Of the different uses of discourse analysis, one of the more significant is the way
it can be used to introduce students to the culture and literary practices of the
disciplines. This article describes how one type of analysis - Halliday’s
transitivity - has been used in an academic advising context to assist students
struggling to write effectively in a range of discipline areas: history, visual art
and sociology. Analysis of this kind, it is argued, has the potential not only to
clarify to students the immediate requirements of the academic tasks they have to
complete, but also to help them understand some of the broader epistemological
issues that may be at stake.
Baldauf, R.
(1996) ‘Tertiary Literacy Policies: Needs and
Practice’, in
Z. Golebiowski
(ed.) Policy and Practice of Tertiary Literacy: Selected proceedings of
the First National Conference on Tertiary Literacy: Research and Practice,
Vol. II, pp. 1-19.
Melbourne: Victoria
.
2.
Barnet, S.
(2003) A Short Guide to Writing about Art (seventh
edition).
New York: Pearson
.
3.
Barnett, R.
(2000) The Limits of Competence: Knowledge, Higher Education
and Society.
Buckingham: The Society for Research into
Higher Education/Open University Press
.
4.
Bazerman, C.
(1981)
‘What Written Knowledge Does: Three Examples of Academic Discourse’
. Philosophy of the Social Sciences11(3):
367-387
.
5.
Becher, T.
(1989) Academic Tribes and Territories: Intellectual Inquiry
and the Cultures of Disciplines.
Milton Keynes: Open University Press
.
6.
Bhatia, V.
,
Candlin, C.
and
Hyland, K.
(1997) Academic Communication in Disciplinary
Communities.
Hong Kong: Department of English, City
University of Hong Kong
(Mimeo).
7.
Chanock, K.
(1997)
‘Never Say I: The Writer’s Voice in Essays in the Humanities’
, in
Z. Golebiowski
(ed.) Policy and Practice of Tertiary Literacy: Selected Proceedings
of the First National Conference on Tertiary Literacy: Research and
Practice, Vol. II, pp.
54-63
. Melbourne: Victoria.
8.
Coffin C.
(1997) ‘Constructing and Giving Value to the
Past: An Investigation into Secondary School History’, in
F. Christie
and
J. R. Martin
(eds) Genre and Institutions: Social Processes in the Workplace and
School, pp. 196-230.
Cassell: London
.
9.
Coffin, C.
(2003)
‘Exploring Different Dimensions of Language Use’
. ELT Journal57(1):
11-18
.
10.
Cook, G.
(1987) Discourse.
Oxford: Oxford University Press
.
11.
Cope, B.
and
Kalantzis, M.
(1994) ‘How a Genre Approach to Literacy Can
Transform the Way Writing is Taught’, in
B. Cope
and
M. Kalantzis
(eds) The Powers of Literacy: A Genre Approach to Teaching
Writing, pp. 1-21.
London: The Falmer Press
.
12.
Fairclough, N.
(1995) Critical Discourse Analysis: The Critical Study of
Language.
London: Longman
.
13.
Freedman, A.
and
Medway, P.
(1994) ‘Introduction’, in
A. Freedman
and
P. Medway
(eds) Learning and Teaching Genre, pp. 1-22.
Portsmouth, NH: Heinemann
.
14.
Halliday, M. A. K.
(1994) An Introduction to Functional Grammar
(second edition).
London: Edward Arnold
.
15.
Hunston, S.
and
Sinclair, J.
(2000) ‘A Local Grammar of
Evaluation’, in
S. Hunston
and
G. Thompson
(eds) Evaluation in Text: Authorial stance and the Construction of
Discourse.pp. 75-101.
Oxford: Oxford University Press
.
16.
Ivanic, R.
and
Simpson, J.
(1992) ‘Who’s Who in Academic
Writing’, in
N. Fair-clough
(ed.) Critical Language Awareness, pp.
144-173.
London: Longman
.
17.
Jakobson, R.
(1960) ‘Closing Statement: Linguistics and
Poetics’, in
T. A. Sebeok
(ed.) Style in Language, pp. 350-377.
Cambridge, MA: MIT Press
.
18.
Johns, A.
(1997) Text, Role and Context: Developing Academic
Literacies.
Cambridge: Cambridge University Press
.
19.
Lea, M.
and
Stierer, B.
(2000) ‘Editor’s
Introduction’, in
M. Lea
and
B. Stierer
(eds) Student Writing in Higher Education: New Contexts, pp.
1-15.
Buckingham: The Society for Research into
Higher Education/Open University Press
.
20.
MacDonald, S. P.
(1994) Professional Academic Writing in the Humanities and
Social Sciences.
Carbondale and Edwardsville: Southern Illinois
University Press
.
21.
McDougall, B.
(1980) Mao Zedong’s ‘Talks at the
Yan’an Conference on Literature and Art’: A Translation of
the 1943 Text with Commentary.
Ann Arbor: University of Michigan Press
.
22.
Mann, W.
and
Thompson, S.
(1989) ‘Rhetorical Structure Theory: A Theory of
Text Organization’, in
L. Polanyi
(ed.) The Structure of Discourse, pp. 85-96.
Norwood, NJ: Ablex
.
23.
Martin, J.
(1992) English Text: System and Structure.
Amsterdam: Benjamins
.
24.
Mathiessen, C.
(1995) Lexico-Grammatical Cartography: English systems.
Dallas: International Language Sciences Publishers
.
25.
Mills, C. Wright
(1959) The Sociological Imagination.
New York: Oxford University Press
.
26.
Moore, T.
(2002)
‘Knowledge and Agency: A Study of Metaphenomenal Discourse in
Textbooks from Three Disciplines’
. English for Specific Purposes21(4):
347-366
.
27.
Pelling, N.
(2001)
‘A New Approach to Non-Traditional Student Recruitment and Retention’
. Australian Universities Review44(1):
18-20
.
28.
Popper, K. R.
(1979) Objective Knowledge: An Evolutionary Approach
(second edition).
Oxford: Oxford University Press
.
29.
Swales, J.
(1990) Genre Analysis: English in Academic and Research
Settings.
Cambridge: Cambridge University Press
.
30.
Taylor, G.
(1980)
‘The Grammar of Confusion’
. Journal of Literary Semantics9(2):
55-72
.
31.
Taylor, G.
(1989) The Student’s Writing Guide for the Arts and
Social Sciences.
Cambridge: Cambridge University Press
.
32.
Threadgold, T.
(1994)
‘Grammar, Genre and the Ownership of Literacy’
. Idiom2:
20-28
.
33.
Wignell, P.
(1998) ‘Technicality and Abstraction in Social
Science’, in
J. R. Martin
and
R. Veel
(eds) Reading Science, pp. 297-326.
London: Routledge
.
34.
Willis, E.
(2004) The Sociological Quest: An Introduction to the Study
of Social Life.
Sydney: Allen and Unwin
.
