Discourse on the Move Using corpus analysis to describe discourse structure

Studies in Corpus Linguistics

Volumn 28, Issue , 2007, Pages 1-305

  Biber, Douglas ^a   Connor, Ulla ^b   Upton, Thomas A ^b  

^a NORTHERN ARIZONA UNIVERSITY   (United States)

^b INDIANA UNIVERSITY   (United States)

Author keywords

[No Author keywords available]

Indexed keywords

EID: 85105759757     PISSN: 13880373     EISSN: None     Source Type: Book Series    
DOI: None     Document Type: Chapter

References (268)

1. Abelen, E., Redecker, G., & Thompson, S. (1993). The rhetorical structure of US-American and Dutch fund-raising letters. Text, 13(3), 323-350.
2. Aijmer, K. (2002). English Discourse Particles: Evidence from a Corpus. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.
3. Anthony, L. (1999). Writing research article introductions in software engineering: How accurate is a standard model? IEEE Transactions on Professional Communication, 42, 38-46.
4. Aristotle. (1932). The Rhetoric of Aristotle (L. D. Cooper, Trans.). New York NY: Appleton and Company.
5. Aristotle. (1984). Rhetoric. In J. Barnes (ed.), The Complete Works of Aristotle (rev. Oxford ed., Vol. 2, pp. 2152-2269). Princeton NJ: Princeton University Press.
6. Arnold, C. (1982). Introduction (W. Kluback, Trans.). In C. Perelman (ed.), The Realm of Rhetoric. Notre Dame IN: University of Notre Dame Press.
7. Baker, P. (2006). Using Corpora in Discourse Analysis. London: Continuum.
8. Barton, E. (1993). Evidentials, argumentation, and epistemological stance. College English, 55, 745-769.
9. Bateman, J., & Rondhuis, K. J. (1997). “Coherence relations”: Towards a general specification. Discourse Processes, 24(1), 3-50.
10. Bazerman, C. (1988). Shaping Written Knowledge: The Genre and Activity of the Experimental Article in Science. Madison WI: University of Wisconsin Press.
11. Bazerman, C. (1994). Systems of genres and the enactment of social intentions. In A. Freedman & P. Medway (eds.), Genre and the New Rhetoric (pp. 79-104). London: Taylor & Francis.
12. Bazerman, C. (1997a). Some information comments on texts mediating fund-raising relationships: Cultural sites of affiliation. In Written Discourse in Philanthropic Fund Raising. Issues of Language and Rhetoric. In Working Papers, 98-13 (pp. 17-26).
13. Bazerman, C. (1997b). The life of genre, the life in the classroom. In W. Bishop & H. Ostrum (Eds.), Genre and Writing (pp. 19-26). Portsmouth NH: Boynton/Cook.
14. Bazerman, C., & Prior, P. (eds.). (2004). What Writing Does and How it Does it: An Introduction to Analyzing Texts and Textual Practices. Mahwah NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.
15. Beach, R., & Anson, C. (1992). Stance and intertextuality in written discourse. Linguistics and Education, 4, 335-357.
16. Berkenkotter, C., & Huckin, T. (1995). Genre Knowledge in Disciplinary Communication: Cognition/Culture/Power. Hillsdale NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.
17. Bhatia, V. (1993a). Analyzing Genre: Language Use in Professional Settings. London: Longman.
18. Bhatia, V. (1993b). Simplification vs. easification: The case of legal texts. Applied Linguistics, 4(1), 42-54.
19. Bhatia, V. (1997a). Applied genre analysis and ESP. In T. Miller (ed.), Functional Approaches to Written Texts: Classroom Applications (pp. 134-149). Washington, DC: USIA.
20. Bhatia, V. (1997b). Discourse of philanthropic fund-raising. Paper presented at the Written discourse in philanthropic fund raising. Issues of language and rhetoric, Indianapolis IN.
21. Bhatia, V. (1998). Generic patterns in fundraising discourse. New Directions for Philanthropic Fundraising, 22, 95-110.
22. Bhatia, V. (2002). A generic view of academic discourse. In J. Flowerdew (ed.), Academic Discourse (pp. 21-39). New York NY: Longman.
23. Bhatia, V. (2004). Worlds of Written Discourse: A Genre-based View. New York NY: Continuum.
24. Biber, D. (1986). Spoken and written textual dimensions in English: Resolving the contradictory findings. Language, 62, 384-414.
25. Biber, D. (1988). Variation Across Speech and Writing. Cambridge: CUP.
26. Biber, D. (1989). A Typology of English texts. Linguistics, 27, 3-43.
27. Biber, D. (1990). Methodological issues regarding corpus-based analyses of linguistic variation. Literary and Linguistic Computing 5, 257-269.
28. Biber, D. (1992). Using computer-based text corpora to analyze the referential strategies of spoken and written texts. In J. Svartvik (ed.), Directions in Corpus Linguistics: Proceedings of Nobel Symposium 82, Stockholm, 4-8 August 1991 (pp. 213-252). Berlin: Mouton.
29. Biber, D. (1993a). Representativeness in corpus design. Literary and Linguistic Computing, 8, 1-15.
30. Biber, D. (1993b). Using register-diversified corpora for general language studies. Computational Linguistics 19, 219-241.
31. Biber, D. (1993c). The multi-dimensional approach to linguistic analyses of genre variation: An overview of methodology and findings. Computers and the Humanities 26, 331-345.
