2010 3 March 2010

33 2 Journal of Foreign Languages Vol.33 No.2

1004 5139201002 0035 09 H030 D

610031

A Review of the Research Paradigm of Corpus-based Discourse Analysis

L Changhong
School of Foreign LanguagesSouthwest Jiaotong UniversityChengdu 610031China

Abstract This paper reviews the research paradigm of corpus-based discourse analysiswhich is widely used abroad
but only occasionally at home. First the different understanding of the research paradigm is generalized and then its
research approaches to meaning and its possible perspectives on discourse analysis are summarized. Finallythe
multidimensional analysisone of the techniques of corpus-based discourse analysis is elaborated on. The paper holds
that the research paradigm not only reduces human bias to a significant extent and provides a more rigorous analytical
framework for researchers but also takes researchers beyond simple lists of frequencies by showing how the presence of
lexis or other linguistic features develops across a single text or a set of texts.
Key words discourse analysis corpus linguistics research paradigm multidimensional analysis

1.
20 50
Chomsky
31141 2.
2. 1


1

Swales37

text discourse

35
 Stubbs35


surface data 6511 concordance
co-text
23543
2 536
Widdowson 4022 micro
decontextualized Hunston2823 context word span

concordance line evaluative connotations 35 156
3 157
Borsley Ingham17
inter-textual
368 9 relations

2. 2 syntagmatic co-
text paradigmatic
inter-text
1 tagging system
35152157

24325
Flowerdew24326 327 Tognini Bonelli Manca
stretches of text


Thompson38 Upton39

130


1384

embedded move structure


WinMax

24327

2

36
 semantic field semantic prosody

33170

CAST
4273
3
empirical semantics

35163 496
meaning is use
Ludwig V + N
Wittgenstein 43


41
167 4236

co- M. Hoey
Stubbs35
occur

Hoey1171 194

35163
/

I-language

Borsley Ingham17

E-language

semantic
preference
3.
Hoey


association patterns CAST Corpus Analysis and Statistic Tools

02BYY016
2003
use
usage
1516


collocation colligation

37
 lexical priming 4.
textual priming
1
26 27 1

lexical field

42170
key words Biber et al. 16
key key words that
mapping Stubbs 34

21
1 195 211
7880 Hasselgard
clumping 32 it-cleft


1 27
2
42174 H. Dyvik
1311 326

semilattice
Biber et al. 14
6
129 /
connotation /
21 anaphoric exophoric
80 inferable
4 87 antecedent
Gmez-Gonzlez25 Green et
al.262181 82
3


semantic groupings 42 38
multidimensional analysis 2183
34 176
4

38
 1
fragmented sentence structure

you know
have toneed tobe able to wh-

Burges18 attributive
adjective
extraposed construction it is
Biber et al. 14 possible that ...
2184 85 2
813 14
5. 15
Biber 1985 145
1988

5. 1

1
false start
parameter thing real-time production
275 constraints
Biber et al. 15143 144
15
register 147
3


2754
5. 2

1
What you
d have to doyou knowyou tell
d be able to tell
him what you need to knowhe
you how to do it.
2 patterns of
As has been repeatedly showncultural evolution groups of features
is not a unilinear processand it is possible that under
certain conditions a simpler social formation may dimension
emerge out of a more complex one. continua 20 305

39
 2
index
1523 Biber et al. 15169

5. 3

1

15145
2
15146 3
3
factor analysis 1523
2184
15146 4
1523
4 factor loading
dimension score
15151 15170
5 5. 5
1
20 305 Biber
8Kim Biber29Leech30 Conrad
15 Biber22
145149 2
Biber8Connor-Linton19Biber
interpretive label narrative versus Finegan 11 Atkinson 23 Biber
non-narrative concernsexplicit versus situation- Finegan12
dependent reference

22305
3
15151 amount of variability
5. 4 specialized subvarieties 21
84
1
1523 Conrad Biber

22 60

factor
2183 Biber et al. 15278 280

40
 4 21 2 AtkinsonD. The evolution of medical research
84 Biber et al. 15 writing from 1735 to 1985 the case of the Edin-
Atkinson225 65 burgh Medical JournalJ. Applied Linguistics

Connor-Linton Shohamy22124 137 199213 337 374.

3 AtkinsonD. A Historical Discourse Analysis of
validation Conrad22
Scientific Research Writing from 1675 to 1975
94 107Reppen
The Case of the Philosophical Transactions of the
22187 199
Royal Society of LondonD. Unpublished doc-
Rey22 138 156 Star
toral dissertationUniversity of Southern Califor-
Trek Helt22171
nia1993.
183 4 BakerP. Using Corpora in Discourse Analysis
M. London New York Continuum2006.
6. 5 BaldryA. Multimodality and Multimediality in
the Distance Learning Age M . Campobasso
Palladino2000.
6 BeaugrandeR. D. The pragmaticsof doing lan-
guage science the warrantfor large-corpus lin-
199625
guisticsJ. Journal of Pragmatics

