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. 265–288

Chapter 14
A study of coherence relations in the English scientific register

Conjunctions in the Corpus of English Life Sciences Texts

ORCID logo | University of the Balearic Islands
 | Heidelberg University
Article outline
  • 1.Introduction
  • 2.Methodology
    • 2.1Corpus description
    • 2.2Variables and procedure
  • 3.Data analysis
    • 3.1Type of relation
    • 3.2Sex of author
    • 3.3Age of author
    • 3.4Place of education
    • 3.5Genre and level of specialisation
  • 4.Conclusions
  • Notes
  • Works cited
  • Appendix
Published online: 10 September 2021
DOI logo
https://doi.org/10.1075/z.237.14bel
References (52)
Works cited
Allen, Bryce; Qin, Jian and Lancaster, Frederik Wilfrid. 1994. Persuasive Communities: A Longitudinal Analysis of References in the Philosophical Transactions of the Royal Society, 1665–1990. Social Studies of Science, 24/2: 279–310.Google Scholar
Anscombre, Jean-Claude, and Oswald Ducrot. 1976. L’argumentation dans la langue. Langages, 42: 5–27. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Asr, Fatemeh Torabi and Demberg, Vera. 2012. “Implicitness of Discourse Relations”. In Kay, Martin and Boitet, Christian (eds.), Proceedings of COLING 2012. Mumbai: The COLING 2012 Organizing Committee. 2669–2684.Google Scholar
Bailey, Richard. 2010. “Variation and Change in Eighteenth-Century English”. In Hickey, Raymond (ed.), Eighteenth Century English: Ideology and Change. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. 182–199. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Barsaglini-Castro, Anabella and Valcarce, Daniel. 2020. The Coruña Corpus Tool: Ten Years on. Procesamiento del Lenguaje Natural, 64: 13–19.Google Scholar
Bazerman, Charles. 1988. Shaping Written Knowledge: The Genre and Activity of the Experimental Article in Science. Madison: The University of Wisconsin Press.Google Scholar
Bhatia, Vijay. 2002. “A Generic View of Academic Discourse”. In Flowerdew, John (ed.), Academic Discourse. London: Pearson Education. 21–39.Google Scholar
Bello, Iria. 2016. Cognitive Implications of Nominalizations in the Advancement of Scientific Discourse. International Journal of English Studies, 16/2: 1–23. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
. 2019. “On Cognitive Complexity in Scientific Discourse: A Corpus-Based Study on Additive Coherence Relations”. 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: John Benjamins. 260–276. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Blakemore, Diane. 1987. Semantic Constraints on Relevance. Oxford: Blackwell.Google Scholar
Bolívar, Adriana and Parodi, Giovanni. 2015. “Academic and Professional Discourse.” In Lacorte, Manel (ed.), The Routledge Handbook of Hispanic Applied Linguistics. London: Routledge. 459–476.Google Scholar
Carston, Robyn. 2002. Thoughts and Utterances: The Pragmatics of Explicit Communication. Oxford: Blackwell. 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
Crespo, Begoña, and Moskowich, Isabel. 2015. Involved in Writing Science: Nineteenth-Century Women in the Coruña Corpus. International Journal of Language and Linguistics, 2/5: 76–88.Google Scholar
Crespo García, Begoña, and Moskowich, Isabel. 2010. CETA in the Context of the Coruña Corpus. Literary and Linguistic Computing, 25/2: 153–164. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Culpeper, Jonathan and Kytö, Merja. 2000. “The Conjunction AND in Early Modern English: Frequencies and Uses in Speech-related Writing and other Texts”. In Bermúdez-Otero, Ricardo; Denison, David; Hogg, Richard M. and McCully, Christopher B. (eds.), Generative Theory and Corpus Studies: A Dialogue from 10ICEHL, (Topics in English Linguistics, 31). Berlin and New York: Mouton de Gruyter. 299–326. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
De Cesare, Anna Maria. 2017. “Introduction: on ‘Additivity’ as a Multidisciplinary Research Field”. In De Cesare, Anna Maria and Andorno, Cecilia (eds.), Focus on Additivity. Adverbial Modifiers in Romance, Germanic and Slavic languages. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. 1–22. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Ducrot, Oswald. 1983. Operateurs argumentatifs et visée argumentative. Cahiers de Linguistique Francaise, 5: 7–36.Google Scholar
Gotti, Maurizio. 2013. “The Formation of The Royal Society as a Community of Practice and Discourse”. In Kopaczyk, Joanna and Jucker, Andreas (eds.), Communities of Practice in the History of English. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. 269–285. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Halliday, Michael and Hasan, Ruqaiya. 1974. Cohesion in English. London: Longman.Google Scholar
Hyland, Ken. 2000. Disciplinary Discourses. Social Interaction In Academic Writing. London: Longman.Google Scholar
. 2011. “Academic Discourse”. In Hyland, Ken and Paltridge, Brian (eds.), The Continuum Companion to Discourse Analysis. London: Continuum. 171–184.Google Scholar
Kintsch, Walter. 1998. Comprehension: A Paradigm for Cognition. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Kleijn, Suzanne; Pander Maat, Henk L. and Sanders, Ted J. M. 2019. Comprehension Effects of Connectives Across Texts, Readers, and Coherence Relations. Discourse Processes, 56/5–6: 447–464. DOI logoGoogle 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
