Scientific writing

Annual Review of Information Science and Technology

Volumn 42, Issue , 2008, Pages 297-338

  Hyland, Ken ^a   Salager Meyer, Françoise ^b,c,d  

^a UNIVERSITY OF LONDON   (United Kingdom)

^b UNIVERSIDAD DE LOS ANDES   (Chile)

^c UNIVERSITÉ DE LYON   (France)

^d UNIVERSITY OF TEXAS AT AUSTIN   (United States)

Author keywords

[No Author keywords available]

Indexed keywords

EID: 38349155837     PISSN: 00664200     EISSN: None     Source Type: Book Series    
DOI: 10.1002/aris.2008.1440420114     Document Type: Review

References (203)

1. Ahmad, U. K. (1997). Research article introductions in Malay: Rhetoric in an emerging research community. In A. Duszak (Ed.), Culture and styles in academic discourse (pp. 273-303). Berlin, Germany: Mouton de Gruyter.
2. Andersson, B., & Gunnarsson, B. L. (1995). A contrastive study of text patterns in conference abstracts. In B. Warvick, S. K. Tanskanen, & R. Hiltunen (Eds.), Organization in discourse. Proceedings from the Türkü Conference (pp. 139-148). Türkü, Finland: Anglicana Türküensia.
3. Anthony, L. (1999). Writing research article introductions in software engineering: How accurate is the standard model? IEEE Transactions of Professional Communication, 42, 38-46.
4. Atkinson, D. (1999a). Scientific discourse in sociohistoric context. Mahwah, NJ: Erlbaum.
5. Atkinson, D. (1999b). Culture in TESOL. TESOL Quarterly, 33, 625-654.
6. Aronowitz, S. (1988). Science as power: Discourse and ideology in modern society. London: Macmillan.
7. Bachschmidt, P. (1999). Contruction de l'argumentation dans l'article de recherche en mécanique: Différences entre discours du francophone et de l'anglophone. ASp (Anglais de Spécialité), 23-26, 197-207.
8. Bakhtin, M. (1981). The dialogical imagination (M. Holquist, Ed., C. Emerson & M. Holquist, Trans.). Austin: University of Texas Press.
9. Bakhtin, M. (1986). Speech genres and other late essays. Austin: University of Texas Press.
10. Bartholomae, D. (1986). Inventing the university. Journal of Basic Writing, 5, 4-23.
11. Bazerman, C. (1984). Modern evolution of the experimental report in physics: Spectroscopic articles in Physical Review 1893-1980. Social Studies of Science, 14, 163-196.
12. Bazerman, C. (1988). Shaping written knowledge. Madison: University of Wisconsin Press.
13. Beaufrère-Bertheux, C. (1997). L'anglais de la recherche médicale: Une grande diversité. ASp (Anglais de Spécialité), 15/18, 223-238.
14. Becher, T. (1989). Academic tribes and territories: Intellectual inquiry and the cultures of disciplines. Milton Keynes, UK: Society for Research into Higher Education and Open University Press.
15. Berkenkotter, C., & Huckin, T. (1995). Genre knowledge in disciplinary communication. Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum.
16. Bhatia, V. K. (1999). Integrating products, processes, purposes and participants in professional writing. In C. N. Candlin & K. Hyland (Eds.), Writing: Texts, processes and practices (pp. 21-39). London: Longman.
17. Blyler, N., & Thralls, C. (Eds.). (1993). Professional communication: The social perspective. Newbury Park, CA: Sage.
18. Bondi, M. (1999). English across genres: Language variation in the discourse of economics. Modena: Edizioni Il Fiorino.
19. Bondi, M. (2005). Metadiscursive practices in academic discourse: Variation across genres and disciplines. In J. Bamford & M. Bondi (Eds.), Dialogue within discourse communities: Metadiscursive perspectives on academic genres (pp. 3-30). Tübingen, Germany: Niemeyer.
20. Bourdieu, P. (1991). Language and symbolic power. Oxford, UK: Polity Press.
21. Braine, G. (1995). Writing in the natural sciences and engineering. In D. Belcher & G. Braine (Eds.), Academic writing in a second language: Essays on research and pedagogy (pp. 113-133). Norwood, NJ: Ablex.
22. Braine, G. (2001). When professors don't cooperate: A critical perspective on EAP research. English for Specific Purposes, 20, 293-303.
23. Brett, P. (1994). A genre analysis of the results sections of sociology articles. English for Specific Purposes, 13, 47-59.
