A concordance-based study of the use of reporting verbs as rhetorical devices in academic papers

Journal of Writing Research

Volumn 2, Issue 2, 2010, Pages 219-244

  Bloch, Joel ^a  

^a OHIO STATE UNIVERSITY   (United States)

Author keywords

Authorship; Concordancing; Corpora; L2 composition; Pedagogical grammar; Reporting verbs; Rhetoric

Indexed keywords

EID: 85015055545     PISSN: 20301006     EISSN: 22943307     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.17239/jowr-2010.02.02.7     Document Type: Article

References (65)

1. Aston, G. (1997). Involving learners in developing learning methods: exploiting text corpora in self-access. In P. Benson & P. Volker, (Eds.), Autonomy and independence in language learning (pp. 18-34). New York: Longman.
2. Aston, G. (2000). Corpora and language teaching. In L. Burnard & T. McEnery (Eds.), Rethinking language pedagogy from a corpus perspective (pp. 7-17). Frankfurt: Peter Lang.
3. Barlow, M. (2001). Concordancing with MonoConc 2.0. Houston: Athelstan Press.
4. de Beaugrande, R. (2001). Large corpora, small corpora, and the learning of "language." In M Ghadessy, A. Henry, & R.L. Roseberry (Eds.), Small Corpus Studies and ELT (pp. 3-28). Amsterdam: John Benjamins. doi: 1 0.1075/scl.5.04bea
5. Benson, P. (1997). The philosophy and politics of learner autonomy. In P. Benson & P. Volker (Eds.), Autonomy and independence in language learning (pp. 18-34). New York: Longman.
6. Biber, D., Conrad, S. & Reppen R. (1998). Corpus linguistics: Investigating language structure and use. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. doi: 1 0.1017/CBO978051 1804489
7. Bloch, J. (2007). Technology in the L2 composition classroom. Ann Arbor: University of Michigan Press.
8. Bloch, J. (2009). The design of an online concordancing program for teaching about reporting verbs. Language, Learning, & Technology, 13, 59-78.
9. Bloch, J.G. & Chi, L. (1996) A comparison of the use of citations in Chinese and English academic discourse. In D. Belcher & G. Braine (Eds.), Academic writing in a second language (pp. 231-274). Norwood, NJ: Ablex.
10. Channell, J. (2000). Corpus-based analyses of evaluative lexis. In S. Hunston and G. Thompson (Eds.), Evaluation in text: Authorial stance and the construction of discourse (pp. 38-55). Oxford: Oxford University Press.
11. Charles, M. (2003). 'This mystery ...': A corpus-based study of the use of nouns to construct stance in theses from two contrasting disciplines. Journal of English for Academic Purposes, 2, 313-326. doi: 10.1016/S1475-1585(03)00048-1
12. Feenberg, A. (1999). Questioning technology. London: Routledge.
13. Flowerdew, J. (1999). Writing for scholarly publication in English: The case of Hong Kong. Journal of Second Language Writing, 8, 243-264. doi: 10.1016/S1060-3743(99)80116-7
14. Flowerdew, J. (2001). Attitude of journal editors to nonnative speaker contributions. TESOL Quarterly, 35, 121-150. doi: 10.2307/3587862
15. Freddi, M. (2005). Arguing linguistics: Corpus investigation of one functional variety of academic discourse. Journal of English for Academic Purposes, 4, 5-26. doi: 10.1016/j.jeap.2003.09.002
16. Ghadessy, H. A & Roseberry, R. (2001) Small corpus studies and ELT: Theory and practice. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. doi: 10.1075/scl.5
17. Gilbert, N. J., & Mulkay, M. (1984). Opening Pandora's Box. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
18. Granville, S. & Dison, L. (2005). Thinking about thinking: Integrating self-reflection into an academic literacy course. Journal of English for Academic Purposes, 4, 99-118. doi: 10.1016/j.jeap.2004.07.009
19. Harwood, N. (2005). 'I hope to counteract the memory problem, but I made no impact whatsoever': Discussing methods in computing science using /. English for Specific Purposes, 24, 243-267. doi: 10.1016/j.esp.2004.10.002
