Contentiousness in written medical English discourse: A diachronic study (1810-1995)

Text

Volumn 19, Issue 3, 1999, Pages 371-398

  Salager Meyer, Françoise ^a  

^a NONE

Author keywords

Academic conflict; Diachronic; Disagreement; Medical English; Rival claims

Indexed keywords

EID: 1642305153     PISSN: 01654888     EISSN: 18607349     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1515/text.1.1999.19.3.371     Document Type: Article

References (80)

1. Ahmad, U. K. (1997) Research article introductions in Malay: Rhetoric in an emerging research community. In Culture and Styles in Academic Discourse, A. Duszak (ed.), 273-303. Berlin and New York. Mouton de Gruyter
2. Atkinson, D. (1992). The evolution of medical research writing from 1735 to 1985. The case of the Edinburgh Medical Journal. Applied Linguistics 11 (4): 337-374
3. -(1996). The philosophical transactions of the Royal Society of London. 1675-1975: A sociohistorical discourse analysis. Language and Society 25 (3): 331-371
4. Basturkmen, Helen (1999). Discourse in MBA seminars. Towards a description for pedagogical purposes. English for Specific Purposes 18 (1): 63-80
5. Bazerman, C. (1988). Shaping Written Knowledge: The Genre and Activity of the Experimental Article in Science. Madison: University of Wisconsin Press
6. Becher, T. (1989). Academic Tribes and Territories: Intellectual Inquiry and the Cultures of Disciplines. Milton Keynes: Society for Research into Higher Education and the Open University Press
7. Belcher, D. (1995). Writing critically across the curriculum. In Academic Writing in a Second Language. Essays on Research and Pedagogy, D. Belcher and G. Braine (eds.), 135-155. Norwood, New Jersey: Ablex Publishing Corporation
8. Berkenkotter, Carol and Huckin, T. (1995). Genre Knowledge in Disciplinary Communication. Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum
9. Biber, Douglas (1988). Variation across Speech and IVriting. New York: Cambridge University Press
10. Birch, S. (1994). Writing scientific articles in English: Solutions for French researchers? ASp. 3: 57-65
11. Bloch, J. and Li, L. (1995). A comparison of the use of citations in Chinese and English academic discourse. In Academic Writing in a Second Language. Essays on Research and Pedagogy, D. Belcher and G. Braine (eds.), 231-277. Norwood, New Jersey: Ablex Publishing Corporation
12. Brown, Peter and Levinson, Steven (1979). Politeness: Some Universals of Language Use. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press
13. 00 Chafe, Wallace (1982). Integration and involvement in speaking, writing and oral literature. In Spoken and Written Language: Exploring Orality and Literacy (Advances in Discourse Processes 4), Deborah Tannen (ed.), 35-54. Norwood, NJ: Ablex
14. Chubin, D. E. and Moitra, S. D. (1975). Content analysis of references: Adjunct or alternative to citation counting. Social Studies of Science 5 (4): 15-28
15. Connor, Ulla (1996). Conlrastire Rhetoric. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press
16. Conrad, S. (1996). Investigating academic texts with corpus-based techniques. An example from biology. Linguistics and Education 8: 299-326
17. 00 Crompton, P. (1997). Hedging in academic writing: Some theoretical problems. English for Specific Purposes 16 (4): 271-289
18. Crookes, G. (1986). Toward a validated analysis of scientific text structure. Applied Linguistics 7: 57-70
19. 00 Do, Q. T. (1989). Notes on education in the traditional culture of Vietnam. Journal of Vietnamese Studies 1 (2): 13-17
20. Dubois, B. L. (1981). Non-technical arguments in biomedical speeches. Perspectives in Biology and Medicine 24: 399-410
21. Dudley-Evans, T. and Henderson, W. (1993). The development of the economics article: 1891 to 1980 FINLANCE. A Finnish Journal of Applied Linguistics 12: 159-181
22. Duszak, Anna (1994). Academic discourse and intellectual styles. Journal of Pragmatics 21: 291-313
23. -(ed.) (1997). Culture and Styles in Academic Discourse. Berlin and New York: Mouton de Gruyter
24. Farrell, L. (1997). Doing well ... doing badly: An analysis of the role of conflicting cultural values in judgments of relative academic achievement. In Culture and Styles in Academic Discourse, A. Duszak (ed.), 63-89. Berlin and New York. Mouton de Gruyter
25. Fox, R. (1999). The social identity of management ergolect. English for Specific Purposes 18 (3): 261-279
26. Fredrickson, K. and Swales, J. (1994). Competition and discourse community: Introductions from Nysvenska studies. In Text and Talk in Professional Contexts, B. L. Gunnarsson, P. Linell, and B. Nordberg (eds.), 9-21. Uppsala. Sweden
