Element contents
Series: Elements in Corpus Linguistics
Citations in Interdisciplinary Research Articles
Published online by Cambridge University Press: 02 November 2020
Summary
This Element explores interdisciplinarity in academic writing. It describes the ways in which disciplines interact when forming interdisciplinary fields and how language reflects (and is reflected by) these interactions. Specifically, bibliographical citations are investigated in corpora of research articles from three interdisciplines: Educational Neuroscience, Economic History, and Science and Technology Studies, as well as the single-domain disciplines from which they are derived. Comparisons are carried out between the interdisciplinary fields and between those fields and their related single-domain disciplines. The study combines analysis of quantitative data and qualitative interpretation by means of close reading. It concludes that bibliographical citations constitute a viable tool to explore interdisciplinary writing in the fields explored. The Element demonstrates that it is possible to describe epistemologically distinct types of interdisciplinarity by means of linguistic evidence.
Keywords
- Type
- Element
- Information
- Series: Elements in Corpus LinguisticsOnline ISBN: 9781108886086Publisher: Cambridge University PressPrint publication: 03 December 2020
References
Afifi, T. (2017). Interdisciplinary journals. In Allen, M., ed., The SAGE Encyclopedia of Communication Research Methods. Thousand Oaks: Sage, pp. 758–61.Google Scholar
Ansari, D. and Coch, D. (2006). Bridges over troubled waters: education and cognitive neuroscience. Trends in Cognitive Sciences, 10(4), 146–51.Google Scholar
Anthony, L. (2017). AntFileConverter (Version 1.2.1) [Computer Software]. Tokyo: Waseda University. Available from www.laurenceanthony.net/software.Google Scholar
Anthony, L. (2018). AntConc (Version 3.5.7) [Computer Software]. Tokyo: Waseda University. Available from www.laurenceanthony.net/software.Google Scholar
Atkinson, D. (2004). Contrasting rhetorics/contrasting cultures: why contrastive rhetoric needs a better conceptualization of culture. Journal of English for Academic Purposes, 3, 277–89.Google Scholar
Baker, D., Salina, D., and Eslinger, P. (2012). An envisioned bridge: schooling as a neurocognitive developmental institution. Developmental Cognitive Neuroscience, 2(1), 6–17.Google Scholar
Barry, A. and Born, G. (2013). Interdisciplinarity: Reconfigurations of the Social and Natural Sciences. London: Routledge.Google Scholar
Beauchamp, C. and Beauchamp, M. (2013). Boundary as bridge: an analysis of the educational neuroscience literature from a boundary perspective. Educational Psychology Review, 25(1), 47–67.Google Scholar
Becher, T. (1981). Towards a definition of disciplinary cultures. Studies in Higher Education, 6(2), 109–22.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Becher, T. (1987). Disciplinary discourse. Studies in Higher APPENDIXcation, 12, 261–74.Google Scholar
Becher, T. and Trowler, P. (2001). Academic Tribes and Territories, 2nd ed. Buckingham: Society for Research into Higher Education and Open University Press.Google Scholar
Berkenkotter, C. and Huckin, T. (1995). Genre Knowledge in Disciplinary Communication: Cognition/Culture/Power. Hillsdale: Erlbaum.Google Scholar
Biber, D. (1990). Methodological issues regarding corpus-based analyses of linguistic variation. Literary and Linguistic Computing, 5(4), 257–69.Google Scholar
Biber, D. (1993). Representativeness in corpus design. Literary and Linguistic Computing, 8(4), 243–57.Google Scholar
Biber, D. (1995). Dimensions of Register Variation: A Cross-Linguistic Comparison. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Biber, D., Conrad, S., and Reppen, R. (1998). Corpus Linguistics: Investigating Language Structure and Use. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Biber, D., Conrad, S., Reppen, R., Byrd, P., and Helt, M. (2002). Speaking and writing in the university: a multidimensional comparison. TESOL Quarterly, 36(1), 9–48.Google Scholar
