A modern history of written discourse analysis

Journal of Second Language Writing

Volumn 11, Issue 3, 2002, Pages 191-223

  Kaplan, Robert B ^a   Grabe, William ^b  

^a UNIVERSITY OF SOUTHERN CALIFORNIA   (United States)

^b NORTHERN ARIZONA UNIVERSITY   (United States)

Author keywords

Cognitive models; Composition studies; Contrastive rhetoric; Discourse analysis; English studies; Hermeneutics

Indexed keywords

EID: 0346165058     PISSN: 10603743     EISSN: None     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1016/S1060-3743(02)00085-1     Document Type: Article

References (224)

1. Agard, F. B., & DiPietro, R. J. (1965). The grammatical structures of English and Italian. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.
2. Atkinson, D. (1999). Scientific discourse in sociohistorical context: Philosophical transactions of the Royal Society of London, 1675-1975. Mahwah, NJ: Erlbaum.
3. Bain, A. (1867). English composition and rhetoric (2nd American ed.). New York: D. Appleton & Co.
4. Bakhtin, M. (1981). The dialogic imagination. (C. Emerson & M. Holquist, Trans.). Austin, TX: University of Texas Press.
5. Barsalou, L. (1992). Cognitive psychology: An overview for cognitive scientists. Mahwah, NJ: Erlbaum.
6. Barthes, R. (1964). Elements of Semiology. (A. Lavers & C. Smith, Trans.). New York: Hill and Wang.
7. Barthes, R. (1974). S/Z: An essay. (R. Miller, Trans.). New York: Hill and Wang.
8. Bazerman, C. (1984). Modern evolution of the experimental report in physics. Spectroscopic articles in Physical Review, 1893-1980. Social Studies of Science, 14, 163-196.
9. Bazerman, C. (1988). Shaping written knowledge. Madison, WI: University of Wisconsin Press.
10. Bazerman, C. (1993). Constructing experience. Carbondale, IL: Southern Illinois University Press.
11. Bazerman, C. (1998). Emerging perspectives on the many dimensions of scientific discourse. In J. Martin & R. Veel (Eds.), Reading science (pp. 15-33). New York: Routledge.
12. Bazerman, C. (1999). The languages of Edison's light. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.
13. Bazerman, C. (2001). Nuclear information: One rhetorical moment in the construction of the information age. Written Communication, 18, 259-295.
14. Berlin, J. (1984). Writing instruction in nineteenth century American colleges. Carbondale, IL: Southern Illinois University Press.
15. Berlin, J. (1987). Rhetoric and reality: Writing instruction in American colleges, 1900-1985. Carbondale, IL: Southern Illinois University Press.
16. Bhatia, V. K. (1993). Analysing genre: Language use in professional settings. London: Longman.
17. Bhatia, V. K. (1999). Integrating products, processes, purposes and participants in professional writing. In C. Candlin & K. Hyland (Eds.), Writing: Texts, processes and practices (pp. 21-39). London: Longman.
18. Bhatia, V. K. (2002). Applied genre analysis: Analytic advances and pedagogical procedures. In A. Johns (Ed.), Genre in the classroom: Multiple perspectives (pp. 279-283). Mahwah, NJ: Erlbaum.
19. Biber, D. (1988). Variation across speech and writing. New York: Cambridge University Press.
20. Biber, D. (1995). Dimensions of register variation. New York: Cambridge University Press.
21. Biber, D., Conrad, S., & Reppen, R. (1998). Corpus linguistics: Investigating language structure and use. New York: Cambridge University Press.
22. Biber, D., Johansson, S., Leech, G., Conrad, S., & Finegan, E. (1999). Longman Grammar of Spoken and Written English. Harlow: Pearson.
23. Bolinger, D. (1977). Meaning and form. London: Longman.
24. Braddock, R., Lloyd-Jones, R., & Schoer, L. (1963). Research in written composition. Urbana, IL: National Council of Teachers of English.
25. Britton, B., & Graesser, A. (Eds.). (1996). Models of understanding text. Mahwah, NJ: Erlbaum.
26. Brown, G., & Yule, G. (1983). Discourse analysis. New York: Cambridge University Press.
27. Bruthiaux, P. (1996). The discourse of classified advertising: Exploring the nature of linguistic simplicity. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
28. Burke, K. (1966). Language as symbolic action: Essays on life, literature and method. Berkeley, CA: University of California Press.
