Profil Experts of Dougles Biber

Prof. Douglas Biber

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Curriculum Vite

Douglas Biber is currently Regents’ Professor in the Applied Linguistics Program (English Department) at Northern Arizona University.  He received his Ph.D. in Linguistics from the University of Southern California in 1984, and was awarded an Honorary Ph.D. from the University of Uppsala in 2000.  Since 1990, he has spent time as a visiting professor at numerous universities around the world, including the Universities of Copenhagen, Hamburg, Zurich, Helsinki, Uppsala, Bergen, Stockholm, Temple University Japan, Universidad Católica de Valparaíso (Chile), Michigan State University (LSA Summer Institute), and the Norwegian Academy of Arts and Sciences.
Biber has published 11 authored and co-authored books, with Cambridge University Press, Oxford University Press, Longman, and John Benjamins.  In addition, he has published 5 edited books and monographs, and over 150 journal articles and book chapters.  These studies have addressed a wide range of issues in corpus linguistics, English grammar, and register variation (in English and cross-linguistic; synchronic and diachronic).  Research articles have appeared in numerous research journals, including Corpora, Corpus Linguistics and Linguistic Theory, Applied Linguistics, Journal of Historical Pragmatics, Journal of English Linguistics, Discourse Studies, International Journal of Corpus Linguistics, Text, Literary and Linguistic Computing, Computational Linguistics, Language Variation and Change, Discourse Processes, Linguistics, Language, and American Speech.

 Education

B.S.      1974                The Pennsylvania State University:  Geophysics
M.A.     1977                The University of Texas at Arlington:  Linguistics
M.A.     1982                University of Southern California:  Linguistics
Ph.D.    1984                University of Southern California:  Linguistics
         

Professional Experience

1990-present                :      Regents' Professor, Applied Linguistics             Program, English                                     Department, Northern Arizona University  
                                          (Regents' Professor since 2000)

1984-1990                :   Assistant Professor, Department of Linguistics, University of Southern California
                                      (joint appointment with Speech Science and Technology from 1984-1986)

1983-1984                 :  Programmer/Consultant,  Academic Computing Services, University of Southern California

1981-1983               :    Assistant Lecturer, Freshman Writing Program, U.S.C.

1978-1980               :    Project Coordinator,  Somali Literacy Project


Honorary Degrees, Awards and Fellowships

2000                    :       Honorary Ph.D. degree; Uppsala University, Sweden

2008                      :     Research fellowship; Freiburg Institute for Advanced Studies, University of Freiburg, Germany

2009                      :     Ian Gordon Fellowship, Victoria University Wellington, New Zealand

 2014                     :     John Trim Award; Language Testing Research Colloquium

November 2012	Visiting Professor, Langnet Program, University of Tampere, Finland
Nov-Dec 2010	Visiting Professor, Linguistics Department, King Mongkut's University of Technology Thonburi    (KMUTT),  Bangkok, Thailand
Summer 2003	Visiting Professor, Linguistic Society of America, Michigan State University
April-May 2009	Ian Gordon Fellow, Victoria University Wellington, New Zealand
Nov-Dec 2008	Research Fellow, FRIAS, (Freiburg Institute for Advanced Studies) University of Freiburg, Germany
April 2008	Visiting Professor, Graduate School, University of Copenhagen, Denmark
Spring 2004	Distinguished Lecturer, School of Education, Temple University Japan, Tokyo and Osaka
Winter 2004	Visiting Professor, Linguistics Department, Universidad Católica de Valparaíso, Chile
Fall 2003	Guest Researcher, Research Centre on Multilingualism, University of Hamburg, Germany

FRIAS-Projekt

Developement of Statistical Models for the Description of Linguistic Variation.

I will be working on two general research topics during my stay at the Institute. The first concerns the patterns of grammatical/discourse complexity in English texts and registers. This project has both empirical and theoretical components. The empirical component is focused on documenting the differing ways in which grammatical features are distributed and used in different registers, providing corpus evidence to support the general claim that different registers rely on dramatically different kinds of grammatical complexity. The theoretical component is focused on developing a framework for the measurement and description of grammatical/discourse complexity which could be applied in studies of language development or textual analysis.

The second general research topic is focused on the corpus study of formulaic language, considering the range of expressions and formulaic patterns that are commonly used in a register. For example, the study will apply quantittative methods to determine the extent to which a frequent lexical sequence is fixed or variable, and the extent to which various lexical frames are fixed or variable. Some of the underlying research questions of this project are: to what extent is discourse in English formulaic? to what extent is discourse from particular registers (e.g., conversation or academic writing) formulaic? is discourse in all languages equally formulaic? if not, what are the differences, and how can they be accounted for?