32. Biber, D. (1995). Dimensions of Register Variation: A Cross-linguistic Comparison. Cambridge: CUP.
33. Biber, D. (2003). Variation among spoken and written registers: A new multi-dimensional analysis. In P. Leistyna & C. Meyer (eds.), Corpus Analysis: Language Structure and Language Use. Amsterdam: Rodopi.
34. Biber, D. (2004). Historical patterns for the grammatical marking of stance: A cross-register comparison. Journal of Historical Pragmatics, 5, 107-135.
35. Biber, D. (2006a). Stance in spoken and written university registers. Journal of English for Academic Purposes, 5, 97-116.
36. Biber, D. (2006b). University Language: A Corpus-based Study of Spoken and Written Registers. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.
37. Biber, D., Conrad, S., & Reppen, R. (1998). Corpus Linguistics: Investigating Language Structure and Use. Cambridge: CUP.
38. Biber, D., Conrad, S., Reppen, R., Byrd, P., & Helt, M. (2002). Speaking and writing in the university: A multidimensional analysis. TESOL Quarterly, 36, 9-48.
39. Biber, D., Conrad, S., Reppen, R., Byrd, P., & Helt, M. (2003). Strengths and goals of multidimensional analysis: A response to Ghadessy. TESOL Quarterly, 37, 151-155.
40. Biber, D., Csomay, E., Jones, J., & Keck, C. (2004). A corpus linguistic investigation of vocabulary-based discourse units in university registers. In U. Connor & T. Upton (eds.), Applied Corpus Linguistics: A Multi-dimensional Perspective (pp. 53-72). Amsterdam: Rodopi.
41. Biber, D., & Finegan, E. (1988). Adverbial stance types in English. Discourse Processes, 11, 1-34.
42. Biber, D., & Finegan, E. (1989). Styles of stance in English: lexical and grammatical marking of evidentiality and affect. The Politics of Language Purism, 250.
43. Biber, D., Johansson, S., Leech, G., Conrad, S., & Finegan, E. (1999). Longman Grammar of Spoken and Written English. London: Pearson Education.
44. Brett, P. (1994). A genre analysis of the results section of sociology articles. English for Specific Purposes, 13(1), 47-59.
45. Brown, G., & Yule, G. (1983). Discourse Analysis. Cambridge: CUP.
46. Bruthiaux, P. (1994). Me Tarzan, you Jane: Linguistic simplification in “personal ads” register. In D. Biber & E. Finegan (eds.), Sociolinguistic Perspectives on Register (pp. 136-154). New York NY: OUP.
47. Bruthiaux, P. (1996). The Discourse of Classified Advertising: Exploring the Nature of Linguistic Simplicity. New York NY: OUP.
48. Bunton, D. (2002). Generic moves in Ph.D. thesis introductions. In J. Flowerdew (ed.), Academic Discourse (pp. 57-75). London: Pearson Education.
49. Callow, K., & Callow, J. (1992). Text as purposive communication: A meaning-based analysis. In W. Mann & S. Thompson (eds.), Discourse Description: Diverse Linguistic Analyses of a Fund-raising Text (pp. 5-37). Amsterdam: John Benjamins.
50. Capozzoli, M., McSweeney, L., & Sinha, D. (1999). Beyond kappa: A review of interrater agreement measures. The Canadian Journal of Statistics, 27(1), 3-23.
51. Cazden, C. (1986). Language in the classroom. In R. Kaplan (ed.), Annual Review of Applied Linguistics (Vol. 7). Rowley MA: Newbury House.
52. Chafe, W. (1986). Evidentiality in English conversation and academic writing. In W. Chafe & J. Nichols (eds.), Evidentiality: The Linguistic Coding of Epistemology (pp. 261-272). Norwood NJ: Ablex.
53. Chafe, W. (1994). Discourse, Consciousness, and Time. Chicago IL: University of Chicago Press.
54. Chafe, W. (1997). Polyphonic topic development. In T. Givón (ed.), Conversation: Cognitive, Communicative and Social Perspectives. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.
55. Chafe, W., & Nichols, J. (eds.). (1986). Evidentiality: The Linguistic Coding of Epistemology. Norwood NJ: Ablex.
56. Chaudron, C. (1988). Second Language Classrooms: Research on Teaching and Learning. Cambridge: CUP.
57. Chu, B. (1996). Introductions in state-of-the-art, argumentative, and teaching tips TESL journal articles: Three possible sub-genres of introductions? Unpublished Research Monograph No. 12. City University of Hong Kong.
58. Collins, P. (1991). Cleft and the Pseudo-cleft Constructions in English. London: Routledge.
59. Collins, P. (1995). The indirect object construction in English: An information approach. Linguistics, 33, 35-49.
60. Cone, A. L. (1987). How to Create and Use Solid Gold Fund-raising Letters. Ambler PA: FundRaising Institute.
61. Connor, U. (1987). Argumentative patterns in student essays: Cross-cultural differences. In U. Connor & R. Kaplan (eds.), Writing Across Languages: Analysis of L2 Text (pp. 73-87). Reading MA: Addison-Wesley.
62. Connor, U. (1996). Contrastive Rhetoric. Cross-cultural Aspects of Second-language Writing. Cambridge: CUP.
63. Connor, U. (1997). Comparing research and not-for-profit grant proposals. In Written Discourse in Philanthropic Fund Raising: Issues of Language and Rhetoric (Vol. Working Papers, 98-13, pp. 45-64). Indianapolis IN: Indiana University Center on Philanthropy.
64. Connor, U. (2000). Variation in rhetorical moves in grant proposals of US humanists and scientists. Text, 20(1), 1-28.
