Hostname: page-component-cd9895bd7-q99xh Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-12-28T11:02:03.810Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Discourse Analysis and Writing/Reading Instruction*

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  19 November 2008

Ulla Maija Connor
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Extract

In the 1984 volume of the Annual review of applied linguistics, Grabe (1985) presented a comprehensive discussion of discourse analysis explaning its history, frameworks, models, taxonomies, and operationalizations. The approach of the present article complements Grabe's as a reivew with a more direct concern for instructional applications of discourse analysis in student reading and writing.

Type
Applications of Discourse Analysis
Information
Annual Review of Applied Linguistics , Volume 11 , March 1990 , pp. 164 - 180
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

Armbruster, B.B., Anderson, T. and Ostertag, J.. 1987. Does text structure/summarization instruction facilitate learning from expository text? Reading research quarterly. 22.331–346.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Bamberg, B. 1984. Assessing coherence: A reanalysis of essays written for the National Assessment of Educational Progress, 1969–1979. Research in the teaching of English. 18.305–319.Google Scholar
Beaugrande, R. de. 1980. Text discourse and process. Hillsadle, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.Google Scholar
Bickner, R. and Peyasantiwong, P.. 1988. Cultural variation in reflective writing. In Purves, A. (ed.) Writing across languages and Cultures. Beverly Hills, CA: Sage. 160–176.Google Scholar
Bleich, D. 1987. The double perspective. New York: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Brandt, D. 1990. Literacy as involvement: The acts of writers, readers, and texts. Carbondale, IL: Southern Illinois University Press.Google Scholar
Britton, B.K. and Black, J. (eds.) 1985. Understanding expository texts. A theoretical and paractical handbook for analyzing explantory text.. Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.Google Scholar
Carrell, P. 1982. Cohesion is not coherence. TESOL quarterly. 16.4.479–488.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Carrell, P. 1984. The effects of rhetorical organiztion on ESL readers. TESOL quarterly. 18.3.441–469.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Carrell, P. 1985. Facilitating ESL reading by teaching text structure. TESOL quarterly. 19.4.727–752.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Carrell, P. 1987. Text as interaction: Some inplication of text analysis and reading research for ESL composition. In Connor, U. and Kaplan, R.B. (eds.) Writing across languages: Analysis of L2 text. Reading, MA: Addison-Wesley. 47–56.Google Scholar
Carrell, P.. 1988. Interactive text processing: Implications for ESL/second language reading classrooms. In Carrell, P., Devine, J. and Eskey, D. (eds.) Interactive approaches to second language reading. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. 239–259.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Carrell, P. and Connor, U.. 1990. Reading and writing persuasive and expopsity texts. In Burmeister, H. (eds.) Proceeding of the tenth second language research forum. Eugene, OR: University of Oregon. 251–272Google Scholar
Carrell, P., Pharis, B.G. and Liberto, J.C.. 1989. Metacognitive strategy training for ESL reading. TESOL quarterly. 23.4.647–678.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Cerniglia, C., Medsker, K. and Connor, U.. 1990. Improving coherence using computer assisted instruction. In Connor, U.and Johns, A.M. (eds.) Coherence in writing: Research and pedagogical perspectives. Washington DC:, TESOL Publications. 227–241.Google Scholar
Connor, U. 1984. A study of cohesion and coherence on English as a sencond language student's writing. Papers in linguistics: International journal of human communication. 17.301–316.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Connor, U. 1987. Research frontiers in writing analysis. TESOL quarterly. 21.4.677–696.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Connor, U. 1990. Linguistic/rehetorical measure for onternational persuasive student writing. Research in the teaching of English. 24.1.67–87Google Scholar