Profil Expert of Discourse Analysis

 Douglas Biber

 

Douglas Biber is Regents’ Professor of English (Applied Linguistics) at Northern Arizona University. His research efforts have focused on corpus linguistics, English grammar, and register variation (in English and cross-linguistic; synchronic and diachronic).
His publications include three books published by Cambridge University
Press (Variation Across Speech and Writing, 1988; Dimensions of Register Variation: A Crosslinguistic Comparison, 1995; and Corpus Linguistics: Investigating Language Structure and Use, 1998, with Susan Conrad and Randi Reppen) and most recently the co-authored
Longman Grammar of Spoken and Written English (1999). douglas.biber@nau.edu

 

Elizabeth Couper-Kuhlen

 Elizabeth Couper-Kuhlen is Professor of English Linguistics in the Department of Linguistics at the University of Konstanz, Germany. Her research interests include language use in interaction, prosody and conversation, and clause combining in spoken discourse. Among her major publications are English Speech Rhythm: Form and Function
in Everyday Verbal Interaction (Benjamins, 1993); Language in Time: The Rhythm and Tempo of Spoken Interaction (co-authored with Peter Auer and Frank Müller; Oxford University Press, 1999); Prosody in Conversation: Interactional Studies (co-edited with
Margret Selting; Cambridge University Press, 1996); Cause,Condition, Concession, Contrast:
Cognitive and Discourse Perspectives (co-edited with Bernd Kortmann; Mouton,2000); and Studies in Interactional Linguistics (co-edited with Margret Selting; Benjamins,
in press). Elizabeth.Couper@uni-konstanz.de

conversation analysis

Conversation analysis (commonly abbreviated as CA) is an approach to the study of social interaction, embracing both verbal and non-verbal conduct, in situations of everyday life. As its name implies, CA began with a focus on casual conversation, but its methods were subsequently adapted to embrace more task- and institution-centered interactions, such as those occurring in doctors' offices, courts, law enforcement, helplines, educational settings, and the mass media. As a consequence, the term 'conversation analysis' has become something of a misnomer, but it has continued as a term for a distinctive and successful approach to the analysis of social interactions.

Paul ten Have©, University of Amsterdam

On December 1st, 2002, I retired as a part-time Associate Professor in the Department of Sociology and Antropology, Faculty of Social  and Behavioural Sciences, University of Amsterdam.  I was also a staff member of the Dutch Graduate School in Science & Technology Studies: Science, Technology and Modern Culture.

Interests

My research interests can be indicated by the concepts of ethnomethodology, conversation analysis, medical interaction, technology and research practices. I have a long-standing interest in qualitative research methods, as evident in most of my teaching, a number of publications, and some of my research. My general orientation has been shaped mostly by ethnomethodology, which I most often apply in the form of Conversation Analysis. Since the late 1970's, I have done research on doctor-patient interaction in the context of the general practice consultation, i.e. in general medicine. Or, to say it a bit differently, I have studied the local order of the consultation as a collaborative achievement of the parties concerned. For the last 15 years or so, I have also developed an interest in the study of local practices involving various kinds of technology, such as ICT as in word processing or web page design. For these studies I have mostly used a variety of 'reflexive methods', i.e. my personal experiences with such technologies in doing various kinds of tasks. Recently, I have turned my ethnomethodological eye (and ear) to one of my leisure persuits, burding (seen my last publication in my selective bibliography).

Publications

 Bibliography

A selective bibliography of my publications in English and German is available.

 Books

I have written two books in Dutch, on field research (1977) and GP consultations (1987) respectively, and two in English, Doing Conversation Analysis: A Practical Guide (SAGE Publications, 1999; Second edition, 2007) and Understanding qualitative research and ethnomethodology (SAGE Publications, 2004). I have also co-edited two collections of papers in Dutch, one on medical technology (1994) and one on qualitative medical sociology (1997), and two in English. The first was a book edited with George Psathas: Situated Order: Studies in the social organization of talk and embodied activities.  This is a collection of papers, originally presented at the conference on "Current Work in Ethnomethodology and Conversation Analysis" which I co-organized at the University of Amsterdam in 1991. It is, of course, strongly recommended. The second was a  special issue of Discourse Studies (vol. 6, issue 1; February 2004) on the theme of 'scripted practices', in honour of the late Hanneke Houtkoop-Steenstra.

definition of discourse analysis

WHAT IS DISCOURSE?