65. Connor, U., Davis, K., & De Rycker, T. (1995). Correctness and clarity in applying for overseas jobs: A cross-cultural analysis of US and Flemish applications. Text, 15(4), 457-475.
66. Connor, U., & Gladkov, K. (2004). Rhetorical appeals in fundraising direct mail letters. In U. Connor & T. Upton (eds.), Discourse in the Professions: Perspectives from Corpus Linguistics. (pp. 257-286). Amsterdam: John Benjamins.
67. Connor, U., & Lauer, J. (1985). Understanding persuasive essay writing: Linguistic/rhetorical approach. Text, 5(4), 309-326.
68. Connor, U., & Mauranen, A. (1999). Linguistic analysis of grant proposals: European Union research grants. English for Specific Purposes, 18(1), 47-62.
69. Connor, U., Precht, K., & Upton, T. (2002). Business English: Learner data from Belgium, Finland, and the U.S. In S. Granger, J. Hung & S. Petch-Tyson (eds.), Computer Learner Corpora, Second Language Acquisition, and Foreign Language Teaching (pp. 175-194). Amsterdam: John Benjamins.
70. Connor, U., & Upton, T. (2003). Linguistic dimensions of direct mail letters. In C. Meyer & P. Leistyna (eds.), Corpus Analysis: Language Structure and Language Use (pp. 71-86). Amsterdam: Rodopi.
71. Connor, U., & Upton, T. (2004a). The genre of grant proposals: A corpus linguistic analysis. In U. Connor & T. Upton (eds.), Discourse in the Professions: Perspectives from Corpus Linguistics (pp. 235-256). Amsterdam: John Benjamins.
72. Connor, U., & Upton, T. (eds.). (2004b). Discourse in the Professions: Perspectives from Corpus Linguistics. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.
73. Connor, U., & Wagner, L. (1998). Language use in grant proposals by nonprofits: Spanish and English. New Directions for Philanthropic Fundraising, 22, 59-73.
74. Conrad, S. (2001). Variation among disciplinary texts: A comparison of textbooks and journal articles in biology and history. In S. Conrad & D. Biber (eds.), Variation in English: MultiDimensional Studies (pp. 94-107). London: Longman.
75. Conrad, S., & Biber, D. (2000). Adverbial marking of stance in speech and writing. In S. Hunston & G. Thompson (eds.), Evaluation in Text (pp. 56-73). Oxford: OUP.
76. Conrad, S., & Biber, D. (eds.). (2001). Variation in English: Multi-dimensional studies. London: Longman.
77. Cooper, A. (1988). Given-new: Enhancing coherence through cohesiveness. Written Communication, 5, 352-367.
78. Corbett, E. (1965). Classical Rhetoric for the Modern Student. New York NY: OUP.
79. Coulthard, M. (ed.). (1994). Advances in Written Text Analysis. London: Routledge.
80. Couture, B. (1986). Effective ideation in written text: A functional approach to clarity and exigence. In B. Couture (ed.), Functional Approaches to Writing: Research Perspectives (pp. 69-91). Norwood NJ: Ablex.
81. Crismore, A. (1997). Visual rhetoric in an Indiana University Foundation Annual Report. In Written Discourse in Philanthropic Fund Raising. Issues of Language and Rhetoric. In Working Papers, 98-13 (pp. 64-100). Indianapolis, IN.
82. Crookes, G. (1986). Towards a validated analysis of scientific text structure. Applied Linguistics, 7(1), 57-70.
83. Crossley, S. (2007). A chronotopic approach to genre analysis: An exploratory study. English for Specific Purposes, 26(1), 4-24.
84. Csomay, E. (2002). Episodes in University Classrooms: A Corpus Linguistic Investigation. Unpublished Ph.D. Dissertation. Flagstaff, AZ: Northern Arizona University.
85. Csomay, E. (2005a). Linguistic variation in the lexical episodes of university classroom talk. In A. Tyler, M. Takada, Y. Kim & D. Marinova (eds.), Language in Use: Cognitive and Discourse Perspectives on Language and Language Learning. Georgetown University Round Table on Languages and Linguistics (pp. 150-162). Washington DC: Georgetown University Press.
86. Csomay, E. (2005b). Linguistic variation within university classroom talk: A corpus-based perspective. Linguistics and Education, 15, 243-274.
87. Csomay, E. (2006). Academic talk in American classrooms: Crossing the boundaries of oral-literate discourse? Journal of English for Academic Purposes, 5, 117-135.
88. Dahlgren, K. (1996). Discourse coherence and segmentation. In E. Hovy & D. Scott (eds.), Computational Discourse: Burning Issues - An Interdisciplinary Account (NATO ASI Series, Series F: Computer and Systems Sciences, Vol. 151). Heidelberg: Springler-Verlag.
89. de Haan, P. (1989). Postmodifying Clauses in the English Noun Phrase: A Corpus-based Study. Amsterdam: Rodopi.
90. Dubois, B. (1997). The Biomedical Discussion Section in Context. Greenwich CT: Ablex.
91. Dudley-Evans, T. (1994a). Genre analysis: An approach to text analysis for ESP. In M. Coulthard (ed.), Advances in Written Text Analysis (pp. 219-228). London: Routledge.
92. Dudley-Evans, T. (1994b). Variation in the discourse patterns favoured by different disciplines and their pedagogical implications. In J. Flowerdew (ed.), Academic Listening: Research Perspectives (pp. 146-157). New York NY: CUP.
93. Dudley-Evans, T. (1995). Genre models for the teaching of academic writing to second language speakers: Advantages and disadvantages. The Journal of TESOL France, 2(2), 181-193.
