Cross-cultural analysis of student writing: Beyond discourses of difference

Written Communication

Volumn 25, Issue 3, 2008, Pages 319-352

  Donahue, Tiane ^a  

^a UNIVERSITY OF MAINE AT FARMINGTON   (United States)

Author keywords

Cultural comparison; Dialogics; Discourse analysis; Reprise modification; Textual movement; University student writing

Indexed keywords

EID: 45349109407     PISSN: 07410883     EISSN: 15528472     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1177/0741088308319515     Document Type: Article

References (78)

1. Adam, J.M. (1984). Des mots aux discours: L'exemple des principaux connecteurs. Pratiques, 43, 107-122.
2. Adam, J.M. (1987). Enonciation et textualité: Les connecteurs. In Le sujet et son énonciation (pp. 17-48). Lausanne, France: Cahiers de l'Institut de Linguistique et des Sciences du Langage.
3. Ali Bouacha, A. (1993). L'énoncé généralisant: Statut et enjeux. In C. Plantin & D. Alexandre (Ed.), Lieux communs, topoi, stéréotypes, clichés (pp. 312-322). Paris: Editions Kimé.
4. Bakhtin, M.M. (1986). Speech genres and other late essays (V. W. McKee, Trans.). Austin: University of Texas Press.
5. Bartholomae, D. (1986). Wanderings: Misreadings, miswritings, misunderstandings. In T. Newkirk (Ed.), Only connect: Uniting reading and writing (pp. 89-118). Portsmouth, NH: Boynton-Cook.
6. Barton, E. (2004). Linguistic discourse analysis: How the language in texts works. In C. Bazerman & P. Prior (Eds.), What writing does and how it does it (pp. 57-82). Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.
7. Barton, E., & Stygall, G. (Eds.). (2002). Discourse studies in composition. Cresskill, NJ: Hampton.
8. Bautier, E. (1995). Pratiques langagières, pratiques sociales. Paris: L'Harmattan.
9. Bautier, E., & Bucheton, D. (1997). L'hétérogénéité du texte, les postures d'écriture des élèves. In D. Bucheton (Ed.), Conduites d'écriture (pp. 229-243). Versailles, France: CRDP de l'Académie de Versailles.
10. Bazerman, C. (1999). The languages of Edison's light. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.
11. Bazerman, C. (2004). Intertextuality: How texts rely on other texts. In C. Bazerman & P. Prior (Eds.), What writing does and how it does it (pp. 83-96). Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.
12. Bazerman, C. (2006). The writing of social organization and the literate situating of cognition: Extending Goody's social implications of writing. In D. Olson & M. Cole (Eds.), Technology, literacy, and the evolution of society: Implications of the work of Jack Goody (pp. 215-240). Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.
13. Bazerman, C., & Prior, P. (Eds.). (2004). What writing does and how it does it. Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.
14. Bernié, J.P., Jaubert, M., & Rebière, M. (2004). L'hypothèse "communauté discursive" (Les Cahiers Théodile No. 4). Lille, France: Université Charles-de-Gaulle-Lille 3.
15. Boch, F., & Grossman, F. (2001). De l'usage des citations dans le discours théorique. LIDIL: Apprendre ̀ Citer le Discours d'Autrui, 24, 91-112.
16. Bronckart, J.P. (1996a). Genres de texte, types de discours et operations psycholinguistiques. Enjeux, 37/38, 31-48.
17. Bronckart, J.P. (1996b). Activités langagières, textes, et discours. Lausanne: Delachaux et Niestlé.
18. Canagarajah, S. (2002). The place of world Englishes in composition: Pluralization continued. College Composition and Communication, 57(4), 586-619.
19. Chauvin, A. (1993). Lipogramme et rhétorique: Aspects du travail du lieu commun chez Georges Perec. In C. Plantin & D. Alexandre (Ed.), Lieux communs, topoi, stéréotypes, clichés (pp. 27-36). Paris: Editions Kimé.
20. Connor, U. (1996). Contrastive rhetoric: Cross-cultural aspects of second-language writing. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press.
