Discourse Reflexivity in Linear Unit Grammar

The case of IMDb message boards

| Hong Kong Examinations and Assessment Authority
Hardbound – Available
ISBN 9789027210739 | EUR 95.00 | USD 143.00
 
e-Book –
ISBN 9789027266934 | EUR 95.00 | USD 143.00
 
Discourse Reflexivity in Linear Unit Grammar: The case of IMDb message boards represents a significant landmark. Not only is it the first in-depth corpus-based study to be based on Linear Unit Grammar, it is also the first study to present a unified model of both Linear Unit Grammar and Linear Unit Discourse Analysis. To illustrate this model, the book focuses on the role of discourse reflexivity in the linear structure of online message board discourse from the Internet Movie Database (IMDb) webpage. It is shown that discourse reflexivity plays a central role in the linear structure and antagonism characteristic of this type of discourse. This book will particularly appeal to those who have an interest in carrying forward the innovations in the description of grammar, lexis and discourse proposed by John Sinclair in his lifetime as well as to those with a specific interest in discourse reflexivity and computer-mediated communication.
[Studies in Corpus Linguistics, 76]  2016.  xvi, 293 pp.
Publishing status: Available
© John Benjamins
https://doi.org/10.1075/scl.76
Table of Contents
Acknowledgements
xiii–xiv
List of symbols used in the system of analysis
xv–xvi
Chapter 1. Introduction
1–10
Chapter 2. A unified model of Linear Unit Grammar and Linear Unit Discourse Analysis
11–76
Chapter 3. Discourse reflexivity in elements in the IMDb corpus discourse
77–116
Chapter 4. Discourse reflexivity in subcategories of elements in the IMDb corpus discourse
117–156
Chapter 5. Linear units and discourse reflexivity in the IMDB corpus discourse
157–182
Chapter 6. Discourse reflexivity in suspensive retro inter-turn |M linear units
183–224
Chapter 7. Summary & future directions
225–236
References
237–246
Appendix
247–286
Author Index
287–288
Subject Index
289–294
References

References

Abdollahzadeh, E.
2010 Poring over the findings: Interpersonal authorial engagement in applied linguistics papers. Journal of Pragmatics 43: 875–890.Google Scholar
Abney, S.
1991 Parsing by chunks. In Principle-Based Parsing, R. Berwick, S. Abney & C. Tenny (eds), 257–78. Dordrecht: Luwer. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Abrams, M.H. & Harpham, G.G.
2009 A Glossary of Literary Terms, 9th edn. Boston MA: Wadsworth Cengage Learning.Google Scholar
Ädel, A.
2006 Metadiscourse in L1 and L2 English [Studies in Corpus Linguistics 24]. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
2008 Metadiscourse across three varieties of English: American, British and advanced-learner English. In Contrastive Rhetoric: Reaching to Intercultural Rhetoric, U. Connor, E. Nagelhout & W.V. Rozycki (eds), 45–62. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
2010 Just to give you kind of a map of where we are going: A taxonomy of metadiscourse in spoken and written academic English. Nordic Journal of English Studies 9(2): 69–97.Google Scholar
Ädel, A. & Mauranen, A.
2010 Metadiscourse: Diverse and divided perspectives. Nordic Journal of English Studies 9(2): 1–11.Google Scholar
Aijmer, K.
2002 English Discourse Particles: Evidence from a Corpus [Studies in Corpus Linguistics 10]. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Alessi, G.
2005 The Use of Metadiscourse in EAP Presentations by Native Italian Speakers. In Dialogue within Discourse Communities, J. Bamford & M. Bondi (eds), 179–189. Niemeyer: Tubingen. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Altenberg, B. & Tapper, M.
1998 The use of adverbial connectors in advanced Swedish learners’ written English. In Learner English on Computer, S. Granger (ed), 80–93. Harlow: Addison Wesley Longman Limited.Google Scholar
Álvarez de Mon y Rego, I.
