Hostname: page-component-8448b6f56d-gtxcr Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-04-23T17:03:53.164Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Discourse Analysis and Written Discourse Conventions*

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  19 November 2008

Dwight Atkinson
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Extract

The institutionalized, or conventionalized, properties of human language, somewhat neglected as objects of study in contermporary linguistics, have lately been looked upon with renewed interest. Tannen (1987), for example, synthesizing earlier work by Bakhtin (1981), Becker (1979), and Boliner (1976), has argued for a view of discourse as relatively prepatterned across linguistic domains. Similarly, the notion of “emergent grammer” (i.e., of grammer as “set of …recurrent partials, whose status is constantly being renegotiated in speech”; Hopper 1988:118) has been advanced in opposition to more widely-accepted models of grammatical knowledge. Recent research of this type, as well as a number of older studies, indicates a serious interest among certain linguists in formulating a theoretical basis for the study of conventionalized language.

Type
Foundations of Discourse
Information
Annual Review of Applied Linguistics , Volume 11 , March 1990 , pp. 57 - 76
Copyright
Copyright © Cambridge University Press 1990

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

Adams, M. J. and Collins, A.. 1979. A schema-theoreitc view of reading. In Freedle, R. O. (ed.) New dierctions in discourse processing. Norwood, NJ: Ablex. 1–22.Google Scholar
Atkinson, D. 1989. Text conventions in written medical discourse. Paper presented at the Pragmatics and Language Learning Conference. Urbana, IL, 04, 1989.Google Scholar
Austin, J. L. 1962. How to do things with words. Oxford: Clarendon Press.Google Scholar
Baker, M. 1988. Subtechnical vocabulary and the ESP teacher: An analysis of some rhetorical items in medical journal articles. Readings in a foreign language. 4.2.91–105.Google Scholar
Bakhtin, M. M. 1981. The dialogic imagination. Austin: The University of Texas Press.Google Scholar
Bartsch, R. 1987. Norms of language. London: Longman.Google Scholar
Bazerman, C. 1985. Physicists reading physics. Written communication. 2.1.3–23.Google Scholar
Bazerman, C. 1988. Shaping written knowledge. Madison, WI: University of Wisconsin Press..Google Scholar
Beaugrande, R. de and Dressler, W.. 1981. Introduction to text linguistics. London: Longman.Google Scholar
Becker, A. L. 1979. Text-building, epistemology, and aesthetics in Javanese shadow theatre. In Becker, A. L. and Yengoyan, A. (eds.) The imagination of reality. Norwood, NJ: Ablex. 211–243.Google Scholar
Berkenkotter, C. et al. , 1988. Conventions, conversations, and the writer: Case study of a student in a rhetoric Ph.D. program. Research in the teaching of English. 22.1.9–44.Google Scholar
Besnier, N. 1986. Register as sociolinguistic unit: Defining formality. In Connor-Linton, J. et al. , (eds.) Social and congnitive perspectives on language. Los Angeles: University of Southern California Linguistics Department. 25–63. [Southern California Occasional Papers in Linguistics, Vol. XI.]Google Scholar
Biber, D. 1988. Variation across speech and writing. New York: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Biber, D. 1989. A typology of English texts. Linguistics. 27.3–43.Google Scholar
Bizzell, P. 1982. Cognition, convention and certainty: What we need to know about writing. Pre/text. 3.211–245.Google Scholar
Blom, J. P. and Gumperz, J. J.. 1972. Social meaning in linguistics structure: Codeswitching in Norway. In Gumperz, J. J. and Hymes, D. (eds.) Directions in sociolinguistics. New York: Holt, Rinehart and Winston. 407–434.Google Scholar
Bolinger, D. 1976. Meaning and memory. Forum linguisticum. 1.1.1–14.Google Scholar
Brown, R. and Herndl, C.. 1986. An ethonographic study of corporate writing: Job status as reflected in written text. In Couture, B. (ed.) Functional approaches to writing: Research perspectives. Norwood, NJ: Ablex. 11–28.Google Scholar
Campbell, K. K. and Jamieson, K. H. (eds.) 1978. Form and genre: Shaping rhetorical action. Falls Church, VA: Speech Communication Association.Google Scholar
Carrell, P. C. 1984 The effects of rhetorical organization on ESL readers. TESOL quarterly. 18.3.441–469.Google Scholar
Chafe, W. L. 1985. Linguistic differences produced by differences between speaking and writing. In Olson, D. et al. , (eds.) Literacy, language and learning. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. 105–123.Google Scholar
Coe, R. M. 1987. An apology for form; or, whom took the form out of the process? College English. 49.1.13–28.Google Scholar
Collins, J. and Michaels, S.. 1986. Speaking and writing: Discourse strategies and the acquisition of literacy. In Cook-Gumperz, J. (ed.) The social construction of literacy. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. 207–222.Google Scholar
