Part of
Corpora and Rhetorically Informed Text Analysis: The diverse applications of DocuScopeEdited by David West Brown and Danielle Zawodny Wetzel
[Studies in Corpus Linguistics 109] 2023
► pp. 2–24
Edited by David West Brown and Danielle Zawodny Wetzel
[Studies in Corpus Linguistics 109] 2023
► pp. 2–24
The DocuScope project
History, theory and future directions
This chapter overviews the history of the
DocuScope project. In its inception, we sought a production
theory underlying rhetorical composition and decision-making. Our
pursuit of a theory led to the development of large-scale
dictionaries of language patterns we have curated for over two
decades. The major conceptual continua that have guided our curation
efforts and major taxonomies are discussed, including the four types
of polysemy we have had to address to ensure our dictionary patterns
are as ambiguity-free as possible. We conclude by reviewing our
recent efforts to apply the dictionaries for writing education on
small textual samples, including single texts.
Keywords: rhetoric as design, comparative genre, computational rhetoric, rhetorical polysemy, writing education, coherence, impressions
Article outline
- 1.Historical and theoretical challenge: Understanding rhetorical language production
- 2.Dictionary curation: Addressing the challenges of polysemy
- 3.Recent developments: Collocating composing patterns and topical structure
- 4.Conclusion: The value of small milestones and future prospects
-
References
References (58)
Allison, S., Heuser, R., Jockers, M., Moretti, F., & Witmore, M. (2011). Quantitative
formalism: An
experiment. In Stanford
Literary Lab Pamphlet
1. Stanford University, Literary Lab, Department of English.
Al-Malki, A., Kaufer, D., Ishizaki, S., & Dreher, K. (2012). Arab
women in Arab news: Old stereotypes and new
media. Bloomsbury Academic.
Aristotle (2010). Rhetoric. W. D. Ross (Editor), W. Roberts (Trans.) Cosimo Classics, Kindle available at [URL]
Beigman Klebanov, B., Ramineni, C., Kaufer, D., Yeoh, P., & Ishizaki, S. (2019). Advancing
the validity argument for standardized writing tests using
quantitative rhetorical
analysis. Language
Testing, 16(1), 125–144. 
Bell, J. S. (2004). Write
great fiction: Plot &
structure. Writer’s Digest Books. [URL]
Bitzer, L. (1968). The
rhetorical
situation. Philosophy and
Rhetoric, 1(1), 1–14.
Ceccarelli, L. (1998). Polysemy:
Multiple meanings in rhetorical
criticism. Quarterly Journal
of
Speech, 84(4), 395–415.
Chafe, W. (1994). Discourse,
consciousness, and time: The flow and displacement of
conscious experience in speaking and
writing. The University of Chicago Press.
Collins, J. (2003). Variations
in written English: Characterizing the rhetorical language
choices in the Brown Corpus of
Texts (Unpublished doctoral
dissertation). Carnegie Mellon University
Connor, U. (1990). Linguistic/Rhetorical Measures for International Persuasive Student Writing. Research in the Teaching of English, 24(1), 67–87.
Daneš, F. (1970). One
instance of Prague School
methodology. In P. Garvin (Ed.), Method
and theory in
linguistics (pp. 132–146). Mouton.
(1974). Functional
sentence perspective and the organization of the
text. In F. Daneš (Ed.), Papers
on functional sentence
perspective (pp. 106–127). Mouton.
Davies, M. (2008). Corpus
of Contemporary American
English. Brigham Young University. Retrieved
on 19 January
2023 from [URL]
(2013). Corpus
of News on the Web (NOW): 3+ billion words from 20
countries, updated every
day. Retrieved
on 19 January
2023 from [URL]
(2018). The
iWeb Corpus. Retrieved
on 19 January
2023 from [URL]
Erasmus, D. (1512/1978). “Copia”:
Foundations of the abundant style (De duplici copia verborum
ac rerum commentarii
duo). In C. R. Thompson (Ed.), Collected
Works of
Erasmus (Vol. 24). University of Toronto Press.
Faigley, L., & Witte, S. (1983). Topical
focus in technical
writing. In P. V. Anderson, J. R. Brockman, & C. R. Miller (Eds.), New
essays in technical and scientific communication: Research,
theory,
practice (pp. 59–68). Baywood/Routledge.
Firbas, J. (1992). Functional
sentence perspective in written and spoken
communication. Cambridge University Press.
Gruber, William E. (1977). “Servile
copying” and the teaching of English
composition. College
English, 39(December), 491–497.
Halliday, M. (1967). Notes
on transitivity and theme in English (Part
2). Journal of
Linguistics, 3(2), 199–244.
(1968). Notes
on transitivity and theme in English (Part
3). Journal of
Linguistics, 4(2), 179–215.
Halliday, M., & Hasan, R. (1976). Cohesion
in
English. Longman. [URL]
Halliday, M., & Matthiessen, C. M. (2014). Halliday’s
introduction to functional
grammar. Routledge.
Hart, R. (2000). Campaign
talk: Why elections are good for
us. Princeton University Press. [URL]
(2018). Diction
7.0. Sage. [URL]
Hawes, T. (2015). Thematic
progression in the writing of students and
professionals. Ampersand, 2, 93–100.