29. Burrough-Boenisch, J. (2002). Culture and conventions: Writing and reading Dutch scientific English. Utrecht: LOT. [Netherlands Graduate School of Linguistics.]
30. Candlin, C., & Hyland, K. (Eds.). (1999). Writing: Text, processes and practices. London: Longman.
31. Carter, R. (1997). Investigating English discourse. New York: Routledge.
32. Carter, R., & McRae, J. (Eds.). (1996). Language: Literature and the learner. London: Longman.
33. Carter, R., & Nash, W. (1990). Seeing through language: A guide to styles of English writing. Oxford: Blackwell.
34. Chafe, W. (1976). Givenness, contrastiveness, definiteness, subjects, topics, and point of view. In C. Li (Ed.), Subject and topic (pp. 25-55). Austin, TX: University of Texas Press.
35. Chimombo, M., & Roseberry, R. (1998). The power of discourse. Mahwah, NJ: Erlbaum.
36. Christensen, F. (1963). A generative rhetoric of the paragraph. College Composition and Communication, 14, 155-161.
37. Christensen, F. (1967). Notes toward a new rhetoric. New York: Harper and Row.
38. Christensen, F., & Christensen, B. (1976). A new rhetoric. New York: Harpers.
39. Cicourel, A. (1973). Cognitive sociology. Baltimore, MD: Penguin.
40. Clark, U. (2001). War words: Language, history and the disciplining of English. Amsterdam: Elsevier.
41. COBUILD (1987). Collins COBUILD English language Dictionary. London: Collins.
42. COBUILD (1988). Collins COBUILD essential English grammar. London: Collins.
43. COBUILD (1990). Collins COBUILD English grammar. London: Collins.
44. Coe, R. (1988). A grammar of passages. Carbondale, IL: Southern Illinois University Press.
45. Connor, U. (1996). Contrastive rhetoric: Cross-cultural aspects of second-language writing. New York: Cambridge University Press.
46. Connor, U., & Johns, A. (Eds.). (1990). Coherence in writing. Arlington, VA: TESOL.
47. Conrad, S. (2002). Corpus linguistic approaches for discourse analysis. In M. McGroarty, et al. (Eds.), Annual Review of Applied Linguistics, 22. Discourse and dialogue (pp. 75-94). New York: Cambridge University Press.
48. Conrad, S., & Biber, D. (Eds.). (2001). Variation in English: Multi-dimensional studies. London: Longman.
49. Corbett, E. P. J. (1973). The little English handbook: Choices and conventions. New York: Wiley.
50. Coulthard, M. (1977). An introduction to discourse analysis. London: Longman.
51. Coulthard, M. (1994a). Advances in written text analysis. New York: Routledge.
52. Coulthard, M. (1994b). Powerful evidence for the defense: An exercise in forensic discourse analysis. In J. Gibbon (Ed.), Language and the law (pp. 414-427). London: Longman.
53. Cumming, A. (1998). Theoretical perspectives on writing. In W. Grabe, et al. (Eds.), Annual Review of Applied Linguistics, 18. Foundations of second language teaching (pp. 61-78). New York: Cambridge University Press.
54. D'Angelo, F. J. A. (1975). A conceptual theory of rhetoric. Cambridge, MA: Winthrop.
55. de Beaugrande, R. (1991). Linguistic theory: The discourse of fundamental works. London: Longman.
56. de Beaugrande, R., & Dressler, W. U. (1981). Introduction to text linguistics. London: Longman.
57. Derrida, J. (1967). De la grammatologie. Paris: Las Éditions de Minuit.
58. Dudley-Evans, T., & St. John, M. J. (1998). Developments in English for specific purposes: A multidisciplinary approach. New York: Cambridge University Press.
59. Duin, A. H., & Hansen, C. (Eds.). (1996). Nonacademic writing: Social theory and technology. Mahwah, NJ: Erlbaum.
60. Eagleson, R. (1994). Forensic analysis of personal written texts: A case study. In J. Gibbon (Ed.), Language and the law (pp. 362-373). London: Longman.
61. Eagleton, T. (1983). Literary theory: An introduction. Minneapolis: University of Minnesota Press.
62. Eco, U. (1976). A theory of semiotics. Bloomington, IN: Indiana University Press.
63. Eco, U. (1979). The role of the reader: Explorations in the semiotics of text. Bloomington, IN: Indiana University Press.
