Book contents
- Register, Genre, and Style
- Cambridge Textbooks in Linguistics
- Register, Genre, and Style
- Copyright page
- Contents
- Figures
- Tables
- Acknowledgments
- 1 Registers, Genres, and Styles: Fundamental Varieties of Language
- Part I Analytical Framework
- Part II Detailed Descriptions of Registers, Genres, and Styles
- Part III Larger Theoretical Issues
- Book part
- References
- Index
- References
References
Published online by Cambridge University Press: 08 May 2019
Book contents
- Register, Genre, and Style
- Cambridge Textbooks in Linguistics
- Register, Genre, and Style
- Copyright page
- Contents
- Figures
- Tables
- Acknowledgments
- 1 Registers, Genres, and Styles: Fundamental Varieties of Language
- Part I Analytical Framework
- Part II Detailed Descriptions of Registers, Genres, and Styles
- Part III Larger Theoretical Issues
- Book part
- References
- Index
- References
- Type
- Chapter
- Information
- Register, Genre, and Style , pp. 368 - 401Publisher: Cambridge University PressPrint publication year: 2019
References
Adams, Karen L., and Winter, Anne. 1997. Gang graffiti as a discourse genre. Journal of Sociolinguistics 1 (3): 337–360.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Ädel, Annelie, and Reppen, Randi, eds. 2008. Corpora and discourse: The challenges of different settings. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Adolphs, Svenja. 2008. Corpus and context: Investigating pragmatic functions in spoken discourse. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Afros, Elena, and Schryer, Catherine F.. 2009. The genre of syllabus in higher education. Journal of English for Academic Purposes 8 (3): 224–233.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Aguado-Jiménez, Pilar, Pérez-Paredes, Pascual, and Sánchez, Purificación. 2012. Exploring the use of multidimensional analysis of learner language to promote register awareness. System 40 (1): 90–103.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Antón, Marta, and Goering, Elizabeth M.. 2015. Understanding patients’ voices: A multi-method approach to health discourse. Philadelphia: John Benjamins.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Archer, Dawn. 2002. “Can innocent people be guilty?”: A sociopragmatic analysis of examination transcripts from the Salem witchcraft trials. Journal of Historical Pragmatics 3 (1): 1–30.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Archer, Dawn. 2006. (Re)initiating strategies: Judges and defendants in Early Modern English courtrooms. Journal of Historical Pragmatics 7 (2): 181–211.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Artemeva, Natasha. 2008. Toward a unified social theory of genre learning. Journal of Business and Technical Communication 22 (2): 160–185.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Asención-Delaney, Yuly. 2014. A multi-dimensional analysis of advanced written L2 Spanish. In Berber Sardinha and Pinto, 241–275.Google Scholar
Asención-Delaney, Yuly, and Collentine, Joseph. 2011. A multidimensional analysis of written L2 Spanish. Applied Linguistics 32 (3): 299–322.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Aston, Guy, and Burnard, Lou. 1998. The BNC Handbook: Exploring the British National Corpus with SARA. Edinburgh: Edinburgh University Press.Google Scholar
Atifi, Hassan, and Marcoccia, Michel. 2006. Television genre as an object of negation: A semio-pragmatic analysis of French political “television forums.” Journal of Pragmatics 38: 250–268.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Atkinson, Dwight. 1992. The evolution of medical research writing from 1735 to 1985: The case of the Edinburgh Medical Journal. Applied Linguistics 13: 337–374.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Atkinson, Dwight. 1996. The Philosophical Transactions of the Royal Society of London, 1675–1975: A sociohistorical discourse analysis. Language in Society 25: 333–371.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Atkinson, Dwight. 1999. Scientific discourse in sociohistorical context: The Philosophical Transactions of the Royal Society of London, 1675–1975. Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.Google Scholar
Aull, Laura L., Bandarage, Dineth, and Miller, Meredith Richardson. 2017. Generality in student and expert epistemic stance: A corpus analysis of first-year, upper-level, and published academic writing. Journal of English for Academic Purposes 26: 29–41.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Badger, Richard. 2003. Legal and general: Towards a genre analysis of newspaper law reports. English for Specific Purposes 22: 249–263.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Baker, Paul, and McEnery, Tony, eds. 2015. Corpora and discourse studies: Integrating discourse and corpora. Basingstoke: Palgrave Macmillan.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Bamford, Julia. 1997. The role of metaphor in argumentation in economic texts: The case of the research article on stock markets. In Bussi, Elisa, Bondi, Marina, and Gatta, F., eds., Understanding argument: La logica informale del discorso: Atti del convegno Forli, 5–6 Dicembre 1995. Bologna: Cooperativa Libraria Universitaria Editrice Bologna.Google Scholar
Bamford, Julia. 2005. Subjective or objective evaluation? Prediction in academic lectures. In Tognini-Bonelli and Camiciotti, 17–30.Google Scholar
Barbieri, Federica. 2005. Quotative use in American English: A corpus-based, cross-register comparison. Journal of English Linguistics 33 (3): 222–256.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Barbieri, Federica. 2015. Involvement in university classroom discourse: Register variation and interactivity. Applied Linguistics 36 (2): 151–173.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Bargiela-Chiappini, Francesca, and Harris, Sandra. 1997. Managing language: The discourse of corporate meetings. Amsterdam and Philadelphia: John Benjamins Publishing Company.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Bargiela-Chiappini, Francesca, and Nickerson, Catherine, eds. 1999. Writing business: Genres, media, and discourses. London: Longman.Google Scholar
Barron, Anne. 2012. Public information messages: a contrastive genre analysis of state–citizen communication. Philadelphia: John Benjamins.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Basso, Keith H. 1974. The ethnography of writing. In Bauman, R. and Sherzer, J., eds., Explorations in the ethnography of speaking, 425–32. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Basso, Keith H. 1990. Western Apache Language and Culture: Essays in Linguistic Anthropology. University of Arizona Press. 114 ff.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Basturkmen, Helen. 1999. Discourse in MBA seminars: Towards a description for pedagogical purposes. English for Specific Purposes 18 (1): 63–80.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Basturkmen, Helen. 2002. Negotiating meaning in seminar-type discussion and EAP. English for Specific Purposes 21: 233–242.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Basturkmen, Helen. 2012. A genre-based investigation of discussion sections of research articles in dentistry and disciplinary variation. Journal of English for Academic Purposes 11 (2): 134–144.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Bazerman, Charles. 1984. Modern evolution of the experimental report in physics: Spectroscopic articles in physical review, 1893–1980. Social Studies of Science 14: 163–196.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Bazerman, Charles. 1988. Shaping written knowledge: The genre and activity of the experimental article in science. Madison, WI: University of Wisconsin Press.Google Scholar
Bazerman, Charles, and Paradis, James, eds. 1991. Textual dynamics of the professions: Historical and contemporary studies of writing in professional communities. Madison, WI: University of Wisconsin Press.Google Scholar
Bednarek, Monika. 2006. Evaluation in media discourse. Analysis of a newspaper corpus. London: Continuum.Google Scholar
Bednarek, Monika. 2012. “Get us the hell out of here”: Key words and trigrams in fictional television series. International Journal of Corpus Linguistics 17 (1): 35–63.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Bell, Allan. 1984. Language style as audience design. Language in Society 13: 145–204.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Bell, Allan. 2001. Back in style: Reworking audience design. In Eckert and Rickford, 139–69.Google Scholar
Berber Sardinha, Tony. 2014. 25 years later: Comparing Internet and pre-Internet registers. In Berber Sardinha and Pinto, 81–105.Google Scholar
Berber Sardinha, Tony. 2015. Register variation and metaphor use: A multi-dimensional perspective. In Herrmann, J. B. and Berber Sardinha, T., eds., Metaphor in specialist discourse: Investigating metaphor use in technical, scientific and popularized discourse contexts, 17–52. Amsterdam and Philadelphia: John Benjamins.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Berber Sardinha, Tony. 2017. Text types in Brazilian Portuguese: A multi-dimensional perspective. Corpora 12 (3): 483–515.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Berber Sardinha, Tony, and Pinto, Marcia Veirano, eds. 2014. Multi-Dimensional Analysis, 25 years on: A tribute to Douglas Biber. Amsterdam and Philadelphia: John Benjamins.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Berber Sardinha, Tony, and Pinto, Marcia Veirano. 2017. American television and off-screen registers: A corpus-based comparison. Corpora 12 (1): 85–114.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Berber Sardinha, Tony, Kauffmann, Carlos, and Acunzo, Cristina M.. 2014. A multdimensional analysis of register variation in Brazilian Portuguese. Corpora 9 (2): 239–271.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Bergs, Alexander T. 2004. Letters: A new approach to text typology. Journal of Historical Pragmatics 5 (2): 207–227.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Berkenkotter, Carol, and Huckin, Thomas N.. 1995. Genre knowledge in disciplinary communication: Cognition/culture/power. Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.Google Scholar
Berthouex, Paul M. 1996. Honing the writing skills of engineers. Journal of Professional Issues in Engineering Education and Practice 122 (3): 107–110.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Besnier, Niko. 1988. The linguistic relationships of spoken and written Nukulaelae registers. Language 64: 707–736.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Besnier, Niko. 1989. Literacy and feelings: The encoding of affect in Nukulaelae letters. Text 9: 69–92.Google Scholar
Bevitori, Cinzia. 2005. Attribution as evaluation: A corpus-based investigation of quotations in parliamentary discourse. ESP across Cultures 2: 7–20.Google Scholar
Bhatia, Vijay K. 1993. Analysing genre: Language use in professional settings. London: Longman.Google Scholar
Bhatia, Vijay K. 1997. Genre-mixing in academic introductions. English for Specific Purposes 16 (3): 181–195.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Bhatia, Vijay K. 2005 . Generic patterns in promotional discourse. In Halmari, Helena, and Virtanen, Tuija, eds., 213–225, Persuasion across genres: A linguistic approach. Amsterdam and Philadelphia: John Benjamins.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Biber, Douglas. 1986. Spoken and written textual dimensions in English: Resolving the contradictory findings. Language 62: 384–414.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Biber, Douglas. 1987. A textual comparison of British and American writing. American Speech 62: 99–119.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Biber, Douglas. 1988. Variation across speech and writing. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Biber, Douglas. 1990. Methodological issues regarding corpus-based analyses of linguistic variation. Literary and Linguistic Computing 5: 257–269.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Biber, Douglas. 1991. Oral and literate characteristics of selected primary school reading materials. Text 11: 73–96.Google Scholar
Biber, Douglas. 1992. On the complexity of discourse complexity: A multidimensional analysis. Discourse Processes 15: 133–163.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Biber, Douglas. 1993. Representativeness in corpus design. Literary and Linguistic Computing 8: 243–257.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Biber, Douglas. 1995. Dimensions of register variation: A cross-linguistic comparison. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Biber, Douglas. 2001. Dimensions of variation among eighteenth-century speech-based and written registers. In Conrad and Biber, 200–214.Google Scholar
Biber, Douglas. 2003. Compressed noun phrase structures in newspaper discourse: The competing demands of popularization vs. economy. In Aitchison, J. and Lewis, D., eds., New media language, 169–181. London: Routledge.Google Scholar
Biber, Douglas. 2004a. Historical patterns for the grammatical marking of stance: A cross-register comparison. Journal of Historical Pragmatics 5: 107–135.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Biber, Douglas. 2004b. Modal use across registers and time. In Curzan, A. and Emmons, K., eds., Studies in the history of the English language II: Unfolding conversations, 189–216. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Biber, Douglas. 2006a. University language: A corpus-based study of spoken and written registers. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Biber, Douglas. 2006b. Stance in spoken and written university registers. Journal of English for Academic Purposes 5: 97–116.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Biber, Douglas. 2008. Corpus-based analyses of discourse: Dimensions of variation in conversation. In Bhatia, V., Flowerdew, J., and Jones, R., eds., Advances in discourse studies, 100–114. London: Routledge.Google Scholar
