Speaking and writing in the university: A multidimensional comparison

TESOL Quarterly

Volumn 36, Issue 1, 2002, Pages 9-48

  Biber, Douglas ^a   Conrad, Susan ^b   Reppen, Randi ^a   Byrd, Pat ^c   Helt, Marie ^d  

^a NORTHERN ARIZONA UNIVERSITY   (United States)

^b PORTLAND STATE UNIVERSITY   (United States)

^c GEORGIA STATE UNIVERSITY   (United States)

^d CALIFORNIA STATE UNIVERSITY   (United States)

Author keywords

[No Author keywords available]

Indexed keywords

EID: 34147157881     PISSN: 00398322     EISSN: 15457249     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.2307/3588359     Document Type: Article

References (64)

1. Atkinson, D. (1992). The evolution of medical research writing from 1735 to 1985: The case of the Edinburgh Medical Journal. Applied Linguistics, 13, 337-374.
2. Atkinson, D. (1996). The philosophical transactions of the Royal Society of London, 1675-1975: A sociohistorical discourse analysis. Language in Society, 25, 333-371. (Pubitemid 126174216)
3. Atkinson, D. (1999). Scientific discourse in sociohistorical context: The philosophical transactions of the Royal Society of London, 1675-1975. Mahwah, NJ: Erlbaum.
4. Bazerman, C. (1988). Shaping written knowledge: The genre and activity of the experimental article in science. Madison: University of Wisconsin Press.
5. Berkenkotter, C., & Huckin, T. (1995. Genre knowledge in disciplinary communication. Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum.
6. Biber, D. (1988). Variation across speech and writing. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
7. Biber, D. (1994). An analytical framework for register studies. In D. Biber & E. Finegan (Eds.), Sociolinguistic perspectives on register (pp. 31-56). New York: Oxford University Press.
8. Biber, D. (1995). Dimensions of register variation: A cross-linguistic comparison. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
9. Biber, D., & Conrad, S. (2001). Quantitative corpus-based research: Much more than bean counting. TESOL Quarterly, 35, 331-336.
10. Biber, D., Conrad, S., & Reppen, R. (1998). Corpus linguistics: Investigating language structure and use. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
11. Biber, D., & Finegan, E. (1994). Intra-textual variation within medical research articles. In N. Oostdijk & P. de Haan (Eds.), Corpus-based research into language (pp. 201-222). Amsterdam: Rodopi.
12. (Reprinted in Variation in English: Multidimensional studies, pp. 108-123, by S. Conrad & D. Biber, Eds., 2001, Harlow, England: Pearson Education)
13. Biber, D., & Finegan, E. (1997). Diachronic relations among speech-based and written registers in English. In T. Nevalainen & L. Kahlas-Tarkka (Eds.), To explain the present: Studies in the changing English language in honour of Matti Rissanen (pp. 253-275). Helsinki, Finland: Société Néophilologique.
14. (Reprinted in Variation in English: Multi-dimensional studies, pp. 66-83, by S Conrad & D. Biber, Eds., 2001, Harlow, England: Pearson Education)
15. Biber, D., Johansson, S., Leech, G., Conrad, S., & Finegan, E. (1999). The Longman grammar of spoken and written English. Harlow, England: Pearson Education.
16. Biber, D., & Reppen, R (in press). What does frequency have to do with grammar teaching? Studies in Second Language Acquisition.
17. Byrd, P., & Reid, J. (1997). Grammar in the composition classroom. Boston: Heinle & Heinle.
18. Carkin, S. (2001). Pedagogic language in introductory classes: A multi-dimensional analysis of textbooks and lectures in biology and macroeconomics. Unpublished doctoral dissertation, Northern Arizona University, Flagstaff.
19. Carson, J., Chase, N., Gibson, S., & Hargrove, M. (1992). Literacy demands of the undergraduate curriculum. Reading Research and Instruction, 31, 25-50.
20. Cazden, C. (1988). Classroom discourse: The language of teaching and learning. Portsmouth, NH: Heinemann.
21. Chaudron, C., & Richards, J. (1986). The effect of discourse markers on the comprehension of lectures. Applied Linguistics, 7, 113-127.
22. Conrad, S. (1996). Investigating academic texts with corpus-based techniques: An example from biology. Linguistics and Education, 8, 299-326.
23. Conrad, S. (1999). The importance of corpus-based research for language teachers. System, 27, 1-18.
24. Conrad, S. (2000). Will corpus linguistics revolutionize grammar teaching in the 21st century? TESOL Quarterly, 34, 548-560.
25. Conrad, S. (2001). Variation among disciplinary texts: A comparison of textbooks and journal articles in biology and history. In S. Conrad & D. Biber (Eds.), Variation in English: Multi-dimensional studies (pp. 94-107). Harlow, England: Pearson Education.
26. Conrad, S., & Biber, D. (Eds.). (2001). Variation in English: Multi-dimensional studies. Harlow, England: Pearson Education.
27. Crompton, P. (1997). Hedging in academic writing: Some theoretical problems. English for Specific Purposes, 16, 271-287.
28. Csomay, E. (2000). Academic lectures: An interface of an oral and literate continuum. novELTy, 7(3), 30-46.
29. Cutting, J. (1999). The grammar of the in-group code. Applied Linguistics, 20, 179-202.
