A Modern History of Written Discourse Analysis

Journal of Second Language Writing 11 (2002) 191223
A modern history of written discourse analysis

Robert B. Kaplana,*, William Grabeb,1
b a University of Southern California (Emeritus), P.O. Box 577, Port Angeles, WA 98362, USA Department of English, Northern Arizona University, P.O. Box 6032, Flagstaff, AZ 86011, USA
Abstract The term discourse analysis has been used interchangeably in two separate contexts spoken discourse (i.e., multiple-source dialogic) and written discourse (i.e., single-source monologic). Such a distinction, however, oversimplies the situation; while there are obvious overlaps between the two, to some extent each has evolved in its own direction. Written discourse analysis, the subject of our discussion, is obviously closely connected with work in literacy, but it implicates a great heterogeneity of topics and approaches, including at least some from psycholinguistics and sociolinguistics. Discourse analysis, in the sense in which we are using it, emerged in the early 1970s. A modern history of written discourse analysis is perhaps best covered within a 4050-year time span. In the course of that time, a number of new and emerging disciplines and research elds have contributed to systematic analyses of the linguistic features and patterns occurring in written texts. At the same time, other continuing disciplines have provided contributions that have been important and are ongoing. It should be fairly evident that any attempt to cover such a broad spectrum of views and disciplines would not be appropriate in a single article. We therefore intend to limit the scope of this paper to analyses of written discourse that explore the actual structuring of the text via some consistent framework. Our goal is to highlight and describe historically the various efforts to nd the structures and linguistic patterns in texts that contribute to how they are understood, interpreted, and used. It seems to us that, in order to comprehend what has happened in the context of L2 writing research, it is necessary to understand the extensive work that has been done in discourse analysis. # 2002 Elsevier Science Inc. All rights reserved.
Keywords: Cognitive models; Composition studies; Contrastive rhetoric; Discourse analysis; English studies; Hermeneutics; Linguistics (anthropological linguistics, applied linguistics, descriptive linguistics, functional linguistics, sociolinguistics, systemic linguistics, textlinguistics); Rhetoric; Tagmemics; Writing
Corresponding author. Tel.: 1-360-417-8084; fax: 1-360-417-8084. E-mail addresses: rkaplan@olypen.com (R.B. Kaplan), william.grabe@nau.edu (W. Grabe). 1 Tel.: 1-520-523-6274; fax: 1-520-523-7074. 1060-3743/02/$ see front matter # 2002 Elsevier Science Inc. All rights reserved. PII: S 1 0 6 0 - 3 7 4 3 ( 0 2 ) 0 0 0 8 5 - 1
192
R.B. Kaplan, W. Grabe / Journal of Second Language Writing 11 (2002) 191223
Discourse analysis The term discourse analysis has been used interchangeably in two separate contexts spoken discourse (i.e., multiple-source dialogic) and written discourse (i.e., single-source monologic). Such a distinction, however, oversimplies the situation; while there are obvious overlaps between the two, to some extent each has evolved in its own direction. Written discourse analysis, the subject of our discussion, is obviously closely connected with work in literacy, but it implicates a great heterogeneity of topics and approaches, including at least some from psycholinguistics and sociolinguistics. Discourse analysis, in the sense in which we are using it, emerged in the early 1970s. In the rst full decade of its existence, a number of key studies were published: Brown and Yule (1983), de Beaugrande and Dressler (1981), Stubbs (1983) and van Dijk (1983). In addition, two important journals came into existence Discourse Processes (from 1978) and Text (from 1981). Although the independent existence of discourse analysis as an area of linguistic study is relatively young, it is, of course, derived indirectly from Hermeneutics a discipline stretching back hundreds of years. And it is necessary to note, before proceeding, the important work done by Prague School linguists in the early years of the 20th century (see, e.g., Garvin, 1964, 1972; Vachek, 1964). However, a modern history of written discourse analysis is perhaps best covered within a 4050-year time span. In the course of that time, a number of new and emerging disciplines and research elds have contributed to systematic analyses of the linguistic features and patterns occurring in written texts. At the same time, other continuing disciplines have provided contributions that have been important and are ongoing. For example, the eld of rhetoric has contributed from an early date through the work of Burke (1966), Christensen (1963, 1967), Corbett (1973), Kinneavy (1971), Young, Becker, and Pike (1970), and others. Philosophy and literary criticism, through the broad notion of hermeneutic interpretation, has contributed to issues of the author in the text, the notion of a subject, the contingency of interpretation, the institutionalizing of discourses, and related issues (e.g., Bakhtin, 1981; Barthes, 1964, see especially 1974; Derrida, 1967; Fish, 1980; Foucault, 1972; Rorty, 1979). Semioticians and stylistics analysts have also explored the nature of written texts from a variety of perspectives and text types over the past 50 years, providing important insights into the notions of text as linguistic sign, text as specialized genres with specic linguistic reexes, and text as a form of pragmatic communication (Eco, 1979; Sebeok, 1960, etc.). It should be fairly evident that any attempt to cover such a broad spectrum of views and disciplines would not be appropriate in a single article. We therefore intend to limit the scope of this paper to analyses of written discourse that explore the actual structuring of the text via some consistent framework. Our goal is to highlight and describe historically the various efforts to nd the structures and linguistic patterns in texts that contribute to how they are understood, interpreted,
193
and used. It seems to us that, in order to comprehend what has happened in the context of L2 writing research, it is necessary to understand the extensive work that has been done in discourse analysis. We recognize that some readers may prefer to understand written discourse and its analysis as a hermeneutic enterprise, combining the linguistic aspects of a given text with its social and historical situatedness to render a unique interpretation for each reader or each purpose for reading. We also recognize that many philosophers, literary critics, and semioticians use the term discourse analysis in ways that we do not. For example, Foucault (1972, p. 107), in The Archaeology of Knowledge, denes discourse as verbal performances in so far as they are sets of statements. But statements themselves are, for Foucault, extra-linguistic local situational ``functions'' that act on linguistic elements to allow specic (and variable) interpretations. In similar ways, semiotic interpretations of individual texts and hermeneutic exegesis of biblical or canonical texts do not allow for analytic linguistic approaches applied systematically across texts and genres (Eagleton, 1983). However, this latter goal exploring systematic structural approaches to discourse analysis is the focus of this article. Kinneavy (1971), in seeking a disciplinary context for composition studies, suggested that discourse analysis would provide a theoretically defensible framework for writing and writing instruction in English Departments.
Discourse study . . . is the study of the situational uses of the potentials of the language. Discourse is constituted by ``text.'' . . . The particular province of discourse study . . . excludes, on the one hand, merely linguistic or semantic analyses and, on the other, aspects of the situational context and cultural context. But whenever either the linguistic or the metapragmatic considerations can throw light on text as such, they become subordinately relevant to discourse analysis. (Kinneavy, 1971, pp. 2224)
Similarly, we believe that written discourse analysis requires an emphasis on the text itself, though with additional attention to the extra-textual context in which the text was produced. In general, one can differentiate several research strands contributing more specically to an understanding of the nature of text. (1) Written texts can be examined from the perspective of textlinguistics, originally developed in Germany but having important constituents in Britain. From this perspective, a text is a stretch of language whose structure is constituted along linguistic lines, so that the textuality results from internal cohesion and coherence of textual units; that is, a focus on regularities of intersentential links e.g., conjunction, ellipsis, lexical cohesion, reference, etc. Additionally, there has been a concern for the distribution of information within texts old/new, theme/rheme, topic/ comment (which in turn necessarily implicates subject/predicate in more traditional terms) (Finegan, 1999; Halliday & Hasan, 1976, 1989).
194
(2) Cognitive models have a psychological rather than a linguistic basis; that is, a concern with the cognitive processes underlying text production and text comprehension. Here, text is seen as an integral part of human social and psychological activities. Meaning does not reside in the text as a static, independent artifact, but rather meaning resides in the communicative event in the types of actions human beings can perform around the text. Thus, texts are the products of problem-solving activities, and analyses depend on models of human cognition of the type employed in research in artificial intelligence (van Dijk, 1983, 1997). (3) Discourse analysis sees texts as the negotiated communicative achievements of the participants (the writer and the reader). This view is indebted to speech-act theory as developed by Austin and Searle; i.e., when text is used in specific situational contexts, writer's intentions and his/her relationship with/to reader must be considered as features of meaning. Such a perspective obviously implicates the use of text genres and the development of specific discourse communities using text for specific purposes (van Dijk, 1983, 1997). (4) A fourth, somewhat independent branch has attended to text construction across languages and cultures. It is sometimes called ``contrastive rhetoric'' or ``contrastive discourse analysis'' (Hellinger & Ammon, 1996). Also included here is the matter of translation across languages (e.g., BurroughBoenisch, 2002). Rather than constituting a neat typology, this discussion suggests the interdependence of these perspectives and implies that an understanding of written discourse analysis in the sense in which we use the term lies somewhere amid these several views. Linguistic discourse analysis For purposes of this paper, then, discourse analysis requires an analysis of a text that depends on aspects of the linguistic and organizational structures available in the text itself. It includes any and all linguistic signaling in texts as potential resources that contribute to discoursal interpretation of the text. It also includes patterns of organization in texts that are marked in some way by the linguistic features of a text. To the extent that patterns and structures emerge and provide consistent means for interpreting the meanings and uses of texts, they constitute potential frameworks or approaches to discourse analysis. This is not to suggest that we include the uses of formal linguistic models which operate at the level of the sentence. As Enkvist puts it:
The important point is to realize that the text is the father of the sentence, and that text strategies come before the syntactic formation of individual sentences. Giving a sentence its textual fit, its conformity with the text strategy, is not a cosmetic surface operation polishing the sentence after it is already there. Textual fit is a far
195
more basic requirement, determining the choice of words as well as the syntactic structure of a sentence. To modern text and discourse linguists this is so obvious that it seems curious that grammarians and teachers of composition have, through the centuries, spent so much time and effort on syntactic phenomena within individual sentences, while overlooking the fundamental questions of text strategy and information flow. It is the text strategy and the information flow that actually determine which of the available syntactic and lexical structures a . . . writer will choose in each particular instance. (Enkvist, 1997, p. 199)
It is, in fact, difficult to deal with isolated sentences except in terms of grammar and lexicon; discourse must be studied in much broader terms. Nevertheless, some scholars extended the study of grammatical structures into the area of discourse. Early efforts in this direction included work by Harris (1952) and by Pike (1967) and his colleagues (see especially Young et al., 1970). Other influential grammarians who have extended their work to discourse include: Fillmore (1985), Gvon (1983), Grimes (1975), Halliday (1985), and Longacre (1983) (cf. van Dijk, 1972, 1977). Even limiting the scope of the present discussion to structural analyses of written discourse is a difcult challenge. Over the past 50 years, many approaches and frameworks for the analysis of written texts have been developed, crossing a number of disciplinary elds and drawing in a broad variety of disciplinary assumptions and working procedures. These approaches are not limited to the elds of linguistics or applied linguistics; rather, the term ``linguistic,'' as a delimiter for discourse analysis, only indicates a focus on the text, rather than on a specic disciplinary territory. In fact, efforts to develop systematic approaches to written discourse can be drawn from various branches of research: e.g., anthropology, applied linguistics, autonomous linguistics, English, education, law, psychology, rhetorical studies, sociology and technical communications. Faced with this challenge, our goal will not be comprehensiveness, but a coherent history that offers a sense of the large territory occupied by written discourse analysis, both historically and contemporaneously. Linguistic foundations One of the most obvious conclusions to draw from an understanding of the modern history of linguistics is that Chomskian linguistics has little to contribute to discourse analysis. Linguists interested in discourse analysis, therefore, do not often refer to formal Chomskian linguistics in their work and do not nd his theories specically relevant. Structural linguistics employed the Saussurean distinction between langue and parole, focusing on the former, and thereby ignoring the messy reality of real language behavior and the study of actual texts. Chomskian linguistics used the dichotomy between competence and performance and was comparably able to limit its concerns to sentences as the basic units of linguistic description, leaving textual structures to stylistics and literary analysis. Sentence-based studies of language, like Chomsky's, have commonly employed
