Samenvatting
Summary of books, articles and slides
- Instelling
- Rijksuniversiteit Groningen (RuG)
Samenvatting van het vak Tekstanalyse (Engelstalig): het boek artikelen hoorcolleges.
[Meer zien]Voorbeeld 4 van de 37 pagina's
Voorbeeld 4 van de 37 pagina's
In winkelwagengesponsord bericht van onze partner
Gekoppeld boek
Titel boek:
Auteur(s):
- Uitgave:
- ISBN:
- Druk:
1 beoordeling
Door: Liesannedehaan • 4 jaar geleden
Voorbeeld van de inhoud
Text Analysis Communicatie- en InformatiewetenschappenText Analysis
Week 1: Renkema & Schubert — Ch.4: Discourse Classification 2
§ 4.2 Typologies of discourse 2
§ 4.3 Written language and spoken interaction 4
§ 4.4 Genre theory and analysis 5
Week 1: Hyland (2002) — An Overview of Writing 6
§ 1.1 Text-oriented research and teaching 6
§1.2 Writer-oriented research and teaching 9
Week 1: Lecture — A Discourse Perspective on Communication 10
Week 2: Renkema & Schubert — Ch. 6: Discourse Connections 13
6.1 Introduction 13
6.2 Cohesion 13
Week 2: Karimi & Ferreira (2016) 16
Week 2: Lecture — Discourse connections (1) referential relations 17
Week 3: Renkema & Schubert — Ch. 6: Discourse Connections 18
6.3 Coherence 18
6.4 Rhetorical Structure Theory 19
6.5 Discourse relation research 20
Week 3: Taboada (2006) 21
Week 3: Lecture — Discourse connections (2) coherence relations (clauses) 22
Week 5: Renkema & Schubert — Ch. 12: Argumentation and Persuasion 24
12.1 Introduction 24
12.2 The structure of argumentation 24
12.3 The pragma-dialectical approach 25
Week 5: Van Eemeren et al. (2002) 27
1 Standpoints and argumentation 27
2 The structure of argumentation 28
Week 5: Lecture — Argumentation and persuasion: argumentation structure 30
Week 6: Renkema & Schubert — Ch. 4: Discourse Classification 31
4.4 Genre theory and analysis 31
4.6 Electronic discourse 32
Week 6: Upton Thomas (2002) — Understanding Direct Mail Letters as a Genre 36
Description of rhetorical moves 36
Lecture 6: Genre (online) 37
1
,Text Analysis Communicatie- en Informatiewetenschappen
Week 1: Renkema & Schubert — Ch.4: Discourse Classification
§ 4.2 Typologies of discourse
Discourse has many different functions and forms. Typologies of discourse: if classification takes place at
a high and abstract level and comprises a limited number of rather general categories. The Organon model
of Bühler describes three functions of language and three main discourse types.
Organon model Functions Types
Symbol Information Informative disourse
Symptom Expression Narrative discourse
Signal Persuasion Argumentative discourse
Hence, if the symbol aspect of language (reference to reality) is predominant, then the function of language
is the transmission of information. If the accent is on the symptom aspect, then its function is expression
(e.g., in poetry or in a story). However, this model is a too simple scheme to serve as a basic covering all
varieties of discourse. There’s many more functions that are possible. The functions seldom occur in their
pure forms; a writer can tell a story in order to persuade people, hence this model is paying too much
attention to only the separate functions of language. Roman Jakobson distinguished closing statement,
which are six functions that can also occur in combination. These distinctions are based on an extended
version of the communication model. The functions according to Jakobson are:
1. Context
referential
4. Message
poetic
2. Addresser 3. Adressee
emotive conative
5. Channel, contact
phatic
6. Code
metalingual
This model suggests that a message is ent from the addresser to the addressee. This message refers to
something in the world, called context, and this is transported using a code (e.g., symbolic signs (words)),
via a channel, between the participants in the communication. The channel consists of a physical and a
psychological connection, hence the two words channel and contact. The most important function is the
one at the top (the reference to something in the word), called the referential function. Its pendant in the
Organon model is the symbol aspect. The two other functions are linked with the participants. The emotive
(or expressive) function pertains to the attitude of the addresser. The conative function is the orientation
towards the addressee (e.g., giving command or instruction). These two functions related to the participants
are more of less the same as the function related to symptom and signal in the Organon mode. The fourth
function, poetic, is language used in focus on the message itself. The purest form of this function is poetry.