Biber, Douglas. 2012. Register as a predictor of linguistic variation. Corpus Linguistics and Linguistic Theory 8: 9–37.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Biber, Douglas. 2014. Using multi-dimensional analysis to explore cross-linguistic universals of register variation. Languages in Contrast 14 (1): 7–34.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Biber, Douglas, and Barbieri, Federica. 2007. Lexical bundles in university spoken and written registers. English for Specific Purposes 26: 263–286.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Biber, Douglas, and Burges, Jená. 2000. Historical change in the language use of women and men: Gender differences in dramatic dialogue. Journal of English Linguistics 28: 21–37.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Biber, Douglas, and Clark, Victoria. 2002. Historical shifts in modification patterns with complex noun phrase structures: How long can you go without a verb? In Fanego, T., López-Couso, M. J., and Pérez-Guerra, J., eds., English historical syntax and morphology, 43–66. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Biber, Douglas, Connor, Ulla, and Upton, Thomas A.. 2007. Discourse on the move: Using corpus analysis to describe discourse structure. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Biber, Douglas, Conrad, Susan, and Cortes, Viviana. 2004. If you look at …: Lexical bundles in university teaching and textbooks. Applied Linguistics 25: 371–405.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Biber, Douglas, Conrad, Susan, and Reppen, Randi. 1998. Corpus linguistics: Investigating language structure and use. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Biber, Douglas, Conrad, Susan, Reppen, Randi, Byrd, Pat, and Helt, Marie. 2002. Speaking and writing in the university: A multi-dimensional comparison. TESOL Quarterly 36: 9–48.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Biber, Douglas, Davies, Mark, Jones, James K., and Tracy-Ventura, Nicole. 2006. Spoken and written register variation in Spanish: A multi-dimensional analysis. Corpora 1: 7–38.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Biber, Douglas, and Egbert, Jesse. 2015. Using grammatical features for automatic register identification in an unrestricted corpus of documents from the open web. Research Design and Statistics in Linguistics and Communication Science 2 (1): 3–36.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Biber, Douglas, and Egbert, Jesse. 2016. Register variation on the searchable web: A multi-dimensional analysis. Journal of English Linguistics 44: 95–137.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Biber, Douglas, and Egbert, Jesse. 2018. Register variation online. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Biber, Douglas, Egbert, Jesse, and Davies, Mark. 2015. Exploring the composition of the searchable web: A corpus-based taxonomy of web registers. Corpora 10 (1): 11–45.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Biber, Douglas, Egbert, Jesse, Gray, Bethany, Oppliger, Rahel, and Szmrecsanyi, Benedikt. 2016. Variationist versus text-linguistic approaches to grammatical change in English: Nominal modifiers of head nouns. In Kytö, Merja and Pahta, Päivi, eds., Cambridge handbook of English historical linguistics, 351–375. Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Biber, Douglas, and Finegan, Edward. 1989a. Drift and the evolution of English style: A history of three genres. Language 65: 487–517.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Biber, Douglas, and Finegan, Edward. 1989b. Styles of stance in English: Lexical and grammatical marking of evidentiality and affect. Text 9: 93–124.Google Scholar
Biber, Douglas, and Finegan, Edward. 1992. The linguistic evolution of five written and speech-based English genres from the 17th to the 20th centuries. In Rissanen, M., Ihalainen, O., Nevalainen, T., and Taavitsainen, I., eds., History of Englishes: New methods and interpretations in historical linguistics, 688–704. Berlin: Mouton.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Biber, Douglas, and Finegan, Edward, eds. 1994a. Sociolinguistic perspectives on register. New York: Oxford University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Biber, Douglas, and Finegan, Edward. 1994b. Multi-dimensional analyses of authors’ styles: Some case studies from the eighteenth century. In Ross, D. and Brink, D., eds., Research in humanities computing 3, 3–17. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Biber, Douglas, and Finegan, Edward. 1994c. Intra-textual variation within medical research articles. In Oostdijk, N. and de Haan, P., eds., Corpus-based research into language, 201–222. Amsterdam: Rodopi.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Biber, Douglas, and Finegan, Edward. 1997. Diachronic relations among speech-based and written registers in English. In Nevalainen, T. and Kahlas-Tarkka, L., eds., To explain the present: Studies in the changing English language in honour of Matti Rissanen, 253–275. Helsinki: Société Néophilologique. (Reprinted in Conrad and Biber, 2001, 66–83.)Google Scholar
Biber, Douglas, Finegan, Edward, and Atkinson, Dwight. 1994. ARCHER and its challenges: Compiling and analyzing a representative corpus of historical English registers. In Fries, U., Tottie, G., and Schneider, P., eds., Creating and using English language corpora, 1–14. Amsterdam: Rodopi.Google Scholar
Biber, Douglas, and Gray, Bethany. 2013. Being specific about historical change: the influence of sub-register. Journal of English Linguistics 41 (2): 104–134.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Biber, Douglas, and Gray, Bethany. 2016. Grammatical complexity in academic English: Linguistic change in writing. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Biber, Douglas, Gray, Bethany, and Staples, Shelly. 2014. Predicting patterns of grammatical complexity across language exam task types and proficiency levels. Applied Linguistics 37 (5): 639–668.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Biber, Douglas, and Hared, Mohammed. 1992. Dimensions of register variation in Somali. Language Variation and Change 4: 41–75.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Biber, Douglas, and Hared, Mohammed. 1994. Linguistic correlates of the transition to literacy in Somali: Language adaptation in six press registers. In Biber and Finegan, 182–216.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Biber, Douglas, Johansson, Stig, Leech, Geoffrey, Conrad, Susan, and Finegan, Edward. 1999. The Longman grammar of spoken and written English. London: Longman.Google Scholar
Biber, Douglas, and Jones, James K.. 2005. Merging corpus linguistic and discourse analytic research goals: Discourse units in biology research articles. Corpus Linguistics and Linguistic Theory 1: 151–182.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Biber, Douglas, and Reppen, Randi. 2002. What does frequency have to do with grammar teaching? Studies in Second Language Acquisition 24: 199–208.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Bloch, Maurice. 1993. The uses of schooling and literacy in a Zafimaniry village. In Street, Brian V., ed., Cross-cultural approaches to literacy, 87–109. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Bolívar, Adriana. 1992. The analysis of political discourse, with particular reference to the Venezuelan political dialogue. English for Specific Purposes 11: 159–175.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Bondi Paganelli, Marina. 1999. English across genres: Language variation in the discourse of economics. Modena: Edizioni Il Fiorino.Google Scholar
Bondi Paganelli, Marina. 1997. L’argomentazione analogica nel discorso economico: Un esempio di analisi. In Bussi, Elisa, Bondi, Marina, and Gatta, F., eds., Understanding argument: La logica informale del discorso: Atti del convegno Forli, 5–6 Dicembre 1995, 105–121. Bologna: Cooperativa Libraria Universitaria Editrice Bologna.Google Scholar
Bondi Paganelli, Marina, and Camiciotti, Gabriella Del Lungo. 1995. Analysing economics and news discourse. Bologna: CLUEB.Google Scholar
Bowcher, Wendy L. 2003. Speaker contributions in radio sports commentary. Text 23 (4): 445–476.Google Scholar
Breeze, Ruth. 2013. Lexical bundles across four legal genres. International Journal of Corpus Linguistics 18 (22): 229–253.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Breeze, Ruth. 2016. Tracing the development of an emergent part-genre: The author summary. English for Specific Purposes 42: 50–65.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Bresnan, Joan, and Ford, Marilyn. 2010. Predicting syntax: Processing dative constructions in American and Australian varieties of English. Language 86 (1): 168–213.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Brett, Paul. 1994. A genre analysis of the results section of sociology articles. English for Specific Purposes 13 (1): 47–59.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Brown, Penelope, and Colin, Fraser. 1979. Speech as a marker of situation. In Scherer, K. R. and Giles, H., eds., Social markers in speech, 33–62. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Brown, R., and Ford, M.. 1961. Address in American English. Journal of Abnormal and Social Psychology 62, 375–85.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Brown, R., and Gilman, A.. 1960. The pronouns of power and solidarity. In Sebeok, T. A., ed., Style in language. New York: John Wiley.Google Scholar
Bruce, Ian. 2010. Textual and discoursal resources used in the essay genre in sociology and English. Journal of English for Academic Purposes 9 (3): 153–166.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Bruthiaux, Paul. 1994. Me Tarzan, you Jane: Linguistic simplification in “personal ads” register. In Biber and Finegan, 136–154.Google Scholar
Bruthiaux, Paul. 1996. The discourse of classified advertising: Exploring the nature of linguistic simplicity. Oxford: Oxford University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Bruthiaux, Paul. 2005. In a nutshell: Persuasion in the spatially constrained language of advertising. In Halmari, Helena and Virtanen, Tuija, eds., Persuasion across genres: A linguistic approach, 135–152. Amsterdam and Philadelphia: John Benjamins.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Bugaj, Joanna. 2006. The language of legal writings in 16th century Scots and English: An etymological study of binomials. ESP across Cultures 3: 7–22.Google Scholar
Bülow-Møller, Anne Marie. 2005. Persuasion in business negotiations. In Halmari, Helena and Virtanen, Tuija, eds., 135–152, Persuasion across genres: A linguistic approach, 27–58. Amsterdam and Philadelphia: John Benjamins.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Bunton, David. 1999. The use of higher level metatext in PhD theses. English for Specific Purposes 18: 841–856.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Bunton, David. 2005. The structure of PhD conclusion chapters. Journal of English for Academic Purposes 4: 207–224.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Caballero, Rosario. 2003. Metaphor and genre: The presence and role of metaphor in the building review. Applied Linguistics 24 (2): 145–167.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Camiciottoli, Belinda Crawford, and Fortanet-Gómez, Inmaculada, eds. 2015. Multimodal analysis in academic settings: From research to teaching. London: Routledge.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Cao, Yan, and Xiao, Richard. 2013. A multi-dimensional contrastive study of English abstracts by native and non-native writers. Corpora 8 (2): 209–234.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Carrió-Pastor, María Luisa. 2013. A contrastive study of the variation of sentence connectors in academic English. Journal of English for Academic Purposes 12 (3): 192–202.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Carter, Ronald. 1988. Front pages: Lexis, style, and newspaper reports. In Ghadessy, 8–16.Google Scholar
Carter, Ronald, and McCarthy, Michael. 1997. Exploring spoken English. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Carter, Ronald, and McCarthy, Michael. 2004. Talking creating: Interactional language, creativity, and context. Applied Linguistics 25 (1): 62–88.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Cazden, Courtney B. 2001. Classroom discourse: The language of teaching and learning, 2nd edn. Portsmouth, NH: Heinemann.Google Scholar
Chafe, Wallace. 1982. Integration and involvement in speaking, writing, and oral literature. In Tannen, D., ed., Spoken and written language: Exploring orality and literacy, 35–53. Norwood, NJ: Ablex.Google Scholar
Channell, Joanna. 1990. Precise and vague quantifiers in writing on economics. In Nash, W., ed., The writing scholar: Studies in academic discourse, 95–117. Newbury Park, CA: Sage Publications.Google Scholar
Charles, Maggie. 2003. “This mystery …”: A corpus-based study of the use of nouns to construct stance in theses from two contrasting disciplines. Journal of English for Academic Purposes 2: 313–326.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Charles, Maggie. 2006a. The construction of stance in reporting clauses: A cross-disciplinary study of theses. Applied Linguistics 27 (3): 492–518.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Charles, Maggie. 2006b. Phraseological patterns in reporting clauses used in citation: A corpus-based study of theses in two disciplines. English for Specific Purposes 25: 310–331.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Charles, Maggie. 2007. Argument or evidence? Disciplinary variation in the use of the Noun that pattern. English for Specific Purposes 26: 203–218.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Charles, Maggie, Pecori, Diane, and Hunston, Susan, eds. 2009. Academic writing: At the interface of corpus and discourse. London: Continuum.Google Scholar
Cheng, Fei-Wen, and Unsworth, Len. 2016. Stance-taking as negotiating academic conflict in applied linguistics research article discussion sections. Journal of English for Academic Purposes 24: 43–57.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Christie, Frances, and Martin, J. R., eds. 1997. Genre and institutions: Social processes in the workplace and school. London and New York: Continuum.Google Scholar
Claridge, Claudia. 2005. Questions in Early Modern English pamphlets. Journal of Historical Pragmatics 6 (1): 133–168.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Collins, Daniel E. 2006. Speech reporting and the suppression of orality in seventeenth-century Russian trial dossiers. Journal of Historical Pragmatics 7 (2): 265–292.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Collins, Peter. 1995. The indirect object construction in English: An informational approach. Linguistics 33: 35–49.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Collot, Milena, and Belmore, Nancy. 1996. Electronic language: A new variety of English. In Herring, 13–28.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Connor, Ulla. 1996. Contrastive rhetoric: Cross-cultural aspects of second-language writing. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Connor, Ulla. 2000. Variation in rhetorical moves in grant proposals of US humanists and scientists. Text 20: 1–28.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Connor, Ulla, and Mauranen, Anna. 1999. Linguistic analysis of grant proposals: European Union research grants. English for Specific Purposes 18 (1): 47–62.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Connor, Ulla, Nagelhout, Ed, and Rozycki, William V.. 2008. Contrastive rhetoric: Reaching to intercultural rhetoric. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Connor, Ulla, and Upton, Thomas A.. 2003. Linguistic dimensions of direct mail letters. In Meyer, C. and Leistyna, P., eds., Corpus analysis: Language structure and language use, 71–86. Amsterdam: Rodopi.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Connor, Ulla, and Upton, Thomas A., eds. 2004a. Discourse in the professions: Perspectives from corpus linguistics, Vol. 16. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Connor, Ulla, and Upton, Thomas A., 2004b. The genre of grant proposals: A corpus linguistic analysis. In Connor and Upton, 2004a.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Connor-Linton, Jeff. 1988. Author’s style and world-view in nuclear discourse: A quantitative analysis. Multilingua 7: 95–132.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Connor-Linton, Jeff. 2001. Author’s style and world-view: A comparison of texts about nuclear arms policy. In Conrad and Biber, 84–93.Google Scholar
Conrad, Susan. 1996. Investigating academic texts with corpus-based techniques: An example from biology. Linguistics and Education 8: 299–326.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Conrad, Susan. 1999. The importance of corpus-based research for language teachers. System 27: 1–18.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Conrad, Susan. 2000. Will corpus linguistics revolutionize grammar teaching in the 21st century? TESOL Quarterly 34: 548–560.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Conrad, Susan. 2001. Variation among disciplinary texts: A comparison of textbooks and journal articles in biology and history. In Conrad and Biber, 94–107.Google Scholar