196
invented sentences and intuitive judgments of their grammaticality. Such a procedure is more questionable when applied to discourse; inventing whole texts and judging their acceptability has not found widespread application. Conversely, there is a strong tendency for discourse analysis to depend on observations of naturally occurring language. Those who wish to theorize on the basis of naturally occurring language have inevitably been led beyond the boundaries of the sentence, since natural language rarely occurs as isolated sentences. Consequently, such research takes as given the existence of grammatical structures, and searches texts for examples of specic grammatical constructions which are then shown to occur in particular discourse environments. Nevertheless, for the nonlinguist, particularly in North America, there is a temptation to understand Chomskian linguistics as constituting all of ``linguistics.'' However, there are far more practicing linguists in the world today who do not work within a Chomskian framework; rather, they work within frameworks that allow and encourage discourse analysis. It is probably fair to characterize these linguistic approaches under the following six headings: 1. 2. 3. 4. 5. 6. Anthropological linguistics Sociolinguistics Descriptive linguistics Functional linguistics Tagmemics Systemic linguistics
Anthropological linguistics Historically, anthropological linguistics and descriptive linguistics reach back to the rst half of the 20th century. Leaders of this early work, such as Malinowski, Firth, Sapir, and Jespersen, developed the linguistic and social descriptions which later linguists could use to engage in the analysis of discourse and to develop specic linguistic systems for such analysis. Development of discourse analytic approaches can be traced back fairly directly to these leaders through the foundations of sociolinguistics, systemic linguistics, descriptive linguistics, and tagmemics (Halliday & Hasan, 1976; Hymes, 1974; Quirk, Greenbaum, Leech, & Svartvik, 1972; Young et al., 1970). For example, Hymes, drawing on Sapir and Malinowski (and also Burke), argued for the interpretation of text rather than only its linguistic elements, and he emphasized the communicative nature of language and its uses in real-world settings over abstract and formal analyses of autonomous linguistic systems. Sociolinguistics Sociolinguistics emerged in the 1960s out of earlier anthropological work, combined with sociological perspectives towards language and communication
197
(Cicourel, 1973; Goffman, 1980; Schegloff, Koshil, Jacoby, & Olsher, 2002). Sociolinguistics now extends beyond speech communities and dialect variation to includes analyses of register and discourse that draw upon many approaches to discourse analysis (Murray, 1998; Schiffrin, 1987, 1994; Stubbs, 1983, 1996; Tannen, 1989). One line of early sociolinguistics work by Labov (1972) developed a model of narrative story structure that was grounded in collected narrative data. While this model can be applied equally to spoken and written language, it provides a good starting point for narrative structure analysis. It proposes a exible six-part framework: abstract, orientation, complicating action, evaluation, resolution, and coda. It also suggests specic linguistic marking that cue each segment (e.g., orientation has many past progressive verbs and adverbial phrases, complicating action has many simple past and simple present verbs). An interesting commentary on this approach applied to literary language is provided by Carter (1997, pp. 180191). A second innovative sociolinguistics approach to discourse implicates Tannen's (1989) theory of involvement. Tannen argues that a good part of the coherence generated by discourse derives from various ways that authors/speakers involve the reader/listener in the text. She discusses eight major mechanisms at an author's disposal for this purpose: rhythm, repetition, gures of speech, indirection and ellipsis, tropes, detail and imagery, dialogue, and narratives. In her book, she provides a number of persuasive examples of how these mechanisms work to involve readers in a text and build a sense of textual coherence. A somewhat fuller description of the eight mechanisms indicates ways in which involvement can be used for analyses of many types of written text, from ofcial documents, to prepared speeches, to literary works. Rhythm refers to the many tempos, harmonies, beats, and intensities that can be created through text. All texts have perceptible rhythms that can highlight recognizable variations and patterns that can be analyses within and across texts. Repetition not only refers to lexical repetition, but also to repetitions of sounds, syllables, alliterations, parallel structures, adjacency pair structures, collocations, synonyms, and other possibilities. The many complex interactive patterns woven through texts give it the potential to come alive for the attentive reader, generating involvement with the text. Figures of speech add another layer of variation and repetition. Figures of speech can match similar beginnings, juxtapose opposites in balanced clauses, create repetition at ends of clauses, use sequences of clauses with matching numbers of syllables, reverse the ordering of two parts of a clause or sentence, repeat a phrase at the end of one clause and the beginning of the next clause, etc. There are dozens of patternings that can be explored through many types of texts. Tropes (metaphor, metonymy, irony, proverb, enigma, etc.) provide a further way for readers to make associations, substitutions, and relations through text signaling. Readers are expected to infer and interpret, and thus they are drawn into an interaction with the text. This drawing-in process (involvement) is a major way by which the reader contributes to the perceived coherence of the text.
198
Indirectness and ellipsis add text features that invite the reader to commit to an interpretation and ll in the inferences. Readers become involved and, in a sense, participate in the text. The use of detail and imagery creates involvement by making the information concrete for the reader. Readers can visualize a scene and invoke their own parallel images. Details convey the importance of an event and provide a sense of truthfulness. In these ways, readers construct personal, emotional overtones to the information. Finally, constructed dialogue and narratives are two further ways of involving the reader in building the coherence of the text. Constructed dialogues provide a sense of vividness, a ``you are here'' feeling. Narratives similarly allow the reader to share the moment and form a stronger attachment with the text. This theory of involvement does not always implicate quantitative analyses of texts, but it does suggest many innovative ways to explore the structuring of texts and the choices made by writers. Many of these mechanisms of involvement bear some resemblances to features of cohesion and cohesive harmony on the one hand, and features of information structuring on the other (given and new, topic continuity). One of the reasons why Tannen's theory of involvement is so open for applications to written discourse analysis is because much of her analyses via involvement focus on the surface structuring of the text itself. Descriptive linguistics Descriptive linguistics has also expanded on its early emphasis on language in actual use (e.g., Jespersen's monumental grammar, 1909/1933/1964) to build grammatical analyses based on corpora. The Quirk et al. (1972) Grammar of Contemporary English was informed by discourse samples collected for reference purposes. Even at this relatively early stage, a number of concepts in the grammar are actually based on discourse principles (informational structuring, theme, discourse markers). The Quirk, Greenbaum, Leech, & Svartvik (1985) Comprehensive grammar of the English language was based on data from a large Longman corpus, and the large COBUILD English language Dictionary (COBUILD, 1987) was the rst major reference work to use only examples from actually occurring discourse samples (see also COBUILD, 1988, 1990). Descriptive analyses of English grammar have been embedded in discourse analysis in the most recent major reference work, for example, Biber, Johansson, Leech, Conrad, and Finegan (1999) Longman Grammar of Spoken and Written English. A wide range of descriptive discourse analysis continues today, much of it associated with corpus linguistics and applied linguistics (see below) (McCarthy, 2001; McCarthy & Carter, 1994). The corpus linguistic work of Biber should also be classied as a descriptive linguistic approach to discourse analysis. In Biber's (1988) early book on dimensions of spoken and written texts, he showed how a statistical analysis of a large corpus, with many text types, could explain complexities of text and
199
linguistic variation across spoken and written discourse. He has since demonstrated that the generalizations from his earlier studies can be extended crosslinguistically and also to a number of distinct sociolinguistics domains: job interviews, elementary student textbooks, and historical language change (Biber, 1995; Biber, Conrad, & Reppen, 1998; Conrad & Biber, 2001). Functional linguistics Functional linguistic approaches have been exploring the various ways that syntactic structures are used for discourse purposes. Bolinger (1977) pointed out that external facts about the use of language, such as textual and cultural context, writer intention, and memory, could not be separated from grammatical structure. Chafe (1976) wrote a seminal article on the ways that information is encoded in discourse, highlighting coding mechanisms for deniteness, topic-comment, given and new, referring and non-referring, and focus constructions. These information structuring systems have been explored in many written discourse and composition studies since then (see Finegan, 1999). Chafe has also pioneered early linguistic explorations of spoken and written discourse, introducing the dimensions of integrated versus fragmented and involved versus informational discourse, and arguing that spoken and written texts vary along multiple dimensions. The work of Gvon (1983, 1984/1990, 1995) represents a major avenue of research on the relation between syntactic resources and discourse meaning. His early work on topic continuity extended Chafe's concepts of information structuring into a set of analytic continua that could be applied to any discourse to explore how topics are continued, terminated, and initiated in discourse. Since that early work, Gvon has proposed many innovative parameters for studying the contributions of syntactic phenomena to discourse communication (Gvon, 1993, 1995). A particularly intriguing argument proposed by Gvon (1995) is the notion that all syntactic and discourse features of a text are a set of processing instructions for how to build a coherent understanding of a text. He argues that there are both global coherence signaling systems and local coherence signaling systems as means for laying foundations, maintaining the discourse network, or signaling a need to shift to a new network (see Gernsbacher, 1990). The set of principles and features noted below provide some indication for just how surface linguistic features provide the processing directions for constructing discourse comprehension: 1. Local coherence systems: a. Referent cueing (continuity, reinstatement, new chain) b. Temporal tracking c. Locational tracking d. Event tracking
200
e. Modality tracking f. Frame/script tracking 2. Global coherence systems: a. Adverbial transition cues b. Vocabulary driven processes (specific words that signal discourse continuities and shifts) c. Cues for new discourse units (marked structures, new paragraphs, new sections, new events) Gvon presents a range of syntactic evidence to show that these tracking systems provide continuous low-level signaling, helping to build reader inter pretations of coherent segments of texts. As Gvon (1995, p. 81) notes: ``Grammar must have evolved as a mechanism for speeding up the processing of both local and global aspects of texts coherence. Grammar cues are fast-processing, multiple, continuous, course-grained information resources for building text understanding.'' As the cueing systems shift in tenses, noun phrase references, events, participants, etc., the reader recognizes these signals as cues for shifts in the discourse and thus expects a new informational segment. In principle, these cues work in combination, as parts of a unied connectionist architecture, to assist the reader in building a text model of comprehension, and Gvon suggests that Gernsbacher's Structure Building Model provides the processing framework for this ongoing cueing from the surface features of a text. (See also Zwaan & Radavnsky, 1998, for a similar orientation to the construction of text interpretation.) Aside from the descriptive functional approaches suggested by Gvon, a further direction for discourse analysis originating from functional orientations is the work of Mann and Thompson (1986, 1992). Thompson has carried out a series of studies examining how simple variations in syntactic structures signal differing information at the discourse level. For example, the fronting of participial clauses and conditional clauses (vs. non-fronted examples) led to different implied meanings. Thompson also collaborated with Mann to develop a discourse analysis system known as Rhetorical Structure Theory (RST) (Mann & Thompson, 1986, 1988, 1992; see also Georgakopoulou & Goutsos, 1997). This system has been used in multiple studies over the past decade. Tagmemics A tagmemic approach to written discourse has had less of an impact on linguistic discourse studies but has inuenced early modern rhetoric approaches and continues to inuence translation research. Through the tagmemic approach, Pike extended the work of Sapir and Bloomeld into a larger discourse domain considering all of language within a unied eld of human behavior, a major component of which was the analysis of discourse from a linguistic perspective (specically, tagmemic). Aside from Pike, work by Grimes and Longacre had a