24. Brown, G., & Levinson, S. (1987). Politeness: Some universale in language usage. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press.
25. Bunton, D. (2002). Generic moves in PhD thesis introductions. In J. Flowerdew (Ed.), Academic Discourse (pp. 57-74). London: Longman.
26. Bunton, D. (2005). The structure of PhD conclusion chapters. Journal of English for Academic Purposes, 4(3), 207-224.
27. Burgess, S. (2002). Packed houses and intimate gathering: Audience and rhetorical structure. In J. Flowerdew (Ed.), Academic discourse (pp. 196-215). Harlow, UK: Longman.
28. Burrough-Boenisch, J. (2004). NS and NNS scientists' amendments of Dutch scientific English and their impact on hedging. English for Specific Purposes, 24(1), 25-39.
29. Busà, M. (2005). The use of metadiscourse in abstracts: A comparison between economics and psychology abstracts. In J. Bamford & M. Bondi (Eds.), Dialogue within discourse communities: Metadiscursive perspectives on academic genres (pp. 31-48). Tübingen, Germany: Niemeyer.
30. Canagarajah, S. (1999). Resisting linguistic imperialism in English teaching. Oxford, UK: Oxford University Press.
31. Canagarajah, S. (2002a). Critical academic writing and multilingual students. Ann Arbor: University of Michigan Press.
32. Canagarajah, S. (2002b). The geopolitics of academic writing. Pittsburg, PA: University of Pittsburg Press.
33. Candlin, C. N., & Hyland, K. (Eds.). (1999). Writing: Texts, processes and practices. London: Longman.
34. Clemen, G. (1997). The concept of hedging: Origins, approaches and definitions. In R. Markkanen & H. Schröder (Eds.), Hedging and discourse: Approaches to the analysis of a pragmatic phenomenon in academic texts (pp. 235-248). Berlin, Germany: Mouton de Gruyter.
35. Clyne, M. G. (1983). Linguistic and written discourse in particular languages: English and German. Annual Review of Applied Linguistics, III, 38-49.
36. Clyne, M. G. (1987). Cultural differences in the organization of academic texts: English and German. Journal of Pragmatics, 11(2), 211-247.
37. Clyne, M. G. (1991). The sociocultural dimension: The dilemma of the German-speaking scholar. In H. Schröder (Ed.), Subject-oriented texts (pp. 49-67). Berlin, Germany: Mouton de Gruyter.
38. Cmejrková, S. (1996). Academic writing in Czech and English. In E. Ventola & A. Mauranen (Eds.). Academic writing: Intercultural and textual issues (pp. 137-152). Amsterdam: John Benjamins.
39. Cmejrková, S., & Danes, F. (1997). Academic writing and cultural identity: The case of Czech academic writing, In A. Duszak (Ed.), Culture and styles in academic discourse (pp. 41-62). Berlin, Germany: Mouton de Gruyter.
40. Cohen, R. S., & Schnelle, T. (Eds.). (1986). Cognition and fact: Materials on Ludwik Fleck. Dordrecht, Netherlands: Reidel.
41. Coffin, C., Curry, M., Goodman, S., Hewings, A., Lillis, T., & Swann, J. (2003). Teaching academic writing: A toolkit for higher education. London: Routledge.
42. Connor, U. (1996). Contrastive rhetoric. Cambridge, UK. Cambridge University Press.
43. Connor, U. (2000). Variations in rhetorical moves in grant proposals of US humanists and scientists. Text, 20(1), 1-28.
44. Connor, U. (2002). New directions in contrastive rhetoric. TESOL Quarterly, 36(4), 493-510.
45. Connor, U., Davies, K., & DeRycker, T. (1995). Correctness and clarity for applying for overseas jobs: A cross-cultural analysis of US and Flemish applications. Text, 15, 457-475.
46. Connor, U., & Upton, T. (2004). The genre of grant proposals: A corpus linguistic study. In U. Connor & T. Upton (Eds.), Discourse in the professions (pp. 235-255). Amsterdam: Benjamins.
47. Connors, R. (1986). Textbooks and the evolution of the discipline. College Composition and Communication, 37, 178-194.
48. Crismore, A., & Farnsworth, R. (1990). Metadiscourse in popular and professional science discourse. In W. Nash (Ed.), The writing scholar: Studies in academic discourse (pp. 118-136). Newbury Park, CA: Sage.
