Cover not available
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. 169–188

Chapter 9
Persuasion in English scientific writing

Exploring suasive verbs in the Corpus of English Life Sciences Texts and Posthumanism English Texts

ORCID logo | University of A Coruña
Article outline
  • 1.Introduction
  • 2.Persuasion, stance and suasive verbs in scientific writing
  • 3.Corpus and methodology
    • CELiST
    • CoNFiPET
  • 4.Analysis of data
  • 5.Concluding remarks
  • Notes
  • Works cited
Published online: 10 September 2021
DOI logo
https://doi.org/10.1075/z.237.09bar
References (33)
Works cited
Alonso-Almeida, Francisco and Álvarez-Gil, Francisco J. 2019. “Modal verb categories in CHET”. In Moskowich, Isabel; Crespo, Begoña; Puente-Castelo, Luis and Monaco, Leida Maria (eds.), Writing history in Late Modern English: Explorations of the Coruña Corpus, 151–167. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Ansell-Pearson, Keith. 1997. Viroid Life: Perspectives on Nietzsche and the Transhuman Condition. London/New York: Routledge. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Anthony, Laurence. 2019. AntConc (Version 3.5.8) [Computer Software]. Tokyo, Japan: Waseda University. Retrieved December 12, 2019, from [URL]
Aristotle. 1984. “Rhetoric”. In Barnes, John (ed.), The Complete Works of Aristotle. The Revised Oxford Translation. Vol. 2. Princeton University Press: Princeton-New Jersey. 2152–2269.Google Scholar
Barsaglini-Castro, Anabella and Valcarce, Daniel. 2020. The Coruña Corpus Tool: Ten Years On. Revista del Procesamiento de Lenguaje Natural (sePLN), 64: 13–19.Google Scholar
Biber, Douglas. 1995. Dimensions of Register Variation: A Cross-linguistic Comparison. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
. 1988. Variation across Speech and Writing. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Biber, Douglas and Susan Conrad. 2009. Register, Genre and Style. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Bostrom, Nick. 2013. “Why I Want to be a Posthuman When I Grow Up”. In More, M. and Vita‐More, N. (eds.), The Transhumanist Reader. Wiley Blackwell. 28–53. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Boyle, Robert. 1669. Certain physiological essays and other tracts written at distant times, and on several occasions by the honourable Robert Boyle; wherein some of the tracts are enlarged by experiments and the work is increased by the addition of a discourse about the absolute rest in bodies. London: Henry Herringman.Google Scholar
Collier, James H. and Toomey, David M. 1997. Scientific and technical communication: theory, practice, and policy. Thousand Oaks, Calif: Sage.Google Scholar
Crespo, Begoña. 2021. “Linguistic indicators of persuasion in female authors in the Corpus of English Life Sciences Texts”. 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. 147–167. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Crespo, Begoña and Moskowich, Isabel. 2010. “CETA in the Context of the Coruña Corpus”. Literary and Linguistic Computing, 25/2: 153–164. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Crespo, Begoña. 2015. Women writing science in the eighteenth century: some hints about their language use. Anglica. An International Journal of English Studies, 24/2: 103–128.Google Scholar
Doede, Robert. 2009. Transhumanism, technology, and the future: Posthumanity emerging or sub-humanity descending? The Appraisal Journal. Vol. 7. 39–54.Google Scholar
Fukuyama, Francis. 2002. Our Posthuman Future: Consequences of the Biotechnology Revolution. New York: Farrar, Straus and Giroux.Google Scholar
Hauskeller, Michael. 2009. Prometheus unbound: Transhumanist arguments from (human) nature. Ethical Perspectives. 16. 3–20. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Hyland, Ken. 2002. Authority and invisibility: Authorial identity in academic writing. Journal of Pragmatics, 34: 1091–1112. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
. 2005. Metadiscourse: Exploring interaction in writing. London/New York: Continuum.Google Scholar
Kirby, Vicki. 1999. Human Nature. Australian Feminist Studies, 14:29, 19-29. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Klichowski, Michał. 2015. “Transhumanism and the idea of education in the world of cyborgs”. In Krauze-Sikorska, H. and Klichowski, M. (eds.), The Educational and Social World of a Child. Discourses of Communication, Subjectivity and Cyborgization. Poznan: Adam Mickiewicz University Press. 431–438.Google Scholar
Lareo, Inés; Monaco, Leida Maria; Esteve-Ramos, María José and Moskowich, Isabel (comps.). 2020. The Corpus of English Life Sciences Texts (CELiST). A Coruña: Universidade da Coruña. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Locher, Miriam A. and Jucker, Andreas H. 2017. Pragmatics of Fiction. Berlin: De Gruyter Mouton. Newcastle: Cambridge Scholars. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Mele-Marrero, Margarita. 2021. “Engagement in the botanists of the Corpus of English Life Sciences Texts: Flourishing female scientific writing”. 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. 133–146. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Moskowich, Isabel and Crespo, Begoña. Forthcoming. “… but be ſure you let it ſettle”: Late Modern authors’ presence in scientific texts.
Moskowich, Isabel. 2017. “Pronouns as stance markers in the Coruña Corpus: An analysis of the CETA, CEPhiT and CHET”. In Alonso-Almeida, Francisco (ed.), Stancetaking in Late Modern English Scientific Writing. Evidence from the Coruña Corpus. Colección Scientia [Applied Linguistics]. Valencia: Servicio de Publicaciones de la Universidad Politécnica de Valencia. 73–91.Google Scholar
Nurmi, Arja. 2002. Does size matter? The Corpus of Early English Correspondence and its sampler. Variation Past and Present: VARIENG Studies on English for Terttu Nevalainen. Mémoires de la Société Néophilologique de Helsinki, 61: 173–84.Google Scholar
OED. 1989. Oxford English Dictionary. Retrieved January 20, 2020, from [URL]
Pollock, John. 1990. Philosophy and Artificial Intelligence. Philosophical Perspectives, 4, 461–498. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Quirk, Randolph; Greenbaum, Sydney; Leech, Geoffrey N. and Svartvik, Jan. 1985. A Comprehensive Grammar of the English Language. London: Longman.Google Scholar
Toolan, Michael J. 2010. Narrative Progression in the Short Story: A corpus stylistic approach. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
2011. “How does Literary Language Move Us? On Being ‘Immersed’ and Emotionally Engaged by Literary Narratives.” In Penas Ibañez, Beatriz; Muñoz, Micaela and Conejero, Marta (eds.), Con/Texts of Persuasion. Kassel: Reichenberger. 15–25.Google Scholar
Turkle, Sherry. 2005. “Personal Computers with Personal Meanings”. In Turkle, S. and Ebrary, Inc. (eds.), The second self: Computers and the human spirit. Cambridge, Mass: MIT Press. 155–181. DOI logoGoogle Scholar