Conrad, Susan. 2004. Corpus linguistics, language variation, and language teaching. In Sinclair, J., ed., How to use corpora in language teaching, 67–85. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Conrad, Susan. 2005. Corpus linguistics and L2 teaching. In Hinkel, E., ed., Handbook of research in second language teaching and learning, 393–409. Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.Google Scholar
Conrad, Susan. 2010. What can a corpus tell us about grammar? In O’Keeffe, Anne and McCarthy, Michael, eds., Routledge handbook of corpus linguistics, 227–240. Milton Park, England: Routledge.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Conrad, Susan. 2011. Variation in corpora and its pedagogical implications. In Viana, V., Zyngier, S., and Barnbrook, G., eds., Perspectives on corpus linguistics, 47–62. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Conrad, Susan. 2014. Expanding Multi-Dimensional analysis with qualitative research techniques. In Berber Sardinha, T. and Veirano Pinto, M., eds., Multi-Dimensional Analysis, 25 years on: A tribute to Douglas Biber, 275–298. Amsterdam and Philadelphia: John Benjamins.Google Scholar
Conrad, Susan. 2017. Practitioner and student writing in civil engineering. Journal of Engineering Education 106 (2): 191–217.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Conrad, Susan. 2018. The use of passives and impersonal style in civil engineering writing. Journal of Business and Technical Communication 32 (1): 38–76.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Conrad, Susan, and Biber, Douglas. 2000. Adverbial marking of stance in speech and writing. In Hunston, Susan and Thompson, Geoff, eds., Evaluation in text: Authorial stance and the construction of discourse, 56–73. New York: Oxford University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Conrad, Susan, and Biber, Douglas, eds. 2001. Variation in English: Multi-dimensional studies. London: Longman.Google Scholar
Conrad, Susan, and Biber, Douglas (with Daly, Kate and Packer, Sara). 2009. Real grammar: A corpus-based approach to English grammar. New York: Pearson Education.Google Scholar
Cortes, Viviana. 2004. Lexical bundles in published and student disciplinary writing: Examples from history and biology. English for Specific Purposes 23: 397–423.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Cortes, Viviana. 2013. The purpose of this study is to: Connecting lexical bundles and moves in research article introductions. Journal of English for Academic Purposes 12 (1): 33–43.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Cortes, Viviana, and Csomay, Eniko, eds. 2015. Corpus-based research in applied linguistics: Studies in honor of Doug Biber. Philadelphia: John Benjamins.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Coupland, Nikolas. 1980. Style-shifting at a Cardiff work-setting. Language in Society 9: 1–12.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Coupland, Nikolas. 2007. Style: Language variation and identity. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Couture, Barbara. 1986. Effective ideation in written text: A functional approach to clarity and exigence. In Couture, B., ed., Functional approaches to writing: Research perspectives, 69–91. Norwood, NJ: Ablex.Google Scholar
Couture, Barbara. 1992. Categorizing professional discourse: Engineering, administrative, and technical/professional writing. Journal of Business and Technical Communication 6 (1): 5–37.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Crismore, Avon, Markkanen, Raija, and Steffensen, Margaret. 1993. Metadiscourse in persuasive writing: A study of texts written by American and Finnish university students. Written Communication 10 (1): 39–71.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Cromdal, Jakob, Landqvist, Håkan, Persson-Thunqvist, Daniel, and Osvaldsson, Karin. 2012. Finding out what’s happened: Two procedures for opening emergency calls. Discourse Studies 14 (4): 371–397.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Crossley, Scott. 2007. A chronotopic approach to genre analysis: An exploratory study. English for Specific Purposes 26: 4–24.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Crossley, Scott A., and Louwerse, Max M.. 2007. Multi-dimensional register classification using bigrams. International Journal of Corpus Linguistics 12.453–478.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Crosthwaite, Peter. 2016. A longitudinal multidimensional analysis of EAP writing: Determining EAP course effectiveness. Journal of English for Academic Purposes 22 : 166–178.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Crosthwaite, Peter, Cheung, Lisa, and Jiang, Feng Kevin. 2017. Writing with attitude: Stance expression in learner and professional dentistry research reports. English for Specific Purposes 46: 107–123.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Crystal, David. 2001. Language and the internet. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Csomay, Eniko. 2005. Linguistic variation within university classroom talk: A corpus-based perspective. Linguistics and Education 15: 243–74.Google Scholar
Csomay, Eniko. 2007. Vocabulary-based discourse units in university class sessions. In Biber, Connor, and Upton, 213–238.Google Scholar
Culpeper, Jonathan, and Kytö, Merja. 1999. Modifying pragmatic force: Hedges in Early Modern English dialogues. In Jucker, A. H., Fritz, G., and Lebsanft, F., eds., Historical dialogue analysis, Vol. 66, 293–312. Amsterdam and Philadelphia: John Benjamins.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Culpeper, Jonathan, and Kytö, Merja. 2000. Data in historical pragmatics: Spoken interaction (re)cast as writing. Journal of Historical Pragmatics 1 (2): 175–199.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Culpeper, Jonathan, and Kytö, Merja. 2010. Early Modern English dialogues: Spoken interaction as writing. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Cunningham, Kelly J. 2017. A phraseological exploration of recent mathematics research articles through key phrase frames. Journal of English for Academic Purposes 25: 71–83.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Cutting, Joan. 1999. The grammar of the in-group code. Applied Linguistics 20 (2): 179–202.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Cutting, Joan. 2000. Analysing the language of discourse communities. Amsterdam: Elsevier.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Cutting, Joan. 2012. Vague language in conference abstracts. Journal of English for Academic Purposes 11 (4): 283–293.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Danet, Brenda. 1980. Language in the legal process. Law and Society Review 14: 445–564.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
de la Cruz Cabanillas, Isabel, Martinez, Cristina Tejedor, Prados, Mercedes Diez, and Redondo, Esperanza Cerda. 2007. English loanwords in Spanish computer language. English for Specific Purposes 26: 52–78.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
del-Teso-Craviotto, Marisol. 2006a. Language and sexuality in Spanish and English dating chats. Journal of Sociolinguistics 10 (4): 460–480.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
del-Teso-Craviotto, Marisol. 2006b. Words that matter: Lexical choice and gender ideologies in women’s magazines. Journal of Pragmatics 38: 2003–2021.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Demmen, Jane, Semino, Elena, Demjen, Zsofia, Koller, Veronika, Hardie, Andrew, Rayson, Paul, and Payne, Sheila. 2015. A computer-assisted study of the use of violence metaphors for cancer and end of life by patients, family carers and health professionals. International Journal of Corpus Linguistics 20 (2): 205–231.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Deroey, Katrien LB. 2012. What they highlight is …: The discourse functions of basic wh-clefts in lectures. Journal of English for Academic Purposes 11 (2): 112–124.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Deroey, Katrien LB, and Taverniers, Miriam. 2012. Just remember this: Lexicogrammatical relevance markers in lectures. English for Specific Purposes 31 (4): 221–233.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Dickerson, Paul. 2001. Disputing with care: Analysing interviewees’ treatment of interviewers’ prior turns in televised political interviews. Discourse Studies 3 (2): 203–222.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Ding, Huiling. 2007. Genre analysis of personal statements: Analysis of moves in application essays to medical and dental schools. English for Specific Purposes 26: 368–392.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Dong, Jun, and Sause, Richard. 2010. Behavior of hollow tubular-flange girder systems for curved bridges. Journal of Structural Engineering 136 (2): 174–182.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Donohue, James P. 2006. How to support a one-handed economist: The role of modalization in economic forecasting. English for Specific Purposes 25: 200–216.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Dos Santos, Mauro Bittencourt. 1996. The textual organization of research paper abstracts in applied linguistics. Text 16: 481–499.Google Scholar
Dos Santos, V. B. M. Pinto. 2002. Genre analysis of business letters of negotiation. English for Specific Purposes 21: 167–199.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Doty, Kathleen L., and Hiltunen, Risto. 2002. “I will tell, I will tell”: Confessional patterns in the Salem Witchcraft Trials, 1692. Journal of Historical Pragmatics 3 (2): 299–335.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Dressen, Dacia. 2003. Geologists’ implicit persuasive strategies and the construction of evaluative evidence. Journal of English for Academic Purposes 2: 273–290.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Dubois, Betty Lou. 1980. Genre and structure of biomedical speeches. Forum Linguisticum 5: 140–166.Google Scholar
Duguid, Alison. 2010. Newspaper discourse informalisation: A diachronic comparison from keywords. Corpora 5 (2): 109–138.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Duranti, Alessandro. 1994. From grammar to politics: Linguistic anthropology in a Western Samoan village. Berkeley, CA: University of California Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Eckert, Penelope, and Rickford, John R., eds. 2001. Style and sociolinguistic variation. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Edwards, Derek. 2006. Facts, norms and dispositions: Practical uses of the modal verb would in police interrogations. Discourse Studies 8 (4): 475–501.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Egbert, Jesse. 2012. Style in nineteenth-century fiction: A multi-dimensional analysis. Scientific Study of Literature 2: 167–198.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Egbert, Jesse. 2014. Student perceptions of stylistic variation in introductory university textbooks. Linguistics and Education 25: 64–77.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Egbert, Jesse, Biber, Douglas, and Davies, Mark. 2015. Developing a bottom‐up, user‐based method of web register classification. Journal of the Association for Information Science and Technology 66 (9): 1817–1831.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Egbert, Jesse, and Biber, Douglas. 2016. Do all roads lead to Rome? Modeling register variation with factor analysis and discriminant analysis. Corpus Linguistics and Linguistic Theory. DOI: 10.1515/cllt-2016-0016CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Egbert, Jesse, and Plonsky, Luke. 2015. Success in the abstract: Exploring linguistic and stylistic predictors of conference abstract ratings. Corpora 10 (3): 291–313.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Eggins, Suzanne, Wignell, Peter, and Martin, James R.. 1993. The discourse of history: Distancing the recoverable past. In Ghadessy, 75–109.Google Scholar
Ervin-Tripp, Susan. 1972. On sociolinguistic rules: Alternation and co-occurrence. In Gumperz, J. and Hymes, D., eds., Directions in sociolinguistics: The ethnography of communication, 213–250. New York: Holt.Google Scholar
Feak, Christine, Reinhart, Susan, and Sinsheimer, Ann. 2000. A preliminary analysis of law review notes. English for Specific Purposes 19: 197–220.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Ferguson, Charles. 1983. Sports announcer talk: Syntactic aspects of register variation. Language in Society 12: 153–72.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Ferguson, Charles. 1994. Dialect, register, and genre: Working assumptions about conventionalization. In Biber and Finegan, 15–30.Google Scholar
Ferguson, Gibson. 2001. If you pop over there: A corpus-based study of conditionals in medical discourse. English for Specific Purposes 20: 61–82.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Finegan, Edward, and Biber, Douglas. 1994. Register and social dialect variation: An integrated approach. In Biber and Finegan, 315–347.Google Scholar
Finegan, Edward, and Biber, Douglas. 2001. Register variation and social dialect variation: The register axiom. In Eckert, P. and Rickford, J., eds., Style and sociolinguistic variation, 235–67. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Fitzmaurice, Susan M. 2002a. The Familiar Letter in Early Modern English. Amsterdam and Philadelphia: John Benjamins.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Fitzmaurice, Susan M. 2002b. “Plethoras of witty verbiage” and “heathen Greek”: Ways of reading meaning in English comic drama. Journal of Historical Pragmatics 3 (1): 31–60.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Fitzmaurice, Susan M. 2002c. Politeness and modal meaning in the construction of humiliative discourse in an early eighteenth-century network of patron-client relationships. English Language and Linguistics 6: 239–66.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Fitzmaurice, Susan M. 2003. The grammar of stance in early eighteenth-century English epistolary language. In Leistyna, P. and Meyer, C., eds., Corpus analysis: Language structure and language use, 107–132. Amsterdam: Rodopi.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Fitzmaurice, Susan M., and Taavitsainen, Irma, eds. 2007. Methods in historical pragmatics. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Flowerdew, John, and Dudley-Evans, Tony. 2002. Genre analysis of editorial letters to international journal contributors. Applied Linguistics 23 (4): 463–489.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Flowerdew, John, and Peacock, Matthew, eds. 2001. Research perspectives on English for academic purposes. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Flowerdew, John, and Wan, Alina. 2006. Genre analysis of tax computation letters: How and why tax accountants write the way they do. English for Specific Purposes 25: 133–153.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Flowerdew, John, and Wan, Alina. 2010. The linguistic and the contextual in applied genre analysis: The case of the company audit report. English for Specific Purposes 29 (2): 78–93.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Flowerdew, Lynne. 2016. A genre-inspired and lexico-grammatical approach for helping postgraduate students craft research grant proposals. English for Specific Purposes 42: 1–12.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Fludernik, Monika. 2000. Narrative discourse markers in Malory’s Morte D’Arthur. Journal of Historical Pragmatics 2 (1): 231–262.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Forey, Gail, and Lockwood, Jane, eds. 2010. Globalization, communication, and the workplace: Talking across the world. New York: Continuum.Google Scholar
