Analysis of Social Interaction Paper
LIB 220, Nelson
Purpose: The purpose of this assignment is to increase your awareness of the normally unnoticed or unnoticeable details of interpersonal communication by transcribing those details and thinking about them. Hopefully, it will also make conversation “strange” for you – i.e., make your experience of conversation very different than before. The assignment will have achieved its purpose if you start becoming so aware of what you and your conversational partners are doing that it becomes difficult for you to contribute your part to the interaction.
Part 2: Container/Pragmatist Comparative Analysis
In this part of the paper, you need to do three things. First, describe your interaction from the conduit/container perspective. More specifically, describe it as an exchange of thoughts, beliefs, feelings, etc. – i.e., mental contents. To do so, identify the thoughts, beliefs, feelings, attitudes, anticipations, expectations, etc. that you and your conversational partner expressed during the conversation, and indicate in what order these mental contents were produced. As part of your description, treat utterances like “uh uh,” “really?” “what?” and “oh” as reports of mental contents; for instance, “uh uh” equals “I understand what you are saying,” “really?” equals “I am surprised by that,” “what?” equals “I didn't understand what you just said,” etc. You do not have to describe every thought, belief, feeling, etc. that is expressed, but you do have to write at least one page of description.
Next, describe your conversation from the pragmatist perspective. That is, describe it in terms of the goals that you and your conversational partner pursued and the actions you and s/he performed to reach those goals. You must write about a few goals and the actions taken to achieve them. Such goals (and the actions taken toward them) may include such things as being interesting (by telling an interesting story, for instance), being funny (by making a joke, telling a funny story, etc.), and seeking sympathy (by telling a sad story, describing current troubles, etc.). As part of your description, treat utterances such as “uh huh,” “really?” “what?” etc. not just as reports of mental states but as reports that are a part of an action, like “I understand you, go ahead and continue your story,” “that is really interesting, tell me more,” “I didn't understand that, could you clarify yourself?” etc. Please note that not all actions are performed to achieve a personal goal. Sometimes, conversational partners pursue joint goals. For instance, every once in a while conversational partner will take turns telling one single story or take turns describing something funny that they have both experienced or know about. Again, you do not need to describe every single utterance, but you do need to write at least two full pages about your transcript from this perspective, and the part of the transcript you describe must be the same part you described from the conduit/container point of view.
Finally, based on your descriptions of your conversation, determine which of the perspectives on interpersonal communication – the conduit/container or the pragmatist perspective – is most valuable. That is, make a claim that one approach is more valuable than the other, based on the relative value of your descriptions of the conversation. To do that, consider questions like, “Which description seems to be the best at capturing what the conversation felt like while engaging in it?” “Which description seems to give me greater insight into what was going on during the conversation?” “Which description seems more useful if I wanted or needed to determine why the conversation went well or not, or if I needed to know how to fix it?” “Which description would be the most useful in figuring out how to successfully talk to someone in the future or at least avoid significant mistakes?” After considering your answers to one or more of these questions, or any other you want to pose, you should be able to determine which of the two perspectives is most valuable, whether in terms of accuracy, practical value, ability to make you feel you have a greater understanding of what went on, etc. This section must be at least three pages long.
Technical requirements: This second part of the overall paper must have its own title page. The title page must contain the title of your paper, an indication that this is Part 2 of the Social Interaction Analysis paper, your name, the course and section designator (e.g., LIB220 Section D) for our class and my name, in that order, and preferably both vertically and horizontally centered. Papers must be double-spaced with one-inch margins using 12 pt. Times New Roman font. You are not expected to use any outside sources for this part of the paper but if you do, you must use APA format for in-text citations and for citing these works on your References page. Also, you do not need to indicate that you have used my thoughts and words in a References page, and you do not need to note anything like page numbers, publication dates and the like when citing me in your text. All you need to say is something like, “As Nelson says, ‘ . . ..’” When citing your transcript, please put your last name and the line numbers for the text that you are referring to in parentheses – e.g., (Nelson, 4-5). PLEASE NOTE: You must not use the names of the people you mention in your paper. However, you must use a pseudonym (fake name). In other words, do not refer to the people you talk about in your paper by using a letter (“person X”) or number (“person 1”). That is very confusing to read. You can, and are encouraged to, write your paper in first person (i.e., say “I did this,” or “I said this,” etc.). Of course, you must meet the minimum length set for each section.
Grading criteria: To receive an A, you must write an accurate and well-organized description of your conversation. Further, you must write a well-organized, logical, and compelling comparative evaluation of the conduit/container and pragmatist perspectives. To achieve this, you must, in part, 1) clearly identify which perspective you think is better, 2) clearly identify what criterion/criteria you are using to judge one perspective better than the other and then 3) clearly, logically and compellingly argue that the description you say is best does, in fact, meet the chosen criterion/criteria better than the other description. Your argument must be specific by referring to specific words and utterances in your transcript. (You should refer to them by line number.) Failure to meet even the technical requirements of the paper will result in a grade of D or F. Please note: writing only the minimum amount of pages does not guarantee that you have adequately written what you are supposed to. It only indicates that cannot possibly do an adequate job of writing what you are supposed to in less than the minimum number of pages.
Social Interaction Analysis Paper
Length: 7 pages (1925 Words)
Social Interaction Analysis Paper
In conversations, the passage of information occurs in the constructed sentences and the independent words spoken that show the response to the communication. Some of the words may have different messages under different circumstances and by paying keen attention to the responses; the conversation would flow since the two parties will be in a position to tell the attentiveness of the other person. The variance of the tone will be instrumental in telling if the person is asking a question or accepting the words that a person is saying. The basic aim of this paper is to consider the unnoticeable details of interpersonal communication by analyzing the features and considering their importance in the conversation.
* Once your purchase is processed by paypal you will be redirected back to this page and you'll have the option to download the paper. We'll also send the paper to your paypal email address as proof of purchase.Download Paper