Logical markers in L1 (Spanish and English) and L2 (English) Business research articles

English Text Construction

Volumn 2, Issue 2, 2009, Pages 246-264

  Dueñas, Pilar Mur ^a  

^a UNIVERSITY OF ZARAGOZA   (Spain)

Author keywords

[No Author keywords available]

Indexed keywords

EID: 79952886548     PISSN: 18748767     EISSN: 18748775     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1075/etc.2.2.07mur     Document Type: Article

References (79)

1. Altenberg, B & Tapper M. 1998. The use of adverbial connectors in advanced Swedish learners’ written English. In Learner English on Computer, S. Granger (ed). Harlow: Addison Wesley Longman Limited, 80-93.
2. Bolton, K., Nelson, G & Hung, J. 2002. A corpus-based study of connectors in student writing: Research from the International Corpus of English in Hong Kong (ICE-HK). International Journal of Corpus Linguistics 7: 165-182.
3. Breivega, K. et al. 2002. Traces of self and others in research articles. A comparative pilot study of English, French and Norwegian research articles in medicine, economics and linguistics. International Journal of Applied Linguistics 12: 218-239.
4. Burgess, S. 2002. Packed houses and intimate gatherings: Audience and rhetorical strategies. In Academic Discourse, J. Flowerdew (ed). London: Longman, 196-225.
5. Carter-Thomas, S. 2007. The ‘iffiness’ of medical research articles: A comparison of English if and French si. In Language and discipline perspectives on academic discourse, K. Flottum (ed). Cambridge: Cambridge Scholars Press, 161-187.
6. Chen, C.W. 2006. The use of conjunctive adverbials in the academic papers of advanced Taiwanese EFL learners. International Journal of Corpus Linguistics 11: 113-130.
7. Cmejrkova, S. 1996. Academic writing in Czech and English. In Academic Writing: Intercultural and Textual Issues, E. Ventola & A. Mauranen (eds). Amsterdam: John Benjamins, 137-153.
8. Connor, U. 2004a. Introduction. Journal of English for Academic Purposes 3: 271-276.
9. Connor, U. 2004b. Intercultural rhetoric research: Beyond texts. Journal of English for Academic Purposes 3: 291-304.
10. Dahl, T. 2003. Metadiscourse in research articles. In Academic Discourse: Multidisciplinary Approaches, K. Flottum & F. Rastier (eds). Oslo: Novus Press, 120-138.
11. Dahl, T. 2004. Textual metadiscourse in research articles: A marker of national culture or of academic discipline? Journal of Pragmatics 36: 1807-1825.
12. Duszak, A. 1994. Academic discourse and intellectual styles. Journal of Pragmatics 21: 291-313.
13. Duszak, A. 1998. Academic writing in English and Polish: Comparing and subverting genres. International Journal of Applied Linguistics 8: 191-213.
14. Field, Y. & Yip, L.M.O. 1992. A comparison of internal cohesive conjunction in the English essay writing of Cantonese speakers and native speakers of English. RELC Journal 23: 133-178.
15. Flottum, K., Dahl, T. & Kinn, T. 2006. Academic Voices — Across Languages and Disciplines. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.
16. Flottum, K., Kinn, T. & Dahl, T. 2006. ‘We now report on…’ versus ‘Let us now see how…’: Author roles and interaction with readers in research articles. In Academic Discourse across Disciplines, K. Hyland & M. Bondi (eds). Bern: Peter Lang, 203-224.
17. Fortanet, I. 1998. Verb usage in academic writing: Reporting verbs in economics research articles in English and in Spanish. In Proceedings of the 11th European Symposium on Language for Special Purposes. LSP Identity and Interface Research, Knowledge and Society, L. Lundquist, H. Picht & J. Qvistgaard (eds). Copenhagen: Copenhagen Business School, LSP Centre, 231-240.
18. Fraser B. 1996. Pragmatic markers. Pragmatics 6: 167-190.
19. Fraser B. 1999. What are discourse markers? Journal of Pragmatics 31: 931-952.
20. Giannoni, D. S. 2002. Worlds of gratitude: A contrastive study of acknowledgement texts in English and Italian. Applied Linguistics 23: 1-31.
21. Golebiowski, Z. 1998. Rhetorical approaches to scientific writing: An English-Polish contrastive study. Text 18: 67-102.
22. Granger, S. & Tyson, S. 1996. Connector usage in the English essay writing of native and nonnative EFL speakers of English. World Englishes 15: 17-27.
23. Harwood, N. & Hadley, G. 2004. Demystifying institutional practices: critical pragmatism and the teaching of academic writing. English for Specific Purposes 23: 355-377.
24. Hinds J. 1987. Reader versus writer responsibility: A new typology. In Writing across Languages: Analyses of L2 Texts, U. Connor & R. B. Kaplan (eds). Reading: Addison-Wesley, 141-152.