Biglan, A. (1973). The characteristics of subject matter in different academic areas. Journal of Applied Psychology, 57(3), 195–203.Google Scholar
Bloch, J. (2010). A concordance-based study of the use of reporting verbs as rhetorical devices in academic papers. Journal of Writing Research, 2, 219–44.Google Scholar
Boix Mansilla, V. and Gardner, H. (2003). Assessing interdisciplinary work at the frontier: an empirical exploration of symptoms of quality. Paris: CNRS and Institute Nicod. Retrieved from www.interdisciplines.org.Google Scholar
Bondi, M. (2015). Probably most important of all: importance markers in academic and popular history articles. In Groom, N., Charles, M., and John, S., eds., Corpora, Grammar and Discourse: In Honour of Susan Hunston. Amsterdam: John Benjamins, pp. 161–82.Google Scholar
Borg, E. (2000). Citation practices in academic writing. In Thompson, P., ed., Patterns and Perspectives: Insights into EAP Writing Practices. Reading: University of Reading, pp. 27–45.Google Scholar
Bowers, J. (2016). Psychology, not educational neuroscience, is the way forward for improving educational outcomes for all children: reply to Gabrieli (2016) and Howard-Jones et al. (2016). Psychological Review, 123(5), 628–35.Google Scholar
Brezina, V. (2018). Statistics in Corpus Linguistics: A Practical Guide. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Bromme, R. (2000). Beyond one’s own perspective: the psychology of cognitive interdisciplinarity. In Weingart, P. and Stehr, N., eds., Practising Interdisciplinarity. Toronto: University of Toronto Press, pp. 115–33.Google Scholar
Bruer, J. (1997). Education and the brain: a bridge too far. Educational Researcher, 26(8), 4–6.Google Scholar
Bruer, J. (2017). Points of view: on the implications of neuroscience research for science teaching and learning: are there any? Life Sciences Education, 5, 104–10.Google Scholar
Bruun, H., Hukkinen, J., Huutoniemi, K., and Klein, J. (2005). Promoting Interdisciplinary Research: The Case of the Academy of Finland. Helsinki: Academy of Finland.Google Scholar
Campbell, S. (2011). Educational neuroscience: motivations, methodology, and implications. Educational Philosophy and Theory. Special Issue: Educational Neuroscience, 43(1), 7–16.Google Scholar
Canagarajah, S. (2002). A Geopolitics of Academic Writing. Pittsburgh: University of Pittsburgh Press.Google Scholar
Carew, T. and Magsamen, S. (2010). Neuroscience and education: an ideal partnership for producing evidence-based solutions to guide 21st century learning. Neuron, 67(5), 685–8.Google Scholar
Carter, R. (2004). Language and Creativity: The Art of Common Talk. London: Routledge.Google Scholar
Centre for Corpus Research (2017). Preparing to write for an interdisciplinary audience. University of Birmingham: Elsevier Publishing Campus.Google Scholar
Charles, M. (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(4), 313–26.Google Scholar
Charles, M. (2006). Phraseological patterns in reporting clauses used in citation: a corpus-based study of theses in two disciplines. English for Specific Purposes, 25, 310–31.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Charles, M. and Pecorari, D. (2016). Introducing English for Academic Purposes. London: Routledge.Google Scholar
Choi, S. and Richards, K. (2017). Interdisciplinary Discourse: Communicating across Disciplines. London: Palgrave.Google Scholar
Coffin, C. (2009). Incorporating and evaluating voices in a film studies thesis. Writing & Pedagogy, 1, 163–93.Google Scholar
Crookes, G. (1990). The utterance and other basic units for discourse analysis. Applied Linguistics, 11(1), 183–99.Google Scholar
