بازگشت

Discourse Analysis

Discourse analysis

PhD in Applied Linguistics

Discourse Analysis

1. R. Jalilifar

 

Aims

Discourse analysis as an interdisciplinary field of study and a history of more than 50 years has acquired the status, stability, and integrity of a well-established discipline that extends the boundaries of linguistics. It is simply defined as the analysis of linguistic behavior beyond the limits of individual sentences, focusing primarily on the meaning constructed and interpreted as language is used in particular social contexts. This course is expected to shed light on the nature of language as used in context. Students are expected to fully and actively participate in the discussions. To this aim, the following topics are raised.

Course description

1. Issues and concerns in text & context

Salkie, R. (1997). Text and discourse analysis. London: Routledge.

Bhatia, V. J., Flowerdew, J., & Jones, R. H. (2008). Advances in discourse studies. Wiltshire: Routledge.

Biber, D. (1992) On the complexity of discourse complexity: A multidimensional analysis, Discourse Processes 15, 133–63.

Edwards, D. (2006). Discourse, cognition and social practices: The rich surface of

language and social interaction. Discourse Studies 8, 41–50.

Ferenz, O. (2005). EFL writers’ social networks: Impact on advanced academic literacy development. Journal of English for Academic Purposes 4, 339–351.

Widdowson, H.G. (2004) Text, context, pretext. Oxford: Blackwell.

 

2. Conversation analysis

            Bouton, L. F. (1994). Conversational implicature in a second language: Learned slowly when            not deliberately taught. Journal of Pragmatics, 22, 157-167.

            Byon, A. S. (2004). Sociopragmatic analysis of Korean requests: Pedagogical setting. Journal of   Pragmatics, 36, 1673-1704.

            Chen, S. (2007). Interlanguage requests: A cross-cultural study of English and Chinese. The         Linguistics Journal, 2(2), 32-52.

            Hassall, T. (2003). Requests by Australian learners of Indonesian. Journal of Pragmatics, 35,             1903-1928.

            Jalilifar, A. R. (2009). Request strategies: Cross-sectional study of Iranian EFL learners and         Australian native speakers, Canadian English Language Teaching, 2(1), 46-61.

            Jalilifar, A. R. (2014). Directions in discourse analysis: Theory and method. Ahvaz: Shahid Chamran          University of Ahvaz.

 

Kaneko, T. (2004). Request production by Japanese EFL learners: An SST corpus-based study. Retrieved November 20, 2007 from http://nels.nii.ac.jp/els/110004688559.pdf;jsessionid=DD1E8C2984AA71.

Kaplan, R. B. (1996). Cultural thought patterns in intercultural education. Language Learning, 16(1), 1–20.

Leech, G. (1983). Principles of pragmatics. London: Longman.

Levinson, S. C. (1983). Pragmatics. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

Iimuro, A. (2006). Conversation analysis of e-mail requests by second language speakers. Second Language Studies 24(2), 65-113.

Potter, J. (2006) Cognition and conversation, Discourse Studies 8, 131–140.

Rose, K.R. & Kasper, G. (2001). Pragmatic in language teaching. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

Rue, Y. J, Zhang, G., & Shin, K. (2007). Request strategies in Korean. Retrieved November 10, 2007 from http://espace.lis.curtin.edu.au/archive/00002319/01/pdf.

Ruzickova, E. (2007). Strong and mild requestive hints and positive-face redress in Cuban Spanish. Journal of Pragmatics, 39, 1170-1202.

Searle, J. (1969). Speech acts: An assay in the philosophy of language. Cambridge: CUP.

Takahashi, S. (1996). Pragmatic transferability. Studies in Second Language Acquisition 18, 169-223.

 

 

3. Ethnomethodology

Austin, J. (1962). How to do things with words. In A. Jaworski & N. Coupland (Eds.), The discourse reader (pp. 63-75). New York: Routledge.

Bakhtin, M. (1986). The problem of speech genres. In C. Emerson & M. Holquist (Eds.), Speech genres and other late essays (translated by V. W. McGee). Austin, Tex: University of Texas Press.

Bardovi-Harlig, K., & Dornyei, Z. (1998). Do learners recognize pragmatic violations? Pragmatic versus grammatical awareness in instructed L2 learning. TESOL Quarterly, 32(2), 42-71.

Bardovi-Harlig, K., & Taylor, M. R. (2003). Teaching pragmatics. Retrieved on November 22, 2007 from http://exchanges.state.gov/education/engteaching/.

