Passi City College

Passi City, Iloilo

SCHOOL OF TEACHER EDUCATION

Stylistics

PART-TIME ENGLISH INSTRUCTOR

 Passi City College
Passi City, Iloilo

SCHOOL OF TEACHER EDUCATION

MODULE 8 | DOING AN ORAL OR WRITTEN DISCOURSE

ANALYSIS PAPER
Module Overview:
This module discusses the ways on how to do a discourse analysis. It presents sample of
discourse analysis done by the researchers to guide students on how to do the same.

Module Outcomes
At the end of the module the learner should have:
 crafted a discourse analysis paper of a relevant issue/ concern in English language

Module Content
A. Creating an oral or discourse analysis paper

Read

Written Discourse Analysis and its Application in English Language Teaching

Before we start the formal discussion on our last module for CGN-101- Stylistics and
Discourse Analysis, I would like to inform you that the text you will be reading is a research paper
done by the language researcher in UAE. This will be utilized by us as our springboard to analyzed
and understand how can we do a discourse analysis specifically for written text. Please do observe
how the researcher conducts it and there are various samples given for us to have a deeper
understanding on how to do a discourse analysis.

Introduction
Discourse analysis in terms of both spoken and written language is believed to be helpful for
both linguists and language teachers. It is simply “the study of language in use” (Gee & Handford,
2013:1). Written texts are considered an important aspect that needs to be analysed. Doing so
means that writers gain the ability to make their writing more cohesive and easier to read. Cohesion,
coherence, clause relations and text patterns are all parts of written texts.

This paper, therefore, aims to shed some light on the analysis of written texts. The paper
consists of three parts. In the first part, the literature regarding the meaning of texts and discourse
analysis is briefly reviewed. An illustration of cohesion and coherence is presented. After this,
grammatical and lexical devices and text patterns that help written texts to be understood are
presented and discussed. The rationale for choosing to analyse written texts is addressed. The
second part provides an analysis of several written texts, with a focus on the cohesion devices and
text patterns discussed in the first part. The third part offers some suggestions and an evaluation of
one of the written texts analysed in the second part, and suggests how to apply the analysed
discourse in the classroom in such a way as to help teach written texts.
 Passi City College
Passi City, Iloilo

SCHOOL OF TEACHER EDUCATION

Literature Review
If you are studying the relationship between language and the context it is utilised in, then you
are analysing the discourse. Discourse can be either written, such as in books, essays, newspapers,
magazines, road signs or invoices, or spoken, such as in conversations, verbal interactions and TV
programmes. Discourse analysts study language in either spoken or written use. According to Gee
and Handford (2013:5), the importance of discourse analysis “lies in the fact that, through speaking
and writing in the world, we make the world meaningful in certain ways and not in others”. Although
Coulthard (2014) makes a distinction between spoken discourse and written texts, this distinction is
by no means universally accepted. Recently, the scope of linguists has switched from analysing
single sentences to the distribution of linguistic elements in extended texts and the relationship
between texts and social situations. This paper’s focus will be devoted to written texts in order to
afford an understanding of how natural written discourse looks and sounds. This understanding will
boost the production of teaching materials (McCarthy, 1991). By taking the scope of this paper into
account, discussing written texts normally includes the consideration of cohesion, coherence and text
patterns. Thus, each aspect will be discussed in the following sections.

What do we mean by texts?

The term “text” refers to “a passage, either spoken or written, that does form a unified whole”
(Halliday & Hasan, 1976:1). In other words, a text is the ability to distinguish a particular sequence of
sentences, whether connected or not. It is also a semantic unit of meaning in the language. For
instance, Halliday and Hasan (1976) coined the term “ties”, which refers to a single instance of
cohesion. Such ties mean that written texts can be analysed by investigating the relationship
between cohesion and the organisation of written texts into sentences and paragraphs.