21. Connor, U. (2001). Contrastive rhetoric redefined. In C. Panetta (Ed.), Contrastive rhetoric revisited and redefined (pp. 75-79). Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.
22. Culler, J. (1997). Literary theory: A very short introduction. Oxford, UK: Oxford University Press.
23. Delcambre, I. (2001). Formes diverses d'articulation entre discours d'autrui et discours propre. LIDIL: Apprendre ̀ Citer le Discours d'Autrui, 24, 135-166.
24. Delcambre, I. (2008, February). University writing: Toward a synthesis of French research. Paper presented at Writing Research Across Borders, University of California, Santa Barbara.
25. Delcambre, I., & Boch, F. (2006). Les écrits ̀ l'université: Inventaires, pratiques, modeles. Funded proposal to Agence Nationale de la Recherche, Paris, France.
26. de Nuchèze, V. (1998). Sous les discours, l'interaction. Paris: L'Harmattan.
27. Dolz, J. (1996). Genres et progression en expression orale et écrite. Eléments de réflexion ̀ propos d'une experience romande. Enjeux, 37/38, 49-69.
28. Donahue, C. (2002). L'écrit scolaire comme acte de négociation: L'institution scolaire et les mouvements textuels des scripteurs individuals. Pratiques, 115-116, 1-13.
29. Donahue, C. (2004). Student writing as negotiation: Fundamental movements between the common and the specific in French essays. In F. Kostouli (Ed.), Writing in context(s): Textual practices and learning processes in sociocultural settings (pp. 137-163). Amsterdam, the Netherlands: Kluwer Academic.
30. Donahue, C. (2008). Ecrire ̀ l'université: Analyse comparee en France et aux États-Unis. Lille, France: Editions du Septentrion.
31. Donahue, C. (in press). Genre and disciplinary work in French didactics research. In C. Bazerman, A. Bonini, ́ D. Figueredo (Eds.), Genre in a changing world. West Lafayette, IN: Parlor.
32. Dore, J. (1989). Monologue as reenvoicement of dialogue. In K. Nelson (Ed.), Narratives from the crib (pp. 231-260). Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.
33. Eco, U. (1979). Lector in fabula. Paris: Grasset.
34. Ehlich, K. (1989). Deictic expressions and the connexity of text. In M. E. Conte & J. S. Petöfi (Eds.), Text and discourse connectedness (pp. 33-52). Amsterdam, the Netherlands: John Benjamins.
35. Faigley, L. (1992). Fragments of rationality. Pittsburgh, PA: University of Pittsburgh Press.
36. Foster, D. (2006). Writing with authority: Students' roles as writers in cross-national perspective. Carbondale: Southern Illinois University Press.
37. François, F. (1994). Morale et mise en mots. Paris: L'Harmattan.
38. François, F. (1998). Le discours et ses entours. Paris: L'Harmattan.
39. Gardin, B. (1990). Engagement sociale et pratiques linguistiques. La Linguistique, 26, 107-128.
40. Gee, J. (1999). An introduction to discourse analysis: Theory and method. New York: Routledge.
41. Genette, G. (1996). Figures III. Paris: Seuil.
42. Grize, J.B. (1996). Logique naturelle et communication. Paris: Presses Universitaires de France.
43. Haswell, R. (1991). Gaining ground in college writing. Dallas, Texas: Southern Methodist University Press.
44. Haswell, R. (2000). Documenting improvement in college writing: A longitudinal approach. Written Communication, 17(3), 307-352.
45. Haswell, R. (2005). NCTE/CCCC's recent war on scholarship. Written Communication, 22(2), 198-223.
46. Horner, B., & Trimbur, J. (2002). English only and U.S. college composition. College Composition and Communication, 53(4), 594-630.
47. Huckin, T. (2004). Content analysis: What texts talk about. In C. Bazerman & P. Prior (Eds.), What writing does and how it does it (pp. 13-32). Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.
48. Ivanic, R. (1998). Writing and identity. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.
49. Jauss, H.R. (1978). Pour une esthétique de la réception. Paris: Gallimard.
