Discussion
An applied linguist wonders about boundaries round the newly cleared field

Roger T. Bell
RZ Language-Link Sdn. Bhd., Kuala Lumpur
Table of contents

I am responding, briefly, to the thought-provoking and valuable paper by Andrew Chesterman and Rosemary Arrojo. I am limiting my comments to points where I am not in agreement and/or have a comment to make. Silence ‘means’ (in this context) ‘agreement’. My comments are numbered as in the original paper for, I hope, ease of reference. If, as a result, my contribution appears rather fragmented, I apologise.

Full-text access is restricted to subscribers. Log in to obtain additional credentials. For subscription information see Subscription & Price. Direct PDF access to this article can be purchased through our e-platform.

[ p. 158 ]References

De Beaugrande, Robert Wolfgang U. Dressler
1981 Introduction to Text Linguistics: Toward an Interdisciplinary Science of Texts. London: Longman. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Bell, Roger T.
1999 “Human Communication (Mono-and Bi-Lingual): The Search for a Typology”. Training Translators and Interpreters: New Directions for the Millennium. Vic: Universitat de Vic 1999 127–150.Google Scholar
Chomsky, Noam
1965 Aspects of the Theory of Syntax. Cambridge, Mass.: The M.I.T. Press. Google Scholar
Danks, Joseph H.
1991 “The Psycholinguistics of Reading and Translation”. University of Leipzig. [unpublished ms.]Google Scholar
Diekman, John R.
1979 Get Your Message Across: How to Improve Communication. Prentice-Hall.Google Scholar
Kjolseth, R.
1972 “The Development of the Sociology of Language and Its Social Implica¬tions”. Sociolinguistics Newsletter III:1. 7–10 and 24–29.Google Scholar
Levinson, Stephen C.
1992 “Activity Types and Language”. Paul Drew and John Heritage, eds. Talk at Work: Interaction in Institutional Settings. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press 1992, 66–100.Google Scholar