Hostname: page-component-8448b6f56d-qsmjn Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-04-25T01:38:10.678Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Discourse Analysis in Stylistics and Literature Instruction

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  19 November 2008

Mick Short
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Extract

The terms discourse analysis and stylistic analysis mean different thing to different people. Most narrowly defined, discourse analysis has only to do with the structure of spoken discourse. Such a definition separates discourse analysis from literany stylistics and pragmatics—the study of how people understand language in context. At the other end of the spectrum, discourse analysis can be carried out on spoken and written texts, and can include matters like textual coherence and cohesion, and the inferencing of meaning by readers or listeners. In this case, it includes pragmatics and much of stylistics within its bounds. Similarly, stylistics can apply just to literary texts or not, and be restricted to the study of style or, on the other hand, include the study of meaning. For the purposes of this review, relatively wide definitions of both areas have been assumed in order to make what follows reasonably comprehensive. The main restriction assumed is that the works discussed will be relevant to the examination of literature in some way. The section on literature instruction will include matters relevant to both native and non-native learners of English, and will also make reference to the integration of literary and language study.

Type
Applications of Discourse Analysis
Information
Annual Review of Applied Linguistics , Volume 11 , March 1990 , pp. 181 - 195
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

Alderson, J. C. and Short, M.. 1989. Reading literature. In Short, M. (ed.) Reading, analysing and teaching literature. London: Longman. 72–119.Google Scholar
Austin, T. R. 1989. Narrative discourses and discoursing in narratives: Analysing a poem from a sociolinguistic perspective. Poetics today. 10.4.703–720.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Beaugrande, R. de. 1987. Schemas for literary interpretation. In Halasz, L. (ed.) Literary discourse: Aspects of cognitive and social psychological approacher. Berlin: Walter de Gruyter. 49–99.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Birch, D. 1989. Language, literature and critical practice. London: Routledge.Google Scholar
Breen, M. P. and Short, M.. 1988. Alternative approaches in teaching stylistics to beginners. Parlance. 1.2.29–48.Google Scholar
Brumfit, C. J. (ed.) 1983. Teaching literature overseas: Language-based approaches. Oxford: Pergamon Press and The British Council.Google Scholar
Burton, D. 1980. Dialogue and discourse: A sociolinguistic approach to modern drama dialogue and naturally occurring conversation. London: Routledge & Kegan Paul.Google Scholar
Carter, R. 1984. Why have I started to talk to you like this? Narrative voices, discourse pragmatics and textual openings. In van Peer, W. and Renkema, J. (eds.) Pragmatics and stylistics. Louvain: Uitgeverij Acco. 95–132.Google Scholar
Carter, R. 1985. Review of R. Kintgen, The perception of poetry. Journal of literary semantics. 14.3.210–212.Google Scholar
Carter, R. 1989. Poetry and conversation: An essay in discoures analysis. In Carter, R. and Simpson, P. (eds.) Language, discourse and literature. London: Unwin Hyman. 61–74.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Carter, R. and Long, M. N.. 1987. The web of words: Exploring literature though language. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Chapman, R. 1989. The reader as listener: Dialect and relationships in The mayor of Casterbridge. In Hickey, L. (ed.) The pragmatics of style. London: Routledge. 159–178.Google Scholar
Cook, G. 1990. Goals and plans in advertising and literary discourse. Parlance. 2.1.48–71.Google Scholar
Collie, J. and Slater, S.. 1987. Literature in the classroom. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Coulthard, M. 1977. An introduction to discourse analysis. London: Longman.Google Scholar
Cummins, M. and Simmons, R.. 1983. The language of literature. London: Pergamon Press.Google Scholar
Dijk, T. A. van (ed.) 1985. Discourse and literature. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Downes, W. A. 1988. Discourse and drama: King Lear's ‘question’ to his daughters. In van Peer, W. (ed.) The taming of the text: Explorations in language, literature and culture. London: Routledge. 225–257.Google Scholar