Fortanet, Inmaculada. 2004. The use of “we” in university lectures: Reference and function. English for Specific Purposes 23: 45–66.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Fortanet, Inmaculada. 2005. Honoris Causa speeches: An approach to structure. Discourse Studies 7 (1): 31–51.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Fortanet, Inmaculada, Posteguillo, Santiago, Palmer, Juan Carlos, and Coll, Juan Francisco, eds. 1998. Genre studies in English for academic purposes. Castellón, Spain: Universitat Jaume I.Google Scholar
Fowler, Roger. 1991. Language in the news: Discourse and ideology in the press. London: Routledge.Google Scholar
Fox, Annie B., Butakto, Danuta, Hallahan, Mark, and Crawford, Mary. 2007. The medium makes a difference: Gender similarities and differences in instant messaging. Journal of Language and Social Psychology 26 (4): 389–397.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Fox, Barbara A., and Thompson, Sandra A.. 1990. A discourse explanation of the grammar of relative clauses in English conversation. Language 66: 297–316.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Freddi, Maria. 2005a. Arguing linguistics: Corpus investigation of one functional variety of academic discourse. Journal of English for Academic Purposes 4: 5–26.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Freddi, Maria. 2005b. From corpus to register: The construction of evaluation and argumentation in linguistics textbooks. In Tognini-Bonelli and Camiciotti, 133–152.Google Scholar
Freeborn, Dennis. 1996. Style: Text analysis and linguistic criticism. London: Palgrave.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Friginal, Eric. 2008. Linguistic variation in the discourse of outsourced call centers. Discourse Studies 10 (6): 715–736.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Friginal, Eric. 2009. The language of outsourced call centers: A corpus-based study of cross-cultural interaction. Philadelphia: John Benjamins.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Friginal, Eric, ed. 2013. Twenty-five years of Biber’s Multi-Dimensional Analysis. Corpora 8 (2).CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Friginal, Eric, and Mustafa, Sabah Slebi. 2017. A comparison of US-based and Iraqi English research article abstracts using corpora. Journal of English for Academic Purposes 25: 45–57.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Friginal, Eric, Pearson, Pamela, Di Ferrante, Laura, Pickering, Lucy, and Bruce, Carrie. 2013. Linguistic characteristics of AAC discourse in the workplace. Discourse Studies 15 (3): 279–298.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Friginal, Eric, and Weigle, Sara. 2014. Exploring multiple profiles of L2 writing using multi-dimensional analysis. Journal of Second Language Writing 26: 80–95.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Fritz, Gerd. 2001. Text types in a new medium: The first newspapers (1609). Journal of Historical Pragmatics 2 (1): 69–83.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Fuertes-Olivera, Pedro A. 2007. A corpus-based view of lexical gender in written Business English. English for Specific Purposes 26: 219–234.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Fuertes-Olivera, Pedro A., Velasco-Sacristan, Marisol, Arribas-Bano, Ascension, and Sarmaniego-Fernandez, Eva. 2001. Persuasion and advertising in English: Metadiscourse in slogans and headlines. Journal of Pragmatics 33: 1291–1307.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Gains, Jonathan. 1999. Electronic mail – a new style of communication or just a new medium? An investigation into the text features of email. English for Specific Purposes 18 (1): 81–101.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Gardner, Sheena. 2004. Knock-on effects of mode change on academic discourse. Journal of English for Academic Purposes 3: 23–38.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Gardner, Sheena. 2012. Genres and registers of student report writing: An SFL perspective on texts and practices. Journal of English for Academic Purposes 11 (1): 52–63.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Gardner, Sheena, Nesi, Hilary, and Biber, Douglas. 2018. Discipline, level, genre: Integrating situational perspectives in a new MD analysis of university student writing. Applied Linguistics (Advance Access).CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Geisler, Christer. 2002. Investigating register variation in nineteenth-century English: A multi-dimensional comparison. In Reppen, R., Fitzmaurice, S. M., and Biber, D., eds., Using corpora to explore linguistic variation, 249–271. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Ghadessy, Mohsen, ed. 1988a. Registers of written English: Situational factors and linguistic features. London: Pinter Publishers.Google Scholar
Ghadessy, Mohsen. 1988b. The language of written sports commentary: Soccer – a description. In Ghadessy, 17–51.Google Scholar
Ghadessy, Mohsen, ed. 1993a. Register analysis: Theory and practice. London and New York: Pinter Publishers.Google Scholar
Ghadessy, Mohsen. 1993b. On the nature of written business communication. In Ghadessy, M., ed., Register analysis: Theory and practice, 149–164. London and New York: Pinter Publishers.Google Scholar
Giannoni, Davide Simone. 2002. Worlds of gratitude: A contrastive study of acknowledgement texts in English and Italian research articles. Applied Linguistics 23 (1): 1–31.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Gibbon, Dafydd. 1981. Idiomaticity and functional variation: A case study of international amateur radio talk. Language in Society 10: 21–42.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Gibbon, Dafydd. 1985. Context and variation in two-way radio discourse. Discourse Processes 8: 395–419.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Giltrow, Janet. 2005. Modern conscience: Modalities of obligation in research genres. Text 25: 171–199.Google Scholar
Gimenez, Julio C. 2000. Business email communication: Some emerging tendencies in register. English for Specific Purposes 19: 237–251.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Gledhill, Chris. 2000. The discourse function of collocation in research article introductions. English for Specific Purposes 19: 115–135.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Goźdź-Roszkowski, Stanislaw. 2011. Patterns of linguistic variation in American legal English: A corpus-based study. Frankfurt: Peter Lang.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Gosden, Hugh. 1992. Discourse functions of marked theme in scientific research articles. English for Specific Purposes 11: 207–224.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Gosden, Hugh. 1993. Discourse functions of subjects in scientific research articles. Applied Linguistics 14 (1): 56–75.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Grabe, William, and Kaplan, Robert. 1996. Theory and practice of writing. New York: Longman.Google Scholar
Grabe, William, and Kaplan, Robert. 1997. On the writing of science and the science of writing: Hedging in science text and elsewhere. In Markkanen, R. and Schroder, H., eds., Hedging and discourse: Approaches to the analysis of a pragmatic phenomenon in academic texts, 151–167. Berlin: Walter de Gruyter.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Grabowski, Łukasz. 2015. Keywords and lexical bundles within English pharmaceutical discourse: A corpus-driven description. English for Specific Purposes 38: 23–33.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Grant, Lynn E. 2011. The frequency and functions of just in British academic spoken English. Journal of English for Academic Purposes 10 (3): 183–197.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Gray, Bethany. 2010. On the use of demonstrative pronouns and determiners as cohesive devices: A focus on sentence-initial this/these in academic prose. Journal of English for Academic Purposes 9 (3): 167–183.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Gray, Bethany. 2013. More than discipline: Uncovering multi-dimensional patterns of variation in academic research articles. Corpora 8 (2): 153–181.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Gray, Bethany. 2015. Linguistic variation in research articles: When discipline tells only part of the story. Philadelphia: John Benjamins.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Gray, Bethany, and Biber, Douglas. 2013. Lexical frames in academic prose and conversation. International Journal of Corpus Linguistics 18 (1): 109.136.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Gray, Bethany, and Cortes, Viviana. 2011. Perception vs. evidence: An analysis of this and these in academic prose. English for Specific Purposes 30 (1): 31–43.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Greatbatch, David. 1988. A turn-taking system for British news interviews. Language in Society 17: 401–430.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Grieve, Jack. 2014. A multi-dimensional analysis of regional variation in American English. In Berber Sardinha and Pinto, 3–34.Google Scholar
Groom, Nicholas. 2005. Pattern and meaning across genres and disciplines: An exploratory study. Journal of English for Academic Purposes 4: 257–277.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Gross, Alan G., Harmon, Joseph E., and Reidy, Michael S.. 2002. Communicating science: The scientific article from the 17th century to present. Oxford: Oxford University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Gunnarsson, Britt-Louise. 1993. Pragmatic and macrothematic patterns in science and popular science: A diachronic study of articles from three fields. In Ghadessy, 165–180.Google Scholar
Gunnarsson, Britt-Louise, Linell, Per, and Nordberg, Bengt, eds. 1996. Text and talk in professional contexts. Uppsala: ASLA.Google Scholar
Gustafson, Marita. 1984. The syntactic features of binomial expressions in legal English. Text 4: 123–141.Google Scholar
Hafner, Christoph A. 2010. A multi-perspective genre analysis of the barrister’s opinion: Writing context, generic structure, and textualization. Written Communication 27 (4): 410–441.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Halleck, Gene B., and Connor, Ulla M.. 2006. Rhetorical moves in TESOL conference proposals. Journal of English for Academic Purposes 5: 70–86.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Halliday, Michael A. K. 1978. Language as social semiotic: The social interpretation of language and meaning. London: Edward Arnold.Google Scholar
Halliday, Michael A. K. 1988. On the language of physical science. In Ghadessy, 162–178.Google Scholar
Halliday, Michael A. K. 1989. Spoken and written language. Oxford and New York: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Halliday, Michael A. K., and Martin, James R.. 1993. Writing science: Literacy and discursive power. Pittsburgh: University of Pittsburgh Press.Google Scholar
Halmari, Helena. 2005. In search of “successful” political persuasion: A comparison of the styles of Bill Clinton and Ronald Reagan. In Halmari, Helena and Virtanen, Tuija, eds., Persuasion across genres: A linguistic approach, 105–134. Amsterdam and Philadelphia: John Benjamins.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Hamilton, Heidi E. 1998. Reported speech and survivor identity in on-line bone marrow transplantation narratives. Journal of Sociolinguistics 2 (1): 53–67.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Hardy, Jack A., and Friginal, Eric. 2016. Genre variation in student writing: A multi-dimensional analysis. Journal of English for Academic Purposes 22: 119–131.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Hardy, Jack A., and Römer, Ute. 2013. Revealing disciplinary variation in student writing: A multi-dimensional analysis of the Michigan Corpus of Upper-level Student Papers (MICUSP). Corpora 8 (2): 183–207.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Harris, Simon. 1997. Procedural vocabulary in law case reports. English for Specific Purposes 16 (4): 289–308.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Harvey, Annamaria. 1992. Science reports and indexicality. English for Specific Purposes 11 :115–128.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Harvey, Annamaria. 1995. Interaction in public reports. English for Specific Purposes 14 (3): 189–200.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Harwood, Nigel. 2005. “We do not seem to have a theory … The theory I present here attempts to fill this gap”: Inclusive and exclusive pronouns in academic writing. Applied Linguistics 26 (3): 343–375.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Harwood, Nigel. 2006. (In)appropriate personal pronoun use in political science: A qualitative study and a proposed heuristic for future research. Written Communication 23 (4): 424–450.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Heath, Shirey Brice, and Langman, Juliet. 1994. Shared thinking and the register of coaching. In Biber and Finegan, 82–105.Google Scholar
Helt, Marie. 2001. A multi-dimensional comparison of British and American spoken English. In Conrad and Biber, 171–184.Google Scholar
Hemais, Barbara. 2001. The discourse of research and practice in marketing journals. English for Specific Purposes 20: 39–59.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Henderson, Willie, Dudley-Evans, Tony, and Backhouse, Roger, eds. 1993. Economics and language. London and New York: Routledge.Google Scholar
Henry, Alex, and Roseberry, Robert L.. 1997. An investigation of the functions, strategies, and linguistic features of the introductions and conclusions of essays. System 25 (4): 479–495.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Henry, Alex, and Roseberry, Robert L.. 2001. A narrow-angled corpus analysis of moves and strategies of the genre: “Letter of Application.” English for Specific Purposes 20: 153–167.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Henzl, Vera M. 1974. Linguistic register of foreign language instruction. Language Learning 23: 207–222.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Herring, Susan C., ed. 1996. Computer-mediated communication: Linguistic, social and cross-cultural perspectives. Amsterdam and Philadelphia: John Benjamins.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Herring, Susan C., and Paolillo, John C.. 2006. Gender and genre variation in weblogs. Journal of Sociolinguistics 10 (4): 493–459.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Hewings, Martin, ed. 2001. Academic writing in context: Implications and applications. Birmingham: Birmingham University Press.Google Scholar
Hewings, Martin, and Hewings, Ann. 2002. “It is interesting to note that …”: A comparative study of anticipatory “it” in student and published writing. English for Specific Purposes 21: 367–383.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Hiltunen, Risto. 1984. The type and structure of clausal embedding in legal English. Text 4: 107–121.Google Scholar
Hiltunen, Risto. 1990. Chapters on legal English: Aspects past and present of the language of the law, (Annals of the Finnish Academy of Science series B 251). Helsinki: Finnish Academy of Science.Google Scholar