2001 Encapsulation and prospection in written scientific English. Estudios de la Universidad Complutense 9: 81–101.Google Scholar
2006 A contrastive study of encapsulation and prospection in written scientific text. In Studies in Specialized Discourse, J. Flowerdew & M. Gotti (eds), 21–40. Bern: Peter Lang.Google Scholar
Arendholz, J.
2013 (In)Appropriate Online Behavior. A Pragmatic Analysis of Message Board Relations [Pragmatics & Beyond New Series 229]. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Auer, P.
2005 Delayed self-repairs as a structuring device for complex turns in conversation. In Syntax and Lexis in Conversation: Studies on the use of Linguistic Resources in Talk-in-interaction, A. Hakulin & M. Selting (eds), 75–102. Amsterdam: John Benjamins Publishing Company. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Baron, N.
2009 The Myth of Impoverished Signal: Dispelling the Spoken-Language Fallacy for Emoticons in Online Communication. In Electronic Emotion: The Mediation of Emotion Via Information and Communication Technologies Interdisciplinary Communication Studies, Vol. 3, J. Vincent & L. Fortunati (eds), 107–136. Bern, Switzerland: Peter Lang.Google Scholar
Barton, E.L.
1995 Contrastive and non-contrastive connectives: Metadiscourse functions in argumentation. Written Communication 12(2): 219–239. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
de Beaugrande, R.
1984 Text Production. Norwood NJ: Ablex.Google Scholar
Berry, M.
1981 Systemic linguistics and discourse analysis: a multilayered approach to exchange structure. In Studies in Discourse Analysis, M. Coulthard & M. Montgomery (eds), 120–145. London: Routledge & Kegan Paul.Google Scholar
Biber, D., Johansson, S., Leech, G., Conrad, S. & Finegan, E.
1999 The Longman Grammar of Spoken and Written English. London: Longman.Google Scholar
Blakemore, D.
2004 Discourse Markers. In The Handbook of Pragmatics, L.R. Horn & G. Ward (eds), 221–240. Oxford: Blackwell Publishing Ltd.Google Scholar
Brazil, D.
1995 A Grammar of Speech. Oxford: OUP.Google Scholar
Brinton, L.J.
1996 Pragmatic Markers in English: Grammaticalization and Discourse Functions. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Brown, J.D.
1988 Understanding Research in Second Language Learning. Cambridge: CUP.Google Scholar
Burton, D.
1980 Dialogue and Discourse. London: Routledge & Kegan Paul.Google Scholar
Butler, C.S.
2008 The Subjectivity of basically in British English – a corpus-based study. In Pragmatics and Corpus Linguistics: A Mutualistic Entente, J. Romero-Trillo (ed), 37–62. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter.Google Scholar
Carey, R.
2011 Interruption and uncooperativeness in academic ELF group work: An application of Linear Unit Grammar. MA thesis, University of Helsinki. https://​helda​.helsinki​.fi​/bitstream​/handle​/10138​/28956​/interrup​.pdf​?sequence​=1 (6 February 2016).
2013 On the other side: Formulaic organizing chunks in spoken and written academic EFL. Journal of English as a Lingua Franca 2(2): 207–228. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Chalker, S.
1996 Collins COBUILD English Guides 9: Linking Words. London: HarperCollins.Google Scholar
Cheng, W., Greaves, C., Sinclair, J.McH. & Warren, M.
2009 Uncovering the extent of the phraseological tendency: Towards a systematic analysis of concgrams. Applied Linguistics 30(2): 236–252. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Cheng, X. & Steffensen, M.
1996 Metadiscourse: A technique for improving student writing. Research in the Teaching of English 30(2): 149–81.Google Scholar
Claridge, C.
2007 Constructing a Corpus from the Web: Message Boards. In Corpus Linguistics and the Web, M. Hundt, N. Nesselhauf & C. Biewer (eds), 87–108. Amsterdam/New York: Rodopi. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Coffin, C., Hewings, A. & North, S.
