Hostname: page-component-cd9895bd7-mkpzs Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-12-23T08:50:01.212Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Written Discourse Analysis

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  26 February 2009

William Grabe
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Extract

In the relatively recent past, a whole issue of ARAL (Kaplan, et al. 1983) was devoted to text analysis. In a way, an article of the sort offered here may be premature in the sense that it appears only two years after the more thorough review volume. There are two reasons why it seems appropriate to look at this area again so quickly. First, the area of text analysis is an extremely active one, and no major bibliographies have appeared since 1983. Second, the approach taken here is somewhat different from that in ARAL III; this review has no direct concern either with pedagogical applications or with contrastive forms of text. There is, of necessity, some overlap in bibliography between this article and the earlier volume, but the great majority of sources cited did not appear there. This particular area is in a state of very rapid growth, moving toward the evolution of a new paradigm which may radically modify the field of applied linguistics by providing a new set of questions and a new way of answering them. The rate and direction of change seem to justify another brief sortie into text analysis, and thereby to try to disambiguate some notions that have been available for greater or lesser periods of time.

Type
Stylistics and Text
Information
Annual Review of Applied Linguistics , Volume 5 , March 1984 , pp. 101 - 123
Copyright
Copyright © Cambridge University Press 1984

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

References

UNANNOTATED BIBLIOGRAPHY

Bamberg, B. 1983. What makes a text coherent? College composition and communication. 34.4.417–429.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Barr, M. 1983. The new orthodoxy about writing: Confusing process and pedagogy. Language arts. 60.7.829–840.Google Scholar
Barthes, R. 1974. S/Z: An essay. New York: Hill and Wang. [Tr. Miller, R..]Google Scholar
Barthes, R. 1979. Elements of Semiology. New York: Hill and Wang. [Tr. Lavers, A. and Smith, C..]Google Scholar
Bates, E. and MacWhinney, B. 1979. A functionalist approach to the acquisition of grammar. In Ochs, E. and Schieffelin, B. (eds.) Developmental pragmatics. New York: Academic Press. 167–211.Google Scholar
Bateson, G. 1979. Mind and nature. New York: Ballantine.Google Scholar
Beaugrande, R. de. 1980. Text, discourse and process. Norwood, NJ: Ablex.Google Scholar
Beaugrande, R. de. 1981a. Linguistic theory and metatheory for a science of texts. Text. 1.2.113–161.Google Scholar
Beaugrande, R. de. 1981b. Design criteria for process models of reading. Reading research quarterly. 16.261–315.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Beaugrande, R. de. 1984a. Learning to read vs. reading to learn: A discourse processing approach. In Mendl, H., Stein, N., and Trabasso, T. (eds.) Learning and comprehension of text. Hillsdale NJ: Erlbaum. 159–191.Google Scholar
Beaugrande, R. de. 1984b. Text production: Toward a science of composition. Norwood, NJ: Ablex.Google Scholar
Beaugrande, R. de. and Dressler, W. 1981. Introduction to text linguistics. New York: Longman.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Biber, D. 1984. A model of textual relations within the written and spoken modes. Los Angeles, CA: University of Southern California. Ph.D. diss.Google Scholar
Bloomfield, L. 1933. Language. New York: Henry Holt and Company.Google Scholar
Brown, G. and Yule, G.. 1983. Discourse analysis. New York: Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Carrell, P. 1982. Cohesion is not coherence. TESOL quarterly.16.4.479–488.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Carrell, P. 1984. Facilitating reading comprehension by teaching text structure: What the research shows. Paper presented at the 18th annual TESOL Conference,Houston, TX, March.Google Scholar
Chafe, W. L. 1980. The pear stories. Norwood, NJ: Ablex.Google Scholar
Chafe, W. L. 1982. Integration and involvement in speaking, writing and oral literature. In Tannen, D. (ed.) Exploring orality and literacy. Norwood, NJ: Ablex. 35–54.Google Scholar
Chafe, W. L. and Danielowicz, J.. In press. Properties of spoken and written language. In Horowitz, R. and Samuels, S. J. (eds.) Comprehending oral and written language. New York: Academic Press.Google Scholar
Christensen, F. 1967. Notes towards a new rhetoric. New York: Harper and Row.Google Scholar
Cicourel, A. 1980. Three models of discourse analysis. Discourse processes. 3.101–133.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Clements, P. 1979. The effects of staging on recall from prose. In Freedle, R. (ed.) New directions in discourse processing. Norwood, NJ: Ablex. 187–230.Google Scholar