Cuthbert, A. (2015). Neuroscience and education: an incompatible relationship. Sociology Compass, 9(1), 49–61.Google Scholar
Dahl, T. (2004). Textual metadiscourse in research articles: a marker of national culture or of academic discipline? Journal of Pragmatics, 36(10), 1807–25.Google Scholar
Dubois, B. (1988). Citation in biomedical journal articles. English for Specific Purposes, 7, 181–93.Google Scholar
Dudley-Evans, T. (1986). Genre analysis: an investigation of the introduction and discussion sections of MSc dissertations. In Coulthard, M., ed., Talking about Text. Birmingham: University of Birmingham, English Language Research, pp. 128–45.Google Scholar
Duff, P. (2018). Case study research in applied linguistics. In Litosseliti, L., ed., Research Methods in Linguistics, 2nd ed. London: Bloomsbury, pp. 305–30.Google Scholar
Edelenbosch, R., Kupper, F., Krabbendam, L., and Broerse, J. (2015). Brain-based learning and educational neuroscience: boundary work. Mind, Brain, and Education, 9(1), 40–49.Google Scholar
Feak, C. and Swales, J. (2009). Telling a Research Story: Writing a Literature Review. Ann Arbor: Michigan University Press.Google Scholar
Felt, U., Rayvon, C., and Miller, L. (2017). The Handbook of Science and Technology Studies. Cambridge, MA: MIT.Google Scholar
Fischer, K., Goswami, U., and Geake, J. (2010). The future of educational neuroscience. Mind, Brain, & Education, 4(2), 68–80.Google Scholar
Fløttum, K., Dahl, T., and Kinn, T. (2006). Academic Voices: Across Languages and Disciplines. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Flowerdew, L. (2004). The argument for using English specialized corpora to understand academic and professional settings. In Connor, U. and Upton, T., eds., Discourse in the Professions: Perspectives from Corpus Linguistics. Amsterdam: John Benjamins, pp. 11–13.Google Scholar
Francis, G., Hunston, S., and Manning, E. (1996). Collins COBUILD Grammar Patterns 1: Verbs. London: HarperCollins.Google Scholar
Frickel, S. (2004). Building an interdiscipline: collective action framing and the rise of genetic toxicology. Social Problems, 51(2), 269–87.Google Scholar
Frodeman, R., Klein, J., and Pacheco, R. (2017). The Oxford Handbook of Interdisciplinarity, 2nd ed. New York: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Fuchsman, K. (2012). Interdisciplines and interdisciplinarity: political psychology and psychohistory compared. Issues in Integrative Studies, 30, 128–54.Google Scholar
Gabrieli, J. (2016). The promise of educational neuroscience: comment on Bowers (2016). Psychological Review, 123, 613–19.Google Scholar
Gardner, P. (1995). The relationship between technology and science: some historical and philosophical reflections. International Journal of Technology and Design Education, 5(1), 1–33.Google Scholar
Graff, H. (2015a). Undisciplining knowledge: interview with Harvey Graff. Retrieved from www.insidehighered.com/news/2015/09/10/author-discusses-new-book-interdisciplinarity.Google Scholar
Graff, H. (2015b). Undisciplining Knowledge: Interdisciplinarity in the Twentieth Century. Baltimore: Johns Hopkins University Press.Google Scholar
Groom, N. (2000). Attribution and averral revisited: three perspectives on manifest intertextuality in academic writing. In Thompson, P., ed., Patterns and Perspectives: Insights for EAP Writing Practice. Reading: CALS, University of Reading, pp. 15–26.Google Scholar
Groom, N. (2005). Patterns and meaning across genres and disciplines: an exploratory study. Journal of English for Academic Purposes, 4(3), 257–77.Google Scholar
Halliday, M. and Martin, J. (1993). Writing Science: Literacy and Discursive Power. Pittsburgh: University of Pittsburgh Press.Google Scholar
Halliday, M. and Matthiessen, C. (2004). An Introduction to Functional Grammar. London: Edward Arnold.Google Scholar
