Graduate School of Humanities Department of Languages and Literature Western Literature Field
English Linguistics & Literature Speciality
(Credit 2)
選択科目
Intended Year:
Intended School:
英語学特殊研究 III
English Linguistics Special Studies (Seminar III)
Sub Title  A Discourse/Usage-Based Approach to Grammar
外国人教師 Edmundo Cruz LUNA
Numbering Code:
Course Code:
2019 SpringTerm
weekly Wed4
Ito B-106 Classroom
E科目 (English, English)
Course Overview This course is designed to introduce graduate-level students to "discourse" or "usage-based" approaches of grammatical analysis – in other words, analytical approaches which strikingly contrast with typically Chomskyan/generativist models. We will discuss several readings which take a particular aspect of grammar and consider it from different cognitivist perspectives. Some of the topics that will be covered in this course include emergent grammar (lexicon and syntax), Construction Grammar (after Goldberg 1995), Preferred Argument Structure, and Information Flow.
Keywords : emergent grammar, construction grammar, preferred argument structure, information flow
Prerequisites :
Required Ability :
Course Plan Textbooks : No textbooks will be used for this course; instead, a packet of readings will be made available.
Reference Books : Readings will come from the following:

Bybee, Joan. 1998. The emergent lexicon. CLS 34: The panels, 421-435. Chicago Linguistics Society.

Chafe, Wallace. 1987. Cognitive constraints on information flow. In Russell S. Tomlin (ed.), Coherence and grounding in discourse, 21-51. Amsterdam; Philadelphia: John Benjamins.

Cumming, Susanna and Tsuyoshi Ono. 1997. Discourse and grammar. In Teun A. van Dijk (ed.), Discourse as structure and process, 112-138. London: Sage.

Du Bois, John W. 1985. Competing motivations. In John Haiman (ed.), Iconicity in syntax (Typological studies in language 6), 343-365. Amsterdam; Philadelphia: John Benjamins.

Du Bois, John W. 2003. Argument structure: grammar in use. In John W. Du Bois, Lorraine E. Kumpf, and William J. Ashby (eds.), Preferred argument structure: grammar as architecture of function, 11-60. Amsterdam; Philadelphia: John Benjamins.

Du Bois, John W. & Kärkkäinen, Elise. 2014. Taking a stance on emotion: affect, sequence, and intersubjectivity in dialogic interaction. Text and Talk 32(4): 433–451.

Du Bois, John W. 2014. Towards a dialogic syntax. Cognitive Linguistics 25(3): 359–410.

Hopper, Paul J. and Sandra A. Thompson. 1984. The discourse basis for lexical categories in universal grammar. Language 60(4): 703-752.

Hopper, Paul J. 1987. Emergent grammar. Berkeley Linguistics Society 13: 139-157.

Thompson, Sandra A. and Anthony Mulac. 1991. The discourse conditions for the use of the complementizer that in conversational English. Journal of Pragmatics 15: 237-251.

Selections from Chafe, Wallace. 1994. Discourse, consciousness, and time: the flow and displacement of conscious experience in speaking and writing. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.

Selections from Goldberg, Adele. 1995. Constructions: a construction grammar approach to argument structure. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.
Course Handouts : Handouts will be made available in a dedicated Dropbox folder.

Tentative Weekly Schedules Lecture Exercise, Field trip etc. Comments, suggestions for the course preparation, review, etc.
1 Introduction: What does a discourse/usage-based approach to grammar entail? What sorts of perspectives are there?
2 Construction Grammar 1 Goldberg 1995 (1)
3 Construction Grammar 2 Goldberg 1995 (2)
TASK: For next time, find and bring in some text that could be considered to be Goldbergian constructions.
4 Introduction to the SBSCAE:
How can looking at discourse help us to discuss grammar?
Hopper and Thompson 1984
5 The discourse-functional approach Cumming and Ono 1997
6 More examples of discourse-based grammatical analysis Thompson and Mulac 1991
7 Information Flow - What is it, and why haven't I heard about this before? Chafe 1987
8 Information Flow 2 Chafe 1994
9 Midterm Presentations Midterm Papers Due
10 The foundations of Preferred Argument Structure Du Bois 1985
11 Preferred Argument Structure 2
12 What is "emergence", and what does it have to do with grammar? Bybee 1998;
Hopper 1987
13 Dialogic Syntax 1 Du Bois 2012
14 Dialogic Syntax 2 Du Bois 2014
15 Final Data Presentations Final Paper deadline: TBD