64. Enkvist, N. E. (1997). Why we need contrastive rhetoric. Alternations, 4, 188-206.
65. Fairclough, N. (1989). Language and power. London: Longman.
66. Fairclough, N. (1995). Critical discourse analysis: The critical study of language. London: Longman.
67. Ferris, D., & Hedgcock, J. (1998). Teaching ESL composition: Purpose, process, and practice. Mahwah, NJ: Erlbaum.
68. Fillmore, C. J. (1985). Linguistics as a tool for discourse analysis. In T. A. van Dijk (Ed.), Handbook of discourse analysis (Vol. 4, pp. 11-39). San Diego, CA: Academic Press.
69. Finegan, E. (1999). Language: Its structure and use (3rd ed.). New York: Harcourt.
70. Fish, S. (1980). Is there a text in this class? Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.
71. Flower, L. (1994). The construction of negotiated meaning. Carbondale, IL: Southern Illinois University Press.
72. Flower, L., & Hayes, J. (1981). A cognitive process theory of writing. College Composition and Communication, 32, 365-387.
73. Foucault, M. (1972). The archeology of knowledge. London: Tavistock.
74. Freeman, D. (Ed.). (1970). Linguistics and literary style. New York: Holt, Rinehart, and Winston.
75. Garvin, P. L. (Ed. and Trans.). (1964). A Prague School reader on esthetics, literary structure and style. Washington, DC: Georgetown University Press.
76. Garvin, P. L. (1972). The Prague School of linguistics. In D. G. Hays & D. M. Lance (Eds.), From soundstream to discourse: Papers from the 1971 Mid-America Linguistics Conference (pp. 229-238). Columbia, MO: University of Missouri Press.
77. Georgakopoulou, A., & Goutsos, D. (1997). Discourse analysis: An introduction. Edinburgh: University of Edinburgh Press.
78. Gernsbacher, M. (1990). Language comprehension as structure building. Mahwah, NJ: Erlbaum.
79. Gernsbacher, M. (Ed.). (1994). Handbook of psycholinguistics. San Diego, CA: Academic Press.
80. Ghadessy, M. (Ed.). (1993). Register analysis: Theory and practice. London: Pinter.
81. Ghadessy, M. (Ed.). (1995). Thematic development in English texts. London: Pinter.
82. Ghadessy, M. (1999). Text and context in functional linguistics. Philadelphia: Benjamins.
83. Gibbons, J. (Ed.). (1994). Language and the law. London: Longman.
84. Gibson, W. (1966). Tough, sweet, and stuffy. Bloomington, IN: Indiana University Press.
85. Gívón, T. (Ed.). (1983). Topic continuity in discourse: A quantitative cross-language study. Philadelphia: Benjamins.
86. Gívón, T. (1984/1990). Syntax: A functional-typological introduction (Vol. 2). Philadelphia: Benjamins.
87. Gívón, T. (1993). English grammar: A function-based introduction (Vol. 2). Philadelphia: Benjamins.
88. Gívón, T. (1995). Coherence in text vs. coherence in mind. In M. A. Gernsbacher & T. Gívón (Eds.), Coherence in spontaneous text (pp. 59-115). Philadelphia: Benjamins.
89. Goffman, E. (1980). Forms of talk. Philadelphia: University of Pennsylvania Press.
90. Grabe, W. (2000). Textual coherence and discourse analysis. In E. Alcon Soler & J. Guzman (Eds.), Discourse analysis and language teaching (pp. 65-82). [Special issue of Australian Review of Applied Linguistics, Series S, Number 16.]
91. Grabe, W. (2000). Textual coherence and discourse analysis. In E. Alcon Soler & J. Guzman (Eds.), Discourse analysis and language teaching (pp. 65-82). [Special issue of Australian Review of Applied Linguistics, Series S, Number 16.]
92. Grabe, W. (in press). The role of grammar in reading development. Festschrift for Marianne Celce-Murcia.
93. Grabe, W., & Kaplan, R. B. (1996). Theory and practice of writing. London: Longman.
94. Grabe, W., et al. (Eds.). (1999). Annual Review of Applied Linguistics, 19. A survey of the field. New York: Cambridge University Press.
