Face-to-face , second term, 30 hours of theory.

Second term
Tuesday from 13:30 to 15:30

French

1) Familiarizing oneself with different approaches to communication (or discourse) that address the relations between communication (or discourse) and culture, identity and social interaction.
2) Being able to analyze the role of culture in different communication situations.
3) Becoming aware of the role of communication (or discourse) in producing or transforming social identities and relations (including power relations).
4) Developing one's methodological and writing skills according to the requirements of academic social science research.

For the Bachelor in Information and Communication :

For the Bachelor in French and Romance Languages and Letters : General :

For the Bachelor in Philosophy :

For the Bachelor in Political Sciences: General :

For the Bachelor in Sociology and Anthropology :

None

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 (this part of the course provide 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…

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 the course content in order to carry out a « small » research and account for it in a paper that reaches the requirements of academic writing. It is critical discourse analysis that provides the framework for the research paper (the exact subject will have to be defined further by the student, with the support of the teaching assistant). 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.

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.

In a face-to-face situation, the exam is written and includes closed questions as well as open-ended questions (“theoretical” and “practical”). No material can be consulted.

At a distance, the exam is oral and only includes open-ended questions (“theoretical” and “practical”). During the oral exam, 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 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.

Recommended readings:
- Angermuller, J., Maingueneau, D., et 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.
- 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. (eds), 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., with the collab. of Patriarche, G., & Klein, A. (2009), La communication. De la transmission à la relation, 4th ed., 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. (2001), Anthropologie de la communication. De la théorie au terrain, Paris, Seuil.
- Winkin, Y. (1981) (texts gathered and presented by), La Nouvelle Communication, Paris, Seuil.