Hostname: page-component-7b7567c8c-7pwfn Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2026-11-14T01:04:03.699Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Discourse Analysis and Grammar Instruction

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  19 November 2008

Marianne Celce-Murcia
Get accessRights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Extract

Only relatively recently has discourse analysis begun to have an impact on how English grammer (i.e., the rules of morphology and syntax) is taught to non-native speakers of English. In fact, a majority of teachers of English to speakers of other languages still conceive of grammer, and thus teach grammer, as a sentence-level phenomenon (if and when they teach it). This state-of-affairs reflects a rather counterproductive view of grammer since, as Bolinger (1968; 1977) has long argued, there are relatively few rules of English grammer that are completely context-free.

Information

Type
Applications of Discourse Analysis
Information
Annual Review of Applied Linguistics , Volume 11 , March 1990, pp. 135 - 151
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.)

Article purchase

Temporarily unavailable

References

UNANNOTATED BIBLIOGRAPHY

Akmajian, A. and Heny, F.. 1975. An introduction to the principles of transformational syntax. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.Google Scholar
Andersen, R. 1990. Verbal virtuosity and speakers' purposes. In Burmeister, H. and Rounds, P. (eds.) Proceedings of the tenth meeting of the Second Language Research Forum. Eugene, OR: University of Oregon, Department of Linguistics and American English Institute. 1–14.Google Scholar
Azar, B.S. 1989. Understanding and using English grammer. 2nd Ed.Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice Hall Regents.Google Scholar
Bloomfield, L. 1933. Language. New York: Holt, Rinehart, and Winston.Google Scholar
Bolinger, D. 1968. Entailment and the meaning of structures. Glossa. 2.2.119–127.Google Scholar
Bolinger, D. 1971. The phrasal verb in English. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.Google Scholar
Bull, W. 1960. Time, tense, and the verb. Berkeley: University of California Press.Google Scholar
Canale, M. and Swain, M.. 1980. Theoretical bases of communicative approaches to second language teaching and testing. Applied linguistics, 1.1.1–47.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Carrel, P. 1982. Cohesion is not coherence. TESOL quarterly. 16.4.1–47.Google Scholar
Chafe, W. 1972. Discourse structure and human knowledge. In Carroll, J. and Freedle, R. (eds.) Language comprehension and the acquisition of knowledge. Washington, DC.: V. H. Winston and Sons. 41–69.Google Scholar
Chen, P. 1986. Discourse and particle movement in English. Studies in language. 10.1.79–95.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Chomsky, N. 1965. Aspects of the theory of syntax. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.Google Scholar
Chomsky, N. 1982. Lectures on government and binding. Dordrecht: Foris.Google Scholar
Cook, G. 1989. Discourse. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Emonds, J. 1976. A transformational approach to syntax. New York: Academic Press.Google Scholar
Eskey, D. 1988. Holding in the bottom: An interactive approach to the language problems of second language learners. In Carrell, P., Devine, P. and Eskey, D. (eds.) Interactive approaches to second language reading. New York: Cambridge University Press. 93–100.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Ford, C. and Thompson, S.. 1986. Conditionals in discourse: A text-based study from English. In Traugott, E. (ed.) On Conditionals. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. 353–372.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Fox, B. 1987. The noun phrase accessibility hierarchy reinterpreted. Language. 63.4.856–870.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Fox, B. and Thompson, S.. 1990. A discourse explanation of the grammar of relative clauses in English conversion. Language. 66.2.297–316.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Givón, T. 1984. Universals of discourse structure adn second language acquistion. In Rutherford, W. (ed.) Language universals and second language acquisition. Amesterdam: John Benjamins. 109–133.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Gunawardena, C.N. 1989. The present perfect in the rhetorical divisions of Biology and Biochemistry journal articles. English for specific purposes. 8.3.265–273.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Halliday, M. A. K. 1976. System and fucntion in language: Selected papers. Kress, G. (ed.) London: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Hatch, E. 1978. Introduction. In Hutch, E. (ed.) Second language acquistion: A book of readings. Rowley, MA: Newbury House. 1–18.Google Scholar