Suggestion for success (Specific) : Please let me know if you are having difficulties comprehending the material - I am free to talk whenever I am in my office. I can also make appointments via email.
Study Consultation (Office Hours) :
Course Objectives
かなり優れている 優れている 及第である 一層の努力が必要
ML_A-a [言語データの分析]
Students will have multiple opportunities to analyze English conversational/discourse data, especially on a topic of his/her choosing.
EXCELLENT LEVEL: Student achievement in this area, as measured through his/her level of class discussions and contributions in English, can be evaluated as "outstanding." GOOD LEVEL: Student achievement in this area, as measured through his/her level of class discussions and contributions in English, can be evaluated as "good." AVERAGE/SATISFACTORY LEVEL: Student achievement in this area, as measured through his/her level of class discussions and contributions in English, can be evaluated as "satisfactory." DEFICIENT: Student achievement in this area, as measured through his/her level of class discussions and contributions in English, falls below average. More effort and application are required to pass.
ML_B2-a [総合把握力]
Students will be exposed to many sources of primary materials, especially readings which are considered fundamental in the area of language use and grammar.
EXCELLENT LEVEL: Student achievement in this area, as measured through his/her level of class discussions and contributions in English, can be evaluated as "outstanding." GOOD LEVEL: Student achievement in this area, as measured through his/her level of class discussions and contributions in English, can be evaluated as "good." AVERAGE/SATISFACTORY LEVEL: Student achievement in this area, as measured through his/her level of class discussions and contributions in English, can be evaluated as "satisfactory." DEFICIENT: Student achievement in this area, as measured through his/her level of class discussions and contributions in English, falls below average. More effort and application are required to pass.
DL_A-a [言語データの分析]
Students will have multiple opportunities to analyze English conversational/discourse data, especially on a topic of his/her choosing.
EXCELLENT LEVEL: Student achievement in this area, as measured through his/her level of class discussions and contributions in English, can be evaluated as "outstanding." GOOD LEVEL: Student achievement in this area, as measured through his/her level of class discussions and contributions in English, can be evaluated as "good." AVERAGE/SATISFACTORY LEVEL: Student achievement in this area, as measured through his/her level of class discussions and contributions in English, can be evaluated as "satisfactory." DEFICIENT: Student achievement in this area, as measured through his/her level of class discussions and contributions in English, falls below average. More effort and application are required to pass.
DL_B2-a [総合把握力]
Students will be exposed to many sources of primary materials, especially readings which are considered fundamental in the area of language use and grammar.
EXCELLENT LEVEL: Student achievement in this area, as measured through his/her level of class discussions and contributions in English, can be evaluated as "outstanding." GOOD LEVEL: Student achievement in this area, as measured through his/her level of class discussions and contributions in English, can be evaluated as "good." AVERAGE/SATISFACTORY LEVEL: Student achievement in this area, as measured through his/her level of class discussions and contributions in English, can be evaluated as "satisfactory." DEFICIENT: Student achievement in this area, as measured through his/her level of class discussions and contributions in English, falls below average. More effort and application are required to pass.
GPA Evaluation
A B C D F
授業を通じて、総じて「かなり優れている」に相当する活動を行った。 授業を通じて、概ね「優れている」を超える活動を行った。 授業を通じて、「及第する」に相当する活動を行った。 授業を通じて、総じて「及第する」には達しないものの、それに近い活動を行った。 授業を通じて、「一層の努力が必要」の活動にとどまった。
Evaluation
Standpoint→
Evaluation Method
ML_A-a
[言語データの分析]
ML_B2-a
[総合把握力]
DL_A-a
[言語データの分析]
DL_B2-a
[総合把握力]
Grading Percentage, Disqualification etc.
Report 20%
Report 30%
Presentation 20%
In-class contribution 15%
Attendance 15%

Additional Information regarding Evaluation Method : Midterm paper: 20%
Final paper: 30%
Data presentation for final paper: 20%
Reading presentation 15%
Attendance: 15%
Others Others :

教職 : 教職(英語)
資格 :

: 2019/3/5 (18:07)