Displaying disciplinarity

Written Communication

Volumn 13, Issue 2, 1996, Pages 221-250

  Sullivan, Dale L ^a  

^a NORTHERN ILLINOIS UNIVERSITY   (United States)

Author keywords

[No Author keywords available]

Indexed keywords

EID: 0038173075     PISSN: 07410883     EISSN: 15528472     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1177/0741088396013002003     Document Type: Article

References (70)

1. Amsterdamska, O., & Leydesdorff, L. (1989). Citations: Indicators of significance? Scientometrics, 15,449-471.
2. Bazerman, C (1988). Shaping written knowledge: The genre and activity of the experimental article in science. Madison: University of Wisconsin Press.
3. Becher, T. (1989). Academic tribes and territories: Intellectual enquiry and the cultures of disciplines. Stony Stratford, UK: Society for Research into Higher Education & Open University Press.
4. Berkenkotter, C, & Huckin, T. N. (1995). Genre knowledge in disciplinary communication. Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.
5. Blakeslee, A. (1994). The rhetorical construction of novelty: Presenting claims inaletters forum. Science, Technology, & Human Values, 19,88-100.
6. Bourdieu, P. (1980). The production of belief: Contribution to an economy of symbolic goods. Media, Culture, and Society, 2,261-293.
7. Bruffee, K. (1984). Collaborative learning and the "conversation of mankind." College English, 46,635-652.
8. Campbell, J. A. (1975). The polemic Mr. Darwin. Quarterly Journal of Speech, 61,375-390.
9. Cole, J. R., & Cole, S. (1973). Social stratification in science. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.
10. Conley, T. M. (1990). Rhetoric in the European tradition. New York: Longman.
11. Debs, M. B. (1993). Corporate authority: Sponsoring rhetorical practice. In R. Spilka (Ed.), Writing in the workplace: New research perspectives (pp. 158-170). Carbondale: Southern Illinois University Press.
12. DingwaD, R. (1983). Introduction. In R. Dingwall & P. Lewis (Eds.), The sociology of the professions (pp. 1-13). London: Macmillan.
13. Doheny-Farina, S. (1989). A case study of one adult writing in academic and nonacademic discourse communities. In C. B. Matalene (Ed.), Worlds of writing: Teaching and learning in the discourse communities of work (pp. 17-42). New York: Random House.
14. Ervin, E. (1993). Interdisciplinarity or "an elaborate edifice built on sand"? Rethinking rhetoric's place. Rhetoric Review, 12,84-105.
15. Faigley, L. (1986). Competing theories of process: A critique and a proposal. College English, 48,527-542.
16. Fairclough, N. (1989). Language and power. London: Longman.
17. Fairclough, N. (Ed.). (1992). Critical language awareness. London: Longman.
18. Fisher, W. (1987). Human communication as narration: Towarda philosophy of reason, value, andaction. Columbia: University of South Carolina Press.
19. Fleck, L. (1979). Genesis and development of scientific fact (F. Bradley & T. J. Trenn, Trans.; T. J. Trenn & R. K. Merton, Eds.). Chicago: University of Chicago Press.
20. Foucault, M. (1972). The discourse on language. The archaeology of knowledge (M. Sheridan Smith, Trans., pp. 215-237). New York: Pantheon.
21. Freed R., & Broadhead G. (1987). Discourse communities, sacred texts, and institutional norms. College Composition and Communication, 38,154-165.
22. Giddens, A. (1979). Central problems in social theory. Berkeley: University of California Press.
23. Gilbert, G. N., & Mulkay, M. (1984). Opening Pandora's box: A sociological analysis of scientists'discourse. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
24. Gragson, G., & Selzer, J. (1990). Fictionalizing the readers of scholarly articles in biology. Written Communication, 7,25-58.
25. Halloran, S. M. (1978). Doing public business in public. In K. K. Campbell & K. H. Jamieson (Eds.), Form and genre: Shaping rhetorical action (pp. 118-138). Falls Church, VA: Speech Communication Association.
26. Halloran, S. M. (1982). Aristotle's concept of ethos, or if not his somebody else's. Rhetoric Review, 1,58-63.
27. Halloran, S. M. (1984). The birth of molecular biology: An essay in the rhetorical criticism of scientific discourse. Rhetoric Review, 3,70-83.
28. Hariman, R. (1986). Status and marginality, and rhetorical theory. Quarterly Journal of Speech, 72,38-54.
29. Hauser, G. A. (1968). The example in Aristotle's rhetoric: Bifurcation or contradiction? Philosophy and Rhetoric, 1,78-90.
30. Hodge, R., & Kress, G. (1993). Language as ideology (2nd ed.). London: Routledge.
31. Jaeger, W. (1945). Paideia: The ideals of Creek culture (Vol. 3). New York: Oxford University Press.
32. Kaufer, D. S., & Geisler, C. (1989). Novelty in academic writing. Written Communication, 6,286-311.
33. Kerferd, G. B. (1981). The sophistic movement. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
34. Knorr-Cetina, K. (1981). The manufacture of knowledge: An essay in the constructivist and contextual nature of science. Oxford: Pergamon.
35. Latour, B. (1987). Science in action. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.
