysis.
Theoryandinterdisciplinarity.ForumQualitativeSozialforschung/Forum:QualitativeSocialResearch,7(2),Art.26,
http://nbnresolving.de/urn:nbn:de:0114fqs0602261[Dateofaccess:29.03.09].
Fairclough,Norman(1995).Criticaldiscourseanalysis.Harlow:LongmanGroupUKLtd.
Faux,Robert(2000).Adescriptionoftheusesofcontentanalysesandinterviewsineducational/psychologicalresearch.
Foucault,Michel(1973).Elordendeldiscurso.Barcelona:Tusquets.
GallardoPauls,Beatriz(1996).Anlisisconversacionalypragmticadelreceptor.Valencia:Episteme.
Glaser,BarneyG.(1992).Basicsofgroundedtheoryanalysis.MillValley,CA:SociologyPress.
Glaser,BarneyG.&Strauss,AnselmL.(1967).Thediscoveryofgroundedtheory.Chicago:Aldine.
Goffman,Erving(1986).Frameanalysis:Anessayontheorganizationofexperience.Boston:NortheasternUniversity
Press.
Have,Paulten(2005).Conversationanalysisversusotherapproachestodiscourse.Reviewessay:RobinWooffitt(2005).
Conversationanalysisanddiscourseanalysis:Acomparativeandcriticalintroduction.ForumQualitativeSozialforschung
/Forum:QualitativeSocialResearch,7(2),Art.3,http://nbnresolving.de/urn:nbn:de:0114fqs060239[Dateofaccess:
29.03.09].
Helsloot,Niels&Hak,Tony(2007).Pcheux'scontributiontodiscourseanalysis.ForumQualitativeSozialforschung/
Forum:QualitativeSocialResearch,8(2),Art.1,http://nbnresolving.de/urn:nbn:de:0114fqs070218[Dateofaccess:
29.03.09].
Herrera,Manuel&Soriano,RosaMara(2004).LateoradelaaccinsocialenErvingGoffman.Papers,Revistade
Sociologa,73,5979.
Hoffmann,Michael(1998).Hayuna"lgica"delaabduccin?Analoga:RevistadeFilosofa,InvestigacinyDifusin,
XII(1),http://www.unav.es/gep/AN/Hoffmann.html[Dateofaccess:23.01.09].
Ibez,Jess(1979).MsalldelaSociologa.Elgrupodediscusin.Tcnicaycrtica.Madrid:SigloXXI.
Ibaez,Jess(1985).Anlisissociolgicodetextosodiscursos.RevistaInternacionaldeSociologa,43(1),119160.
Kelle,Udo(2005)."Emergence"vs."forcing"ofempiricaldata?Acrucialproblemof"groundedtheory"reconsidered.
Kendall,Gavin(2007).Whatiscriticaldiscourseanalysis?RuthWodakinconversationwithGavinKendall.Forum
QualitativeSozialforschung/Forum:QualitativeSocialResearch,8(2),Art.29,http://nbnresolving.de/urn:nbn:de:0114
fqs0702297[Dateofaccess:29.03.09].
Korobov,Neill(2001).Reconcilingtheorywithmethod:Fromconversationanalysisandcriticaldiscourseanalysisto
positioninganalysis.ForumQualitativeSozialforschung/Forum:QualitativeSocialResearch,2(3),Art.11,http://nbn
Levinson,StephenC.(2004).Significadospresumibles:lateoradelaimplicaturaconversacionalgeneralizada.Madrid:
Gredos.
Lozano,Jorge&PeaMarn,Cristina(1988).Discurso.InRomanReyes(Ed.),Terminologacientficosocial.
Aproximacincrtica(pp.294297).Barcelona:Anthropos.
Lozares,CarlosVerd,JoanMiquelMart,Joel&Lpez,Pedro(2003).Relaciones,redesydiscurso:revisiny
propuestasentornoalanlisisreticulardedatostextuales.RevistaEspaoladeInvestigacionesSociolgicas,101,175
200.
Mart,Joel(2006).Representacindeestructurasargumentativasmedianteelanlisisderedessociales.REDES:
RevistaHispanaparaelAnlisisdeRedesSociales,10,http://revistaredes.rediris.es/pdfvol10/vol10_4.pdf[Dateof
access:12.02.09].
Mayring,Philipp(2000).Qualitativecontentanalysis.ForumQualitativeSozialforschung/Forum:QualitativeSocial
Research,1(2),Art.20,http://nbnresolving.de/urn:nbn:de:0114fqs0002204[Dateofaccess:29.03.09].
Merlino,Aldo&Martnez,Alejandra(2006).Integracindemtodoscualitativosycuantitativos:Construyendoe
interpretandoclustersapartirdelateorafundamentadayelanlisisdeldiscurso.ForumQualitativeSozialforschung/
Forum:QualitativeSocialResearch,8(1),Art.21,http://nbnresolving.de/urn:nbn:de:0114fqs0701219[Dateofaccess:
29.03.09].