94. Everitt, B. (1974). Cluster Analysis. New York NY: Wiley.
95. Feng, H. (Forthcoming). A genre-based study of research grant proposals in China. In U. Connor, E. Nagelhout & W. Rozycki (eds.), Contrastive Rhetoric: Reaching to Intercultural Rhetoric. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.
96. Ferguson, C. A. (1983). Sports announcer talk: Syntactic aspects of register variation. Language in Society, 12, 153-172.
97. Ferguson, C. A. (1994). Dialect, register, and genre: Working assumptions about conventionalization. In D. Biber & E. Finegan (eds.), Sociolinguistic Perspectives on Register (pp. 15-30). New York NY: OUP.
98. Finegan, E., & Biber, D. (2001). Register variation and social dialect variation: The register axiom. In P. Eckert & J. Rickford (eds.), Style and Sociolinguistic Variation (pp. 235-267). Cambridge: CUP.
99. Flowerdew, J. (1993). An educational, or process, approach to the teaching of professional genres. ELT Journal, 47(4), 305-316.
100. Fortanet, I. (2004). The use of 'we' in university lectures: Reference and function. English for Specific Purposes, 23, 45-66.
101. Fox, B. A. (1987). Discourse Structure and Anaphora. Written and Conversational English. Cambridge: CUP.
102. Fox, B. A., & Thompson, S. A. (1990). A discourse explanation of the grammar of relative clauses in English conversation. Language, 66, 297-316.
103. Gee, J. P. (1986). Units in the production of narrative discourse. Discourse Processes, 9(4), 391-422.
104. Geisler, C. (1995). Relative Infinitives in English. Uppsala: Uppsala University.
105. Givón, T. (Ed.). (1983). Topic Continuity in Discourse. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.
106. Grabe, W., & Kaplan, R. (1996). Theory and Practice of Writing. New York NY: Longman.
107. Granger, S. (1983). The 'be' + past participle Construction in Spoken English, with Special Emphasis on the Passive. Amsterdam: North Holland.
108. Graves, R. (1997). Dear friend (?): Culture and genre in American and Canadian direct marketing letters. Journal of Business Communication, 34(3), 235-252.
109. Grimes, J. (1975). The Thread of Discourse. The Hague: Mouton.
110. Grosz, B. J., & Sidner, C. L. (1986). Attention, intentions and the structure of discourse. Computational Linguistics, 12, 175-204.
111. Halliday, M. (1989). Spoken and Written Language. Oxford: OUP.
112. Halliday, M., & Hasan, R. (1976). Cohesion in English. London: Longman.
113. Hansen, C. (1994). Topic identification in lecture discourse. In J. Flowerdew (ed.), Academic Listening: Research Perspectives (pp. 131-145). New York: CUP.
114. Hearst, M. (1994). Multi-paragraph segmentation of expository texts (Technical Report 94/790, Computer Science Division (EECS)). Berkeley CA: University of California.
115. Hearst, M. (1997). TextTiling: Segmenting text into multi-paragraph subtopic passages. Computational Linguistics, 23(1), 33-64.
116. Heath, S. B., & Langman, J. (1994). Shared thinking and the register of coaching. In D. Biber & E. Finegan (eds.), Sociolinguistic Perspectives on Register (pp. 82-105). New York: OUP.
117. Henry, A., & Roseberry, R. (1996). Using a small corpus to obtain data for teaching a genre. In M. Ghadessy, A. Henry & R. Roseberry (eds.), Small corpus studies and ELT: Theory and practice (pp. 93-133). Amsterdam: John Benjamins.
118. 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.
119. Hobbs, J. (1979). Coherence and coreference. Cognitive Science, 10(3), 67-90.
120. Hoey, M. (1983). On the Surface of Discourse. London: Allen and Unwin.
121. Hoey, M. (1986). Overlapping patterns of discourse organization and their implications for clause relational analysis in problem-solution text. In C. R. Cooper & S. Greenbaum (eds.), Studying Writing: Linguistic Approaches (pp. 187-214). Newbury Park, CA: Sage.
122. Hoey, M. (1991). Patterns of Lexis in Text. Oxford: OUP.
123. Holmes, J. (1988). Doubt and certainty in ESL textbooks. Applied Linguistics, 9, 20-44.
124. Hopkins, A., & Dudley-Evans, T. (1988). A genre-based investigation of the discussion sections in articles and dissertations. English for Specific Purposes, 7(2), 113-122.
125. Horn, B. (2005). Quantitative and qualitative approaches to text structure analysis: A comparison of two methods. Ph.D. seminar research paper, Northern Arizona University.
126. Hunston, S. (1994). Evaluation and organization in a sample of written academic discourse. In M. Coulthard (ed.), Advances in Written Text Analysis (pp. 191-218). London: Routledge.
127. Hunston, S., & Thompson, G. (eds.). (2000). Evaluation in Text: Authorial Stance and the Construction of Discourse. New York: OUP.
128. Hunston, S. (2002). Corpora in Applied Linguistics. Cambridge: CUP.
129. Hyland, K. (1996a). Talking to the academy: Forms of hedging in science research articles. Written Communication, 13, 251-281.
130. Hyland, K. (1996b). Writing without conviction? Hedging in science research articles. Applied Linguistics, 17, 433-454.
131. Hyland, K. (1998). Hedging in Scientific Research Articles. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.
132. Hyland, K. (1999a). Academic attribution: Citation and the construction of disciplinary knowledge. Applied Linguistics, 20(3), 341-367.