49. Crismore, A., Markkanen, R., & Steffensen, M. (1993). Metadiscourse in persuasive writing: A study of texts written by American and Finnish university students. Written Communication, 10(1), 39-71.
50. Crompton, P. (1997). Hedging in academic writing: Some theoretical problems. English for Specific Purposes, 16(4), 271-287.
51. Cronin, B. (1995). The scholar's courtesy: The role of acknowledgement in the primary communication process. London: Taylor Graham.
52. Cronin, B. (2005). The hand of science: Academic writing and its rewards. Lanham, MD: Scarecrow Press.
53. Cronin, B., Shaw, D., & La Barre, K. (2003). A cast of thousands: Co-authorship and subauthorship collaboration in the 20th century as manifested in the scholarly journal literature of psychology and philosophy. Journal of the American Society for Information Science and Technology, 54(9), 855-871.
54. Cronin, B., Shaw, D., & La Barre, K. (2004). Visible, less visible and invisible work: Patterns of collaboration in 20th century chemistry. Journal of the American Society for Information Science and Technology, 55(2), 160-168.
55. Crookes, G. (1986). Towards a validated analysis of scientific text structure. Applied Linguistics, 7, 57-70.
56. Crosnier, E. (1996). L'intéret de la modalisation comme aide à la rédaction en anglais pour les scientifiques français: Méthodologie et perspective pédagogique. ASp (Anglais de Spécialité), 11/14, 89-103.
57. Doheny-Farina, S. (1992). Rhetoric, innovation, technology: Case studies of technical communication in technology transfers. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.
58. Dubois, B.-L. (1997). The biomedical discussion section in context. Greenwich, CT: Ablex.
59. Dudley-Evans, T., & Henderson, W. (1990). The organisation of article introductions: Evidence of change in economics writing. In T. Dudley-Evans & W. Henderson (Eds.), The language of economics: The analysis of economics discourse (ELT Documents 134, pp. 67-78). London: Modern English Publications and The British Council.
60. Duszak, A. (1994). Academic discourse and intellectual styles. Journal of Pragmatics, 21, 291-313.
61. Eggington, W. G. (1987). Written academic discourse in Korean: Implications for effective communication. In U. Connor & R. B. Kaplan (Eds.), Writing across languages: Analysis of L2 texts (pp. 153-168). Reading, MA: Addison-Wesley.
62. Evangelisti Allori, P. (Ed.). (1998). Academic discourse in Europe. Rome: Bulzoni.
63. Flowerdew, J. (Ed.). (2002). Academic discourse. London: Longman.
64. Flowerdew, J., & Dudley-Evans, T. (2002). Genre analysis of editorial letters to international journal contributors. Applied Linguistics, 23(4), 463-489.
65. Folman, S., & Sarig, G. (1990). Intellectual rhetoric differences in meaning construction. Communication and Cognition, 23, 45-92.
66. Freddi, M. (2005). How linguists write about linguistics: The case of introductory textbooks. In J. Bamford & M. Bondi (Eds.), Dialogue within discourse communities: Metadiscursive perspectives on academic genres (pp. 49-66). Tübingen, Germany: Niemeyer.
67. Fredrickson, K., & Swales, J. (1994). Competition and discourse community: Introductions from Nysvenka Studier. In B. L. Gunnarsson, P. Linell, & B. Nordberg (Eds.), Text and talk in professional contexts (pp. 9-22). Uppsala, Sweden: Association Suedoise de Linguistique Appliquée.
68. Galtung, J. (1979). Deductive thinking and political practice. An essay on Teutonic intellectual style. In J. Galtung (Ed.), Papers on methodology (Vol. 2, pp. 194-209). Copenhagen, Denmark: Ejlers.
69. Galtung, J. (1985). Struktur, kultur und intellektueller Stil. In A. Wierlacher (Ed.), Das Fremde und das Eigene [The foreign and the familiar] (pp. 151-193). Munich, Germany: Judficium.
70. Gebhardt, R. C. (1993). Scholarship, promotion, and tenure in composition studies. College Composition and Communication, 44, 439-442.
71. Giannoni, D. S. (2002). Worlds of gratitude: A contrastive study of acknowledgment texts in English and Italian research articles. Applied Linguistics, 23(1), 1-31.
72. Giannoni, D. S. (2006). Book acknowledgements across disciplines and texts. In K. Hyland & M. Bondi (Eds.), Academic discourse across disciplines (pp. 151-176). Frankfurt, Germany: Peter Lang.
