Adams, Karen L., and Winter, Anne. 1997. Gang graffiti as a discourse genre. Journal of Sociolinguistics 1 (3): 337–360.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Ädel, Annelie, and Reppen, Randi (eds.). 2008. Corpora and discourse: the challenges of different settings. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.CrossRef

Adolphs, Svenja. 2008. Corpus and context: investigating pragmatic functions in spoken discourse. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Archer, Dawn. 2002. “Can innocent people be guilty?”: a sociopragmatic analysis of examination transcripts from the Salem witchcraft trials. Journal of Historical Pragmatics 3 (1): 1–30.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Archer, Dawn. 2006. (Re)initiating strategies: judges and defendants in Early Modern English courtrooms. Journal of Historical Pragmatics 7 (2): 181–211.Google Scholar

Artemeva, Natasha. 2008. Toward a unified social theory of genre learning. Journal of Business and Technical Communication 22 (2): 160–185.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Atifi, Hassan, and Marcoccia, Michel. 2006. Television genre as an object of negation: a semio-pragmatic analysis of French political “television forums”. Journal of Pragmatics 38: 250–268.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Atkinson, Dwight. 1992. The evolution of medical research writing from 1735 to 1985: the case of the Edinburgh Medical Journal. Applied Linguistics 13: 337–374.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Atkinson, Dwight. 1996. The Philosophical Transactions of the Royal Society of London, 1675–1975: a sociohistorical discourse analysis. Language in Society 25: 333–371.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Atkinson, Dwight. 1999. Scientific discourse in sociohistorical context: the Philosophical Transactions of the Royal Society of London, 1675–1975. Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.Google Scholar

Badger, Richard. 2003. Legal and general: towards a genre analysis of newspaper law reports. English for Specific Purposes 22: 249–263.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Bamford, Julia. 1997. The role of metaphor in argumentation in economic texts: the case of the research article on stock markets. In Bussi, Bondi, and Gatta 1997.

Bamford, Julia. 2005. Subjective or objective evaluation? Prediction in academic lectures. In Tognini-Bonelli and Camiciotti 2005, 17–30.

Barbieri, Federica. 2005. Quotative use in American English: a corpus-based, cross-register comparison. Journal of English Linguistics 33 (3): 222–256.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Bargiela-Chiappini, Francesca, and Nickerson, Catherine (eds.). 1999. Writing business: genres, media, and discourses. London: Longman.

Bargiela-Chiappini, Francesca, and Harris, Sandra. 1997. Managing language: the discourse of corporate meetings. Amsterdam and Philadelphia: John Benjamins Publishing Company.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Basso, Keith H. 1974. The ethnography of writing. In Explorations in the ethnography of speaking, ed. Bauman, by R. and Sherzer, J., 425–432. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar

Basturkmen, Helen. 1999. Discourse in MBA seminars: towards a description for pedagogical purposes. English for Specific Purposes 18 (1): 63–80.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Basturkmen, Helen. 2002. Negotiating meaning in seminar-type discussion and EAP. English for Specific Purposes 21: 233–242.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Baxter, Scott. 2004. Imaginary summits. Flagstaff, AZ: Vishnu Temple Press.Google Scholar

Bazerman, Charles. 1984. Modern evolution of the experimental report in physics: spectroscopic articles in physical review, 1893–1980. Social Studies of Science 14: 163–196.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Bazerman, Charles. 1988. Shaping written knowledge: the genre and activity of the experimental article in science. Madison: University of Wisconsin Press.Google Scholar

Bazerman, Charles, and Paradis, James (eds.). 1991. Textual dynamics of the professions: historical and contemporary studies of writing in professional communities. Madison: University of Wisconsin Press.

Bednarek, Monika. 2006. Evaluation in media discourse: analysis of a newspaper corpus. London: Continuum.Google Scholar

Bell, Allan. 1984. Language style as audience design. Language in Society 13: 145–204.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Bell, Allan. 2001. Back in style: reworking audience design. In Style and sociolinguistic variation, ed. by Eckert, P. and Rickford, J., 139–169. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar

Bergs, Alexander T. 2004. Letters: a new approach to text typology. Journal of Historical Pragmatics 5 (2): 207–227.Google Scholar

Berkentotter, Carol, and Huckin, Thomas N.. 1995. Genre knowledge in disciplinary communication: cognition/culture/power. Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.Google Scholar

Besnier, Niko. 1988. The linguistic relationships of spoken and written Nukulaelae registers. Language 64: 707–736.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Besnier, Niko. 1989. Literacy and feelings: the encoding of affect in Nukulaelae letters. Text 9: 69–92.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Bevitori, Cinzia. 2005. Attribution as evaluation: a corpus-based investigation of quotations in parliamentary discourse. ESP across Cultures 2: 7–20.Google Scholar

Bhatia, Vijay K. 1993. Analysing genre: language use in professional settings. London: Longman.Google Scholar

Bhatia, Vijay K.. 1997. Genre-mixing in academic introductions. English for Specific Purposes 16 (3): 181–195.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Bhatia, Vijay K.. 2002. A generic view of academic discourse. In Flowerdew 2002, 21–39.

Bhatia, Vijay K.. 2005. Generic patterns in promotional discourse. In Halmari and Virtanen 2005, 213–225.

Biber, Douglas. 1986. Spoken and written textual dimensions in English: resolving the contradictory findings. Language 62: 384–414.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Biber, Douglas. 1987. A textual comparison of British and American writing. American Speech 62: 99–119.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Biber, Douglas. 1988. Variation across speech and writing. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Biber, Douglas. 1990. Methodological issues regarding corpus-based analyses of linguistic variation. Literary and Linguistic Computing 5: 257–269.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Biber, Douglas. 1991. Oral and literate characteristics of selected primary school reading materials. Text 11: 73–96.Google Scholar

Biber, Douglas. 1992. On the complexity of discourse complexity: a multidimensional analysis. Discourse Processes 15: 133–163.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Biber, Douglas. 1993. Representativeness in corpus design. Literary and Linguistic Computing 8: 243–257.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Biber, Douglas. 1994. An analytical framework for register studies. In Sociolinguistic perspectives on register, ed. by Biber, D. and Finegan, E., 31–56. New York: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar

Biber, Douglas. 1995. Dimensions of register variation: a cross-linguistic comparison. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Biber, Douglas. 1999. A register perspective on grammar and discourse: variability in the form and use of English complement clauses. Discourse Studies 1: 131–150.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Biber, Douglas. 2003. Compressed noun phrase structures in newspaper discourse: the competing demands of popularization vs. economy. In New media language, ed. by Aitchison, J. and Lewis, D., 169–181. London: Routledge.Google Scholar

Biber, Douglas. 2004a. Historical patterns for the grammatical marking of stance: a cross-register comparison. Journal of Historical Pragmatics 5: 107–135.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Biber, Douglas. 2004b. Modal use across registers and time. In Studies in the history of the English language II: unfolding conversations, ed. by Curzan, A. and Emmons, K., 189–216. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter.Google Scholar

Biber, Douglas. 2006a. University language: a corpus-based study of spoken and written registers. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Biber, Douglas. 2006b. Stance in spoken and written university registers. Journal of English for Academic Purposes 5: 97–116.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Biber, Douglas. 2008. Corpus-based analyses of discourse: dimensions of variation in conversation. In Advances in discourse studies, ed. by Bhatia, V., Flowerdew, J., and Jones, R., 100–114. London: Routledge.Google Scholar

Biber, Douglas, and Barbieri, Federica. 2007. Lexical bundles in university spoken and written registers. English for Specific Purposes 26: 263–286.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Biber, Douglas, and Burges, Jená. 2000. Historical change in the language use of women and men: gender differences in dramatic dialogue. Journal of English Linguistics 28: 21–37.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Biber, Douglas, and Clark, Victoria. 2002. Historical shifts in modification patterns with complex noun phrase structures: How long can you go without a verb? In English historical syntax and morphology, ed. by Fanego, T., López-Couso, M. J., and Pérez-Guerra, J., 43–66. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Biber, Douglas, Connor, Ulla, and Upton, Thomas A.. 2007. Discourse on the move: using corpus analysis to describe discourse structure. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Biber, Douglas, Conrad, Susan, and Cortes, Viviana. 2004. If you look at…: lexical bundles in university teaching and textbooks. Applied Linguistics 25: 371–405.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Biber, Douglas, Conrad, Susan, and Reppen, Randi. 1998. Corpus linguistics: investigating language structure and use. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Biber, Douglas, Conrad, Susan, Reppen, Randi, Byrd, Pat, and Helt, Marie. 2002. Speaking and writing in the university: a multi-dimensional comparison. TESOL Quarterly 36: 9–48.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Biber, Douglas, Davies, Mark, Jones, James K., and Tracy-Ventura, Nicole. 2006. Spoken and written register variation in Spanish: a multi-dimensional analysis. Corpora 1: 7–38.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Biber, Douglas, and Finegan, Edward 1989a. Drift and the evolution of English style: a history of three genres. Language 65: 487–517.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Biber, Douglas, and Finegan, Edward. 1989b. Styles of stance in English: lexical and grammatical marking of evidentiality and affect. Text 9: 93–124.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Biber, Douglas, and Finegan, Edward. 1992. The linguistic evolution of five written and speech-based English genres from the 17th to the 20th centuries. In History of Englishes: new methods and interpretations in historical linguistics, ed. by Rissanen, M., Ihalainen, O., Nevalainen, T., and Taavitsainen, I., 688–704. Berlin: Mouton.Google Scholar

Biber, Douglas, and Finegan, Edward (eds.). 1994a. Sociolinguistic perspectives on register. New York: Oxford University Press.