201
strong inuence on early functional and descriptive approaches to discourse analysis (Grimes, 1975; Longacre, 1983; Pike, 1967). Systemics Systemic approaches to discourse represent a major linguistic orientation of many linguists in various parts of the world (though not particularly in the U.S.). Halliday, drawing on Firth and Malinowski, developed a systemic functional approach to language that related the textual linguistic resources to the extratextual context of use (thus the designation ``social-semiotic'' attached to his theory). He established the discourse level as the primary locus of analysis in which ideational, interpersonal, and textual manifestations and patterns could be analyzed. Since discourse is an important level of analysis for Halliday, there is no need to create an articial competence/performance distinction, and all language is discoursal and ``language in use.'' While systemic linguistics has provided a framework for a range of linguistic work, its applications to discourse analysis include information structuring in discourse, cohesion, genre theory, grammatical metaphor, interpersonal relations in discourse, and register as reection of social context (Halliday, 1992, 1994, 1996, 1998; Hasan, 1979, 1996; Martin, 1992, 2002a). There are, in fact, many scholars engaged in systemic functional research and this review cannot do justice to this sub-eld of discourse analysis. Three areas of this research, however, deserve specic mention: Cohesion and cohesive harmony, grammatical metaphor, and genre. Many North American discourse analysts and composition researchers are familiar with the original version of cohesion in text. However, this theory has undergone a major revision in Halliday and Hasan (1989) and relatively few researchers seem to have followed this change. The newer version of cohesion, consisting of three components (componential cohesion, organic cohesion, and structural cohesion), make it more responsive to text analysis. Halliday and Hasan have also argued that simple counts of cohesion features in texts are not likely to provide signicant insights. Rather, they have developed a theory of cohesive harmony to examine the linguistic structuring of text and to interpret textual coherence. A second major avenue of research opened by Halliday centers on the notion of grammatical metaphor, specically the manner by which processes, procedures, and events become nominalized in language, losing their transparency and creating metaphorical objects. This process is well known in technical and scientic texts (see Halliday, 1998; Halliday & Martin, 1993; Martin & Veel, 1998) but it is also a major focus for critical discourse analyses across many discourse domains. Grammatical metaphor is already widely used in various analysis of writing in professional settings, critical discourse studies, and developmental writing studies, primarily by Australian and European researchers (Fairclough, 1995; Halliday, 1994, 1998; Martin, 1992; Stubbs, 1996). The general idea behind grammatical metaphor is that there are a series of processes
202
by which language transforms itself into new forms in response to various discoursal, social, cultural, and ideological pressures. A few examples will make this general process easily recognizable. In the oddnumbered sentences below, the structure of the language reects transparently the events and processes as they unfold in the world. Thus language mirrors, in a fairly straightforward way, the world. In the even-numbered sentences, the language has been transformed: events and processes are no longer in a transparent relation with associated noun phrase referents. Instead, the process/event and the relationships to the event (who does what to achieve some outcome) are obscured (Halliday, 1998). 1. The driver drove the bus too rapidly down the hill, so the brakes failed. 2. The driver's overrapid downhill driving of the bus caused brake failure. 3. Because the electrons in the two atoms are absolutely indistinguishable, they attract each other `èxtra'' strongly. 4. The absolute indistinguishability of the electrons in the two atoms gives rise to an `èxtra'' attractive force between them. The processes become objects to be examined in their own right and thus become new things to be inserted in more complex informational structures. These objects also constitute newly created knowledge to be used in innovative ways. Halliday (1998) talks about the process of grammatical metaphor as a major way to create new understandings about phenomena, a way to theorize about complex ideas, and a way to generate new taxonomic organizations of knowledge. These are all good reasons why grammatical metaphor is so pervasive in scientic and technical writing. Halliday (1998, pp. 209210) notes 13 consistent ways in which language instantiates change via grammatical metaphor, including the following examples: 1. 2. 3. 4. 5. 6. 7. Quality to entity Phase of process to quality Relator to entity Relator to quality N V to NP poss. Zero to entity Time/place to quality unstable (adj.) instability (n) begin (vb.) initial (adj.) if (sub conj.) condition (n) before (adv. conj.) previous (adj.) cabinet decided cabinet's decision 0 the fact that [X] [argued] for a long time (pp) lengthy [argument] (adj.)
These processes all convert languages structures into qualities and entities that are readily combined to build more complex entities. There are other important uses of grammatical metaphor in more complex written texts. In positive ways, grammatical metaphor compresses information so that the discourse is more concise and compact. Information that initially is presented in clausal form can now be referred to and recalled in more abbreviated nominal form, and presented in relation to additional information. So the writer can move from (Halliday, 1998, p. 200):
203
1. 2. 3. 4.
The planets are moving . . . The moving planets . . . The movement of planets . . . Planetary movement . . .
to to to
Grammatical metaphor can also be used for social and ideological interpretations because the processes of transformation alter the message in ways that are desirable for some groups. Removing the `àctor of a process removes accountability and makes an event seem more objective, without a specific intentional agent'' (Halliday, 1998, p. 201). Making a process or an event into an entity gives it a perceived reality that may be harmful to certain social groups. It is a short step from this recognition to full scale critical discourse analyses of current events or historical documents or the objectivity of research. A nal major research direction to emerge from systemic linguistics is the theory of genre associated with the work of Australian linguists and applied linguists. Early in the 1980s, a number of researchers explored how a functional interpretation of school-based genres can lead to better literacy instruction (e.g., Martin, 2000). From this inception, the genre-based analyses grounded in functional systemic interpretations have been extended across academic, occupational, and professional contexts, and across cultures. Recent applied linguistic orientations to genre analysis are presented in a later section (Bhatia, 1993; Johns, 2002; Martin, 2000, 2002a, 2002b; Paltridge, 1997). English studies The designation of this section, English studies, is not intended to create a new term for academic English as much as it is to nd a sufciently comprehensive cover-term to account for both historical and more recent developments in discourse analysis occurring under the aegis of English as an academic area. In light of the fact that the eld of English is itself largely a 20th century discipline, it is not surprising that English, as a discipline, sometimes seems to be minimally coherent. We make no effort to recount the history of the eld of English studies (cf. Berlin, 1984, 1987; Clark, 2001; Eagleton, 1983; Kinneavy, 1971). Instead, we want to focus our efforts to illustrate approaches to written discourse analysis that have arisen in English studies, and, without making any claims to any startling taxonomic insights, to give some indication of how these approaches can be situated within English. English studies itself combines inuences from literary criticism, ``new critical'' text analyses, stylistics, linguistics, rhetoric studies, and composition (and perhaps classics, social criticism and philosophy). For the most part, throughout the 20th century, these inuences have been directed to the study of the literary canon (however dened) and to composition instruction. At different points during this time, the careful study of texts, drawing on linguistic
204
features for arguments, has been an important focus of analysis for various areas within English. In order to create a frame of reference, however awed it might be, we suggest that written discourse analysis has been carried out under something like the following headings: 1. 2. 3. 4. 5. Literary criticism and semiotics Stylistics Linguistics and rhetoric Rhetorical studies Writing and composition studies
We need to note that several current approaches to literary criticism are not represented in this list, since such approaches are post-structural and hermeneutic in various ways, seeking new insights through the critique/denial of the structural possibilities in the text itself. Literary criticism and semiotics In the context of literary criticism and semiotics, it is possible to point to the rise of the ``New Criticism'' in the 1940s and 1950s as a point at which literary criticism focused on the text (rather than the author) as a ``new'' way to understand the literary canon. Of course, one could point to antecedents among the Russian formalists toward the beginning of the century, although such a linkage extends beyond English studies (Eagleton, 1983; Hawkes, 1977). New Criticism afforded literary scholars at mid-century a new approach to understanding and interpreting texts through exploration of the specic linguistic features of a text that contributed to its literariness. More generally, it also brought structuralism into English studies. The rise of semiotics and readerresponse constructs in the 1950s and 1960s took literary criticism away from the text and toward the reader's response focusing on the plurality of potential readings through strategies for the interpretation of sign systems (Eco, 1976). This shift, along with the later rise of post-modernism and deconstruction, took literary criticism away from written discourse analysis in terms of the analysis of systematic meaningful patterns in texts. Stylistics Stylistics, as it was pursued through the 1960s and 1970s, constitutes perhaps the most focused structural continuation of text analysis within English studies (Freeman, 1970; Gibson, 1966; Love & Payne, 1969; Ohmann, 1964; Ullman, 1964). In the 1950s and 1960s, stylistic studies of literary texts perhaps provided a ``modern'' way to apply linguistics to English texts. Much of this work made explicit use of lexico-syntactic features of texts as well as larger organizational patterns interpretable from the text; however, these studies seldom sought to make broader generic comparison. Rather, they compared specic authors or specic
205
works of a single author (e.g., Miles, 1967; Milic, 1967). As a result, the paradigm never developed approaches intended for analysis of text across genres or in situations in which the writer of the text is not as signicant as the similarities and differences created by genres, purposes for writing, specic situational contexts, or variations in writer prociency. More recent research on stylistic analyses has extended in two directions: the analysis of non-literary texts and the analysis of literature for English secondary teaching. Much of this research is done in Europe, particularly in the U.K. The stylistic analysis of non-literary text covers all varieties of texts from advertisements to manuals to newspapers (Simpson, 1997). The use of stylistics for English education focuses on the appreciation of literature and critical reading skills (Carter & McRae, 1996; Carter & Nash, 1990). In this context, the work done overlaps strongly with applied linguistics and critical discourse analysis. It is interesting to note that text stylistics is now seen as falling into the domain of applied linguistics and linguistics rather than of English studies (see Simpson & Hall, 2002; Widdowson, 1992). An interesting slant on the application of stylistic analysis to non-literary texts is demonstrated in Carter and Nash (1990); see also Nash (1990). While they cover a range of non-literary types of texts (e.g., newspapers, ads, political texts, critical reviews), they offer a particularly insightful and amusing analysis of popular ction texts. In some respects, the various categories they discuss represent a skewed version of Tannen's theory of involvement and, certainly, popular prose is intended to involve readers. They suggest that various types of ction adventure, romance, crime, spy, and science ction engage in the ``realism game.'' They offer 11 mechanisms used by popular writers to create ``realism'': naming, ``dossier'' epithets and additions, periphrasis, technical specication, measurements, non-core (energetic) verbs, sensory and emotional adjectives, active participle clauses, impersonal agents as subjects, gurative language, and topic skipping. The examples are so stereotypic that they reveal clearly the formulaic uses of language in popular prose texts. Three examples will sufce to illustrate the ``realism game,'' though anyone wondering if they should admit to reading popular ction may think twice after reading Carter and Nash's analyses. A rst example (naming):
That was the first time Munro had heard the term `the firm.' Later he would learn the terminology. To those in the Anglo-American alliance of intelligence services, a strange and guarded, but ultimately vital, alliance, the SIS was always called `the firm.' To its employees those in the counter-intelligence arm, the MI5 were `the colleagues.' The CIA at Langley, Virginia, was `the company' and its staff' the cousins' . . .''
Periphrasis is covered with the following example (and you may substitute freely):