Failure to make writing fully understood, even on the part of advanced learners, due to either
the overuse of conjunctions or the inability to achieve cohesive texts, is a common problem among
non-native speakers of English (Basturkmen, 2002).

Cohesion and coherence

A text’s cohesion and coherence are pivotal. The more coherent a sequence of sentences, the better
they are understood (Todirascu et al., 2013). According to Bublitz (2011:37), cohesion and
coherence are “(linguistically encoded or just assumed) connectedness of spoken as well as written
discourse or text”. However, they are “descriptive categories which differ in kind”. In detail, cohesion
relates to “inter-sentential semantic relations” whereas coherence is a “kind of textual prosody”
(Bublitz (2011:37). Cohesive texts could be partly coherent (Grabe, 1984). Cohesion means the
relationship between meaning within a particular written text and the way the reader interprets
several elements in the discourse (Halliday & Hasan, 1976). According to Martin (2015), the term
“cohesion” is inspired by the work of Halliday (1964) and Hasan (1968).
Cohesion befalls through “the stratal organisation of language” (Halliday & Hasan, 1976:5). It
is the means through which ideas and content are linked and ordered (Basturkmen, 2002). In simple
terms, cohesion is explained by meaning, form and expression. By the same token, Grabe
(1984:110) states that it is “the means available in the surface forms of the text to signal relations that
hold between sentences or clausal units in the text”. Cohesion occurs “where the interpretation of
some element in the discourse is dependent on that of another”. Because cohesion is articulated
either through grammar or vocabulary, Halliday and Hasan (1976) divide it into grammatical and
lexical devices.
 Passi City College
Passi City, Iloilo

SCHOOL OF TEACHER EDUCATION

Cohesion Relations
There are five cohesive devices: reference; substitution; ellipsis; conjunction; and lexis. In this
section, four types of grammatical cohesion will be discussed in turn. After that, lexical cohesion will
be addressed.

Grammatical Cohesion
1. Reference
In any language, there are some items that refer to something else for their interpretation rather than
being interpreted on their own. This process is called “reference” in that the information is signalled
for retrieving the referential meaning. Reference can be personals (including pronouns - possessive
adjectives - possessive pronouns), demonstratives (verbal pointing) and comparatives (deictic or
non-deictic) that function as cohesive ties (Halliday & Hasan, 1976). For instance, “Three blind mice,
three blind mice. See how they run! See how they run!” is an example of personal reference, where
the pronoun they refer to three blind mice. An example of demonstrative reference is “Doctor Foster
went to Gloucester in a shower of rain. He stopped in a puddle right up to his middle and never went
there again”. There in this example refers to Gloucester. A comparative reference is ‘There were two
wrens upon a tree. Another came, and there were three”, where another refers to wrens (Halliday &
Hasan, 1976:31).

Reference could be established either with a textual endophoric within the text, such as “Doris
likes him very much” or with a situational exophoric outside the text, such as “Would you like to join
me for a cup of tea this afternoon?” (Bublitz, 2011). Endophora may be anaphoric or cataphoric. The
most important issue with reference and whether a word is endophoric or exophoric is that “the thing
referred to has to be identifiable somehow” (Halliday & Hasan, 1976:33).

2. Substitution
This cohesive relation is in contrast with the former (reference), in which reference is a
relation in terms of the meaning (semantic) while substitution is a relation in terms of the wording
(grammatical). In other words, this is a relationship between linguistic items. It is “the replacement of
one item by another” (Halliday & Hasan, 1976:88). Substitution is used instead of repeating a
particular item; for example, “My axe is too blunt. I must get a sharp one”, in which one is the
substitute for axe (Halliday and Hasan, 1976:88).

There are three types of substitution: nominal, verbal and clausal. The substitute of one, ones
or the same is a nominal substitution. For instance, “I have heard some strange stories in my time.
But this one was perhaps the strangest one of all”, where one is a substitute for stories (Halliday &
Hasan, 1976:92). The second type is the verbal substitution (do). For instance, “the words did not
come the same as they used to do”, where do is the substitute for come (Halliday & Hasan,
1976:112). The third type is the clausal (so - not). For example, “Is there going to be an earthquake?
– it says so”, where so presupposes the clause there is going to be an earthquake.