Biber, Douglas, and Finegan, Edward. 1994b. Multi-dimensional analyses of authors' styles: Some case studies from the eighteenth century. In Research in humanities computing 3, ed. by Ross, D. and Brink, D., 3–17. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar

Biber, Douglas, and Finegan, Edward. 1994c. Intra-textual variation within medical research articles. In Corpus-based research into language, ed. by Oostdijk, N. and Haan, P., 201–222. Amsterdam: Rodopi.Google Scholar

Biber, Douglas, and Finegan, Edward. 1997. Diachronic relations among speech-based and written registers in English. In To explain the present: studies in the changing English language in honour of Matti Rissanen, ed. by Nevalainen, T. and Kahlas-Tarkka, L., 253–275. Helsinki: Société Néophilologique. (Reprinted in Conrad and Biber 2001, 66–83.)Google Scholar

Biber, Douglas, Finegan, Edward, and Atkinson, Dwight. 1994. ARCHER and its challenges: compiling and analyzing a representative corpus of historical English registers. In Creating and using English language corpora, ed. by Fries, U., Tottie, G., and Schneider, P., 1–14. Amsterdam: Rodopi.Google Scholar

Biber, Douglas, and Hared, Mohammed. 1992. Dimensions of register variation in Somali. Language Variation and Change 4: 41–75.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Biber, Douglas, and Hared, Mohammed. 1994. Linguistic correlates of the transition to literacy in Somali: language adaptation in six press registers. In Biber, and Finegan, (eds.) 1994, 182–216.

Biber, Douglas, Johansson, Stig, Leech, Geoffrey, Conrad, Susan, and Finegan, Edward. 1999. The Longman grammar of spoken and written English. London: Longman.Google Scholar

Biber, Douglas, and Jones, James K.. 2005. Merging corpus linguistic and discourse analytic research goals: discourse units in biology research articles. Corpus Linguistics and Linguistic Theory 1: 151–182.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Biber, D., and Reppen, R.. 2002. What does frequency have to do with grammar teaching?Studies in Second Language Acquisition 24: 199–208.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Bloch, Maurice. 1993. The uses of schooling and literacy in a Zafimaniry village. In Cross-cultural approaches to literacy, ed. by Street, Brian V., 87–109. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar

Bolívar, Adriana. 1992. The analysis of political discourse, with particular reference to the Venezuelan political dialogue. English for Specific Purposes 11: 159–175.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Bondi, Marina. 1999. English across genres: language variation in the discourse of economics. Modena: Edizioni Il Fiorino.Google Scholar

Bondi Paganelli, Marina. 1997. L'argomentazione analogica nel discorso economico: un esempio di analisi. In Bussi, , Bondi, , and Gatta, (eds.) 1997, 105–121.

Bondi Paganelli, Marina, and Camiciotti, Gabriella Del Lungo. 1995. Analysing economics and news discourse. Bologna: CLUEB.

Bowcher, Wendy L. 2003. Speaker contributions in radio sports commentary. Text 23 (4): 445–476.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Brett, Paul. 1994. A genre analysis of the results section of sociology articles. English for Specific Purposes 13 (1): 47–59.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Brown, Penelope, and Colin, Fraser. 1979. Speech as a marker of situation. In Social markers in speech, ed. by Scherer, K. R. and Giles, H., 33–62. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar

Brown, R. W., and Ford, M.. 1961. Address in American English. Journal of Abnormal and Social Psychology 62: 375–385.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Brown, R. W., and Gilman, A.. 1960. The pronouns of power and solidarity. American Anthropologist 4: 24–39.Google Scholar

Bruthiaux, Paul. 1994. Me Tarzan, you Jane: linguistic simplification in “personal ads” register. In Biber, and Finegan, (eds.) 1994, 136–154.

Bruthiaux, Paul. 1996. The discourse of classified advertising: exploring the nature of linguistic simplicity. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar

Bruthiaux, Paul. 2005. In a nutshell: persuasion in the spatially constrained language of advertising. In Halmari, and Virtanen, (eds.) 2005, 135–152.CrossRef

Bugaj, Joanna. 2006. The language of legal writings in 16th century Scots and English: and etymological study of binomials. ESP across Cultures 3: 7–22.Google Scholar

Bülow-Møller, Anne Marie. 2005. Persuasion in business negotiations. In Halmari, and Virtanen, (eds.) 2005, 27–58.

Bunton, David. 1999. The use of higher level metatext in Ph.D. theses. English for Specific Purposes 18: 841–856.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Bunton, David. 2002. Generic moves in Ph.D. thesis Introductions. In Flowerdew, (ed.) 2002, 57–75.

Bunton, David. 2005. The structure of PhD conclusion chapters. Journal of English for Academic Purposes 4: 207–224.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Bussi, Elisa, Bondi, Marina, and Gatta, F (eds.). 1997. Understanding argument: la logica informale del discorso: atti del convegno Forli, 5–6 Dicembre 1995. Bologna: Cooperativa Libraria Universitaria Editrice Bologna.

Caballero, Rosario. 2003. Metaphor and genre: the presence and role of metaphor in the building review. Applied Linguistics 24 (2): 145–167.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Carter, Ronald. 1988. Front pages: lexis, style, and newspaper reports. In Ghadessy, (ed.) 1988, 8–16.

Carter, Ronald, and McCarthy, Michael. 1997. Exploring spoken English. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar

Carter, Ronald, and McCarthy, Michael. 2004. Talking, creating: interactional language, creativity and context. Applied Linguistics 25 (1): 62–88.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Cazden, Courtney B. 2001. Classroom discourse: the language of teaching and learning. 2nd edn. Portsmouth, NH: Heinemann.Google Scholar

Chafe, Wallace. 1982. Integration and involvement in speaking, writing, and oral Literature. In Spoken and written language: exploring orality and literacy, ed. by Tannen, D., 35–53. Norwood, NJ: Ablex.Google Scholar

Channell, Joanna. 1990. Precise and vague quantifiers in writing on economics. In The writing scholar: studies in academic discourse, ed. by Nash, W., 95–117. Newbury Park: Sage Publications.Google Scholar

Charles, Maggie. 2003. “This mystery…”: a corpus-based study of the use of nouns to construct stance in theses from two contrasting disciplines. Journal of English for Academic Purposes 2: 313–326.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Charles, Maggie. 2006a. The construction of stance in reporting clauses: a cross-disciplinary study of theses. Applied Linguistics 27 (3): 492–518.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Charles, Maggie. 2006b. Phraseological patterns in reporting clauses used in citation: a corpus-based study of theses in two disciplines. English for Specific Purposes 25: 310–331.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Charles, Maggie. 2007. Argument or evidence? Disciplinary variation in the use of the Noun that pattern. English for Specific Purposes 26: 203–218.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Christie, Frances. 2002. Classroom discourse analysis. London: Continuum.Google Scholar

Christie, Frances, and Martin, J. R. (eds.). 1997. Genre and institutions: social processes in the workplace and school. London and New York: Continuum.

Claridge, Claudia. 2005. Questions in Early Modern English pamphlets. Journal of Historical Pragmatics 6 (1): 133–168.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Collins, Daniel E. 2006. Speech reporting and the suppression of orality in seventeenth-century Russian trial dossiers. Journal of Historical Pragmatics 7 (2): 265–292.Google Scholar

Collins, Peter. 1995. The indirect object construction in English: an informational approach. Linguistics 33: 35–49.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Collot, Milena, and Belmore, Nancy. 1996. Electronic language: a new variety of English. In Herring, (ed.) 1996, 13–28.CrossRef

Connor, Ulla. 1996. Contrastive rhetoric: cross-cultural aspects of second-language writing. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Connor, Ulla. 2000. Variation in rhetorical moves in grant proposals of US humanists and scientists. Text 20: 1–28.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Connor, Ulla, and Mauranen, Anna. 1999. Linguistic analysis of grant proposals: European Union research grants. English for Specific Purposes 18 (1): 47–62.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Connor, Ulla, Nagelhout, Ed, and Rozycki, William V. 2008. Contrastive rhetoric: reaching to intercultural rhetoric. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Connor, Ulla, and Upton, Tomas A.. 2003. Linguistic dimensions of direct mail letters. In Corpus analysis: language structure and language use, ed. by Meyer, C. and Leistyna, P., 71–86. Amsterdam: Rodopi.Google Scholar

Connor, Ulla, and Upton, Tomas A.. (eds.). 2004a. Discourse in the professions. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.CrossRef

Connor, Ulla, and Upton, Tomas A.. 2004b. The genre of grant proposals: a corpus linguistic analysis. In Connor, and Upton, (eds.) 2004a, 235–256.