Hinrichs, Lars, Szmrecsanyi, Benedikt, and Bohmann, Axel. 2015. Which-hunting and the Standard English relative clause. Language 91 (4): 806–836.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Holmes, Richard. 1997. Genre analysis and the social sciences: An investigation of the structure of research article discussion sections in three disciplines. English for Specific Purposes 16 (4): 321–337.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Hood, Susan, and Forey, Gail. 2005. Introducing a conference paper: Getting interpersonal with your audience. Journal of English for Academic Purposes 4: 291–306.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Hopkins, Andy, and Dudley-Evans, Tony. 1988. A genre-based investigation of the discussion sections in articles and dissertations. English for Specific Purposes 7 (2): 113–122.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Hornberger, Nancy H. 1994. Continua of biliteracy. In Ferdman, B. M., Weber, R.-M., and Ramirez, A. G., eds., Literacy across languages and cultures, 103–139. Albany, NY: State University of New York Press.Google Scholar
Horsella, Maria, and Sindermann, Gerda. 1992. Aspects of scientific discourse: Conditional argumentation. English for Specific Purposes 11: 129–139.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Hundt, Marianne, and Mair, Christian. 1999. “Agile” and “uptight” genres: The corpus-based approach to language change in progress. International Journal of Corpus Linguistics 4: 221–242.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Hundt, Marianne, Nesselhauf, Nadja, and Biewer, Carolin, eds. 2007. Corpus linguistics and the web. Amsterdam: Rodopi.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Hung, Hsuan, Chen, Pi-Ching, and Tsai, Jing-Jane. 2012. Rhetorical structure and linguistic features of case presentations in case reports in Taiwanese and international medical journals. Journal of English for Academic Purposes 11 (3): 220–228.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Hunston, Susan. 1993. Evaluation and ideology in scientific writing. In Ghassedy, 57–74.Google Scholar
Hunston, Susan. 2005. Conflict and consensus: Construing opposition in Applied Linguistics. In Tognini-Bonelli and Camiciotti, 1–16.Google Scholar
Hyland, Ken. 1996. Writing without Conviction? Hedging in science research articles. Applied Linguistics 17 (4): 433–454.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Hyland, Ken. 1998. Hedging in scientific research articles. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Hyland, Ken. 1999a. Academic attribution: Citation and the construction of disciplinary knowledge. Applied Linguistics 20 (3): 341–367.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Hyland, Ken. 1999b. Talking to students: Metadiscourse in introductory coursebooks. English for Specific Purposes 18 (1): 3–26.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Hyland, Ken. 2000. Disciplinary discourses: Social interactions in academic writing. Harlow, England: Longman.Google Scholar
Hyland, Ken. 2001a. Bringing in the reader: Addressee features in academic articles. Written Communication 18 (4): 549–574.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Hyland, Ken. 2001b. Humble servants of the discipline? Self-mention in research articles. English for Specific Purposes 20: 207–226.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Hyland, Ken. 2002a. Teaching and researching writing. Harlow, England: Pearson Education.Google Scholar
Hyland, Ken. 2002b. Directives: Argument and engagement in academic writing. Applied Linguistics 23 (2): 215–239.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Hyland, Ken. 2002c. What do they mean? Questions in academic writing. Text 22 (4): 529–557.Google Scholar
Hyland, Ken. 2004. Graduates’ gratitude: The generic structure of dissertation acknowledgements. English for Specific Purposes 23: 303–324.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Hyland, Ken. 2005. Stance and engagement: A model of interaction in academic discourse. Discourse Studies 7 (2): 173–192.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Hyland, Ken. 2009. Academic discourse: English in a global context. New York: Continuum.Google Scholar
Hyland, Ken, and Guinda, Carmen Sancho, eds. 2012. Stance and voice in written academic genres. New York: Palgrave Macmillan.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Hyland, Ken, and Jiang, Feng. 2016. “We must conclude that …”: A diachronic study of academic engagement. Journal of English for Academic Purposes 24: 29–42.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Hyland, Ken, and Tse, Polly. 2004. Metadiscourse in academic writing: A reappraisal. Applied Linguistics 25 (2): 156–177.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Hyland, Ken, and Tse, Polly. 2005. Hooking the reader: A corpus study of evaluative that in abstracts. English for Specific Purposes 24: 123–139.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Hymes, Dell. 1974. Foundations in sociolinguistics: An ethnographic approach. Philadelphia: University of Pennsylvania Press.Google Scholar
Hymes, Dell. 1984. Sociolinguistics: Stability and consolidation. International Journal of the Sociology of Language 45: 39–45.Google Scholar
Inigo-Mora, Isabel. 2007. Extreme case formulations in Spanish pre-electoral debates and English panel interviews. Discourse Studies 9 (3): 341–363.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Jablonkai, Réka. 2010. English in the context of European integration: A corpus-driven analysis of lexical bundles in English EU documents. English for Specific Purposes 29 (4): 253–267.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Jackson, Jane, and Bilton, Linda. 1994. Stylistic variation in science lectures: Teaching vocabulary. English for Specific Purposes 13: 61–80.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Janda, Richard. 1985. Note-taking English as a simplified register. Discourse Processes 8: 437–54.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Jaworski, Adam, and Galasinski, Dariusz. 2000. Vocative address forms and ideological legitimization in political debates. Discourse Studies 2 (1): 35–53.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Jiang, Feng Kevin. 2017. The “noun + that” construction and disciplinary variation. International Journal of Corpus Linguistics 22 (1): 85–106.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Jiang, Feng Kevin, and Hyland, Ken. 2015. “The fact that”: Stance nouns in disciplinary writing. Discourse Studies 17 (5): 529–550.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Jiang, Feng Kevin, and Hyland, Ken. 2017. Metadiscursive nouns: Interaction and cohesion in abstract moves. English for Specific Purposes 46: 1–14.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Jiang, Xiangying. 2006. Cross-cultural pragmatic differences in US and Chinese press conferences: The case of the North Korea nuclear crisis. Discourse and Society 17 (2): 237–257.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Johansson, Marjut. 2006. Constructing objects of discourse in the broadcast political interview. Journal of Pragmatics 38: 216–229.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
John, Peter, Brooks, Benjamin, and Schriever, Ulf. 2017. Profiling maritime communication by non-native speakers: A quantitative comparison between the baseline and standard marine communication phraseology. English for Specific Purposes 47: 1–14.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Johnson, Barry. 1995. Some features of maritime telex service communication. English for Specific Purposes 14 (2): 127–136.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Junqueira, Luciana. 2013. A genre-based investigation of applied linguistics book reviews in English and Brazilian Portuguese. Journal of English for Academic Purposes 12 (3): 203–213.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Kahlas-Tarkka, Leena, and Rissanen, Matti. 2007. The sullen and the talkative: Discourse strategies in the Salem examinations. Journal of Historical Pragmatics 8 (1): 1–24.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Kanoksilapatham, Budsaba. 2005. Rhetorical structure of biochemistry research articles. English for Specific Purposes 24: 269–292.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Kaplan, Robert B., Cantor, Serena, Hagstrom, Cynthia, Kahmi-Stein, Lia D., Shiotani, Yumiko, and Zimmermann, Cheryl Boyd. 1994. On abstract writing. Text 14 (3): 401–426.Google Scholar
Kim, Young-Jin, and Biber, Douglas. 1994. A corpus-based analysis of register variation in Korean. In Biber and Finegan, 157–181.Google Scholar
Kline, Susan L. 2005. Interactive media systems: Influence strategies in television home shopping. Text 25 (2): 201–231.Google Scholar
Koester, Almut Josepha. 2004. Relational sequences in workplace genres. Journal of Pragmatics 36: 1405–1428.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Koester, Almut Josepha. 2006. Investigating workplace discourse. London: Routledge.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Kong, Kenneth C. C. 2006. Property transaction report: News, advertisement, or a new genre? Discourse Studies 8 (6): 771–796.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Koutsantoni, Dimitra. 2004. Attitude, certainty, and allusion to common knowledge in scientific research articles. Journal of English for Academic Purposes 18 (2): 163–182.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Kruger, Haidee, and van Rooy, Bertus. 2016. A multidimensional analysis of translated English and a non-native indigenised variety of English. English World-Wide 3 (1): 26–57.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Kryk-Kastovsky, Barbara. 2000. Representations of orality in Early Modern English trial records. Journal of Historical Pragmatics 1 (2):201–230.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Kryk-Kastovsky, Barbara. 2006. Impoliteness in Early Modern English courtroom discourse. Journal of Historical Pragmatics 7 (2): 213–243.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Kuiper, Koenraad, and Haggo, Douglas. 1984. Livestock auctions, oral poetry, and ordinary language. Language in Society 13: 205–234.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Kuiper, Koenraad, and Tillis, Frederick. 1986. The chant of the tobacco auctioneer. American Speech 60: 141–149.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Kuo, Chih-Hua. 1999. The use of personal pronouns: Role relationships in scientific journal articles. English for Specific Purposes 18 (2): 121–138.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Kuo, Sai-Hua. 2001. Reported speech in Chinese political discourse. Discourse Studies 3 (2): 181–202.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Kuo, Sai-Hua. 2002. From solidarity to antagonism: The uses of the second-person singular pronoun in Chinese political discourse. Text 22 (1): 29–55.Google Scholar
Kuo, Sai-Hua. 2003. Involvement vs detachment: Gender differences in the use of personal pronouns in televised sports in Taiwan. Discourse Studies 5 (4): 479–494.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Kwan, Becky S. C. 2006. The schematic structure of literature reviews in doctoral theses of applied linguistics. English for Specific Purposes 25: 30–55.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Kytö, Merja. 1991. Variation and diachrony, with Early American English in focus. Frankfurt: Peter Lang.Google Scholar
Kytö, Merja, Rydén, Mats, and Smitterberg, Erik, eds. 2006. Nineteenth-century English: Stability and change. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Kytö, Merja, and Walker, Terry. 2003. The linguistic study of Early Modern English speech-related texts: How “bad” can “bad” data be? Journal of English Linguistics 31 (3): 221–248.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Labov, William. 1966. The social stratification of English in New York City. Washington, DC: Center for Applied Linguistics.Google Scholar
Labov, William. 1972. Sociolinguistic patterns. Philadelphia: University of Pennsylvania Press.Google Scholar
Laforest, Martry. 2002. Scenes of family life: Complaining in everyday conversation. Journal of Pragmatics 34: 1595–1620.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Lamb, William. 2008. Scottish Gaelic speech and writing: Register variation in an endangered language. Belfast: Queen’s University Belfast.Google Scholar
Lancaster, Zak. 2016. Expressing stance in undergraduate writing: Discipline-specific and general qualities. Journal of English for Academic Purposes 23: 16–30.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Larson, Brian N. 2016. Gender/genre: The lack of gendered register in texts requiring genre knowledge. Written Communication 33 (4): 360–384.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Lassen, Inger. 2006. Is the press release a genre? A study of form and content. Discourse Studies 8 (4): 503–530.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Latour, B., and Woolgar, S.. 1986. Laboratory life: The construction of scientific facts, 2nd edn. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press.Google Scholar
Lee, David. 2001. Genres, registers, text types, domains, and styles: Clarifying the concepts and navigating a path through the BNC jungle. Language Learning and Technology 5, 37–72.Google Scholar
Lee, Joseph J. 2016. “There’s intentionality behind it …”: A genre analysis of EAP classroom lessons. Journal of English for Academic Purposes 23: 99–112.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Lee, Joseph J., and Subtirelu, Nicholas C.. 2014. Metadiscourse in the classroom: A comparative analysis of EAP lessons and university lectures. English for Specific Purposes 37: 52–62.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Leech, Geoffrey N., and Smith, Nicholas. 2006. Recent grammatical change in written English 1961–1992. In Renouf, A. and Kehoe, A., eds., The changing face of corpus linguistics, 185–204. Amsterdam: Rodopi.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Leech, Geoffrey N., Hundt, Marianne, Mair, Christian, and Smith, Nicholas. 2009. Change in contemporary English: A grammatical study. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Legg, Miranda. 2007. From question to answer: The genre of the problem-based tutorial at the University of Hong Kong. English for Specific Purposes 26: 344–367.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Lei, Lei. 2012. Linking adverbials in academic writing on applied linguistics by Chinese doctoral students. Journal of English for Academic Purposes 11 (3): 267–275.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Lemke, Jay L. 1990. Talking science: Language, learning, and values. Norwood, NJ: Ablex.Google Scholar
Lewin, Beverly. 1998. Hedging: Form and function in scientific research articles. In Fortanet et al., 89–104.Google Scholar
Lewin, Beverly A, Fine, Jonathan, and Young, Lynne. 2001. Expository discourse: A genre-based approach to social science research texts. London: Continuum.Google Scholar
