Viviana Cortes

Discourse Analysis

Viviana Cortes
Office:  319 Ross Hall, phone: 294-6690               E-mail:  viviana@iastate.edu

Course Overview: In this course we will survey a number of approaches to the linguistic analysis of written and spoken texts and registers. Much of the course will be structured as a workshop, in which we will attempt to apply the methodological techniques of course readings to actual text analyses. We will make a basic distinction in the course between classical 'discourse analysis' versus the linguistic analysis of spoken and written discourse. Discourse analysis, as practiced by many sociolinguists, sociologists, anthropologists, philosophers, and computational linguists, focuses on two major concerns: the way that language is organized into units larger than sentences; and the way that language is used to convey information about the world and ourselves. The textbook by Schiffrin (1994), which we will read during the first weeks of the course, presents an excellent introduction to the various approaches to traditional discourse analysis. 

Although we will look at some studies dealing with discourse organization, for the most part we will be focusing instead on linguistic analyses of spoken and written texts and registers. The approaches and investigations that we will study differ in some important ways from most classical discourse analyses: First, they are consistently based on analysis of naturally occurring discourse; they focus on the lexical/grammatical characteristics of discourse (in addition to organizational considerations); and they usually aim for generalizable findings. 

The course is organized according to two major research goals addressed by such analyses: 1) the study of grammar and discourse: to investigate variation for individual lexical and grammatical features -- as well as linguistic/functional systems of features -- in their textual contexts; and 2) the study of discourse organization. For each area, we will read several articles as a class, have student presentations on additional articles, and carry out pilot discourse analyses. 

Presentation of research articles: In general, we will read 4 articles as a class each week. Students will present one major article -- or two short articles -- once every other week. For each article, the presenter should prepare a handout showing the major quantitative findings, and texts illustrating the major discourse patterns. (Note: these presentations will be graded, considering organization, clarity, and efficient use of allocated time.) 
The handout should address the following: 1) the main issue(s) or research goal(s); 2) why these issues are important; 3) what methodologies were used to address the issues, and whether they are appropriate; 4) what the major findings are and whether the findings are to be trusted; 6) what the theoretical implications are; and 7) suggestions for further related research. 

For the in-class presentations, I would like the presenter to teach the content of the article from the handout. You should cover the information contained in the text, but present it as if you were teaching the content (i.e. rather than summarizing). In addition to explaining the major methods and findings, I would like the presenter to bring additional text examples (or concordance listings), whenever possible, to have the class work through some example analyses of the type used in the article. 

Pair work: Students will carry out pilot studies for each of the major sections of the course: 1) a study of lexis and discourse; 2) a study of grammar and discourse; and 3) a traditional discourse analysis focusing on text organization or information flow. For these studies, students will work in pairs, forming different pairs for each of the three types of study that will be covered in the course. The studies will be based on empirical investigations of the target features, using either corpus-based analysis or an in-depth study of individual texts. The findings from these pilot studies will be presented as in-class talks, supported by a written abstract and a handout. (Note: these presentations will be graded, considering organization, clarity, and efficient use of allocated time.) 

Empirical research paper: The final course requirement will be an empirical research paper. For this project, you should take some issue from the course (or other discourse analytic issues that you know of) and study it in a motivated body of texts. A short proposal for the paper is due April 1st: the proposal should specify the same kinds of information that we will use for the article critiques (including the main issue(s), why they are important, the methodologies, and text database).                                                                                         

Grading

Class participation and presentism                                        10%

Class presentations                                                                20%

Pair work                                                                                 45%

Final project/paper                                                                  25%

Required Book and Materials

Biber, D., Conrad, S., & Reppen, R. (1999). Corpus linguistics: Investigating language structure and use. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. (BCR)

Schiffrin, D. (1994). Approaches to discourse. Oxford, UK and Cambridge, Mass. : Blackwell (S)

Course pack (to be distributed at the end of Week 1) (CP)

Books on reserve at the library

Biber. D., Johansson, S., Leech, G., Conrad, S. & Finegan, E. (1999). Longman grammar of spoken and written English. London: Longman. 

 

Selected articles

Week 5

Yap, F. H., & Celce-Murcia, M. (1999). The grammar, meaning, and referencial functions of else. English Language and Linguistics 4(2), 137-181.

Oh, S. (2000). Actually and in fact in American English: A data-based analysis. English Language and Linguistics 4(2), 243-278

Schiffrin, D. (1999). OH as a marker of information management. In A. Jaworski and N. Coupland (Eds.), The Discourse Reader (pp. 2236-251). London and New York: Routledge.

Myhill, J. (1997). Should and ought to: The rise of individually oriented modality. English Language and Linguistics 1(1), 3-23.