3. Ellipsis
Ellipsis is similar to substitution as it “can be interpreted as that form of substitution in which
the item is replaced by nothing” (Halliday & Hasan, 1976:88). Nevertheless, ellipsis and substitution
differ in terms of their structural mechanisms. It is substitution by zero, as it is not articulated or
written and something is left unsaid.
 Passi City College
Passi City, Iloilo

SCHOOL OF TEACHER EDUCATION

It is a presupposition at the level of words and structures (Halliday & Hasan, 1976). Just like
substitution, ellipses can be established within the nominal, verbal and clausal groups.

4. Conjunction
The fourth cohesive device is an anaphoric relationship as it expresses particular meanings
that presuppose the existence of another component in discourse. It is employed to connect clauses
using conjunctive relations whether addictive (and), adversative (yet), causal (so) or temporal (then)
(Halliday & Hasan, 1976).

Lexical Cohesion
In order to cover all types of cohesion relationships, this section will address lexical cohesion.
Lexical cohesion can be achieved through reiteration—that is, saying something again or multiple
times for the purpose of emphasis or clarity. Pedagogically speaking, it is the most common element
to be learned by language learners and taught by teachers. Consequently, it is a must for language
teachers. Yet McCarthy (1991) argues that it is negligent to consider lexical cohesion out of their
discourse. Although lexical cohesion play an important role in verbal interaction, they are mostly
abandoned in English description. Lexical cohesion includes repetition, synonym, near-synonym,
antonym, superordinate, general words and metonymy. For instance, “Henry’s bought himself a new
Jaguar. He practically lives in the car” (Halliday and Hasan, 1976:278); the word “car” refers to
“Jaguar”, which is the superordinate of Jaguar. However, Stotsky (1983) argues that Halliday and
Hasan (1976) do not provide a consistent reason for combining types of reiterated items together in
one category. This argument is not adequate because Halliday and Hasan declare that reiterated
items are linked via a common referent.
In addition, lexical cohesion can be achieved through collocation. Lewis and Conzett (2000)
define collocation as the words that are placed or found together in a predictable pattern. The
functions of general nouns are similar to reiteration. A lexical item is an open set, while a grammatical
item is a member of a closed system. For instance, in the following example, the cohesive function of
the general noun goes together with the reference “the” in “We all kept quiet. That seemed the best
move” (Halliday and Hasan, 1976:275).

Clause Relations and Text Patterns

It is worth noting that when we talk about grammatical and lexical cohesion, clause relations
and macro text patterns should be considered. One clause or sentence’s relation to another can be
interpreted through either matching relations or logical sequence relations (Winter, 1994).
Additionally, the most common macro patterns in a text are those that Hoey (2001) identifies as
follows:

1- Problem solution
2- General particular
3- Hypothetical real (claim-counterclaim pattern)

The problem solution pattern is the most common pattern (Hoey, 2001). Due to the limited
space in this paper, only problem solution patterns will be discussed in detail. This pattern includes
four functions: situation, problem, response and evaluation (SPRE). The first function should afford
 Passi City College
Passi City, Iloilo

SCHOOL OF TEACHER EDUCATION

background information. The second function raises a particular problem. The third function is to
provide a response (counterclaim) to the problem that has arisen.

Finally, an evaluation deals with whether the response to the problem is positive or negative.
If a negative evaluation is achieved, the pattern should be repeated until a positive evaluation (result)
is attained. An example of this pattern, which McCarthy (1991:30) mentions, is as follows:

“(1) Most people like to take a camera with them when they travel abroad. (2) But all airports
nowadays have x-ray security screening and x-rays can damage film. (3) One solution to this
problem is to purchase a specially designed lead-lined pouch. (4) These are cheap and can protect
film from all but the strongest x rays”.