25. Hyland, K. 1999. Disciplinary discourses: Writer stance in research articles. In Writing: Texts, Processes and Practices, C.N. Candlin & K. Hyland (eds). London: Longman, 99-121.
26. Hyland, K. 2000. Disciplinary Discourses: Social Interactions in Academic Writing. London: Longman.
27. Hyland, K. 2001. Bringing in the reader: Addressee features in academic discourse. Written Communication 18: 549-574.
28. Hyland, K. 2002. Directives: Argument and engagement in academic writing. Applied Linguistics 23: 215-239.
29. Hyland, K. 2004a. Patterns of engagement: Dialogic features and L2 undergraduate writing. In Analysing Academic Writing: Contextualized Frameworks, L.J. Ravelli & R. A. Ellis (eds). London: Continuum 5-23
30. Hyland, K. 2004b. Engagement and disciplinarity: The other side of evaluation. In Academic Discourse: New Insights into Evaluation, G. Del Lungo Camiciotti & E. Tognini-Bonelli (eds). Bern: Peter Lang, 13-30.
31. Hyland, K. 2005. Metadiscourse. London: Continuum.
32. Hyland, K. & Tse, P. 2004. Metadiscourse in academic writing: A reappraisal. Applied Linguistics 25: 156-177.
33. Johns, T. 1992. It is presented initially: Linear dislocation and inter-language strategies in Brazilian academic abstracts in English and Portuguese. Ilha do Desterro 27: 9-32.
34. Kreutz, H. & Harres, A. 1997. Hedging in German and English academic writing. In Culture and Styles of Academic Discourse, A. Duszak (ed). Berlin and New York: Mouton de Gruyter, 181-201.
35. Koutsantoni, D. 2007. Developing Academic Literacies: Understanding Disciplinary Communities’ Culture and Rhetoric. Bern: Peter Lang.
36. Lafuente Millán, E. (2008). Epistemic and approximative meaning revisited: The use of hedges, boosters and approximators when writing research in different disciplines. In English as an additional language in research publication and communication, S. Burgess & P Martín Martín (eds). Berlin: Peter Lang, 65-82.
37. Lorés, R. 2006. ‘I will argue that’: first person pronouns as metadiscoursal devices in research article abstracts in English and Spanish. ESP Across Cultures 3: 23-40.
38. Lorés, R. & Murillo, S. 2007. Authorial identity and reader involvement in academic writing: A contrastive study of the use of pronouns in RA abstracts. In Proceedings of the XIV AESLA Conference, R. Mairal (ed). Madrid: AESLA and UNED, 1249-1257.
39. Martin J.R. 1992. English Text: System and Structure. Philadelphia /Amsterdam: John Benjamins.
40. Martín Martín, P 2002. A genre-based investigation of abstract writing in English and Spanish. Revista Canaria de Estudios Ingleses 44: 47-64.
41. Martín Martín, P. 2003. A genre analysis of English and Spanish research paper abstracts in experimental social sciences. English for Specific Purposes 22: 25-43.
42. Martín Martín, P 2005. The Rhetoric of the Abstract in English and Spanish Scientific Discourse: A Cross-cultural Genre-analytic Approach. Bern: Peter Lang.
43. Martín Martín, P & Burgess, S. 2004. The rhetorical management of academic criticism in research article abstracts. Text 24: 171-195.
44. Martín Zorraquino M. A. & Portolés, J. 1999. Los marcadores del discurso. In Gramática descriptiva de la lengua española, vol. 3, I. Bosque & V. Demonte (eds). Madrid: Espasa-Calpe, 4051-4213.
45. Martinez, I. 2005. Native and non-native writer’s use of first person pronouns in the different sections of biology research articles in English. Journal of Second Language Writing 14: 174-190.
46. Mauranen, A. 1992. Reference in academic rhetoric: A contrastive study of Finnish and English writing. In Nordic Research on Text and Discourse, A.C. Linderberg, N. E. Enkvist & K. Wikberg (eds). Abo: Abo Akademi University Press, 237-250.
47. Mauranen, A. 1993a. Cultural Differences in Academic Rhetoric. Frankfurt am Main: Peter Lang.
48. Mauranen, A. 1993b. Contrastive ESP rhetoric: Metatext in Finnish-English economics texts. English for Specific Purposes 12: 3-22.
49. Milton, J. & Tsang E.S.C. 1993. A corpus-based study of logical connectrs in EFL students’ writing: Directions for future research. In Lexis in Studies, R. Perbertom & E.S.C. Tsang (eds). Hong Kong: Hong Kong University Press, 215-246.
50. Montolío, E. 2001. Conectores de la lengua escrita. Barcelona: Ariel Practicum.
51. Moreno, A. I. 1997. Genre constraints across languages: Causal metatext in Spanish and English RAs. English for Specific Purposes 16: 161-179.
52. Moreno, A. I. 1998. The explicit signalling of premise-conclusion sequences in research articles: A contrastive framework. Text 18: 545-585.