Connor, U. 1984. Recall of text: Differences between first and second language readers. TESOL quarterly. 18.2.239–256.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Cooper, C. and Matsuhashi, A.. 1983. A theory of the writing process. In Martlew, M. (ed.) The psychology of written language: Developmental and educational perspectives. New York: J. Wiley and Sons. 3–40.Google Scholar
Coulthard, M. 1977. An introduction to discourse analysis. New York: Longman.Google Scholar
Coulthard, M. and Montgomery, M. 1981. Studies in discourse analysis. Boston: Routledge and Kegan Paul.Google Scholar
Crothers, E. 1979. Paragraph structure inference. Norwood, NJ: Ablex.Google Scholar
D'angelo, F. 1980. Process and thought in composition. 2nd. ed.Cambridge, MA: Winthrop.Google Scholar
Dillon, G. 1981. Constructing texts. Bloomington, IN: Indiana University Press.Google Scholar
Dillon, G. 1983. Interpersonal functions of textual analysis. Lecture presented at the University of Southern California, March.Google Scholar
DuBois, J. 1984. Competing motivations. In Haiman, J. (ed.) Iconicity in grammar: Typological studies in language. Vol. 6. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.Google Scholar
Eagleton, T. 1983. Literary theory. Minneapolis, MN: University of Minnesota Press.Google Scholar
Emig, J. 1971. The composing processes of twelfth graders. Urbana, IL: National Council of Teachers of English.Google Scholar
Emig, J. 1983. The web of meaning. Upper Montclair, NJ: Boynton/Cook Publishers.Google Scholar
Fahnestock, J. 1983. Semantic and lexical coherence. College composition and communication. 34.4.400–416.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Fillmore, C. 1981. Pragmatics and the description of discourse. In Cole, P. (ed.) Radical pragmatics. New York: Academic Press. 143–166.Google Scholar
Flower, L. and Hayes, J. 1981. A cognitive process theory of writing. College composition and communication. 32.4.365–387.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Foucault, M. 1977. Language, counter-memory, practice. Ithaca, NY: Cornell University Press.Google Scholar
Freedle, R. and Fine, J.. 1983. An interactional approach to the development of discourse. In Fine, J. and Freedle, R. (eds.) Developmental issues in discourse. Norwood, NJ: Ablex. 143–168.Google Scholar
Gardner, R. 1984. Discourse analysis: Implications for language teaching, with particular reference to casual conversation. Language teaching. 17.2.102–117.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Gazdar, G. 1979. Pragmatics: Implicature, presupposition and logical form. New York: Academic Press.Google Scholar
Givón, T. 1979a. From discourse to syntax: Grammar as a processing strategy. In Givón, T. (ed.) Discourse and syntax. New York: Academic Press. 81–112. [Syntax and Semantics, 12].CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Givón, T. 1979b. On understanding grammar. New York: Academic Press.Google Scholar
Givón, T. (ed.) 1979c. Discourse and syntax. New York: Academic Press. [Syntax and Semantics, 12.]Google Scholar
Givón, T. 1983. Topic continuity in discourse: Typological studies in language. Vol. 3. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Goodman, K. and Goodman, Y.. 1983. Reading and writing relationships: Pragmatic functions. Language arts. 60.5.590–599.Google Scholar
Goody, J. 1977. The domestication of the savage mind. New York: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Goody, J. and Watt, I. 1972. The consequences of literacy. In Giglioli, P. P. (ed.) Language and social context. New York: Penguin. 311–357.Google Scholar
Grabe, W. 1984. Toward defining expository prose within a theory of text construction. Los Angeles, CA: University of Southern California. Ph.D. diss.Google Scholar
Graves, D. 1973. A study of the writing processes of seven-year-old children. Buffalo, NY: State University of New York. Ph.D. diss.Google Scholar
Graves, D. 1983a. Teacher intervention in children's writing: A response to Myra Barr. Language arts. 6.7.841–846.Google Scholar
Graves, D. 1983b. Writing: Teachers and children at work. Portsmouth, NH: Heinemann Educational Books.Google Scholar
Graves, D. 1984. A researcher learns to write. Exeter, NH: Heinemann Educational Books.Google Scholar
Green, G. 1980. Some wherefores of English inversion. Language. 56.3.582–601.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Green, G. and Morgan, J.. 1981. Pragmatics, grammar and discourse. In Cole, P. (ed.) Radical pragmatics. New York: Academic Press. 167–181.Google Scholar