Connor-Linton, Jeff. 1988. Author's style and world-view in nuclear discourse: a quantitative analysis. Multilingua 7: 95–132.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Connor-Linton, Jeff. 2001. Author's style and world-view: a comparison of texts about nuclear arms policy. In Conrad, and Biber, (eds.) 2001, 84–93.

Conrad, Susan. 1996. Investigating academic texts with corpus-based techniques: an example from biology. Linguistics and Education 8: 299–326.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Conrad, Susan. 1999. The importance of corpus-based research for language teachers. System 27: 1–18.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Conrad, Susan. 2000. Will corpus linguistics revolutionize grammar teaching in the 21st century?TESOL Quarterly 34: 548–560.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Conrad, Susan. 2001. Variation among disciplinary texts: a comparison of textbooks and journal articles in biology and history. In Conrad, and Biber, (eds.) 2001, 94–107.

Conrad, Susan. 2004. Corpus linguistics, language variation, and language teaching. In How to use corpora in language teaching, ed. by Sinclair, J., 67–85. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Conrad, Susan. 2005. Corpus linguistics and L2 teaching. In Handbook of research in second language teaching and learning, ed. by Hinkel, E., 393–409. Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.Google Scholar

Conrad, Susan, and Biber, Douglas. 2000. Adverbial marking of stance in speech and writing. In Hunston, and Thompson, (eds.) 2000, 56–73.

Conrad, Susan, and Biber, Douglas. (eds.). 2001. Variation in English: multi-dimensional studies. London: Longman.Google Scholar

Cortes, Viviana. 2004. Lexical bundles in published and student disciplinary writing: examples from history and biology. English for Specific Purposes 23: 397–423.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Coulmas, Florian (ed.). 1997. The handbook of sociolinguistics. Oxford: Blackwell.

Coulthard, Malcolm (ed.). 1994. Advances in written text analysis. London: Routledge.CrossRef

Coupland, Nikolas. 1980. Style-shifting at a Cardiff work-setting. Language in Society 9: 1–12.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Coupland, Nikolas. 2007. Style: language variation and identity. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Crismore, Avon, Markkanen, Raija, and Steffensen, Margaret. 1993. Metadiscourse in persuasive writing: a study of texts written by American and Finnish university students. Written Communication 10 (1): 39–71.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Crossley, Scott. 2007. A chronotopic approach to genre analysis: an exploratory study. English for Specific Purposes 26: 4–24.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Crossley, Scott A., and Louwerse, Max M.. 2007. Multi-dimensional register classification using bigrams. International Journal of Corpus Linguistics 12: 453–478.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Crystal, David. 2001. Language and the internet. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Crystal, David, and Davy, Derek. 1969. Investigating English style. London: Longman.Google Scholar

Csomay, Eniko. 2005. Linguistic variation within university classroom talk: a corpus-based perspective. Linguistics and Education 15: 243–74.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Csomay, Eniko. 2007. Vocabulary-based discourse units in university class sessions. In Biber, Connor, and Upton 2007, 213–238.

Culpeper, Jonathan, and Kytö, Merja. 1999. Modifying pragmatic force: hedges in Early Modern English dialogues. In Historical dialogue analysis, ed. by Jucker, A. H., Fritz, G., and Lebsanft, F., 293–312. Pragmatics and Beyond, new series 66; Amsterdam and Philadelphia: John Benjamins.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Culpeper, Jonathan, and Kytö, Merja. 2000. Data in historical pragmatics: spoken interaction (re)cast as writing. Journal of Historical Pragmatics 1 (2): 175–199.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Culpeper, Jonathan, and Kytö, Merja. Forthcoming. Early modern English dialogues: spoken interaction as writing. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

Culpeper, Jonathan, and Semino, Elena. 2000. Constructing witches and spells: speech acts and activity types in Early Modern England. Journal of Historical Pragmatics 1(1): 97–116.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Cutting, Joan. 1999. The grammar of the in-group code. Applied Linguistics 20 (2): 179–202.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Cutting, Joan. 2000. Analysing the language of discourse communities. Amsterdam: Elsevier.Google Scholar

Danet, Brenda. 1980. Language in the legal process. Law and Society Review 14: 445–564.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Cruz Cabanillas, Isabel, Martinez, Cristina Tejedor, Prados, Mercedes Diez, and Redondo, Esperanza Cerda. 2007. English loanwords in Spanish computer language. English for Specific Purposes 26: 52–78.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

del-Teso-Craviotto, Marisol. 2006a. Language and sexuality in Spanish and English dating chats. Journal of Sociolinguistics 10 (4): 460–480.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

del-Teso-Craviotto, Marisol. 2006b. Words that matter: lexical choice and gender ideologies in women's magazines. Journal of Pragmatics 38: 2003–2021.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Dickerson, Paul. 2001. Disputing with care: analysing interviewees' treatment of interviewers' prior turns in televised political interviews. Discourse Studies 3 (2): 203–222.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Ding, Huiling. 2007. Genre analysis of personal statements: analysis of moves in application essays to medical and dental schools. English for Specific Purposes 26: 368–392.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Donohue, James P. 2006. How to support a one-handed economist: the role of modalization in economic forecasting. English for Specific Purposes 25: 200–216.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Dos Santos, Mauro Bittencourt. 1996. The textual organization of research paper abstracts in applied linguistics. Text 16: 481–499.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Dos Santos, V. B. M. Pinto. 2002. Genre analysis of business letters of negotiation. English for Specific Purposes 21: 167–199.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Doty, Kathleen L., and Hiltunen, Risto. 2002. “I will tell, I will tell”: Confessional patterns in the Salem Witchcraft Trials, 1692. Journal of Historical Pragmatics 3 (2): 299–335.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Douglas, Dan. 2000. Assessing languages for specific purposes. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar

Dressen, Dacia. 2003. Geologists' implicit persuasive strategies and the construction of evaluative evidence. Journal of English for Academic Purposes 2: 273–290.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Dubois, Betty Lou. 1980. Genre and structure of biomedical speeches. Forum Linguisticum 5: 140–166.Google Scholar

Duranti, A. 1981. The Samoan fono: a Sociolinguistic study. Canberra: The Australian National University.Google Scholar

Duranti, A.. 1994. From grammar to politics: linguistic anthropology in a western Samoan village. Berkeley and Los Angeles: University of California Press.Google Scholar

Eckert, Penelope, and Rickford, John R. (eds.). 2002. Style and sociolinguistic variation. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.CrossRef

Edwards, Derek. 2006. Facts, norms and dispositions: practical uses of the modal verb would in police interrogations. Discourse Studies 8 (4): 475–501.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Eggins, Suzanne, Wignell, Peter, and Martin, J. R.. 1993. The discourse of history: distancing the recoverable past. In Ghadessy, (ed.) 1993a, 75–109.

Ervin-Tripp, Susan. 1972. On sociolinguistic rules: alternation and co-occurrence. In Directions in sociolinguistics: the ethnography of communication, ed. by Gumperz, J. and Hymes, D., 213–250. New York: Holt.Google Scholar

Evangelisti Allori, Paola (ed.). 1998. Academic discourse in Europe. Rome: Bulzoni.

Feak, Christine, Reinhart, Susan, and Sinsheimer, Ann. 2000. A preliminary analysis of law review notes. English for Specific Purposes 19: 197–220.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Ferguson, Charles. 1983. Sports announcer talk: syntactic aspects of register variation. Language in Society 12: 153–72.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Ferguson, Charles. 1994. Dialect, register, and genre: working assumptions about conventionalization. In Biber, and Finegan, (eds.) 1994a, 15–30.

Ferguson, Gibson. 2001. If you pop over there: a corpus-based study of conditionals in medical discourse. English for Specific Purposes 20: 61–82.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Finegan, Edward, and Biber, Douglas. 1994. Register and social dialect variation: an integrated approach. In Biber, and Finegan, (eds.) 1994, 315–347.