Connor, U. and Farmer, M.. 1990. The teaching of topical structure analysis as a revision strategy for ESL writers. In Kroll, B.(ed.) Second language writing: Issues and options. New York: Cambridge University Press. 126–139.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Connor, U. and Kramer, M.. 1990. Writing from readings: A study of ESL writers in a graduate business school. West Lafayette, IN: Purdue University. Mimeo.Google Scholar
Connor, U. and Lauer, J.. 1985. Understanding persuastive essay writing: Linguistic/rhetorical approach. Text. 5.4.309–326.Google Scholar
Connor, U. and Lauer, J.. 1988. Cross-cultural variation in persuasine student writing. In Purves, A. (eds.) Writing across language and cultures. Beverly Hills CA: Sage. 138–159.Google Scholar
Connor, U. and Johns, A. (eds.) 1990. Coherence in writing: Research and pedogogical perspectives. Washington DC:, TESOL Publications.Google Scholar
Conture, B. 1986a. Effective ideation in written text: A functional approach to clarity and exigence. In Couture, B. (ed.) Functional approaches to writing. Norwood, NJ: Ablex. 69–92.Google Scholar
Couture, B.(ed.) 1986b. Functional approaches to writing. Norwood, NJ: Ablex.Google Scholar
Cox, B., Shanahan, T. and Sulzby, E.. 1990. Reader's use of cohesion in writing. Reading research quarterly. 25.1.47–65.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Crusius, T.W. 1989. Discourse: A critique of synthesis of major theories. New York: The Modern Language Association of America.Google Scholar
Cumming, A. 1989. Writing expertise and second-language proficiency. Language learning;. 39.1.81–141.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Dijk, T. van. 1990. The future of the field: Discourse analysis in the 1990s. Text. 10.1/2.133–156.Google Scholar
Dijk, T. van and Kintsch, W.. 1983. Strategies of discourse comprehension. New York: Academic Press.Google Scholar
Durst, R., Laine, C., Schultz, L. and Vilter, W.. 1990. Appealing texts: The persuasive writing of high school students. Written communication. 7.2.232–255.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Enkvist, N. E. 1987. The linguistics for the applier: An orientation. In Connor, U. and Kaplan, R.(eds.) Writing across language: Analisis of L2 text. Reading, MA: Addison-Wesley. 23–43.Google Scholar
Enkvist, N. E. 1990. Seven problems in the study of coherence and interpretability. In Connor, U. and Johns, A. (eds.) Coherence in writing: Research and pedagogical perspectives. Washington, DC: TESOL Publications. 9–28.Google Scholar
Enkvist, N. E. (ed.) 1985a. Coherence and composition: A symposium. Åbo, Finland: publications of the Research Institute to the Åbo Akademi Foundation.Google Scholar
Enkvist, N. E. (ed.) 1985b. Text linduistics and written composition. [Special issue of Text. 5.4]Google Scholar
Evensen, L. 1990. pointers to superstructure in student writing. In Connor, U. and Johns, A. (eds.) Coherence in writing: Research and pedagogical perspectives. Washington, DC: TESOL publications. 169–186.Google Scholar
Evensen, L. (ed.) 1986. Nordic research in text linguistics and discourse analysis. Trondheim, Norway: University of Trondheim, Tapir.Google Scholar
Fitzgerald, J. and Spiegel, D.. 1986. Textual cohension and coherence in children's writing. Research in the teaching of English. 20.263–280.Google Scholar
Flower, L. 1987. Inderpretative acts: Cognition and the construction of discourse. poetics. 16.109–130.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Flower, L. 1988. The construction of purpose in reading and writing. College English. 50.528–550.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Flower, L. et al. , 1990. Reading to write: Exploring a cognitive and social process. New York: Oxford University press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Frederiksen, C. 1975. Representing logical and semantic structure of knowledge acquired from discourse. Cognitive psychology. 7.371–458.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Gorman, T.P., Purves, A. and Degenhart, R.. 1988. The IEA study of written composition I: The international writing tasks and scoring scales. New York: Pergamon Press.Google Scholar
Grabe, W. 1985. Written discourse analysis. In Kaplan, R. B. et al. , (eds.) Annual review of applied linguistics. Vol. 5. New York: Cambridge University press. 101–123.Google Scholar
Halliday, M. A. K. and Hasan, R.. 1976. Cohesion in English. London: Longman.Google Scholar