The example above covers the four functions of a problem solution pattern. The first sentence
presents a particular situation; the second raises a problem; the third provides a response to the
problem raised; and the fourth sentence positively evaluates the proposed solution. They are the
‘situation, problem, response and evaluation pattern (SPRE)’.

To conclude this section, all the cohesion devices, clause relations and text patterns
mentioned above afford means for connecting the apparent text structure. As Grabe (1984:110)
notes, they “reflect both the communicative intents and choices by the authors”.

Reasons for choosing written discourse analysis

Written texts need to be properly connected and linked. Cohesion is the most important
property of writing quality. The author agrees with Witte and Faigley (1981:201) who state that, “if
cohesion is better understood, it can be better taught”. Nonetheless, cohesion is not employed in the
English language teaching (EFL) classrooms with which the author is familiar. Hence, teachers ought
to teach learners how to utilise cohesive devices (references, substitution, ellipsis and conjunctions)
and lexical ties (repetition, synonyms, antonyms and superordinates) both explicitly and implicitly
(Basturkmen, 2002). Most classroom exercises are not designed to teach cohesion but they do
demand that students form cohesive ties (Witte & Faigley, 1981). It has been argued that teaching
often concentrates on conjunctions rather than on any other cohesive device, such as lexical
cohesion (Liu, 2000). Some studies that have been conducted regarding the use of conjunctions in
written texts have revealed that non-native learners tend to use them more than they should.
Basturkmen (2002) examined the writing of two non-native advanced learners with a focus on the
use of conjunctions. She found that both students misused conjunctions. Therefore, the author would
argue that this dilemma could be resolved by teaching this aspect in the classroom. Neglecting this
issue will result in more fragmented texts.

Similar to cohesion devices, Basturkmen (2002) recommends that English language teachers
should make their students aware of typical clause relations and macro text patterns in English.
Needless to say, that problem solution is the most common pattern. It is important to ensure that
“questions spell out the relationship between sentences” (Hoey, 2001:123). Moreover, the dialogue
ought to be properly connected and meaningful.

The Analysis of Several Written Texts

Written discourse analysis is a growing field of study. It allows researchers to follow different
lines of investigation. Grabe (1984:101) states that the analysis of discourse involves “the study of
 Passi City College
Passi City, Iloilo

SCHOOL OF TEACHER EDUCATION

literary texts” and “the study of form-function relationships within language segments”. In other words,
it is the study of both oral and written language.

In this section, several written discourses will be presented and analysed. The analysis will
consider references in the first extract, conjunctions in the second, lexical cohesion in the third and
both references and problem solution macro patterns in the fourth extract.

1- “Hale knew, before he had been in Brighton three hours, that they meant to murder
him
… That, as it happens, is the opening of Brighton Rock, but turn up the opening lines
of the rest of his books and they won’t disappoint you. Graham Greene, who died yesterday,
rich in years and rich in honour, was first of all a storyteller…” (Thornbury, 1997:122).

2-In the above text, reference has been employed seven times. In the first line, “he”
refers
to Hale and “they” in the same line is a forward reference. “Him” in the second line
refers to Hale and “that” in the same line refers to the preceding sentence. In the third line,
“his” refers to Graham Greene, “they” refers to Greene’s books and “who” refers to Graham
Greene again. The use of these references helps the text to be more cohesive.

3-“These two forms of dissent coalesced in the demand for a stronger approach to the
Tory nostrum of tariff reform. In addition, trouble threatened from the mercurial figure of
Winston Churchill, who had resigned from the Shadow Cabinet in January 1931 in protest at
Baldwin's acceptance of eventual self-government for India”

The above extract contains two sentences. In line two, the second sentence starts with “in
addition” in order to link the second sentence to the first. This conjunction makes the whole extract
more cohesive.