Finegan, Edward, and Biber, Douglas. 2001. Register variation and social dialect variation: the register axiom. In Style and sociolinguistic variation, ed. by Eckert, P. and Rickford, J., 235–267. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar

Fitzmaurice, Susan M. 2002a. The familiar letter in Early Modern English. Amsterdam and Philadelphia: John Benjamins.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Fitzmaurice, Susan M.. 2002b. “Plethoras of witty verbiage” and “heathen Greek”: ways of reading meaning in English comic drama. Journal of Historical Pragmatics 3 (1): 31–60.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Fitzmaurice, Susan M.. 2002c. Politeness and modal meaning in the construction of humiliative discourse in an early eighteenth-century network of patron–client relationships. English Language and Linguistics 6: 239–266.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Fitzmaurice, Susan M.. 2003. The grammar of stance in early eighteenth-century English epistolary language. In Corpus analysis: language structure and language use, ed. by Leistyna, P. and Meyer, C., 107–132. Amsterdam: Rodopi.Google Scholar

Fitzmaurice, Susan M., and Taavitsainen, Irma (eds.). 2007. Methods in historical pragmatics. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Flowerdew, John (ed.). 2002. Academic discourse. Harlow: Longman.Google Scholar

Flowerdew, John, and Dudley-Evans, Tony. 2002. Genre analysis of editorial letters to international journal contributors. Applied Linguistics 23 (4): 463–489.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Flowerdew, John, and Peacock, Matthew (eds.). 2001. Research perspectives on English for academic purposes. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.CrossRef

Flowerdew, John, and Wan, Alina. 2006. Genre analysis of tax computation letters: how and why tax accountants write the way they do. English for Specific Purposes 25: 133–153.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Fludernik, Monika. 2000. Narrative discourse markers in Malory's Morte D'Arthur. Journal of Historical Pragmatics 2 (1): 231–262.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Fortanet, Inmaculada. 2004. The use of “we” in university lectures: reference and function. English for Specific Purposes 23: 45–66.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Fortanet, Inmaculada. 2005. Honoris Causa speeches: an approach to structure. Discourse Studies 7 (1): 31–51.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Fortanet, Inmaculada, Posteguillo, Santiago, Palmer, Juan Carlos, and Coll, Juan Franscisco (eds.). 1998. Genre studies in English for academic purposes. Castellon: Universitat Jaume I.

Fowler, Roger. 1991. Language in the news: discourse and ideology in the press. London: Routledge.Google Scholar

Fox, Annie B., Butakto, Danuta, Hallahan, Mark, and Crawford, Mary. 2007. The medium makes a difference: gender similarities and differences in instant messaging. Journal of Language and Social Psychology 26 (4): 389–397.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Fox, Barbara. A., and Thompson, Sandra A.. 1990. A discourse explanation of the grammar of relative clauses in English conversation. Language 66: 297–316.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Freddi, Maria. 2005a. Arguing linguistics: corpus investigation of one functional variety of academic discourse. Journal of English for Academic Purposes 4: 5–26.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Freddi, Maria. 2005b. From corpus to register: the construction of evaluation and argumentation in linguistics textbooks. In Tognini-Bonelli and Camiciotti 2005, 133–152.

Freeborn, Dennis. 1996. Style: text analysis and linguistic criticism. London:Palgrave.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Friginal, Eric. 2008. Linguistic variation in the discourse of outsourced call centers. Discourse Studies 10: 715–736.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Friginal, Eric. 2009. The language of outsourced call centers: a corpus-based study of cross-cultural interaction. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Fritz, Gerd. 2001. Text types in a new medium: the first newspapers (1609). Journal of Historical Pragmatics 2 (1): 69–83.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Fuertes-Olivera, Pedro A. 2007. A corpus-based view of lexical gender in written business English. English for Specific Purposes 26: 219–234.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Fuertes-Olivera, Pedro A., Velasco-Sacristan, Marisol, Arribas-Bano, Ascension, and Sarmaniego-Fernandez, Eva. 2001. Persuasion and advertising in English: metadiscourse in slogans and headlines. Journal of Pragmatics 33: 1291–1307.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Gains, Jonathan. 1999. Electronic mail – a new style of communication or just a new medium? An investigation into the text features of email. English for Specific Purposes 18 (1): 81–101.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Gardner, Sheena. 2004. Knock-on effects of mode change on academic discourse. Journal of English for Academic Purposes 3: 23–38.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Geisler, Christer. 2002. Investigating register variation in nineteenth-century English: a multi-dimensional comparison. In Using corpora to explore linguistic variation, ed. by Reppen, R., Fitzmaurice, S. M., and Biber, D., 249–271. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Ghadessy, Mohsen (ed.). 1988a. Registers of written English: situational factors and linguistic features. London: Pinter.

Ghadessy, Mohsen. 1988b. The language of written sports commentary: soccer – a description. In Ghadessy, (ed.) 1988a, 17–51.

Ghadessy, Mohsen (ed.). 1993a. Register analysis: theory and practice. London and New York: Pinter Publishers.

Ghadessy, Mohsen. 1993b. On the nature of written business communication. In Ghadessy, (ed.) 1993a, 149–164.

Giannoni, Davide Simone. 2002. Worlds of gratitude: a contrastive study of acknowledgement texts in English and Italian research articles. Applied Linguistics 23 (1): 1–31.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Gibbon, Dafydd. 1981. Idiomaticity and functional variation: a case study of international amateur radio talk. Language in Society 10: 21–42.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Gibbon, Dafydd. 1985. Context and variation in two-way radio discourse. Discourse Processes 8: 395–419.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Giltrow, Janet. 2005. Modern conscience: modalities of obligation in research genres. Text 25: 171–199.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Gimenez, Julio C. 2000. Business e-mail communication: some emerging tendencies in register. English for Specific Purposes 19: 237–251.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Gledhill, Chris. 2000. The discourse function of collocation in research article introductions. English for Specific Purposes 19: 115–135.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Gosden, Hugh. 1992. Discourse functions of marked theme in scientific research articles. English for Specific Purposes 11: 207–224.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Gosden, Hugh. 1993. Discourse functions of subjects in scientific research articles. Applied Linguistics 14 (1): 56–75.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Gotti, Maurizio. 1996. Robert Boyle and the language of science. Milan: Guerini.Google Scholar

Grabe, William, and Kaplan, Robert. 1996. Theory and practice of writing. New York: Longman.Google Scholar

Grabe, William, and Kaplan, Robert. 1997. On the writing of science and the science of writing: hedging in science text and elsewhere. In Hedging and discourse: approaches to the analysis of a pragmatic phenomenon in academic texts, ed. by Markkanen, R., and Schroder, H., 151–167. Berlin: Walter de Gruyter & Co.Google Scholar

Greatbatch, David. 1988. A turn-taking system for British news interviews. Language in Society 17: 401–430.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Groom, Nicholas. 2005. Pattern and meaning across genres and disciplines: an exploratory study. Journal of English for Academic Purposes 4: 257–277.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Gross, Alan G., Harmon, Joseph E., and Reidy, Michael S.. 2002. Communicating science: the scientific article from the 17th century to present. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar

Gunnarsson, Britt-Louise. 1993. Pragmatic and macrothematic patterns in science and popular science: a diachronic study of articles from three fields. In Ghadessy, (ed.) 1993a, 165–180.

Gunnarsson, Britt-Louise, Linell, Per, and Nordberg, Bengt (eds.). 1996. Text and talk in professional contexts. Uppsala: ASLA.

Gustafson, Marita. 1984. The syntactic features of binomial expressions in legal English. Text 4: 123–141.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Halleck, Gene B., and Connor, Ulla M.. 2006. Rhetorical moves in TESOL conference proposals. Journal of English for Academic Purposes 5: 70–86.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Halliday, MichaelKirkwood, Alexander. 1978. Language as social semiotic: the social interpretation of language and meaning. London: Edward Arnold.Google Scholar

Halliday, MichaelKirkwood, Alexander. 1988. On the language of physical science. In Ghadessy, (ed.) 1988a, 162–178.

Halliday, MichaelKirkwood, Alexander. 1989. Spoken and written language. Oxford and New York: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar

Halliday, MichaelKirkwood, Alexander, and Martin, J. R.. 1993. Writing science: literacy and discursive power. Pittsburgh: University of Pittsburgh Press.Google Scholar

Halmari, Helena. 2005. In search of “successful” political persuasion: a comparison of the styles of Bill Clinton and Ronald Reagan. In Halmari, and Virtanen, (eds.) 2005, 105–134.CrossRef

Halmari, Helena, and Virtanen, Tuija (eds.). 2005. Persuasion across genres: a linguistic approach. Amsterdam and Philadelphia: John Benjamins.CrossRef

Hamilton, Heidi E. 1998. Reported speech and survivor identity in on-line bone marrow transplantation narratives. Journal of Sociolinguistics 2 (1): 53–67.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Harris, Simon. 1997. Procedural vocabulary in law case reports. English for Specific Purposes 16 (4): 289–308.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Harvey, Annamaria. 1992. Science reports and indexicality. English for Specific Purposes 11: 115–128.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Harvey, Annamaria. 1995. Interaction in public reports. English for Specific Purposes 14 (3): 189–200.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Harwood, Nigel. 2005. “We do not seem to have a theory…The theory I present here attempts to fill this gap”: inclusive and exclusive pronouns in academic writing. Applied Linguistics 26 (3): 343–375.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Harwood, Nigel. 2006. (In)appropriate personal pronoun use in political science: a qualitative study and a proposed heuristic for future research. Written Communication 23 (4): 424–450.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Heath, Shirley Brice, and Langman, Juliet. 1994. Shared thinking and the register of coaching. In Biber, and Finegan, (eds.) 1994a, 82–105.

Helt, Marie. 2001. A multi-dimensional comparison of British and American spoken English. In Conrad, and Biber, (eds.) 2001, 171–184.