Li, Li-Juan, and Ge, Guang-Chun. 2009. Genre analysis: Structural and linguistic evolution of the English-medium medical research article (1985–2004). English for Specific Purposes 28 (2): 93–104.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Li, Shuangling. 2017. A corpus-based study of vague language in legislative texts: Strategic use of vague terms. English for Specific Purposes 45: 98–109.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Lim, Jason Miin-Hwa. 2012. How do writers establish research niches? A genre-based investigation into management researchers’ rhetorical steps and linguistic mechanisms. Journal of English for Academic Purposes 11 (3): 229–245.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Lin, Chia-Yen. 2017. “I see absolutely nothing wrong with that, in fact I think …”: Functions of modifiers in shaping dynamic relationships in dissertation defenses. Journal of English for Academic Purposes 28 : 14–24.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Lindemann, Stephanie, and Mauranen, Anna. 2001. “It’s just really messy”: The occurrence and function of just in a corpus of academic speech. English for Specific Purposes 20: 459–475.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Lindley, Jori. 2017. Literal versus exaggerated always and never. International Journal of Corpus Linguistics 21 (2): 219–249.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Liu, Dilin. 2012. The most frequently used multi-word constructions in academic written English: A multi-corpus study. English for Specific Purposes 31 (1): 25–35.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Lockwood, Jane. 2017. An analysis of web-chat in an outsourced customer service account in the Philippines. English for Specific Purposes 47: 26–39.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Loi, Chek Kim. 2010. Research article introductions in Chinese and English: A comparative genre-based study. Journal of English for Academic Purposes 9 (4): 267–279.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Lorés, Rosa. 2004. On RA abstracts: From rhetorical structure to thematic organisation. English for Specific Purposes 23: 280–302.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Lorés, Rosa. 2006. “I will argue that”: first person pronouns as metadiscoursal devices in research articles in English and Spanish. ESP across Cultures 3: 23–40.Google Scholar
Love, Alison M. 1991. Process and product in geology: Investigation of some discourse features of two introductory textbooks. English for Specific Purposes 10: 89–109.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Love, Alison M. 1993. Lexico-grammatical features in geology textbooks: Process and product revisited. English for Specific Purposes 12: 197–218.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Love, Alison M. 2002. Introductory concepts and “cutting edge” theories: Can the genre of the textbook accommodate both? In Flowerdew, 76–91.Google Scholar
Luzon Marco, Maria Jose. 1999. Procedural vocabulary: Lexical signaling of conceptual relations in discourse. Applied Linguistics 20 (1): 1–21.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Luzon Marco, Maria Jose. 2000. Collocational frameworks in medical research papers: A genre-based study. English for Specific Purposes 19: 63–86.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Lynch, Michael. 1985. Art and artifact in laboratory science: A study of shop work and shop talk in a research laboratory. London: Routledge.Google Scholar
MacDonald, Susan Peck. 2005. The language of journalism in treatments of hormone replacement news. Written Communication 22 (3): 275–297.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Magnet, Anne, and Carnet, Didier. 2006. Letters to the editor: Still vigorous after all these years? A presentation of the discursive and linguistic features of the genre. English for Specific Purposes 25: 173–199.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Mair, Christian. 2006. Twentieth century English: History, variation, and standardization. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Mäkinen, Martti. 2002. On interaction in herbals from Middle English to Early Modern English. Journal of Historical Pragmatics 3 (2): 229–251.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Mann, William C, and Thompson, Sandra A., eds. 1992. Discourse description: Diverse linguistic analyses of a fund-raising text. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Mårdh, Ingrid. 1980. Headlinese: On the grammar of English front page headlines. Malmö: CWK Gleerup.Google Scholar
Marley, Carol. 2002. Popping the question: Questions and modality in written dating advertisements. Discourse Studies 4 (1): 75–98.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Marra, Meredith, and Holmes, Janet. 2004. Workplace narratives and business reports: Issues of definition. Text 24 (1): 59–78.Google Scholar
Martin, James R. 1985. Factual writing: Exploring and challenging social reality. Geelong, Victoria: Deakin University Press.Google Scholar
Martin, James R. 1997. Analysing genre: Functional parameters. In Christie, F. and Martin, J. R., eds., Genre and institutions: Social processes in the workplace and school, 3–39. London and New York: Continuum.Google Scholar
Martin, James R. 2001. Language, register, and genre. In Burns, A. and Coffin, C., eds., Analysing English in a global context, 149–166. London: Routledge.Google Scholar
Martin, J. R., and Veel, Robert, eds. 1998. Reading science: Critical and functional perspectives on discourses of science. London: Routledge.Google Scholar
Martín, Pedro Martín. 2003. A genre analysis of English and Spanish research paper abstracts in experimental social sciences. English for Specific Purposes 22: 25–43.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Martín, Pedro Martín, and Burgess, Sally. 2004. The rhetorical management of academic criticism in research article abstracts. Text 24 (2): 171–195.Google Scholar
Martinez, Iliana A. 2001. Impersonality in the research article as revealed by analysis of the transitivity structure. English for Specific Purposes 20: 227–247.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Martinez, Iliana A. 2003. Aspects of theme in the method and discussion sections of biology journal articles in English. Journal of English for Academic Purposes 2: 103–123.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Master, Peter. 1991. Active verbs with inanimate subjects in scientific prose. English for Specific Purposes 10: 15–33.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Matthiessen, Christian M. I. M. 1993. Register in the round: Diversity in a unified theory of register analysis. In Ghadessy, 221–292.Google Scholar
Mauranen, Anna. 2003. “A good question”: Expressing evaluation in academic speech. In Cortese, G. and Riley, P., eds., Domain-specific English: Textual practices across communities and classrooms, 115–140. New York: Peter Lang.Google Scholar
Mauranen, Anna. 2004. “They’re a little bit different”: Variation in hedging in academic speech. In Aijmer, K. and Stenström, A-B., eds., Discourse patterns in spoken and written corpora, 173–197. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Mauranen, Anna, and Bondi, Marina. 2003. Evaluative language use in academic discourse. Journal of English for Academic Purposes 2, 269–271.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
McCabe, Anne. 2004. Mood and modality in Spanish and English textbooks: The construction of authority. Text 24 (1): 1–29.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
McCarthy, Michael. 1998. Spoken language and applied linguistics. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
McCarthy, Michael, and Carter, Ronald. 2004. There’s millions of them: Hyperbole in everyday conversation. Journal of Pragmatics 36: 149–184.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
McEnery, Tony, and Kifle, Nazareth Amselom. 2002. Epistemic modality in argumentative essays of second-language writers. In Flowerdew, 182–195.Google Scholar
McEnery, Anthony, Xiao, Richard, and Tono, Yukio. 2006. Corpus-based language studies. London: Routledge.Google Scholar
McGrath, Lisa, and Kuteeva, Maria. 2012. Stance and engagement in pure mathematics research articles: Linking discourse features to disciplinary practices. English for Specific Purposes 31 (3): 161–173.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
McKenna, Bernard. 1997. How engineers write: An empirical study of engineering report writing. Applied Linguistics 18 (2): 189–211.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Mehler, Alexander, Sharoff, Serge, and Santini, Marina, eds. 2010. Genres on the Web: computational models and empirical studies. New York: Springer.Google Scholar
Melander, Björn. 1998. Culture or genre? Issues in the interpretation of cross-cultural differences in scientific articles. In Fortanet et al., 211–226.Google Scholar
Merritt, Marilyn. 1976. On questions following questions in service encounters. Language in Society 5: 315–357.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Milizia, Denise. 2006. Classifying phraseology in a spoken corpus of political discourse. ESP across Cultures 3: 41–65.Google Scholar
Miller, Claire Cain. 2010. Why Twitter’s CEO demoted himself. The New York Times, October 30. Retrieved from www.nytimes.com/2010/10/31/technology/31ev.htmlGoogle Scholar
Miller, Don. 2011. ESL reading textbooks vs. university textbooks: Are we giving our students the input they may need? Journal of English for Academic Purposes 10 (1): 32–46.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Monaco, Leida Maria. 2016. Was Late Modern English scientific writing impersonal? International Journal of Corpus Linguistics 2 (4): 499–526.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Montgomery, Martin. 1988. D-J talk. In Coupland, N., ed., Styles of discourse, London: Croom Helm.Google Scholar
Moore, Tim. 2002. Knowledge and agency: A study of “metaphenomenal discourse” in textbooks from three disciplines. English for Specific Purposes 21: 347–366.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Moreno, Ana I. 1997. Genre constraints across languages: Causal metatext in Spanish and English RAs. English for Specific Purposes 16 (3): 161–179.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Morrow, Phillip R. 2006. Telling about problems and giving advice in an internet discussion forum: Some discourse features. Discourse Studies 8 (4): 531–548.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Mungra, Philippa. 2007. A research and discussion note: The macrostructure of consensus statements. English for Specific Purposes 26: 79–89.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Murray, Thomas. 1985. The language of singles bars. American Speech 60: 17–30.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Myers, Gregory. 1989. The pragmatics of politeness in scientific articles. Applied Linguistics 10: 1–35.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Myers, Gregory. 1990. Writing biology: Texts in the social construction of scientific knowledge. Madison, WI: University of Wisconsin Press.Google Scholar
Myers, Gregory. 1991. Lexical cohesion and specialized knowledge in science and popular science texts. Discourse Processes 14 (1): 1–26.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Myers, Gregory. 1992. “In this paper we report …”: Speech acts and scientific facts. Journal of Pragmatics 16: 295–313.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Myers, Gregory. 1999. Functions of reported speech in group discussions. Applied Linguistics 20 (3): 376–401.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Nash, Walter, ed. 1990. The writing scholar: Studies in academic discourse. Newbury Park, CA: Sage Publications.Google Scholar
Nathan, Philip. 2013. Academic writing in the business school: The genre of the business case report. Journal of English for Academic Purposes 12 (1): 57–68.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Nelson, Mike. 2006. Semantic associations in Business English: A corpus-based analysis. English for Specific Purposes 25: 217–234.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Nesi, Hilary, and Basturkmen, Helen. 2006. Lexical bundles and discourse signaling in academic lectures. International Journal of Corpus Linguistics 11: 283–304.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Nesi, Hilary, and Gardner, Sheena. 2012. Genres across the disciplines: Student writing in higher education. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Nevala, Minna. 2004. Accessing politeness axes: Forms of address and terms of reference in early English correspondence. Journal of Pragmatics 36 (12): 2125–2160.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Nevile, Maurice. 2006. Making sequentiality salient: and-prefacing in the talk of airline pilots. Discourse Studies 8 (2): 279–302.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Newman, Michael. 2005. Rap as literacy: A genre analysis of Hip-Hop ciphers. Text 25 (3): 399–436.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Nini, Andrea. 2015. MAT – Multidimensional Analysis Tagger. Retrieved from: https://sites.google.com/site/multidimensionaltagger/Google Scholar
Nuckolls, Kandace. 2005. “IM Communicating: A Conversational Analysis of Instant Message Conversations.” Unpublished Master’s thesis. Portland State University, Portland, Oregon.Google Scholar
Nunan, David. 2008. Exploring genre and register in contemporary English. English Today 2 (2): 56–61.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Nwogu, Kevin Ngozi. 1991. Structure of science popularizations: A genre-analysis approach to the schema of popularized medical texts. English for Specific Purposes, 10 (2): 111–123.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Nwogu, Kevin Ngozi. 1997. The medical research paper: Structure and functions. English for Specific Purposes 16 (2), 119–138.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Oakey, David. 2005. Academic vocabulary in academic discourse: The phraseological behaviour of EVALUATION in Economics research articles. In Tognini-Bonelli and Camiciotti, 169–184.Google Scholar
O’Barr, William M. 1982. Linguistic evidence: Language, power, and strategy in the courtroom. New York: Academic Press.Google Scholar
O’Boyle, Aisling. 2014. “You” and “I” in university seminars and spoken learner discourse. Journal of English for Academic Purposes 16: 40–56.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Odell, Lee, and Goswami, Dixie, eds. 1985. Writing in nonacademic settings. New York: Guilford.Google Scholar
O’Donnell, Roy C. 1974. Syntactic differences between speech and writing. American Speech 49: 102–110.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Oh, Sun-Young. 2001. A focus-based study of English demonstrative reference: With special reference to the genre of written advertisements. Journal of English Linguistics 29: 124–148.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Okamura, Akiko, and Shaw, Philip. 2000. Lexical phrases, culture, and subculture in transactional letter writing. English for Specific Purposes 19: 1–15.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Olson, David R. 1977. From utterance to text: The bias of language in speech and writing. Harvard Educational Review 47: 257–81.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Ozturk, Ismet. 2007. The textual organization of research article introductions in applied linguistics: Variability in a single discipline. English for Specific Purposes 26: 25–38.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Paltridge, Brian. 1994. Genre analysis and the identification of textual boundaries. Applied Linguistics 15: 288–299.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Paltridge, Brian. 1995. Working with genre: A pragmatic perspective. Journal of Pragmatics 24: 393–406.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Paltridge, Brian. 1997. Genres, frames, and writing in research settings. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Paltridge, Brian. 2002. Thesis and dissertation writing: An examination of published advice and actual practice. English for Specific Purposes 21: 125–143.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Pan, Fan, Reppen, Randi, and Biber, Douglas. 2016. Comparing patterns of L1 versus L2 English academic professionals: Lexical bundles in telecommunications research journals. Journal of English for Academic Purposes 21: 60–71.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Parkinson, Jean, Demecheleer, Murielle, and Mackay, James. 2017. Writing like a builder: Acquiring a professional genre in a pedagogical setting. English for Specific Purposes 46: 29–44.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Parodi, Giovanni, ed. 2005. Discurso especializado e instituciones formadoras. Valparaíso, Chile: Universitarias de Valparaíso.Google Scholar