2012 Arguing as an academic purpose: The role of asynchronous conferencing in supporting argumentative dialogue in school and university. Journal of English for Academic Purposes 11(1): 38–51. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Collins Cobuild Advanced Learner’s English Dictionary
, 4th edn 2003 London: HarperCollins.Google Scholar
Collot, M. & N. Belmore
1996 Electronic Language: A new variety of English. In Computer-Mediated Communication: Linguistic, Social and Cross-Cultural Perspectives, S.C. Herring (ed), 13–28. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Coulthard, M. & Brazil, D.
1992 Exchange structure. In Advances in Spoken Discourse Analysis, M. Coulthard (ed), 50–78. London: Routledge.Google Scholar
Coulthard, M., Montgomery, M. & Brazil, D.
1981 Developing a description of spoken discourse. In Studies in Discourse Analysis, M.Coulthard & M. Montgomery (eds), 1–50. London: Routledge & Kegan Paul.Google Scholar
Crawford Camiciottoli, B.
2003 Metadiscourse and ESP reading comprehension: An explanatory study. Reading in a Foreign Language 15(1): 28–44.Google Scholar
2007 The Language of Business Studies Lectures. A Corpus-assisted Analysis [Pragmatics & Beyond New Series 157]. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Crismore, A.
1989 Talking with Readers: Metadiscourse as Rhetorical Act. Bern: Peter Lang.Google Scholar
Crompton, P.
2006 The effect of the position on the discourse scope of adverbials. Text and Talk 26(3): 245–279. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Crystal, D.
2001 Language and the Internet. Cambridge: CUP. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Dafouz-Milne, E.
2008 The pragmatic role of textual and interpersonal metadiscourse markers in the construction and attainment of persuasion: A cross-linguistic study of newspaper discourse. Journal of Pragmatics 40(1): 95–113. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Dahl, T.
2004 Textual metadiscourse in research articles: A marker of national culture or academic discipline. Journal of Pragmatics 36(10): 1807–1825. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Dunning, T.
1993 Accurate methods for the statistics of surprise and coincidence. Computational Linguistics 19(1): 61–74.Google Scholar
Eggins, S.
2004 An Introduction to Systemic Functional Linguistics. London: Continuum.Google Scholar
Erman, B.
2001 Pragmatic markers revisited with a focus on you know in adult and adolescent talk. Journal of Pragmatics 33: 1337–1359. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Ferrara, K., Brunner, H. & Whittemore, G.
1991 Interactive written discourse as an emergent register. Written Communication 8(1): 8–34. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Flowerdrew, J.
2003 Signalling nouns in discourse. English for Specific Purposes 22: 329–346. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Francis, G.
1986 Anaphoric Nouns [Discourse Analysis Monographs 11]. Birmingham: English Language Research, University of Birmingham.Google Scholar
1994 Labelling discourse: an aspect of nominal-group lexical cohesion. In Advances in Written Text Analysis, M. Coulthard (ed), 83–101. London: Routledge.Google Scholar
Francis, G & Hunston, S.
1992 Analysing everyday conversation. In Advances in Spoken Discourse Analysis, M. Coulthard (ed), 123–161. London: Routledge.Google Scholar
Francis, G., Hunston, S. & Manning, E.
1996 Collins COBUILD Grammar Patterns, 1: Verbs. London: HarperCollins.Google Scholar
1998 Collins COBUILD Grammar Patterns, 2: Nouns and Adjectives. London: HarperCollins.Google Scholar
Fraser, B.
1990 An approach to discourse markers. Journal of Pragmatics 14: 383–395. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
1999 What are discourse markers? Journal of Pragmatics 31: 931–952. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Fuertes-Olivera, P.A., Velasco-Sacristán, M., Arribas-Baño, A. & Samaniego-Fernández, E.
2001 Persuasion and advertising English: Metadiscourse in slogans and headlines. Journal of Pragmatics 33: 1291–1307. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Gibbs, R.W.
2000 Irony in talk among friends. Metaphor and Symbol 15(1-2): 5–27. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Halliday, M.A.K.
1961 Categories of the theory of grammar. Word 17(3): 241–292. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
1994 An Introduction to Functional Grammar, 2nd edn. London: Arnold.Google Scholar
Halliday M.A.K. & Hasan, R.
