Part of
“All families and genera”: Exploring the Corpus of English Life Sciences Texts
Edited by Isabel Moskowich, Inés Lareo and Gonzalo Camiña
[Not in series 237] 2021
► pp. 147168
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. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
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.Google Scholar
Atkinson, Dwight. 1999. Scientific Discourse in Sociohistorical Context: The Philosophical Transactions of the Royal Society of London, 1675–1975. Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.Google Scholar
Barsaglini-Castro, Anabella, Valcarce, Daniel. 2020. The Coruña Corpus Tool: Ten Years On. Procesamiento del Lenguaje Natural, 64: 13–19.Google Scholar
Bhatia, Vijay K. 1997. Genre-mixing in academic introductions. English for Specific Purposes, 16/3: 181–195. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
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.Google Scholar
Biber, Douglas; Johansson, Stig; Leech, Geoffrey; Conrad, Susan and Finegan, Edward. 1999. Longman Grammar of Spoken and Written English. Essex: Longman.Google Scholar
Biber, Douglas. 1988. Variation across Speech and Writing. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Cameron, Deborah. 1992. Feminism and Linguistic Theory. Palgrave Macmillan. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
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.Google Scholar
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. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Crespo, Begoña. 2016. On writing Science in the Age of Reason. Revista Canaria de Estudios Ingleses (RCEI), 72: 53–78.Google Scholar
. 2019. “How intimate was the tone of female history writing in the Modern period? Evidence from the Corpus of History English Texts”. In Moskowich, Isabel; Crespo, Begoña; Puente-Castelo, Luis and Monaco, Leida Maria (eds.), Writing history in Late Modern English: Explorations of the Coruña Corpus. Amsterdam/Philadelphia: John Benjamins. 186–213. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
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.Google Scholar
Gregory, Emily Lovira. 1895. Elements of Plant Anatomy. Boston, London: Published by Ginn & company.Google Scholar
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.Google Scholar
Hyland, Ken. 2005. Stance and engagement: a model of interaction in academic discourse. Discourse Studies, 7/2: 173–192. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Hyland, K. 2015. Genre, Discipline and identity. Journal of English for Academic Purposes, 19: 32–43. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Knight, Dan. (ed.). 1986. The Age of Science. The Scientific World-View in the Nineteenth Century. Oxford: Basil Blackwell.Google Scholar
Lakoff, Robin. 1975. Language and Women’s Place. New York: Harper and Row.Google Scholar
Lareo, Inés; Monaco, Leida Maria; Esteve-Ramos, María José and Moskowich, Isabel (comps.). 2020. The Corpus of English Life Sciences Texts (CELiST). DOI logoGoogle Scholar
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.Google Scholar
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. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Moskowich, Isabel; Camiña-Riobóo, Gonzalo; Lareo, Inés and Crespo, Begoña (comps.) 2018. Corpus of English Philosophy Texts (CEPhiT). A Coruña: Universidade da Coruña. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
O’Keefe, Daniel J. 1990. Current communication: An advanced text series, Vol. 2. Persuasion: Theory and research. Newbury Park, CA: Sage Publications, Inc.Google Scholar
Perloff, Richard M. 2003. The Dynamics of Persuasion: Communication and Attitudes in the Twenty-First Century. UK: Lawrence Erlbaum Publishing.Google Scholar
Pratt, Anne. 1840. Flowers and their Associations. London: Charles Knight and Co.Google Scholar
Prelli, Lawrence J. 1989. The rhetorical construction of scientific ethos. In Simon, Herbert W. (ed.), Rhetoric in the human science. London: Sage. 87–104.Google Scholar
Quirk, Randolph; Greenbaum, Sidney; Leech, Geoffrey and Svartvik, Jan. 1985. A Comprehensive Grammar of the English Language. London: Longman.Google Scholar
Smellie, William. 1790. The philosophy of natural history. Vol. I. Dublin: printed by William Porter. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Swales, John. 1990. Genre Analysis English in Academic and Research Settings. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Taavitsainen, Irma. 1994. “On the Evolution of Scientific Writings between 1375 and 1675: Repertoire of Emotive Features”. In Fernández, Francisco et al. (eds.), Papers from the 7th International Conference on English Historical Linguistics. Valencia, Sept. 1992 Amsterdam/Philadelphia: John Benjamins. 329–342. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
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.Google Scholar
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. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
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. DOI logo
Barsaglini-Castro, Anabella
2021. Chapter 9. Persuasion in English scientific writing. In “All families and genera”,  pp. 170 ff. DOI logo

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.