Jill looked at Mr. Hogan. The kindly old Irishman/one-legged seadog/pugnacious leprechaun/grizzled freedom fighter/etc. was evidently upset. . . .
206
Finally, to round out the low-brow involvement examples, there is technical specification:
Her Majesty entered the waiting car. It was a Daimler Benz mark IV cross head sedan de ville with the Jinglebacker struts on the rear axle and a Ferlighetti modified supercharger. You don't see many of them nowadays. Suddenly a shot rang out. It came from a snub-nosed Pottinger .307, the kind with the balanced recoil and the filed down front sight. Hearing it, one of the motor-cycle escort quickly turned his 1500cc twin-cylinder cone-driven Harley Granville Barker . . . (examples from Carter & Nash, 1990, pp. 101102)
Rhetoric and linguistics Rhetorical studies employing linguistic systems, combining both linguistic resources and analyses with the rhetorical situation or intentions of texts constitute a more recent development in English studies. Perhaps the best known early advocate of this combination is Christensen (1963, 1967); Christensen and Christensen (1976) in their rhetoric of the sentence and rhetoric of the paragraph. It is also possible to include Pike's applications of tagmemic theory to English composition studies in the 1960s. More recent extensions of this orientation following specically from Christensen can be found in the work of Pitkin (Discourse Blocs, 1969, 1977) in the 1970s and Coe (Grammar of Passages, 1988), Vande Kopple (given and new information, 1986), and Witte (topic and comment, 1983) in the 1980s (see also Kaplan under applied linguistics). This approach is also seen in studies focusing on specic functional interpretations of the linguistic features of texts in the 1990s, particularly those by Vande Kopple (noun phrases, relative clauses, 1992, 1998a) and MacDonald (subject NPs, 1992). One good example of this type of approach within English studies can be seen in Coe's analysis of texts using a ``grammar of passages,'' drawing on Shaughnessy (1977). Using a revised and simplied discourse matrix approach (cf. Nold & Davis, 1980), Coe argues that the mapping out of sentences (or T-units) in a text in terms of coordinate, subordinate, and superordinate relations provides important insights into the structuring of a wide range of texts across many genres. At the same time, the relative simplicity of the approach means that it is also applicable for the purpose of writing development research. The approach draws on the earlier work of Christensen (see above) and is similar in nature to systems proposed by both Pitkin (1969, 1977) and Kaplan (1972). At the same time that sentences are assigned as subordinate, coordinate, or superordinate, there are specic relations between sentences, and these relations should be specied (see also similar systems by Grimes, 1975; Mann & Thompson, 1986; Stotsky, 1983). For example, subordinate sentences can take on the following functional roles (Coe, 1988, p. 32): 1. Dening 2. Exemplifying 3. Giving reasons
207
4. Deducing 5. Explaining 6. Qualifying The combination of creating a larger organizational structure and specifying function/semantic relations between each sentence in the text provides a powerful analytic tool for discourse analysis. A second strong example of discourse analysis under this heading consists of the many detailed studies by Vande Kopple (1986, 1991, 1994, 1998a, 2002). In a series of studies on scientic writing, Vande Kopple used Halliday's grammatical metaphor approach to examine the complexity of subject noun phrases, the use of relative clauses, and the shift from dynamic (i.e., clausal complexity) to synoptic (i.e., lexical density) style (see Halliday, 1994, 1998). In examining relative clauses in articles in Physical Review over a period of almost 90 years, Vande Kopple (1998a) showed that the actual number of relative clauses used remained about the same, but the functions changed from that of explaining and dening instruments, results, and equations to lling in additional information and adding to overall dense compression of information. In other studies, Vande Kopple has explored given-new relations and thematic progressions in texts. Applications to writing instruction are offered in a review of information structuring relations in texts (Vande Kopple, 1998b). In many ways, Vande Kopple's work overlaps that of Bazerman, though Bazerman is discussed below under rhetorical studies. This distinction is made because we see Bazerman's work as exploring not only the textual features and practices of groups, but also relating those features to specic ideological inuences of social settings. Rhetorical studies Rhetorical studies that involve close reading of texts along with analytic interpretations have extended beyond the literary canon and incorporated social contextualization, examining texts from a wide range of academic and nonacademic areas. Examples can be found in the work of Bazerman (1988, 1993), de Beaugrande (1991), Duin and Hansen (1996), Myers (1990), O'Dell and Goswami (1986), Prior (1998), and Spilka (1993). Whether the site of study is scientic discourse, the business world, or academic interactions, these studies share a goal to produce close analyses of texts and interpretations that align the social context with the linguistic signaling in the texts. The work by Bazerman and Myers stands out particularly strongly in this area of study. For the past two decades, Bazerman has consistently explored the rhetorical context and discourse structuring of scientic texts, sometimes as groups of texts based on functional linguistic categorization (e.g., Physical Review articles, Information articles, experimental science articles), and sometimes in terms of a specic author or a key text (or texts) (e.g., Thomas Edison) (Bazerman, 1984, 1988, 1993, 1998, 1999, 2001). In these latter cases, the
208
analyses include the contexts and setting in which the texts were produced as a way to examine the rhetorical, social, and ideological inuences on the writer and on the texts. Myers has focused both on the writing of biology for various audiences (grant readers, peer researchers, popular audiences) (Myers, 1990), and he has examined more specically claim making, indirectness, and politeness in science writing (Myers, 1989, 1994). A good reason to see Myers as centrally located in rhetorical studies lies in the fact that he makes strong arguments to include rhetorical analysis of the people involved in texts, the writers and the readers. For Myers, there are clear limits to text analysis on its own, without a strong understanding of the extra-textual contexts in which the text is written (Myers, 1998a, 1999). Beyond biology, Myers (1994, 1998b) has also explored the relations between visual forms and written text and examined in detail the rhetoric of ads. (See also Bruthiaux, 1996.) The eld of rhetorical studies in English has also played a major role in the modern emergence of composition studies. A number of prominent English rhetoricians have developed approaches to writing instruction that follow rhetorical principles, in most cases, combined with theories of how texts vary by mode, aim, and audience, and how they can be analyzed. Among the rhetoricians who have been leaders in developing composition instruction along rhetorical principles are Corbett (1973), D'Angelo (1975), Kinneavy (1971), and Winterowd (1975). The key notion for written discourse analysis is that these sources focus both on organizational principles and linguistics aspects of effective writing. A good example of this orientation to discourse analysis is provided in Kinneavy (1983). In this synthesis article, Kinneavy compares four rhetorical models as composition schemes, by Moffett, Britton, D'Angelo, and Kinneavy. He examines the various ways that these views of texts and the interactions of writer, reader, and the world with the texts generate types of texts and the means by which texts vary (at least compositional texts). His analyses highlight how the modes of discourse (exposition, description, narration, argumentation; Bain, 1867) can be seen as pervading many of the composition and rhetoric models of the 1970s and 1980s. At the same time, these more recent frameworks, and particularly Kinneavy, refocus modes of discourse to reect and respond to communicative aims, contexts and audiences that are independent of the textual modes (Kinneavy's aims are reference, persuasion, literature, expression). Writing and composition studies The eld of writing and composition studies made early use of linguistic approaches to discourse analysis. In fact, this history is fairly extensive, going back to the work of Hunt (1965), Loban (1976), and O'Hare (1973) in the 1960s and early 1970s, as well as to the range of research originally reported on in the rst edition of research on composition theory (Braddock, Lloyd-Jones, & Schoer, 1963; see also Hillocks, 1986). Hunt (1965) provided the impetus for seemingly hundreds of studies of student writing based on T-unit analysis. O'Hare similarly
209
tied the notion of T-units and sentence analysis to sentence combining approaches. Loban provided a broad sketch of writing development across the grades, using linguistic criteria, to demonstrate improvement in writing quality over time. There have been numerous studies of student writing over the past 30 years that have used a range of linguistic features, linguistic complexity measures, error measures, cohesion measures, and more general structural measures (see Grabe & Kaplan, 1996, chap. 2). Composition studies also paved the way for research on the writing process. This approach was popularized by the various publications and research studies of Flower and Hayes since the late 1970s. In this research, Flower and Hayes (1981) observed writers engaged in composing and collected introspective think-aloud protocols of student writers. These data were analyzed as secondary texts of the primary texts, and a specication of a model of writing was developed. The empirical nature of this work suggests that it is a type of text analysis, but, in fact, no direct analysis of the linguistic or organizational features of student texts was developed. Moreover, the theoretical model that emerged did not offer any consideration of the impact of a writer's linguistic resources on the composing process or on the text produced. More recent work along these lines (Flower, 1994; Hayes, 1996) still lacks serious consideration of the linguistic aspects of texts and, accordingly, it does not make use of written discourse analysis of the written product; in fact no direct analysis of the linguistic or organizational features of student texts were developed in building the original model. Applied linguistics Applied linguistics is treated here as distinct from other linguistic approaches for multiple reasons. Because applied linguistics is driven by attempts to solve problems in real-world settings, rather than by singular abstract theoretical assumptions, it is by denition interdisciplinary and consequently draws on resources and analytic approaches from many disciplines. For example, to the extent that students are seen as not learning how to write effectively in certain settings, an applied linguist would use resources from linguistics, psychology, education, and composition studies to analyze the situation and to seek a reasonable response. Viewed this way, applied linguistics is not derivative from linguistics, since linguistics alone could not possibly provide an applied linguist with the resources to address this real-world problem (Kaplan, 2002). Applied linguistics a term that has been in use since before 1950 has been making contributions to written discourse analysis from its earliest period. In the 1950s and early 1960s, in a time when the Audio-Lingual method predominated in second/foreign language teaching and structural linguistics (based in Skinnerian psychology) constituted the dominant paradigm in linguistics, writing stood at the end of a chain of linguistic development, starting with listening and progressing through speaking and reading; it was widely held that
210
the other three members of the pattern had to be mastered, in order, before the last could be undertaken. Language teachers, teaching large numbers of foreign students, particularly in tertiary institutions in Canada, the U.S. and U.K., were expected to produce, in a very short time frame, students who were uent in the second language (English). The three earlier stages of language development, however, consumed most of the available teaching time, and writing (beyond the level of the sentence) got scant attention. That was also a time when `èrror analysis'' and contrastive linguistics (see, e.g., Agard & DiPietro, 1965; Stockwell & Bowen, 1965; Stockwell & Martin, 1965) were seen as important means of predicting the points at which instruction should be targeted. In a relatively short time, it became apparent that error analysis and contrastive linguistics were somehow failing to predict problem sites (Schachter, 1974). From the early linguistic applications to language-based problems, there gradually emerged a more complex and interdisciplinary eld of applied linguistics. For applied linguistics, ``language as discourse'' is a central notion, and written discourse analysis has been carried out in six areas, in the following rough categorization: 1. 2. 3. 4. 5. 6. ESL/EFL/EAP contexts ESP contexts Descriptive analyses Corpus linguistics Critical discourse analysis Language use in professional settings
ESL/EFL/EAP: 1960s to present In the 1960s, teachers who taught ESL/EFL were beginning to notice that patterns which may have been the product of rst language transfer seemed to occur in the writing of second language learners. Kaplan (1966) attempted to capture this fact through the notion of contrastive rhetoric. Whether or not he was completely accurate in his postulations mattered less than the fact that he opened a long debate about the issue and sparked a long series of studies trying to conrm or deny his hypothesis. Among these, Hinds (1987) proposed an hypothesis that some cross-cultural differences could be accounted for by relative responsibility in deciphering texts, suggesting that some languages were writer responsible (i.e., the writer had to supply most of the work necessary for comprehension) while others were reader responsible (i.e., where readers were expected to do most of the work). The debate around Kaplan's notions has continued into the present in, e.g., Connor (1996), and Kaplan has revised and updated his original notions (1991, 2000, in press, and elsewhere). Since the 1970s, the exploration of writing abilities and writing development among ESL, EFL, and language minority students has followed a number of paths. Among those using discourse analysis explicitly and consistently one can
