This week’s readings were focused on Interaction Sociolinguistics (IS) which is a field of discourse analysis that is situated at the intersection of anthropology, sociology and linguistics. At a high level Gordon (2011) defines IS this way:

Gordon, C. (2011). The sage handbook of sociolinguistics. In R. Wodak, B. Johnstone, & P. E. Kerswill (Eds.). Sage Publications.


Conversation Analysis (CA) is the study of interaction using a fine grained analysis of spoken conversations. The researcher moves between detailed examination of individual cases (specific segments of transcriptions) and a general view of a set of related cases. By collecting multiple cases the researcher can get context independence. Audio recordings are important in CA because there is a great deal of attention to not just to the words that are spoken, but also to their timing and intonation.


The readings this week focused on the Ethnography of Communication or EC. EC seeks to examine the particular cultural conditions of communication and also its general principles. EC takes as its material not just spoken or written language but also images, gestures, smell, digital, digital content and basically any cultural material that anthropologists use. In his overview of the field Carbaugh (2014) credits Gumperz & Hymes (1972) as establishing the foundation for EC. Gumperz and Hymes were both linguists and anthropologists and helped found the study of linguistic anthropologists.

Carbaugh, D. (2014). Cultures in conversation. Routledge.

Gumperz, J. J., & Hymes, D. H. (1972). Directions in sociolinguistics: The ethnography of communication. Holt, Rinehart; Winston New York.

Discourse and Pragmatics

In keeping with past semesters I’m going to try posting my written notes for class here. This is mostly peer pressure on myself to think about how I’m writing a bit more publicly. Although the reality is it’s mostly going to be lost on the Web.

Twitter Replies

It can be difficult to have a conversation in Twitter but people somehow seem to manage. You can reply to someone’s tweet, and other people can reply to your replies, which forms a conversation thread of sorts. But the display of the thread is difficult to interpret.


What the profession has deemed archival “theories” are perhaps more akin to sets of rules and procedures or belief systems (albeit with hidden ontological and epistemological viewpoints).

Trace (2010)

Trace, C. B. (2010). On or off the record? Notions of value in the archive. Currents of Archival Thinking, 47–68.

Flawed Humans

From the readings this week in Documentation and Appraisal, here is the concluding paragraph to Richard Cox’s entry for Archivists and Collecting in the Encyclopedia of Library and Information Science (Cox, 2010):

Cox, R. J. (2010). Encyclopedia of library and information sciences. In M. Bates & M. N. Maack (Eds.) (3rd ed., pp. 208–220). Taylor & Francis.