73. Gilbert, G., & Mulkay, M. (1984). Opening Pandora's box: A sociological analysis of scientific discourse. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press.
74. Gilbert, S. F. (1995). Introduction: Postmodernism and science. Science in Context, 8, 559-561.
75. Golebiowski, Z. (1998). Rhetorical approaches to scientific writing: An English-Polish contrastive study. Text, 18, 67-102.
76. Golebiowski, Z. (1999). Application of Swales' model in the analysis of research papers by Polish authors. International Review of Applied Linguistics, 37, 231-247.
77. Gosden, H. (1993). Discourse functions of subject in scientific research articles. Applied Linguistics, 14(1), 56-75.
78. Gould, S. J. (1998). Ladders and cones: Constraining evolution by canonical icons. In R. Silvers (Ed.), Hidden histories of science (pp. 37-67). London: Granta.
79. Grabe, W., & Kaplan, R. B. (1996). Theory and practice of writing. London: Longman.
80. Groom, N. (2005). Pattern and meaning across genres and disciplines: An exploratory study. Journal of English for Academic Purposes, 4/3, 257-277.
81. Gross, A. G., Harmon, J. E., & Reidy, M. S. (2002). Communicating science: The scientific article from the 17th century to the present. Oxford, UK: Oxford University Press.
82. Gunnarsson, B. L. (1989). LSP texts in a diachronic perspective. In C. Laurén & M. Nordman (Eds.), Special language: From humans thinking to thinking machines (pp. 243-252). Philadelphia: Multilingual Matters Ltd.
83. Hagstrom, W. (1965). The scientific community. New York: Basic Books.
84. Halliday, M. A. K. (1998). Things and relations: Regrammaticising experience as technical knowledge. In J. Martin & R. Veel (Eds.), Reading science (pp. 185-235). London: Routledge.
85. Halliday, M. A. K., & Martin, J. R. (1993). Writing science: Literacy and discursive power. London: Falmer Press.
86. Harrison, B. (2002). Japanese research papers: The advisability of translators performing a proactive editing role. European Science Editing, 28(4), 104-107.
87. Hinds, J. (1984). Retention of information using a Japanese style of presentation. Studies in Linguistics, 8, 45-69.
88. Hinds, J. (1987). Reader vs. writer responsibility: A new typology. In U. Connor & R. B. Kaplan (Eds.), Writing across languages: Analysis of L2 texts (pp. 141-152). Reading, MA: Addison-Wesley.
89. Hinds, J. (1990). Inductive, deductive, quasi inductive: Expository writing in Japanese, Korean, Chinese and Thai. In U. Connor & A. M. Johns (Eds.), Coherence in writing: Research and pedagogical perspectives (pp. 87-110). Alexandria, VA: TESOL.
90. Hinkel, E. (1997). Objectivity and credibility in L1 and L2 academic writing. In E. Hinkel (Ed.), Culture and second language teaching and learning (pp. 90-108). Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press.
91. Hunston, S., & Thompson, G. (Eds.). (2000). Evaluation in text: Authorial stance and the construction of discourse. Oxford, UK: Oxford University Press.
92. Hyland, K. (1998a). Hedging in scientific research articles. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.
93. Hyland, K. (1998b). Persuasion and context: The pragmatics of academic metadiscourse. Journal of Pragmatics, 30, 437-455.
94. Hyland, K. (1999a). Disciplinary discourses: Writer stance in research articles. In C. Candlin & Hyland, K. (Eds.), Writing: Texts, processes and practices (pp. 99-121). London: Longman.
95. Hyland, K. (1999b). Talking to students: Metadiscourse in introductory textbooks. English for Specific Purposes, 18, 3-26.
96. Hyland, K. (2000a). Disciplinary discourses: Social interactions in academic writing. London: Longman.
97. Hyland, K. (2000b). Hedges, boosters and lexical invisibility: Noticing modifiers in academic texts. Language Awareness, 9(4), 179-197.
98. Hyland, K. (2001a). Bringing in the reader: Addressee features in academic writing. Written Communication, 18, 549-574.
99. Hyland, K. (2001b). Humble servants of the discipline? Self-mention in research articles. English for Specific Purposes, 20, 207-226.
100. Hyland, K. (2002a). Directives: Power and engagement in academic writing. Applied Linguistics, 23(2), 215-239.
101. Hyland, K. (2002b). Specificity revisited: How far should we go now? English for Specific Purposes, 21(4), 385-395.
102. Hyland, K. (2004a). Graduates' gratitude: The generic structure of dissertation acknowledgements. English for Specific Purposes, 23(3), 303-324.