211
include the work of both Connor and Johns. Through her writing, Connor has focused consistently on the use of written discourse analysis approaches to explore both writing development and the uses of writing in more advanced settings (Connor, 1996; Connor & Johns, 1990). Johns has consistently focused on ways to understand the written product that students produce with her research on summary writing, coherence, basic writing in university settings, and the role of genre knowledge (Johns, 1986, 1993, 1997, 2002). For example, Johns (1993) provides a very useful analysis of the writing needs of EAP students in an American university and describes four ways that students themselves are engaged in analyzing the prose prompts and prose products that they are expected to work with and master (if they are to be successful in the academic game). The key goal is to analyze the discourse processes and products that are actually used in a range of classrooms and to interrogate them. She emphasizes the need for students entering the university to understand and analyze their own plans for writing assignments and conrming that their writing plans and the teacher's expectations actually match (often they do not). Students also need explicit practice in learning how to use relevant and assigned readings in their writing. Students need to be aware of the organizational scaffolding in texts they read for learning purposes, and they need to be able to summarize effectively. They need to practice responding to essay examination questions that typically occur in certain classrooms. Finally, students need to work from model texts they encounter in various classrooms, analyze features that many such texts have in common (e.g., the lab report), examine the consistent ``moves'' that many such models indicate, and work together to decide what the criteria for a good paper of a certain type might look like. From this application of ``survival'' literacy training, it is not a far step to seeing the value of genre-based analyses and bringing these analyses into the classroom (Johns, 2002). There have also been multiple avenues of research on the study of ESL writing and composition over the past 20 years. Aspects of this research address the written product of students in various contexts. Numerous studies of summary writing, modeling, revision outcomes, discourse-organization teaching, case studies of writer development, and linguistic correlates of writing development have been published. At the same time, there are relatively few consistent discourse analytic approaches that are applied to student writing. Important overviews of writing that indicate the uses and roles of written discourse analysis in writing can be found in Candlin and Hyland (1999), Cumming (1998), Ferris and Hedgcock (1998), and Hyland (2002a). Work exploring the ways that discourse analysis can assist ESL/EFL teachers in the classroom has been supported strongly by McCarthy (1991, 2001); McCarthy and Carter (1994). ESP: late 1960s to present English for Special Purposes work has had a long history of using written discourse analysis for its instructional purposes. From the late 1960s through the
212
1970s, ESP research focused on discourse models for language and writing instruction (Dudley-Evans & St. John, 1998; Johns & Dudley-Evans, 1991; Swales, 1988; Trimble, 1985). In some respects, this approach has continued through the 1990s in the work of ``Swalesian'' analyses of various text types and genres (Swales, 1990, 1998, 2000). Important related research has focused on the relation between grammatical structures and discourse understanding, the needs analysis of professional discourses in various settings, and register variation in differing discourse domains (Dudley-Evans & St. John, 1998; Swales, 2000). Discourse description: 1970s to the present Applied linguists have, for the past two decades, explored the organization of written text from the perspective of textual description. In the early 1970s, Kaplan was among the rst applied linguists to develop a discourse system for the analysis of writing, the Discourse Bloc, adapted from the work of Christensen and Pitkin. In the 1970s and 1980s, Coulthard (1977), and later Hoey (1983), both explored various aspects of written discourse in systematic approaches. In the 1990s, work by Bhatia, Ghaddesi, and Hyland have all addressed writing and text types through systematic analyses of lexis, syntactic structures, discourse patterning, and genre types (Bhatia, 1993, 1999; Coulthard, 1994a; Ghadessy, 1993, 1995, 1999; Hoey, 1983, 1991; Hyland, 1998, 2000, 2001, 2002b; Kaplan, 1972; Stubbs, 1996). A particularly important example of this work is the exploration of genre families in professional discourse settings, and particularly the work of Bhatia (1993, 1999, 2002) and Swales (1998). For example, promotional discourse gives rise to a network of related and overlapping genres: advertisements, sales promotion letters, job application letters, annual reports, book reviews, travel brochures, fund-raising letters, grant proposals, reference letters, etc. (Bhatia, 1999, p. 29). In academic settings, there are clear network relations among conference abstracts, posters, manuscript reviews, grant proposal reviews, research articles, etc. of various types depending on discipline; moreover, genres overlap as a set of options for a specic context: the letter, the e-mail, or the social chat (Swales, 1998, 2000). Martin (2002b) argues that types of genre families can be developed to create learner pathways for secondary school students in various disciplines (history, geography, English, science). In many professional settings it is possible to list networks of genres that support and invoke one another as part of the process of professional communication (legal genres, corporate genres, engineering genres, ad genres, newspaper genres, etc.). Corpus linguistics: 1980s to present Corpus linguistic descriptions of text resources have been reported since the early 1980s. Sinclair (1987, 1991) developed the COBUILD project from the collection and analysis of a very large corpus (about 20 million words of text in
213
1987). Quirk et al. (1985) used a corpus to guide the organization of Comprehensive grammar of the English language. Biber (1988) analyzed spoken and written variation across a corpus of 23 different text types. In the 1990s, corpus linguistics has emerged as a major descriptive area within applied linguistics (and linguistics). Corpus analysis provides insights into: (1) specic aspects of language structure and use, (2) the occurrence of features and structures throughout texts, (3) variation across texts in a range of differing contexts and uses, and (4) resources for language awareness in language teaching (Biber, 1988, 1995; Conrad, 2002; Conrad & Biber, 2001; Conrad & Reppen, 1998; Kennedy, 1998; Stubbs, 1996). Critical discourse analysis: 1980s to the present Since the late 1970s, work by Kress and Hodge (1979) has pointed out the need to consider the broader social, political and ideological forces that shape many texts in a range of professional, public, and institutional contexts. Since the 1980s, this trend has emerged to become a signicant focus of institutional and social discourse analysis (Fairclough, 1989, 1995; Huckin, 1998; Kress, 1989; Pennycook, 2000; van Dijk, 1983, 1997). While its popularity has grown considerably, critical discourse analysis has often been criticized for its selective and opportunistic use of any discourse analysis system to support its goals (Widdowson, 1998). Kress (1991) provided the best simple summary of linguistics resources that could be applied in a principled, reliable manner in the social and cultural critique of texts. However, many analyses and surveys since that time have lost sight of the need for reliably grounded analytic tools. Because critical discourse analysis is so closely tied to modern hermeneutic critical traditions, there is the danger that the discussion of ``discourse'' is no longer grounded in the language of the text itself, but becomes part of the interpretive context (drawing full circle back to the beginning of this article) (e.g., see the discussion in Luke, 2002). Language use in professional contexts: 1980s to the present The analysis of texts as they are found, interpreted, and used in various professional and institutional settings represent an area where applied linguists have made signicant gains in the past 20 years. (This is the last area to be discussed in this article, but it is not the end of the story.) While this involves a fair amount of overlap with a number of other domains of discourse analysis (systemic linguistics, applied descriptive discourse analysis, ESP, genre analysis, rhetoric and linguistics), it deserves independent comment. There is now a large and growing body of discourse analysis for law and legal settings, business, science, medicine, social services, advertising, and the news (Atkinson, 1999; Candlin & Hyland, 1999; Chimombo & Roseberry, 1998; Gibbons, 1994; Grabe et al., 1999; Swales, 2000). This aspect of discourse analysis has important practical implications for how discourse analysis can impact people's lives beyond classroom settings.
214
A good example of this is the recent work by Hyland (1996, 1998, 2000, 2002a, 2002b). In his volume on disciplinary discourses, Hyland (2000) examines the linguistic and genre variations that manifest themselves in research articles, book reviews, conference abstracts, scientic letters, and academic textbooks. He combines corpus research and quantitative analyses with expert writer interviews and case studies of writers discussing particular pieces of writing. Linguistically, Hyland explores key linguistic features that highlight the social nature of writing while also drawing on the power of corpus analyses. In various studies, he has examined citation signals and patterns, evaluative verbs, reporting verbs, hedging, move structures, evidentials, attitude markers, modal verbs, addressee features, etc. In various publications, Hyland has commented, for example, on: writer's stance in research articles; seem/appear and attributive, predicative and epistemic adjectives functioning as hedges; downtoners functioning as hedges of abstract nouns, adjectives, and verbs; modal verbs functioning as evidentials.
This combination of salient linguistic signals, of writer's rhetorical purposes, combined with large samples of texts and interviews with writers, collectively provides a strong research methodology for discourse analyses with professional and academic genres. A second good example of discourse analysis in professional settings is its application in forensic situations. Eagleson (1994) documents a case where a husband was accused of murdering his wife. He produced a six-page farewell suicide note claiming to be written by the wife. Through forensic examination of spelling, morphology, syntax and punctuation, it was determined that the letter was written by the husband and not the wife. The husband later admitted to writing the letter. Coulthard (1994b) describes the case of the Birmingham six, Irishmen arrested after two IRA bombs were set off in public houses in 1974. Examinations of police and defendant statements on transcripts 17 years later helped acquit the six defendants. As a contributor to this trial, Coulthard examined specic aspects of transcripts, unusually uent coherence patterns, over-specicity of events, naming practices, and repetition patterns, to bring into questions whether or not the testimony at the original trial had been altered by police. The journal Forensic Linguistics: The International Journal of Speech, Language and the Law, published since 1994, often prints relevant studies. Where else? Psychology, law, and business and technical communication Lest one come to the conclusion that research in linguistics, English studies, and applied linguistics covers the discourse territory, this last brief section is intended to point to major additional sources of written discourse analysis. Psychology is especially prominent in written discourse analysis, and an entire article could easily be written just on the contributions of cognitive psychology to
215
discourse analysis (e.g., Britton & Graesser, 1996; Gernsbacher, 1994; Kintsch, 1998; Oostendorp & Goldman, 1999). Sociology also contributes in important ways, though the bulk of this work is in spoken discourse analysis. Legal analyses, business research, and technical and professional communication also represent areas in which written discourse analysis is carried out. Here we will touch only briey on the impact of cognitive psychology on written discourse analysis. (See Grabe, 2000, in press, for more detailed accounts.) Cognitive psychology can trace its beginnings to the late 1960s and, since the early 1970s, it has viewed discourse comprehension as one of its primary areas of research. A long-standing assumption is that understanding the nature of comprehension will provide major insights into the psychology of mind and mental functioning. Recently, Kintsch (1998) has gone so far as to state that a powerful theory of verbal comprehension would amount to a theory of cognition more generally. Beginning from the early 1970s, cognitive psychologists have explored at least nine major areas involving written discourse analysis: 1. 2. 3. 4. 5. 6. 7. 8. 9. The concept of a text grammar. The role of inferencing and schemas on text comprehension. The reality of semantic propositions as meaning units in comprehension. The manner in which text understandings are generated (text model, top level text types). Summary writing. The textual signaling that contributes to textual coherence. Text revision and learning. The relation between mental models on the one hand and text comprehension and learning from texts on the other. The comprehension and synthesis processes across multiple texts.