Duff, A. and Maley, A. 1990. Literature. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Durant, A. and Fabb, N.. 1990. Literary studies in action. London: Routledge.Google Scholar
Engell, J. and Perkins, D. (eds.) 1988. Teaching literature: What is needed now. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.Google Scholar
Fabb, N. et al. , (eds.) 1987. The linguistics of writing: Arguments between language and literature. Manchester: Manchester University Press.Google Scholar
Fairclough, N. L.. 1989a. Language and power. London: Longman.Google Scholar
Fairclough, N. L.. 1989b. Critical discourse analysis. Parlance. 2.2.78–92.Google Scholar
Fleischman, S. 1990. Tense and narrativity: From medieval performance to modern fiction. London: Routledge.Google Scholar
Fowler, R. 1986. Linguistic criticism. Oxford: Oxford Universty Press.Google Scholar
Fowler, R. 1989. Polyphony in Hard times. In Carter, R. and Simpson, P. (eds.) Language, discourse and literature. London: Unwin Hyman. 77–93.Google Scholar
Fowler, R. et al. , 1979. Language and control. London: Routledge.Google Scholar
Furlong, A. 1989. Towards an inferential account of metonymy. UCL working papers in linguistics. 1.136–145.Google Scholar
Geyer-Ryan, H. 1988. Heteroglossia in the poetry of Bertolt Brecht and Tony Harrison. In van Peer, W. (ed.) The taming of the text: Explorations in language, literature and culture. London: Routledge. 193–221.Google Scholar
Gower, R. and Pearson, M.. 1986. Reading literature. London: Longman.Google Scholar
Greenwood, J. 1988. Class readers. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Halasz, L. (ed.) 1987. Literary discourse: Aspects of cognitive and social Psychological approaches. Berlin: Walter de Gruyter.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Halliday, M. A. K. and Hasan, R.. 1989. Language, context, and text: Aspects of language in a soial-semiotic perspective. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Hasan, R. 1989. Linguistics, language, and verbal art.Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Haynes, J. 1989. Introducing stylistics. London: Unwin Hyman.Google Scholar
Herman, V. 1986. Contexts and acts in Gerard Manly Hopkins' “Wake and feel the fell…” in D'haen, T. (ed.)Linguistics and the study of literature. Amsterdam: Rodopi Press. 89–111.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Herman, V. 1989. Subject construction as stylistic strategy in Gerard Manley Hopkins. In Carter, R. and Simpson, P. (eds.) Language, discourse and literature. London: Unwin Hyman. 213–233.Google Scholar
Hoey, M. 1989. Discourse-centred stylistics: A way forward. In Carter, R. and Simpson, P. (eds.) Language, discourse and literature. London: Unwin Hyman. 123–136.Google Scholar
Jakobson, R. 1960. Closing statement: Linguistics and poetics. In Sebeok, T.A. (ed.) Style in language. Cambridge MA: MIT Press. 350–357.Google Scholar
Kenner, H. 1988. Teaching poetry. In Engell, J. and Perkins, D. (eds.) Teaching literature: What is needed now. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press. 3–11.Google Scholar
Kingman, J. et al. , 1988. Report of the committee of enquiry into the teaching of the English language. London. Her Majesty's Stationery Office.Google Scholar
Kintgen, E. R. 1983. The perception of poetry. Bloomington, IN: Indiana University Press.Google Scholar
Korpimies, L. 1983. A linguistic approach to the analysis of a dramatic text. Jyväskylä: University of Jyväskylä Press.Google Scholar
Leech, G. N. 1983. Pragmatics, discourse analysis, stylistics and the ‘Celebrated letter.’ Prose studies. 6.2.142–57.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Leech, G. N. 1983. Forthcomimg. Pragmatic principles in Shaw's You never can tell. In Leech, G.N. (ed.) The language of literature. London: Longman.Google Scholar
Leech, G. N. and Short, M.. 1981. Style in fiction: A linguistic introduction to English fictional prose. London. Longman.Google Scholar
Longacre, R. E. 1985. Interpreting biblical stories. In van Dijk, T.A. (ed.) Discourse and literature. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. 169–185.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Maranda, P. 1985. Myths: Theologies and theoretical physics. In van Dijk, T.A. (ed.) Discourse and literature. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. 187–197.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Nash, W. 1985. The language of humour. London: Longman.Google Scholar
Nash, W. 1989a. Changing the guard at Elsinore. In Carter, R. and Simpson, P. (eds.) Language, discourse and literature. London: Unwin Hyman. 23–41.Google Scholar