1976 Cohesion in English. London: Longman.Google Scholar
Heino, A., Tervonen, E. & Tommola, J.
2002 Metadiscourse in Academic Conference Presentations. In The Language of Conferencing, E. Ventola, C. Shalom & S. Thompson (eds), 127–146, Frankfurt am Main: Peter Lang.Google Scholar
Hewings, A. & Coffin, C.
2007 Writing in multiparty computer conferences and single authored assignments: Exploring the role of writer as thinker. Journal of English for Academic Purposes 6: 126–142. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Ho, M.L.C.
2002 Online Communication: A Study of the Construction of Discourse and Community in an Electronic Discussion Forum. Ph.D. dissertation, University of Birmingham.
Hoey, M.
1983 On the Surface of Discourse. London: Allen & Unwin.Google Scholar
2000 Persuasive Rhetoric in Linguistics: A Stylistic Study of some Features of the Language of Noam Chomsky. In Evaluation in Text: Authorial Stance and the Construction of Discourse, S. Hunston & G. Thompson (eds), 28–38, Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
2001 Textual Interaction: An Introduction to Written Discourse Analysis. London: Routledge.Google Scholar
Hopper, P.J. & Traugott, E.C.
1993 Grammaticalization. Cambridge: CUP.Google Scholar
Hornby, N.
1995 High Fidelity. London: Penguin.Google Scholar
Huang, L-F.
2013 The use of Linear Unit Grammar (LUG) in the investigation of discourse markers in spoken English. International Journal of Language Studies 7(3): 119–136.Google Scholar
Hunston, S.
2000 Evaluation and the planes of discourse: status and value in persuasive texts. In Evaluation in Text: Authorial Stance and the Construction of Discourse, S. Hunston & G. Thompson (eds), 176–207, Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Hunston, S. & Francis, G.
2000 Pattern Grammar. A Corpus-driven Approach to the Study of English [Studies in Corpus Linguistics 4]. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Hyland, K.
1998a Hedging in Scientific Research Articles [Pragmatics & Beyond New Series 54]. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
1998b Persuasion and context: The pragmatics of academic discourse. Journal of Pragmatics 30(4): 437–455. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
1998c Exploring corporate rhetoric. Journal of Business Communication 35(2): 224–245. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
1999 Talking to Students: Metadiscourse in introductory textbooks.English for Specific Purposes 18(1): 3–26. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
2000 Disciplinary Discourse: Social Interactions in Academic Writing Harlow: Pearson.Google Scholar
2005 Metadiscourse: Exploring Interaction in Writing. London: Continuum.Google Scholar
2010 Metadiscourse: Mapping interactions in academic writing. Nordic Journal of English Studies 9(2): 125–143.Google Scholar
Hyland, K. & Tse, P.
2004 Metadiscourse in academic writing: A reappraisal. Applied Linguistics 25(2): 156–177. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
2005 Evaluative that constructions: Signalling stance in research abstracts. Functions of Language 12(1): 39–63. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Ifantidou, E.
2005 The semantics and pragmatics of metadiscourse. Journal of Pragmatics 37: 1325–1353. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Ivanič, R.
1991 Nouns in search of a context: A study of nouns with both open- and closed-system characteristics. International Review of Applied Linguistics 29(2): 93–114. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Jakobson, R.
1990 On Language: Roman Jakobson, L.R. Waugh & M. Monville-Burston (eds). Cambridge MA: Harvard University Press.Google Scholar
Johnson, S.
2008 Rap music originated in medieval Scottish pubs, claims American professor. In The Telegraph 28 December. http://​www​.telegraph​.co​.uk​/culture​/music​/3998862​/Rap​-music​-originated​-in​-medieval​-Scottish​-pubs​-claims​-American​-professor​.html (6 February 2016).Google Scholar
Khabbazi-Oskouei, L.
2013 Propositional or non-propositional, that is the question: A new approach to analyzing interpersonal metadiscourse in editorials. Journal of Pragmatics 47(1): 93–107. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Kuteeva, M.
2011 Wikis and academic writing: Changing the writer-reader relationship. English for Specific Purposes 30: 44–57. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Landis, J.R. & Koch, G.G.
