Communication, culture and social interactions

Teacher(s)

Patriarche Geoffroy;

Language

French

Prerequisites

The prerequisite(s) for this Teaching Unit (Unité d’enseignement – UE) for the programmes/courses that offer this Teaching Unit are specified at the end of this sheet.

Learning outcomes

At the end of this learning unit, the student is able to :

To understand and to apply approaches to communication (or discourse) that examine the relationship between communication (or discourse) and culture, identities and social interactions. To analyze the role of culture in different communication situations. To analyze the role of communication (or discourse) in the production or transformation of identities and social relations (including power relations). To apply methodological and writing skills according to the requirements of social science research.

Content

This course focuses on research fields or approaches that address the relations between communication and culture, or between communication and social interaction (with connections between these two perspectives).
The course content is divided in three parts:
- discourse analysis, especially critical discourse analysis (CDA) and the kind of approach developed by J. Gee (this part of the course provides the students with a range of theoretical and analytical paths that they need to develop further in their research paper);
- the systemic approach to communication developed by the Palo Alto school (also called « pragmatics of communication »);
- anthropology of communication (including symbolic interactionism, proxemics and the ethnography of communication).
Using those different perspectives, the course addresses a wide range of « concrete » objects of study such as interpersonal communication, non verbal communication, organisational communication, intercultural communication, digital communication

Teaching methods

On the one hand, the course includes lectures by the professor. These focus on theoretical and methodological aspects and provide many concrete and “practical” examples to be discussed in class. 
On the other hand, the students are required to write an individual research paper (between 30 000 and 40 000 signs) that witnesses their capacity to use wisely a discourse-analytical approach in order to carry out a « small » research and account for it in a paper that reaches the requirements of academic writing.
Be it in a face-to-face situation or at a distance, guiding sessions (3) are organized in order to help the students in their task. Individual advice sessions are also offered, providing that the student has submitted a research proposal in due time.

Evaluation methods

The assessment method consists of two aspects that weight differently in the final grade: the exam (graded by the professor), which weights for 60% of the final grade, and the research paper (graded by the teaching assistant), which weights for 40% of the final grade. This weighting remains the same whether the teaching unit is organized face-to-face situation or at a distance.
Be it in a face-to-face situation or at a distance, the exam is written and includes “theoretical” and “application” questions. The students are allowed to use the notes provided by the professor, their personal notes, the slides and the resources available on Moodle. The use of any other material is prohibited. 
If one of the assignments is not presented, this is considered as an absence; consequently, the final mark will be 0/20. If the overall final grade is a failure, the student will have to proceed again with the failed part(s) of the evaluation in August/September.
The research paper is an original production. Students are expected to scrupulously respect the rules and good practices of citation, referencing and non-plagiarism.
The use of generative AI is accepted as long as it is occasional and limited. The use of AI must be explicitly indicated. Any part of the work relying, in any way, on generative AI must be clearly identified (for example, by a footnote), specifying which generative AI tool was used and for what purpose.
“Reusing” a personal or group assignment carried out within the framework of any other teaching unit requires a great deal of caution. Exceptionally, such an approach may be considered provided that the student (1) requests permission from the assistant, (2) justifies this “reuse” in the research paper, which, as a whole, must obviously constitute an original contribution compared to the first work, and (3) scrupulously applies the rules of citation and referencing to any use of this assignment. Failure to comply with these rules may be considered an irregularity (self-plagiarism).
Any failure to apply the rules set out above may lead to an academic and/or disciplinary sanction for plagiarism and/or irregularity, in accordance with the general regulations for studies and examinations.

Online resources

The teaching unit has a course website on Moodle.

Bibliography

• Angermuller, J., Maingueneau, D., & Wodak, T. (dir) (2014), The Discourse Studies Reader. Main currents in theory and analysis, Amsterdam et Philadelphie, John Benjamins Publishing Company.
• Cuche, D. (2010), La notion de culture dans les sciences sociales, Paris, La Découverte.
• Fairclough, N. (1992), Discourse and Social Change, Cambridge, Polity Press.
• Gee, J. P. (2014), An Introduction to Discourse Analysis. Theory and Method, 4ème éd., Londres et New York, Sage.
• Goffman, E. (1973), La mise en scène de la vie quotidienne. 1. La présentation de soi, Paris, Les Editions de Minuit.
• Goffman, E. (1974), Les rites d’interaction, Paris, Les Editions de Minuit.
• Goffman, E. (2002), L’arrangement des sexes, présenté par C. Zaidman, Paris, La Dispute.
• Hall, E. T. (1971), La dimension cachée, Paris, Seuil.
• Hymes, D. (1986), « Models of the Interaction of Language and Social Life », in Gumperz, J., & Hymes, D. (dir.), Directions in Sociolinguistics. The Ethnography of Communication, Oxford/New-York, Basil Blackwell, pp.35-71.
• Hymes, D. (1991), Vers la compétence de communication, Paris, Le Editions Didier.
• Jørgensen, M., & Phillips, L. (2002), Discourse Analysis as Theory and Method, Londres, Sage.
• Lohisse, J., avec la collab. de Patriarche, G., et Klein, A. (2009), La communication. De la transmission à la relation, 4ème éd., Bruxelles, De Boeck.
• Machin, D., & Mayr, A. (2012), How to do critical discourse analysis. A multimodal introduction, Londres, Sage.
• Nizet, J., et Rigaux, N. (2005), La sociologie de Erving Goffman, Paris, La Découverte.
• Watzlawick, P. Helmick Beavin, J., & Jackson Don D. (1972), Une logique de la communication, Paris, Seuil.
• Winkin, Y. (1981) (textes recueillis et présentés par), La Nouvelle Communication, Paris, Seuil.
• Winkin, Y. (2001), Anthropologie de la communication. De la théorie au terrain, Paris, Seuil.
• Zienkowski, J., & Patriarche, G. (2023), « Critical discourse studies for research on media and information literacy projects: An illustrated discussion of seven methodological considerations », in Fastrez, P., & Landry, N. (dir.), Handbook of Media Literacy and Media Education Research Methods, Routledge, pp.288-304.

Teaching materials

• Communication, culture et interactions sociales - Syllabus
• Communication, culture et interactions sociales - Consignes pour le research paper et portefeuille de lecture

Faculty or entity

> ESPB