36. Latour, B., & Woolgar, S. (1986). Laboratory life The construction of scientific facts. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press.
37. Lessl, T. M. (1989). The priestly voice. Quarterly Journal of Speech, 75,183-197.
38. Liddell, H. G., & Scott, R. (1968). A Greek-English lexicon. Oxford: Clarendon.
39. Lutz, J. A. (1989). Writers in organizations and how they learn the image: Theory, research, and implications. In C B. Matalene (Ed.), Worlds of writing: Teaching and learning in discourse communities of work. New York: Random House.
40. Lyne, J., & Howe, H. F. (1986). "Punctuated equilibria": Rhetorical dynamics of a scientific controversy. Quarterly Journal of Speech, 72,132-147.
41. MacDonald, S. P. (1994). Professional academic writing in the humanities and social sciences. Carbondale: Southern Illinois University Press.
42. Marrou, H. I. (1956). A history of education in antiquity (G. Lamb, Trans.). Madison, WI: University of Wisconsin Press.
43. McKerrow, R. E. (1989). Critical rhetoric Theory and praxis. Communication Monographs, 56,91-111.
44. Marchant, J.R.V., & Charles, J. F. (1952). Cassell's Latin dictionary (Rev. ed.) New York: Funk & Wagnalls.
45. Miller, C. R. (1992). Kairos in the rhetoric of science. In S. Witte, N. Nakadate, & R. D. Cherry (Eds.), A rhetoric of doing: Essays on written discourse in honor of James L Kinneavy (pp. 310-327). Carbondale: Southern Illinois University Press.
46. Miller, C. R., & Halloran, S. M. (1993). Reading Darwin, reading nature; Or, on the ethos of historical science. In J. Selzer (Ed.), Understanding scientific prose (pp. 106-126). Madison: University of Wisconsin Press.
47. Miller, C. R., & Selzer, J. (1985). Special topics of argument in engineering reports. In L. Odell & D. Goswami (Eds.), Writing in non-academic settings (pp. 309-341). New York: Guilford.
48. Myers, G. (1990). Writing biology: Texts in the social construction of scientific knowledge. Madison: University of Wisconsin Press.
49. Odell, L. (1993). Theory and practice in the teaching of writing: Re-thinking the discipline. Carbondale: Southern Illinois University Press.
50. Ong, W. J. (1975). The writer's audience is always a fiction. PMLA, 90,9-21.
51. Overington, M. A. (1977). The scientific audience as community: Toward a rhetorical analysis of science. Philosophy and Rhetoric, 10,143-164.
52. Pare, A. (1993). Discourse regulations and the production of knowledge. In R. Spilka (Ed.), Writing in the workplace: New research perspectives (pp. 111-123). Carbondale: Southern Illinois University Press.
53. Porter, J. (1992). Audience and rhetoric: An archaeological composition of the discourse community. Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice Hall.
54. Prior, P. (1994). Response, revision, disciplinarity: A microhistory of a dissertation prospectus in sociology. Written Communication, 4,483-533.
55. Raup, D. M. (1978). Cohort analysis of generic survivorship. Paleobiology, 4,1-15.
56. Raup, D.M. (1986). The nemesis affair: A story of the death of dinosaurs and the ways cf seience. New York: W. W. Norton.
57. Raymond, J. C. (1984). Enthymemes, examples, and rhetorical method. In R. J. Connors, L. S. Ede, & A. A Lunsford (Eds.), Essays on classical rhetoric and modem discourse (pp. 140-151). Carbondale: Southern Illinois University Press.
58. Reither, J. A. (1985). Writing and knowing: Toward redefining the writing process. College English, 47,620-628.
59. Roberts, W. R. (Trans.). (1954). The rhetoric and poetics of Aristotle. New York: Modern Library.
60. Rosenfield, L. W. (1971). An autopsy of the rhetorical tradition In L F. Bitzer & E. Black (Eds.), The prospect of rhetoric (pp. 64-77). Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice Hall.
61. Schiappa, E. (1991). Protagoras and logos: Astudy in Greek philosophy and rhetoric. Columbia: University of South Carolina Press.
62. Sullivan, D. L. (1993). The ethos of epideictic encounter. Philosophy and Rhetoric, 26, 113-133.
63. Sullivan, D. L. (1994). Galileo's apparent orthodoxy in his Letter to the Grand Duchess Christina. Rhetorica, 12,237-264.
64. Swales, J., & Najjar, H. (1987). The writing of research article introductions. Written Communication, 4,175-191.
65. Taylor, C A. (1994). Science as cultural practice: A rhetorical perspective. Technical Communication Quarterly, 3,67-81.
66. Toulmin, S. (1972). Human understanding (Vol. 1). Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press.
67. Tumier,S.(1994:).The social theory of pradices: Traduion, tacii knowledge, and presuppositions. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.
68. Watson, J. D. (1968). The double helix: A personal account of the discovery of the structure of DNA. New York: New American Library.
69. Wilson, B. (1959). An analysis of sect development. American Sociological Review, 24,3-15.
70. Zappen, J. P. (1983). A rhetoric for research in sciences and technologies. In P. V. Anderson, R. J. Brockmann, & C R. Miller (Eds.), New essays in technical scientific communication: Research, theory, practice (pp. 123-138). Farmingdale, NY: Baywood.