It is apparent in everyday language. Moreover, language is not only used for giving information, but also for
checking the channel or making contact, as in the case of small talk (phatic communion). This leads to the
fifth function: phatic (as in phatic communion). Examples of this are “hello, you are still there?”, and — in a
context participants know they will have to wait for a long time — “I guess we will have a long wait?”.
Sometimes the language focuses on the code itself, for example, “I do not follow you”, or “Am I
understood?”. This is called the metalingual (glossing) function. The following table sums up the six
functions of language according to Jakobson (1960).
Closing statement Definition Organon model
Referential Reference to something in the world. It is the most Symbol aspect.
important function.
Emotive Linked with the participants. It is a function that Symptom and signal aspect.
pertains to the attitude of the addresser.
2
,Text Analysis Communicatie- en Informatiewetenschappen
Closing statement Definition Organon model
Conative Linked with participants. Orientation towards the Symptom and signal aspect.
addressee (e.g., giving command or instruction).
Poetic Language used in focus on the message itself. It is
apparent in every day language (John and Marry,
sounds better than Marry and John).
Phatic Checking the channel or making contact, as in the
case of small talk (phatic communion).
Metalingual Language focuses on the code itself.
This six-part division is a good framework for discussing the variety of mixed functions of discourse. One
pivotal issue of discourse classification is the difference between discourse types and genres. The
classifications of the Organon model and Jakobson’s types are rather generalized and abstract. Discourse
types comprise high-level, more of less universal categories. Genres, on the other hand, form an open-
ended list, and they are rather concrete and specific. Genres range from telephone calls to telephone bills,
from text message to online chat, from interrogations to lectures. The relationship between both terms is
that one discourse type can manifest itself in a variety of genres. For instance, the narrative discourse type
is dominant in the genres of the short story, fairy tale, novel, biography, report or historical survey. The
argumentative discourse type plays a central role the genres of the academic article, dissertation, review,
editorial, etc. The names of these genres suggest that there’s a difference between a scientific article and
an essay, between a sermon and a political speech. Language users can distinguish between different kinds
of discourse (“This is not a business letter, it is a personal one.”). People can recognize mistakes in
classifications (“This is called a fairy tale, but in fact it is a saga.”). Changes in the character of discourse
can be observed as well (“At this point the news bulletin took on the character of an editorial.”). People can
also have opinions about the suitability of given genres for specific types of messages (“That’s not the kind
of remark you want to put not the minutes.”). And, finally, genres can be parodied: a story can be molded
into the form of an explorer’s diary or a civil service letter. Hence, people have certain intuitions regarding
discourse types and genres. In order to ascertain what these intuitions are based on, it is necessary to have
a system of discourse classification within which discourse characteristics can be related to discourse
types and genres. Two different approaches are introduced next.
The first one approaches abstract grammatical forms, which form the basis for distinguishing between
general discourse types to which different genres can be assigned. It is Werlich’s (1982) discourse
typology: from grammatical forms to discourse types. He distinguishes give basic forms that are
fundamental to discourse types. He argues for the choice of these five basic forms by referring to studies
on innate categorization possibilities in human thinking, such as planning, understanding, or judging.
Basic forms Sentence type Subjective discourse types Objective discourse types
(writer’s perception) - active (verified by readers) -
voice passive voice
1. Descriptive Impressionistic description Technical description
2. Narrative Declarative (verb in past tense + Report News story
indication of time and place).
3. Expository Essay Definition, summary,
explication, text interpretation
4. Argumentative Comment Scientific argumentation
5. Instructive Imperative Instructions Directions, rules, regulations
and statutes
3
, Text Analysis Communicatie- en Informatiewetenschappen
He relates these basic forms to specific sentence structures. The characteristic type of sentence for the
instructive text type is the imperative. The discourse types determined (subjective or objective) must be
further subdivided in terms of channel (e.g., oral vs. written). After this subdivision, a specification can be
given of different kinds of discourse. Then, it will become clear that a specific piece of discourse can
contain a number of different basic forms (e.g., a story that opens with an impressionistic description). An
important point of Werlich’s approach is the status of the five basic forms. The existence of innate
categorization possibilities is difficult to prove. For this reason, attempts have been made to make divisions
on the basis of other criteria.
The second approach is Biber’s (1989) typology of co-occurrence of linguistic features to
communicative functions. It contains a restricted set of text prototypes which are distinguished on the
basis of five sets of lexical and grammatical features. Biber analyzed about 500 texts by looking at the way
in which seventy linguistic features co-occurred. The linguistic features had a wide range, from the teen of
verbs to word classes (nouns, prepositions, modals, etc.), from passivization to the sue of specific words.
