Final Discourse Analysis Paper

Discourse Analysis Paper

“Gamer Transcript”

Jill Arnold

This essay discusses the differences between “gamer intelligence” and having intelligence with other technologies such as Microsoft Word and other software. The main thing that will be discussed is the interaction between the interviewer and the interviewee. By interpreting what is being said between the interviewer and the interviewee, we can further understand what is being said in the transcript by looking at the social power abuse, dominance, and inequality. Therefore, discourse analysis will be used to appreciate what is happening in the conversation. Discourse analysis is simply analyzing the language used in the transcript. The research question that is being approached in this paper is how an interview can be analyzed through the lens of an outsider. The methodology that will be used to analyze this transcript is interactional sociolinguistic. Also, the lens that this transcript will be viewed through is at the macro level because of the power relations in the transcript, which shows “Ch’s” dominance over “B”. Furthermore, this transcript shows the power relations between “Ch” and “B” and how “Ch’s” power in the transcript affects the way the interview takes place and if an interview can be affective with these types of power relations.

In this excerpt, “Ch” is interviewing “B” about his experience with different types of technology. The beginning of the conversation it seems as though the two people in the excerpt are friendly with each other. The interviewer “Ch”, jokes around with the interviewee “B” about how she bullied him into being competent with software. This is a way for “Ch” to start the interview by making “B” comfortable. The interactional sociolinguistic approach explains that “through interactions people can construct relationships between and among texts, events, and contexts”. Even though it is clear that these two people already have a relationship with each other, they are creating a different type of relationship in the interview and using these first few sentences as conversational building blocks. 

Macro level approaches to discourse analysis include broader, social, cultural, or political processes. Throughout the transcript, “Ch” is asking questions about “B’s” interactions with technology. This is a topic that affects our world today. Even though “Ch” is asking “B” questions about himself, she begins to relate it to the bigger picture by relating it to other technologies that many people use. I believe this subject is on the macro level because there are many people that this article can be related to. But, the interviewer is taking a “soft” approach by generating questions that are starting points and can lead to other, more promising answers

Also, macro level approaches are usually used to analyze power relations and dominance. “Ch” is the person in the transcript with the dominance. When “Ch” says that she bullied “B” into being competent, it shows that she may be joking around with him, but she is also asserting her dominance over “B”. This is assumed because usually when you bully someone into something they do not have a choice.

It is easy to tell that “B” is the person being interviewed because of the flow of conversation between them. Even though there are other clues such as the fact that “Ch” is the one who is asking the questions, “B”, even though as ease, seems to be like he is trying to get through the interview quickly, while “Ch” is wanting to ask many questions and find out more information. You can tell this by looking at the transcript and seeing that “Ch’s” dialogue is usually longer than “B’s”. For example, an excerpt from the transcript: “Ch- so it's interesting, games aren't really considered software are they?, B- they are, Ch- so you know lots of software

B- yeah, but it's just games (laughing)” In this excerpt, “Ch” seems to be probing “B”, but “B” seems to be wanting to get along with the interview. 

Furthermore, “B” also seems as though he is younger than “Ch” and might be a little intimidated by “Ch”. You can see examples of this throughout the transcript when “B” stumbles over his words a few times by saying “ah” and “you know” throughout the transcript. These terms also might be alluding to the fact that “B” is comfortable with “Ch” and I believe by using those terms “B” thinks that “Ch” understands what he is talking about, without having to explain in extreme detail. 

Another way to tell that “Ch” is older and more educated is because throughout the transcript “Ch” is trying to educate “B”. As discussed in the article, these parts of the transcript are moments of “learning opportunities” for both parties involved. When “B” discusses how he learned how to use programs, “Ch” explains to “B” that what they are describing is literacy. “Ch” does this again later in the transcript when “B” discusses preparing for different processes. Again, “Ch” educates “B” by explaining to him that that is similar to making moves. After that interaction, “B” agrees with “Ch”’s explanation. It is clear that “B” values what “Ch” has to say and that he looks at her as an authority figure. For example, another excerpt:  “Ch- how about file systems and gaming spaces, B- you know, you're right, because the game, the games are still software, and they're still files, so there are certain organization of a game that is different from regular files”. In this excerpt “B” is agreeing with “Ch”, but also elaborates on what he has to say, possibly asserting himself as the one with the knowledge on this sort of topic. 

Even though it is clear that “Ch” is still interested in teaching “B”, “B” is also teaching “Ch” some things as well. Since “B” is the one that is being interviewed, because he is the one answering questions, it is clear that he has the information that is wanted. “Ch” is interested in finding out “B”’s association with technology and how he views different types of technology. By having information for each other, they are keeping each other interested in the conversation. 

It is important for the interviewer and interviewee to have trust with each other or else there will not be a successful interview. I believe this is a successful interview because “B” seems to open up to “Ch”. Since “Ch” says something about “B”’s stepdad, it is assumed that they know each other before this interview because a stepdad is not mentioned in this transcript. “Ch” also says in the beginning that she bullied “B” into being competent with certain software, so “Ch” is making connections between the event they are constructing and a previous event. This skill is presented to us in the article. Since they seem to be compatible, it is assumed that a good interview would be produced. 

Another reason that the two people seem to be compatible with each other because “laughter” is said a few times in the transcript. It is obvious that these two people are on a comfort level with each other, and might even be friends with each other because the interview comes off to the readers as professional, but friendly. An excerpt in the transcript shows us that the laughter shows the reader that they these two people are comfortable with each other: “Ch- so you know lots of software, B- yeah, but it's just games (laughing)”. In this excerpt, they seem to be joking around with each other, but “B” also might be nervous from “Ch’s” assumption that he knows a lot about games.

As also stated in the article, it is important that the people in the interview signal to each other using all different types of communication, not just verbal. One way which is stated in the transcript is laughter. This is a type of contextual cue that assures both parties are comfortable, most of the time. The article also explains that it is important for the reporter to document these to get a shared sense of what they are collectively doing. “Laughter” can also be a signal to each other to interpret each others actions and communicate their intentions. This is important for both people in the interview so that they can continue to have a positive and informative conversation. Even though I believe laughter is seen in this transcript to convey comfortability, it may be important to describe what type of laughter is used because sometimes you can tell if someone is really laughing at something they think is funny, or if they are laughing because they are nervous or uncomfortable and trying to make the situation less tense. These two types of laughter are extremely different and convey different things.

As discussed earlier, the power relations in this transcript are apparent. “Ch” is the person in the power role and the one with the dominant discourse and “B” is the one who is abiding by her rules. Even though they are on a friendly level with each other, it is important for “B” to follow “Ch”’s rules and listen carefully to the questions that are asked. This shows that the transcript is at the macro level. “Ch” is the one with the power because she is the one interviewing and also asking and answering the questions. She is responding to “B”’s answers by giving more information about what “B” is trying to say.

In the last sentence of the interview, “B” compares what they are talking about in the interview to a song they have heard on the radio. I believe that “B” is assuming that “Ch” will know what the song is and goes on by explaining a quote that is in the song. “B” might be doing this because they are not sure what else to say and he feels more comfortable expressing it from a song instead. 

Furthermore, breaking down the interview through the interactional sociolinguistic method means analyzing further into the transcript than what is clearly presented. By using discourse analysis, one is able to break down the interview moment by moment by unfolding not only the text and verbal cues, but also signals and interpretations. Therefore, I believe that the power relations in this transcript made for a successful interview. Even though “Ch” has the power in the interview by teaching “B” and asking him questions throughout the interview, she also makes him comfortable by joking around with him and relating to things that are not associated with the interview.