IA901 2012 Session Nine An Introduction to Discourse Analysis

1. IA901 2012 Session NineAn Introduction to Discourse Analysis

2. Link back to last weekSemantic fields

3. ????

7. Semantic sets and collocation

8. Hoey (2005) Train as a…

9. Hoey (2005)

10. Hoey (2005)

14. Back to the sentence…

15. Hoey (2005) takes the opening sentence from a Bill Bryson travel book: • In winter Hammerfest is a thirty-hour ride by bus from Oslo, though why anyone would want to go there in winter is a question worth considering. • and compares it to: • Through winter, rides between Oslo and Hammerfest use thirty hours up in a bus, though why travellers would select to ride there then might be pondered. • The explanation is provided by attention to COLLOCATION and COLLIGATION. • For example, Hoey’s corpus tells him that: • 59% of uses of IN WINTER relate to a clause whose verb is PRESENT SIMPLE • 54% of uses of IN THE WINTER relate to a clause whose verb is PAST SIMPLE • IN WINTER is more likely to occur with “relational process verbs” than “material process verbs”

16. What do you already know about the University of Essex? Make notes on your answers to the following questions: Where is Essex university? How many campuses are there? How old is it? How many students are there? (who are they?) Is the university famous for anything? Is it a good university? Do you know any interesting 'facts' about the university?

19. GRAMMAR AND VOCABULARY : PATTERNS AND SENTENCE STRUCTURE Students from families with incomes of up to £25,000 will be entitled to a more generous student maintenance grant of up to £3,250, which is non-repayable.

20. GRAMMAR AND VOCABULARY : PATTERNS AND SENTENCE STRUCTURE Students from families with incomes of up to £25,000 will be entitledto a more generous student maintenance grant of up to £3,250, which is non-repayable.

21. GRAMMAR AND VOCABULARY : PATTERNS AND SENTENCE STRUCTURE Students from families with incomes of up to £25,000 will be entitled to a more generous student maintenance grant of up to £3,250, which is non-repayable.

22. GRAMMAR AND VOCABULARY : PATTERNS AND SENTENCE STRUCTURE Students from families with incomes of up to £25,000 will be entitled to a more generous student maintenance grant of up to £3,250, which is non-repayable.

23. GRAMMAR AND VOCABULARY : PATTERNS AND SENTENCE STRUCTURE Students from families with incomes of up to £25,000 will be entitled toa more generous student maintenance grant of up to £3,250, which is non-repayable.

24. GRAMMAR AND VOCABULARY : PATTERNS AND SENTENCE STRUCTURE Students from families with incomes of up to £25,000 will be entitled toa more generous student maintenance grantof up to £3,250, which is non-repayable.

25. GRAMMAR AND VOCABULARY : PATTERNS AND SENTENCE STRUCTURE Students from families with incomes of up to £25,000 will be entitled toa more generous student maintenance grantofup to £3,250, which is non-repayable.

26. GRAMMAR AND VOCABULARY : PATTERNS AND SENTENCE STRUCTURE Students from families with incomes of up to £25,000 will be entitled toa more generous student maintenance grantofup to £3,250, which is non-repayable.

27. GRAMMAR AND VOCABULARY : PATTERNS AND SENTENCE STRUCTURE Students from families with incomes of up to £25,000 will be entitled toamore generous student maintenance grantofup to £3,250, which is non-repayable.

28. GRAMMAR AND VOCABULARY : PATTERNS AND SENTENCE STRUCTURE Students from families with incomes of up to £25,000 will be entitled toamore generous student maintenance grantofup to £3,250, which is non-repayable.

29. GRAMMAR AND VOCABULARY : PATTERNS AND SENTENCE STRUCTURE Studentsfrom families with incomes of up to £25,000 will be entitled toamore generous student maintenance grantofup to £3,250, which is non-repayable.

30. GRAMMAR AND VOCABULARY : PATTERNS AND SENTENCE STRUCTURE Studentsfrom families with incomes of up to £25,000 will be entitled toamore generous student maintenance grantofup to £3,250, which is non-repayable.

