Hi, I have problems to find the correct wording. I am using a (critical) discourse analysis approach (Rainer Keller). In my analysis I distinguish statements the interviewee makes about him/her self (e.g. "I should change my behaviour.") and statements like: "We should change our behaviour". In my analysis it depends on the context (and other factors) if the latter one includes the interviewee or not. My feeling is that the terms direct/indirect statements don't really fit. It’s more about if the statement applies for the interviewee or not.
I agree with you that it depends on the situation and context, and also on the statement.
You might also consider culture..possibly in more collective cultures people use more "we".
Hi, Jakob. That's goes in the right direction. I try to explain better. I have three cases: 1.) The interviewee says: "I will do ..."; 2.) The interviewee says "We will do ..." and includes him/herself; 3.) the interviewee say "One should do ..." and excludes him/herself. For my analysis case 1. und 2. is one category; case 3. another one. I am looking for labels for (1+2) and (3) to indicate to whom the statement applies. Cases (1+2) applies to the interviewee. Case (3) does not. Depending on context in my data it is sometimes about responsibility (who is responsible for action). Sometimes it is a kind of blaming (mostly: others) for problems. Sometimes it is a clear appeal to act. I am not sure if inclusive/exclusive fits well to this. What do you think about “self-referential” (1+2) and ….(what is the opposite?) for case (3)?
I see! Self-referential sounds quite good, it smoothly captures your description. As its opposite, 'other-referential' pops up as a logical candidate. But it doesn't sound quite as well.
You might want to consider 'egophoric' versus 'alterphoric'. I have heard these terms being used before, but I'm not sure in what contexts.
'speaker-orientation' versus 'non-speaker-orientation' could also nicely set apart (1+2) from (3).
This is always an interesting aspect when conducting interviews and respondents either include themselves in the response or locate a response onto others.
You could explore the aspects as internalized and externalixed orientations. An internalized orientation takes the perspective that the area of focus 'belongs' to the individual or themselves within a social/professional group (1+2). The externalization of an aspect locates the issue onto others and dissasociates the individual (as well as their peers) from identification with it (blaming/accusing others) (3).
Just a few ideas to add to your contemplation of this aspect of the analysis.
Hello there. What about "enclosing" vs. "non-enclosing"? Or, very simply, "close" vs. "open"?
- Badges
- Science topic
- Similar topics
- Linguistics
- Philology
- Language