Coulmas, F. 1981. Introduction: Conversational routine. In Coulmas, F. (ed.) Conversational routines: Explorations in standardized communication situations and prepatterned speech. The Hague: Mouton. 1–18.Google Scholar
Dear, P. 1985. Totius in verba: Rhetoric and authority in the early Royal Society. Isis. 76.144–161.Google Scholar
Dijk, T.A. van. 1988. News as discourse. Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.Google Scholar
Dijk, T.A. van and Kinstsch, W.. 1983. Strategies of discourse comprehension. New York: Academic Press.Google Scholar
Erickson, F. and Schultz, J.. 1982. The counselor as gatekeeper. New York: Academic Press.Google Scholar
Ferguson, C. A. 1983. Sports announcer talk: Syntactic aspects of register variation. Language in society. 12.153–172.Google Scholar
Fillmore, C. J. 1989. Grammatical construction theory and the familiar dichotomies. In Dietrich, R. and Graumann, C. F. (eds.) Language processing in social context. Amsterdam: North-Holland. 17–36.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Fish, S. 1980. Is there a text in this class? Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.Google Scholar
Fleck, L. 1979. Genesis and development of a scientific fact. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.Google Scholar
Fowler, A. 1982. Kinds of literature: An introduction to the theory of genres and modes. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.Google Scholar
Freed, R. C. and Broadhead, G. J.. Discourse communities, sacred texts and institutional norms. College composition and communication. 38.2.154–165.Google Scholar
Gee, J. P. In Press. Social linguistics and literacies: Ideology in discourse. London: Falmer Press.Google Scholar
Ghadessy, M. (ed.) 1988. Register of written English. London: Pinter Publishers..Google Scholar
Goodwin, C. and Duranti, A. (eds.) Rethinking context: Language as an interactive phenomenon. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Grabe, W. 1987. Constrastive rhetoric and text type research. In Connor, U. and Kaplan, R. B. (eds.) Writing across languages: Analysis of L2 text Reading, MA: Addison-Wesley. 115–138.Google Scholar
Griffin, P. and Mehan, H.. 1981. Sense and ritual in classsroom discourse. In Coulmas, F. (ed.) Conversational routines. The Hague: Mouton. 187–213.Google Scholar
Gumperz, J. J. 1982. Discourse strategies. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Gumperz, J. J. and Tannen, D.. 1979. Individual and social differences in language use. In Fillmore, C. J. et al. , (eds.) Individual differences in language ability and language behavior. New York: Academic Press. 203–228.Google Scholar
Halliday, M. A. K. 1978. Langauge as social semiotic. Baltimore: University Park Press.Google Scholar
Halliday, M. A. K. 1987. Spoken and written modes of meaning. In Horowitz, R. and Samuels, S. J. (eds.) Comprehending oral and written language. San Diego: Academic Press. 55–82.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Halliday, M. A. K. and Hasan, R.. 1976. Cohesion in English. London: Longman.Google Scholar
Heath, S. B. 1986. What no bedtime story means. In Ochs, E. and Schiefflin, B. (eds.) Language socialization across cultures. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. 97–124.Google Scholar
Hirsch, E. D. 1977. The philosophy of composition. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.Google Scholar
Hoey, M. 1983. On the surface of discourse. London: George Allen and Unwin.Google Scholar
Hopper, P. 1988. Emergent grammer and the a priori grammer postulate. In Tannen, D. (ed.) Linguistics in context: Connecting observation and understanding. Norwood, NJ: Ablex. 214–234.Google Scholar
Horowitz, R. 1987. Rhetorical strucutre in discourse processing. In Horowitz, R. and Samuels, S. J. (eds.) Comprehending oral and written language. San Diego: Academic Press. 117–155.Google Scholar
Huckin, T. 1987, Surprise value in scientific discourse. Paper presented at College Composition and Communication Conference. Atlanta, GA, 03, 1987.Google Scholar
Huckin, T. et al. , 1986. Prescriptive linguistics and plain English: The case of “whitzdeletions.” Visible language 20.174–187.Google Scholar
Huth, E. J. 1982 How to write and publish papers in the medical sciences. Philadelphia: ISI Press.Google Scholar
Jenkins, S. and Hinds, J.. 1987. Business letter writing: English, French and Japanese. TESOL quarterly. 21.2.327–349.Google Scholar
Kaplan, R. B. and Grabe, W.. In Press. The fiction in science writing. In Schroeder, H. (eds.) Subject-oriented text. Berlin: de Gruyter.Google Scholar
Kinneavy, J. L. 1971. A theory of discourse. New York: Norton.Google Scholar
Kintsch, W. and van Dijk, T. A.. 1978. Toward a model of text comprehension and production. Psychological review. 85.5.363–394.Google Scholar
Krashen, S. D. 1984. Writing: Research, theory and applications. Oxford: Pergamon Press.Google Scholar
Kuhn, T. S. 1970. The structure of scientific revolutions, 2nd Ed.Chicago: University of Chicago Press.Google Scholar
Lewis, D. 1969. Convention: A philosophical study. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.Google Scholar
Macdonell, D. 1986. Theories of discourse: An introduction. Oxford: Basil Blackwell.Google Scholar