Hymes, D. 1972. On communicative competence. In Pride, J.B. and Holmes, J. (eds.) Sociolinguistics. Harmondsworth, England: Penguin Books. 269–293.Google Scholar
Kim, K-H.. 1989. Wh-clefts in English conversation: An interactional perspective. Los Angeles: UCLA. Mimeo. [Unpublished paper written for English 250K, dated 12 13, 1989].Google Scholar
Krashen, S.D. 1981. Second language acquisition and second language learning. Oxford: Pergamon Press.Google Scholar
Krashen, S.D. 1982. Principles and practice in second language acquistion. Oxford: Pergamon Press.Google Scholar
Kroll, B. 1990. The rhetoric/sysntax split: Designing a curriculum for ESL students. Journal of basic writing. 9.1.40–45.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Lee, D., Forthcoming. A discourse analysis of thematic sentential adverbs in oral and written American English. Los Angeles: UCLA. M.A. thesis.Google Scholar
Levinson, S. 1983. Pragmatics. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Lindsay, D. B. 1984. Cohesion in the composition of ESL and English students. Los Angeles: UCLA. M.A. thesis.Google Scholar
Lisovsky, K. 1988. A discourse analysis of that-nominal clauses in English. Los Angeles: UCLA. M.A. thesis.Google Scholar
Littlewood, W. 1981. Communicative language teaching. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Mann, W. and Thompson, S.. 1988. Rehtorical structure theory. Text. 8.243–281.Google Scholar
Mann, W. and Thompson, S.. Forthcoming. Reetorical structure theory: A theory of text organization and its implications for clause comibing. In Polanyi, L. (ed.) Discourse structure. Norwood, NJ: Ablex.Google Scholar
Matthiessen, C. 1983. Choosing primary tense in English. Studies in language. 7.3.369–429.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Morgan, J. and Sellner, M.. 1980. Discourse and linguistic theory. In Spiro, R., Bertram, B., and Brewer, W. (eds.) Theoretical issues in reading comprehension. Hillsadale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum. 165–200.Google Scholar
Murphy, R. with Altman, R.. 1989. Grammar in use. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Perfetti, C.A. 1985. Reading ability. New York: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Ransom, E. 1979. Definiteness and animacy constraints on passvie and double object constructions in English. Glossa. 13.2.215–240.Google Scholar
Rumelhart, D.E. 1977. Toward an interactive model of reading. In Dornic, S. (ed.) Attention and performance. Vol. VI. New York: Academic Press. 573–603.Google Scholar
Rutherford, W., Sharwood Smith, M.. (eds.) 1988. Grammar and second language teaching. New York: Newbury House.Google Scholar
Sasaki, M. Forthcoming. An analysis of sentences with nonreferential there in spoken American English. Work.Google Scholar
Scarcella, R. 1984. Cohesion in the writing development of native and non-native English speakers. Los Angeles: University of Southers California. Ph.D. diss.Google Scholar
Schiffrin, D. 1987. Discourse markers. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Schmidt, R. Input, interaction, attention and awareness: The case for consciousness raising in second language teaching. Keynote address at the 10th annual ENPULI conference, Rio de Janiero, Brazi, 07, 1990.Google Scholar
Schwartz, S. 1988. The progressive aspect in American English usage. Los Angles: UCLA. M.A. thesis.Google Scholar
Stubbs, M. 1983. Discourse analysis. Oxford: Blackwell.Google Scholar
Suh, K.-H. 1989a. A discourse analysis of past habitual forms: used to, would, and the simple past tense in spoken American English. Los Angeles: UCLA. M.A. thesis.Google Scholar
Suh, K.-H. 1989b. A discourse analysis of be going to and will in spoken American English. Los Angeles: UCLA. Mimeo [Unpublished term project for English 250K, dated 12 13, 1989.]Google Scholar
Swales, J. Forthcoming. Genre analysis and its applications. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Tannen, D. 1989. Talking voices. Cambridge: Cambridge Unviersity Press.Google Scholar
Terkel, S. 1977. Working. New York: Ballantine Books.Google Scholar
Thompson, S. 1985. Grammar and written discourse: Initial vs. final purposes clauses in English. Text. 5.1/2.56–84.Google Scholar
Thompson, S. and Koide, Y.. 1987. Iconicity and ‘indirect objects’ in English. Journal of pragmatics. 11.399–406.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Werner, P. 1990. Mosaic I: A context-based grammar. 2nd Ed.New York: McGraw Hill.Google Scholar
Williams, R. 1988. Indirect object alternation and topicworthiness. Los Angeles: UCLA. M.A. thesis.Google Scholar
Wolfson, N. 1979. The conversational historical present alternation. Language. 55.1.168–182.CrossRefGoogle Scholar