Halliday, M. A. K. and Hasan, R. 1989. Language, context, and text: Aspects of language in a social semiotic perspective. New York: Oxford University press.Google Scholar
Harris, D.P. 1990. The use of “organizing sentences” in the structure of paragraphs in science textbooks. In Connor, U. and Johns, A. (eds.) Coherence in writing: Research and pedogogical perspective. Washington, DC: TESOL publications. 67–86.Google Scholar
Hasan, R. 1984. Coherence and cohesive harmony. In Flood, J. (ed.) Understanding reading comprehension. Newark, DE: International Reading Association. 181–219.Google Scholar
Hinds, J. 1987. Reader versus writer responsibility: A new typology. In Connor, U. and Kaplan, R. B. (eds.) Writing across language: Analysis of L2 text. Reading, MA: Addison-Wesley. 141–152.Google Scholar
Hinds, J. 1990. Inductive, deductive, quasi-inductive: Expository writing in Japanese, Korean, Chinese, and Thai. In Connor, U. and Johns, A. (eds.) Coherence in writing: Research and pedogogical perspectives. Washington, DC: TESOL publications. 87–110.Google Scholar
Hoey, M. 1986. Overlapping patterns of discourse organization and their implications for clause relational analysis in problem-Solution texts. In Cooper, C. and Greebaum, S. (eds.) Studying writing: Linguistic approaches. Beverly Hills, CA: Sage. 187–214.Google Scholar
Hult, C. 1986. Global marking of rhetorical frame in text and reader evaluation. In Couture, B. (ed.) Functional approaches to writing. Norwood, NJ: Ablex. 154–165.Google Scholar
Johns, A. 1984. Textual cohesion and the Chinese speaker of English. Language learning and communication. 3.1.69–74.Google Scholar
Johns, A. 1986. Coherence and academic writing: Some definitions and suggestions for teaching. TESOL quartely. 20.2.247–265.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Johns, A. 1990. An ESL student and an English competency exam: Issues in academic task representation. San Diego, CA: San Diego State University. Mimeo.Google Scholar
Johnson, D., Pittelman, S. and Heimlich, J.. 1986. Semantic mapping. The reading teacher. 39.778–783.Google Scholar
Kamil, M.L. 1984. Current traditions of reading research. In Pearson, P.D. (ed.) Handbook of reading research. New York: Longman, 39–62Google Scholar
Kinneavy, J. 1971. A Theory of discourse. Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice-Hall.Google Scholar
Kintsch, W. 1976. The representation of meaning in memory. Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.Google Scholar
Kintsch, W. and van Dijk, T.. 1978. Toward a model of text comprehension and production. Psychological review. 85.363–394.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Kroll, B. (ed.) 1990. Second language writing: Issues and options. New York: Cambridge University press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Labov, W. and Waletsky, J.. 1967. Narrative analysis: Oral versions of personal experience. In Helm, J. (eds.) Essay on the veral and visual arts. Seattle, WA: University of Washington press. 12–44.Google Scholar
Lautamatti, L. 1987. Observations in the development of the topic in simplified discourse. In Connor, U. and Kalpan, R.B. (eds.) Writing across languages: Analysis of L2 text. Reading, MA: Addison-Wesley. 87–114.Google Scholar
Lautamatti, L. 1990. Coherence in spoken and written discourse. In Connor, U. and Johns, A. (eds.) Coherence in writting: Research and pedagogical perspectives. Washington, DC: TESOL Publications. 29–40Google Scholar
Leimkuhler, M. 1990. Anaphoric cohesion in the writing of adult Korean ESL subjects and native speakers of English. Champaign-Urbana, IL: University of Illinois M.S. thesis.Google Scholar
Lindeberg, A.C. 1985. Cohesion, coherence patterns, and ESL Essay evaluation. In Enkvist, N. (ed.) Coherence and composition: A symposium. Åbo, Finland: Publications of Research Institute of the Åbo Foundation. 67–92.Google Scholar
Lindeberg, A.C. 1986. Functional role analysis applied to narrative and non-narrative student essays in EFL. NORDWRITE reprots I. Trondheim papers in applied linguistics. Trondheim, Norway: University of Trondheim. 26–45.Google Scholar
Linnarud, M. 1986. Lexis and lexical cohension. NORDWRITE Reprots I. Trondheim papers in applied linguistics. Trondheim, Norway: University of Trondheim. 11–25.Google Scholar
Lovejoy, K.. In press. Discourse analysis: Information management and cohesion. Linguistics and education.Google Scholar