Grice, H. P. 1975. Logic and conversation. In Cole, P. and Morgan, J. (eds.) Speech acts. New York: Academic Press. 41–58. [Syntax and Semantics, 3.]CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Grimes, J. 1975. The thread of discourse. The Hague: Mouton.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Gumperz, J. 1982a. Discourse strategies. New York: Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Gumperz, J. (ed.) 1982b. Language and social identity. New York: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Halliday, M. A. K. 1967–1968. Notes on transitivity and theme in English (Parts 1-3). Journal of linguistics. 3.37–81; 3.199–244; 4.179–215.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Halliday, M. A. K. 1970. Language structure and language functions. In Lyons, J. (ed.) New horizons in linguistics. Baltimore, MD: Penguin. 140–165.Google Scholar
Halliday, M. A. K. 1973. Explorations in the functions of language. London: Edward Arnold.Google Scholar
Halliday, M. A. K. 1978. Language as social semiotic. London: Edward Arnold.Google Scholar
Halliday, M. A. K. and Hasan, R. 1976. Cohesion in English. New York: Longman.Google Scholar
Halpern, J. 1984. Differences between speaking and writing and their implications for teaching. College composition and communication. 35.3. 345–357.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Harari, J. (ed.) 1979. Textual strategies. Ithaca, NY: Cornell University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Hasan, R. 1984. Coherence and cohesive harmony. In Flood, J. (ed.) Understanding reading comprehension. Newark, DE. International Reading Association. 181–219.Google Scholar
Havelock, E. 1982. The literate revolution in Greece and its cultural consequences. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press.Google Scholar
Heath, S. B. 1983. Ways with words. New York: Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Heath, S. B. 1984. Literacy or literate skills? Considerations for ESL/EFL learners. Paper presented at the 18th annual TESOL Conference,Houston, TX, March.Google Scholar
Hinds, J. 1979. Organizational patterns in discourse. In Givon, T. (ed.) Discourse and syntax. New York: Academic Press. 135–157. [Syntax and Semantics, 12.]CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Hirsch, E. D. 1977. The philosophy of composition. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.Google Scholar
Hoey, M. 1983. On the surface of discourse. Boston: George Allen and Unwin.Google Scholar
Holzman, M. and Cooper, M. 1983. Talking about protocols. College composition and communication. 34.3.284–293.Google Scholar
Hopper, P. (ed.) 1982. Aspect between discourse and grammar: An introductory essay for the volume. In Hopper, P. (ed.) Tense-aspect: Between semantics and pragmatics. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. 1–14. [Typological Studies in Language, 1.]CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Hudson, R. A. 1980. Sociolinguistics. New York: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Hymes, D. 1972. On communicative competence. In Pride, J. B. and Holmes, J. (eds.) Sociolinguistics. New York: Penguin.Google Scholar
Hymes, D. 1974. Foundations of sociolinguistics. Philadelphia, PA: University of Pennsylvania Press.Google Scholar
Hymes, D. 1979. On communicative competence. In Brumfit, C. and Johnson, K. (eds.) The communicative approach to language teaching. New York: Oxford University Press. 5–24.Google Scholar
Jones, L. 1983. Pragmatic aspects of English text structure. Arlington, TX: Summer Institute of Linguistics.Google Scholar
Jones, L. K. 1977. Theme in English expository discourse. Ann Arbor, MI: Jupiter Press.Google Scholar
Joos, M. 1967. The five clocks. New York: Harcourt Brace and World.Google Scholar
Kaplan, R. B. 1966. Cultural thought patterns in intercultural education. Language learning. 16.1–20.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Kaplan, R. B. 1972. The anatomy of rhetoric: Prolegomena to a functional theory of rhetoric. Philadelphia, PA: Center for Curriculum Development.Google Scholar
Kaplan, R. B. 1982. Information science and ESP. Paper presented at the 16th annual TESOL Conference,Honolulu, HI, May.Google Scholar
Kaplan, R. B. 1984. Reading and writing: Assumptions and presuppositions. The American language journal. 2.2.39–48.Google Scholar
Kaplan, R. B. et al. (eds.) 1983. Annual review of applied linguistics, III. Rowley, MA: Newbury House.Google Scholar
Kaplan, R. B. 1984. Annual review of applied linguistics, IV. Rowley, MA: Newbury House.Google Scholar
Keenan, E. and Faltz, L. 1984. Boolean semantics for natural language. Hingham, MA: D. Reidel Publishing.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Kinneavy, J. 1983. A pluralistic synthesis of four contemporary models for teaching composition. In Freedman, A., Pringle, I., and Yalden, J. (eds.) Learning to write: First language/second language. New York: Longman. 121–138.Google Scholar