27. Fye, W. B. (1987). The literature of American internal medicine: A historical view. Annals of Internal Medicine 106: 451-460
28. Garfield, E. (ed.) (1978). Journal Ranking. Science Citation Index 9: 3-255
29. Gilbert, G. N. and Mulkay, M. (1984). Opening the Pandora's Box. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press
30. Gläser, R. M. (1995). Linguistic Features and Genre Profiles of Scientific English. Berlin: Peter Lang
31. Grabe, W. and Kaplan, R. (1997). On the writing of science and the science of writing: Hedging in science texts and elsewhere. In Hedging and Discourse. Approaches to the Analysis of a Pragmatic Phenomenon in Academic Texts, R. Markkanen and H. Schröder (eds.), 151-167. Berlin and New York: Mouton de Gruyter
32. Gunnarsson, B. L. (1994). Textual patterns and the discourse community: A socio-semantic approach to the history of LSP (Languages for Specific Purposes). In Applications and Implications of Current LSP Research, M. Brekke (ed.), 888-899. Bergen: Fagbokforlaget
33. Hübler, A. (1983). Understatements and Hedges in English. (Pragmatics and Beyond 4, 6.) Amsterdam: Benjamins
34. Hunston, S. (1993). Professional conflict: Disagreement in academic discourse. In Text and Technology: In Honor of John Sinclair, M. Baker, G. Francis, and E. Tognim-Bonelli (eds.), 115-133. Amsterdam: Benjamins
35. Jacoby, S. and McNamara, T. (1999). Locating competence. English for Specific Purposes 18 (3): 213-243
36. Kuhn, Thomas S. (1970). The Structure of Scientific Revolution. Second edition. Chicago: University of Chicago Press
37. Kourilova, M. (1994). Some problems posed by the system of epistemic modality in written scientific discourse. In Applications and Implications of Current LSP Research, M. Brekke, O. Andersen, T. Dahl, and J. Myking (eds.), 639-646. Fagbokforlaget: Bergen
38. -(1996). Interactive function of language in peer reviews of medical papers written by NN users of English. UNESCO-ALSED LSP Newsletter 19 (1): 4-21
39. Latour, B. (1987). Science in Action. Harvard: Harvard University Press
40. Leech, Geoffrey (1983). Principles of Pragmatics. London: Longman
41. Lindeberg, A. C. (1994). Rhetorical conventions in the discussion/conclusion sections of research articles in finance, mangaement and marketing. In Applications and Implications of Current LSP Research, M. Brekke, O. Andersen, T. Dahl, and J. Myking (eds.), 647-656. Fagbokforlaget: Bergen
42. Lock, S. (1988). Structured abstracts. British Medical Journal 297: 156
43. Luukka, M. R. and Markkanen, R. (1997). Impersonalization as a form of hedging. In Hedging and Discourse. Approaches to the Analysis of a Pragmatic Phenomenon in Academic Texts, R. Markkanen and H. Schröder (eds.), 170-187. Berlin and New York: Mouton de Gruyter
44. MacRoberts, M. and MacRoberts, B. (1984). The negational reference or the art of dissembling. Social Studies of Science 14: 91-94
45. Markkanen, R. and Schröder, H. (eds.) (1997). Hedging and Discourse. Approaches to the Analysis of a Pragmatic Phenomenon in Academic Texts. Berlin and New York: Mouton de Gruyter
46. Martin, J. (1996). Les enjeux du discours scientifique: La Stratégie de véridiction. Anglais de Spéciaiité 11/14: 13-33
47. Mauranen, A. (1997). Hedging in language reviser's hands. In Hedging and Discourse. Approaches to the Analysis of a Pragmatic Phenomenon in Academic Texts, R. Markkanen and H. Schrōder (eds.), 115-134. Berlin and New York: Mouton de Gruyter
48. Meyer, P. G. (1997). Hedging strategies in written academic discourse: Strengthening the arguments by weakening the claim. In Hedging and Discourse. Approaches to the Analysis of a Pragmatic Phenomenon in Academic Texts, R. Markkanen and H. Schröder (eds.), 21-41. Berlin and New York: Mouton de Gruyter
49. Moravcsik, M. and Murugesan, P. (1975). Some results on the function and quality of citations. Social Studies of Science 5 (1): 45-53
50. Motta-Roth, D. (1998). Discourse analysis and academic book reviews. A study of text and disciplinary cultures. In Genre Studies in English for Academic Purposes, I. Fortanet, S. PosteguiIlo, J. C. Palmer, and J. F. Coll (eds.), 29-59. Spain: Publicacion de la Universidad de Jaume I
51. Myers, G. (1989). The pragmatics of politeness in scientific articles. Applied Linguistics 10: 1-35
52. -(1990). Writing Biology. Texts in the Social Construction of Scientific Knowledge. Madison: The University of Wisconsin Press
53. -(1998). The genres of biologists' writing. In Academic Discourse in Europe. Thought Processes and Linguistic Realizations, P. Evangelisti Allori (ed.), 43-55. Rome: Bulzoni Editore
54. Nguyen, X. T. (1988). Understanding Vietnamese students: A focus on their passive attitude. Journal of Vietnamese Studies 1 (1): 19-25