Helberg, A., Poznahovska, M., Ishizaki, S., Kaufer, D., Werner, N., & Wetzel, D. (2018). Teaching
textual awareness with DocuScope using corpus-driven tools
and reflection to support students’
decision-making. Assessing
Writing, 38, 40–45.
Hope, J., & Witmore, M. (2004). The
very large textual object: A prosthetic reading of
Shakespeare. Early Modern
Literary
Studies, 6(1), 1–36.
(2010). The Hundredth Psalm to the Tune of “Green Sleeves”: Digital Approaches to Shakespeare’s Language of Genre. Shakespeare Quarterly, 61(3), 357–390. [URL].
Hopper, P. (1999). A
short course in
grammar. Norton. [URL]
Hyland, K. (2005). Metadiscourse.
Exploring interaction in
writing. Bloomsbury Academic. [URL]
Ishizaki, S., & Kaufer, D. (2011). Computer-aided
rhetorical
analysis. In P. M. McCarthy & C. Boonthum-Denecke (Eds.), Applied
natural language processing and content
analysis (pp. 276–296). Information Science Reference. [URL]
(2020). Scalable
writing pedagogy for strengthening cohesion with interactive
visualization. In Proceedings
of IEEE International Conference on Professional
Communication (ProComm
2020) (pp. 141–145)
Kaufer, D., & Butler, B. (1996). Rhetoric
and the arts of
design. Routledge. [URL]
(2000). Designing
interactive worlds with words: Principles of writing as
representational
composition. Routledge.
Kaufer, D., & Hariman, R. (2009). A
corpus analysis evaluating Hariman’s Theory of Political
Style. Text and
Talk, 28, 475–500.
Kaufer, D., & Ishizaki, S. (2023). Computer-aided
close reading: Visualizing contrastive persuasion
strategies. In J. Fahnestock & R. Harris (Eds.), Routledge
handbook of
persuasion. Routledge. [URL]
Kaufer, D., Ishizaki, S., Collins, J., & Butler, B. (2004). The
power of words: Unveiling the speaker and writer’s hidden
craft. Routledge.
Kennedy, G. (1963). The
art of persuasion in
Greece. Princeton University Press. [URL]
(1972/2008). The
art of rhetoric in the Roman World 300BC to
300AD. Princeton University Press. [URL]
King, M. L. (1963). “I
have a dream.” The American
Rhetoric Website. Retrieved
on 19 January
2023 from [URL]
Lanham, R. (2007). The
economics of attention. The University of Chicago Press. [URL]
Leong, A. P. (2015). Topical
themes and thematic progression: The “picture” of research
articles. Text and
Talk, 35(3), 289–315.
(2016). Thematic
density of research-article abstracts: A systemic-functional
account. Word, 62(4), 209–227.
(2019). Visualizing
texts: A tool for generating thematic-progression
diagrams. Functional
Linguistics, 6(1), article
4.
Lincoln/Douglas
Debates of
1858 (nd). Retrieved
on 19 January
2023 from [URL]. Debates from the Abraham Lincoln Foundation. [URL]
Marcellino, W. (2020). Building
writing analytic
systems. Paper presented at
the 9th International Conference
on Writing Analytics, St.
Petersburg, Florida, February
6–8.
Miller, C. (1984). Genre
as social action. Quarterly
Journal of
Speech, 70(2), 151–167.
Nekula, M. (1999). “Vilém Mathesius”. Handbook of Pragmatics. Amsterdam: Benjamins: 1–14.
Shabana, N. O. (2018). Topical
structure analysis: Assessing first-year Egyptian university
students’ internal coherence of their EFL
writing. In A. Ahmed & H. Abouabdelkader (Eds.), Assessing
ESL writing in the 21st century: Revealing the
unknown (pp. 53–78). Palgrave Macmillan.
Sinclair, J. M. (Ed.) (1995). Collins
COBUILD English
dictionary. HarperCollins. [URL]
Swales, J. (1990). Genre
analysis: English in academic and research
settings. Cambridge University Press.
Taboada, M., & Brooke, J. (2011). Lexicon-based
methods for sentiment
analysis. Computational
Linguistics, 37(2), 272–274.
Vande Kopple, W. J. (1989). Clear
and coherent prose: A functional
approach. Scott Foresman. [URL]
Williams, J. (2000). Style:
The basics of clarity and
grace (5th
ed.). Pearson.
Witte, S. (1983a). Topical
structure and writing quality: Some possible text-based
explanations of readers’ judgments of student
writing. Visible
Language, XVII, 177–205.
(1983b). Topical
structure and revision: An exploratory
study. College Composition
and
Communication, 34(3), 313–341.
Wray, A., & Perkins, M. (2000). The
functions of formulaic language: An integrated
model. Language &
Communication, 20, 1–28.
Cited by (1)
Cited by one other publication
Omizo, Ryan & Bill Hart-Davidson
2024. Is Genre Enough? A Theory of Genre Signaling as Generative AI Rhetoric. Rhetoric Society Quarterly 54:3 ► pp. 272 ff. 
This list is based on CrossRef data as of 5 july 2024. Please note that it may not be complete. Sources presented here have been supplied by the respective publishers. Any errors therein should be reported to them.