133. Hyland, K. (1999b). Disciplinary discourses: Writer stance in research articles. In C. Candlin & K. Hyland (eds.), Writing: Texts, Processes and Practices (pp. 122-142). London: Longman.
134. Hyland, K. (2000). Disciplinary Discourses: Social Interaction in Academic Genres. London: Longman.
135. Hyland, K. (2001). Bringing in the reader: Addressee features in academic articles. Written Communication, 18(4), 549-574.
136. Hyland, K. (2002a). Authority and invisibility: Authorial identity in academic writing. Journal of Pragmatics, 34(8), 1091-1112.
137. Hyland, K. (2002b). Directives: Argument and engagement in academic writing. Applied Linguistics, 23(2), 215-239.
138. Hyland, K. (2004a). A convincing argument: Corpus analysis and academic persuasion. In U. Connor & T. Upton (Eds.), Discourse in the Professions: Perspectives from Corpus Linguistics (pp. 87-112). Amsterdam: John Benjamins.
139. Hyland, K. (2004b). Disciplinary interactions: Metadiscourse in L2 postgraduate writing. Journal of Second Language Writing, 13(2), 133-151.
140. Hymes, D. (1984). Sociolinguistics: Stability and consolidation. International Journal of the Sociology of Language, 45, 39-45.
141. Jaworski, A., & Coupland, N. (1999). Introduction: Perspectives on discourse analysis. In A. Jaworski & N. Coupland (eds.), The Discourse Reader (pp. 1-44). London: Routledge.
142. Johansson, C. (1995). The Relativizers Whose and Of Which in Present-Day English: Description and Theory. Uppsala: Uppsala University.
143. Journal Citation Reports. (2004). Philadelphia PA: Thomson.
144. Kanoksilapatham, B. (2003). A corpus-based investigation of biochemistry research articles: Linking move analysis with multidimensional analysis. Unpublished Ph.D. Dissertation. Georgetown University.
145. Kanoksilapatham, B. (2005). Rhetorical structure of biochemistry research articles. English for Specific Purposes, 24, 269-292.
146. Kinneavy, J. (1971). Theory of Discourse. Englewood Cliffs NJ: Prentice-Hall.
147. Korolija, N., & Linell, P. (1996). Episodes: Coding and analyzing coherence in multiparty conversation. Linguistics, 34, 799-831.
148. Kress, G., & van Leeuwen, T. (1990). Reading Images. The Grammar of Visual Design. London: Routledge.
149. Kress, G., & van Leeuwen, T. (2001). Multimodal Discourse. The Modes and Media of Contemporary Communication. London: Arnold.
150. Kwan, B. (2006). The schematic structure of literature reviews in doctoral theses of applied linguistics. English for Specific Purposes, 25(1), 30-55.
151. Labov, W. (1984). Intensity. In D. Schiffrin (ed.), Meaning, Form, and Use in Context: Linguistic Applications (pp. 43-70). Washington DC: Georgetown University Press.
152. Labov, W., & Waletsky, J. (1967). Narrative analysis: Oral versions of personal experience. In J. Helm (Ed.), Essays on the Verbal and Visual Arts: Proceedings of the 1966 Annual Spring Meeting of the American Ethnological Society (pp. 12-14). Seattle WA: University of Washington Press.
153. Lauer, J. (1997). Fundraising letters. In Written Discourse in Philanthropic Fund Raising. Issues of Language and Rhetoric. In Working Papers, 98-13 (pp. 101-108). Indianapolis IN.
154. Lee, D. (2001). Genres, registers, text types, domains, and styles: Clarifying the concepts and navigating a path through the BNC jungle. Language Learning and Technology, 5, 37-72.
155. Lewin, B., Fine, J., & Young, L. (2001). Expository Discourse: A Genre-based Approach to Social Science Research Texts. New York NY: Continuum.
156. Lewis, H. (1997). Direct mail fund raising tactics. Direct Marketing, 59, 28-30.
157. Lindquist, H., & Mair, C. (eds.). (2004). Corpus Approaches to Grammaticalization in English. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.
158. Long, M., & Sato, C. (1983). Classroom foreigner talk discourse: Forms and functions of teachers' questions. In H. Seliger & M. Long (eds.), Classroom Oriented Research in Second Language Acquisition. Rowley MA: Newbury House.
159. Loukianenko, M. (Forthcoming). Different cultures - different discourses? Rhetorical patterns of business letters by English and Russian speakers. In U. Connor, E. Nagelhout & W. Rozycki (rds.), Contrastive Rhetoric: Reaching to Intercultural Rhetoric. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.
160. Love, A. (2002). Introductory concepts and 'cutting edge' theories: Can the genre of the textbook accommodate both? In J. Flowerdew (ed.), Academic Discourse (pp. 76-92). New York NY: Longman.
161. Mair, C. (1990). Infinitival Complement Clauses in English. New York: CUP.
162. Mandler, J. M., & Johnson, N. S. (1977). Remembrance of things parsed: Story structure and recall. Cognitive Psychology 9, 111-151.
163. Mann, W., Matthiessen, C., & Thompson, S. (1992). Rhetorical structure theory and text analysis. In W. Mann & S. Thompson (eds.), Discourse Description: Diverse Linguistic Analyses of a Fund-raising Text. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.
164. Mann, W., & Thompson, S. (1988). Rhetorical structure theory: Towards a functional theory of text organization. Text, 8(3), 243-282.
165. Mann, W., & Thompson, S. (eds.). (1992). Discourse Description: Diverse Linguistic Analyses of a Fund-raising Text. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.