Hemais, Barbara. 2001. The discourse of research and practice in marketing journals. English for Specific Purposes 20: 39–59.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Henderson, Willie, Dudley-Evans, Tony, and Backhouse, Roger (eds.). 1993. Economics and language. London and New York: Routledge.

Henry, Alex, and Roseberry, Robert L.. 1997. An investigation of the functions, strategies, and linguistic features of the introductions and conclusions of essays. System 25 (4): 479–495.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Henry, Alex, and Roseberry, Robert L.. 2001. A narrow-angled corpus analysis of moves and strategies of the genre: ‘Letter of Application’. English for Specific Purposes 20: 153–167.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Henzl, Vera M. 1974. Linguistic register of foreign language instruction. Language Learning 23: 207–222.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Henzl, Vera M.. 1979. Foreign talk in the classroom. International Review of Applied Linguistics 17: 159–167.Google Scholar

Herring, Susan C. (ed.). 1996. Computer-mediated communication: linguistic, social and cross-cultural perspectives. Amsterdam and Philadelphia: John Benjamins.CrossRef

Herring, Susan C., and Paolillo, John C.. 2006. Gender and genre variation in weblogs. Journal of Sociolinguistics 10 (4): 493–459.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Hewings, Martin (ed.). 2001. Academic writing in context: implications and applications. Birmingham: Birmingham University Press.

Hewings, Martin, and Hewings, Ann. 2002. “It is interesting to note that…”: a comparative study of anticipatory “it” in student and published writing. English for Specific Purposes 21: 367–383.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Hiltunen, Risto. 1984. The type and structure of clausal embedding in legal English. Text 4: 107–121.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Hiltunen, Risto. 1990. Chapters on legal English: aspects past and present of the language of the law. Annals of the Finnish Academy of Science ser. B 251; Helsinki: Finnish Academy of Science.Google Scholar

Holmes, Richard. 1997. Genre analysis, and the social sciences: an investigation of the structure of research article discussion sections in three disciplines. English for Specific Purposes 16 (4): 321–337.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Hood, Susan, and Forey, Gail. 2005. Introducing a conference paper: getting interpersonal with your audience. Journal of English for Academic Purposes 4: 291–306.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Hopkins, Andy, and Dudley-Evans, Tony. 1988. A genre-based investigation of the discussion sections in articles and dissertations. English for Specific Purposes 7 (2): 113–122.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Hornberger, Nancy H. 1994. Continua of biliteracy. In Literacy across languages and cultures, ed. by Ferdman, B. M., Weber, R.–M., and Ramirez, A. G., 103–139. Albany: State University of New York Press.Google Scholar

Horsella, Maria, and Sindermann, Gerda. 1992. Aspects of scientific discourse: conditional argumentation. English for Specific Purposes 11: 129–139.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Hoyle, Susan M. 1989. Forms and footing in boys' sportscasting. Text 9: 153–173.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Hudson, Richard A. 1980. Sociolinguistics. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar

Hundt, Marianne, and Mair, Christian. 1999. “Agile” and “uptight” genres: the corpus-based approach to language change in progress. International Journal of Corpus Linguistics 4: 221–242.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Hundt, Marianne, Nesselhauf, Nadja, and Biewer, Carolin (eds.). 2007. Corpus linguistics and the web. Amsterdam: Rodopi.CrossRef

Hunston, Susan. 1993. Evaluation and ideology in scientific writing. In Ghadess (ed.) 1993a, 57–74.

Hunston, Susan. 2005. Conflict and consensus: construing opposition in applied linguistics. In Tognini-Bonelli and Camiciotti 2005, 1–16.CrossRef

Hunston, Susan, and Thompson, Geoff (eds.). 2000. Evaluation in text: authorial stance and the construction of discourse. New York: Oxford University Press.

Hyland, Ken. 1996. Writing without conviction? Hedging in science research articles. Applied Linguistics 17 (4): 433–454.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Hyland, Ken. 1998. Hedging in scientific research articles. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Hyland, Ken. 1999a. Academic attribution: citation and the construction of disciplinary knowledge. Applied Linguistics 20 (3): 341–367.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Hyland, Ken. 1999b. Talking to students: metadiscourse in introductory coursebooks. English for Specific Purposes 18 (1): 3–26.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Hyland, Ken. 2000. Disciplinary discourses: social interactions in academic writing. Harlow: Longman.Google Scholar

Hyland, Ken. 2001a. Bringing in the reader: addressee features in academic articles. Written Communication 18 (4): 549–574.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Hyland, Ken. 2001b. Humble servants of the discipline? Self-mention in research articles. English for Specific Purposes 20: 207–226.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Hyland, Ken. 2002a. Teaching and researching writing. Harlow: Pearson Education.Google Scholar

Hyland, Ken. 2002b. Directives: argument and engagement in academic writing. Applied Linguistics 23 (2): 215–239.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Hyland, Ken. 2002c. What do they mean? Questions in academic writing. Text 22 (4): 529–557.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Hyland, Ken. 2004. Graduates' gratitude: the generic structure of dissertation acknowledgements. English for Specific Purposes 23: 303–324.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Hyland, Ken. 2005. Stance and engagement: a model of interaction in academic discourse. Discourse Studies 7 (2): 173–192.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Hyland, Ken, and Tse, Polly. 2004. Metadiscourse in academic writing: a reappraisal. Applied Linguistics 25 (2): 156–177.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Hyland, Ken, and Tse, Polly. 2005. Hooking the reader: a corpus study of evaluative that in abstracts. English for Specific Purposes 24: 123–139.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Hymes, Dell. 1974. Foundations in sociolinguistics: an ethnographic approach. Philadelphia: University of Pennsylvania Press.Google Scholar

Hymes, Dell. 1984. Sociolinguistics: stability and consolidation. International Journal of the Sociology of Language 45: 39–45.Google Scholar

Inigo-Mora, Isabel. 2007. Extreme case formulations in Spanish pre-electoral debates and English panel interviews. Discourse Studies 9 (3): 341–363.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Jackson, Jane, and Bilton, Linda. 1994. Stylistic variation in science lectures: teaching vocabulary. English for Specific Purposes 13: 61–80.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Janda, Richard. 1985. Note-taking English as a simplified register. Discourse Processes 8: 437–54.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Jaworski, Adam, and Galasinski, Dariusz. 2000. Vocative address forms and ideological legitimization in political debates. Discourse Studies 2 (1): 35–53.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Jiang, Xiangying. 2006. Cross-cultural pragmatic differences in US and Chinese press conferences: the case of the North Korea nuclear crisis. Discourse and Society 17 (2): 237–257.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Johansson, Marjut. 2006. Constructing objects of discourse in the broadcast political interview. Journal of Pragmatics 38: 216–229.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Johnson, Barry. 1995. Some features of maritime telex service communication. English for Specific Purposes 14 (2): 127–136.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Joos, Martin. 1961. The five clocks. New York: Harcourt.Google Scholar

Kahlas-Tarkka, Leena, and Rissanen, Matti. 2007. The sullen and the talkative: discourse strategies in the Salem examinations. Journal of Historical Pragmatics 8 (1): 1–24.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Kanoksilapatham, Budsaba. 2005. Rhetorical structure of biochemistry research articles. English for Specific Purposes 24: 269–292.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Kaplan, Robert B., Cantor, Serena, Hagstrom, Cynthia, Kahmi-Stein, Lia D., Shiotani, Yumiko, and Zimmermann, Cheryl Boyd. 1994. On abstract writing. Text 14 (3): 401–426.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Kim, Young-Jin, and Biber, Douglas. 1994. A corpus-based analysis of register variation in Korean. In Biber, and Finegan, (eds.) 1994a, 157–181.

Kline, Susan L. 2005. Interactive media systems: influence strategies in television home shopping. Text 25 (2): 201–231.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Koester, Almut Josepha. 2004. Relational sequences in workplace genres. Journal of Pragmatics 36: 1405–1428.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Koester, Almut Josepha. 2006. Investigating workplace discourse. London: Routledge.Google Scholar

Kong, Kenneth C. C. 2006. Property transaction report: news, advertisement or a new genre?Discourse Studies 8 (6): 771–796.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Koutsantoni, Dimitra. 2004. Attitude, certainty, and allusion to common knowledge in scientific research articles. Journal of English for Academic Purposes 18 (2): 163–182.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Kryk-Kastovsky, Barbara. 2000. Representations of orality in Early Modern English trial records. Journal of Historical Pragmatics 1 (2): 201–230.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Kryk-Kastovsky, Barbara. 2006. Impoliteness in Early Modern English courtroom discourse. Journal of Historical Pragmatics 7 (2): 213–243.Google Scholar