Harwood, N. (2005). “Nowhere has anyone attempted … In this article I aim to do just that”: a corpus-based study of self-promotional I and we in academic writing across four disciplines. Journal of Pragmatics, 37, 1207–31.Google Scholar
Harwood, N. (2009). An interview-based study of the functions of citations in academic writing across two disciplines. Journal of Pragmatics, 41, 497–518.Google Scholar
Harwood, N. and Petrić, B. (2012). Performance in the citing behaviour of two student writers. Written Communication, 29, 55–103.Google Scholar
Harwood, N. and Petrić, B. (2013). Task requirements, task representation, and self-reported citation functions: an exploratory study of a successful L2 student’s writing. Journal of English for Academic Purposes, 12, 104–24.Google Scholar
Hood, S. (2011). Writing discipline: comparing inscriptions of knowledge and knowers in academic writing. In Christie, F. and Maton, K., eds., Disciplinarity: Functional Linguistic and Sociological Perspectives. London: Continuum, pp. 106–28.Google Scholar
Hopkins, A. and Dudley-Evans, T. (1988). A genre-based investigation of the discussion sections in articles and dissertations. English for Specific Purposes, 7, 113–21.Google Scholar
Hu, G., and Wang, G. (2014). Disciplinary and ethnolinguistic influences on citation in research articles. Journal of English for Academic Purposes, 14, 14–28.Google Scholar
Hunston, S. (1993). Professional conflict: disagreement in academic discourse. In Baker, M., Francis, G., and Tognini-Bognelli, E., eds., Text and Technology: In Honour of John Sinclair. Amsterdam: John Benjamins, pp. 115–34.Google Scholar
Hunston, S. (1994). Evaluation and organization in a sample of written academic discourse. In Coulthard, M., ed., Advances in Written Text Analysis. London: Routledge, pp. 191–218.Google Scholar
Hunston, S. (2000). Evaluation and the planes of discourse: status and value in persuasive texts. In Hunston, S. and Thompson, G., eds., Evaluation in Text: Authorial Stance and the Construction of Discourse. Oxford: Oxford University Press, pp. 176–207.Google Scholar
Hunston, S. (2002). Corpora in Applied Linguistics. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Hunston, S. (2004). “It has rightly been pointed out …”: attributions, consensus and conflict in academic English. In Bondi, M., Gavioli, L., and Silver, M., eds., Academic Discourse: Genre and Small Corpora. Rome: Officina Edizioni, pp. 15–33.Google Scholar
Hunston, S. (2011). Corpus Approaches to Evaluation: Phraseology and Evaluative Language. London: Routledge.Google Scholar
Hunston, S. (2013). Systemic functional linguistics, corpus linguistics, and the ideology of science. Text & Talk, 33(4–5), 617–40.Google Scholar
Hursh, B., Haas, P., and Moore, M. (1983). An interdisciplinary model to implement general education. Journal of Higher Education, 54(1), 42–49.Google Scholar
Hyland, K. (1999). Academic attribution: citation and the construction of disciplinary knowledge. Applied Linguistics, 20, 341–67.Google Scholar
Hyland, K. (2000). Disciplinary Discourses: Social Interactions in Academic Writing. London: Longman.Google Scholar
Hyland, K. (2012). Disciplinary Identities: Individuality and Community in Academic Writing. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Hyland, K. (2015). Corpora and written academic English. In Biber, D. and Reppen, R., eds., The Cambridge Handbook of English Corpus Linguistics. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, pp. 292–308.Google Scholar
Hyland, K. and Bondi, M. (2006). Academic Discourse across Disciplines. Bern: Peter Lang.Google Scholar
Jakobs, E. (2003). Reproductive writing: writing from sources. Journal of Pragmatics, 35(893), 906.Google Scholar
Jasanoff, S. (2013). Fields and fallows: a political history of STS. In Barry, A. and Born, G., eds., Interdisciplinarity: Reconfigurations of the Social and Natural Sciences. London: Routledge, pp. 99–118.Google Scholar