166. Marcu, D. (2000). The Theory and Practice of Discourse Parsing and Summarization. Cambridge MA: The MIT Press.
167. Martin, J. R. (1985). Process and text: Two aspects of human semiosis. In J. D. Benson & W. S. Greaves (eds.), Systemic Perspectives on Discourse (Vol. Vol. 1, pp. 248-274). Norwood NJ: Ablex.
168. Martin, J. R., & Rothery, J. (1986). What a functional approach can show teachers. In B. Couture (ed.), Functional Approaches to Writing: Research Perspectives (pp. 241-265). Norwood NJ: Ablex.
169. Marton, F., & Tsui, A. (2004). Classroom Discourse and the Space of Learning. Mahwah NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.
170. Mauranen, A. (2001). Reflexive academic talk. In R. Simpson & J. Swales (Eds.), Corpus linguistics in North America: Selections for the 1999 Symposium. Ann Arbor MI: The University of Michigan Press.
171. McBride, K. (Forthcoming). English web page use in an EFL setting: A contrastive rhetoric view of the development of information literacy. In U. Connor, E. Nagelhout & W. Rozycki (eds.), Contrastive Rhetoric: Reaching to Intercultural Rhetoric. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.
172. McCagg, P. (1997). Metaphorical morality and the discourse of philanthropy. In Written Discourse in Philanthropic Fund Raising. Issues of Language and Rhetoric. In Working Papers, 98-13 (pp. 109-120). Indianapolis IN.
173. McEnery, T., Xiao, R., & Tono, Y. (2006). Corpus-based Language Studies. London: Routledge.
174. McNamara, D. S., & Kintsch, W. (1996). Learning from texts: Effects of prior knowledge and text coherence. Discourse Processes, 22, 247-288.
175. Mehan, H. (1979). Learning Lessons: Social Organization in the Classroom. Cambridge MA: Harvard University Press.
176. Meyer, C. (1985). Prose analysis: Purposes, procedures, and problems. In B. K. Britton & J. B. Black (eds.), Understanding Expository Text: A Theoretical and Practical Handbook for Analyzing Explanatory Text. Hillsdale NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.
177. Meyer, C. (1992). Apposition in Contemporary English. Cambridge: CUP.
178. Meyer, C., & Leistyna, P. (eds.). (2003). Corpus Analysis: Language Structure and Language Use. Amsterdam: Rodopi.
179. Miller, C. (1984). Genre as a social action. Quarterly Journal of Speech, 70, 157-178.
180. Morris, J., & Hirst, G. (1991). Lexical cohesion computed by thesaural relations as an indicator of the structure of text. Computational Linguistics, 18, 537-544.
181. Myers, G. (1997). Wednesday morning and the millennium: Notes on time in fund-raising texts. In Written Discourse in Philanthropic Fund Raising. Issues of Language and Rhetoric. In Working Papers, 98-13 (pp. 121-134). Indianapolis IN.
182. Myhill, J. (1995). Change and continuity in the functions of the American English modals. Linguistics, 33, 157-211.
183. Myhill, J. (1997). Should and ought: The rise of individually oriented modality in American English. English Language and Linguistics, 1, 3-23.
184. Naczi, R., Reznicek, A., & Ford, B. (1998). Morphological, geographical, and ecological differentiation in the Carex willdenowii coplex (Cyberaceae). American Journal of Botany, 85, 434-447.
185. Nattinger, J., & DeCarrico, J. (1992). Lexical Phrases. New York: CUP.
186. Nesselhauf, N. (2005). Collocations in a Learner Corpus. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.
187. Nwogu, K. (1991). Structure of science popularizations: A genre-analysis approach to the schema of popularized medical texts. English for Specific Purposes, 10(2), 111-123.
188. Nwogu, K. (1997). The medical research paper: Structure and functions. English for Specific Purposes, 16(2), 119-138.
189. Ochs, E. (Ed.). (1989). The Pragmatics of Affect. Special Edition of Text, 9(3).
190. Orwin, R. G. (1994). Evaluating coding decisions. In H. Cooper & L. Hedges (Eds.), The Handbook of Research Synthesis (pp. 139-162). New York NY: Russell Sage Foundation.
191. Pak, C., & Acevedo, R. (Forthcoming). Spanish language newspaper editorials from Mexico, Spain, and the U.S. In U. Connor, E. Nagelhout & W. Rozycki (eds.), Contrastive Rhetoric: Reaching to Intercultural Rhetoric. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.
192. Paltridge, B. (1994). Genre analysis and the identification of textual boundaries. Applied Linguistics, 15(3), 288-299.
193. Pang, T. (2002). Textual analysis and contextual awareness building: A comparison of two approaches to teaching genre. In A. Johns (ed.), Genre in the Classroom: Multiple Perspectives (pp. 145-161). Mahwah NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.
194. Partington, A. (2003). The Linguistics of Political Argument. The Spin-doctor and the Wolf-pack at the White House. London: Routledge.
195. Passonneau, R., & Litman, D. J. (1996). Empirical analysis of three dimensions of spoken discourse: segmentation, coherence, and linguistic devices. In E. H. Hovy & D. R. Scott (eds.), Computational and Conversational Discourse (NATO ASI Series, Series F Computer and Systems Series, Vol. 151). New York NY: Springer Verlag.
196. Passonneau, R., & Litman, D. J. (1997). Discourse segmentation by human and automated means. Computational Linguistics, 23(1), 103-140.
197. Peng, J. (1987). Organisational features in chemical engineering research articles. ELR Journal, 1, 79-116.
198. Perelman, C. (1982). The Realm of Rhetoric (W. Kluback, Trans.). Notre Dame IN: University of Notre Dame Press.
199. Phillips, M. K. (1985). Aspects of Text Structure: An Investigation of the Lexical Organization of Text. Amsterdam: North-Holland.