Mandler, J. 1984. Stories, scripts, and scenes: Aspects of schema theory. Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.Google Scholar
Mandler, J. and Johnson, N.. 1977. Remembrance of things parsed: Story strucutre and recall. Cognitive psychology. 9.111–151.Google Scholar
Mehan, H. 1979. Learning lessons: Social organization in the classroom. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.Google Scholar
Meyer, B. J. F. 1975. The organization of prose and its effects on memory. Amsterdam: North-Holland.Google Scholar
Meyer, B. J. F. 1984. Organizational aspects of texts: Effects on reading comprehension and applications in the classroom. In Flood, J. (ed.) Promoting reading comprehension. Newark, DE: International Reading Association. 113–138.Google Scholar
Meyer, B. J. F. 1985. Prose analysis: Purposes, procedures, and problems. In Britton, B. K. and Black, J. B. (eds.) Understanding expository text: A theoretical and practical handbook for analyzing explanatory text. Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum. 11–64.Google Scholar
Michaels, S. 1985. Hearing the connections in children's oral and written discourse. Journal of education. 167.1.36–56..Google Scholar
Michaels, S. 1986. Narrative presentations: An oral preparation for literacy with first graders. In Cook-Gumperz, J. (ed.) The social construction of literacy. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. 94–116.Google Scholar
Miller, C. R. 1984. Genre as social action. Quarterly journal of speech. 70.151–167.Google Scholar
Myers, G. 1985a. Texts as knowledge claims: The social construction of two biology articles. Social studies of science. 15.593–630.Google Scholar
Myers, G. 1985b. The social construction of two biologists' proposals. Written communication. 2.3.219–245.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Paradis, J. 1987. Montaigne, Boyle and the essay of experience. In Levine, G. (ed.) One culture. Madison, WI: University of Wiconsin Press. 59–91.Google Scholar
Pawley, A. and Syder, F. H. 1983. Two puzzles for linguistic theory: Nativelike selection and nativelike fluency. In Richards, J. C. and Schmidt, R. W. (eds.) Language and communication. London: Longman. 191–225.Google Scholar
Peters, A. 1983. The units of language acquisition. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Phelps, L. W. 1985. Dialectics of choerence: Towards an integratice theory. College English. 47. 1.13–29.Google Scholar
Pyles, T. and Algeo, J.. 1982. The origins and development of the English language. 3rd edition. New York: Harcourt Brace Jovanovich.Google Scholar
Rumelhart, D. 1980. Schemata: The buildin blocks of cognition. In Spiro, R. J. et al. , (eds.) Theoretical issues in reading comprehension. Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum. 33–48.Google Scholar
Schiffer, S. 1972. Meaning. London: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Scollon, R. and Scollon, S.. 1981. Narrative, literacy, and face in interethnic communication. Norwood, NJ: Ablex.Google Scholar
Searle, J. R. 1969. Speech acts. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Searle, J. R. 1975. Indirect speech acts. In Cole, P. and Morgan, J. L. (eds.) Speech acts. New York: Academic Press. 59–82. [Syntax and Semantics, Vol. 3.]Google Scholar
Scribner, S. and Cole, M.. 1981. The psychology of literacy. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.Google Scholar
Shapin, S. 1984. Pump and cirumstance: Robert Boyle's literacy technology. Social studies of science. 41.481–520.Google Scholar
Shapin, S. and Schaffer, S.. 1985. Leviathan and the air-pump. Princeton: Princeton University Press.Google Scholar
Shapiro, M. J. 1987. Language and politics. In Kaplan, R. B. et al. , (eds.) Annual review of applied linguistics. Vol. 7. Cambridge University Press. 74–85.Google Scholar
Smith, F. 1988. Joining the literacy club. Portsmouth, NH: Heinemann.Google Scholar
Sperber, D. and Wilson, D.. 1986. Relevance: Communication and cognition. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.Google Scholar
Steffensen, M. et al. , 1979. A cross-cutural perspective on reading comprehension. Reading research quarterly. 15.10–29.Google Scholar
Swales, J. 1981. Aspects of article introductions. Birmingham: University of Aston. [Aston ESP research report #1.].Google Scholar
Swales, J. 1990. English in academic and research settings: Genre analysis and its applications. Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Tannen, D. 1987. Repetition in conversation as spontaneous formulaicity. Text. 7.3.215–243.Google Scholar
Trimble, L. 1985. English for science and technology. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Ullmann-Margalit, E. 1977. The emergence of norms. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Ure, J. and Ellis, J.. 1977. Register in descriptive linguistics and linguistic sociology. In Uribe-Villegas, O. (ed.) Issues in sociolinguistics. The Hague: Mouton. 197–244.Google Scholar
Vachek, J. 1959. Two chapter on written English. Brno studies in English. 1.7–36.Google Scholar