Klein-Andreu, F. (ed.) 1983. Discourse perspectives on syntax. New York: Academic Press.Google Scholar
Krashen, S. D. 1984. Writing: Research, theory, and application. Oxford: Pergamon Institute of English. [Language Teaching Methodology Series.]Google Scholar
Kress, G. 1982. Learning to write. Boston: Routledge and Kegan Paul.Google Scholar
Kress, G. (ed.) 1976. Halliday: System and function in language. New York: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Kurzon, D. 1984. Themes, hyperthemes and the discourse structure of British legal texts. Text. 4.1–3.31–55.Google Scholar
Larsen-Freeman, D. (ed.) 1981. Discourse analysis in second language acquisition. Rowley, MA: Newbury House.Google Scholar
Leech, G. and Beale, A.. 1984. Computers in English language research. Language teaching. 17.3.216–229.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Lesgold, A. and Perfetti, C. (eds.) 1981. Interactive processes in reading. Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum.Google Scholar
Levinson, S. 1983. Pragmatics. New York: Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Longacre, R. 1979. The paragraph as a grammatical unit. In Givon, T. (ed.) Discourse and syntax. New York: Academic Press. 115–134. [Syntax and Semantics, 12.]Google Scholar
Longacre, R. 1983. The grammar discourse. New York: Plenum.Google Scholar
Mandl, H., Stein, N., and Trabasso, T. (eds.) 1984. Learning and comprehension of text. Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum.Google Scholar
Mann, W.. In press. An introduction to the Nigel text generation grammar. In Benson, J. and Greaves, W. (eds.) Systemic perspectives on discourse. Vol. 1. Norwood, NJ: Ablex.Google Scholar
Markels, R. B. 1984. A new perspective on cohesion in expository paragraphs. Carbondale and Edwardsville, IL: Southern Illinois University Press.Google Scholar
McClelland, J. and Rumelhart, D. 1981. An interactive activation model of the effect of context on perception. Part I: An account of basic findings. Psychological review. 8.375–407.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
McCutchen, D. and Perfetti, C. 1982. Coherence and connectedness in the development of discourse. Text. 2.1–3.113–139.Google Scholar
McKay, S. (ed.) 1983. Composing in a second language. Rowley, MA: Newbury House.Google Scholar
Meyer, B. 1975. The organization of prose and its effect on memory. Amsterdam: North Holland.Google Scholar
Meyer, B. 1984. Text dimensions and cognitive processing. In Mendl, H., Stein, N., and Trabasso, T. (eds.) Learning and comprehension of text. Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum. 3–52.Google Scholar
Miller, S. 1983. What does it mean to be able to write? The question of writing in the discourses of literature and composition. College English. 45.3.219–235.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Mitchell, D. C. 1982. The process of reading. New York: J. Wiley and Sons.Google Scholar
Morgan, J. and Sellner, M.. 1980. Discourse and linguistic theory. In Spiro, R., Bruce, B., and Brewer, W. (eds.) Theoretical issues and reading comprehension. Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum. 165–200.Google Scholar
Mosenthal, J. and Tierney, R.. 1984. Cohesion: Problems with talking about texts. Reading research quarterly. 19.2.240–244.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Nold, E. and Davis, B.. 1980. The discourse matrix. College composition and communication. 31.2.141–152.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Nystrand, M. (ed.) 1982. What writers know. New York: Academic Press.Google Scholar
Olson, D. 1977. From utterance to text: The bias of language in speech and writing. Harvard education review. 47.257–281.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Ong, W. 1982. Orality and literacy. New York: Methuen.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Petofi, J. 1978. A formal semiotic text theory as an integrated theory of natural languages. In Dressier, W. (ed.) Current trends in textlinguistics. Berlin: Walter de Gruyter. 35–46.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Petofi, J. (ed.) 1979. Text vs. sentence: Basic questions of textlinguistics. Hamburg: Helmut Buske Verlag.Google Scholar
Petofi, J. 1982. Text vs. sentence: Continued. Hamburg: Helmut Buske Verlag.Google Scholar
Pike, K. and Pike, E.. 1977. Grammatical analysis. Dallas, TX: Summer Institute of Linguistics.Google Scholar
Redeker, G. 1984. On differences between spoken and written languages. Discourse processes. 7.43–55.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Rottweiler, G. 1984. Systemic cohesion in published general academic English: Analysis and register description. New Brunswick, NJ: Rutgers University. Ph.D. diss.Google Scholar