200. Polanyi, L. (1985). Telling the American Story: A Structural and Cultural Analysis of Storytelling. Norwood NJ: Ablex.
201. Polanyi, L. (1988). A formal model of the structure of discourse. Journal of Pragmatics, 12, 601-638.
202. Poole, D. (2005). Cross-cultural variation in classroom turn-taking practices. In P. Bruthiaux, D. Atkinson, W. Grabe & V. Ramanathan (eds.), Directions in Applied Linguistics. Buffalo: Multilingual Matters.
203. Posteguillo, S. (1999). The schematic structure of computer science research articles. English for Specific Purposes, 18(2), 139-158.
204. Precht, K. (2000). Patterns of stance in English. Ph.D. dissertation, Northern Arizona University.
205. Prince, E. F. (1978). A comparison of wh-clefts and it-clefts in discourse. Language, 54, 883-906.
206. Prince, E. F. (1981). Toward a taxonomy of given-new information. In P. Cole (ed.), Radical Pragmatics. New York NY: Academic Press.
207. Quirk, R., Greenbaum, S., Leech, G. & Svartvik, J. (1985). A Comprehensive Grammar of the English Language. London: Longman.
208. Raymond, J. (1982). What we don't know about the evaluation of writing. College Composition and Communication, 33(4), 399-403.
209. Römer, U. (2005). Progressives, Patterns, Pedagogy: A Corpus-driven Approach to English Progressive Forms, Functions, Contexts and Didactics. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.
210. Salager-Meyer, F. (1997). I think that perhaps you should: A study of hedges in written discourse analysis. In T. Miller (ed.), Functional Approaches to Written Text: Classroom Applications (pp. 105-117). Washington DC: USIA.
211. Sampson, G., & McCarthy, D. (eds.). (2004). Corpus Linguistics: Readings in a Widening Discipline. London: Continuum.
212. Samraj, B. (2002). Introductions in research articles: Variation across disciplines. English for Specific Purposes, 21, 1-17.
213. Sanders, T. (1997). Semantic and pragmatic sources of coherence: On the categorization of coherence relations in context. Discourse Processes, 24(1), 119-148.
214. Sanders, T., & Noordman, L. G. (2000). The role of coherence relations and their linguistic markers. Discourse Processes, 29(1), 37-60.
215. Schiffrin, D. (1981). Tense variation in narrative. Language, 57, 45-62.
216. Schiffrin, D. (1985a). Conversational coherence: The role of 'well'. Language, 61(640-667).
217. Schiffrin, D. (1985b). Multiple constraints on discourse options: A quantitative analysis of causal sequences. Discourse Processes, 8, 281-303.
218. Schiffrin, D. (1987). Discourse Markers. Cambridge: CUP.
219. Schiffrin, D. (1994). Approaches to Discourse. Oxford: Blackwell.
220. Schiffrin, D., Tannen, D., & Hamilton, H. (eds.). (2001). The Handbook of Discourse Analysis. Oxford: Blackwell Publishers.
221. Scollon, R., & Scollon, S. W. (2001). Discourse and intercultural communication. In D. Schiffrin, D. Tannen & H. Hamilton (eds.), The Handbook of Discourse Analysis (pp. 538-547). Oxford: Blackwell.
222. Scott, M. (2004a). Definition of key-ness [Electronic Version]. Wordsmith Tools online manual. Retrieved November 28, 2005 from http://www.lexically.net/downloads/version4/html/index.html.
223. Scott, M. (2004b). Wordsmith Tools (Version 4.0) [Computer software]. Oxford: OUP.
224. Scott, M., & Tribble, C. (2006). Textual Patterns: Key Words and Corpus Analysis in Language Education. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.
225. Simpson, R., & Mendis, D. (2003). A corpus-based study of idioms in academic speech. TESOL Quarterly, 37, 419-441.
226. Sinclair, J., & Coulthard, M. (1975). Towards an Analysis of Discourse. Oxford: OUP.
227. Stubbs, M. (1983). Discourse Analysis: The Sociolinguistic Analysis of Natural Language. Oxford: Blackwell.
228. Suarez, L., & Moreno, A. (Forthcoming). The rhetorical structure of academic book reviews of literature: An English-Spanish cross-linguistic approach. In U. Connor, E. Nagelhout & W. Rozycki (eds.), Contrastive Rhetoric: Reaching to Intercultural Rhetoric. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.
229. Swales, J. (1981). Aspects of Article Introductions. Birmingham AL: University of Aston.
230. Swales, J. (1984). Research into the structure of introductions to journal articles and its application to the teaching of academic writing. In R. Williams & J. Kirkman (eds.), Common Grounds: Shared Interests in ESP and Communication Studies (pp. 77-86). New York NY: Pergamon Press.
231. Swales, J. (1990). Genre Analysis: English for Academic and Research Settings. Cambridge: CUP.
232. Swales, J. (2004). Research Genres: Explorations and Applications. Cambridge: CUP.
233. Swales, J., & Burke, A. (2003). “It's really fascinating work”: Differences in evaluative adjectives across academic registers. In P. Leistyna & C. Meyer (eds.), Corpus Analysis: Language Structure and Language Use. Amsterdam: Rodopi.
234. Swales, J., & Luebs, M. (2002). Genre analysis and the advanced second language writer. In E. Barton & G. Stygall (eds.), Genre in the Classroom: Multiple Perspectives (pp. 105-119). Mahwah NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.