103. Hyland, K. (2004b). Disciplinary interactions: Metadiscourse in L2 postgraduate writing. Journal of Second Language Writing, 13, 133-151.
104. Hyland, K. (2005a). Metadiscourse. London: Continuum.
105. Hyland, K. (2005b). Stance and engagement: A model of interaction in academic discourse. Discourse Studies, 7(2), 173-191.
106. Hyland, K. (2006). Disciplinary differences: Language variation in academic discourses. In K. Hyland & M. Bondi (Eds.), Academic discourse across disciplines (pp. 17-45). Frankfurt, Germany: Peter Lang.
107. Hyland, K., & Milton, J. (1997). Qualification and certainty in L1 and L2 students' writing. Journal of Second Language Writing, 16(2), 183-205.
108. Hyland, K., & Tse, P. (2004a). Metadiscourse in academic writing: A reappraisal. Applied Linguistics, 25(2), 156-177.
109. Hyland, K., & Tse, P. (2004b). "I would like to thank my supervisor": Acknowledgements in graduate dissertations. International Journal of Applied Linguistics, 14(2), 259-275.
110. Hyland, K., & Tse, P. (2005). Hooking the reader: A corpus study of evaluative that in abstracts. English for Specific Purposes, 24(2), 123-139.
111. Jensen, J. V. (1998). Teaching East Asian rhetoric. The Rhetoric Society Quarterly, 18, 136-149.
112. Johns, A. M. (1997). Text, role and context: Developing academic literacies. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press.
113. Johns, A. M. (Ed). (2002). Genre in the classroom: Multiple perspectives. Mahwah, NJ: Erlbaum.
114. Judson, H. (1995). The eighth day of creation: The makers of the revolution in biology. Harmondsworth, UK: Penguin Books.
115. Kaplan, R. (1966). Cultural thought patterns in intercultural education. Language Learning, 16, 1-20.
116. Knorr Cetina, K. (1981). The manufacture of knowledge. Oxford, UK: Pergamon Press.
117. Kress, G. (1989). Linguistic processes in sociocultural practice. Oxford, UK: Oxford University Press.
118. Kreutz, H., & Harres, A. (1997). Some observations on the distribution and function of hedging in German and English academic writing. In A. Duszak (Ed.), Culture and styles of academic discourse (pp. 181-201). Berlin, Germany: Mouton de Gruyter.
119. Kubota, R. (1999). Japanese culture constructed by discourse: Implications for applied linguistics research and English language teaching. TESOL Quarterly, 33, 9-35.
120. Kuhn, T. (1970). The structure of scientific revolutions (2nd ed.). Chicago: University of Chicago Press.
121. Kuo, C.-H. (1999). The use of personal pronouns: Role relationships in scientific journal articles. English for Specific Purposes, 18(2), 121-138.
122. Lakoff, G. (1972). Hedges: A study in meaning criteria and the logic of fuzzy concepts. Proceedings of the 8th Annual Meeting of the Chicago Linguistic Society, 183-228.
123. Latour, B., & Woolgar, S. (1979). Laboratory life: The social construction of scientific facts. Beverly Hills, CA: Sage.
124. Lawani, S. (1982). On the heterogeneity and classification of author self-citations. Journal of the American Society for Information Science, 33, 281-284.
125. Le, E. (1999). The use of paragraphs in French and English academic writing: Towards a grammar of paragraphs. Text, 19(3), 307-343.
126. Lemke, J. (1995). Textual politics: Discourse and social dynamics. London: Taylor and Francis.
127. Lewin, B., Fine, J., & Young, L. (2001). Expository discourse: A genre-based approach to social science research texts. London: Continuum.
128. Liddicoat, A. J. (2005). Writing about knowing in science. LSP and Professional Communication, 5(2), 8-27.
129. Lindeberg, A. C. (1988). Cohesion, coherence, and coherence patterns in expository and argumentative student essays in EFL: An exploratory study. Unpublished licenciate thesis, Obo Akademi, Türkü, Finland.
130. Lindeberg, A. C. (1998). Promotional rhetorical steps and linguistic signalling in research articles in three disciplines. In L. Lundqvist, H. Pitch, & J. Qvistgaard (Eds.), LSP: Identity and interface research (pp. 689-698). Copenhagen, Denmark: Copenhagen Business School.