 Discourse

“Discourse is language-in-action, and investigating it requires attention both to language and to action.“ (Hanks, 1996)

“Wacana adalah bahasa dalam tindakan, dan untuk meneliti hal itu membutuhkan perhatian yang dalam, baik dari aspek untuk berbahasa dan maupun aspek untuk pertindak.” (Hanks, 1996)

• "Discourse in context may consist of only one or two words as in stop or no smoking. Alternatively, a piece of discourse can be hundreds of thousands of words in length, as some novels are. A typical piece of discourse is somewhere between these two extremes."
  (Eli Hinkel and Sandra Fotos, New Perspectives on Grammar Teaching in Second Language Classrooms. Lawrence Erlbaum, 2002)
• "Discourse is the way in which language is used socially to convey broad historical meanings. It is language identified by the social conditions of its use, by who is using it and under what conditions. Language can never be 'neutral' because it bridges our personal and social worlds."
  (Frances Henry and Carol Tator, Discourses of Domination. University of Toronto Press, 2002)

• "Discourse can also be used to refer to particular contexts of language use, and in this sense it becomes similar to concepts like genre or text type. For example, we can conceptualize political discourse (the sort of language used in political contexts) or media discourse (language used in the media). In addition, some writers have conceived of discourse as related to particular topics, such as an environmental discourse or colonial discourse (which may occur in many different genres). Such labels sometimes suggest a particular attitude towards a topic (e.g. people engaging in environmental discourse would generally be expected to be concerned with protecting the environment rather than wasting resources. Related to this, Foucault (1972: 49) defines discourse more ideologically as 'practices which systematically form the objects of which they speak.'"
  (Paul Baker and Sibonile Ellece, Key Terms in Discourse Analysis. Continuum, 2011)

• Discourse
  "'Discourse' is sometimes used in contrast with 'text,' where 'text' refers to actual written or spoken data, and 'discourse' refers to the whole act of communication involving production and comprehension, not necessarily entirely verbal. . . . The study of discourse, then, can involve matters like context, background information or knowledge shared between a speaker and hearer."
  (Meriel Bloor and Thomas Bloor, The Practice of Critical Discourse Analysis: an Introduction. Routledge, 2013)

branches of discourse analysis

Markers and cohesion

 
Halliday and Hasan’s (1976) seminal work on cohesion in English provided an important
framework for analyzing text by addressing a basic question stemming from
the very inception of discourse analysis: what makes a text different from a random
collection of unrelated sentences? Although Halliday and Hasan did not speak directly
of discourse markers, their analysis of cohesion (based primarily on written texts)
included words (e.g. and, but, because, I mean, by the way, to sum up) that have since
been called markers and suggested functions for those words partially paralleling
those of markers.
Halliday and Hasan propose that a set of cohesive devices (reference, repetition,
substitution, ellipsis, and conjunction) help create a text by indicating semantic relations
in an underlying structure of ideas (see Martin, this volume). A range of expressions
(including, but not limited to, conjunctions) conveys conjunctive relations. Whereas
most cohesive features establish cohesion through anaphoric or cataphoric ties to the
text, conjunctive items “express certain meanings which presuppose the presence of
other components in the discourse” (Halliday and Hasan 1976: 236).
The meanings conveyed by conjunctive items are relatively straightforward:
additive, adversative, causal, and temporal. Within these general meanings, however,
are specific subtypes: a causal relation, for example, includes general causal (with

simple and emphatic subtypes), and specific causal (with reason, result, and purpose
subtypes). Each (sub)type of cohesive meaning can be conveyed through a variety of
words: a general causal simple conjunctive relation, for example, can be conveyed
through so, then, hence, and therefore. Multiplicity is found not just in a function (e.g.
causal relation) → form (e.g. so, hence) direction, but also in a form → function
direction. Thus a single word [form] can convey more than one conjunctive relation
[function]: then, for example, can convey temporal, causal, and conditional relations,
between clauses (cf. Biq 1990; Hansen 1997; Schiffrin 1992).
Whereas many analyses of conjunctions argue for either a simple semantic interpretation
or a set of polysemous meanings (e.g. Posner 1980), Halliday and Hasan
allow variation in the degree to which meaning results from the semantics of a
word itself or from the propositions in a text. For example, although and is a texturecreating
device that can contribute an additive meaning, its meaning can also reflect
the semantic content of a text: thus, if and prefaces an upcoming proposition whose
meaning contrasts with that of a prior proposition, and would then convey an
adversative relation (comparable to but and on the other hand).
Just as contributions to meaning can vary in source – word meaning and/or propositions
– so too, meanings can fluctuate between “external” and “internal” sources.
External meaning is “inherent in the phenomena that language is used to talk
about” (Halliday and Hasan 1976: 241); it is roughly analogous to referential meaning
and the domain of semantics. Internal meaning is nonreferential pragmatic meaning:
it is “inherent in the communicative process” (1976: 241), e.g. the speaker’s choice
of speech role, rhetorical channel, attitude (1976: 240). Rather than separate external
and internal meanings, however, Halliday and Hasan posit a continuity. The additive
meaning of and, for example, may be viewed “as an extension of the underlying
patterns of conjunction into the communication situation itself, treating it, and thereby
also the text . . . as having by analogy the same structure as ‘reality’” (1976: 267).
Although meaning can be reshuffled – between word and propositions, between
internal and external sources – the boundary between sentence and text is less permeable.
The systemic-functional grammar in which Halliday and Hasan’s analysis is
located draws a sharp distinction between sentence and text: thus, the structural role
of words like and (to coordinate clauses at a sentential level) is qualitatively different
from its cohesive role (to mark interpretive dependencies between propositions, and
thus create texture).