4. Concerns in contrastive rhetoric

Canagarajah, A. (2002). Multilingual writers and the academic community: Towards a critical relationship. Journal of English for Academic Purposes 1, 29–44.

Canagarajah, A. S. (2002). A geopolitics of academic writing. Pittsburgh: University of Pittsburgh Press.

Connor, U. (2004). Contrastive rhetoric and EAP. Journal of English for Academic Purposes 3(4) [Special issue].

Flowerdew, J. (2000). Discourse community, legitimate peripheral participation, and the nonnative-English-speaking scholar. TESOL Quarterly 34(1), 127–150.

Flowerdew, J. (2001). Attitudes of journal editors to nonnative speaker contributions. TESOL Quarterly, 35(1), 121–150.

Jalilifar, A. R. (2010). The rhetoric of English and Persian advertisements. The International Journal of Language, Society, and Culture, 30(3), 25-39.

Jalilifar, A. R., & Beitsayyah, L. (2011). Genre Analysis of Enquiry Letters across Cultures: Perspectives on Rhetorical Structures. Concentric Studies in Linguistics, 37(1).

Lee, I. (2002). Helping students developing coherence in writing. English Teaching Forum 32-39.

Mauranen, A. (1993). Contrastive ESP rhetoric: metatext in FinnisheEnglish economics texts. English for Specific Purposes, 12, 3-22.

Panetta, C. G., (Ed.). (2001). Contrastive rhetoric revisited and redefined. Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.

Uzuner, S. (2008). Multilingual scholars’ participation in core/global academic communities: A literature review. Journal of English for Academic Purposes 7, 250–263.

Yakhontova, T. (2006). Cultural and disciplinary variation in academic discourse: the issue of influencing factors. Journal of English for Academic Purposes 5, 153-167.

Kameda, N. (2008). Contrastive rhetoric in business email writing across cultures: A case of

Singaporean and Japanese business students. Retrieved April, 7 2009 from

            http:// www.jyates.mit.edu.

 

Street, B. V. (2003). What’s new in new literacy studies? Current Issues in Comparative Education 5(2), 1–14.

 

5. Genre analysis: Perspectives on text analysis

Abdi, R. (2012). Smoothing the rough edges: Towards a typology of disclaimers in research articles. Pragmatics 22(3), 355-369.

 

Becher, T., & Trowler, P. (2001). Academic tribes and territories (2nd ed). Buckingham: The Society for Research into Higher Education and Open University Press.

Berkenkotter, C., & Huckin, T. N. (1995). Genre knowledge in disciplinary communication: Cognition, culture, power. Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.

Bhatia, K. V. (1997). Genre mixing in academic introductions. English for Specific Purposes 16(3),181-191.

Bloch, J. (2008). Plagiarism in an intercultural rhetoric context: What we can learn about one from the other. Proceedings of the first annual ICIC conference on written discourse and contrastive rhetoric.

Bloch, J. (2008). Plagiarism in an intercultural rhetoric context: What we can learn about one from the other. In U. Connor, E. Nagelhout & W. V. Rozycki (Eds.), Contrastive rhetoric: Reaching to intercultural rhetoric(pp. 257–274). Amsterdam: John Benjamins.

 

Brett, P. (1994). A genre analysis of the results section of sociology articles. English for Specific Purposes, 13(1), 47–59.

Dudley-Evans, T. (1994). Genre analysis: An approach to text analysis for ESP. In M. Coulthard (Ed.), Advances in written text analysis (pp. 219–228). London: Routledge.

Duszak, A., & Lewkowicz, J. (2008). Publishing academic texts in English: A polish perspective. Journal of English for Academic Purposes 7(2), 108–120.

Gains, J. (1999). Electronic mail- A new style of communication or just a new medium? An investigation into the text features of E-mail. English for Specific Purposes 18(1), 81-101.

Gimenez, J. (2006). Embedded business emails: Meeting new demands in international communication. English for Specific Purposes 25, 154-172.

Holmes, R. (1997). Genre analysis, and the social sciences: An investigation of the structure of RA discussion sections in three disciplines. English for Specific Purposes 16(4), 321–337.

Howard, R. M. (1999). Standing in the shadow of giants: Plagiarists, authors, collaborators. Stamford, CT: Ablex.

Hyland, K., & Tse, P. (2005). Hooking the reader: a corpus study of evaluative that in abstracts. English for Specific Purposes 24, 123-139.