131. López, G. S. (1982). Article introductions in Spanish: A study in comparative rhetoric. Unpublished master's dissertation, Aston University, Birmingham, UK.
132. Love, A. (2002). Introductory concepts and cutting edge theories: Can the genre of the textbook accommodate both? In J. Flowerdew (Ed.), Academic discourse (pp. 76-90). London: Longman.
133. MacDonald, S. P. (1994). Professional academic writing in the humanities and social sciences. Carbondale: Southern Illinois University Press.
134. Martin, J. (1996). Les enjeux du discours scientifiques: La stratégie de véridiction. ASp (Anglais de Spé cialité), 11/14, 13-33.
135. Mauranen, A. (1992). Reference in academic rhetoric: A contrastive study of English and Finnish writing. In A. C. Lindberg, N. E. Enkvist, & K. Vikberg (Eds.), Nordic research on text and discourse, Nordtext Symposium 1990 (pp. 237-250). Obo, Finland: Obo Academic Press.
136. Mauranen, A. (1993). Cultural differences in academic rhetoric. Frankfurt, Germany: Peter Lang.
137. Melander, B. (1998). Culture or genre? Issues in the interpretation of cross-cultural differences in scientific papers. In I. Fortanet, S. Posteguillo, C. Palmer, & J. F. Coll (Eds.), Genre studies in English for academic purposes (pp. 211-226). Castello de La Plana: Universitat Jaume I.
138. Melander, B., Swales, J., & Fredrickson, K. M. (1997). Journal abstracts from three academic fields in the United States and Sweden: National or disciplinary proclivities? In A. Duszak (Ed.), Culture and styles of academic discourse (pp. 252-272). Berlin, Germany: Mouton de Gruyter.
139. Mendiluce Cabrera, G., & Hernández Bartolomé, A. I. (2005). La matización asertiva en el artículo biomédico: Una propuesta de clasificación para los estudios contrastivos inglés-español. Ibérica, 10, 63-90.
140. Moreno, A. (1997). Genre constraints across languages: Causal metatext in Spanish and English RAs. English for Specific Purposes, 16(3), 161-179.
141. Motta-Roth, D. (1998). Discourse analysis and academic book reviews: A study of text and disciplinary cultures. In I. Fortenet, S. Posteguillo, J. C. Palmer, & J. F. Coll (Eds.), Genre studies in English for academic purposes (pp. 29-58). Castello, Spain: Universitat Jaume I.
142. Myers, G. (1989). The pragmatics of politeness in scientific articles. Applied Linguistics, 10, 1-35.
143. Myers, G. (1990). Writing biology: Texts in the social construction of scientific knowledge. Madison: University of Wisconsin Press.
144. Myers, G. (1992). Textbooks and the sociology of scientific knowledge. English for Specific Purposes, 11(1), 3-17.
145. Najjar, H. (1990). Arabic as a research language: The case of the agricultural sciences. Unpublished doctoral dissertation, University of Michigan, Ann Arbor.
146. Oliveira, L. P. (1997). Variaçao intercultural na escrita: Contrastes multidimensionais em inglês e português. Unpublished doctoral dissertation, Pontificia Universidade Católica de São Paulo, Brazil.
147. Oliver del Olmo, S. (2004). Análisis contrastivo espanol/inglés de la atenuación retórica en el discurso médico: El artículo de investigación y el caso clínico. Unpublished doctoral dissertation, Universitat Pompeu Fabra, Barcelona, Spain.
148. Osborne, J. (1994). La cohésion dans les productions écrites d'étudiants en anglais de spécialité: Un problème culturel? ASp (Anglais de Spécialité), 5/6, 205-215.
149. Parry, S. (1998). Disciplinary discourse in doctoral theses. Higher Education, 36, 273-299.
150. Paul, D., & Charney, D. (1995). Introducing chaos (theory) into science and engineering. Written Communication, 12(4), 396-438.
151. Peck MacDonald, S. (1990). The literary argument and its discursive conventions. In W. Nash (Ed.), The writing scholar (pp. 31-62). Newbury Park, CA: Sage.
152. Petric, B. (2005). Contrastive rhetoric in the writing classroom: A case study. English for Specific Purposes, 24, 213-228.
153. Pisanski Peterlin, A. (2005). Text-organising metatext in research articles: An English-Slovene contrastive analysis. English for Specific Purposes, 24, 307-319.