Markers and pragmatics

 
Like the work reviewed thus far, Fraser’s (1990, 1998) perspective on discourse markers
is embedded within a larger framework that impacts upon the analysis of markers.
In contrast to Halliday and Hasan – whose main interest was the cohesion of text
– Fraser’s theoretical framework concerns the meaning of sentences, specifically how
one type of pragmatic marker in a sentence may relate the message conveyed by that
sentence to the message of a prior sentence. And in contrast to my approach in Schiffrin
(1987a) – whose starting point was to account for the use and distribution of markers
in everyday discourse – Fraser’s starting point is the classification of types of pragmatic
meaning, and within that classification, the description of how some pragmatic
commentary markers (discourse markers) dictate an interpretation of “the message
conveyed by S2 [S = segment] vis-a-vis the interpretation of S1” (Fraser 1998: 302).
Fraser’s framework depends upon a differentiation between content and pragmatic
meaning. Content meaning is referential meaning: “a more or less explicit representation
of some state of the world that the speaker intends to bring to the hearer’s

attention by means of the literal interpretation of the sentence” (1990: 385). Pragmatic
meaning concerns the speaker’s communicative intention, the direct (not implied)
“message the speaker intends to convey in uttering the sentence” (1990: 386). It is conveyed
by three different sets of pragmatic markers: basic pragmatic markers (signals
of illocutionary force, e.g. please), commentary pragmatic markers (encoding of another
message that comments on the basic message, e.g. frankly), and parallel pragmatic
markers (encoding of another message separate from the basic and/or commentary
message, e.g. damn, vocatives). Discourse markers are one type of commentary pragmatic
marker: they are “a class of expressions, each of which signals how the speaker
intends the basic message that follows to relate to the prior discourse” (1990: 387).
Fraser’s more recent work (1998) builds upon the sequential function of discourse
markers, such that discourse markers necessarily specify (i.e. provide commentary on)
a relationship between two segments of discourse: this specification is not conceptual,
but procedural (it provides information on the interpretation of messages; see also
Ariel 1998).
As suggested earlier, Fraser’s framework presumes a strict separation between
semantics (his content meaning) and pragmatics (his pragmatic meaning): speakers’
use of commentary pragmatic markers – including, critically, discourse markers – has
nothing to do with the content meaning of the words (cf. Halliday and Hasan 1976;
Schiffrin 1987a; see also Norrick, this volume). Similarly, although discourse markers
may be homophonous with, as well as historically related to, other forms, they do not
function in sentential and textual roles simultaneously: “when an expression functions
as a discourse marker, that is its exclusive function in the sentence” (1990: 189).
One consequence of these disjunctive relationships is that multiple functions of
markers – including, critically, social interactional functions – are downplayed (if noted
at all) and not open to linguistic explanation. What some scholars (e.g. Ariel 1998;
Halliday and Hasan 1976; Schiffrin 1987a, 1992; Maschler 1998; Schwenter 1996) suggest
is an interdependence (sometimes clear, sometimes subtle) between content and
pragmatic meaning – explained by well-known processes such as semantic bleaching
(Bolinger 1977) or metaphorical extensions from a “source domain” (Sweetser 1990)
– becomes, instead, a matter of chance (e.g. homophony). Likewise, what scholars
working on grammaticalization (Brinton, this volume; Traugott 1995) and particularly
pragmaticization (e.g. Fleischman 1999; Onodera 1992, 1995) have found to be
gradual changes in form/function relationships would have to be viewed, instead, as
a series of categorical and functional leaps across mutually exclusive classes of form
and meaning.
Fraser’s classification of types of pragmatic meaning also has the important effect
of redefining the set of expressions often considered as markers. Different markers are
excluded for different reasons: whereas oh, for example, is considered akin to a separate
sentence, because is viewed as a content formative or an interjection, and y’know is
identified as a parallel pragmatic marker. These classifications create sets that end up
containing tremendous internal variation. The large and varied group of interjections
(Fraser 1990: 391), for example, includes not only oh, but also ah, aha, ouch, yuk (what
Goffman 1978 has called response cries), uh-huh, yeah (what Yngve 1970 calls back
channels and Schegloff 1981 calls turn-continuers), hey (a summons, see DuBois 1989),
and because (which is an interjection when it stands alone as an answer (Fraser 1990:
392), and elsewhere a content formative (but see Schlepegrell 1991; Stenstrom 1998)).