53. Moreno, A. I. 2004. Retrospective labelling in premise-conclusion metatext: An English-Spanish contrastive study of research articles on business and economics. Journal of English for Academic Purposes 3: 321-339.
54. Moreno, A. I. & Suárez, L. 2006. The rhetorical structure of academic journal book reviews: A cross-linguist and cross-disciplinary approach. In Proceedings of the 5th International AELFE Conference, C. Pérez-Llantada, R. Pló & C. P Neumann (eds). Zaragoza: Prensas Universitarias, 191-196.
55. Moreno, A. I. & Suárez, L. 2008. A study of critical attitude across English and Spanish academic book reviews. Journal of English for Academic Purposes 7: 15-26.
56. Mur Dueñas, P 2007a. ‘I/We focus on…’: A cross-cultural analysis of self-mentions in business management research articles. Journal of English for Academic Purposes 6: 143-162.
57. Mur Dueñas, P 2007b. Same genre, same discipline; however, there are differences: A crosscultural analysis of logical markers in academic writing. ESP Across Cultures 4: 37-53.
58. Pérez Ruiz, L. 1999. Análisis contrastivo de los resúmenes en inglés y en español en artículos publicados en el campo de la epidemiología. ES 22: 167-176.
59. Pisanski Peterlin, A. 2005. Text-organising metatext in research articles: An English-Slovene contrastive analysis. English for Specific Purposes 24: 307-319.
60. Portolés J. 2001. Marcadores del discurso. Barcelona: Ariel Practicum.
61. Quirk, R et al. 1985. A Comprehensive Grammar of the English Language. Harlow: Longman.
62. Salager-Meyer, F. et al. 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.
63. Shaw, P. 2003. Evaluation and promotion across languages. Journal of English for Academic Purposes 2: 343-357.
64. Shaw, P. 2004. Sentence openings in academic economics articles in English and Danish. Nordic Journal of English Studies 2: 67-84.
65. Suárez, L. 2006. Modes of Evaluation and Rhetorical Patterns: A Contrastive Study of English and Spanish Book Reviews. Unpublished PhD. Universidad de León.
66. Suárez L. & Moreno, A.I. 2008. The rhetorical structure of literary academic book reviews: An English-Spanish cross-linguistic approach. In Contrastive Rhetoric: Reaching to Intercultural Rhetoric, U. Connor, E. Nagelhout & W. Rozycki (eds). Amsterdam: John Benjamins, 147-168.
67. Swales, J. & Van Bonn, S. 2007. Similarities and differences in French and English EAP research article abstracts: The case of ASp. In Language and Discipline Perspectives on Academic Discourse, K. Flottum (ed). Cambridge: Cambridge Scholars Press, 275-294.
68. Tankó, G. 2004. The use of adverbial connectors in Hungarian university students’ argumentative essays. In How to Use Corpora in the Language Classroom, J. Sinclair (ed). Amsterdam: John Benjamins, 157-181.
69. Valero Garcés, C. 1996. Contrastive ESP rhetoric: Metatext in Spanish-English economics texts. English for Specific Purposes 15: 279-294.
70. Vande Kopple, W. J. 1985. Some exploratory discourse on metadiscourse. College Composition and Communication 36: 63-94.
71. Varttala, T. 2001. Hedging in Scientifically Oriented Discourse: Exploring Variation according to Discipline and Intended Audience. Electronic dissertation. Acta Electronica Universitatis Tamperensis 138. http://acta.uta.fi.
72. Vassileva, I. 1997. Hedging in English and Bulgarian academic writing. In Culture and Styles of Academic Discourse. A. Duszak (ed). Berlin and New York: Mouton de Gruyter, 203-221.
73. Vassileva, I. 1998. Who am I/Who are we in academic writing? International Journal of Applied Linguistics 8: 163-190.
74. Vassileva, I. 2000. Who is the Author? A Contrastive Analysis of Authorial Presence in English, German, French, Russian and Bulgarian Academic Discourse. Sankt Augustin: Asgard Verlag.
75. Vassileva, I. 2001. Commitment and detachment in English and Bulgarian academic writing. English for Specific Purposes 20: 83-102.
76. Vladimirou, D. 2008. Pronominal references in linguists’ writings: Exploring the English-speaking and the Greek-speaking academic communities. In English as an Additional Language in Research Publication and Communication, S. Burgess & P. Martín (eds). Bern: Peter Lang, 173-195.
77. Vold, E. T. 2006. Epistemic modality markers in research articles: A cross-linguistic and crossdisciplinary study. International Journal of Applied Linguistics 16: 61-87.
78. Yakhontova, T. 2002. ‘Selling’ or telling’? The issue of cultural variation in research genres. In Academic Discourse, J. Flowerdew (ed). London: Longman, 216-232.
79. Yakhontova, T. 2006.Cultural and disciplinary variation in academic discourse: The issue of influencing factors. Journal of English for Academic Purposes 5: 153-167.