235. Swales, J., & Najjar, H. (1987). The writing of research article introductions. Written Communication, 4, 175-192.
236. Tannen, D. (1984). Conversational Style: Analyzing Talk among Friends. Norwood NJ: Ablex.
237. Tannen, D. (1987). Repetition in conversation: Toward a poetic of talk. Language, 63, 574-605.
238. Tannen, D. (1989). Talking Voices: Repetition, Dialogue, and Imagery in Conversational Discourse. Cambridge: CUP.
239. Thompson, D. (1993). Arguing for experimental facts in science. Written Communication, 10(1), 106-128.
240. Thompson, D., & Ye, Y. (1991). Evaluation in the reporting verbs used in academic papers. Applied Linguistics, 12(4), 365-382.
241. Thompson, S. (1983). Grammar and discourse: The English detached participial clause. In F. Klein-Andreu (ed.), Discourse Perspectives on Syntax. New York NY: Academic Press.
242. Thompson, S. (1985). Grammar and written discourse: Initial vs final purpose clauses in text. Text, 5(1-2), 55-84.
243. Thompson, S. (1994). Frameworks and context: A genre based approach to analyzing lecture introductions. English for Specific Purposes, 13(2), 171-186.
244. Thompson, S., & Mulac, A. (1991a). A quantitative perspective on the grammaticization of epistemic parentheticals in English. In E. Traugott & B. Heine (eds.), Approaches to Grammaticalization (Vol. 2). Amsterdam: John Benjamins.
245. Thompson, S., & Mulac, A. (1991b). The discourse conditions for the use of the complementizer 'that' in conversational English. Journal of Pragmatics, 15, 237-251.
246. Tirkkonen-Condit, S. (1985). Argumentative Text Structure and Translation (Vol. 18). Jyväskylä, Finland: Kirjapaino Oy, Sisäsuomi.
247. Tomlin, R., Forrest, L., Ming Pu, M., & Hee Kim, M. (1997). Discourse semantics. In T. Van Dijk (ed.), Discourse as Structure and Process. Discourse Studies: A Multidisciplinary Introduction (Vol. 1). Thousand Oaks CA: Sage.
248. Tottie, G. (1991). Negation in English speech and writing: A study in variation. San Diego CA: Academic Press.
249. Tyler, A. (1995). Patterns of lexis: How much can repetition tell us about discourse coherence? In J. Alatis, C. Straehle, B. Gallenberger & M. Ronkin (eds.), Linguistics and the Education of Language Teachers: Ethnolinguistic, Psycholinguistic, and Sociolinguistic Aspects (Georgetown University Round Table on Languages and Linguistics). Washington DC: Georgetown University Press.
250. Upton, T. (2002). Understanding direct mail letters as a genre. International Journal of Corpus Linguistics, 7(1), 65-85.
251. Upton, T., & Connor, U. (2001). Using computerized corpus analysis to investigate the textlinguistic discourse moves of a genre. English for Specific Purposes: An International Journal, 20, 313-329.
252. Ure, J. (1982). Introduction: Approaches to the study of register range. International Journal of the Sociology of Language, 35, 5-23.
253. Van Dijk, T. (1980). Macrostructures: An Interdisciplinary Study of Global Structures in Discourse, Interaction, and Cognition. Hilldale NJ: Erlbaum.
254. Van Dijk, T. (1981). Episodes as units of discourse analysis. In D. Tannen (ed.), Analyzing Discourse: Text and Talk (Georgetown Round Table on Languages and Linguistics). Washington DC: Georgetown University Press.
255. Van Dijk, T. (Ed.). (1997). Discourse as Structure and Process. Discourse Studies: A Multidisciplinary Introduction (Vol. 1). Thousand Oaks CA: Sage.
256. Van Dijk, T., & Kintsch, W. (1983). Strategies of Discourse Comprehension. New York NY: Academic Press.
257. Varantola, K. (1984). On Noun Phrase Structures in Engineering English. Turku: University of Turku.
258. Ventola, E. (1984). Orientation to social semiotics in foreign language teaching. Applied Linguistics, 5, 275-286.
259. Ventola, E., Charles, C., & Kaltenbacher, M. (2004). Perspectives on Multimodality. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.
260. Wang, W. (Forthcoming). Newspaper commentaries on terrorism in China and Australia: A contrastive genre study. In U. Connor, E. Nagelhout & W. Rozycki (eds.), Contrastive Rhetoric: Reaching to Intercultural Rhetoric. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.
261. Ward, G. (1990). The discourse functions of VP preposing. Language, 66, 742-763.
262. Wells, G. (1999). Dialogic Inquiry: Towards a Sociocultural Practice and Theory of Education. New York NY: CUP.
263. Williams, R. (1999). Results section of medical research articles: An analysis of rhetorical categories for pedagogical purpose. English for Specific Purposes, 18(4), 347-366.
264. Wood, A. (1982). An examination of the rhetorical structures of authentic chemistry texts. Applied Linguistics, 3(2), 121-143.
265. Youmans, G. (1991). A new tool for discourse analysis: The vocabulary management profile. Language(67), 763-789.
266. Youmans, G. (1994). The vocabulary management profile: Two stories by William Faulkner. Empirical Studies of the Arts, 12(2), 113-130.
267. Young, L. (1994). University lectures: Macro-structures and micro-features. In J. Flowerdew (ed.), Academic Listening: Research Perspectives (pp. 159-176). New York NY: CUP.
268. Zipf, G.K. (1949). Human Behavior and the Principle of Least Effort. Cambridge MA: Addison-Wesley.