Martin, J. and Rothery, J.. 1986. What a functional approach for the writting task can show teachers about “good writing.“. In Couture, B. (ed.) Functional approaches to writing. Norwood, NJ: Ablex. 241–265.Google Scholar
McGee, L. M. 1982. Awareness of text structure. Reading research quarterly. 17.581–590.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Meyer, B. J. 1975. The organization of prose and its effects on memory. Amesterdam: North Holland.Google Scholar
Pennycook, A. 1990. Towards a critical applied linguistics of the 1990s. Issues in applied linguistics. 1.1.8–29.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Phelps, L. W. 1985. Dialectics of coherence: Toward an integrative theory. College English. 47.1.12–29.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Purves, A. C., (ed.) 1988. Writing across languages and cultures. Beverly Hills, CA: Sage.Google Scholar
Raimes, A. 1987. Language proficiency, writing ablility, and composing strategies: A study of ESL college student writers. Language learning. 37.3.439–467.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Raskin, V. and Weiser, I., 1987. Language and writing: Applicaitons of linguistics to rhetoric and composition. Norwood, NJ: Ablex.Google Scholar
Scarcella, R. 1984. Cohesion in the writing development of native non-native English speakers. Los Angeles: University of Southern California. Ph.D. diss.Google Scholar
Schneider, M. and Connor, U.. In press. Analyzing topical struture ESL essays: Not all topics are equal. Studies in second language acquisition.Google Scholar
Spiegel, D. and Fitzgerald, J. 1990. Textual cohesion and coherence in children's writing revisited. Research in the teaching of English. 24.1.48–66.Google Scholar
Spivey, N. 1990. Transforming texts. Constructive processes in reading and writing. Written communication. 7.2.256–287.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Swales, J. 1990. Nonnative speaker graduate engineering students and their introductions: Global choherence and local management. In Connor, U. and Johns, A. (eds.) Coherence in writing: Research and pedagogical perspectives. Washington, DC: TESOL Publications. 187–208.Google Scholar
Tadros, A. 1989. Predictive categories in university textbooks. English for specific purposes. 8.1.17–32.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Takala, S. 1988. Origins of the international study of writing. In Gorman, T., Purves, A. and Degenhart, R. (eds.) The IEA study of written composition I: The international writing tasks and scoring scales. New York: Pergamon Press. 3–14.Google Scholar
Tannen, D. 1990. Discourse analysis: The excitement of diversity. Text. 10.1/2.109–111.Google Scholar
Thorndyke, P. 1977. Congnitive structures in comprehension and memory for narrative discourse. Cognitive psychology. 9.77–110.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Tierney, R. and Mosenthal, J.. 1983. Cohesion and textual coherence. Research in the teaching of English. 17.215–229.Google Scholar
Tipton, S. 1987. The effectiveness of topical structure analysis as a version stragery for ESL writers. Athens, OH: Ohio University. M.S. thesis.Google Scholar
Tirkkonen-Condit, S. 1985. Argumentative text structure and translation. Studia philologica Jyväskyläensia. 18. Jyväskylä, Finland: Kirjapaino Oy, Sisä-Suomi.Google Scholar
Tirkkonen-Condit, S., 1986. Text type markers and translation equivalence. In House, J. and Blum-Kulka, S. (eds.) Interlingual and intercultural communication. Tubingen: Narr. 95–114.Google Scholar
Wikborg, E. 1990. Types of coherence breaks in Swedish student writing: Misleading paragraph divisions. In Connor, U. and Johns, A. (eds.) Coherence in writing: Research and pedagogical perspectives. Washington, DC: TESOL Publications. 131–150.Google Scholar
Witte, S. 1983a. Topical structure and revision: An exploratory study. College composition and communication. 34.3.313–341.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Witte, S. 1983b. Topical structure and writing quality: Some possible text-based explanations of reader' judgments of students' writing. Visible language. 17.177–205.Google Scholar
Witte, S. 1987. Pre-text and composing. College composition and communication. 38.4.397–425.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Witte, S. and Faigley, L.. 1981. Cohesion, coherence, and writing quality. College composition and communication. 32.2.189–204.CrossRefGoogle Scholar