31. GRAMMAR AND VOCABULARY : PATTERNS AND SENTENCE STRUCTURE Studentsfrom families with incomes of up to £25,000 will be entitled toamore generous student maintenance grantofup to £3,250, which is non-repayable.

32. GRAMMAR AND VOCABULARY : PATTERNS AND SENTENCE STRUCTURE Studentsfrom families with incomes ofup to £25,000 will be entitled toamore generous student maintenance grantofup to £3,250, which is non-repayable.

33. GRAMMAR AND VOCABULARY : PATTERNS AND SENTENCE STRUCTURE Studentsfrom families with incomes ofup to £25,000 will be entitled toamore generous student maintenance grantofup to £3,250, which is non-repayable.

35. Difficult sentences?

36. Students from families with incomes of up to £25,000 will be entitled to a more generous student maintenance grant of up to £3,250, which is non-repayable.

37. Students from families with incomes of up to £25,000 will be entitled to a more generous student maintenance grant of up to £3,250, which is non-repayable. Sentence structure: S V O / Somebody + be entitled to + something

38. The first attribute of the art object is that it creates a discontinuity between itself and the unsynthesised manifold. Sentence structure: The X of Y is that it does Z.

39. Prodromou argues very persuasively that core chunks such as sort of and you know membership speakers within cultural communities and project a ‘deep commonality’ amongst interlocutors which the learner or even the highly successful non-native user may not wish to claim nor has any reason to claim. • Structure : X argues that Y does Z

40. Bottom up? Top down?

41. 3 Lessons from the analysis of chunks 3.9 Conclusions and implications Chunks as a mark of the native speaker Research by Prodromou (2005) suggests that the speech of native speakers can be distinguished from the speech of advanced non-native Successful Users of English (SUEs) by, amongst other things, the presence or absence of common chunks. Prodromou argues very persuasively that core chunks such as sort of and you know membership speakers within cultural communities and project a ‘deep commonality’ amongst interlocutors which the learner or even the highly successful non-native user may not wish to claim nor has any reason to claim. Prodromou is not advocating the enforced metamorphosis of expert users into native speakers; nor are we. The lesson here may be that receptive mastery is more important than productive repertoire. But the issue is twofold: firstly, we believe that those students who do wish to push forward towards near-native fluency should be given appropriate exposure to and practice in the use of chunks. Certainly in terms of social integration (e.g. students living and attempting to integrate in the L2 environment), it would seem that those who integrate more successfully are likely to acquire and use chunks more naturally, a claim for which Adolphs and Durrow (2004) present some evidence. But… Chunks and fluency One of the features of chunks not discussed above…

42. 3 Lessons from the analysis of chunks 3.9 Conclusions and implications Chunks as a mark of the native speaker Research by Prodromou (2005) suggests that the speech of native speakers can be distinguished from the speech of advanced non-native Successful Users of English (SUEs) by, amongst other things, the presence or absence of common chunks. Prodromou argues very persuasively that core chunks such as sort of and you know membership speakers within cultural communities and project a ‘deep commonality’ amongst interlocutors which the learner or even the highly successful non-native user may not wish to claim nor has any reason to claim. Prodromou is not advocating the enforced metamorphosis of expert users into native speakers; nor are we. The lesson here may be that receptive mastery is more important than productive repertoire. But the issue is twofold: firstly, we believe that those students who do wish to push forward towards near-native fluency should be given appropriate exposure to and practice in the use of chunks. Certainly in terms of social integration (e.g. students living and attempting to integrate in the L2 environment), it would seem that those who integrate more successfully are likely to acquire and use chunks more naturally, a claim for which Adolphs and Durrow (2004) present some evidence. But… Chunks and fluency One of the features of chunks not discussed above…