Week 6

Biber, D. & Finegan, E. (1989). Styles and stance in English: Lexical and grammatical marking of evidentiality and affect. Text 9(1), 93-124.

Mulkay, M. (1985). Agreement and disagreement in conversations and letters. Text 5(3)., 201-227.

McCarthy, M. & Carter, R. (1997). Grammar, tails, and affect: Constructing expressive choices in discourse. Text 17(3), 405-429.

Schiffrin, D. (1985). Conversational coherence: The role of well. Language 61(3), 640-667.

Week 7

Gledhill, C. (2000). The discourse function of  collocation in research article introductions. English for Specific Purposes 19, 115-135

Luzon Marco, M. J. (2000). Collocational frameworks in medical research papers: a genre-based study. English for Specific Purposes 19, 63-86.

Howarth, P. (1998). Phraseology and second language proficiency. Applied Linguistics 19(1), 24-44.

DeCock, S. (1998). A recurrent word combination approach to the study of formulae in the speech of native and non-native speakers of English. International Journal of Corpus Linguistics 3(1), 59-80.

Week 8

Cortes, V. (2004). Lexical bundles in published and student disciplinary writing: Examples from history and biology. English for Specific Purposes 23, 397-423.

Week 9

Schiffrin, D. (1992). Conditionals as topic in discourse. Linguistics 30,  165-197.

Carter, R. & McCarthy, M. (1997). The English get-passive in spoken discourse: description and implications for an interpersonal grammar. English Language and Linguistics 3(1), 41-58.

Vande Kopple, W. (1994). Some characteristics and functions of grammatical subjects in scientific discourse. Written Communication 11(4), 534-564.

Hewings, M & Hewings, A. (2002). “It is interesting to note that…”: A comparative study of anticipatory ‘it’ in student and published writing. English for Specific Purposes 21,  367-383.

Week 11

Biber, D. (1999). A register perspective on grammar and discourse: Variability in the form and use of English Complement Clauses. Discourse Studies 1(2), 131-150.

Hiltunen, R. (1984). The type and structure of clausal embedding in legal English. Text 4 (1-3), 107-121.

Noel, D. (1997). The choice between infinitives and that-clauses after believe. English Language and Linguistics, 1(2), 271-284

Sigley, R. (1997). The influence of formality and channel on relative pronoun choice in New Zealand English. English Language and Linguistics 1(2), 207-232.

Week 12

Thompson, S. & Mulac, A. (1991). The discourse conditions for the use of the complementizer that in conversational English. Journal of Pragmatics 15, 237-251.

Martinez, I. (2001). Impersonality in the research article as revealed by the analysis of the transitivity structure. English for Specific Purposes 20, 227-247.

 

Week 13

Abu-Akel, A. (1999). Episodic boundaries in conversational narratives. Discourse Studies 1(4), 437-453.

Csomay, E. (2004). A multi-dimensional analysis of discourse segments in university classroom talk. In A. Partington, J. Morley, and L. Haarman (Eds.), Corpora and Discourse. Bern: Peter Lang.

Labov, W. (1999). The transformation of experience in narrative. In A. Jaworski and N. Coupland (Eds.), The Discourse Reader (pp. 2236-251). London and New York: Routledge.

Bell, A. (1999). News stories as narratives. In A. Jaworski and N. Coupland (Eds.), The Discourse Reader (pp. 2236-251). London and New York: Routledge.

 

 

Week 14

Prince, E. (1987). Toward a taxonomy of given-new information. In Cole, P. (Ed.), Radical Pragmatics (pp. 223-255). New York: Academia Press.

Spiegel, D. L. & Fitzgerald, J. (1990). Textual cohesion and coherence in children’s writing revisited. Research in the Teaching of English 24(1), 48-66.

Crowhurst, M. (1987). Cohesion in Argument and narration at three grade levels. Research in the Teaching of English 21(2), 185-202

Hardy, D. & Leuchman, A. (1996). Topic versus cohesion in the prediction of causal ordering in English conversation. Discourse Processes 21, 237-254.

 

Week 15

Yunxia, Z. (2000). Structural moves reflected in English and Chinese sales letters. Discours Studies 2(4), 473-796.

Connor, U., Davis, K., & De  Rycker, T. (1995). Correctness and clarity in applying for overseas jobs: A cross-cultural analysis of US and Flemish applications. Text 15(4), 457-475.

Precht, K. (1998). A cross-cultural comparison of letters of recommendation. English for Specific Purposes 17(3), 241-265.

Connor, U. & Mauranen, A. (1999). Linguistic analysis of grant proposals: European Union research grants. English for Specific Purposes 18(1), 47-62.