Parodi, Giovanni, 2010. Academic and professional discourse genres in Spanish. Philadelphia: John Benjamins.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Parodi, Giovanni. 2014. Genre organization in specialized discourse: Disciplinary variation across university textbooks. Discourse Studies 16 (1): 65–87.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Pérez-Llantada, Carmen. 2014. Formulaic language in L1 and L2 expert academic writing: Convergent and divergent usage. Journal of English for Academic Purposes 14: 84–94.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Pettinari, Catherine Johnson. 1988. Task, talk, and text in the operating room: A study in medical discourse. Norwood, NJ: Ablex.Google Scholar
Philips, Susan. 1984. The social organization of questions and answers in courtroom discourse: A study of changes of plea in an Arizona court. Text 4: 225–248.Google Scholar
Philips, Susan. 1985. Strategies of clarification in judges’ use of language: From the written to the spoken. Discourse Processes 8: 421–436.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Pisanski Peterlin, Agnes. 2005. Text-organising metatext in research articles: An English-Slovene contrastive analysis. English for Specific Purposes 24 (3): 307–319.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Placencia, Maria E. 2004. Rapport-building activities in corner shop interactions. Journal of Sociolinguistics 8 (2): 215–245.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Porcelli, Gianfranco. 1999. The language of communication and information sciences: Analysis and examples. Milan: Sugarco.Google Scholar
Portio Research. (2012). Mobile messaging futures 2009–2013: Analysis and growth forecasts for mobile messaging markets worldwide, 6th edn. Retrieved from: https://karlwhitfield.files.wordpress.com/2012/12/mobile-messaging-futures-2012-2016-portio-research-ltd-full-report.pdfGoogle Scholar
Posteguillo, Santiago. 1998. The schematic structure of computer science research articles. English for Specific Purposes 18 (2): 139–160.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Precht, Kristen. 1998. A cross-cultural comparison of letters of recommendation. English for Specific Purposes 17 (3): 241–265.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Prince, Ellen F. 1978. A comparison of Wh-clefts and It-clefts in discourse. Language 54: 883–906.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Quaglio, Paulo. 2004. “The language of NBC’s Friends: A comparison with face-to-face conversation.” Unpublished PhD Dissertation. Northern Arizona University.Google Scholar
Quaglio, Paulo. 2009. Television dialogue: The sitcom Friends vs. natural conversation. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Quaglio, Paulo, and Biber, Douglas. 2006. The grammar of conversation. In Aarts, B. and McMahon, A., eds., The handbook of English linguistics, 692–723. Oxford: Blackwell.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Quasthoff, Uta, Heller, Vivien, and Morek, Miriam. 2017. On the sequential organization and genre orientation of discourse units in interaction: An analytic framework. Discourse Studies 19 (1): 84–110.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Ray, Brian. 2016. Stylizing genderlect online for social action: A corpus analysis of “BIC Cristal for Her” reviews. Written Communication 33 (1): 42–67.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Raymond, Geoffrey. 2000. The voice of authority: The local accomplishment of authoritative discourse in live news broadcasts. Discourse Studies 2 (3): 354–379.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Reaser, Jeffrey. 2003. A quantitative approach to (sub)registers: The case of “sports announcer talk.” Discourse Studies 5 (3): 303–321.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Recski, Leonardo. 2005. Interpersonal engagement in academic spoken discourse: A functional account of dissertation defenses. English for Specific Purposes 24: 5–23.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Reichman-Adar, Rachel. 1984. Technical discourse: The present progressive tense, the deictic “that,” and pronominalization. Discourse Processes 7: 337–369.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Reinhardt, Jonathon. 2010. Directives in office hour consultations: A corpus-informed investigation of learner and expert usage. English for Specific Purposes 29 (2): 94–107.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Reinhardt, Jonathon. 2013. An applied genre analysis of office hours consultations. International Journal of Corpus Linguistics 18 (3): 301–326.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Reppen, Randi. 1995. A genre-based approach to content writing instruction. TESOL Journal 4, 32–35.Google Scholar
Reppen, Randi. 2001. Register variation in student and adult speech and writing. In Conrad and Biber, 187–199.Google Scholar
Reppen, Randi. 2004. Academic language: An exploration of university classroom and textbook language. In Connor and Upton, 2004a.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Reppen, Randi, and Vásquez, Camilla. 2007. Using corpus linguistics to investigate the language of teacher training. In Walinski, J., Kredens, K., and Goźdź-Roszkowski, S., eds., Corpora and ICT in language studies, 13–29. Frankfurt: Peter Lang.Google Scholar
Rey, Jennifer M. 2001. Historical shifts in the language of women and men: Gender differences in dramatic dialogue. In Conrad and Biber, 138–156.Google Scholar
Robinson, Marin, Stoller, Fredricka, Costanza-Robinson, Molly, and Jones, James K.. 2008. Write like a chemist: A guide and resource. New York: Oxford University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Römer, Ute. 2005. “This seems counterintuitive, though …”: Negative evaluation in linguistic book reviews by male and female authors. In Tognini-Bonelli and Camiciotti, 97–116.Google Scholar
Rühlemann, Christoph. 2013. Narrative in English conversation: A corpus analysis of storytelling. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Ruiying, Yang, and Allison, Desmond. 2003. Research articles in applied linguistics: Moving from results to conclusions. English for Specific Purposes 22: 365–385.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Ruiying, Yang, and Allison, Desmond. 2004. Research articles in applied linguistics: Structures from a functional perspective. English for Specific Purposes 23: 264–279.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Rundbald, Gabriella. 2007. Impersonal, general, and social: The use of metonymy versus passive voice in medical discourse. Written Communication 24 (3): 250–277.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Salager, Françoise. 1983. The lexis of fundamental medical English: Classificatory framework and rhetorical function (a statistical approach). Reading in a Foreign Language 1: 54–64.Google Scholar
Salager-Meyer, Françoise. 1990. Metaphors in medical English prose: A comparative study with French and Spanish. English for Specific Purposes 9 (2): 145–159.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Salager-Meyer, Françoise. 1992. A text-type and move analysis study of verb tense and modality distribution in medical English abstracts. English for Specific Purposes 11: 93–113.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Salager-Meyer, Françoise. 1994. Hedges and textual communicative function in medical English written discourse. English for Specific Purposes 13 (2): 149–170.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Salager-Meyer, Françoise. 1999. Referential behavior in scientific writing: A diachronic study (1810–1995). English for Specific Purposes 18 (3): 279–305.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Salager-Meyer, Françoise, Ariza, Maria Angeles Alcalaz, and Zambrano, Nahirana. 2003. The scimitar, the dagger, and the glove: Intercultural differences in the rhetoric of criticism in Spanish, French, and English medical discourse (1930–1995). English for Specific Purposes 22: 223–247.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Salager-Meyer, Françoise, and Defives, Gérard. 1998. From the gentleman’s courtesy to the scientist’s caution: A diachronic study of hedges in academic writing (1810–1995). In Fortanet et al., 133–172.Google Scholar
Salager-Meyer, Françoise, and Zambrano, Nahirana. 2001. The bittersweet rhetoric of controversiality in nineteenth- and twentieth-century French and English medical literature. Journal of Historical Pragmatics 2 (1): 141–174.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Sales, Hazel E. 2006. Professional communication practices in engineering. Basingstoke, England: Palgrave Macmillan.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Samraj, Betty. 2002a. Introductions in research articles: Variations across disciplines. English for Specific Purposes 21: 1–17.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Samraj, Betty. 2002b. Disciplinary variation in abstracts: The case of Wildlife Behavior and Conservation Biology. In Flowerdew, 40–56.Google Scholar
Samraj, Betty. 2005. An exploration of a genre set: Research article abstracts and introductions in two disciplines. English for Specific Purposes 24: 141–156.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Samraj, Betty. 2016. Discourse structure and variation in manuscript reviews: Implications for genre categorization. English for Specific Purposes 42: 76–88.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Samraj, Betty, and Gawron, Jean Mark. 2015. The suicide note as a genre: Implications for genre theory. Journal of English for Academic Purposes 19: 88–101.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Samuels, Warren J., ed. 1990. Economics as discourse: An analysis of the language of economics. Boston, Dodrecht, London: Kluwer Academic Publishers.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Schiffrin, Deborah. 1985. Multiple constraints on discourse options: A quantitative analysis of causal sequences, Discourse Processes 8: 281–303.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Schmidt, Rosemarie, and Kess, Joseph F.. 1985. Persuasive language in the television medium. Journal of Pragmatics 9: 287–308.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Semino, Elena, and Short, Mick. 2004. Corpus stylistics: Speech, writing, and thought presentation in a corpus of English writing. London: Routledge.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Shalom, Celia. 1993. Established and evolving spoken research process genres: Plenary lecture and poster session discussions at academic conferences. English for Specific Purposes 12: 37–50.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Shi, Ling, and Kubota, Ryuko. 2007. Patterns of rhetorical organization in Canadian and American language arts textbooks: An exploratory study. English for Specific Purposes 26: 180–202.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Simon-Maeda, Andrea. 2016. A corpus-based study of the AAAL conference handbook. Journal of English for Academic Purposes 23: 71–82.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Simpson, Paul. 2004. Stylistics: A resource book for students. London: Routledge.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Simpson, Rita. 2004. Stylistic features of spoken academic discourse: The role of formulaic expressions. In Connor and Upton, 2004a.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Simpson, Rita, and Mendis, Dushyanthi. 2003. A corpus-based study of idioms in academic speech. TESOL Quarterly 37, 419–441.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Skelton, John. 1997. The representation of truth in academic medical writing. Applied Linguistics 18 (2): 122–140.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Smith, E. L. Jr. 1985. Functional types of scientific prose. In Greaves, W. S. and Benson, J. D., eds., Systemic perspectives on discourse, 241–257. Norwood, NJ: Ablex.Google Scholar
Soler, Viviana. 2002. Analysing adjectives in scientific discourse: An exploratory study with educational applications for Spanish speakers at advanced university level. English for Specific Purposes 21: 145–165.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Soler, Viviana. 2007. Writing titles in science: An exploratory study. English for Specific Purposes 26: 90–102.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Staples, Shelley. 2015a. Examining the linguistic needs of internationally educated nurses: A corpus-based study of lexico-grammatical features in nurse–patient interactions. English for Specific Purposes 37: 122–136.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Staples, Shelley. 2015b. The discourse of nurse–patient interactions: Contrasting the communicative styles of U.S. and international nurses. Philadelphia: John Benjamins.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Staples, Shelley, Biber, Douglas, and Reppen, Randi. 2018. Using corpus-based register analysis to explore authenticity of high-stakes language exams: A register comparison of TOEFL IBT and disciplinary writing tasks. The Modern Language Journal (Advanced Access).CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Staples, Shelley, Egbert, Jesse, Biber, Douglas, and McClair, Alyson. 2013. Formulaic sequences and EAP writing development: Lexical bundles in the TOEFL IBT writing section. Journal of English for Academic Purposes 12 (3): 214–225.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Staples, Shelley, LaFlair, Geoffrey, and Egbert, Jesse. 2017. Comparing language use in oral proficiency interviews to target domains: Conversational, academic, and professional discourse. The Modern Language Journal 101 (1), 194–213.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Staples, Shelley, and Reppen, Randi. 2016. Understanding first-year L2 writing: A lexico-grammatical analysis across L1s, genres, and language ratings. Journal of Second Language Writing 32: 17–35.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Statista. 2017. Most famous social network sites worldwide as of September 2017, ranked by number of active users (in millions). Retrieved from www.statista.com/statistics/272014/global-social-networks-ranked-by-number-of-users/Google Scholar