95. Grimes, J. E. (1975). The thread of discourse. The Hague: Mouton.
96. Halliday, M. A. K. (1985). An introduction to functional linguistics. London: Arnold.
97. Halliday, M. A. K. (1992). Some lexicogrammatical features of the Zero Population Growth text. In W. Mann & S. Thompson (Eds.), Discourse description (pp. 327-358). Philadelphia: Benjamins.
98. Halliday, M. A. K. (1994). An introduction to functional grammar (2nd ed.). London: Arnold.
99. Halliday, M. A. K. (1996). Literacy and linguistics: A functional perspective. In R. Hasan & G. Williams (Eds.), Literacy in society (pp. 339-376). London: Longman.
100. Halliday, M. A. K. (1998). Things and relations: Regrammaticising experience as technical knowledge. In J. Martin & R. Veel (Eds.), Reading science (pp. 185-235). New York: Routledge.
101. Halliday, M. A. K., & Hasan, R. (1976). Cohesion in English. London: Longman.
102. Halliday, M. A. K., & Hasan, R. (1989). Spoken and written language. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
103. Halliday, M. A. K., & Martin, J. R. (1993). Writing science: Literacy and discursive power. London: Palmer.
104. Harris, Z. S. (1952). Discourse analysis. Language, 28, 130.
105. Hasan, R. (1979). On the notion of text. In J. S. Petöfi (Ed.), Text versus sentence (pp. 369-390). Hamburg: H. Buske.
106. Hasan, R. (1996). Literacy, everyday talk and society. In R. Hasan & G. Williams (Eds.), Literacy in society (pp. 377-424). London: Longman.
107. Hawkes, T. (1977). Structuralism and semiotics. Berkeley, CA: University of California Press.
108. Hayes, J. (1996). A new framework for understanding cognition and affect in writing. In C. M. Levy & S. Ransdell (Eds.), The science of writing (pp. 1-27). Mahwah, NJ: Erlbaum.
109. Hellinger, M., & Ammon, U. (Eds.). (1996). Contrastive sociolinguistics. The Hague: Mouton.
110. Hillocks, G., Jr. (1986). Research on written composition. Urbana, IL: Eric Clearing House on Reading and Composition. [Distributed through NCTE.]
111. Hinds, J. (1987). Reader versus writer responsibility: A new typology. In U. Connor & R. B. Kaplan (Eds.), Writing across languages: Analysis of L2 text (pp. 141-152). Reading, MA: Addison-Wesley.
112. Hoey, M. (1983). On the surface of discourse. London: Allen and Unwin.
113. Hoey, M. (1991). Patterns of lexis in text. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
114. Huckin, T. (1998). Critical discourse analysis. In T. Miller (Ed.), Functional approaches to discourse analysis: Classroom applications (pp. 79-92). Washington, DC: United States Information Agency.
115. Hunt, K. (1965). Grammatical structures written at three grade levels. Urbana, IL: National Council of Teachers of English.
116. Hyland, K. (1996). Forms of hedging in science research articles. Written Communication, 13, 251-281.
117. Hyland, K. (1998). Hedging in scientific research articles. Philadelphia: Benjamins.
118. Hyland, K. (2000). Disciplinary discourse. London: Longman.
119. Hyland, K. (2001). Bringing in the reader: Addressee features in academic articles. Written Communication, 18, 549-574.
120. Hyland, K. (2002a). Teaching and researching writing. London: Longman.
121. Hyland, K. (2002b). Genre: Language, context and literacy. In M. McGroarty, et al. (Eds.), Annual Review of Applied Linguistics, 22. Discourse and dialogue (pp. 111-133). New York: Cambridge University Press.
122. Hymes, D. (1974). Foundations of sociolinguistics. Philadelphia: University of Pennsylvania Press.
123. Jespersen, O. (1909/1933/1964). Essentials of English grammar. University, AL: Alabama University Press.
124. Johns, A. (1986). Coherence and academic writing: Some definitions and suggestions for teaching. TESOL Quarterly, 20, 247-265.
125. Johns, A. (1993). Reading and writing tasks in English for academic purposes classes: Products, processes, and resources. In J. Carson & I. Leki (Eds.), Reading in the composition classroom (pp. 274-289). Boston: Heinle & Heinle.
