Chapter published in:
“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. 228247
Works cited

Works cited

Abdollahzadeh, Esmaeel
2011Poring over the findings: Interpersonal authorial engagement in applied linguistics papers. Journal of Pragmatics, Elsevier B.V. 43/1: 288–297. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Alonso-Almeida, Francisco
2015On the mitigating function of modality and evidentiality. Evidence from English and Spanish medical research papers. Intercultural Pragmatics, 12/1: 33–57. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Alonso-Almeida, Francisco and Mele-Marrero, Margarita
2014Stancetaking in seventeenth-century prefaces on obstetrics. Journal of Historical Pragmatics 15/1: 1–35. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Álvarez-Gil, Francisco J.
2021 “Authority and deontic modals in Late Modern English: Evidence from the Corpus of 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. 249–264. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Barsaglini-Castro, Anabella and Valcarce, Daniel
2020The Coruña Corpus Tool: Ten Years On. Procesamiento del Lenguaje Natural, 64: 13–19.Google Scholar
Biber, Douglas; Johansson, Stig; Leech, Geoffrey; Conrad, Susan and Finegan, Edward
1999Longman Grammar of Spoken and Written English. London: Longman.Google Scholar
Biber, Douglas and Finegan, Edward
1989Adverbial stance types in English. Discourse Processes, 11: 1–34. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Caffi, Claudia
2007Mitigation (Studies in Pragmatics). London: Elsevier.Google Scholar
Chafe, Wallace
1986 “Evidentiality in English conversation and academic writing”. In Chafe, William and Nichols, Johanna (eds.), Evidentiality: The linguistic coding of epistemology. Norwood, NJ: Ablex. 261–272.Google Scholar
Charles, Maggie
2007Argument or evidence? Disciplinary variation in the use of the Noun that pattern in stance construction. English for Specific Purposes, 23: 203–218. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Clift, Rebecca
2006Indexing stance: Reported speech as an interactional evidential. Journal of Sociolinguistics, 10/5: 569–595. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Crespo, Begoña
2015Women writing Science in the eighteenth century: A preliminary approach to their language in use. Anglica. An International Journal of English Studies, 24/2: 103–127.Google Scholar
Crespo, Begoña and Moskowich, Isabel
2015Involved In Writing Science: Nineteenth-Century Women in the Coruña Corpus. International Journal of Language and Linguistics, 2/5: 76–88.Google Scholar
Crismore, Avon and Farnsworth, Rodney
1989Mr. Darwin and his readers: Exploring interpersonal metadiscourse as a dimension of ethos. Rhetoric Review, 8/1: 91–112. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Estellés, Maria and Albelda Marco, Marta
2018 “On the dynamicity of evidential scales”. In Bates Figueras, Carolina and Cabedo Nebot, Adrián (eds.), Perspectives on Evidentiality in Spanish. Explorations across genres. Amsterdam, New York: John Benjamins. 25–48. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Fox, Barbara A.