On the basis of statistical analyses, he found that there were five clusters of features. These five dimensions
were labeled as follows:
Dimension
1. Involved versus informational production Interactive and affective genres (conversations, personal
letters), and highly informative texts (editorials and academic
prose).
2. Narrative versus non-narrative concerns Narrative: many past-tense verbs and third-person pronouns.
3. Elaborated versus situation-dependent reference Official documents, apart from all other discourse types.
4. Overt expression of persuasion All texts with persuasive elements (advertising, politicants’
speeches)
5. Abstract versus non-abstract style Features like passives in abstract and formal style.
On the basis of these five dimensions, Biber distinguished eight text prototypes such as “intimate personal
interaction”, “imaginative narrative”, and “situated reportage”. With his statistical analysis of the co-
occurrence of languished features and the linking to communicative functions, he showed that general
concepts like narrative form, expository form and interactive discourse in other models are much too vague.
There is no single expository form, there are, for example, big differences in linguistic features between
(abstract) scientific expository texts and the so-called “learned expository” in “literate prose” with a more
active style.
§ 4.3 Written language and spoken interaction
The term discourse is used for all forms of oral and written communication. There are important differences
between oral and written discourse. Chafe (1982) explains two factors that describe the difference between
written discourse and spoken interaction.
1. Writing takes longer than speaking (integration versus fragmentation).
2. Writers do not have contact with readers (involvement).
The first factor is responsible for what Chafe calls integration in written language as opposed to
fragmentation that supposedly takes place in verbal interaction. This integration is, among other things,
achieved through the use of subordinate conjunctions. The occur more often in written language than
spoken interaction. The second factor is responsible for the detachment from the reading public in written
language as opposed to the involvement that is present with spoken interaction. Speakers and hearers are
more involved in communication than writers and readers. This is due to the use of passive voice in written
language, in which the person who is acting remains in the background. The difference can also be
described in terms of situation. Spoken interaction is part of a shared situation that includes both speakers
and hearers. In such situation, information is also passed along through means other than language, such
as posture, intonation, hand gestures, etc. Moreover, speakers can quickly react to nonverbal reactions on
the part of hearers. A piece of written discourse, on the other hand, is not part of a shared situation existing
between writers and readers. An addressee (or receiver) can be used to denote both readers and hearers,
and producer can be used for both speakers and writers. One similarity between written text and spoken
interaction is that often overlooked is that, although writers cannot process and addressee’s reactions, they
can anticipate probable reactions and write the text accordingly. The following illustrates this phenomenon:
4
Voordelen van het kopen van samenvattingen bij Stuvia op een rij:
Verzekerd van kwaliteit door reviews
Stuvia-klanten hebben meer dan 700.000 samenvattingen beoordeeld. Zo weet je zeker dat je de beste documenten koopt!
Snel en makkelijk kopen
Je betaalt supersnel en eenmalig met iDeal, creditcard of Stuvia-tegoed voor de samenvatting. Zonder lidmaatschap.
Focus op de essentie
Samenvattingen worden geschreven voor en door anderen. Daarom zijn de samenvattingen altijd betrouwbaar en actueel. Zo kom je snel tot de kern!
Veelgestelde vragen
Wat krijg ik als ik dit document koop?
Je krijgt een PDF, die direct beschikbaar is na je aankoop. Het gekochte document is altijd, overal en oneindig toegankelijk via je profiel.
Tevredenheidsgarantie: hoe werkt dat?
Onze tevredenheidsgarantie zorgt ervoor dat je altijd een studiedocument vindt dat goed bij je past. Je vult een formulier in en onze klantenservice regelt de rest.
Van wie koop ik deze samenvatting?
Stuvia is een marktplaats, je koop dit document dus niet van ons, maar van verkoper 1993sk. Stuvia faciliteert de betaling aan de verkoper.
Zit ik meteen vast aan een abonnement?
Nee, je koopt alleen deze samenvatting voor €3,49. Je zit daarna nergens aan vast.
Is Stuvia te vertrouwen?
4,6 sterren op Google & Trustpilot (+1000 reviews)
Afgelopen 30 dagen zijn er 53022 samenvattingen verkocht
Opgericht in 2010, al 14 jaar dé plek om samenvattingen te kopen