Stoller, Fredricka L., and Robinson, Marin S.. 2013. Chemistry journal articles: An interdisciplinary approach to move analysis with pedagogical aims. English for Specific Purposes 32 (1): 45–57.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Stotesbury, Hikka. 2003. Evaluation in research article abstracts in the narrative and hard sciences. Journal of English for Academic Purposes 2: 327–241.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Studer, Patrick. 2003. Textual structures in eighteenth-century newspapers: A corpus-based study of headlines. Journal of Historical Pragmatics 4 (1): 19–44.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Swales, John. 1981. Aspects of article introductions. Birmingham, England: University of Aston.Google Scholar
Swales, John. 1990. Genre analysis: English for academic and research settings. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Swales, John. 2001. Metatalk in American academic talk: The cases of point and thing. Journal of English Linguistics 29: 34–54.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Swales, John. 2004. Research genres: Explorations and applications. New York: Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Swales, John M., Ahmad, Ummul K., Chang, Yu-Ying, Chavez, Daniel, Dressen, Dacia F., and Seymour, Ruth. 1998. Consider this: The role of imperatives in scholarly writing. Applied Linguistics 19 (1): 97–121.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Szmrecsanyi, Benedikt. 2016. About text frequencies in historical linguistics: Disentangling environmental and grammatical change. Corpus Linguistics and Linguistic Theory 12 (1): 153–171.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Szmrecsanyi, Benedikt, Biber, Douglas, Egbert, Jesse, and Franco, Karlien. 2016. Toward more accountability: Modeling ternary genitive variation in Late Modern English. Language Variation and Change 28 (1): 1–29.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Szmrecsanyi, Benedikt, Grafmiller, Jason, Bresnan, Joan, Rosenbach, Anette, Tagliamonte, Sali, and Todd, Simon. 2017. Spoken syntax in a comparative perspective: The dative and genitive alternation in varieties of English. Glossa: a journal of general linguistics 2 (1): 86. DOI: http://doi.org/10.5334/gjgl.310CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Taavitsainen, Irma. 2001. Middle English recipes: Genre characteristics, text type features, and underlying traditions of writing. Journal of Historical Pragmatics 2 (1): 85–113.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Taavitsainen, Irma, and Pahta, Päivi. 2000. Conventions of professional writing: The medical case report in a historical perspective. Journal of English Linguistics 28 (1): 60–76.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Taavitsainen, Irma, and Pahta, Päivi, eds. 2004. Medical and scientific writing in Late Medieval English. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Tagg, Caroline. 2012. Discourse of text messaging: Analysis of SMS communication. London: Continuum.Google Scholar
Tanko, Gyula. 2017. Literary research article abstracts: An analysis of rhetorical moves and their linguistic realizations. Journal of English for Academic Purposes 27: 42–55.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Tannen, Deborah. 1987. Repetition in conversation: Toward a poetic of talk. Language 63: 574–605.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Tannen, Deborah. 1989. Talking voices: Repetition, dialogue, and imagery in conversational discourse. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Tannen, Deborah. 2005. Conversational style: Analyzing talk among friends. Revised edn., Oxford: Oxford University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Tao, Hongyin. 2007. A corpus-based investigation of absolutely and related phenomena in spoken American English. Journal of English Linguistics 35 (1): 5–29.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Tapper, Joanna. 1994. Directives used in college laboratory oral discourse. English for Specific Purposes 13 (3): 205–222.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Tardy, Christine M. 2016. Beyond convention: Genre innovation in academic writing. Ann Arbor: University of Michigan Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Tarone, Elaine, Dwyer, Sharon, Gillette, Susan, and Icke, Vincent. 1981. On the use of the passive in two Astrophysics journal papers. ESP Journal 1: 123–140.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Tarone, Elaine, Dwyer, Sharon, Gillette, Susan, and Icke, Vincent. 1998. On the use of the passive and active in Astrophysics journal papers: With extensions to other languages and fields. English for Specific Purposes 17: 113–132.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Tessuto, Girolamo. 2015. Generic structure and rhetorical moves in English-language empirical law research articles: Sites of interdisciplinary and interdiscursive cross-over. English for Specific Purposes 37: 13–26.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Thetela, Puleng. 1997. Evaluated entities and parameters of value in academic research articles. English for Specific Purposes 16 (2): 101–118.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Thomas, Sarah, and Hawes, Thomas P.. 1994. Reporting verbs in medical journal articles. English for Specific Purposes 13 (2): 129–148.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Thompson, Geoff. 1996. Voices in the text: Discourse perspectives on language reports. Applied Linguistics 17 (4): 502–530.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Thompson, Geoff. 2001. Interaction in academic writing: Learning to argue with the reader. Applied Linguistics 22 (1): 58–78.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Thompson, Paul. 2005a. Points of focus and position: Intertextual reference in PhD theses. Journal of English for Academic Purposes 4: 307–323.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Thompson, Paul. 2005b. Aspects of identification and position in intertextual reference in PhD theses. In Tognini-Bonelli and Camiciotti, 31–50.Google Scholar
Thompson, Paul, Hunston, Susan, Murakami, Akira, and Vajn, Dominik. 2017. Multi-Dimensional Analysis, text constellations, and interdisciplinary discourse. International Journal of Corpus Linguistics 22: 153–186.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Thompson, Paul, and Sealey, Alison. 2007. Through children’s eyes? Corpus evidence of the features of children’s literature. International Journal of Corpus Linguistics 12 (1): 1–23.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Thompson, Sandra A. 1985. Grammar and written discourse: Initial vs. final purpose clauses in English. Text 5: 55–84.Google Scholar
Thompson, Sandra A., and Mulac, A.. 1991. A quantitative perspective on the grammaticalization of epistemic parentheticals in English. In Traugott, E. C. and Heine, B., eds., Approaches to grammaticalization, 313–339. Amsterdam and Philadelphia: John Benjamins.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Thompson, Susan. 1994. Frameworks and contexts: A genre-based approach to analyzing lecture introductions. English for Specific Purposes 13 (2): 171–186.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Thompson, Susan. 2003. Text-structuring metadiscourse, intonation, and the signalling of organisation in academic lectures. Journal of English for Academic Purposes 2: 5–20.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Thornborrow, Joanna. 2001. Questions, control and the organization of talk in calls to a radio phone-in. Discourse Studies 3 (1): 119–143.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Thornborrow, Joanna, and Morris, Deborah. 2004. Gossip as strategy: The management of talk about others on reality TV show “Big Brother.” Journal of Sociolinguistics 8 (2):246–271.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Thurlow, Crispin. 2003. Generation Txt? The sociolinguistics of young people’s text-messaging. Discourse Analysis Online (1). Retrieved from: http://extra.shu.ac.uk/daol/articles/v1/n1/a3/thurlow2002003.html.Google Scholar
Tognini-Bonelli, Elena, and Camiciotti, Gabriella Del Lungo, eds. 2005. Strategies in academic discourse. Amsterdam and Philadelphia: John Benjamins.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Tracy-Ventura, Nicole, Biber, Douglas, and Cortes, Viviana. 2007. Lexical bundles in Spanish speech and writing. In Parodi, G., ed., Working with Spanish corpora, 217–231. London: Continuum.Google Scholar
Trudgill, Peter. 1974. The social differentiation of English in Norwich. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Tucker, Paul. 2003. Evaluation in the art-historical research article. Journal of English for Academic Purposes 2: 291–312.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Upton, Thomas A. 2002. Understanding direct mail letters as a genre. International Journal of Corpus Linguistics 7 (1): 65–85.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Upton, Thomas A., and Connor, Ulla. 2001. Using computerized corpus-analysis to investigate the textlinguistic discourse moves of a genre. English for Specific Purposes 20: 313–329.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Ure, Jean. 1982. Introduction: Approaches to the study of register range. International Journal of the Sociology of Language 35: 5–23.Google Scholar
van Mulken, Margot, and van der Meer, Wouter. 2005. Are you being served? A genre analysis of American and Dutch company replies to customer inquiries. English for Specific Purposes 24: 93–109.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
van Rooy, Bertus, Terblanche, Lize, Haase, Christoph, and Schmied, Joseph. 2010. Register differentiation in East African English: A multidimensional study. English World-Wide 31: 311–349.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Vande Kopple, William J. 1998. Relative clauses in spectroscopic articles in the Physical Review, beginnings and 1980. Written Communication 15 (2): 170–202.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Varghese, Susheela Abraham, and Abraham, Sunita Anne. 2004. Book-length scholarly essays as a hybrid genre in science. Written Communication 21 (2): 201–231.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Ventola, Eija. 1983. Contrasting schematic structures in service encounters. Applied Linguistics 4: 423–448.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Ventola, Eija, and Mauranen, Anna. 1996. Academic writing: Intercultural and textual issues. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Ventola, Eija, Shalom, Celia, and Thompson, Susan, eds. 2002. The language of conferencing. Frankfurt: Peter Lang.Google Scholar
Vergaro, Carla. 2004. Discourse strategies of Italian and English sales promotion letters. English for Specific Purposes 23: 181–207.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Vergaro, Carla. 2005. “Dear Sirs, I hope you will find this information useful”: Discourse strategies in Italian and English “For Your Information” (FYI) letters. Discourse Studies 7 (1): 109–135.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Walsh, Steve, Morton, Tom, and O’Keeffe, Anne. 2011. Analysing university spoken interaction: a CL/CA approach. International Journal of Corpus Linguistics 16 (3): 325–345.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Wang, Ying. 2017. Lexical bundles in spoken academic ELF. International Journal of Corpus Linguistics 22 (2): 187–211.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Ward, Gregory L. 1990. The discourse functions of VP preposing. Language 66: 742–763.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Webber, Pauline. 1994. The functions of questions in different medical journal genres. English for Specific Purposes 13 (3): 257–268.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Webber, Pauline. 2005. Interactive features in medical conference monologue. English for Specific Purposes 24: 157–181.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Weigle, Sara Cushing, and Friginal, Eric. 2015. Linguistic dimensions of impromptu test essays compared with successful student disciplinary writing: Effects of language background, topic, and L2 proficiency. Journal of English for Academic Purposes 18: 25–39.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Weiner, E. Judith, and Labov, William. 1983. Constraints on the agentless passive. Journal of Linguistics 19: 29–58.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Weissberg, Bob. 1993. The graduate seminar: Another research process genre. English for Specific Purposes 12: 23–35.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Wells, Rulon. 1960. Nominal and verbal style. In Sebeok, T. A., ed., Style in language, 213–220. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.Google Scholar
Williams, Ian A. 1996. A contextual study of lexical verbs in two types of medical research report: Clinical and experimental. English for Specific Purposes 15 (3): 175–197.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Williams, Ian A. 1999. Results sections of medical research articles: An analysis of rhetorical categories for pedagogical purposes. English for Specific Purposes 18: 347–366.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Winsor, Dorothy. 2003. Writing power: Communication in an engineering center. Albany, NY: State University of New York Press.Google Scholar
Xiao, Richard. 2009. Multidimensional analysis and the study of world Englishes. World English 28 (4): 421–450.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Yang, Wenhsien. 2016. Evaluative language and interactive discourse in journal article highlights. English for Specific Purposes 42: 89–103.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Yeung, Lorrita. 2007. In search of commonalities: Some linguistic and rhetorical features of business reports as a genre. English for Specific Purposes 26: 156–179.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Yin, Zihan. 2016. Register-specific meaning categorization of linking adverbials in English. Journal of English for Academic Purposes 22: 1–18.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Young, Richard F., and Nguyen, Hahn Thi. 2002. Modes of meaning in high school science. Applied Linguistics 23 (3): 348–372.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Yunxia, Zhu. 2000. Structural moves reflected in English and Chinese sales letters. Discourse Studies 2 (4): 473–496.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Zak, Helena, and Dudley-Evans, Tony. 1986. Features of word omission and abbreviation in telexes. ESP Journal 5: 59–71.Google Scholar
Zareva, Alla. 2009. Informational packaging, level of formality, and the use of circumstance adverbials in L1 and L2 student academic presentations. Journal of English for Academic Purposes 8 (1): 55–68.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Zhang, Guiping. 2015. It is suggested that … or it is better to …? Forms and meanings of subject it-extraposition in academic and popular writing. Journal of English for Academic Purposes 20: 1–13.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Zhang, Man. 2016. A multidimensional analysis of metadiscourse markers across written registers. Discourse Studies 18 (2): 204–222.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Zhu, Wei. 2004. Writing in business courses: An analysis of assignments types, their characteristics, and required skills. English for Specific Purposes 23: 111–135.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Zhu, Yunxia. 2005. Written communication across cultures. Amsterdam and Philadelphia: John Benjamins.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Zwicky, Ann D., and Zwicky, Arnold M.. 1980. America’s national dish: The style of restaurant menus. American Speech 55: 83–92.CrossRefGoogle Scholar