Kuiper, Koenraad, and Haggo, Douglas. 1984. Livestock auctions, oral poetry and ordinary language. Language in Society 13: 205–234.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Kuiper, Koenraad, and Tillis, Frederick. 1986. The chant of the tobacco auctioneer. American Speech 60: 141–149.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Kuo, Chih-Hua. 1999. The use of personal pronouns: role relationships in scientific journal articles. English for Specific Purposes 18 (2): 121–138.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Kuo, Sai-Hua. 2001. Reported speech in Chinese political discourse. Discourse Studies 3 (2): 181–202.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Kuo, Sai-Hua. 2002. From solidarity to antagonism: the uses of the second-person singular pronoun in Chinese political discourse. Text 22 (1): 29–55.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Kuo, Sai-Hua. 2003. Involvement vs detachment: gender differences in the use of personal pronouns in televised sports in Taiwan. Discourse Studies 5 (4): 479–494.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Kwan, Becky S. C. 2006. The schematic structure of literature reviews in doctoral theses of applied linguistics. English for Specific Purposes 25: 30–55.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Kytö, Merja. 1991. Variation and diachrony, with Early American English in focus. Frankfurt: Peter Lang.Google Scholar

Kytö, Merja, Rydén, Mats, and Smitterberg, Erik (eds.). 2006. Nineteenth-century English: stability and change. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Kytö, Merja, and Walker, Terry. 2003. The linguistic study of Early Modern English speech-related texts: how “bad” can “bad” data be?Journal of English Linguistics 31 (3): 221–248.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Labov, William. 1966. The Social Stratification of English in New York City. Washington DC: Center for Applied Linguistics.Google Scholar

Labov, William. 1972. Sociolinguistic patterns. Philadelphia: University of Pennsylvania Press.Google Scholar

Laforest, Martry. 2002. Scenes of family life: complaining in everyday conversation. Journal of Pragmatics 34: 1595–1620.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Lamb, William. 2008. Scottish Gaelic speech and writing: register variation in an endangered language. Belfast: Queen's University Belfast.Google Scholar

Lassen, Inger. 2006. Is the press release a genre? A study of form and content. Discourse Studies 8 (4): 503–530.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Latour, B., and Woolgar, S.. 1986. Laboratory life: the construction of scientific facts. Princeton: Princeton University Press.Google Scholar

Lauerbach, Gerda. 2004. Political interviews as hybrid genre. Text 24 (3): 353–397.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Lee, David. 2001. Genres, registers, text types, domains, and styles: clarifying the concepts and navigating a path through the BNC jungle. Language Learning and Technology 5: 37–72.Google Scholar

Leech, Geoffrey N. 1966. English in advertising. London: Longman.Google Scholar

Leech, Geoffrey N., and Smith, Nicholas. 2006. Recent grammatical change in written English 1961–1992. In The changing face of corpus linguistics, ed. by Renouf, A. and Kehoe, A., 185–204. Amsterdam: Rodopi.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Leech, Geoffrey N., Hundt, Marianne, Mair, Christian, and Smith, Nicholas. forthcoming. Contemporary change in English: a grammatical study. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.CrossRef

Leech, Geoffrey N., and Short, Michael H.. 1981. Style in fiction. London: Longman.Google Scholar

Legg, Miranda. 2007. From question to answer: the genre of the problem-based tutorial at the University of Hong Kong. English for Specific Purposes 26: 344–367.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Lemke, Jay L. 1990. Talking science: language, learning and values. Norwood, NJ: Ablex.Google Scholar

Lewin, Beverly, A. 1998. Hedging: form and function in scientific research articles. In Fortanet, et al. (eds.) 1998, 89–104.

Lewin, Beverly A, Fine, Jonathan, and Young, Lynne. 2001. Expository discourse: a genre-based approach to social science research texts. London: Continuum.Google Scholar

Lindermann, Stephanie, and Mauranen, Anna. 2001. “It's just really messy”: the occurrence and function of just in a corpus of academic speech. English for Specific Purposes 20: 459–475.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Lorés, Rosa. 2004. On RA abstracts: from rhetorical structure to thematic organisation. English for Specific Purposes 23: 280–302.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Lorés, Rosa. 2006. “I will argue that”: first person pronouns as metadiscoursal devices in research articles in English and Spanish. ESP across Cultures 3: 23–40.Google Scholar

Love, Alison M. 1991. Process and product in geology: investigation of some discourse features of two introductory textbooks. English for Specific Purposes 10: 89–109.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Love, Alison M.. 1993. Lexico-grammatical features in geology textbooks: process and product revisited. English for Specific Purposes 12: 197–218.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Love, Alison M.. 2002. Introductory concepts and “cutting edge” theories: can the genre of the textbook accommodate both? In Flowerdew, (ed.) 2002, 76–91.

Luzon Marco, Maria Jose. 1999. Procedural vocabulary: lexical signaling of conceptual relations in discourse. Applied Linguistics 20 (1): 1–21.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Luzon Marco, Maria Jose. 2000. Collocational frameworks in medical research papers: a genre-based study. English for Specific Purposes 19: 63–86.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Lynch, Michael. 1985. Art and artifact in laboratory science: a study of shop work and shop talk in a research laboratory. London: Routledge.Google Scholar

MacDonald, Susan Peck. 2005. The language of journalism in treatments of hormone replacement news. Written Communication 22 (3): 275–297.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Magnet, Anne, and Carnet, Didier. 2006. Letters to the editor: still vigorous after all these years? A presentation of the discursive and linguistic features of the genre. English for Specific Purposes 25: 173–199.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Mair, Christian. 2006. Twentieth century English: history, variation and standardization. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Mäkinen, Martti. 2002. On interaction in herbals from Middle English to Early Modern English. Journal of Historical Pragmatics 3 (2): 229–251.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Maley, Yon. 1987. The language of legislation. Language in Society 16: 25–48.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Mann, William C., and Thompson, Sandra A. (eds.). 1992. Discourse description: diverse linguistic analyses of a fund-raising text. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.CrossRef

Marley, Carol. 2002. Popping the question: questions and modality in written dating advertisements. Discourse Studies 4 (1): 75–98.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Marra, Meredith, and Holmes, Janet. 2004. Workplace narratives and business reports: issues of definition. Text 24 (1): 59–78.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Martin, J. R. 1985. Factual writing: exploring and challenging social reality. Geelong: Deakin University Press.Google Scholar

Martin, J. R.. 1997. Analysing genre: functional parameters. In Christie, and Martin, (eds.) 1997, 3–39.

Martin, J. R.. 2001. Language, register and genre. In Analysing English in a global context, ed. by Burns, A. and Coffin, C., 149–166. London: Routledge.Google Scholar

Martin, J. R., and Veel, Robert (eds.). 1998. Reading science: critical and functional perspectives on discourses of science. London: Routledge.

Martín, Pedro Martín. 2003. A genre analysis of English and Spanish research paper abstracts in experimental social sciences. English for Specific Purposes 22: 25–43.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Martín, Pedro Martín, and Burgess, Sally. 2004. The rhetorical management of academic criticism in research article abstracts. Text 24 (2): 171–195.Google Scholar

Martinez, Iliana A. 2001. Impersonality in the research article as revealed by analysis of the transitivity structure. English for Specific Purposes 20: 227–247.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Martinez, Iliana A. 2003. Aspects of theme in the method and discussion sections of biology journal articles in English. Journal of English for Academic Purposes 2: 103–123.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Master, Peter. 1991. Active verbs with inanimate subjects in scientific prose. English for Specific Purposes 10: 15–33.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Matthiessen, Christian M. I. M. 1993. Register in the round: diversity in a unified theory of register analysis. In Ghadessy, (ed.) 1993a, 221–292.

Mauranen, Anna. 2003. “A good question.” Expressing evaluation in academic speech. In Domain-specific English: textual practices across communities and classrooms, ed. by Cortese, G. and Riley, P., 115–140. New York: Peter Lang.Google Scholar

Mauranen, Anna. 2004. “They're a little bit different”: Variation in hedging in academic speech. In Discourse patterns in spoken and written corpora, ed. by Aijmer, K. and Stenström, A. B., 173–197. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Mauranen, Anna, and Bondi, Marina. 2003. Evaluative language use in academic discourse. Journal of English for Academic Purposes 2: 269–271.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

McCabe, Anne. 2004. Mood and modality in Spanish and English textbooks: the construction of authority. Text 24 (1): 1–29.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

McCarthy, Michael. 1998. Spoken language and applied linguistics. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar

McCarthy, Michael, and Carter, Ronald. 2004. There's millions of them: hyperbole in everyday conversation. Journal of Pragmatics 36: 149–184.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

McEnery, Tony, and Kifle, Nazareth Amselom. 2002. Epistemic modality in argumentative essays of second-language writers. In Flowerdew, (ed.) 2002, 182–195.

McEnery, Anthony, Xiao, Richard, and Tono, Yukio. 2006. Corpus-based language studies. London: Routledge.Google Scholar

McKenna, Bernard. 1997. How engineers write: an empirical study of engineering report writing. Applied Linguistics 18 (2): 189–211.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Melander, Björn. 1998. Culture or genre? Issues in the interpretation of cross-cultural differences in scientific articles. In Fortanet, et al. (eds.) 1998, 211–226.