20. Hewings, M & Hewings, A. (2002). ''It is interesting to note that.'': A comparative study of anticipatory 'it' in student and published writing,. English for Specific Purposes, 21, 367-383. doi: 10.1016/S0889-4906(01)00016-3
21. Hopper, P. (1987). Emergent Grammar. Berkeley Linguistics Society, 13, 139-157.
22. Hunston, S (2000). Evaluation and the planes of discourse: Status and value in persuasive texts. In S. Hunston & G. Thompson (Eds.), Evaluation in text: Authorial stance and the construction of discourse (pp. 176-207). Oxford: Oxford University Press.
23. Hunston, S. (2002). Corpora in applied linguistics. Cambridge, U.K.: Cambridge University Press. doi: 10.1017/CBO9781139524773
24. Hunston, S. & Thompson, G. (2000). Evaluation in text: Authorial stance and the construction of discourse. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
25. Hyland, K (1998) Hedging in scientific research articles. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. doi: 10.1075/pbns.54
26. Hyland, K. (1999a). Academic attribution: Citation and the construction of disciplinary knowledge. Applied Linguistics, 20, 341-367. doi: 10.1093/applin/20.3.341
27. Hyland, K. (1999b). Disciplinary discourses: Writer stance in research articles. In C. Candlin & K. Hyland (Eds.), Writing: Texts, processes, and practices (pp. 99-121). London: Longman.
28. Hyland, K. (2000a). Disciplinary discourses: Social interactions in academic writing. Harlow, England: Longman.
29. Hyland, K. (2000b). Boosting, hedging, and the negotiation of academic knowledge. Language Awareness, 9, 179-197. doi: 10.1080/09658410008667145
30. Hyland, K. (2002a). Activity and evaluation: Reporting practices in academic writing. In J. Flowerdew (Ed.), Academic discourse (pp. 115-130). Harlow, England: Longman.
31. Hyland, K. (2002b). Specificity revisited: How far should we go now? English for Specific Purposes, 21(4), 385-395. doi: 10.1016/S0889-4906(01)00028-X
32. Hyland, K. (2005). Stance and engagement: A model of interaction in academic discourse. Discourse Studies, 7, 173-292.doi: 10.11 77/1461445605050365
33. Hyland, K. (2008). Make your academic writing assertive and certain. In J. Reid (Ed.), Writing Myths: Applying second language research to classroom writing (pp. 70-89). Ann Arbor: University of Michigan Press.
34. Hyland, K. & Milton, J. (1997). Qualification and certainty in L1 and L2 students' writing. Journal of Second Language Writing, 6, 183-205. doi: 10.1016/S1060-3743(97)90033-3
35. Hyland, K. & Milton, J. (1999). Assertions in students' academic essays: A comparison of English NS and NNS student writers. In R. Berry, B. Asker, K. Hyland, & M. Lam (Eds.), Language Analysis, Description, and Pedagogy (pp. 147-161). Hong Kong: Language Centre, Hong Kong University of Science and Technology.
36. Ivanič, R. (1998). Writing and identity: The discoursal construction of identity in academic writing. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. doi: 1 0.1075/swll.5
37. Johns, T. (1994). From printout to handout: Grammar and vocabulary teaching in the context of data-driven learning. In T. Odlin (Ed.), Perspectives of pedagogical grammar (pp.293-313). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. doi: 10.1017/CBO9781 139524605.014
38. Kennedy, G (1998). An introduction to corpus linguistics. London. New York: Longman.
39. Latour, B. (1987). Science in action. Cambridge: Harvard University Press.
40. Latour, B., & Woolgar, S. (1986). Laboratory Life. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press.
41. Lee, D., & Swales, J. (2006). A corpus-based EAP course for NNS doctoral students: Moving from specialized corpora to self-compiled corpora. English for Specific Purposes, 25, 56-75. doi: 10.1016/j.esp.2005.02.010
42. Leech, G. (1997). Teaching and language corpora: A convergence. In A. Wichmann, S. Fligelstone, T. McEnery, & G. Knowles (Eds.), Teaching and language corpora (pp. 1-22). London: Longman.
