Scientific discourse and contrastive linguistics: Explicitness and the concept of reader/writer responsible languages

European Science Editing

Volumn 37, Issue 3, 2011, Pages 71-72

  Salager Meyer, Françoise ^a  

^a UNIVERSIDAD DE LOS ANDES   (Venezuela)

Author keywords

Asian languages culture; European languages; Explicitness; Metadiscourse; Reader responsible; Rhetoric; Writer responsible

Indexed keywords

EID: 79960895908     PISSN: 02583127     EISSN: None     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: None     Document Type: Article

References (29)

1. Hyland K, Salager-Meyer F. Scientific writing. ARIST (Annual Review of Information Science and Technology) 2008;42(1):297-339. doi:10.1002/aris.2008.1440420114
2. Crismore AR, Farnsworth R. Metadiscourse in popular and professional science discourse. In: W Nash, ed. The writing scholar. Newbury Park, CA: Sage, 1990:118-136.
3. Hyland K. Disciplinary discourses: writer stance in research articles. In: Candlin C, Hyland K, eds. Writing: texts, processes and practices. London: Longman, 1999:99-121.
4. Hyland K. Talking to students: metadiscourse in introductory coursebooks. English for Specific Purposes 1999;18(1):3-26. doi:10.1016/S0889-4906(97)00025-2
5. Hyland K. Disciplinary interactions: metadiscourse in L2 postgraduate writing. Journal of Second Language Writing 2004;13(2):133-151. doi:10.1016/j.jslw.2004.02.001
6. Hyland K, Tse P. Metadiscourse in academic writing: a reappraisal. Applied Linguistics 2004;25(2):156-177. doi:10.1093/applin/25.2.156
7. Hyland K, Tse P. "I would like to thank my supervisor". Acknowledgements in graduate dissertations. International Journal of Applied Linguistics 2004;14(2):259-275. doi:10.1111/j.1473-4192.2004.00062.x
8. Hinds J. Reader vs. writer responsibility: a new typology. In: Connor U, Kaplan RB, eds. Writing across languages: analysis of L2 texts. Reading, MA: Addison-Wesley, 1987:141-152.
9. Eggington WG. Written academic discourse in Korean: implications for effective communication. In: Connor U, Kaplan RB, eds. Writing across languages: analysis of L2 texts. Reading, MA: Addison-Wesley, 1987:153-168.
10. Jensen JV. Teaching East Asian rhetoric. The Rhetoric Society Quarterly 1997;17(2):135-149. doi:10.1080/02773948709390775
11. Hinds J. Retention of information using a Japanese style of presentation. Studies in Language 1984;8(1):45-69. doi:10.1075/sl.8.1.04hin
12. Hinds J. Inductive, deductive, quasi inductive: expository writing in Japanese, Korean, Chinese and Thai. In: Connor U, Johns AM, eds. Coherence in writing: research and pedagogical perspectives. Alexandria, VA: TESOL, 1990:87-110.
13. Valero-Garcés C. Contrastive ESP rhetoric: metatext in Spanish English economics texts. English for Specific Purposes 1996;15(4):279-294. doi:10.1016/S0889-4906(96)00013-0
14. Oliveira LP. Variaçao intercultural na escrita: contrastes multidimensionais em inglês e português. PhD dissertation, PUC-SP (Sao Paolo), 1997.
15. Osborne J. La cohésion dans les productions écrites d'étudiants en anglais de spécialité: un problème culturel? ASp (Anglais de Spécialité) 1994;5/6:205-215.
16. Bachschmidt P. Contruction de l'argumentation dans l'article de recherche en mécanique: différences entre discours du francophone et de l'anglophone. Asp (Anglais de Spécialité) 1999;23-26:197-207.
17. Peterlin AP. Text organizing metatext in research articles: an English-Slovene contrastive analysis. English for Specific Purposes 2005;24(3):307-319. doi:10.1016/j.esp.2004.11.001
18. Clyne MG. The sociocultural dimension: the dilemma of the German-speaking scholar. In: Schröder H, ed. Subject-oriented texts. Berlin and New York: De Gruyter, 1991;49-67.
19. Clyne MG. Linguistic and written discourse in particular languages: contrastive studies: English and German. In: RB Kaplan, ed. Annual Review of Applied Linguistics III. Rowly, MA: Newbury House, 1983:38-49.
20. Clyne M. Cultural differences in the organization of academic texts: English and German. Journal of Pragmatics 1987;11(2):211-241. doi:10.1016/0378-2166(87)90196-2
21. Skudlik S. Sprachenin Wissenschaften. Deutsch und Englisch in der internationalen Kommunikation. Tübingen: Gunter Narr, 1990.
22. Ventola E, Mauranen A. Non-native writing and native revisiting of scientific articles. In: Ventola E, ed. Functional and systemic linguistics. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter, 1991:457-492.
23. Mauranen A. Contrastive ESP rhetoric: metatext in Finnish-English economics texts. English for Specific Purposes 1993;12(1):3-22. doi:10.1016/0889-4906(93)90024-I
24. Cmerjrková S, Danes F. Academic writing and cultural identity: the case of Czech academic writing. In: Duszak A, ed. Culture and styles in academic discourse. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter, 1997:41-62.
25. Golebiowski Z. Rhetorical approaches to scientific writing. An English-Polish contrastive study. Text 1998;18(1):67-102. doi:10.1515/text.1.1998.18.1.67
26. Yakhonva T. Textbooks, context and learners. English for Specific Purposes 2001;20(suppl 1):397-415. doi:10.1016/S0889-4906(01)00018-7
27. Yakhontova T. 'Selling' or 'telling'? The issue of cultural variation in research genres. In: Flowerdew J, ed. Academic discourse. Harlow, UK: Pearson Education, 2001:216-232.
28. Salager-Meyer F. Scientific discourse and constrastive rhetoric: the Creating a Research Space (CARS) model. European Science Editing 2010;36(3):66-69.
29. Salager-Meyer F. Scientific discourse and constrastive linguistics: hedging. European Science Editing 2011;37(2):35-37.