It is beyond the scope of this article to examine these issues, but it is important to recognize the extensive cross-fertilization between linguistics, applied linguistics and psychology with respect to discourse analysis and its uses to study both the receptive and productive language skills. (See Barsalou, 1992; Singer, 1990 for good general overviews.) Work on written discourse is a consistent component of discourse analysis in both legal settings and in business and technical communication. Some of the key resources have been noted in other parts of this article. It is simply important to note that there is a much larger literature related to written discourse analysis in the business, technical, and law journals. Conclusion Discourse analysis is, one may say, a fuzzy discipline, perhaps more oriented toward chaos theory than toward the kinds of paradigms applied linguists are more accustomed to using. The obvious reason for the fuzziness lies in the huge
216
number of variables implicated in the process of text generation and text recognition. It seems clear that, at least at the present time, it is not possible to construct a viable ``grammar of text.'' Discourse analysts will need to struggle along with careful descriptive approaches, dealing with as many of the variables as possible, but recognizing that any presently conceived model will necessarily be incomplete. What we have tried to outlined in this article is a history of discourse analysis IN ENGLISH. It is, however, increasingly necessary to take account of texts written in English by non-native English speakers and texts written in languages other than English by native English speakers. Ideally, discourse analytic processes ought to be applicable to text in any language; unfortunately, most of the serious work in discourse analysis has been focused almost exclusively on English. The future of discourse analysis lies in a generalization of the several models across languages; but more immediately it requires an integration of the several competing views of ways of doing discourse analysis. The discipline is viable and important; the Balkanization of approaches threatens the viability of the discipline. Finally, we have attempted to impose some order on a 50-year history one crossing multiple disciplinary boundaries, multiple epistemological orientations, and multiple research methodologies. One might say that we have made an initial effort at a coherent story. We are sure that others would construct a different story, with different emphases, and different taxonomic categories. Without claiming any authority to ``getting it all right,'' we hope that this history generates constructive critical responses, leading to a yet more coherent story and a more effective means to categorize the touchstones, trends and variations for the eld of written discourse analysis. References
Agard, F. B., & DiPietro, R. J. (1965). The grammatical structures of English and Italian. Chicago: University of Chicago Press. Atkinson, D. (1999). Scientific discourse in sociohistorical context: Philosophical transactions of the Royal Society of London, 16751975. Mahwah, NJ: Erlbaum. Bain, A. (1867). English composition and rhetoric (2nd American ed.). New York: D. Appleton & Co. Bakhtin, M. (1981). The dialogic imagination. (C. Emerson & M. Holquist, Trans.). Austin, TX: University of Texas Press. Barsalou, L. (1992). Cognitive psychology: An overview for cognitive scientists. Mahwah, NJ: Erlbaum. Barthes, R. (1964). Elements of Semiology. (A. Lavers & C. Smith, Trans.). New York: Hill and Wang. Barthes, R. (1974). S/Z: An essay. (R. Miller, Trans.). New York: Hill and Wang. Bazerman, C. (1984). Modern evolution of the experimental report in physics. Spectroscopic articles in Physical Review, 18931980. Social Studies of Science, 14, 163196. Bazerman, C. (1988). Shaping written knowledge. Madison, WI: University of Wisconsin Press. Bazerman, C. (1993). Constructing experience. Carbondale, IL: Southern Illinois University Press. Bazerman, C. (1998). Emerging perspectives on the many dimensions of scientific discourse. In J. Martin & R. Veel (Eds.), Reading science (pp. 1533). New York: Routledge.
217
Bazerman, C. (1999). The languages of Edison's light. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press. Bazerman, C. (2001). Nuclear information: One rhetorical moment in the construction of the information age. Written Communication, 18, 259295. Berlin, J. (1984). Writing instruction in nineteenth century American colleges. Carbondale, IL: Southern Illinois University Press. Berlin, J. (1987). Rhetoric and reality: Writing instruction in American colleges, 19001985. Carbondale, IL: Southern Illinois University Press. Bhatia, V. K. (1993). Analysing genre: Language use in professional settings. London: Longman. Bhatia, V. K. (1999). Integrating products, processes, purposes and participants in professional writing. In C. Candlin & K. Hyland (Eds.), Writing: Texts, processes and practices (pp. 2139). London: Longman. Bhatia, V. K. (2002). Applied genre analysis: Analytic advances and pedagogical procedures. In A. Johns (Ed.), Genre in the classroom: Multiple perspectives (pp. 279283). Mahwah, NJ: Erlbaum. Biber, D. (1988). Variation across speech and writing. New York: Cambridge University Press. Biber, D. (1995). Dimensions of register variation. New York: Cambridge University Press. Biber, D., Conrad, S., & Reppen, R. (1998). Corpus linguistics: Investigating language structure and use. New York: Cambridge University Press. Biber, D., Johansson, S., Leech, G., Conrad, S., & Finegan, E. (1999). Longman Grammar of Spoken and Written English. Harlow: Pearson. Bolinger, D. (1977). Meaning and form. London: Longman. Braddock, R., Lloyd-Jones, R., & Schoer, L. (1963). Research in written composition. Urbana, IL: National Council of Teachers of English. Britton, B., & Graesser, A. (Eds.). (1996). Models of understanding text. Mahwah, NJ: Erlbaum. Brown, G., & Yule, G. (1983). Discourse analysis. New York: Cambridge University Press. Bruthiaux, P. (1996). The discourse of classified advertising: Exploring the nature of linguistic simplicity. Oxford: Oxford University Press. Burke, K. (1966). Language as symbolic action: Essays on life, literature and method. Berkeley, CA: University of California Press. Burrough-Boenisch, J. (2002). Culture and conventions: Writing and reading Dutch scientific English. Utrecht: LOT. [Netherlands Graduate School of Linguistics.] Candlin, C., & Hyland, K. (Eds.). (1999). Writing: Text, processes and practices. London: Longman. Carter, R. (1997). Investigating English discourse. New York: Routledge. Carter, R., & McRae, J. (Eds.). (1996). Language: Literature and the learner. London: Longman. Carter, R., & Nash, W. (1990). Seeing through language: A guide to styles of English writing. Oxford: Blackwell. Chafe, W. (1976). Givenness, contrastiveness, definiteness, subjects, topics, and point of view. In C. Li (Ed.), Subject and topic (pp. 2555). Austin, TX: University of Texas Press. Chimombo, M., & Roseberry, R. (1998). The power of discourse. Mahwah, NJ: Erlbaum. Christensen, F. (1963). A generative rhetoric of the paragraph. College Composition and Communication, 14, 155161. Christensen, F. (1967). Notes toward a new rhetoric. New York: Harper and Row. Christensen, F., & Christensen, B. (1976). A new rhetoric. New York: Harpers. Cicourel, A. (1973). Cognitive sociology. Baltimore, MD: Penguin. Clark, U. (2001). War words: Language, history and the disciplining of English. Amsterdam: Elsevier. COBUILD (1987). Collins COBUILD English language Dictionary. London: Collins. COBUILD (1988). Collins COBUILD essential English grammar. London: Collins. COBUILD (1990). Collins COBUILD English grammar. London: Collins. Coe, R. (1988). A grammar of passages. Carbondale, IL: Southern Illinois University Press. Connor, U. (1996). Contrastive rhetoric: Cross-cultural aspects of second-language writing. New York: Cambridge University Press. Connor, U., & Johns, A. (Eds.). (1990). Coherence in writing. Arlington, VA: TESOL.
218
Conrad, S. (2002). Corpus linguistic approaches for discourse analysis. In M. McGroarty, et al. (Eds.), Annual Review of Applied Linguistics, 22. Discourse and dialogue (pp. 7594). New York: Cambridge University Press. Conrad, S., & Biber, D. (Eds.). (2001). Variation in English: Multi-dimensional studies. London: Longman. Corbett, E. P. J. (1973). The little English handbook: Choices and conventions. New York: Wiley. Coulthard, M. (1977). An introduction to discourse analysis. London: Longman. Coulthard, M. (1994a). Advances in written text analysis. New York: Routledge. Coulthard, M. (1994b). Powerful evidence for the defense: An exercise in forensic discourse analysis. In J. Gibbon (Ed.), Language and the law (pp. 414427). London: Longman. Cumming, A. (1998). Theoretical perspectives on writing. In W. Grabe, et al. (Eds.), Annual Review of Applied Linguistics, 18. Foundations of second language teaching (pp. 6178). New York: Cambridge University Press. D'Angelo, F. J. A. (1975). A conceptual theory of rhetoric. Cambridge, MA: Winthrop. de Beaugrande, R. (1991). Linguistic theory: The discourse of fundamental works. London: Longman. de Beaugrande, R., & Dressler, W. U. (1981). Introduction to text linguistics. London: Longman. Derrida, J. (1967). De la grammatologie. Paris: Las Editions de Minuit. Dudley-Evans, T., & St. John, M. J. (1998). Developments in English for specific purposes: A multidisciplinary approach. New York: Cambridge University Press. Duin, A. H., & Hansen, C. (Eds.). (1996). Nonacademic writing: Social theory and technology. Mahwah, NJ: Erlbaum. Eagleson, R. (1994). Forensic analysis of personal written texts: A case study. In J. Gibbon (Ed.), Language and the law (pp. 362373). London: Longman. Eagleton, T. (1983). Literary theory: An introduction. Minneapolis: University of Minnesota Press. Eco, U. (1976). A theory of semiotics. Bloomington, IN: Indiana University Press. Eco, U. (1979). The role of the reader: Explorations in the semiotics of text. Bloomington, IN: Indiana University Press. Enkvist, N. E. (1997). Why we need contrastive rhetoric. Alternations, 4, 188206. Fairclough, N. (1989). Language and power. London: Longman. Fairclough, N. (1995). Critical discourse analysis: The critical study of language. London: Longman. Ferris, D., & Hedgcock, J. (1998). Teaching ESL composition: Purpose, process, and practice. Mahwah, NJ: Erlbaum. Fillmore, C. J. (1985). Linguistics as a tool for discourse analysis. In T. A. van Dijk (Ed.), Handbook of discourse analysis (Vol. 4, pp. 1139). San Diego, CA: Academic Press. Finegan, E. (1999). Language: Its structure and use (3rd ed.). New York: Harcourt. Fish, S. (1980). Is there a text in this class? Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press. Flower, L. (1994). The construction of negotiated meaning. Carbondale, IL: Southern Illinois University Press. Flower, L., & Hayes, J. (1981). A cognitive process theory of writing. College Composition and Communication, 32, 365387. Foucault, M. (1972). The archeology of knowledge. London: Tavistock. Freeman, D. (Ed.). (1970). Linguistics and literary style. New York: Holt, Rinehart, and Winston. Garvin, P. L. (Ed. and Trans.). (1964). A Prague School reader on esthetics, literary structure and style. Washington, DC: Georgetown University Press. Garvin, P. L. (1972). The Prague School of linguistics. In D. G. Hays & D. M. Lance (Eds.), From soundstream to discourse: Papers from the 1971 Mid-America Linguistics Conference (pp. 229238). Columbia, MO: University of Missouri Press. Georgakopoulou, A., & Goutsos, D. (1997). Discourse analysis: An introduction. Edinburgh: University of Edinburgh Press. Gernsbacher, M. (1990). Language comprehension as structure building. Mahwah, NJ: Erlbaum. Gernsbacher, M. (Ed.). (1994). Handbook of psycholinguistics. San Diego, CA: Academic Press. Ghadessy, M. (Ed.). (1993). Register analysis: Theory and practice. London: Pinter.
219
Ghadessy, M. (Ed.). (1995). Thematic development in English texts. London: Pinter. Ghadessy, M. (1999). Text and context in functional linguistics. Philadelphia: Benjamins. Gibbons, J. (Ed.). (1994). Language and the law. London: Longman. Gibson, W. (1966). Tough, sweet, and stuffy. Bloomington, IN: Indiana University Press. Gvon, T. (Ed.). (1983). Topic continuity in discourse: A quantitative cross-language study. Philadelphia: Benjamins. Gvon, T. (1984/1990). Syntax: A functional-typological introduction (Vol. 2). Philadelphia: Benjamins. Gvon, T. (1993). English grammar: A function-based introduction (Vol. 2). Philadelphia: Benjamins. Gvon, T. (1995). Coherence in text vs. coherence in mind. In M. A. Gernsbacher & T. Gvon (Eds.), Coherence in spontaneous text (pp. 59115). Philadelphia: Benjamins. Goffman, E. (1980). Forms of talk. Philadelphia: University of Pennsylvania Press. Grabe, W. (2000). Textual coherence and discourse analysis. In E. Alcon Soler & J. Guzman (Eds.), Discourse analysis and language teaching (pp. 6582). [Special issue of Australian Review of Applied Linguistics, Series S, Number 16.] Grabe, W. (in press). The role of grammar in reading development. Festschrift for Marianne CelceMurcia. Grabe, W., & Kaplan, R. B. (1996). Theory and practice of writing. London: Longman. Grabe, W., et al. (Eds.). (1999). Annual Review of Applied Linguistics, 19. A survey of the field. New York: Cambridge University Press. Grimes, J. E. (1975). The thread of discourse. The Hague: Mouton. Halliday, M. A. K. (1985). An introduction to functional linguistics. London: Arnold. Halliday, M. A. K. (1992). Some lexicogrammatical features of the Zero Population Growth text. In W. Mann & S. Thompson (Eds.), Discourse description (pp. 327358). Philadelphia: Benjamins. Halliday, M. A. K. (1994). An introduction to functional grammar (2nd ed.). London: Arnold. Halliday, M. A. K. (1996). Literacy and linguistics: A functional perspective. In R. Hasan & G. Williams (Eds.), Literacy in society (pp. 339376). London: Longman. Halliday, M. A. K. (1998). Things and relations: Regrammaticising experience as technical knowledge. In J. Martin & R. Veel (Eds.), Reading science (pp. 185235). New York: Routledge. Halliday, M. A. K., & Hasan, R. (1976). Cohesion in English. London: Longman. Halliday, M. A. K., & Hasan, R. (1989). Spoken and written language. Oxford: Oxford University Press. Halliday, M. A. K., & Martin, J. R. (1993). Writing science: Literacy and discursive power. London: Palmer. Harris, Z. S. (1952). Discourse analysis. Language, 28, 130. Hasan, R. (1979). On the notion of text. In J. S. Petofi (Ed.), Text versus sentence (pp. 369390). Hamburg: H. Buske. Hasan, R. (1996). Literacy, everyday talk and society. In R. Hasan & G. Williams (Eds.), Literacy in society (pp. 377424). London: Longman. Hawkes, T. (1977). Structuralism and semiotics. Berkeley, CA: University of California Press. Hayes, J. (1996). A new framework for understanding cognition and affect in writing. In C. M. Levy & S. Ransdell (Eds.), The science of writing (pp. 127). Mahwah, NJ: Erlbaum. Hellinger, M., & Ammon, U. (Eds.). (1996). Contrastive sociolinguistics. The Hague: Mouton. Hillocks, G., Jr. (1986). Research on written composition. Urbana, IL: Eric Clearing House on Reading and Composition. [Distributed through NCTE.] Hinds, J. (1987). Reader versus writer responsibility: A new typology. In U. Connor & R. B. Kaplan (Eds.), Writing across languages: Analysis of L2 text (pp. 141152). Reading, MA: AddisonWesley. Hoey, M. (1983). On the surface of discourse. London: Allen and Unwin. Hoey, M. (1991). Patterns of lexis in text. Oxford: Oxford University Press. Huckin, T. (1998). Critical discourse analysis. In T. Miller (Ed.), Functional approaches to discourse analysis: Classroom applications (pp. 7992). Washington, DC: United States Information Agency.