43. Lewin, B.A. (2005). Hedging: An exploratory study of authors' and readers' identification of 'toning down' in scientific texts. Journal of English for Academic Purposes, 4, 163-178. doi: 10.1016/j.jeap.2004.08.001
44. McEnery, T. & Kifle, N.A. (2002). Epistemic modality in argumentative essay of second-language writers. In J. Flowerdew (Ed.), Academic discourse (pp. 182-195). Harlow, England: Longman. MonoConc Pro 2.0. [software program]. Houston: Athelstan.
45. Myers, G. (1996). Strategic vagueness in academic writing. In E. Ventola & A. Mauranen (Eds.), Academic writing: /ntercultural and intertextual issues (pp. 3-1 7). Amsterdam: John Benjamins. doi: 10.1075/pbns.41.04mye
46. Osburne, J. (2000). What can students learn from a corpus?: Building bridges between language and data. In L. Burnard & T. McEnery (eds.) Rethinking language pedagogy from a corpus perspective (pp. 165-172). Frankfurt: Peter Lang.
47. Partington, A. (1998). Patterns and meanings: Using corpora for English Language research and teaching. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. doi: 10.1075/scl.2
48. Pecorari, D. (2008). Academic writing and plagiarism: A linguistic analysis. London: Continuum.
49. Radden, G., & Dirven, R. (2007). Cognitive English grammar. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. doi: 10.1075/clip.2
50. Sakita, T.I. (2002). Reporting discourse, tense, and cognition. Amsterdam: Elsevier.
51. Schank, R.C. & Cleary, C. (1995). Engines for education. Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.
52. Silver, M. (2003). The stance of stance: a critical look at ways stance is expressed and modeled in academic discourse. Journal of English for Academic Purposes, 2, 359-374. doi: 10.1016/S1475-1585(03)00051-1
53. Sinclair, J. (1991). Corpus, concordance, collocation. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
54. Spivey, N.N. (1997). The constructivist metaphor: Reading, writing, and the making of meaning. San Diego: Academic Press.
55. Swales, J. (1990). Genre analysis: English in academic and research settings. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
56. Swales, J.M., & Feak, C.B (2004). Academic writing for graduate students. Ann Arbor: The University of Michigan Press.
57. Thompson P. & Tribble, C. (2001). Looking at citations: Using corpora in English for academic purposes. Language Learning & Technology, 5, 91-105. Retrieved September 24, 2001 from http: //llt.msu.edu/vol5num3/pdf/thompson.pdf.
58. Thompson, G. & Ye, Y.Y. (1991). Evaluation in reporting verbs used in academic papers. Applied Linguistics, 12, 365-382. doi: 10.1093/applin/12.4.365
59. Tognini-Bonelli, E. (2001). Corpus linguistics at work. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. doi: 10.1075/scl.6
60. Tribble, C. (2002). Corpora and corpus analysis: New windows on academic writing. In J. Flowerdew (Ed.), Academic discourse (pp. 131-149). Harlow, England: Longman.
61. von Glaserfield, E. (1995). A constructivist approach to teaching. In L. Steffe & J. Gale, (Eds.), Constructivism in education (pp. 3-15). Hillsdale, N.J: Lawrence Erlbaum.
62. Williams, I.A. (1996). A contextual study of lexical verbs in two types of medical research report: Clinical and experimental. English for Specific Purposes, 15, 175-197. doi: 10.1016/0889-4906(96)00010-5
63. Yoon, H. (2008). More than a linguistic reference: The influence of corpus technology on L2 academic writing. Language Learning & Technology, 12, 31-48.
64. Yoon, H. & Hirvela, A. (2004). ESL student attitudes toward corpus use in L2 writing. Journal of Second Language Writing, 13, 257-283. doi: 10.1016/j.jslw.2004.06.002
65. Ziman, J.M. (1968). Public knowledge: An essay concerning the social dimension of science. London: Cambridge University Press.