1977 The measurement of observer agreement for categorical data. Biometrics 33: 159–174. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Le, E.
2004 Active participation within written argumentation: Metadiscourse and editorialist’s authority. Journal of Pragmatics 36: 687–714. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Leech, G., Deuchar, M. & Hoogenraad, R.
1982 English Grammar for Today: A New Introduction. London: MacMillan. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Leech, G., Rayson, P. & Wilson, A.
2001 Word Frequencies in Written and Spoken English: based on the British National Corpus. London: Longman.Google Scholar
Levinson, S.
1983 Pragmatics. Cambridge: CUP.Google Scholar
Lewin, B.A. & Donner, Y.
2002 Communication in internet message boards. English Today 18(3): 29–37. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Li, T. & Wharton, S.
2012 Metadiscourse repertoire of L1 Mandarin undergraduates writing in English: A cross-contextual, cross-disciplinary study. Journal of English for Academic Purposes 11(4): 345–356. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Lozano, C.
2009 Pronominal deficits at the interface: New data from the CEDEL2 corpus. In Applied Linguistics Now: Understanding Language and Mind/La Lingüística Aplicada Hoy: Comprendiendo el Lenguaje y la Mente, C.M. Bretones Callejas, J.F. Fernández Sánchez, J.R. Ibáñez Ibáñez, Mª. E. García Sánchez, Mª E. Cortés de los Ríos, S. Salaberri Ramiro, Mª S. Cruz Martínez, N. Perdú Honeyman & B. Cantizano Márquez (eds), 213–227. Almería: Universidad de Almería.Google Scholar
McEnery, T. & Wilson, A.
2001 Corpus Linguistics: An Introduction. Edinburgh: EUP.Google Scholar
Mahlberg, M. & O’Donnell, M.B.
2008 A fresh view of the structure of hard news stories. In Online Proceedings of the 19th European Systemic Functional Linguistics Conference and Workshop, Saarbrücken, 23–25 July 2007, S. Neumann & E. Steiener (eds). http://​scidok​.sulb​.uni​-saarland​.de​/volltexte​/2008​/1700/ (26 April 2016).Google Scholar
Mann, W.C. & Thompson, S.A.
1988 Rhetorical Structure Theory: Toward a functional theory of text organization. Text 8(3): 243–81.CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Mao, L.R.
1993 I conclude not: Toward a pragmatic account of metadiscourse. Rhetoric Review 2 : 265–289. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Marcoccia, M.
2004 On-line polylogues: Conversation structure and participation frameworks in internet newsgroups. Journal of Pragmatics 36: 115–145. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Mason. O.
2008 Stringing together a sentence: linearity and the lexis-syntax interface. In Language, People, Numbers: Corpus Linguistics and Society, A. Gerbig & O. Mason (eds), 231–248, Amsterdam: Rodopi. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Mauranen, A.
1993 Cultural Differences in Academic Rhetoric: A Textlinguistic Study. Frankfurt: Peter Lang.Google Scholar
1996 Discourse Competence–Evidence from Thematic Development in Native and Non-native Texts. In Academic Writing: Intercultural and Textual Issues, E. Ventola & A. Mauranen (eds), 231–235. Amsterdam: John Benjamin Publishing Co. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
2001 Reflexive academic talk: observations from MICASE. In Corpus Linguistics in North America, R. Simpson & J.M. Swales (eds), 165–178. Ann Arbor: University of Michigan Press.Google Scholar
2002a “One thing I’d like to clarify…”. Observations of academic speaking. Helsinki English Studies 2002, Vol. 2. http://​blogs​.helsinki​.fi​/hes​-eng​/files​/2011​/03​/HES​_Vol2​_Mauranen​.pdf (6 February 2016).Google Scholar
2002b “A good question”: Expressing evaluation in academic speech. In Domain-Specific English: Textual Practices Across Communities and Classrooms, G. Cortese & P. Riley (eds), 115–140. Frankfurt: Peter Lang: 115–140.Google Scholar
2003 “But here’s a flawed argument”: socialization into and through metadiscourse. In Corpus Analysis. Language Structure and Language Use, P. Leistyna & C.F. Meyer (eds), 19–34. Amsterdam: Rodopi.Google Scholar
2007 Discourse reflexivity and international speakers – How is it used in English as a lingua franca? Jesik in Slovstvo 52(3-4): S1–S19.Google Scholar
2009a Spoken rhetoric: How do natives and non-natives fare? In Cross-linguistic and Cross-cultural Perspectives on Academic Discourse, E. Suomela-Salmi & F. Dervin (eds), 199–218. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
2009b Chunking in ELF: Expressions for managing interaction. Journal of Intercultural Pragmatics 6(2): 217–233.Google Scholar
Mauranen A.
