Greetings, Lesley. This question is an interesting one for scholars of discourse. Since you have neither specified your primary research and subject matter, I'll restrict my discussion to a general discussion of the varieties of discourse analysis (DA) as a method, methodology, and paradigm. I'm speaking only to my own interpretation and my own sense-making of the "whatness" of DA. At this stage in intellectual history, DA is rather like a chameleon--it appears to mean many things to many people. And what it means depends on whose version one follows. For example, in the UK and Europe, DA seems to be concerned with the questions of "who can say what to whom" of the Deleuze/Foucault stripe. To me, this seems like a version of critical theory where discourse is the material for critique. Others varieties of DA, such as the Fairclough or Wodak variety, build on PoMo theorists but also add some linguistic features in what I consider to be a more "grounded" DA. But these latter varieties seem more concerned with articulating connections between micro and macro social processes. Finally, the sociolinguistic variety of DA I think has the most potential for to address "the cognitive" (whatever you mean by that). This last variety examines naturally-occurring language in use as its main data and, as a result, can generate some interesting inferences about cognitive processes as they are situated by actual participants doing real things in the world. I'm a practitioner of the last group, though I think the Faiclough/Wodak camp also has some interesting things to add to the cognitive realm, but it might require some deep work, depending on what corner of the social psychological world you occupy (e.g., psychological of sociological social psyche) and your particular area of application. Anyway. That's a first take on the question. I'm happy to dialogue more in this forum if you'd like to specify your question a bit more.

Cheers!

Bonjour Christopher, and thanks for your considered response. I would agree with you on the sociolinguistics brand of DA apparently playing host to a more specified incorporation of the cognitive. My interest in this area stems from my PhD work. I plan to apply the paradigm of Discursive Psychology to the analysis of everyday talk/text in organizational settings with the aim of uncovering how people share and create knowledge. As knowledge is generally regarded as a cognitive phenomenon, this naturally aroused my interest (and not a little worry) in terms of how to handle the cognitive within a DP framework. I have written up what I hope is a kind of rationale which I would be happy to share with you if you would like. From within the Sociolinguistics school, I am most familiar with the work of Van Dijk, which I compare and contrast with that of Potter and his colleagues (DP school). My concern is - addressing the cognitive directly, as my topic would require, may leave my work open to considerable criticism from the purists!

Good day! DP has beginning to tackle 'the cognitive'--Potter et al were early innovators of the notion of "epistemics", something that conversation analysts have been only started to get around in the last 5 or so years in any serious way. "Organizational settings" is still pretty vague--what setting in particular? I primarily work in medical/health care settings, though I have also done some work in architecture practice. In any case, Aaron Cicourel has been a proponent of the cognitive for MANY years, though he is viewed as a pariah among most DA folks. I think his work is under-appreciated and under-read for things cognitive. Although I think some of his analysis could be more detailed, he does have some interesting takes on how situational context is shaped by and shapes cognition through language use. I'm happy to read a rationale. Have a great day!

Hi! Thanks for the pointer about Aaron Cicourel - I will follow this up. By 'organizational settings' I mean public and /or private sector agencies/ firms, and in particular 'research and development teams.'

I've attached my 'rationale' on this debate - and I'd be very glad to learn your opinion. This is a chapter of my thesis, justifying my stance on things cognitive when it comes to DP and discourse analysis.

Hey, Lesley! I'll take a gander over the weekend. What kind of feedback are you looking for? I want to be sure my comments are helpful. I quickly glanced over the document, and I think Cicourel would be a good addition, as cognition is one of his main foci. At UCLA we were forbidden to do anything like this without data--even for rationales. At Derby it's likely quite different, but I wonder if using some illustrative pieces of data may help make your case more concrete.

Hi, as this is an extract from one chapter in my thesis - the one on methodology - it will be followed by a substantial DA which I plan to start next year. So it will be followed by data. I just wanted to get my head straight on this particular question because the literature is rather ambiguous and contentious on this point. On feedback, oh, just loose feedback on whether it makes sense, or not!

Have a great weekend.

I think that before you address the question - how far can discourse analysis address the positive? - there is a prior question. That is, what kind of thing is 'the cognitive' for discourse or interaction analysts. Derek Edwards and I overview this in our forthcoming chapter in the Hanbook of Conversation Analysis (building on our work in Discursive Psychology). One simple answer is that discourse researchers can productively and coherently address 'the cognitive' as 'it' becomes relevant to parties in interaction. Famously Sacks said ' Don't worry about whether they're 'thinking.' Just try to come to terms with how it is that the thing comes off.'

Conversation analysis, drawn on by discursive psychology, becomes a rigorous approach for considering the way psychological matters as they unfold in interaction, and how issues of understanding, knowledge, intention, attitude and so on play out in practice.

Hello Jonathon! It is nice to see you here. We met in Barcelona a few years ago. I just wanted to say that the divide between the "interactionists" and the "cognitivists" doesn't seem to have closed yet. The "Journal of Pragmatics" publishes more of the former while "Language Sciences" more of the latter. I would like your take on the special issue on "understanding" (Journal of Pragmatics, 43) in contrast to "How does 'cognition' matter to the analysis of talk-in-interaction?", an article written by Arnulf Depperman (Language Sciences, 34). I think your insight would be very helpful. Cheers!