220
Hunt, K. (1965). Grammatical structures written at three grade levels. Urbana, IL: National Council of Teachers of English. Hyland, K. (1996). Forms of hedging in science research articles. Written Communication, 13, 251281. Hyland, K. (1998). Hedging in scientific research articles. Philadelphia: Benjamins. Hyland, K. (2000). Disciplinary discourse. London: Longman. Hyland, K. (2001). Bringing in the reader: Addressee features in academic articles. Written Communication, 18, 549574. Hyland, K. (2002a). Teaching and researching writing. London: Longman. Hyland, K. (2002b). Genre: Language, context and literacy. In M. McGroarty, et al. (Eds.), Annual Review of Applied Linguistics, 22. Discourse and dialogue (pp. 111133). New York: Cambridge University Press. Hymes, D. (1974). Foundations of sociolinguistics. Philadelphia: University of Pennsylvania Press. Jespersen, O. (1909/1933/1964). Essentials of English grammar. University, AL: Alabama University Press. Johns, A. (1986). Coherence and academic writing: Some definitions and suggestions for teaching. TESOL Quarterly, 20, 247265. Johns, A. (1993). Reading and writing tasks in English for academic purposes classes: Products, processes, and resources. In J. Carson & I. Leki (Eds.), Reading in the composition classroom (pp. 274289). Boston: Heinle & Heinle. Johns, A. (1997). Text, role and context: Developing academic literacies. New York: Cambridge University Press. Johns, A. (Ed.). (2002). Genre in the classroom: Multiple perspectives. Mahwah, NJ: Erlbaum. Johns, A., & Dudley-Evans, T. (1991). English for specific purposes: International in scope, specific in purpose. TESOL Quarterly, 25, 297314. Kaplan, R. B. (1966). Cultural thought patterns in intercultural education. Language Learning, 16, 120. Kaplan, R. B. (1972). The anatomy of rhetoric: Prolegomena to a functional theory of rhetoric. Philadelphia: Center for Curriculum Development. Kaplan, R. B. (1991). On applied linguistics and discourse analysis. In W. Grabe, et al. (Eds.), Annual Review of Applied Linguistics, 11. Discourse analysis (pp. 199204). New York: Cambridge University Press. Kaplan, R. B. (2000). Contrastive rhetoric and discourse analysis: Who writes what to whom? When? In what circumstances? In S. Sarangi & M. Coulthard (Eds.), Discourse and social life (pp. 82 101). London: Pearson Education. Kaplan, R. B. (2002). Oxford Handbook of Applied Linguistics. Oxford: Oxford University Press. Kaplan, R. B. (in press). Contrastive rhetoric. In E. Hinkel (Ed.), Handbook of research in second language teaching and learning. Mahwah, NJ: Erlbaum. Kennedy, G. (1998). An introduction to corpus linguistics. London: Longman. Kinneavy, J. (1971). A theory of discourse: The aims of discourse. Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice Hall. Kinneavy, J. (1983). A pluralistic synthesis of four contemporary models for teaching composition. In A. Freedman, I. Pringle, & J. Yalden (Eds.), Learning to write: First language/second language (pp. 121138). London: Longman. Kintsch, W. (1998). Comprehension: A framework for cognition. New York: Cambridge University Press. Kress, G. (1989). Linguistic processes in sociocultural practice. Oxford: Oxford University Press. Kress, G. (1991). Critical discourse analysis. In W. Grabe, et al. (Eds.), Annual Review of Applied Linguistics, 11. Discourse analysis (pp. 8499). New York: Cambridge University Press. Kress, G., & Hodge, R. (1979). Language as ideology. New York: Routledge. Labov, W. (1972). Language in the inner city. Philadelphia: University of Pennsylvania Press. Loban, W. (1976). Language development: Kindergarten through grade 12. Urbana, IL: National Council of Teachers of English.
221
Longacre, R. E. (1983). The grammar of discourse. New York: Plenum Press. Love, G., & Payne, M. (Eds.). (1969). Contemporary essays on style. Glenview, IL: Scott Foresman. Luke, A. (2002). Beyond science and ideology critique: Developments in critical discourse analysis. In M. McGroarty, et al. (Eds.), Annual Review of Applied Linguistics, 22. Discourse and dialogue (pp. 95108). New York: Cambridge University Press. MacDonald, S. (1992). A method for analyzing sentence-level differences in disciplinary knowledge making. Written Communication, 9, 533569. Mann, W., & Thompson, S. (1986). Relational propositions in discourse. Discourse Processes, 9, 5790. Mann, W., & Thompson, S. (1988). Rhetorical Structure Theory: A framework for the analysis of texts. Text, 8, 243281. Mann, W., & Thompson, S. (Eds.). (1992). Discourse description. Philadelphia: Benjamins. Martin, J. R. (1992). English text: System and structure. Philadelphia: Benjamins. Martin, J. R. (2000). Design and practice: Enacting functional linguistics. In W. Grabe, et al (Eds.), Annual Review of Applied Linguistics, 20. Applied linguistics as an emerging discipline (pp. 116 126). New York: Cambridge University Press. Martin, J. R. (2002a). Meaning beyond the clause: SFL perspectives. In M. McGroarty, et al. (Eds.), Annual Review of Applied Linguistics, 22. Discourse and dialogue (pp. 5274). New York: Cambridge University Press. Martin, J. R. (2002b). A universe of meaning How many practices? In A. Johns (Ed.), Genre in the classroom: Multiple perspectives (pp. 269278). Mahwah, NJ: Erlbaum. Martin, J. R., & Veel, R. (Eds.). (1998). Reading science: Critical and functional perspectives on discourses of science. New York: Routledge. McCarthy, M. (1991). Discourse analysis for language teachers. New York: Cambridge University Press. McCarthy, M. (2001). Issues in applied linguistics. New York: Cambridge University Press. McCarthy, M., & Carter, R. (1994). Language as discourse: Perspectives for language teachers. London: Longman. Miles, J. (1967). Style and proportion: The language of prose and poetry. New York: Little Brown and Co. Milic, L. (1967). A quantitative approach to the style of Jonathan Swift. The Hague: Mouton. Murray, S. (1998). American sociolinguistics. Philadelphia: Multilingual Matters. Myers, G. (1989). The pragmatics of politeness in scientific articles. Applied Linguistics, 10, 135. Myers, G. (1990). Writing biology: Texts in the social construction of knowledge. Madison, WI: University of Wisconsin Press. Myers, G. (1994). Words in ads. London: Arnold. Myers, G. (1998a). Words and pictures in a biology textbook. In T. Miller (Ed.), Functional approaches to written text: Classroom applications (pp. 93104). Washington, DC: United States Information Agency. Myers, G. (1998b). Ad worlds. London: Arnold. Myers, G. (1999). Interaction in writing: Principles and problems. In C. Candlin & K. Hyland (Eds.), Writing: Texts, processes and practices (pp. 4061). London: Longman. Nash, W. (1990). Language in popular fiction. New York: Routledge. Nold, E., & Davis, B. (1980). The discourse matrix. College Composition and Communication, 31, 141152. O'Dell, L., & Goswami, D. (Eds.). (1986). Writing in non-academic settings. New York: Guilford. O'Hare, F. (1973). Sentence combining: Improving student writing without formal grammar instruction. Urbana, IL: National Council of Teachers of English. Ohmann, R. (1964). Generative grammars and the concept of literary style. Word, 20, 424439. Oostendorp, H., & Goldman, S. (Eds.). (1999). The construction of mental representations during reading. Mahwah, NJ: Erlbaum. Paltridge, B. (1997). Genre, frames and writing in research settings. Philadelphia: Benjamins.
222
Pennycook, A. (2000). Critical applied linguistics. Mahwah, NJ: Erlbaum. Pike, K. L. (1967). Language in relation to a unified theory of the structure of human behavior. The Hague: Mouton. Pitkin, W. (1969). Discourse Blocs. College Composition and Communication, 20, 138148. Pitkin, W. (1977). Hierarchies and the discourse hierarchy. College English, 38, 649659. Prior, P. (1998). Writing/disciplinarity: A sociohistoric account of literate activity in the academy. Mahwah, NJ: Erlbaum. Quirk, R., Greenbaum, S., Leech, G. N., & Svartvik, J. (1972). A Grammar of Contemporary English. London: Longman. Quirk, R., Greenbaum, S., Leech, G. N., & Svartvik, J. (1985). A Comprehensive grammar of the English language. London: Longman. Rorty, R. (1979). Philosophy and the mirror of nature. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press. Schachter, J. (1974). An error in error analysis. Language Learning, 24, 73107. Schegloff, M., Koshil, I., Jacoby, S., & Olsher, D. (2002). Conversational analysis and applied linguistics. In M. McGroarty, et al. (Eds.), Annual Review of Applied Linguistics, 22. Discourse and dialogue (pp. 331). New York: Cambridge University Press. Schiffrin, D. (1987). Discourse markers. New York: Cambridge University Press. Schiffrin, D. (1994). Approaches to discourse. Oxford: Blackwell. Sebeok, T. A. (Ed.). (1960). Style in language. New York: Wiley. Shaughnessy, M. (1977). Error and expectations. Oxford: Oxford University Press. Simpson, P. (1997). Language through literature: An introduction. New York: Routledge. Simpson, P., & Hall, G. (2002). Discourse analysis and stylistics. In M. McGroarty, et al. (Eds.), Annual Review of Applied Linguistics, 22. Discourse and dialogue (pp. 134147). New York: Cambridge University Press. Sinclair, J. (1987). Looking up: An account of the COBUILD project in lexical computing. London: Collins. Sinclair, J. (1991). Corpus, concordance, collocation. Oxford: Oxford University Press. Singer, M. (1990). Psychology of language: An introduction to sentence and discourse processing. Mahwah, NJ: Erlbaum. Spilka, R. (Ed.). (1993). Writing in the workplace. Carbondale, IL: Southern Illinois University Press. Stockwell, R. P., & Bowen, J. D. (1965). The sounds of English and Spanish. Chicago: University of Chicago Press. Stockwell, R. P., & Martin, J. W. (1965). The grammatical structures of English and Spanish. Chicago: University of Chicago Press. Stotsky, S. (1983). Types of lexical cohesion in expository writing: Implications for developing the vocabulary of academic vocabulary. College Composition and Communication, 34, 430446. Stubbs, M. (1983). Discourse analysis: The sociolinguistic analysis of natural language. Chicago: University of Chicago Press. Stubbs, M. (1996). Text and corpus analysis. Oxford: Blackwell. Swales, J. (1988). Episodes in ESP. Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice Hall. Swales, J. (1990). Genre analysis: English in academic and research settings. New York: Cambridge University Press. Swales, J. (1998). Other floors, other voices: A textography of a small university building. Mahwah, NJ: Erlbaum. Swales, J. (2000). Languages for specific purposes. In W. Grabe, et al. (Eds.) Annual Review of Applied Linguistics, 20. Applied Linguistics as an emerging discipline (pp. 5976). New York: Cambridge University Press. Tannen, D. (1989). Talking voices. New York: Cambridge University Press. Trimble, L. (1985). English for science and technology: A discourse approach. New York: Cambridge University Press. Ullman, S. (1964). Language and style: Collected papers. Oxford: Blackwell. Vachek, J. (1964). A Prague School reader in linguistics. Bloomington, IN: Indiana University Press.
R.B. Kaplan, W. Grabe / Journal of Second Language Writing 11 (2002) 191223 van van van van
223
Dijk, T. A. (1972). Some aspects of text grammars. The Hague: Mouton. Dijk, T. A. (1977). Text and context. London: Longman. Dijk, T. A. (1983). Handbook of discourse analysis (Vol. 4.). San Diego, CA: Academic Press. Dijk, T. A. (Ed.). (1997). Discourse in the language classroom studies: An interdisciplinary approach. (Vol. 2). Beverly Hills, CA: Sage. Vande Kopple, W. (1986). Given and new information and some aspects of the structures, semantics, and pragmatics of written texts. In C. Cooper & S. Greenbaum (Eds.), Studying writing: Linguistic approaches (pp. 72111). Beverly Hills, CA: Sage. Vande Kopple, W. (1991). Themes, thematic progressions, and some implications for understanding discourse. Written Communication, 8, 311347. Vande Kopple, W. (1992). Noun phrases and the style of scientific discourse. In S. Witte, N. Nakadate, & R. Cherry (Eds.), A rhetoric of doing, essay on written discourse in honor of James L. Kinneavy (pp. 328348). Carbondale, IL: Southern Illinois University Press. Vande Kopple, W. (1994). Some characteristics and functions of grammatical subjects in scientific discourse. Written Communication, 11, 534564. Vande Kopple, W. (1998a). Relative clauses in spectroscopic articles in the Physical Review, beginnings and 1980. Written Communication, 15, 170202. Vande Kopple, W. (1998b). Using the concepts of given information and new information in classes on the English language. In T. Miller (Ed.), Functional approaches to written text: Classroom applications (pp. 216229). Washington, DC: United States Information Agency. Vande Kopple, W. (2002). From the dynamic style to the synoptic style in spectroscopic articles in the Physical Review. Written Communication, 19, 227264. Widdowson, H. G. (1992). Practical stylistics. Oxford: Oxford University Press. Widdowson, H. (1998). The theory and practice of critical discourse analysis. Applied Linguistics, 19, 136151. Winterowd, R. (1975). Contemporary rhetoric: A background with readings. New York: Harcourt. Witte, S. (1983). Topical structure and revision: An exploratory study. College Composition and Communication, 34, 313341. Young, R. E., Becker, A. L., & Pike, K. L. (1970). Rhetoric: Discovery and change. New York: Harcourt. Zwaan, R., & Radavnsky, G. (1998). Situation models in language comprehension and memory. Psychological Bulletin, 123, 162185.