Rumelhart, D. 1980. Schemata: The building blocks of cognition. In Spiro, R., Bruce, B., and Brewer, W. (eds.) Theoretical issues in reading comprehension. Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum. 33–58.Google Scholar
Rumelhart, D. 1984. Understanding understanding. In Flood, J. (ed.) Understanding reading comprehension: Cognition, language, and the structure of prose. Newark, DE: International Reading Association. 1–20.Google Scholar
Scinto, L. F. N. 1983. The development of text production. In Fine, J. and Freedle, R. (eds.) Developmental issues in discourse. Norwood, NJ: Ablex. 225–268.Google Scholar
Scribner, S. and Cole, M.. 1981. The psychology of literacy. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Sinclair, J. 1983. On the integration of linguistic descriptions. Unpublished manuscript.Google Scholar
Slobin, D. 1979. Psycholinguistics. 2nd ed.Palo Alto, CA: Scott Foresman and Company.Google Scholar
Smith, F. 1982. Writing and the writer. New York: Holt, Rinehart and Winston.Google Scholar
Smith, R. and Frawley, W., 1983. Conjunctive cohesion in four English genres. Text. 3.4.347–374.Google Scholar
Spiro, R., Bruce, B., and Brewer, W. (eds.) 1980. Theoretical issues in reading comprehension. Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum.Google Scholar
Stanovich, K. 1980. Toward an interactive-compensatory model of individual differences in the development of reading fluency. Reading research quarterly. 16.1.32–71.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Stotsky, S. 1981. The vocabulary of essay writing: Can it be taught? College composition and communication.32.3.317–326.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Stotsky, S. 1983. Types of lexical cohesion in expository writing: Implications for developing the vocabulary of academic discourse. College composition and communication. 34.4.430–446.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Stubbs, M. 1980. Language and literacy. London: Routledge and Kegan Paul.Google Scholar
Stubbs, M. 1983. Discourse analysis. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.Google Scholar
Stubbs, M. 1984. Applied discourse analysis and educational linguistics.Google Scholar
In Trudgill, P. (ed.) Applied sociolinguistics. New York: Academic Press. 203–244.Google Scholar
Tannen, D. 1982a. Oral and literate strategies in spoken and written narratives. Language. 58.1.1–21.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Tannen, D. (ed.) 1982b. Analysis discourse: Text and Talk. Washington, DC: Georgetown University Press. [Georgetown University Round Table.]Google Scholar
Tannen, D. 1982c. Spoken and written language: Exploring orality and literacy. Norwood, NJ: Ablex.Google Scholar
Tannen, D. 1984. Coherence in spoken and written discourse. Norwood, NJ: Ablex.Google Scholar
Taylor, C. V. 1983. Structure and theme in printed school text. Text. 3.2.197–228.Google Scholar
Taylor, I. and Taylor, M.. 1983. Psychology of reading. New York: Academic Press.Google Scholar
Thompson, S. 1984. Subordination and narrative event structure. Paper presented at the conference on linguistic coding of discourse relations,Eugene, OR, June.Google Scholar
Tierney, R. and Pearson, P. D.. 1983. Toward a composing model of reading. Language arts. 60.5.568–589.Google Scholar
van Dijk, T. 1972. Some aspects of text grammar. The Hague: Mouton.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
van Dijk, T. 1977. Text and context. New York: Longman.Google Scholar
van Dijk, T. 1980. Macrostructures. Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum.Google Scholar
van Dijk, T. 1981. Studies in the pragmatics of discourse. New York: Mouton.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
van Dijk, T. and Kintsch, W.. 1983. Strategies of discourse comprehension. New York: Academic Press.Google Scholar
Waldrop, M. 1984. The necessity of knowledge. Science. 223 (03 23) 1279–1282.Google ScholarPubMed
Widdowson, H. G. 1978. Teaching language as communication. New York: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Widdowson, H. G. 1979. Explorations in applied linguistics. New York: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Widdowson, H. G. 1980. Conceptual and communicative function in written discourse. Applied linguistics. 1.3.234–243.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Wilson, D. 1983. Lectures at Linguistic Society of America Summer Institute, University of California, Los Angeles, 06.Google Scholar
Winograd, T. 1972. Understanding natural languages. New York: Academic Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Winograd, T. 1984. Computer software for working with language. Scientific American. 251.3.130–145.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Witte, S. and Faigley, L. 1981. Coherence, cohesion and writing quality. College composition and communication. 32.2.189–204.CrossRefGoogle Scholar