 

Jalilifar, A. R. (2009). Research articles in applied linguistics: A genre-based writing guide. Ahvaz: Shahid Chamran University of Ahvaz.

Jalilifar, A. R. (2010). Writing titles in applied linguistics: A comparative study of theses and research articles. Taiwan ESP 2(1), 27-52.

Jalilifar, A. R., & Vahid Dastjerdi, H. (2010). A contrastive generic analysis of thesis and dissertation abstract: Variations across disciplines and cultures. Journal of the Faculty of Letters and Humanities of Shahid Bahonar University of Kerman, 26, 19-50.

 

Jalilifar, A. R. (2011). Academic attribution: Citation analysis in master’s theses and research articles in applied linguistics. International Journal of Applied Linguistics,

Jalilifar, A. R. (2011). World of attitudes in research article discussion sections: A cross-linguistic perspective. Journal of Technology of Education 5(3), 177-186.

Jalilifar, A. R. (2014). Directions in discourse analysis: Theory and method. Ahvaz: Shahid Chamran University of Ahvaz.

Jalilifar, A. R., & Abdollahzadeh, E. (2011). Academic research genres in an Asian context. Ahvaz: Shahid Chamran University of Ahvaz.

Jalilifar, A. R., Hayati, A. M., & Namdari, N. (2012). A comparative study of research article discussion sections of local and international applied linguistic journals. The Journal of Asia TEFL, 9(1), 1-29.

Jogthong, C. (2001). Research article introduction in Thai: Genre analysis of academic writing. Unpublished doctoral dissertation, West Virginia University, Morgantown, WV.

Johns, A. M. (2008). Introduction. English for Specific Purposes, 27(2), 123–129.

Lillis, T., & Curry, M. J. (2010). Academic writing in a global context: The politics and practices of publishing in English. London: Routledge.

Lim, J. M. H. (2006). Method sections of management RAs: A pedagogically motivated qualitative study. English for Specific Purposes 25(3), 282–309.

Miller, C. (1994). Genre as social action. In A. Freedman & P. Medway (Eds.), Genre and the new rhetoric (pp. 23–42). London: Taylor & Francis.

Ozturk, I. (2007). The textual organization of research article introductions in applied linguistics: Variability within a single discipline English for Specific Purposes 26, 25–38.

Paltridge, Brian. 1995. Working with genre: A pragmatic perspective. Journal of   Pragmatics 24, 393-406.

Paltridge, Brian. 2005. The exegesis as a genre: An ethnographic examination. In L Ravelli & R. Ellis,  Analyzing Academic Writing (pp. 84-1030. London: Continuum.

Peacock, M. (2002). Communicative moves in the discussion section of RAs. System 30, 479–497.

Samraj, B. (2005). An exploration of a genre set: RA abstracts and introductions in two disciplines. English for Specific Purposes 24(2), 141–156.

Santos, V. B. M. P. (2002). Genre analysis of business letters of negotiation. English for Specific Purposes 21(2), 167-199. 

Swales, M. J. 1990. Genre Analysis: English in academic and research setting. Cambridge: CUP.

Swales, J. (2004). Research genres. Oxford: OUP.

 

6. Information structure and functional aspects of language use

Halliday, M. A. K. (1994). An introduction to functional grammar (2nd ed.). London: Arnold.

Halliday, M., & Hasan, R. (1990). Language, context, and text: Aspects of language in a social semiotic perspective. Oxford: Oxford University Press.

Halliday, M.A.K., & Webster, J. J. (2009). Continuum companion to systemic functional linguistics. New York: Continuum.

Jalilifar, A. R. (2010). Thematization in students’ composition and its relation to academic experience. RELC, 41(1), 31-45.

Jalilifar, A. R. (2009). Thematic development in English and translated academic text. Journal of Language and Translation, 10(1), 81-111.

McCabe, A. & Belmonte, I. A. (2001). Theme, transitivity, and cognitive representation in

Spanish and English written texts, Clac, 7, 1-15.

Wang, I. (2007). Theme and rheme in the thematic organization of texts: Implications for

teaching academic writing. Asian EFL Journal 9(1), 164-176.

Martinez, I. (2003). Aspects of theme in method and discussion sections of biology

journals articles in English. Journal of English for Academic Purposes 2,

103-123.

 

7. Discourse and engagement

Hyland, K. (2002). Authority and invisibility: authorial identity in academic writing. Journal of Pragmatics, 34, 1091-1112.