Mellinkoff, David. 1963. The language of the law. Boston: Little, Brown and Co.Google Scholar

Merritt, Marilyn. 1976. On questions following questions in service encounters. Language in Society 5: 315–357.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Milizia, Denise. 2006. Classifying phraseology in a spoken corpus of political discourse. ESP across Cultures 3: 41–65.Google Scholar

Montgomery, Martin. 1988. D-J talk. In Styles of discourse, ed. by Coupland, N., 85–104. London: Croom Helm.Google Scholar

Moore, Tim. 2002. Knowledge and agency: a study of “metaphenomenal discourse” in textbooks from three disciplines. English for Specific Purposes 21: 347–366.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Moreno, Ana I. 1997. Genre constraints across languages: causal metatext in Spanish and English RAs. English for Specific Purposes 16 (3): 161–179.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Morrow, Phillip R. 2006. Telling about problems and giving advice in an Internet discussion forum: some discourse features. Discourse Studies 8 (4): 531–548.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Mungra, Philippa. 2007. A research and discussion note: the macrostructure of consensus statements. English for Specific Purposes 26: 79–89.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Murray, Thomas. 1985. The language of singles bars. American Speech 60: 17–30.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Myers, Gregory. 1989. The pragmatics of politeness in scientific articles. Applied Linguistics 10: 1–35.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Myers, Gregory. 1990. Writing biology: texts in the social construction of scientific knowledge. Madison: University of Wisconsin Press.Google Scholar

Myers, Gregory. 1991. Lexical cohesion and specialized knowledge in science and popular science texts. Discourse Processes 14 (1): 1–26.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Myers, Gregory. 1992. “In this paper we report…”: Speech acts and scientific facts. Journal of Pragmatics 16: 295–313.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Myers, Gregory. 1999. Functions of reported speech in group discussions. Applied Linguistics 20 (3): 376–401.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Nash, Walter (ed.). 1990. The writing scholar: studies in academic discourse. Newbury Park: Sage Publications.

Nelson, Mike. 2006. Semantic associations in Business English: a corpus-based analysis. English for Specific Purposes 25: 217–234.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Nesi, Hilary, and Basturkmen, Helen. 2006. Lexical bundles and discourse signaling in academic lectures. International Journal of Corpus Linguistics 11: 283–304.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Nevala, Minna. 2004. Accessing politeness axes: forms of address and terms of reference in early English correspondence. Journal of Pragmatics 36 (12): 2125–2160.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Nevile, Maurice. 2006. Making sequentiality salient: and-prefacing in the talk of airline pilots. Discourse Studies 8 (2): 279–302.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Newman, Michael. 2005. Rap as literacy: a genre analysis of Hip-Hop ciphers. Text 25 (3): 399–436.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Nuckolls, Kandace. 2005. IM communicating: a conversational analysis of instant message conversations. Unpublished master's thesis. Portland, OR: Portland State University.Google Scholar

Nunan, David. 2008. Exploring genre and register in contemporary English. English Today 24 (2): 56–61.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Nwogu, Kevin Ngozi. 1991. Structure of science popularizations: a genre-analysis approach to the schema of popularized medical texts. English for Specific Purposes 10 (2): 111–123.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Nwogu, Kevin Ngozi. 1997. The medical research paper: structure and functions. English for Specific Purposes, 16 (2): 119–138.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Oakey, David. 2005. Academic vocabulary in academic discourse: the phraseological behaviour of EVALUATION in economics research articles. In Tognini-Bonelli, and Camiciotti, 2005, 169–184.CrossRef

O'Barr, William M. 1982. Linguistic evidence: language, power, and strategy in the courtroom. New York: Academic Press.Google Scholar

Odell, Lee, and Goswami, Dixie (eds.). 1985. Writing in nonacademic settings. New York: Guilford.

O'Donnell, Roy C. 1974. Syntactic differences between speech and writing. American Speech 49: 102–110.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Oh, Sun-Young. 2001. A focus-based study of English demonstrative reference: with special reference to the genre of written advertisements. Journal of English Linguistics 29: 124–148.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Okamura, Akiko, and Shaw, Philip. 2000. Lexical phrases, culture, and subculture in transactional letter writing. English for Specific Purposes 19: 1–15.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Olson, D. 1977. From utterance to text: the bias of language in speech and writing. Harvard Educational Review 47 (3): 257–281.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Ozturk, Ismet. 2007. The textual organization of research article introductions in applied linguistics: variability in a single discipline. English for Specific Purposes 26: 25–38.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Paltridge, Brian. 1994. Genre analysis and the identification of textual boundaries. Applied Linguistics 15: 288–299.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Paltridge, Brian. 1995. Working with genre: a pragmatic perspective. Journal of Pragmatics 24: 393–406.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Paltridge, Brian. 1997. Genres, frames and writing in research settings. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Paltridge, Brian. 2002. Thesis and dissertation writing: an examination of published advice and actual practice. English for Specific Purposes 21: 125–143.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Parodi, Giovanni (ed.). 2005. Discurso especializado e instituciones formadoras. Valparaíso: Universitarias de Valparaíso.

Parodi, Giovanni (ed.). 2007. Working with Spanish corpora. London: Continuum.

Pettinari, Catherine Johnson. 1988. Task, talk and text in the operating room: a study in medical discourse. Norwood, NJ: Ablex.Google Scholar

Philips, Susan. 1984. The social organization of questions and answers in courtroom discourse: a study of changes of plea in an Arizona court. Text 4: 225–248.Google Scholar

Philips, Susan. 1985. Strategies of clarification in judges' use of language: from the written to the spoken. Discourse Processes 8: 421–436.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Pisanski Peterlin, Agnes. 2005. Text-organising metatext in research articles: an English-Slovene contrastive analysis. English for Specific Purposes 24 (3): 307–319.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Placencia, Maria E. 2004. Rapport-building activities in corner shop interactions. Journal of Sociolinguistics 8 (2): 215–245.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Porcelli, Gianfranco. 1999. The language of communication and information sciences: analysis and examples. Milan: Sugarco.Google Scholar

Posteguillo, Santiago. 1998. The schematic structure of computer science research articles. English for Specific Purposes 18 (2): 139–160.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Precht, Kristen. 1998. A cross-cultural comparison of letters of recommendation. English for Specific Purposes 17 (3): 241–265.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Prince, Ellen F. 1978. A comparison of Wh-clefts and It-clefts in discourse. Language 54: 883–906.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Quaglio, Paulo. 2004. The language of NBC's Friends: a comparison with face-to-face conversation. Unpublished Ph.D. Dissertation, Northern Arizona University.Google Scholar

Quaglio, Paulo. 2009. Television dialogue: the sitcom Friends vs. natural conversation. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Quaglio, Paulo, and Douglas, Biber. 2006. The grammar of conversation. In The handbook of English linguistics, ed. by B. Aarts and A. McMahon, 692–723. Oxford: Blackwell.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Raymond, Geoffrey. 2000. The voice of authority: the local accomplishment of authoritative discourse in live news broadcasts. Discourse Studies 2 (3): 354–379.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Reaser, Jeffrey. 2003. A quantitative approach to (sub) registers: the case of “sports announcer talk.”Discourse Studies 5 (3): 303–321.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Recski, Leonardo. 2005. Interpersonal engagement in academic spoken discourse: a functional account of dissertation defenses. English for Specific Purposes 24: 5–23.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Reichman-Adar, Rachel. 1984. Technical discourse: the present progressive tense, the deictic “that,” and pronominalization. Discourse Processes 7: 337–369.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Reppen, Randi. 1995. A genre-based approach to content writing instruction. TESOL Journal 4: 32–35.Google Scholar

Reppen, Randi. 2001. Register variation in student and adult speech and writing. In Conrad, and Biber, (eds.) 2001, 187–199.

Reppen, Randi. 2004. Academic language: an exploration of university classroom and textbook language. In Connor, and Upton, (eds.) 2004a, 65–86.

Reppen, Randi, and Vásquez, Camilla. 2007. Using corpus linguistics to investigate the language of teacher training. In Corpora and ICT in language studies, ed. by Walinski, J., Kredens, K., and Gozdz-Roszkowski, S., 13–29. Frankfurt: Peter Lang.Google Scholar

Rey, Jennifer M. 2001. Historical shifts in the language of women and men: gender differences in dramatic dialogue. In Conrad, and Biber, (eds.) 2001a, 138–156.

Römer, Ute. 2005. “This seems counterintuitive, though…”: negative evaluation in linguistic book reviews by male and female authors. In Tognini-Bonelli, and Camiciotti, 2005, 97–116.