Mann, William; Matthiessen, Christian and Thompson, Sandra. 1992. “Rhetorical structure theory and text analysis”. In Mann, William and Thompson, Sandra (eds.), Discourse Description: Diverse Linguistic Analyses of a Fund-Raising Text. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. 39–78. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Mann, William and Thompson, Sandra. 1987. Rhetorical Structure Theory: A Theory of Text Organization. ISI/RS Report, 87/1: 2–82.Google Scholar
McEnery, Tony and Wilson, Andrew. 1996. Corpus Linguistics. Edinburgh: Edinburgh University Press.Google Scholar
Moessner, Lilo. 2009. The Influence of the Royal Society on 17th-Century Scientific Writing. ICAME Journal, 33: 65–87.Google Scholar
Moskowich, Isabel. 2012. CETA as a tool for the study of modern astronomy in English. In Moskowich, Isabel and Crespo, Begoña (eds.), Astronomy ‘playne and simple’: the writing of Science between 1700 and 1900. Amsterdam/Philadelphia: John Benjamins. 35–57. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
. 2016. Lexical Richness in Modern Women Writers: Evidence from the Corpus of History English Texts. Revista Canaria de Estudies Ingleses, Monographic Issue: Women Scientists, Women Travellers, Women Translators: their Language and their History, 72: 110–128.Google Scholar
. 2017. Genre and Change in the Corpus of History English Texts. Nordic Journal of English Studies, 16: 84–106. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
. 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 and Crespo García, Begoña. 2007. “Presenting the Coruña Corpus: A Collection of Samples for the Historical Study of English Scientific Writing.” In Pérez Guerra, Javier et al. (eds.), ‘Of Varying Language and Opposing Creed’: New Insights into Late Modern English. Bern: Peter Lang. 341–357.Google Scholar
Moskowich, Isabel and Parapar López, José. 2008. “Writing Science, Compiling Science. The Coruña Corpus of English Scientific Writing.” In Lorenzo Modia, María Jesús (ed.), Proceedings from the 31st AEDEAN Conference. A Coruña: Universidade da Coruña, Servizo de Publicacións. 531–544.Google Scholar
Murray, John. 1997. Connectives and Narrative Text: The role of Continuity. Memory and Cognition, 25/2: 227–236. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Parapar López, Javier and Moskowich, Isabel. 2007. The Coruña Corpus Tool. Revista de Procesamiento del Lenguaje Natural, 39: 289–290.Google Scholar
Parodi, Giovanni. 2014. Genre Organisation in Specialised Discourse: Disciplinary Variation across University Textbooks. Discourse Studies, 16/1: 65–87. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
. 2015. Variation across University Genres in Seven Disciplines. A Corpus-Based Study on Academic Written Spanish. International Journal of Corpus Linguistics, 20/4: 469–499. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Parodi, Giovanni; Burdiles, Gina; Moreno de León, Tomás and Julio, Cristóbal. 2018. Hábitos lectores y géneros del discurso en filosofía y en economía y negocios: del discurso académico al discurso profesional. Revista de lingüística teórica y aplicada, 56/2: 117–152. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Puente-Castelo, Luis and Monaco, Leida María. 2016. The might of ‘might’: A Mitigating Strategy in Eighteenth and Nineteenth Century Female Scientific Discourse. Revista Canaria de Estudios Ingleses, 72: 143–168.Google Scholar
Rudolph, Elisabeth. 1996. Contrast: Adversative and Concessive Relations and their Expressions in English, German, Spanish, Portuguese on Sentence and Text level. New York / Berlin: de Gruyter. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Sanders, Ted. 2005. “Coherence, Causality and Cognitive Complexity in Discourse”. In Aurnague, Michel, Bras, Myriam, Le Draoulec Anne and Vieu, Laure (eds.), Proceedings/Actes SEM-05, First International Symposium on the Exploration and Modelling of Meaning. Toulouse: Université de Toulouse – Le Mirail. 105–114.Google Scholar
Sanders, Ted and Pander Maat, Henk. 2006. “Cohesion and Coherence: Linguistic Approaches”. In Brown, Keith (ed.), Encyclopedia of Language and Linguistics (Volume 2). London: Elsevier. 591–595. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Sanders, Ted; Spooren, Wilbert and Noordman, Leo. 1992. Toward a Taxonomy of Coherence Relations. Discourse Processes, 15: 1–35. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Segal, Erwin; Duchan, Judith and Scott, Paula. 1991. The Role of Interclausal Connectives in Narrative Structuring: Evidence from Adults’ Interpretations of Simple Stories. Discourse Processes, 14/1: 27–54. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Swales, John. 1990. Genre Analysis. English in Academic and Research Settings. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
. 2004. Research Genres: Explorations and Applications. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Taatvitsainen, Irma. 2001. Changing Conventions of Writing: The Dynamics of Genres, Text Types, and Text Traditions. European Journal of English Studies, 5/2: 139–150. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Tieken-Boon van Ostade, Ingrid. 2010. “Eighteenth-Century Women and the Norms of Correctness”. In Hickey, Raymond (ed.), Eighteenth-Century English: Ideology and Change. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. 59–72. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Van Dijk, Teun and Kintsch, Walter. 1983. Strategies of Discourse Comprehension. New York: Academic Press.Google Scholar
Wagner, Suzanne Evans. 2012. Age Grading in Sociolinguistic Theory. Language and Linguistics Compass, 6/6: 371–382. DOI logoGoogle Scholar