Hyland, K. (2005). Stance and engagement: A model of interaction in academic discourse. Discourse Studies 7, 173–191.

Hyland, K. (2001). Humble servants of the discipline? Self-mention in research articles. English for Specific Purposes 20, 207-226.

Jalilifar, A. R., & Hoseini Marashi, M. (2011). Authorial presence in single-authored research article introductions in English and Persian: a cross-disciplinary and cross-linguistic study, ESP Across Cultures, 8, 65-88.

Kuo, C. H. (1999). The use of personal pronouns: Role relationships in scientific journal articles. English for Specific Purposes 18, 121-138.

Martinez, I. A. (2005). Native and non-native writer’s use of first person pronouns in the different sections of biology research articles in English. Journal of Second Language Writing, 14(3), 174-190.

Tang, R., & John, S. (1999). The ‘I’ in identity: exploring writer identity in student academic Writing through the first person pronoun. English for Specific Purposes, 18(Suppl.), S23-S39.

 

8. Metadiscourse awareness

Clemen, G. (1997). The concept of hedging: Origins, approaches and definitions. In Hedging and Discourse, H. Schroeder & R Markkanen (eds.) (80–97). Berlin: de Gruyter.

Crismore, A., Markkanen, R., & Steffensen, M. S. (1993). Metadiscourse in persuasive writing: A study of texts written by American and Finnish university students. Written Communication, 10(1), 39-71.

Crompton, P. (1997). Hedging in academic writing: Some theoretical problems.

English for Specific Purposes, 16, 271–287.

Dahl, T. (2004). Textual metadiscourse in research articles: A marker of national culture or of academic discipline. Journal of Pragmatics, 36(10), 1807-1825.

Hyland, K. (1996). Writing without conviction? Hedging in scientific RAs. Applied Linguistics 17(4), 433–454.

Hyland, K. (1998). Persuasion and context: The pragmatics of academic metadiscourse. Journal of Pragmatics 30, 437-455.

Hyland, K. (1998). Boosting, hedging and the negotiation of academic knowledge. Text 18(3), 349–382.

Hyland, K. (2000). It might be suggested that: Academic hedging and student writing. Australian Review of Applied Linguistics Series 16, 83-97.       

Hyland, K. (2000). Disciplinary discourses: Social interactions in academic writing. London: Longman.

Hyland, K. (2005). Metadiscourse. London: Continuum.

Hyland, K., & Tse, B. (2004). Metadiscourse in academic writing: A reappraisal. Applied Linguistics 25(2), 156-177.

Infantidou, E. (2005). The semantics and pragmatics of metadiscourse. Journal of Pragmatics,

Jalilifar, A. R. (2007). All the way through the hedges: A corpus analysis of hedges in research articles. Greek Journal of Applied Linguistics, 23, 39-63.

Jalilifar, A. R. (2008). Discourse markers in composition writing: The case of Iranian learners of English as a foreign language.  Canadian English Language Teaching, 1(2), 114-121.

Jalilifar, A. R. (2014). Directions in discourse analysis: Theory and method. Ahvaz: Shahid Chamran University of Ahvaz.

Alavi-Nia, M., & Jalilifar, A. R. (2013). We believe the Iranian nation can: The manifestation of power in Iranian televised presidential debates. Language & Communication. 33(1), 8-25.

Jalilifar, A. R., & Alavi-Nia, M. (2011). Power and politics of language use: A survey of hedging devices in political interviews. Journal of Teaching Language Skills, 3(3), 43-66.

Jalilifar, A. R., & Alavi-Nia, M. (2011). We are surprised; wasn’t Iran disgraced there? A functional analysis of hedges and boosters in televised Iranian and American presidential debates. Discourse and Communication,6(2), 1-29.

Jalilifar, A. R., & Alipour, M. (2007). How explicit instruction makes a difference: Metadiscourse markers and EFL learners’ reading comprehension. Journal of College Reading and Learning 38(1), 35-52. The University of Texas at Austin.

Jalilifar, A. R., & Shooshtari, Z. G. (2011). Metadiscourse awareness and ESAP comprehension. Journal of College Reading and Learning, 41(2), 53-74.

Shooshtari, Z. G. & Jalilifar, A. R. (2010). Citation and the construction of disciplinary knowledge. Journal of Teaching Language Skills, 2(1), 45-66.

Vande Kopple, W. J. (1985). Some exploratory discourse on metadiscourse. College Composition and Communication 36, 82-93.