4-“The clamour of complaint about teaching in higher education and, more especially,
about teaching methods in universities and technical colleges, serves to direct attention away
from the important reorientation which has recently begun. The complaints, of course, are not
unjustified. In dealing piece-meal with problems arising from rapidly developing subject
matter, many teachers have allowed courses to become over-crowded, or too specialized, or
they have presented students with a number of apparently unrelated courses failing to stress
common principles. Many, again, have not developed new teaching methods to deal
adequately with larger numbers of students, and the new audio- visual techniques tend to
remain in the province of relatively few enthusiasts despite their great potential for class and
individual teaching”
In this extract, the term “complaint” has been used twice. In the fourth line, “complaint” is
repeated again as it is the focus of the extract. The other phrase “teaching methods” has been used
as a collocation. This collocation has also been repeated. Also, the phrase “audio-visual techniques”
has been employed as a synonym for “teaching methods”.
5-“(1) Tony and Sheila’s first home was a terraced house, one of a line houses all
connected. (2) But several years later when they had a small child, they found it rather
 Passi City College
Passi City, Iloilo

SCHOOL OF TEACHER EDUCATION

cramped for three people. (3) They wanted something more spacious and so decided to move.
(4) They went to an estate agent and looked at details of the houses he had to offer.
(5) They looked at a semi-detached house (one of a pair attached to each other), liked
it, and asked a surveyor to inspect it for them.

(6) He said that it was in good condition and they therefore decided to buy it. (7)
Luckily, they sold their house quickly and soon a removals firm was taking all their furniture
and other possessions to their new home. (8) But already, after a couple of years, they are
hoping to move again. (9) Tony’s business is doing well and they want to get an architect to
design a modern, detached house for them, and a builder to build it” (Thomas, 1995:13).
6-In the above extract, as expected, references are the most cohesive devices
employed in
the passage. For instance, Tony and Sheila are referred to nine times by the pronoun
“they” as they are the focus of the passage. It is used in sentences two (twice), three, four,
five, six, seven, eight and nine. Likewise, “their” is used three times in sentence seven. The
first time this refers to their current house, the second time this refers to the furniture and the
third time this refers to the new home. “It” is used six times in sentence two, which refers to
the current house, in sentence five (twice) as a reference to the new house, in sentence six
(twice) referring to the new house and in sentence nine, which refers to their future house.
“Them” is used twice in sentences five and nine. “He” is used twice in sentences four and six
as a reference to the estate agent.
In addition to the reference cohesion device analyzed in the above passage, the text
pattern will be analyzed. The above passage is a good example of a problem solution pattern
(SPRE). The first sentence begins by providing a background to the situation. Then, a problem
is raised in the second sentence.
An outline of the problem, along with several recommendations, is presented before the
response. After that, a response is offered in the seventh sentence as a reaction to the problem
that was raised in the earlier sentences. A negative evaluation is achieved in the eighth
sentence, because Tony and Sheila want to move again.
This negative evaluation prompts a recycling of the pattern until they achieve a positive
evaluation in the ninth sentence, in that they are going to consult with an architect in order to
build another house.
 Passi City College
Passi City, Iloilo

SCHOOL OF TEACHER EDUCATION

The problem solution pattern in the text above, according to Hoey’s (2001) diagram, is as
follows:

Situation → Tony and Sheila live in a terraced

house
↓
Problem → The house becomes too small after
having a child
↓
Response → They sold their house and bought a new and
bigger house
↓
Evaluation (negative) → After several years, they wanted to move again to an even
bigger house
↓
Recycling the pattern because a negative result
was achieved
↓
Second response → They consulted an architect to design a bigger house for
them
↓
Second evaluation (positive) → Their architect should design a suitable house for their
needs
Figure 1: The problem solution pattern (SPRE).
 Passi City College
Passi City, Iloilo

SCHOOL OF TEACHER EDUCATION

Application of Written Texts in ELT (English Language Teaching)