126. Johns, A. (1997). Text, role and context: Developing academic literacies. New York: Cambridge University Press.
127. Johns, A. (Ed.). (2002). Genre in the classroom: Multiple perspectives. Mahwah, NJ: Erlbaum.
128. Johns, A., & Dudley-Evans, T. (1991). English for specific purposes: International in scope, specific in purpose. TESOL Quarterly, 25, 297-314.
129. Kaplan, R. B. (1966). Cultural thought patterns in intercultural education. Language Learning, 16, 1-20.
130. Kaplan, R. B. (1972). The anatomy of rhetoric: Prolegomena to a functional theory of rhetoric. Philadelphia: Center for Curriculum Development.
131. Kaplan, R. B. (1991). On applied linguistics and discourse analysis. In W. Grabe, et al. (Eds.), Annual Review of Applied Linguistics, 11. Discourse analysis (pp. 199-204). New York: Cambridge University Press.
132. Kaplan, R. B. (2000). Contrastive rhetoric and discourse analysis: Who writes what to whom? When? In what circumstances? In S. Sarangi & M. Coulthard (Eds.), Discourse and social life (pp. 82-101). London: Pearson Education.
133. Kaplan, R. B. (2002). Oxford Handbook of Applied Linguistics. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
134. Kaplan, R. B. (in press). Contrastive rhetoric. In E. Hinkel (Ed.), Handbook of research in second language teaching and learning. Mahwah, NJ: Erlbaum.
135. Kennedy, G. (1998). An introduction to corpus linguistics. London: Longman.
136. Kinneavy, J. (1971). A theory of discourse: The aims of discourse. Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice Hall.
137. Kinneavy, J. (1983). A pluralistic synthesis of four contemporary models for teaching composition. In A. Freedman, I. Pringle, & J. Yalden (Eds.), Learning to write: First language/second language (pp. 121-138). London: Longman.
138. Kintsch, W. (1998). Comprehension: A framework for cognition. New York: Cambridge University Press.
139. Kress, G. (1989). Linguistic processes in sociocultural practice. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
140. Kress, G. (1991). Critical discourse analysis. In W. Grabe, et al. (Eds.), Annual Review of Applied Linguistics, 11. Discourse analysis (pp. 84-99). New York: Cambridge University Press.
141. Kress, G., & Hodge, R. (1979). Language as ideology. New York: Routledge.
142. Labov, W. (1972). Language in the inner city. Philadelphia: University of Pennsylvania Press.
143. Loban, W. (1976). Language development: Kindergarten through grade 12. Urbana, IL: National Council of Teachers of English.
144. Longacre, R. E. (1983). The grammar of discourse. New York: Plenum Press.
145. Love, G., & Payne, M. (Eds.). (1969). Contemporary essays on style. Glenview, IL: Scott Foresman.
146. Luke, A. (2002). Beyond science and ideology critique: Developments in critical discourse analysis. In M. McGroarty, et al. (Eds.), Annual Review of Applied Linguistics, 22. Discourse and dialogue (pp. 95-108). New York: Cambridge University Press.
147. MacDonald, S. (1992). A method for analyzing sentence-level differences in disciplinary knowledge making. Written Communication, 9, 533-569.
148. Mann, W., & Thompson, S. (1986). Relational propositions in discourse. Discourse Processes, 9, 57-90.
149. Mann, W., & Thompson, S. (1988). Rhetorical Structure Theory: A framework for the analysis of texts. Text, 8, 243-281.
150. Mann, W., & Thompson, S. (Eds.). (1992). Discourse description. Philadelphia: Benjamins.
151. Martin, J. R. (1992). English text: System and structure. Philadelphia: Benjamins.
152. Martin, J. R. (2000). Design and practice: Enacting functional linguistics. In W. Grabe, et al (Eds.), Annual Review of Applied Linguistics, 20. Applied linguistics as an emerging discipline (pp. 116-126). New York: Cambridge University Press.
153. Martin, J. R. (2002a). Meaning beyond the clause: SFL perspectives. In M. McGroarty, et al. (Eds.), Annual Review of Applied Linguistics, 22. Discourse and dialogue (pp. 52-74). New York: Cambridge University Press.
154. Martin, J. R. (2002b). A universe of meaning - How many practices? In A. Johns (Ed.), Genre in the classroom: Multiple perspectives (pp. 269-278). Mahwah, NJ: Erlbaum.
155. Martin, J. R., & Veel, R. (Eds.). (1998). Reading science: Critical and functional perspectives on discourses of science. New York: Routledge.