Nash, W. 1990. Language in popular fiction. London: Routeledge & Kegan Paul.Google Scholar
Noguchi, R. R. 1984. Telking and meaning in dialogue: The semantic significance of sociolinguistic codes. Journal of literary semantics. 13.2.109–124.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Pavel, T. G. 1985. Literary Narratives. In van Dijk, T.A. (ed.) Discourse and literature. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. 85–103.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Peer, W. van. 1986. Stylistics and Psychology: The theory of foregrounding investigated. London: Croom Helm.Google Scholar
Peer, W. van. 1989. How to do thing with texts: Towards a pragmatic foundation for the teaching of texts. In Short, M. (ed.) Reding, analysing and teaching literature. London: Longman. 267–297.Google Scholar
Peer, W. van. (ed.) 1988. The taming of the text: Explorations in language, literature and culture. London: Routledge.Google Scholar
Pilkington, A. 1989. Poetic effects: A relevance perspective. UCL working papers in linguistics. 1.119–135.Google Scholar
Pilkington, A. 1990. A relevance theoretic view of metaphor. Parlance. 22.102–117.Google Scholar
Pratt, M.L. 1977. Toward a speech act theory of literary discourse. Bloomington, IN: Indiana University Press.Google Scholar
Propp, V. 1968. The morphology of the folktale. Austin, TX: University of Texas Press.Google Scholar
Schmidt, S. J. 1982. Foundations for the empirical study of literature. Hamburg: Buske. [tr. R. de Beaugrande.].Google Scholar
Sell, R. 1990b. The politeness of literary texts. In Sell, R. (ed.) Literary pragmatics. London: Routledge. 208–224.Google Scholar
Short, M. 1989a. Discourse analysis and the analysis of drama. In Carter, R. and Simpson, P. (eds.) Language, discourse and literature. London: Unwin Hyman. 139–168.Google Scholar
Short, M. and van Peer, W.. 1989. Accident! Stylicticians evaluate:Aims and methods of stylistic analysis. In Short, M. (ed.) Reading and teaching literature. London: Longman. 22–71.Google Scholar
Simpson, P. 1988. Access through application. Parlance. 1.2.5–28.Google Scholar
Simpson, P. 1989.Politeness phenomena in Ionesco's The lesson. In Carter, R. and Simpson, P. (eds.) Language, discourse and literature. London: Unwin Hyman. 171–193.Google Scholar
Sinclair, J. McH. and Coulthard, R. M.. 1975. Towards an analysis of discourse: The English used by teachers and pupils. London: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Sperber, D. and Wilson, D.. 1986. Relevance: Communication and cognition. Oxford: Blackwell.Google Scholar
Steen, G. 1989. How empirical are the British? A view of continental empirical studies of literature. Parlance. 2.1.55–77.Google Scholar
Tannen, D. 1989. Talking voices: Repetition, dialogue, and imagery in conversational discourse. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Thomas, J. 1989. Discourse control in confrontational interaction. In Hickey, L. (ed.) The pragmatics of Style. London: Routledge. 133–156.Google Scholar
Thomas, J. 1989. Forthcoming. The pragmatics of discourse. London: Longman.Google Scholar
Toolan, M. 1988. Narrative: A critical linguistic introduction. London: Routledge.Google Scholar
Toolan, M. 1989. Analysing conversation in fiction: An example from Joyce's portrait. In Carter, R. and Simpson, P. (eds.) Language, discourse and literature. London: Unwin Hyman, 195–211.Google Scholar
Toolan, M. 1990. The stylistics of fiction: A literary-lingustic approach. London: Routledge.Google Scholar
Trengove, G. 1989. ‘Vers de societé’: Toward some society. In Short, M. (ed.) Reading, analysing and teaching literature. London: Longman. 146–160.Google Scholar
Vendler, H. 1988. What we have loved. In Engell, J. and Perkins, D. (eds.) Teaching literature: what is needed now. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press. 13–25.Google Scholar
Wadman, K. L. 1983. ‘Private ejaculations’: Politeness strategies in George Herbert's poems directed to God. Language and style. 16.1.87–105.Google Scholar
Wales, K. 1988. Back to the future: Bakhtin, stylistics and discourse. In van Peer, W. (ed.) The taming of the text: Explorations in language, literature and culture. London: Routledge. 176–192.Google Scholar
Weber, J. J. 1989. Dickens social semiotic: The modal analysis of ideological structure. In Carter, R. and Simpson, P. (eds.) Language, discourse and literature. London: Unwin Hyman. 95–111.Google Scholar
Wilson, D. and Sperber, D.. 1989. On verbal irony. UCL working papers in linguistics. 1.96–118.Google Scholar
York, R. A. 1986. The poem as utterance. London: Methuen.Google Scholar