The linguistic representation of rhetorical function: A study of how economists present their knowledge claims

Written Communication

Volumn 26, Issue 4, 2009, Pages 370-391

  Dahl, Trine ^a  

^a NORWEGIAN SCHOOL OF ECONOMICS   (Norway)

Author keywords

Discourse community; Knowledge construction; Promotion of claims; Research article; Rhetoric of economics

Indexed keywords

EID: 70349820961     PISSN: 07410883     EISSN: 15528472     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1177/0741088309341241     Document Type: Article

References (37)

1. Ashton, R.H. (1998). Writing accounting research for publication and impact. Journal of Accounting Education, 16, 247-260.
2. Berkenkotter, C., & Huckin, T.N. (1995). Genre knowledge in disciplinary communication: Cognition/Culture/Power. Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.
3. Beyer, J.M., Chanove, R.G., & Fox, W.B. (1995). The review process and the fates of manuscripts submitted to AMJ. Academy of Management Journal, 38, 1219-1260.
4. Bloor, M., & Bloor, T. (1993). How economists modify propositions. In W. Henderson, T. Dudley-Evans, & R. Backhouse (Eds.), Economics and language (pp. 153-169). London and New York: Routledge.
5. Burrough-Boenisch, J. (2003). Examining present tense conventions in scientific writing in the light of reader reactions to three Dutch-authored discussions. English for Specific Purposes, 22, 5-24.
6. Cochrane, J. (2005). Writing tips for PhD Students. Retrieved June 14, 2009, from http://faculty.chicagogsb.edu/john.cochrane/research/Papers/phd_paper_writing.pdf.
7. Dahl, T. (2008). Contributing to the academic conversation: A study of new knowledge claims in economics and linguistics. Journal of Pragmatics, 40, 1184-1201.
8. Day, R.A., & Gastel, B. (2006). How to write and publish a scientific paper (6th ed.). Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press.
9. Ekelund, R.B., Jr., & Hébert, R.F. (1997). A history of economic theory and method. New York: McGraw-Hill.
10. Fløttum, K., Dahl, T., & Kinn, T. (2006). Academic voices. Amsterdam and Philadelphia: John Benjamins.
11. Fredrickson, K., & Swales, J. (1994). Competition and discourse community: Introductions from Nysvenska studier. In B.-L. Gunnarsson, P. Linell, & B. Nordberg (Eds.), Text and talk in professional contexts: Selected papers from the international conference Discourse and the Professions, Uppsala, 26-29 August, 1992 (pp. 9-21). Stockholm: ASLA.
12. Gnutzmann, C., & Oldenburg, H. (1991). Contrastive text linguistics in LSP research: Theoretical considerations and some preliminary findings. In H. Schröder (Ed.), Subject-oriented texts (pp. 103-136). Berlin, Germany and New York: de Gruyter.
13. Haggan, M. (2004). Research paper titles in literature, linguistics and science: Dimensions of attraction. Journal of Pragmatics, 36, 293-317.
14. Harwood, N. (2006). (In)appropriate personal pronoun use in political science: A qualitative study and a proposed heuristic for future research. Written Communication, 23, 424-450.
15. Harwood, N. (2009). An interview-based study of the functions of citations in academic writing across two disciplines. Journal of Pragmatics, 41, 497-518.
16. Heslot, J. (1982). Tense and other indexical markers in the typology of scientific texts in English. In J. Høedt, L. Lundquist, H. Picht, & J. Qvistgaard (Eds.), Pragmatics and LSP: Proceedings of the 3rd European Symposium on LSP, Copenhagen, August 1981 (pp. 83-104). Copenhagen, Denmark: Copenhagen School of Economics.
17. Holmes, R. (2001). Variation and text structure: The discussion section in economics research articles. I.T.L. Review of Applied Linguistics, 131-132, 107-137.
18. Hyland, K. (1996). Talking to the academy: Forms of hedging in science research articles. Written Communication, 13, 251-281.
19. Hyland, K. (1998). Hedging in scientific research articles. Amsterdam and Philadelphia: John Benjamins.
20. Hyland, K. (2000). Disciplinary discourses: Social interactions in academic writing. London: Longman.
21. Hyland, K. (2005). Metadiscourse. London and New York: Continuum.
22. Lewin, B., Fine, J., & Young, L. (2001). Expository discourse: A genre-based approach to social science research texts. London and New York: Continuum.
23. Li, L.-J., & Ge, G.-C. (2009). Genre analysis: Structural and linguistic evolution of the English-medium medical research article (1985-2004). English for Specific Purposes, 28, 93-104.
24. Lindeberg, A.-C. (2004). Promotion and politeness: Conflicting scholarly rhetoric in three disciplines. Turku, Finland: Åbo Akademi University Press.
25. Malcolm, L. (1987). What rules govern tense usage in scientific articles? English for Specific Purposes, 6(1), 31-43.
26. Mauranen, A. (1993). Cultural differences in academic rhetoric. Frankfurt and Berlin, Germany: Peter Lang.
27. Myers, G. (1989). The pragmatics of politeness in scientific articles. Applied Linguistics, 10, 1-35.
28. Myers, G. (1992). In this paper we report: Speech acts and scientific facts. Journal of Pragmatics, 17, 295-313.
29. Oldenburg, H. (1992). Angewandte Fachtextlinguistik: Conclusions und Zusammenfassungen [Applied LSP text linguistics: Conclusions and Summaries]. Tübingen, Germany: Gunter Narr.
30. Swales, J. (1981). Aspects of article introductions (Aston ESP Research Report No. 1). Birmingham, UK: Language Studies Unit, University of Aston in Birmingham.
31. Swales, J. (1990). Genre analysis: English in academic and research settings. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press.
32. Swales, J. (2004). Research genres: Exploration and applications. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press.
33. Swales, J., & Luebs, M.A. (2002). Genre analysis and the advanced second language writer. In E. Barton & G. Stygall (Eds.), Discourse studies in composition (pp. 135-154). Cresskill, NJ: Hampton Press.
34. Swales, J., & Najjar, H. (1987). The writing of research article introductions. Written Communication, 4, 175-191.
35. Tutin, A. (2008, December 11-13). Evaluative adjectives in academic writing in the humanities and social sciences. Paper presented at the InterLAE conference Interpersonality in Written Academic Discourse, Jaca, University of Zaragoza, Spain.
36. Varttala, T. (2001). Hedging in scientifically oriented discourse: Exploring variation according to discipline and intended audience. Electronic PhD dissertation, Acta Electronica Universitatis Tamperensis 138. Available from http://acta.uta.fi.
37. Zimmerman, J.L. (1989). Improving a manuscript's readability and likelihood of publication. Issues in Accounting Education, 4, 458-466.