156. McCarthy, M. (1991). Discourse analysis for language teachers. New York: Cambridge University Press.
157. McCarthy, M. (2001). Issues in applied linguistics. New York: Cambridge University Press.
158. McCarthy, M., & Carter, R. (1994). Language as discourse: Perspectives for language teachers. London: Longman.
159. Miles, J. (1967). Style and proportion: The language of prose and poetry. New York: Little Brown and Co.
160. Milic, L. (1967). A quantitative approach to the style of Jonathan Swift. The Hague: Mouton.
161. Murray, S. (1998). American sociolinguistics. Philadelphia: Multilingual Matters.
162. Myers, G. (1989). The pragmatics of politeness in scientific articles. Applied Linguistics, 10, 1-35.
163. Myers, G. (1990). Writing biology: Texts in the social construction of knowledge. Madison, WI: University of Wisconsin Press.
164. Myers, G. (1994). Words in ads. London: Arnold.
165. Myers, G. (1998a). Words and pictures in a biology textbook. In T. Miller (Ed.), Functional approaches to written text: Classroom applications (pp. 93-104). Washington, DC: United States Information Agency.
166. Myers, G. (1998b). Ad worlds. London: Arnold.
167. Myers, G. (1999). Interaction in writing: Principles and problems. In C. Candlin & K. Hyland (Eds.), Writing: Texts, processes and practices (pp. 40-61). London: Longman.
168. Nash, W. (1990). Language in popularfiction. New York: Routledge.
169. Nold, E., & Davis, B. (1980). The discourse matrix. College Composition and Communication, 31, 141-152.
170. O'Dell, L., & Goswami, D. (Eds.). (1986). Writing in non-academic settings. New York: Guilford.
171. O'Hare, F. (1973). Sentence combining: Improving student writing without formal grammar instruction. Urbana, IL: National Council of Teachers of English.
172. Ohmann, R. (1964). Generative grammars and the concept of literary style. Word, 20, 424-439.
173. Oostendorp, H., & Goldman, S. (Eds.). (1999). The construction of mental representations during reading. Mahwah, NJ: Erlbaum.
174. Paltridge, B. (1997). Genre, frames and writing in research settings. Philadelphia: Benjamins.
175. Pennycook, A. (2000). Critical applied linguistics. Mahwah, NJ: Erlbaum.
176. Pike, K. L. (1967). Language in relation to a unified theory of the structure of human behavior. The Hague: Mouton.
177. Pitkin, W. (1969). Discourse Blocs. College Composition and Communication, 20, 138-148.
178. Pitkin, W. (1977). Hierarchies and the discourse hierarchy. College English, 38, 649-659.
179. Prior, P. (1998). Writing/disciplinarity: A sociohistoric account of literate activity in the academy. Mahwah, NJ: Erlbaum.
180. Quirk, R., Greenbaum, S., Leech, G. N., & Svartvik, J. (1972). A Grammar of Contemporary English. London: Longman.
181. Quirk, R., Greenbaum, S., Leech, G. N., & Svartvik, J. (1985). A Comprehensive grammar of the English language. London: Longman.
182. Rorty, R. (1979). Philosophy and the mirror of nature. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press.
183. Schachter, J. (1974). An error in error analysis. Language Learning, 24, 73-107.
184. Schegloff, M., Koshil, I., Jacoby, S., & Olsher, D. (2002). Conversational analysis and applied linguistics. In M. McGroarty, et al. (Eds.), Annual Review of Applied Linguistics, 22. Discourse and dialogue (pp. 3-31). New York: Cambridge University Press.
185. Schiffrin, D. (1987). Discourse markers. New York: Cambridge University Press.
186. Schiffrin, D. (1994). Approaches to discourse. Oxford: Blackwell.
187. Sebeok, T. A. (Ed.). (1960). Style in language. New York: Wiley.
188. Shaughnessy, M. (1977). Error and expectations. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
189. Simpson, P. (1997). Language through literature: An introduction. New York: Routledge.
190. Simpson, P., & Hall, G. (2002). Discourse analysis and stylistics. In M. McGroarty, et al. (Eds.), Annual Review of Applied Linguistics, 22. Discourse and dialogue (pp. 134-147). New York: Cambridge University Press.
