Commitment and detachment in English and Bulgarian academic writing

English for Specific Purposes

Volumn 20, Issue 1, 2001, Pages 83-102

  Vassileva, Irena ^a  

^a UNIVERSITY OF BONN   (Germany)

Author keywords

Bulgaria; Cross cultural rhetoric; Hedging; Research articles; Writing

Indexed keywords

EID: 0346404289     PISSN: 08894906     EISSN: None     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1016/S0889-4906(99)00029-0     Document Type: Article

References (45)

1. Alexieva, B. (1988). Is presentational "there" the best option? In A. Danchev, Error analysis (pp. 9-27). Sofia: Narodna Prosveta.
2. Austin, J. (1962). How to do things with words. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
3. Bloor, M., & Bloor, T. (1991). Cultural expectations and socio-pragmatic failure in academic writing. In P. Adams, B. Heaton, & P. Howarth, Socio-cultural issues in English for academic purposes (pp. 1-12). London: MacMillan Publishers Ltd.
4. Brown, R. (1991). Group work, task difference, and second language acquisition. Applied Linguistics, 12(1), 1-12.
5. Brown, G., & Levinson, S. C. (1987). Politeness: Some universals in language usage. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press [Reprinted, with a new introduction, from E. Goody (ed.): Questions and Politeness.].
6. Chafe, W. (1985). Evidentiality in English conversation and academic writing. In W. Chafe, & J. Nichols, Evidentiality: The linguistic coding of epistemology. Norwood, NJ: Ablex Publishing Corporation, New York.
7. Clyne, M. (1987). Discourse structures and discourse expectations: Implications for Anglo-German academic communication in English. In L. E. Smith, Discourse across cultures. Strategies in World Englishes (pp. 73-83). London: Prentice Hall.
8. Clyne, M. (1991). The sociocultural dimension: The dilemma of the German-speaking scholar. In H. Schröder, Subject-oriented texts (pp. 49-67). Berlin (u.a.): de Gruyter.
9. Clyne, M. (1993). Pragmatik, textstruktur und kulturelle werte. Eine interkulturelle perspektive. In H. Schröder, Fachtextpragmatik (pp. 3-18). Tübingen: Gunter Narr Verlag.
10. Connor, U. (1996). Contrastive rhetoric. Cross-cultural aspects of second-language writing. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
11. Čamejrkova, S. (1996). Academic writing in Czech and English. In E. Ventola, & A. Mauranen, Academic writing. Intercultural and textual issues (pp. 137-152). Amsterdam/Philadelphia: John Benjamins.
12. Crompton, P. (1997). Hedging in academic writing: Some theoretical problems. English for Specific Purposes, 16(4), 271-287.
13. Danchev, A. (1988). Kǎm opisanieto na bǎlgarskija anglijski meždinen ezik. In Problemi na ovladjavaneto na čužd ežik (pp. 93-109). Sofia: Narodna prosveta [A note on the description of the Bulgarian-English interlanguage].
14. Danchev, A. (1991). Some notes on a Bulgarian model of expanded contrastive analysis. In V. Ivir, & D. Kalogjera, Languages in contact and contrast. Essays in contact linguistics (pp. 87-101). Mouton de Gruyter.
15. de Beaugrande, R., & Dressler, W. (1981). Introduction to text linguistics. London: Longman.
16. Galtung, J. (1985). Struktur, kultur und intellektueller stil. Ein vergleichender essay über sachsonische, teutonische, gallische und nipponische Wissenschaft. In A. Wierlacher, Das fremde und das eigene (pp. 151-193). München: Judicum-Verlag.
17. Holmes, J. (1984). Modifying illocutionary force. Journal of Pragmatics, 8, 345-365.
18. Hyland, K. (1994). Hedging in academic writing and EAP textbooks. English for Specific Purposes, 13(4), 239-256.
19. Hyland, K. (1996). Writing without conviction? Hedging in science and research articles. Applied Linguistics, 17(4), 433-454.
20. Kabakčiev, K. (1993). On the semantic basis of aspect (with special reference to nominal aspect). Contrastive Linguistics, 1, 38-45.