A Modern History of Written Discourse Analysis - 2002

Caricato da

Informazioni sul documento

Descrizione originale:

Titolo originale

Copyright

Formati disponibili

Condividi questo documento

Condividi o incorpora il documento

Opzioni di condivisione

Hai trovato utile questo documento?

Questo contenuto è inappropriato?

Copyright:

Formati disponibili

A Modern History of Written Discourse Analysis - 2002

Caricato da

Copyright:

Formati disponibili

Journal of Second Language Writing 11 (2002) 191223

R.B. Kaplan, W. Grabe / Journal of Second Language Writing 11 (2002) 191223

R.B. Kaplan, W. Grabe / Journal of Second Language Writing 11 (2002) 191223

R.B. Kaplan, W. Grabe / Journal of Second Language Writing 11 (2002) 191223

R.B. Kaplan, W. Grabe / Journal of Second Language Writing 11 (2002) 191223

R.B. Kaplan, W. Grabe / Journal of Second Language Writing 11 (2002) 191223

R.B. Kaplan, W. Grabe / Journal of Second Language Writing 11 (2002) 191223

R.B. Kaplan, W. Grabe / Journal of Second Language Writing 11 (2002) 191223

R.B. Kaplan, W. Grabe / Journal of Second Language Writing 11 (2002) 191223

R.B. Kaplan, W. Grabe / Journal of Second Language Writing 11 (2002) 191223

R.B. Kaplan, W. Grabe / Journal of Second Language Writing 11 (2002) 191223

R.B. Kaplan, W. Grabe / Journal of Second Language Writing 11 (2002) 191223

R.B. Kaplan, W. Grabe / Journal of Second Language Writing 11 (2002) 191223

R.B. Kaplan, W. Grabe / Journal of Second Language Writing 11 (2002) 191223

R.B. Kaplan, W. Grabe / Journal of Second Language Writing 11 (2002) 191223

R.B. Kaplan, W. Grabe / Journal of Second Language Writing 11 (2002) 191223

R.B. Kaplan, W. Grabe / Journal of Second Language Writing 11 (2002) 191223

R.B. Kaplan, W. Grabe / Journal of Second Language Writing 11 (2002) 191223

R.B. Kaplan, W. Grabe / Journal of Second Language Writing 11 (2002) 191223

R.B. Kaplan, W. Grabe / Journal of Second Language Writing 11 (2002) 191223

R.B. Kaplan, W. Grabe / Journal of Second Language Writing 11 (2002) 191223

R.B. Kaplan, W. Grabe / Journal of Second Language Writing 11 (2002) 191223

R.B. Kaplan, W. Grabe / Journal of Second Language Writing 11 (2002) 191223

R.B. Kaplan, W. Grabe / Journal of Second Language Writing 11 (2002) 191223

R.B. Kaplan, W. Grabe / Journal of Second Language Writing 11 (2002) 191223

R.B. Kaplan, W. Grabe / Journal of Second Language Writing 11 (2002) 191223

R.B. Kaplan, W. Grabe / Journal of Second Language Writing 11 (2002) 191223

R.B. Kaplan, W. Grabe / Journal of Second Language Writing 11 (2002) 191223

R.B. Kaplan, W. Grabe / Journal of Second Language Writing 11 (2002) 191223

R.B. Kaplan, W. Grabe / Journal of Second Language Writing 11 (2002) 191223

R.B. Kaplan, W. Grabe / Journal of Second Language Writing 11 (2002) 191223

R.B. Kaplan, W. Grabe / Journal of Second Language Writing 11 (2002) 191223

Potrebbero piacerti anche