43. 3 Lessons from the analysis of chunks 3.9 Conclusions and implications Chunks as a mark of the native speaker Research by Prodromou (2005) suggests that the speech of native speakers can be distinguished from the speech of advanced non-native Successful Users of English (SUEs) by, amongst other things, the presence or absence of common chunks. Prodromou argues very persuasively that core chunks such as sort of and you know membership speakers within cultural communities and project a ‘deep commonality’ amongst interlocutors which the learner or even the highly successful non-native user may not wish to claim nor has any reason to claim. Prodromou is not advocating the enforced metamorphosis of expert users into native speakers; nor are we. The lesson here may be that receptive mastery is more important than productive repertoire. But the issue is twofold: firstly, we believe that those students who do wish to push forward towards near-native fluency should be given appropriate exposure to and practice in the use of chunks. Certainly in terms of social integration (e.g. students living and attempting to integrate in the L2 environment), it would seem that those who integrate more successfully are likely to acquire and use chunks more naturally, a claim for which Adolphs and Durrow (2004) present some evidence. But… Chunks and fluency One of the features of chunks not discussed above…

44. 3 Lessons from the analysis of chunks 3.9 Conclusions and implications Chunks as a mark of the native speaker Research by Prodromou (2005) suggests that the speech of native speakers can be distinguished from the speech of advanced non-native Successful Users of English (SUEs) by, amongst other things, the presence or absence of common chunks. Prodromou argues very persuasively that core chunks such as sort of and you know membership speakers within cultural communities and project a ‘deep commonality’ amongst interlocutors which the learner or even the highly successful non-native user may not wish to claim nor has any reason to claim. Prodromou is not advocating the enforced metamorphosis of expert users into native speakers; nor are we. The lesson here may be that receptive mastery is more important than productive repertoire. But the issue is twofold: firstly, we believe that those students who do wish to push forward towards near-native fluency should be given appropriate exposure to and practice in the use of chunks. Certainly in terms of social integration (e.g. students living and attempting to integrate in the L2 environment), it would seem that those who integrate more successfully are likely to acquire and use chunks more naturally, a claim for which Adolphs and Durrow (2004) present some evidence. But… Chunks and fluency One of the features of chunks not discussed above…

45. 3 Lessons from the analysis of chunks 3.9 Conclusions and implications Chunks as a mark of the native speaker Research by Prodromou (2005) suggests that the speech of native speakers can be distinguished from the speech of advanced non-native Successful Users of English (SUEs) by, amongst other things, the presence or absence of common chunks. Prodromou argues very persuasively that core chunks such as sort of and you know membership speakers within cultural communities and project a ‘deep commonality’ amongst interlocutors which the learner or even the highly successful non-native user may not wish to claim nor has any reason to claim. Prodromou is not advocating the enforced metamorphosis of expert users into native speakers; nor are we. The lesson here may be that receptive mastery is more important than productive repertoire. But the issue is twofold: firstly, we believe that those students who do wish to push forward towards near-native fluency should be given appropriate exposure to and practice in the use of chunks. Certainly in terms of social integration (e.g. students living and attempting to integrate in the L2 environment), it would seem that those who integrate more successfully are likely to acquire and use chunks more naturally, a claim for which Adolphs and Durrow (2004) present some evidence. But… Chunks and fluency One of the features of chunks not discussed above…

46. 3 Lessons from the analysis of chunks 3.9 Conclusions and implications Chunks as a mark of the native speaker Research by Prodromou (2005) suggests that the speech of native speakers can be distinguished from the speech of advanced non-native Successful Users of English (SUEs) by, amongst other things, the presence or absence of common chunks. Prodromou argues very persuasively that core chunks such as sort of and you know membership speakers within cultural communities and project a ‘deep commonality’ amongst interlocutors which the learner or even the highly successful non-native user may not wish to claim nor has any reason to claim. Prodromou is not advocating the enforced metamorphosis of expert users into native speakers; nor are we. The lesson here may be that receptive mastery is more important than productive repertoire. But the issue is twofold: firstly, we believe that those students who do wish to push forward towards near-native fluency should be given appropriate exposure to and practice in the use of chunks. Certainly in terms of social integration (e.g. students living and attempting to integrate in the L2 environment), it would seem that those who integrate more successfully are likely to acquire and use chunks more naturally, a claim for which Adolphs and Durrow (2004) present some evidence. But… Chunks and fluency One of the features of chunks not discussed above…

50. Beyond the sentence