Ruiying, Yang, and Allison, Desmond. 2003. Research articles in applied linguistics: moving from results to conclusions. English for Specific Purposes 22: 365–385.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Ruiying, Yang, and Allison, Desmond. 2004. Research articles in applied linguistics: structures from a functional perspective. English for Specific Purposes 23: 264–279.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Rundbald, Gabriella. 2007. Impersonal, general, and social. The use of metonymy versus passive voice in medical discourse. Written Communication 24 (3): 250–277.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Salager, Françoise. 1983. The lexis of fundamental medical English: classificatory framework and rhetorical function (a statistical approach). Reading in a Foreign Language 1: 54–64.Google Scholar

Salager-Meyer, Françoise. 1990. Metaphors in medical English prose: a comparative study with French and Spanish. English for Specific Purposes 9 (2): 145–159.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Salager-Meyer, Françoise. 1992. A text-type and move analysis study of verb tense and modality distribution in medical English abstracts. English for Specific Purposes 11: 93–113.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Salager-Meyer, Françoise. 1994. Hedges and textual communicative function in medical English written discourse. English for Specific Purposes 13 (2): 149–170.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Salager-Meyer, Françoise. 1999. Referential behavior in scientific writing: a diachronic study (1810–1995). English for Specific Purposes 18 (3): 279–305.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Salager-Meyer, Françoise, Alcalaz Ariza, Maria Angeles, and Zambrano, Nahirana. 2003. The scimitar, the dagger and the glove: intercultural differences in the rhetoric of criticism in Spanish, French and English Medical Discourse (1930–1995). English for Specific Purposes 22: 223–247.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Salager-Meyer, Françoise, and Defives, Gérard. 1998. From the gentleman's courtesy to the scientist's caution: a diachronic study of hedges in academic writing (1810–1995). In Fortanet, et al. (eds.) 1998, 133–172.

Salager-Meyer, Françoise, and Zambrano, Nahirana. 2001. The bittersweet rhetoric of controversiality in nineteenth- and twentieth-century French and English medical literature. Journal of Historical Pragmatics 2 (1): 141–174.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Samraj, Betty. 2002a. Introductions in research articles: variations across disciplines. English for Specific Purposes 21: 1–17.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Samraj, Betty. 2002b. Disciplinary variation in abstracts: the case of wildlife behavior and conservation biology. In Flowerdew, (ed.) 2002, 40–56.

Samraj, Betty. 2005. An exploration of a genre set: research article abstracts and introductions in two disciplines. English for Specific Purposes 24: 141–156.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Samuels, Warren J. (ed.). 1990. Economics as discourse: an analysis of the language of economics. Boston, Dodrecht and London: Kluwer Academic Publishers.CrossRef

Schiffrin, Deborah. 1985. Multiple constraints on discourse options: a quantitative analysis of causal sequences, Discourse Processes 8: 281–303.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Schmidt, Rosemarie, and Joseph, F. Kess. 1985. Persuasive language in the television medium. Journal of Pragmatics 9: 287–308.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Semino, Elena, and Short, Mick. 2004. Corpus stylistics: speech, writing and thought presentation in a corpus of English writing. London: Routledge.Google Scholar

Shalom, Celia. 1993. Established and evolving spoken research process genres: plenary lecture and poster session discussions at academic conferences. English for Specific Purposes 12: 37–50.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Shi, Ling, and Kubota, Ryuko. 2007. Patterns of rhetorical organization in Canadian and American language arts textbooks: an exploratory study. English for Specific Purposes 26: 180–202.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Simpson, Paul. 2004. Stylistics: a resource book for students. London: Routledge.Google Scholar

Simpson, Rita. 2004. Stylistic features of spoken academic discourse: the role of formulaic expressions. In Connor, and Upton, (eds.) 2004a, 37–64.

Simpson, Rita, and Mendis, Dushyanthi. 2003. A corpus-based study of idioms in academic speech. TESOL Quarterly 37: 419–441.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Skelton, John. 1997. The representation of truth in academic medical writing. Applied Linguistics 18 (2): 122–140.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Smith, E. L. 1985. Functional types of scientific prose. In Systemic perspectives on discourse, ed. by Greaves, W. S. and Benson, J. D., 241–257. Norwood, NJ: Ablex.Google Scholar

Soler, Viviana. 2002. Analysing adjectives in scientific discourse: an exploratory study with educational applications for Spanish speakers at advanced university level. English for Specific Purposes 21: 145–165.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Soler, Viviana. 2007. Writing titles in science: an exploratory study. English for Specific Purposes 26: 90–102.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Stotesbury, Hikka. 2003. Evaluation in research article abstracts in the narrative and hard sciences. Journal of English for Academic Purposes 2: 327–241.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Studer, Patrick. 2003. Textual structures in eighteenth-century newspapers: a corpus-based study of headlines. Journal of Historical Pragmatics 4 (1): 19–44.Google Scholar

Swales, John. 1981. Aspects of article introductions. Birmingham, AL: University of Aston.Google Scholar

Swales, John. 1990. Genre analysis: English for academic and research settings. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar

Swales, John. 2004. Research genres: explorations and applications. New York: Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Swales, John M. 2001. Metatalk in American academic talk: the cases of point and thing. Journal of English Linguistics 29: 34–54.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Swales, John M., Ahmad, Ummul K., Chang, Yu-Ying, Chavez, Daniel, Dressen, Dacia F., and Seymour, Ruth. 1998. Consider this: the role of imperatives in scholarly writing. Applied Linguistics 19 (1): 97–121.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Taavitsainen, Irma. 2001. Middle English recipes: genre characteristics, text type features and underlying traditions of writing. Journal of Historical Pragmatics 2 (1): 85–113.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Taavitsainen, Irma, and Pahta, Päivi. 2000. Conventions of professional writing: the medical case report in a historical perspective. Journal of English Linguistics 28 (1): 60–76.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Taavitsainen, Irma, and Pahta, Päivi. (eds.). 2004. Medical and scientific writing in late Medieval English. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

Tannen, Deborah. 1987. Repetition in conversation: toward a poetic of talk. Language 63: 574–605.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Tannen, Deborah. 1989. Talking voices: repetition, dialogue, and imagery in conversational discourse. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar

Tannen, Deborah. 2005. Conversational style: analyzing talk among friends. Rev. edn. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar

Tao, Hongyin. 2007. A corpus-based investigation of absolutely and related phenomena in spoken American English. Journal of English Linguistics 35 (1): 5–29.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Tapper, Joanna. 1994. Directives used in college laboratory oral discourse. English for Specific Purposes 13 (3): 205–222.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Tarone, Elaine, Dwyer, Sharon, Gillette, Susan, and Icke, Vincent. 1981. On the use of the passive in two astrophysics journal papers. ESP Journal 1: 123–140.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Tarone, Elaine, Dwyer, Sharon, Gillette, Susan, and Icke, Vincent. 1998. On the use of the passive and active in astrophysics journal papers: with extensions to other languages and fields. English for Specific Purposes 17: 113–132.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Thetela, Puleng. 1997. Evaluated entities and parameters of value in academic research articles. English for Specific Purposes 16 (2): 101–118.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Thomas, Sarah, and Hawes, Thomas P.. 1994. Reporting verbs in medical journal articles. English for Specific Purposes 13 (2): 129–148.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Thompson, Geoff. 1996. Voices in the text: discourse perspectives on language reports. Applied Linguistics 17 (4): 502–530.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Thompson, Geoff. 2001. Interaction in academic writing: learning to argue with the reader. Applied Linguistics 22 (1): 58–78.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Thompson, Paul. 2005a. Points of focus and position: intertextual reference in PhD theses. Journal of English for Academic Purposes 4: 307–323.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Thompson, Paul. 2005b. Aspects of identification and position in intertextual reference in PhD theses. In Tognini-Bonelli, and Camiciotti, 2005, 31–50.

Thompson, Paul, and Sealey, Alison. 2007. Through children's eyes? Corpus evidence of the features of children's literature. International Journal of Corpus Linguistics 12 (1): 1–23.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Thompson, Sandra A. 1985. Grammar and written discourse: initial vs. final purpose clauses in English. Text 5: 55–84.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Thompson, Susan. 1994. Frameworks and contexts: a genre-based approach to analyzing lecture introductions. English for Specific Purposes 13 (2): 171–186.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Thompson, Susan. 2003. Text-structuring metadiscourse, intonation and the signalling of organisation in academic lectures. Journal of English for Academic Purposes 2: 5–20.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Thompson, S. A., and Mulac, A.. 1991. The discourse conditions for the use of the complementizer that in conversational English. Journal of Pragmatics 15: 237–251.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Thornborrow, Joanna. 2001. Questions, control and the organization of talk in calls to a radio phone-in. Discourse Studies 3 (1): 119–143.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Thornborrow, Joanna, and Morris, Deborah. 2004. Gossip as strategy: the management of talk about others on reality TV show ‘Big Brother’. Journal of Sociolinguistics 8 (2): 246–271.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Thurlow, Crispin. 2003. Generation Txt? The sociolinguistics of young people's text-messaging. Discourse Analysis Online (1). Available at: http://extra.shu.ac.uk/daol/articles/v1/n1/a3/thurlow2002003.html.Google Scholar

Tognini-Bonelli, Elena, and Camiciotti, Gabriella Del Lungo. 2005. Strategies in academic discourse. Amsterdam and Philadelphia: John Benjamins.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Tracy-Ventura, Nicole, Biber, Douglas, and Cortes, Viviana. 2007. Lexical bundles in Spanish speech and writing. In Working with Spanish corpora, ed. by G. Parodi, 217–231. London: Continuum.Google Scholar