50. Johanek, C. (2000). Composing research: A contextualist paradigm for rhetoric and composition. Logan: Utah University State Press.
51. Johnson-Eilola, J., & Selber, S. (2007). Plagiarism, originality, assemblage. Computers and Composition, 24(4), 375-403.
52. Kaplan, R. (2001). What in the world is contrastive rhetoric? In C. Panetta (Ed.), Contrastive rhetoric revisited and redefined (pp. vii-xx). Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.
53. Lahanier-Reuter, D., & Reuter, Y. (2004). A few concepts for analyzing writing. Paper presented at WAC International Conference, St. Louis, MO.
54. Léon, P., & Perron, P. (Eds.). (1985). Le dialogue. Ottawa, Canada: Didier.
55. Lu, M.Z. (1994). Professing multiculturalism: The politics of style in the contact zone. College Composition and Communication, 45(4), 442-458.
56. Maingeneau, D. (1991). L'analyse du discours. Paris: Hachette.
57. Maingeneau, D. (2002). Dictionnaire d'analyse du discours (en collaboration avec Patrick Charaudeau). Paris: Seuil.
58. Maingeneau, D. (2007). Analyser les textes de communication. Paris: Armand Colin.
59. Martinet, A. (1962). A functional view of language. Oxford, UK: Clarendon Press.
60. Pollet, M.C., & Piette, V. (2002). Citations, reformulations du discours d'autrui: Une clef pour enseigner l'écriture de recherche ? Spirale, 29, 165-180.
61. Pratt, M.L. (1990). The arts of the contact zone. In D. Bartholomae & A. Petrosky (Eds.), Ways of reading (pp. 527-543). Boston: Bedford Books.
62. Prior, P. (2001). Voices in text, mind, and society: Sociohistoric accounts of discourse acquisition and use. Journal of Second Language Writing, 10(1-2), 55-81.
63. Prior, P., & Shipka, J. (2003). Chronotopic lamination: Tracing the contours of literate activity. In C. Bazerman & D. Russell (Eds.), Writing selves, writing societies (pp. 180-238). Fort Collins: WAC Clearinghouse, Colorado State University.
64. Rabatel, A. (2006). La dialogisation au cæur du couple polyphonie/ dialogisme chez Bakhtine. Revue Romane, 41(1), 55-80.
65. Rastier, F. (1989). Sens et textualité. Paris: Hachette.
66. Reuter, Y. (1996). Enseigner et apprendre ̀ écrire. Construire une didactique de l'écriture. Paris: E.S.F.
67. Reuter, Y. (2000). La description: Eléments de discussion autour d'un bilan provisoire. Enjeux, 47-48, 5-29.
68. Reuter, Y. (2001). Je suis comme un autrui qui doute. LIDIL: Apprendre ̀ Citer le Discours d'Autrui, 24, 13-28.
69. Russell, D. (1997). Rethinking genre in school and society. Written Communication, 14, 504-555.
70. Russell, D. (2002). The kind-ness of genre: An activity theory analysis of high school teachers' perception of genre in portfolio assessment across the curriculum. In R. Coe, L. Lingard, & T. Teslenko (Eds.), The rhetoric and ideology of genre: Strategies for stability and change (pp. 225-242). Cresskill, NJ: Hampton.
71. Salazar Orvig, A. (1999). Les mouvements du discours. Paris: L'Harmattan.
72. Schuster, C. (1985). Mikhail Bakhtin as rhetorical theorist. College English, 47, 594-607.
73. Schnuerewegen, F., & Tasmowski, L. (1993). Ecriture et répétition dans Zazie dans le Métro. In C. Plantin & D. Alexandre (Ed.), Lieux communs, topoi, stéréotypes, clichés (pp. 17 - 26). Paris: Editions Kimé.
74. Slevin, J. (2001). Introducing English. Pittsburgh, PA: University of Pittsburgh Press.
75. Starobinski, J. (1970). La relation critique. Paris: Gallimard.
76. Swales, J. (1990). Genre analysis: English in academic and research settings. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
77. Wall, S. (1992). Seeing the dancer in the dance. Iowa English Bulletin, 40, 69-86.
78. Zawacki, T., Hajabbasi, E., Habib, A., Antram, A., & Das, A. (2007). Valuing written accents: Non-native students talk about identity, academic writing, and meeting teachers' expectations. Fairfax, VA: George Mason University.