Chapter 8
Linguistic indicators of persuasion in female authors in the Corpus of
English Life Sciences Texts
Article outline
- 1.Introduction
- 2.Women scientists, prefaces and persuasion
- 3.Material and methodology
- 4.Data analysis and discussion
- 4.1Prefaces and bodies: General data
- a.Prefaces and bodies: Specific data
- b.Linguistic features
- 5.Concluding remarks
-
Works cited
References (36)
Works cited
Anthony, Laurence. 2018. AntConc
(Version 3.5.7) [Computer
Software]. Tokyo, Japan: Waseda University. Retrieved January 20,
2020, from [URL]
Arakelyan, Rouzanna and Muradyan, Gevorg. 2016. Language
as an Influential Tool for
Persuasion. Armenian Folia
Anglistika, 1/15: 39–45.
Argamon, Shlomo, Moshe Koppel; Fine, Jonathan and Shimoni, Anat Rachel. 2003. Gender,
Genre, and Writing Style in Formal Written
Texts. Text, 23/3: 321–346.
Atkinson, Dwight. 1999. Scientific
Discourse in Sociohistorical Context: The Philosophical Transactions
of the Royal Society of London,
1675–1975. Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.
Barsaglini-Castro, Anabella, Valcarce, Daniel. 2020. The
Coruña Corpus Tool: Ten Years
On. Procesamiento del Lenguaje
Natural, 64: 13–19.
Bhatia, Vijay K. 1997. Genre-mixing
in academic introductions. English
for Specific
Purposes, 16/3: 181–195.
Biber, Douglas and Conrad, Susan. 2001. “Register
variation: A corpus
approach”. In Schiffrin, Deborah; Tannen, Deborah and Hamilton, Heidi (eds.), The
handbook of discourse
analysis. Oxford: Blackwell. 175–96.
Biber, Douglas; Johansson, Stig; Leech, Geoffrey; Conrad, Susan and Finegan, Edward. 1999. Longman
Grammar of Spoken and Written
English. Essex: Longman.
Biber, Douglas. 1988. Variation
across Speech and Writing. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press.
Cameron, Deborah. 1992. Feminism
and Linguistic Theory. Palgrave Macmillan.
Cameron, Deborah, McAlinden, Fiona and O’Leary, Kathy. 1989. “Lakoff
in context: the social and linguistic functions of tag
questions”. In Cameron, Deborah. and Coates, Jennifer (eds.), Women
in Their Speech Communities: new perspectives on language and
sex. London; New York: Longman. 74–93.
Connor, Ulla. and Upton, Thomas. 2003. “Linguistic
Dimensions of Direct Mail
Letters”. In Leystina, Pepi and Meyer, Charles F. (eds.), Corpus
Analysis. Language Structure and Language
Use. Amsterdam: Rodopi. 71–86.
Crespo, Begoña. 2016. On
writing Science in the Age of
Reason. Revista Canaria de Estudios
Ingleses
(RCEI), 72: 53–78.
Dillard, James Pryce. 2014. “Language
style and
persuasion”. In Holtgraves, Thomas (ed.), The
Oxford Handbook of Language and Social
Psychology. Oxford: Oxford University Press. 177–187.
Gregory, Emily Lovira. 1895. Elements
of Plant Anatomy. Boston, London: Published by Ginn & company.
Halliday, Michael Alexander Kirkwood. 1988. “On
the Language of Physical
Science”. In Ghadessy, Mohsen (ed.), Registers
of Written English: Situational Factors and Linguistic
Features. (OLS). London: Pinter. 162–178.
Hyland, Ken. 2005. Stance
and engagement: a model of interaction in academic
discourse. Discourse
Studies, 7/2: 173–192.
Hyland, K. 2015. Genre,
Discipline and identity. Journal of
English for Academic
Purposes, 19: 32–43.
Knight, Dan. (ed.). 1986. The
Age of Science. The Scientific World-View in the Nineteenth
Century. Oxford: Basil Blackwell.
Lakoff, Robin. 1975. Language
and Women’s Place. New York: Harper and Row.
Lareo, Inés; Monaco, Leida Maria; Esteve-Ramos, María José and Moskowich, Isabel (comps.). 2020. The
Corpus of English Life Sciences Texts
(CELiST).
Mischke, G. Elizabeth. 2005. Analysing
involvement in distance-education study-guides: an appraisal-based
approach. UNISA. Retrieved May 20,
2020, from [URL]
Moskowich, Isabel. and Crespo, Begoña. 2014. Stance
is present in scientific writing, indeed. Evidence from the Coruña
Corpus of English Scientific
Writing. Token. A Journal of English
Linguistics, 3: 91–114.
Moskowich, Isabel. 2021. “The
making of CELiST, a bunch of
disciplines”. In Moskowich, Isabel; Lareo, Inés and Camiña, Gonzalo (eds.), “All
families and genera”: Exploring the Corpus of English Life Sciences
Texts. Amsterdam/Philadelphia: John Benjamins. 1–19.
Moskowich, Isabel; Camiña-Riobóo, Gonzalo; Lareo, Inés and Crespo, Begoña (comps.) 2018. Corpus
of English Philosophy Texts
(CEPhiT). A Coruña: Universidade da Coruña.
O’Keefe, Daniel J. 1990. Current
communication: An advanced text series, Vol. 2. Persuasion: Theory
and research. Newbury Park, CA: Sage Publications, Inc.
Perloff, Richard M. 2003. The
Dynamics of Persuasion: Communication and Attitudes in the
Twenty-First
Century. UK: Lawrence Erlbaum Publishing.
Pratt, Anne. 1840. Flowers
and their
Associations. London: Charles Knight and Co.
Prelli, Lawrence J. 1989. The
rhetorical construction of scientific
ethos. In Simon, Herbert W. (ed.), Rhetoric
in the human
science. London: Sage. 87–104.
Quirk, Randolph; Greenbaum, Sidney; Leech, Geoffrey and Svartvik, Jan. 1985. A
Comprehensive Grammar of the English
Language. London: Longman.
Smellie, William. 1790. The
philosophy of natural
history. Vol. I. Dublin: printed by William Porter.
Swales, John. 1990. Genre
Analysis English in Academic and Research
Settings. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press.
Tannen, Deborah. 1993. “The
Relativity of Linguistic Strategies: Rethinking Power and Solidarity
in Gender and
Dominance”. In Tannen, Deborah (ed.), Gender
and Conversational
Interaction. Oxford: Oxford University Press. 165–188.
Wakefield, Priscilla. 1816. An
introduction to the Natural History and Classification of Insects,
in a series of familiar Letters. With Illustrative
Engravings. London: printed for Darton, Harvey and Darton.
Cited by (3)
Cited by three other publications
Montoya Reyes, Ana & Anabella Barsaglini-Castro
2024.
A semantic approach for the analysis of verbs in life sciences texts.
Studia Neophilologica ► pp. 1 ff.
Barsaglini-Castro, Anabella
This list is based on CrossRef data as of 5 july 2024. 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.