21. Kachru, Y. (1993). 'Meaning potential' in rhetorical styles: Revisiting contrastive rhetoric hypothesis. Unpubl. paper, 10th Congress of AILA, Amsterdam.
22. Kreutz, H., & Harres, A. (1997). Some observations on the distribution and function of hedging in German and English academic writing. In A. Duszak, Culture and styles of academic discourse. Trends in linguistics. Studies and monographs 104 (pp. 181-201). Berlin/New York: Mouton de Gruyter.
23. Leech, G. (1983). Principles of pragmatics. London: Longman.
24. Molhova, J. (1990). Diversity in similarity. Contrastive linguistics, 4(5), 67-71.
25. Myers, G. (1989). The pragmatics of politeness in scientific articles. Applied Linguistics, 10(1), 1-35.
26. Nicolova, R. (1993). Kognitivni sastojanija na govoreštija, epistemična modalnost i temporalnost. Sǎpostavitelno ezikoznanie, 3(4), 137-144 [Cognitive states of the speaker, epistemic modality and temporality].
27. O'Connor, N. (1991). Incorporating native speaker norms in second language materials. Applied Linguistics, 12/4, 383-396.
28. Odlin, T. (1989). Language transfer. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
29. Petrova, S. (1992). Psiholongvistični problemi pri usvojavane na bǎlgarskata leksika of grǎcki studenti. Sǎpostavitelno ezikoznanie, 1, 42-51 [Psycholinguistic problems in Bulgarian vocabulary acquisition by Greek students].
30. Salager-Meyer, F. (1994). Hedges and textual communicative function in medical English written discourse. English for Specific Purposes, 13(2), 149-170.
31. Searle, J. (1969). Speech acts. An essay in the philosophy of language. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
32. Stamenov, Ch (1991). Meaning, paraphrase and semantico-pragmatic implication. English Papers, vol. 4 (pp. 209-219). Sofia: Sofia University Press.
33. Stubbs, M. (1986). 'A matter of prolonged field work': Notes towards a modal grammar of English. Applied Linguistics, 7(1), 1:25.
34. Swales, J. (1981). Aspects of article introductions (Aston ESP Monographs 1). Birmingham: Aston University.
35. Swales, J. (1990). Genre analysis. English in academic and research settings. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
36. Thomas, J. (1983). Cross-cultural pragmatic failure. Applied Linguistics, 4.2, 91-112.
37. Todeva, E. (1991). Za konkurencijata meždu gerundija i infinitiva pri anglijskite dvučlenni glagolni sintagmi. Sǎpostavitelno ezikoznanie, 1, 38-52 [On the competition between the gerund and the infinitive in the complex English verb syntagms].
38. Todorova, E. (1993). Za kačestvenostta i otnositelnostta na prilagatelnite imena. Sǎpostavitelno ezikoznanie, 3(4), 194-200 [On the qualitative and relative characteristics of adjectives].
39. Van Dijk, T. A., & Kintsch, W. (1983). Strategies of discourse comprehension. London: Academic Press.
40. Vassileva, I. (1997). Hedging in English and Bulgarian academic writing. In A. Duszak, Culture and styles of academic discourse. Trends in Linguistics. Studies and monographs 104 (pp. 203-222). Berlin/ New York: Mouton de Gruyter.
41. Vassileva, I. (1998). Who and I/who are we in academic writing? In International Journal of Applied Linguistics vol. 8, (2), 1998. Oslo, Novus Press. 163-190.
42. Ventola, E. (1997). Modalization: Probability - an exploration into its role in academic writing. In A. Duszak, Culture and styles of academic discourse. Trends in linguistics. Studies and monographs 104 (pp. 157-179). Berlin/New York: Mouton de Gruyter.
43. Williams, J. (1992). Planning, discourse marking, and the comprehensibility of international teaching assistants. TESOL Quarterly, 26(4), 693-711.
44. Zadeh, L. (1972). A fuzzy-set-theoretic interpretation of linguistic hedges. Journal of Cybernetics, 2/3, 4-34.
45. Zuengler, J., & Bent, B. (1991). Relative knowledge of content domain: An influence on native-non-native conversations. Applied Linguistics, 12/4, 397-415.