30. Educational Testing Service. (2001). Enhancing the standard with a new TOEFL test. Princeton, NJ: Educational Testing Service.
31. Edwards, J. A., & Lampert, M. D. (Eds). (1993). Talking data: Transcription and coding in discourse research. Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum.
32. Ervin-Tripp, S. (1972). On sociolinguistic rules: Alternation and co-occurrence. In J. J. Gumperz & D. Hymes (Eds.), Directions in sociolinguistics (pp. 213-250). New York: Holt, Rinehart & Winston.
33. Ferguson, G (2000). If you pop over there: A corpus-based study of conditionals in medical discourse. English for Specific Purposes, 20, 61-82.
34. Flowerdew, J. (Ed.). (1994). Academic listening: Research perspectives. New York: Cambridge University Press.
35. Flowerdew, J., & Tauroza, S. (1995). The effect of discourse markers of second language lecture comprehension. Studies in Second Language Acquisition, 17, 435-458.
36. Gilbert, G., & Mulkay, M. (1984). Opening Pandora's box: A sociological analysis of scientific discourse. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
37. Grabe, W., & Kaplan, R. B. (1996). Theory and practice of writing. London: Longman.
38. Grabe, W., & Kaplan, R. B. (1997). On the writing of science and the science of writing: Hedging in scientific text and elsewhere. In R. Markkanen & H. Schroeder (Eds.), Hedging in discourse (pp. 151-167). Berlin: de Gruyter.
39. Halliday, M. A K (1988). On the language of physical science. In M. Ghadessy (Ed.), Registers of written English (pp. 162-178). London: Pinter.
40. Halliday, M. A. K, & Martin, J. R. (1993). Writing science: Literacy and discursive power. Pittsburgh, PA: University of Pittsburgh Press
41. Helt, M. (2001). A multi-dimensional comparison of British and American spoken English. In S. Conrad & D. Biber (Eds.), Variation in English: Multi-dimensional studies (pp. 171-184). Harlow, England: Pearson.
42. Holmes, J. (1988). Doubt and certainty in ESL textbooks. Applied Linguistics, 9, 21-43.
43. Huckin, T., & Pesante, L. H. (1988). Existential there. Written Communication, 5, 368-391.
44. Hunston, S. (1995). A corpus study of some English verbs of attribution. Functions of Language, 2, 133-158.
45. Hyland, K (1994). Hedging in academic writing and EAP textbooks. English for Specific Purposes, 13, 239-256.
46. Hyland, K (1996a). Talking to the academy: Forms of hedging in science research articles. Written Communication, 13, 251-281. (Pubitemid 126820548)
47. Hyland, K (1996b). Writing without conviction? Hedging in science research articles. Applied Linguistics, 17, 433-454.
48. Jamieson, J., Jones, S. Kirsch, I., Mosenthal, P., & Taylor, C. (2000). TOEFL 2000 framework: A working paper (TOEFL Monograph Series MS-16). Princeton, NJ: Educational Testing Service.
49. Khuwaileh, A. A. (1999). The role of chunks, phrases, and body language in understanding coordinated academic lectures. System, 27, 249-260.
50. Kuo, C.-H. (1999). The use of personal pronouns: Role relationships in scientific journal articles. English for Specific Purposes, 18, 121-138.
51. Love, A. (1993). Lexico-grammatical features of geology textbooks: Process and product revisited. English for Specific Purposes, 12, 197-218.
52. Marco, M. J. L. (1999). Procedural vocabulary: Lexical signaling of conceptual relations in discourse. Applied Linguistics, 20, 1-21.
53. Marco, M. J. L. (2000). Collocational frameworks in medical research papers: A genre-based study. English for Specific Purposes, 19, 63-86.
54. Myers, G. (1989). The pragmatics of politeness in scientific articles. Applied Linguistics, 10, 1-35.
55. Nattinger, J. R, & DeCarrico, J. S. (1992). Lexical phrases and language teaching. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
56. Reppen, R. (2001). Register variation in student and adult speech and writing. In S. Conrad & D. Biber (Eds.), Variation in English: Multi-dimensional studies (pp. 187-199). Harlow, England: Pearson.
57. Salager-Meyer, F. (1999). Referential behavior in scientific writing: A diachronic study (1810-1995). English for Specific Purposes, 18, 279-305.
58. Strodt-Lopez, B. (1991) Tying it all in: Asides in university lectures. Applied Linguistics, 12, 117-140.
59. Swales, J. M. (1990). Genre analysis: English in academic and research settings. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
60. Swales, J. M., Ahmad, U. K, Chang, Y. Y., Chavez, D., Dressen, D. F., & Seymour, R. (1998). Consider this: The role of imperatives in scholarly writing. Applied Linguistics, 19, 97-121.
61. Thompson, G, & Ye, Y (1991). Evaluation in the reporting verbs used in academic papers. Applied Linguistics, 12, 365-382.
62. Valle, E. (1999). A collective intelligence: The life sciences in the Royal Society as a scientific discourse community, 1665-1965. Unpublished doctoral dissertation, University of Turku, Finland.
63. Varantola, K. (1984). On noun phrase structures in engineering English. Unpublished doctoral dissertation, University of Turku, Finland
64. Williams, I. (1996). A contextual study of lexical verbs in two types of medical research report: Clinical and Experimental. English for Specific Purposes, 15, 175-197.