Text analysis traditions in France and the United States include discourse analysis, critical linguistics, French functional linguistics, Bakhtinian dialogics, and “generous reading.” These frames have not been used, however, in cross-cultural analysis of university student writing. The author presents a study of 250 student texts from French and U.S. introductory university courses, using a methodology for cross-cultural analysis that draws on other French and U.S. methodologies, particularly those using the dialogic utterance as a unit of analysis, but extended by the tools of reprise-modification and textual movement. The results provide a complex picture of university students' writing as a site of social-textual dynamics, resisting more traditional contrastive approaches while reintroducing a focus on the text. The interpretive analysis brought out more commonality than difference; the author hypothesizes that students entering the university share a discourse of learning and negotiation across cultural contexts. The methodology supports cross-cultural analysis beyond “discourses of difference.”
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-Lille3.
15.
Boch, F., & Grossman, F. (2001). De l'usage des citations dans le discours théorique . LIDIL: Apprendre à 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 à 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 à 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 à 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 à 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 cœur 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 à 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 à 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.