Vande Kopple, W. J. (1988). Metadiscourse and the recall of modality markers. Visible Language 22, 233-72.

Vázquez, I, & Giner, D (2008). Beyond Mood and Modality: Epistemic Modality Markers

as Hedges in Research Articles. A Cross-Disciplinary Study. Revista Alicantina de Estudios Ingleses 21, 171-190

 

9. Appraisal theory: A systemic view of text analysis

Hood, S. (2010). Appraising research: Evaluation in academic writing. London: Palgrave.

Martin, J. R., & White, P. R. R. (2005). The language of evaluation. Appraisal in English. Houndmills/New York: Palgrave Macmillan.

Jalilifar, A. R., Hayati, A. M., & Mashhadi, A. (2013). Evaluative strategies in Iranian and international research article introductions: Assessment of academic writing. Research in Applied Linguistic Studies, 3(1), 81-109.

 

10. Corpora & discourse analysis

Biber, D. (2006). University language: A corpus-based study of spoken and written registers. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.

Biber, D. Conrad, S., & Reppen, R. (2006). Corpus linguistics: Investigating language structure and use. Cambridge: CUP.

Jalilifar, A. R. (2014). Directions in discourse analysis: Theory and method. Ahvaz: Shahid Chamran University of Ahvaz.

 

11. Relevance theory

Sperber & Wilson. On relevance theory

 

12. Critical discourse analysis

Billig, M. (2003). Critical discourse analysis and the rhetoric of critique. In G. Weiss &

           R. Wodak (eds). Critical Discourse Analysis, pp. 35–46.

De Beaugrande, R. (2006). Critical discourse analysis: History, ideology, methodology.

           Studies in Language & Capitalism 1, 29–56.

Fairclough, N. (1992) Discourse and social change. Cambridge: Polity Press.

Fairclough, N. (2003) Analyzing discourse. London: Routledge.

Fairclough, N. (2005) Critical discourse analysis. Marges Linguistiques 9, 76–94.

Jalilifar, A. R. (2014). Directions in discourse analysis: Theory and method. Ahvaz: Shahid Chamran University of Ahvaz.

Van Dijk, T.A. (2001). Multidisciplinary CDA: A Plea for Diversity. In R. Wodak &

M. Meyer (eds), Methods of critical discourse analysis. London: SAGE.

Van Dijk, T. A. (2001). Critical discourse analysis. In D. Schiffrin, D. Tannen &

H.E. Hamilton (eds), Handbook of discourse analysis. Oxford: Blackwell.

Widdowson, H.G. (2004) Text, context, pretext. Oxford: Blackwell.

Wodak, R. (2006). Critical linguistics and critical discourse analysis. In J. O. Östman & J. Verschueren (eds), Handbook of pragmatics (pp. 1–24). Amsterdam: John Benjamins.

Wodak, R. (2007). Pragmatics and critical discourse analysis: A cross-disciplinary

Inquiry. Pragmatics & Cognition 19, 203–25.

Kress, G. (2010). Multimodality: A social semiotic approach to contemporary communication. London: Continuum.

Widdowson, H.G. (2004) Text, context, pretext. Oxford: Blackwell.

 

13. Politeness theory

 

Brown, P., & Levinson, S.C. (1987). Politeness: Some universals in language usage. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

Hickey, L., & Stewart, M. (2005). Politeness in Europe (eds.). Clevedon: Multilingual Matters.

Hoebe, E. S. (2001). Predicting politeness strategies in English conversation. ELIA 2,181-197.

Marti, L. (2006). Indirectness and politeness in Turkish-German bilingual and Turkish monolingual requests. Journal of Pragmatics, 38, 1836-1869.

                                                                                           

Izadi, A., & Jalilifar, A. R. (2010). Politeness in LAP assessment: Dissertation defense sessions in focus. Iranian Journal of TEFLL, 2(2), 71-90.

More books for further reading

Blommaert, J. (2005). Discourse. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

Chrisie, F., & Derewianka, B. (2010). School discourse. London: Continuum.

Gee, J. P. (2011). How to do discourse analysis: A toolkit. London: Routledge.

Gee, J. P. (1999). An introduction to discourse analysis: Theory and method. London: Routledge.

McCarthy, M. (1991). Discourse analysis for language teachers. Cambridge: CUP.

McCarthy, M. (2005). Discourse analysis for teachers. Cambridge: CUP.

 

Course requirements

1. Active participation in classroom
2. Being intensively involved in a project defined by the student or suggested by the instructor
3. Final term examination