2010 Discourse reflexivity – A discourse universal? The case of ELF.Nordic Journal of English Studies 9(2): 13–40.Google Scholar
Mauranen, A.
2012 Exploring ELF: Academic English Shaped by Non-native Speakers.Cambridge: CUP.Google Scholar
Miller, G.
1956 The magical number seven, plus or minus two: Some limits on our capacity for processing information. Psychological Review 63: 81–97. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Monbiot, G.
2010 These astroturf libertarians are the real threat to internet democracy. The Guardian Monday 13 December 2010 <http://​www​.guardian​.co​.uk​/commentisfree​/libertycentral​/2010​/dec​/13​/astroturf​-libertarians​-internet​-democracy​?showallcomments​=true#comment​-fold (6 February 2016).Google Scholar
Moor, P.J., Heuvelman, A. & Verleur, R.
2010 Flaming on YouTube. Computers and Human Behavior 26(6): 1536–1546. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Moore, N.
2011 Modelling the flow of discourse in a corpus of written academic English. In Proceedings of Corpus Linguistics 2011 – Discourse and Corpus Linguistics. http://​www​.birmingham​.ac​.uk​/documents​/college​-artslaw​/corpus​/conference​-archives​/2011​/Paper​-11​.pdf (6 February 2016).Google Scholar
Moreno, A.I.
2003 The role of cohesive devises as textual constraints on relevance: A discourse-as-process view. International Journal of English Studies 3(1): 111–165.Google Scholar
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. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Moreno, A.
2006 Bridging the gap between coherence and cohesion: which cohesive devices are really textual? In A Pleasure of Life in Words: A Festschrift for Angela Downing, M. Carretero, L. Hidalgo Downing, J. Lavid, E. Martinez Caro, J. Neff, S. Perez de Ayala & E. Sanchez-Pardo (eds), 673–708. Madrid: Universidad Complutense Madrid.Google Scholar
Müller, S.
2005 Discourse Markers in Native and Non-native English Discourse [Pragmatics & Beyond NS 138]. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Myers, G.
2010 Discourse of Blogs and Wikis. London: Continuum.Google Scholar
O’Donnell, M.
2009 The UAM CorpusTool: Software for corpus annotation and exploration. In Applied Linguistics Now: Understanding Language and Mind/La Lingüística Aplicada Hoy: Comprendiendo el Lenguaje y la Mente, C.M. Bretones Callejas, J.F. Fernández Sánchez, J.R. Ibáñez Ibáñez, Mª. E. García Sánchez, Mª E. Cortés de los Ríos, S. Salaberri Ramiro, Mª S. Cruz Martínez, N. Perdú Honeyman & B. Cantizano Márquez (eds), 1433–1447. Almería: Universidad de Almería.Google Scholar
O’Donnell, M.B., Scott, M., Mahlberg, M. & Hoey, M.
2012 Exploring text-initial words, clusters and concgrams in a newspaper corpus. Corpus Linguistics and Linguistic Theory 8(1): 73–101.Google Scholar
O’Grady, G.
2010 A Grammar of Spoken English Discourse. London: Continuum.Google Scholar
Parsons, B.
2011 An Early Flyting in Hary’s Wallace. Marginalia 13: Taste. http://​www​.marginalia​.co​.uk​/journal​/11taste​/11tasteparsons​.pdf (15 January 2015).Google Scholar
Pérez-Llantada, C.