Navarro,Pablo&Daz,Capitolina(1994).Anlisisdecontenido.InJuanManuelDelgado&JuanGutirrez(Eds),
Mtodosytcnicascualitativasdeinvestigacinencienciassociales(pp.177224).Madrid:Sntesis.
Peirce,CharlesS.(1901).Sobrelalgicadelaextraccindelahistoriaapartirdedocumentosantiguos,especialmente
detestimonios,http://www.unav.es/gep/LogicOfDrawingHistory.pdf[Dateofaccess:10.03.09]
Peirce,CharlesS.(1903).Pragmatismoyabduccin.LeccionesdeHarvardsobreelpragmatismo(LeccinVII),
http://www.unav.es/gep/HarvardLecturesPragmatism/HarvardLecturesPragmatism7.html[Dateofaccess:10.03.09]
Popper,KarlR.(1965).Lalgicadeldescubrimientocientfico.Madrid:Tecnos.
Potter,Jonathan&Wetherell,Margaret(1987).Discourseandsocialpsychology.Beyondattitudesandbehaviour.
London:Sage.
RomnBrugnoli,JosAntonio(2007).Loquelasmetforasobranfurtivamente:discursoysujeto.ForumQualitative
Sozialforschung/Forum:QualitativeSocialResearch,8(2),Art.12,http://nbnresolving.de/urn:nbn:de:0114fqs0702122
[Dateofaccess:29.03.09].
Sacks,Harvey(2000).Sobremuestreoysubjetividad.InFlixDaz(Ed.),Sociologasdelasituacin(pp.8594).Madrid:
19/20
8/17/2015
RuizRuiz
LaPiqueta.
Santaella,Luca(1998).Laevolucindelostrestiposdeargumento:abduccin,induccinydeduccin,
http://www.unav.es/gep/AN/Santaella.html[Dateofaccess:25.01.09]
Schnettler,Bernt&Raab,Jrgen(2008).Interpretativevisualanalysis.Developments,stateoftheartandpending
problems.ForumQualitativeSozialforschung/Forum:QualitativeSocialResearch,9(3),Art.31,http://nbn
Schutz,Alfred(1974a).Elproblemadelarealidadsocial.BuenosAires:Amorrortu.
Schutz,Alfred(1974b).Estudiossobreteorasocial.BuenosAires:Amorrortu.
Spannagel,ChristianGlserZikuda,Michaela&Schroeder,Ulrik(2005).Applicationofqualitativecontentanalysisin
userprograminteractionresearch.ForumQualitativeSozialforschung/Forum:QualitativeSocialResearch,6(2),Art.29,
http://nbnresolving.de/urn:nbn:de:0114fqs0502295,[Dateofaccess:29.03.09].
Tusn,Amparo(1997).Anlisisdelaconversacin.Barcelona:Ariel.
Valles,MiguelS.(2000).Lagroundedtheoryyelanlisiscualitativoasistidoporordenador.InManuelGarcaFerrando,
JessIbez&FranciscoAlvira(Eds.),Elanlisisdelarealidadsocial(pp.575603).Madrid:Alianza.
VanDijk,TeunA.(1999).Elanlisiscrticodeldiscurso.Anthropos:HuellasdelConocimiento,186,2336.
VanDijk,TeunA.(2005).Discurso,conocimientoeideologa.Reformulacindeviejascuestionesypropuestade
algunassolucionesnuevas.CuadernosdeInformacinyComunicacin,10,285318.
Author
JorgeRUIZRUIZisB.A.DegreeinSociologyfromtheComplutenseUniversityofMadrid(UCM)andwasawardedthe
ComplutensePrizeforResearchin1992.Hisprofessionalcareergotofftoastartin1993withthecreationofhisown
company,CaleidoscopiaInvestigacinSocialS.L.Helatercollaboratedwithseveralfirmsandinstitutionsinthefieldof
socialandmarketresearch.Since2002,JorgeRuizhasworkedattheInstituteforAdvancedSocialStudies(IESACSIC)
asatechnicianspecializedinqualitativeresearchmethods.Hisresearchinterestshavecenteredchieflyonthereality
andproblemsofyouthandtheuseanddevelopmentofqualitativemethodology.
Contact:
JorgeRuizRuiz
InstitutodeEstudiosSocialesAvanzados(IESA/CSIC)
CampoSantodelosMrtires,7
14004Crdoba,Spain
Email:jruiz@iesa.csic.es
Citation
RuizRuiz,Jorge(2009).SociologicalDiscourseAnalysis:MethodsandLogic[71paragraphs].ForumQualitative
Sozialforschung/Forum:QualitativeSocialResearch,10(2),Art.26,http://nbnresolving.de/urn:nbn:de:0114fqs0902263.
20/20

Sociological Discourse Analysis: Method and Logic

Uploaded by

Document Information

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

Sociological Discourse Analysis: Method and Logic

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

8/17/2015

You might also like