It is believed that the main purpose of language teaching for students is the
understanding of the communicative value of linguistic items in a discourse (Nattinger &
DeCarrico, 2001; Candlin & Hyland, 2014). It has been argued that cohesion is an
indispensable part of written texts. Therefore, the reader’s knowledge, the writer’s aim and
the information delivered should all be considered and taken into account. Witte and Faigley
(1981) argue that clause and sentence structure are taught out of their discourse and out of
context. By the same token, Cook (1989) states that cohesion is almost mistreated in
language teaching. He argues that students’ difficulties arise from their difficulties with
cohesion. This negligence has resulted in cohesive problems for students. Cook (1989)
stresses that this mistreatment is due to a lack of awareness and, although it has been
considered recently, this issue has not been given much prominence in language pedagogy.
In addition to cohesion devices, clause relations and text patterns should also be analysed.
Writers should take readers into account when writing.
Although not everything that discourse analysis describes can be employed in
language teaching, teachers should have the ability to “create authentic materials and
activities for the classroom” (McCarthy, 1991:147). To do so, teachers should teach learners
how to make use of the cohesive devices and text patterns they encounter in written
discourse. By doing so, learners can identify references, synonyms and antonyms in reading
texts and can then make use of the devices. Moreover, task-based language teaching
activities are one of the teaching methods that can be employed to teach text patterns. In a
context that the author is familiar with, students always struggle with lexical cohesion and
text patterns. A course book entitled “Intermediate Vocabulary” has been employed to teach
novice undergraduate students. The book is split into topics that are familiar to students.
Each topic has several passages that include new vocabularies. Students are asked to read
these passages, which contain gaps, and discover new lexical items from a group of words
given above each passage. However, these exercises do not give any clue as to how to
make use of the context (the passage) that they are reading.
According to the author’s experience, students, due to a lack of knowledge, totally
neglect the context, which can be very informative. Teachers can teach students how to
analyse written discourse using cohesion devices and problem solution macro patterns to
help them thoroughly understand the passage. The fourth passage, which was presented
and analysed above, is an example of how one of the cohesive devices can be taught.
Moreover, the same text can also teach a problem solution macro pattern. One of the
implications of this is that “conformity to the pattern when writing is likely to make organising
and reading the text easier” (Hoey, 2001:167). Hoey (2001:123) believes that a problem
solution pattern (SPRE) can be presented in “a short fabricated text”. Therefore, a problem
solution macro pattern is proposed below to show how it can be taught in the classroom. To
do so, a task-based language-teaching (TBLT) lesson can be divided into six phases. The
rationale behind choosing a TBLT lesson is because it focuses on the meaning, the real
world process of language use and on communicative outcomes. These features of TBLT
seem suitable for teaching students the relationship between the language and the context
in which it is used (Ellis, 2003). The task can be a combination of reading and writing
practice through discourse analysis.

EVENZER A. DIOSANO, MILE P a g e | 10

CGN 101- Stylistics and Discourse Analysis Module No: 8
 Passi City College
Passi City, Iloilo

SCHOOL OF TEACHER EDUCATION

1st phase: The teacher encourages students by starting a discussion regarding
houses and how to buy one or when you might move from one house to another. This
discussion is in the form of brainstorming and acts as an introduction to the topic.
2nd phase: The teacher asks the students to skim or scan the whole passage with a
focus on the cohesion devices that they may encounter. A handout should be given to the
students containing the meaning of new words and further information about the topic.
3rd phase: The teacher asks the students to read the passage again carefully and
try to find any problems in the text that might arise regarding buying a house or moving to a
new house and if there is an answer to such problems.
4th phase: The teacher asks the students to analyse the text by explaining the
solution problem macro pattern (SPRE) and shows them Hoey’s diagram on the whiteboard.
5th phase: After the students have learned the SPRE pattern, the teacher asks them
to identify the parts of the pattern in the text as a practical part of the lesson and to make
sure they understand how the pattern works.
6th phase: Subsequently, students should move to the writing part where they are
asked to write a short passage about any topic they like. In their writing, students should
start with a particular situation with a problem that has to be solved. Then, a response
or solution should be provided. Finally, an evaluation of the proposed solution,
whether positive or negative, should be presented. If a negative evaluation is attained,
a repetition of the pattern should be implemented until a positive evaluation is
achieved.
The same task could be extended to the next lesson as a second part by focusing on
analyzing cohesion devices and the above phases can be repeated. By doing so, students
can revise the SPRE pattern together with learning certain cohesive devices (e.g.,
references).