55. North, S. (1992). On book reviews in rhetoric and composition. Rhetoric Review 10, 348-363
56. Pomerantz, Anita (1984). Agreeing and disagreeing with assessments: Some features of preferred and dispreferred turn shapes. In Structures of Social Action: Studies in Conversation Analysis, M. Atkinson and J. Heritage (eds.), 57-101. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press
57. Posteguillo, S. (1998). The schematic structure of computer science research articles. English for Specific Purposes 18 (2): 139-160
58. Régent, O. (1994). L'article scientifique: un produit culturel. ASp. 5/6: 55-61
59. Rerser, S. J. (1991). The clinical record in medicine. Annals of Internal Medicine 114 (11): 980-985
60. Salager-Meyer, Françoise (1996). Epistemic modality in 19th and 20th century medical English written discourse. A principal component analysis study. Interface: Journal of Applied Linguistics 10(2): 163-199
61. -(1997). Diachronic evolution of intertextual referencing in medical discourse (1810-1995). Interface: Journal of Applied Linguistics 11 (2): 95-117
62. -(1998a). Books vs. journals: A diachronic study of referencing in written medical English prose (1810-1995). The ESPecialist 18 (2): 147-185
63. -(1998b). Referential behavior in scientific writing: A diachronic study (1810-1995). English for Specific Purposes 8 (3): 279-306
64. -(1998c). Language is not a physical object. English for Specific Purposes 17 (3): 295-303
65. Salager-Meyer, Françoise and G. Derives (1998). From the gentleman's courtesy to the scientist's caution: A diachronic study of hedges in academic writing (1810-1995). In Discourse Studies in English for Academic Purposes, I. Fortanet, S. Posteguillo, J. C. Palmer, and J. F. Coll (eds.), 133-173. Spain: Publication de la Universitat Jaume I
66. Sarjala, M. (1998). Functions of references to previous research in Discussion sections: A contrastive study of academic rhetoric. In Academic Discourse in Europe. Thought Processes and Linguistic Realizations, P. Evangelisti Allori (ed.), 78-89. Rome: Bulzoni Editore
67. Schramm, A. (1996). Using aspects to express viewpoints in EST texts. English for Specific Purposes 15(2): 141-164
68. Selinker, L. (1979). On the use of specialist informants in discourse analysis and languages for specialized purposes. International Review of Applied Linguistics in Language Teaching 17: 189-215
69. Shapin, S. (1984). Pump and circumstance: Robert Boyle's literary technology. Social Studies of Science 14: 481-520
70. Skelton, J. (1997). How to tell the truth in The British Medical Journal: Patterns of Judgment in the 19th and 20th centuries. In Hedging and Discourse. Approaches to the Analysis of a Pragmatic Phenomenon in Academic Texts, R. Markkanen and H. Schröder (eds.), 42-64. Berlin and New York: Mouton de Gruyter
71. Swales, J. (1990). Genre Analysis: English in Academic Research Setting. Cambridge. Cambridge University Press
72. Swales, J. and Feak, C. (1995). From information transfer to data commentary. TESOL France Journal 2 (2): 79-93
73. Tarantino, M. (1998). Exploring the observable: Logical, pragmatic, semantic and linguistic frames in science. UNESCO-ALSED-LSP Newsletter 21 (1): 4-25
74. Taylor, G. and Chen, T. G. (1991). Linguistic, cultural and sub-cultural issues in contrastive discourse analysis: Anglo-American and Chinese scientific texts. Applied Linguistics 12: 319-336
75. Thompson, G. and Ye, Y. Y. (1991). Evaluation in the reporting verbs used in academic papers. Applied Linguistics 12: 365-382
76. Valle, E. (1991). Pragmalunguistic features of academic-scientific discourse: A model for analysis and a diachronic application. In Communication and Discourse across Cultures and Languages (AFinLA Series 49), Language Center for Finnish Universities (ed.), 247-267. University of Jyväskylä: Finland
77. -(1993). The development of English scientific rhetoric in the Philosophical Transactions of the Royal Society. FINLANCE: A Finnish Journal of Applied Linguistics 12: 94-124
78. Wilss, W. (1997). Hedging in expert-language reviews. In Hedging and Discourse. Approaches to the Analysis of a Pragmatic Phenomenon in Academic Texts, R. Markkanen and H. Schrōder (eds.), 134-150. Berlin and New York: Mouton de Gruyter
79. Zambrano, N. (1999). Confrontaciones academicas en el discurso cientifico escrito en inglés y en francés: Un estudio diacrónico [Academic confrontations in written scientific discourse in English and French: A diachronic study]. Unpublished Master's thesis, Universidad de Los Andes, Mérida, Venezuela
80. Ziman, J. M. (1968). Public Knowledge: An Essay Concerning the Social Dimension of Science. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press