154. Posteguillo, S. (1999). The schematic structure of computer science research articles. English for Specific Purposes, 18, 139-160.
155. Prior, P. (1998). Writing/disciplinarity: A sociohistoric account of literate activity in the academy. Mahwah, NJ: Erlbaum.
156. Ramanathan, V., & Atkinson, D. (1999). Individualism, academic writing, and ESL writers. Journal of Second Language Writing, 8, 45-75.
157. Régent, O. (1994). L'article scientifique: un produit culturel. ASp (Anglais de spécialité), 5/6, 55-61.
158. Rousseau, R. (1999). Temporal differences in self-citation rates of scientific journals. Scientometrics, 44(3), 521-531.
159. Russell, D. R. (1992). American origins of the writing-across-the- curriculum movement. In A. Herrington & C. Moran (Eds.), Writing, teaching and learning in the disciplines (pp. 22-42). New York: The Modern Language Association of America.
160. Sa'adeddin, M. A. (1989). Text development and Arabic-English negative interference. Applied Linguistics, 10(1), 36-51.
161. Sacks, O. (1998). Scotoma: Forgetting and neglect in science. In R. B. Silvers (Ed.), Hidden histories of science (pp. 141-188). London: Granta.
162. Salager-Meyer, F. (1990). Discoursal flaws in medical English abstracts: A genre analysis per research and text type. TEXT, 10(4), 365-384.
163. Salager-Meyer, F. (1994). Hedges and textual communicative function in medical English written discourse. English for Specific Purposes, 13(2), 149-170.
164. Salager-Meyer, F. (1998a). Referential behavior in scientific writing: A diachronic study (1810-1995). English for Specific Purposes, 13, 149-171.
165. Salager-Meyer, F. (1998b). Language is not a physical object. English for Specific Purposes, 17(3), 295-303.
166. Salager-Meyer, F. (2000). Procrutes' recipes: Hedging and positivism. English for Specific Purposes, 19(2), 175-189.
167. Salager-Meyer, F., & Alcaraz Ariza, M. A. (2004). Negative appraisals in academic book reviews: Across-linguistic approach. In C. Candlin & M. Gotti (Eds.), Intercultural aspects of specialized communication (pp. 149-172). Frankfurt, Germany: Peter Lang.
168. Salager-Meyer, F., Alcaraz Ariza, M. A., & Zambrano, N. (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.
169. Salager-Meyer, F., Alcaraz Ariza, M. A., Pabón, M., &. Zambrano, N. (2006a). Paying one's intellectual debt: Acknowledgments in conventional vs. complementary/alternative medical research. In M. Gotti & F. Salager-Meyer (Eds.), Advances in medical discourse analysis: Oral and written contexts (407-430). Frankfurt, Germany: Peter Lang.
170. Salager-Meyer, F., Alcaraz Ariza, M. A., Pabón, M., &. Zambrano, N. (2006b). Big science, internationalisation, professionnalisation et fonction sociale de la science à travers l'analyse diachronique des recensions d'ouvrage. LSP and Professional Communication, 6(1), 8-25.
171. Salager-Meyer, F., & Defives, G. (1998). From the gentleman's courtesy to the expert's caution: A diachronic analysis of hedges in academic writing (1810-1995). In I. Fortanet, S. Posteguillo, C. Palmer, & J. F. Coll (Eds.), Genre studies in English for academic purposes (pp. 133-171). Castellon, Spain: Universitat Jaume I.
172. Samraj, B. (2002). Introductions in research articles: Variation across disciplines. English for Specific Purposes, 21, 1-18.
173. Scollon, R. (1997). Contrastive rhetoric, contrastive poetics or perhaps something else? TESOL Quarterly, 31, 352-358.
174. Shapin, S. (1984). Pump and circumstance: Robert Boyle's literary technology. Social Studies of Science, 14, 481-520.
175. Shi, L. (2002). How Western-trained Chinese TESOL professionals publish in their home environments. TESOL Quarterly, 36(4), 625-634.
176. Sionis, C. (1997). Stratégies et styles rédactionnels de l'article de recherche: Les ressources de l'utilisateur non-natif devant publier en anglais. ASp (Anglais de Spécialité), 15-18, 207-223.
177. Skudlik, S. (1990). Sprachen in den Wissenschaften: Deutsch und Englisch in der internationalen Kommunikation. Tübingen, Germany: Gunter Narr.