191. Sinclair, J. (1987). Looking up: An account of the COBUILD project in lexical computing. London: Collins.
192. Sinclair, J. (1991). Corpus, concordance, collocation. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
193. Singer, M. (1990). Psychology of language: An introduction to sentence and discourse processing. Mahwah, NJ: Erlbaum.
194. Spilka, R. (Ed.). (1993). Writing in the workplace. Carbondale, IL: Southern Illinois University Press.
195. Stockwell, R. P., & Bowen, J. D. (1965). The sounds of English and Spanish. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.
196. Stockwell, R. P., & Martin, J. W. (1965). The grammatical structures of English and Spanish. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.
197. Stotsky, S. (1983). Types of lexical cohesion in expository writing: Implications for developing the vocabulary of academic vocabulary. College Composition and Communication, 34, 430-446.
198. Stubbs, M. (1983). Discourse analysis: The sociolinguistic analysis of natural language. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.
199. Stubbs, M. (1996). Text and corpus analysis. Oxford: Blackwell.
200. Swales, J. (1988). Episodes in ESP. Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice Hall.
201. Swales, J. (1990). Genre analysis: English in academic and research settings. New York: Cambridge University Press.
202. Swales, J. (1998). Other floors, other voices: A textography of a small university building. Mahwah, NJ: Erlbaum.
203. Swales, J. (2000). Languages for specific purposes. In W. Grabe, et al. (Eds.) Annual Review of Applied Linguistics, 20. Applied Linguistics as an emerging discipline (pp. 59-76). New York: Cambridge University Press.
204. Tannen, D. (1989). Talking voices. New York: Cambridge University Press.
205. Trimble, L. (1985). English for science and technology: A discourse approach. New York: Cambridge University Press.
206. Ullman, S. (1964). Language and style: Collected papers. Oxford: Blackwell.
207. Vachek, J. (1964). A Prague School reader in linguistics. Bloomington, IN: Indiana University Press.
208. van Dijk, T. A. (1972). Some aspects of text grammars. The Hague: Mouton.
209. van Dijk, T. A. (1977). Text and context. London: Longman.
210. van Dijk, T. A. (1983). Handbook of discourse analysis (Vol. 4.). San Diego, CA: Academic Press.
211. van Dijk, T. A. (Ed.). (1997). Discourse in the language classroom studies: An interdisciplinary approach. (Vol. 2). Beverly Hills, CA: Sage.
212. Vande Kopple, W. (1986). Given and new information and some aspects of the structures, semantics, and pragmatics of written texts. In C. Cooper & S. Greenbaum (Eds.), Studying writing: Linguistic approaches (pp. 72-111). Beverly Hills, CA: Sage.
213. Vande Kopple, W. (1991). Themes, thematic progressions, and some implications for understanding discourse. Written Communication, 8, 311-347.
214. Vande Kopple, W. (1992). Noun phrases and the style of scientific discourse. In S. Witte, N. Nakadate, & R. Cherry (Eds.), A rhetoric of doing, essay on written discourse in honor of James L. Kinneavy (pp. 328-348). Carbondale, IL: Southern Illinois University Press.
215. Vande Kopple, W. (1994). Some characteristics and functions of grammatical subjects in scientific discourse. Written Communication, 11, 534-564.
216. Vande Kopple, W. (1998a). Relative clauses in spectroscopic articles in the Physical Review, beginnings and 1980. Written Communication, 15, 170-202.
217. Vande Kopple, W. (1998b). Using the concepts of given information and new information in classes on the English language. In T. Miller (Ed.), Functional approaches to written text: Classroom applications (pp. 216-229). Washington, DC: United States Information Agency.
218. Vande Kopple, W. (2002). From the dynamic style to the synoptic style in spectroscopic articles in the Physical Review. Written Communication, 19, 227-264.
219. Widdowson, H. G. (1992). Practical stylistics. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
220. Widdowson, H. (1998). The theory and practice of critical discourse analysis. Applied Linguistics, 19, 136-151.
221. Winterowd, R. (1975). Contemporary rhetoric: A background with readings. New York: Harcourt.
222. Witte, S. (1983). Topical structure and revision: An exploratory study. College Composition and Communication, 34, 313-341.
223. Young, R. E., Becker, A. L., & Pike, K. L. (1970). Rhetoric: Discovery and change. New York: Harcourt.
224. Zwaan, R., & Radavnsky, G. (1998). Situation models in language comprehension and memory. Psychological Bulletin, 123, 162-185.