Slide Share Semantics

http://www.slideshare.net/dasridarwis/semantics-dasri-63326523 

  as a Lecturer

 as a Student

Idiom

 

Idiom Definition

The term refers to a set expression or a phrase comprising two or more words. An interesting fact regarding the device is that the expression is not interpreted literally. The phrase is understood as to mean something quite different from what individual words of the phrase would imply. Alternatively, it can be said that the phrase is interpreted in a figurative sense. Further, idioms vary in different cultures and countries.

Idiom Examples

Example #1

“Every cloud has its silver lining but it is sometimes a little difficult to get it to the mint.”

The statement quoted above uses “silver lining” as an idiom which means some auspicious moment is lurking behind the cloud or the difficult time.

Example #2

“American idioms drive me up the hall!”

Here, the word “idioms” is used as an idiom.

Example #3

“I worked the graveyard shift with old people, which was really demoralizing, because the old people didn’t have a chance in hell of ever getting out.”

In the extract quoted above, “graveyard shift” is employed as an idiom.

Example #4

Kirk: If we play our cards right, we may be able to find out when those whales are being released.
Spock: How will playing cards help?
(Captain James T. Kirk and Spock in Star Trek IV: The Voyage Home, 1986)

Here, “if we play our cards right” means “if we avail our opportunities rightly”.

Example #5

“Shakespeare is credited with coining more than 2,000 words, infusing thousands more existing ones with electrifying new meanings and forging idioms that would last for centuries. ‘A fool’s paradise,’ ‘at one fell swoop,’ ‘heart’s content,’ ‘in a pickle,’ ‘send him packing,’ ‘too much of a good thing,’ ‘the game is up,’ ‘good riddance,’ ‘love is blind,’ and ‘a sorry sight,’ to name a few. (David Wolman, Righting the Mother Tongue: From Olde English to Email, the Tangled Story of English Spelling. Harper, 2010.)

This passage highlights the collection of idioms used by Shakespeare in his works and these idioms are now used in everyday writing.

Example #6

“Idioms vary in ‘transparency’: that is, whether their meaning can be derived from the literal meanings of the individual words. For example, make up [one’s] mind is rather transparent in suggesting the meaning ‘reach a decision,’ while kick the bucket is far from transparent in representing the meaning ‘die.’” (Douglas Biber et al., Longman Student Grammar of Spoken and Written English. Pearson, 2002)

The extract quoted above explains that idioms vary in their degree of transparency that is the extent to which an idiom reveals its true meaning varies.

Example #7

“Modal idioms are idiosyncratic verbal formations which consist of more than one word and which have modal meanings that are not predictable from the constituent parts (compare the non-modal idioms kick the bucket). Under this heading we include have got [to], had better/best, would rather/sooner/as soon, and be [to].”

The extract quoted above highlights the use and significance of modal idioms.

Functions of Idiom

Writers and public speakers use idioms generously. The purpose behind this vast use of idioms is to ornate their language, make it richer and spicier and help them in conveying subtle meanings to their intended audience.
Not only do idioms help in making the language beautiful, they also make things better or worse through making the expression good or bad. For example, there are several idioms that convey the death of a person in highly subtle meanings and some do the same in very offensive terms. They are also said to be exact and more correct than the literal words and sometimes a few words are enough to replace a full sentence. They help the writer make his sense clearer than it is, so that he could convey maximum meanings through minimum words and also keep the multiplicity of the meanings in the text intact.
It has also been seen that idioms not only convey subtle meanings but also convey a phenomenon that is not being conveyed through normal and everyday language and also they keep the balance in the communication. Furthermore, they provide textual coherence, so that the reader could be able to piece together a text that he has gone through and extract meanings the writer has conveyed