178. Spack, R. (1997). The rhetorical construction of multilingual students. TESOL Quarterly, 31, 765-774.
179. Swales, J. (1990). Genre analysis: English in academic and research settings. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press.
180. Swales, J. (1993). Genre and engagement. Revue Belge de Philogie et Histoire, 71(3), 689-698.
181. Swales, J. (1995). The role of the textbook in EAP writing research. English for Specific Purposes, 14(1), 3-18.
182. Swales, J. (1996). Occluded genres in the academy: The case of the submission letter. In E. Ventola & A. Mauranen (Eds.), Academic writing (pp. 45-58). Amsterdam: John Benjamins.
183. Swales, J. (1998). Other floors, other voices: A textography of a small university building. Mahwah, NJ: Erlbaum.
184. Swales, J. (2004). Research genres. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press.
185. Swales, J., Ahmad, U., Chang, Y.-Y., Chavez, D., Dressen, D., & Seymour, R. (1998). Consider this: The role of imperatives in scholarly writing. Applied Linguistics, 19(1), 97-121.
186. Tadros, A. (1994). Predictive categories in expository text. In M. Coulthard (Ed.), Advances in written text analysis (pp. 69-72). London: Routledge.
187. Tagliacozzo, R. (1977). Self-citations in scientific literature. Journal of Documentation, 33(4), 251-265.
188. Taylor, G., & Chen, T. (1991). Linguistic, cultural and subcultural issues in contrastive discourse analysis: Anglo-American and Chinese scientific texts. Applied Linguistics, 12, 319-336.
189. Thompson, G. (2001). Interaction in academic writing: Learning to argue with the reader. Applied Linguistics, 22(1), 58-78.
190. Thompson, G., & Ye, Y. (1991). Evaluation of the reporting verbs used in academic papers. Applied Linguistics, 12, 365-382.
191. Tse, P., & Hyland, K. (2006). Gender and discipline: Exploring metadiscourse variation in academic book reviews. In K. Hyland & M. Bondi (Eds.), Academic discourse across disciplines (pp. 177-202). Frankfurt, Germany: Peter Lang.
192. Upton T., &. Connor, U. (2001). Using computerized corpus analysis to investigate the textlinguistic discourse moves of a genre. English for Specific Purposes, 20, 313-329.
193. Valero-Garcés, C. (1996). Contrastive ESP rhetoric: Metatext in Spanish English economics texts. English for Specific Purposes, 15(4), 279-294.
194. Valle, E. (1999). A collective intelligence: The life sciences in the Royal Society as a scientific discourse community 1665-1965 (Anglicana Türküensia, 17). Turku, Finland: University of Türkü.
195. Vassileva, I. (1997). Hedging in English and Bulgarian academic writing. In A. Duszak (Ed.), Culture and styles of academic discourse (pp. 203-223). Berlin, Germany: Mouton de Gruyter.
196. Vassileva, I. (2000). Who is the author? A contrastive analysis of authorial presence in English, German, French, Russian and Bulgarian academic discourse. Asgard, Germany: Sankt Augustin.
197. Vassileva, I. (2001). Commitment and detachment in English and Bulgarian academic writing. English for Specific Purposes, 20, 83-103.
198. Ventola, E. (1997). Modalization: Probability - an exploration into its role in academic writing. In A. Duszak (Ed.), Culture and styles in academic writing (pp. 157-179). Berlin, Germany: Mouton de Gruyter.
199. Ventola, E., & Mauranen, A. (1991). Non-native writing and native revisiting of scientific articles. In E. Ventola (Ed.), Functional and systemic linguistics (pp. 457-492). Berlin, Germany: Mouton de Gruyter.
200. Yakhontova, T. (1997). The signs of a new time: Academic writing in ESP curricula of Ukranian universities. In A. Duszak (Ed.), Culture and styles of academic discourse (pp. 103-112). Berlin, Germany: Mouton de Gruyter.
201. Yakhontova, T. (2001). Textbooks, context and learners. English for Specific Purposes, 20, 397-415.
202. Yakhontova, T. (2002a). "Selling" or "telling"? The issue of cultural variation in research genres. In J. Flowerdew (Ed.), Academic discourse (pp. 216-232). Harlow, UK: Pearson Education.
203. Yakhontova, T. (2002b). Titles of conference presentations abstracts: A cross cultural perspective. In E. Ventola, C. Shalom, & S. Thompson (Eds.), The language of conferencing (pp. 277-300). Frankfurt, Germany: Peter Lang.