2008Evidentiality: Authority, Responsibility, and Entitlement in English Conversation. Journal of Linguistic Anthropology, 11: 167–92. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Halliday, Michael and Matthiessen, Christian
2014An Introduction to Functional Grammar. New York: Taylor & Francis. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Hardie, Andrew
2014Log ratio–an informal introduction. ESCR Centre for Corpus Approaches to Social Science (CASS). Retrieved May 17, 2020, from http://​cass​.lancs​.ac​.uk​/log​-ratio​-an​-informal​-introduction/
Hyland, Ken
1998Hedging in Scientific Research Articles (Pragmatics & Beyond New Series). Vol. 54. Amsterdam: John Benjamins Publishing Company. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
2005aStance and engagement: A model of interaction in academic discourse. Discourse Studies, 7/2: 173–192. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
2005bMetadiscourse. Exploring Interaction in Writing. London, New York: Continuum.Google Scholar
Hyland, Ken and Jiang, Feng (Kevin)
2018a “In this paper we suggest”: Changing patterns of disciplinary metadiscourse. English for Specific Purposes, 51: 18–30. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
2018b‘We Believe That … ’: Changes in an Academic Stance Marker. Australian Journal of Linguistics, 38/2: 139–161. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Hyland, Ken and Tse, Polly
2005aEvaluative that constructions: Signalling stance in research abstracts. Functions of Language, 12/1: 39–63. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
2005bHooking the reader: A corpus study of evaluative that in abstracts. English for Specific Purposes, 24/2: 123–139. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Jalilifar, Alireza; Hayati, Samira and Don, Alexanne
2018Investigating metadiscourse markers in book reviews and blurbs: A study of interested and disinterested genres. Studies About Languages, 2824/33: 90–107. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Jiang, Feng (Kevin) and Hyland, Ken
2015 “The fact that”: Stance nouns in disciplinary writing. Discourse Studies, 17/5: 529–550. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Johnstone, Barbara
2009 “Stance, style, and the linguistic individual”. In Jaffe, Alexandra (ed.), Stance: sociolinguistic perspectives. Oxford: Oxford University Press. 29–71. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Kendall, Shari
2004Framing authority: Gender, face, and mitigation at a radio network. Discourse and Society, 15/1: 55–79. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Kim, Chanhee and Crosthwaite, Peter
2019Disciplinary differences in the use of evaluative that: Expression of stance via that-clauses in business and medicine. Journal of English for Academic Purposes, 100775: 1–14. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Lareo, Inés; Monaco, Leida Maria; Esteve-Ramos, María José and Moskowich, Isabel
(comps.) 2020The Corpus of English Life Sciences Texts (CELiST). CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Marín-Arrese, Juana I.
2011Epistemic legitimizing strategies, commitment and accountability in discourse. Discourse Studies, 13/6: 789–797. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Marín Arrese, Juana I.
2009 “Effective vs. epistemic stance, and subjectivity/ intersubjectivity in political discourse. A case study”. In Tsangalidis, Anastasios and Facchinetti, Roberta (eds.), Studies on English modality. In honour of Frank R. Palmer. Bern/ New York: Peter Lang. 23–52.Google Scholar
Martin, James
2000 “Beyond exchange: APPRAISAL systems in English”. In Hunston, Susan and Thompson, Geoffrey (eds.), Evaluation in text: authorial stance and the construction of discourse. Oxford: Oxford University Press. 142–175.Google Scholar
Mauranen, Anna and Bondi, Marina
2003Evaluative language use in academic discourse. Journal of English for Academic Purposes, 2/4: 269–271. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
McEnery, Anthony and Baker, Helen
2016Corpus Linguistics and 17th-Century Prostitution: Computational Linguistics and History. London, New York: Bloomsbury Publishing.Google Scholar
Moskowich, Isabel
2013Eighteenth Century Female Authors: Women and Science in the Coruña Corpus of English Scientific Writing. Australian Journal of Linguistics 33/4: 467–487. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Rozumko, Agata
2019Between acknowledgement and countering: Interpersonal functions of English reportative adverbs. Journal of Pragmatics, 140: 1–11. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Stotesbury, Hilkka
2003Evaluation in research article abstracts in the narrative and hard sciences. Journal of English for Academic Purposes, 2/4: 327–341. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Thompson, Geoff
2001Interaction in academic writing: learning to argue with the reader. Applied Linguistics, 22/1: 58–78. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Vande Kopple, William J.
2002 “Metadiscourse, discourse and issues in composition and rhetoric”. In Barton, Ellen and Stygall, Gail. (eds.), Discourse Studies in Composition. Cresskill, NJ: Hampton Press. 91–113.Google Scholar
Wetherell, Margaret
2013Affect and discourse –What’s the problem? From affect as excess to affective/discursive practice. Subjectivity, 6/4: 349–368. CrossrefGoogle Scholar