2010 The discourse functions of metadiscourse in published academic writing: Issues of culture and language. Nordic Journal of English Studies 9(2): 41–68.Google Scholar
Pihlaja, S.
2011 Cops, popes, and garbage collectors: Metaphor and antagonism in an atheist/Christian YouTube video thread. Language at Internet, 8, article 1. http://​oro​.open​.ac​.uk​/29116​/1​/www​_languageatinternet​_de​_articles​_2011pihlaja​.pdf (6 February 2016).Google Scholar
Rayson, P., Berridge, D. & Francis, B.
2004 Extending the Cochran rule for the comparison of word frequencies between corpora. In Le poids des mots: Proceedings of the 7th International Conference on Statistical Analysis of Textual Data (JADT 2004), March 10–12, 2004 (Vol. 2), G. Purnelle, C. Fairon & A. Dister (eds), 926–936. Louvain-la-Neuve, Belgium: Presses universitaires de Louvain.Google Scholar
Rayson, P. & Garside, R.
2000 Comparing corpora using frequency profiling. In Proceedings of the Workshop on Comparing Corpora, Held in Conjunction with the 38th Annual Meeting of the Association for Computational Linguistics (ACL 2000). 1–8 October 2000, Hong Kong , 1–6. http://​www​.research​.lancs​.ac​.uk​/portal​/en​/publications​/comparing​-corpora​-using​-frequency​-profiling(2bcd9edf​-e409​-4d6b​-9898​-be95be41f8b5)​.html (6 February 2016).
Ribera, J.
2007 Text deixis in narrative sequences. International Journal of English Studies 7(1): 149–168.Google Scholar
Richards, J., Platt, J. & Platt, H.
1992 Longman Dictionary of Language Teaching & Applied Linguistics. Harlow: Longman.Google Scholar
Schiffrin, D.
1980 Metatalk: Organizational and Evaluative Brackets in Discourse. Sociological Inquiry: Language and Social Interaction 50: 199–236. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
1987 Discourse Markers. Cambridge: CUP. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Schmid, H.J.
2000 English Abstract Nouns as Conceptual Shells. From Corpus to Cognition. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Scott, M.
1996 Wordsmith Tools. Oxford: OUP.Google Scholar
1997 PC analysis of key words – And key key words. System 25(2): 233–245. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
2001 Mapping key words to problem and solution. In Patterns of Text: in Honour of Michael Hoey, M. Scott & G. Thomson, (eds), 109–127. Amsterdam: Benjamins. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Sinclair, J.
1992 Priorities in discourse analysis. In Advances in Spoken Discourse Analysis, M. Coulthard (ed), 79–88. London: Routledge.Google Scholar
Sinclair, J. McH.
1992/2004a. Trust the text. In Trust the Text: Language, Corpus and Discourse, J. McH. Sinclair & R. Carter (eds), 9–23. London: Routledge Taylor and Francis Group.Google Scholar
1996/2004b The search for units of meaning. In Trust the Text: Language, Corpus and Discourse, J.McH. Sinclair & R. Carter (eds), 24–48. London: Routledge Taylor and Francis Group.Google Scholar
1981/2004c Planes of discourse. In Trust the Text: Language, Corpus and Discourse, J. McH. Sinclair & R. Carter (eds), 51–66. London: Routledge Taylor and Francis Group.Google Scholar
1985/2004d On the integration of linguistic description. In Trust the Text: Language, Corpus and Discourse, J. McH. Sinclair & R. Carter (eds), 67–81. London: Routledge Taylor and Francis Group.Google Scholar
1993/2004e Written discourse structure. In Trust the Text: Language, Corpus and Discourse, J. McH. Sinclair & R. Carter (eds), 82–101. London: Routledge Taylor and Francis Group.Google Scholar
1998/2004f The lexical item. In Trust the Text: Language, Corpus and Discourse, J. McH. Sinclair & R. Carter (eds), 131–148. London: Routledge Taylor and Francis Group.Google Scholar
Sinclair, J.McH.