503 535.
7 BiberD. Investigating macroscopic textual variation

through multifunctional / multidimensional analyses

J. Linguistics198523 337 360.

8 BiberD. Variation across Speech and WritingM.

1
Cambridge Cambridge University Press1988.

9 BiberD. Oral and literate characteristics of se-

lected primary school reading materialJ. Text
199111 73 96.
4175 10 BiberD. Dimensions of Register Variation A
Cross-linguistic Comparison M . Cambridge
CUP1995.
11BiberD. E. Finegan. Drift and the evolution of
418 English style a history of three genres J .
2

hegemonic

discourse

419

1 AijmerK. B. Altenberg. Advances in Corpus

LinguisticsC. Beijing World Book Publishing
Company2009. 15223

41
 Language198965 487 517.
12 BiberD. E. Finegan. Intra-textual variation
within medical research articlesA. N. Oostdijk
P. de Haan. Corpus-based Research into Lan-
guageC. Amsterdam Rodopi1994. 201
221.
13BiberD. S. Conrad. Lexical bundles in conver-
sation and academic proseA. H. Hasselgard
S. Oksefjell. Out of Corpora Studies in Honour of
Stig JohanssonC. Amsterdam Rodopi1999.
182 190.
14BiberD.S. Conrad R. Reppen. Corpus Lin-
guistics Investigating Language Structure and
Use M . Cambridge Cambridge University
Press1998.
15BiberD.S. Conrad R. Reppen. Corpus Lin-
guisticsM. Beijing Foreign Language Teach-
ing and Research Press. Cambridge Cambridge
University Press2000.
16BiberD.S. JohanssonG. LeechS. Conrad
E. Finegan. Longman Grammar of Spoken and
Written EnglishM . HarlowEssex Pearson
Education1999.
17BorsleyR. D. R. Ingham. Grow your own lin-
guistics On some applied linguistsviews of the
subjectJ. Lingua20011121 1 6.
18 BurgesJ. Hierarchical Influences on Language
Use in MemosD. Unpublished doctoral disser-
tation. FlagstaffAZ Northern Arizona Universi-
ty1996.
19Connor-LintonJ. Author
s style and world-view
in nuclear discourse a quantitative analysisJ.
Multilingua19887 95 132.
20ConradS. Investigating academic texts with cor-
pus-based techniques an example from biology
J . Linguistics and Education1996 8
299 326.
21ConradS. Corpus linguistic approaches for dis-
course analysisA . Annual Review of Applied
Linguistics200222 75 95.
22 ConradS. D. Biber. Variation in English
Multi-dimensional StudiesC . HarlowEssex
Longman2001.
42
23FlowerdewL. Corpus linguistic techniques ap-
plied to textlinguisticsJ. System199826
541 552.
24FlowerdewL. An integration of corpus-based and
genre-based approaches to text analysis in EAP /
ESP countering criticisms against corpus-based
methodologiesJ. English for Specific Purposes
200524 321 332.
25Gmez-GonzlezM. A. A corpus-based analysis
of extended multiple themes in PresEJ. Inter-
national Journal of Corpus Linguistics1998
3 81 113.
26GreenC. F.E. R. Christopher J. L. K. Kam
Mei. The incidence and effects on coherence of
marked themes in interlanguage texts a corpus-
based enquiryJ. English for Specific Purposes
200019 99 113.
27HaichourH. A Corpus Linguistic Analysis of Eng-
lish and Arabic Parallel Business Discourse Do-
mainsD . Unpublished doctoral dissertation
Georgetown University1999.
28HunstonS. Corpora in Applied LinguisticsM.
Cambridge Cambridge University Press2002.
29KimY. D. Biber. A corpus-based analysis of
register variation in KoreanA. D. Biber E.
Finegan. Sociolinguistic Perspectives on Register
C. New York Oxford University Press1994.
157 181.
30LeechG. The distribution and function of vaca-
tives in American and British English conversa-
S. Oksefjell. Out of
tionA. H. Hasselgard
Corpora Studies in Honour of Stig Johansson
C. Amsterdam Rodopi1999. 107 118.
31MeyerC. F. English Corpus Linguistics An In-
troductionM. Cambridge Cambridge Universi-
ty Press2002.
32ScottM. PC analysis of key words and key key
wordsJ. System1997252 233 245.
33 Sinclair J. Corpus Concordance Collocation
M. Oxford Oxford University Press1991.
34 StubbsM. Text and Corpus AnalysisM. Ox-
ford Blackwell Publisher1996.
35StubbsM. Textscorporaand problems of in-
 terpretation a response to WiddowsonJ. Ap- 40WiddowsonH. G. On the limitations of linguis-
plied Linguistics2001222 149 172. tics appliedJ . Applied Linguistics200021
36StubbsM. On text and corpus analysis a reply to 1 3 25.
Borsley and InghamJ. Lingua2002112 7 11. 41. M.
37SwalesJ. M. Integrated and fragmented worlds 2003.
EAP materials and corpus linguistics A . J. 42.
Flowerdew. Academic Discourse C . London M. 2005.
LongmanPearson Education2002. 150 164.
38ThompsonP. Citation practices in PHD theses
A . L. Burnard and T. McEnery. Rethinking 08JA740037
Language Pedagogy from a Corpus Perspective SCWY08 03
C. Frankfurt am main Peter Lang Publishers
2000. 91 101. 2009 08 12
39UptonT. Understanding direct mail letters as a 1964



genreJ. International Journal of Corpus Lin-


guistics200271 65 85.

12


12 2010 11 12 14
M. A. K. HallidayRuqaiya HasanRobin FawcettJames MartinChristian Matthiessen
JohnathanWebsterWendy Bowcher

1
2 3 4
5 6 7
8 9
10
2010 6 30
300 A4 8
700 350
15201918354
13917914647
da1012@ 126. com
1239 200092

12

43