Evaluation
This is an example of applying written discourse analysis to teaching written texts. In
doing so, teachers and learners can increase what to expect in reading texts and help
students learn how to write in a coherent way. One of this method’s merits is that it is a
ready-made template. However, it cannot be applied to every written text; it is “only part of
the answer to the question of how texts are organised” (Hoey, 2001:145). To conclude this
section, the author has not yet had the chance to apply this task. But, generally speaking,
most text patterns involving SPRE are very helpful for students when it comes to shaping
their writing and they help make students’ writing coherent and easily readable.

Conclusion
Due to its natural occurrence, written discourse analysis is a supportive function
when it comes to teaching languages. The goal of most learners of English is to gain the
ability to use the language either in spoken or written form; therefore, applying written
discourse analysis lessons in the classroom is very helpful. By doing so, learners will have
the ability to make their writing coherent and readable. Moreover, the analysis of text
patterns will help students in terms of both writing and reading in the ELT context. To
conclude, although written discourse analysis has some shortcomings, as mentioned above,
its merits and valuable outcomes are very appealing.

The Author
Ali Alsaawi is a PhD candidate in linguistics at Newcastle University, UK. Prior to
this, he used to work as a lecturer at Majmaah University in Saudi Arabia. His areas of

EVENZER A. DIOSANO, MILE P a g e | 11

CGN 101- Stylistics and Discourse Analysis Module No: 8
 Passi City College
Passi City, Iloilo

SCHOOL OF TEACHER EDUCATION

research interest include applied linguistics, second language acquisition, and
sociolinguistics and discourse analysis.

Evaluate

Test I-Reflective Essay

Direction: Write a reflective essay or a wrap up analysis of written discourse analysis and its
application in English Language Teaching. Reflect on how you will perform the analysis of
discourse and cite its implication as future English teacher.

Rubric for rating your reflective essay

Content---------------------------------------20 points
Organization--------------------------------15 points
Conventions----------------------------------15 points
_______________________________________
Total---------------------------------------------50 points

References
Basturkmen, H. (2002). Clause Relations and Macro Patterns: Cohesion, Coherence,
and the Writing of Advanced ESOL Students, English Teaching Forum, 40(1), 50-56.
Bublitz, W. (2011) 'Cohesion and coherence', Discursive Pragmatics, John
Benjamins Publishing Company, Amsterdam/Philadelphia, 37-49.
Candlin, C. N., & Hyland, K. (2014). Writing: Texts, processes and practices.
Routledge. Cook, G. (1989). Discourse in language teaching: A scheme for teacher
education.
Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Coulthard, M. (2014). An introduction to discourse analysis. Routledge.
Ellis, R. (2003) Task-based language learning and teaching. Oxford University Press.
Gee, J. P., & Handford, M. (2013). The Routledge handbook of discourse analysis.
Routledge. Grabe, W. (1984) Written discourse analysis, Annual review of applied
linguistics, 5, 101-123. Halliday, M.A. & Hasan, R. (1976) Cohesion in English.
Longman (London).

In the midst of chaos, remember you’re not alone. Trust HIM!

Break a leg!

EVENZER A. DIOSANO, MILE P a g e | 12

CGN 101- Stylistics and Discourse Analysis Module No: 8