2003/2004g Lexical grammar. In Trust the Text: Language, Corpus and Discourse, J. McH. Sinclair & R. Carter (eds), 164–176. London: Routledge Taylor and Francis Group.Google Scholar
Sinclair, J.McH. & Coulthard, R.M.
1975 Towards an Analysis of Discourse. London: OUP.Google Scholar
Sinclair, J.McH. & Mauranen, A.
2006 Linear Unit Grammar: Integrating Speech and Writing [Studies in Corpus Linguistics 25]. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Stenström, A-B.
1990 What is the Role of Discourse signals in Sentence Grammar? In Theory and Practice in Corpus Linguistics, J. Aarts & W. Meijs (eds), 213–229. Amsterdam/Atlanta: Rodopi.Google Scholar
Stenström, A.-B.
1994 An Introduction to Spoken Interaction. Harlow: Addison Wesley Longman.Google Scholar
Stubbs, M.
1981 Motivating analyses of exchange. In Studies in Discourse Analysis, M. Coulthard & M. Montgomery (eds), 107–119. London: Routledge & Kegan Paul.Google Scholar
Swan, M.
2005 Practical English Usage, 3rd edn. Oxford: OUP.Google Scholar
Tadros, A.
1985 Prediction in Text. Birmingham: University of Birmingham, English Language Research.Google Scholar
1994 Predictive categories in expository text. In Advances in Written Text Analysis, M. Coulthard (ed), 69–82. London: Routledge.Google Scholar
Tagg, C.
2012 The Discourse of Text Messaging. London: Continuum.Google Scholar
Tagliamonte, S. & Denis, D.
2008 LOL for real! Instant messaging in Toronto Teens. American Speech 83(1): 3–34. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Tanskanen, S.-K.
2007 Metapragmatic Utterances in Computer-Mediated Interaction. In Metapragmatics in Use, W. Bublitz & A. Hübler (eds), 87–106. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Thompson, G & Hunston, S.
2000 Evaluation: An Introduction. In Evaluation in Text: Authorial Stance and the Construction of Discourse, S. Hunston & G. Thomson (eds), 1–27. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Thompson, S.E.
2003 Text-structuring metadiscourse, intonation and the signaling of organization in academic lectures. English for Academic Purposes 2: 5–20. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Tsui, A.
1994 English Conversation. Oxford: OUP.Google Scholar
Vande Kopple, W.J.
1985 Some exploratory discourse on metadiscourse. College Composition and Communication 36: 82–93. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Warren, M.
2006 Features of Naturalness in Conversation [Pragmatics & Beyond New Series 152]. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Williams, J.W.
1981a Style: Ten Lessons in Clarity & Grace. Glenview IL: Scott, Foresma.Google Scholar
1981b Literary Style: The personal voice. In Style and Variables in English, T. Shapen & J.M. Williams (eds), 116–216. Cambridge, MA: Winthorp.Google Scholar
Winter, E.O.
1977 A clause-relational approach to English texts: A study of some predictive lexical items in written discourse. Special Issue of Instructional Science 6(1): 1–92. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Yamasaki, N.
2008 Collocations and colligations associated with discourse functions of unspecific anaphoric nouns. International Journal of Corpus Linguistics 13(1): 75–98. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Cited by

Cited by 1 other publications

McKeown, Jamie & Hans J. Ladegaard
2020. Exploring the metadiscursive realisation of incivility in TV news discourse. Discourse, Context & Media 33 ► pp. 100367 ff. Crossref logo

This list is based on CrossRef data as of 13 september 2021. Please note that it may not be complete. Sources presented here have been supplied by the respective publishers. Any errors therein should be reported to them.

Subjects & Metadata

Linguistics

Corpus linguistics
Discourse studies
Pragmatics
Syntax
BIC Subject: CFG – Semantics, Pragmatics, Discourse Analysis
BISAC Subject: LAN009000 – LANGUAGE ARTS & DISCIPLINES / Linguistics / General
ONIX Metadata
ONIX 2.1
ONIX 3.0
U.S. Library of Congress Control Number:  2016013270 | Marc record