Jasanoff, S. (2017). A field of its own: the emergence of Science and Technology Studies. In Frodeman, R., Klein, J., and Pacheco, R., eds., The Oxford Handbook of Interdisciplinarity, 2nd ed. Oxford: Oxford University Press, pp. 191–205.Google Scholar
Kagan, J. (2009). The Three Cultures: Natural Sciences, Social Sciences and the Humanities in the 21st Century. New York: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Klein, J. (1996). Crossing Boundaries: Knowledge, Disciplinarities, and Interdisciplinarities. Charlottesville: University Press of Virginia.Google Scholar
Klein, J. (2004). Interdisciplinarity and complexity: an evolving relationship. E:CO, 6(1), 2–10.Google Scholar
Klein, J. (2005). Humanities, Culture, and Interdisciplinarity: The Changing American Academy. Albany: State University of New York Press.Google Scholar
Klein, J. (2010). Creating Interdisciplinary Campus Cultures: A Model for Strength and Sustainability. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.Google Scholar
Klein, J. (2017). A taxonomy of interdisciplinarity. In Frodeman, R., Klein, J., and Pacheco, R., eds., The Oxford Handbook of Interdisciplinarity, 2nd ed. Oxford: Oxford University Press, pp. 15–30.Google Scholar
Koester, A. (2010). Building small specialized corpora. In O’Keeffe, A. and McCarthy, M., eds., The Routledge Handbook of Corpus Linguistics. London: Routledge, pp. 66–79.Google Scholar
Lamoreaux, N. (2015). The future of Economic History must be interdisciplinary. Journal of Economic History, 75, 1151–7.Google Scholar
Lee, D. (2010). What corpora are available? In O’Keeffe, A. and McCarthy, M., eds., The Routledge Handbook of Corpus Linguistics. London: Routledge, pp. 107–21.Google Scholar
Lee, J., Hitchcock, C., and Casal, J. (2018). Citation practices of L2 university students in first-year writing: form, function, and stance. Journal of English for Academic Purposes, 33, 1–11.Google Scholar
Manathunga, C. and Brew, A. (2012). Beyond tribes and territories: new metaphors for new times. In Trowler, P., Sanders, M., and Bamber, V., eds., Tribes and Territories in the 21st Century: Rethinking the Significance of Disciplines in Higher Education. London: Routledge, pp. 44–56.Google Scholar
Marcus, G. (2002). Intimate strangers: the dynamics of (non) relationship between the natural and human sciences in the contemporary US university. Anthropological Quarterly, 75(3), 519–26.Google Scholar
Martin, J. (2011). Bridging troubled waters: interdisciplinarity and what makes it stick. In Christie, F. and Maton, K., eds., Disciplinarity: Functional Linguistic and Sociological Perspectives. London: Continuum, pp. 35–61.Google Scholar
Martin, J. and White, P. (2005). The Language of Evaluation: Appraisal in English. New York: Palgrave Macmillan.Google Scholar
McEnery, T., Xiao, R., and Tono, Y. (2006). Corpus Based Language Studies: An Advanced Resource Book. London: Routledge.Google Scholar
Merriam, S. (2009). Qualitative Research: A Guide to Design and Implementation. San Francisco: John Wiley.Google Scholar
Mitcham, C. and Nan, W. (2017). Interdisciplinarity in ethics. In Frodeman, R., Klein, J., and Pacheco, R., eds., The Oxford Handbook of Interdisciplinarity, 2nd ed. New York: Oxford University Press, pp. 241–54.Google Scholar
Moon, R. (1998). Fixed Expressions and Idioms in English: A Corpus-Based Approach. Oxford: Clarendon.Google Scholar
Murakami, A., Thompson, P., Hunston, S., and Vajn, D. (2017). “What is this corpus about?” Using topic modelling to explore a specialised corpus. Corpora, 12(2), 243–77.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Murphy, A. (2005). Markers of attribution in English and Italian opinion articles: a comparative corpus-based study. ICAME Journal, 29, 131–50.Google Scholar
Myers, G. (1990). Writing Biology: Texts in the Social Construction of Scientific Knowledge. Madison: University of Wisconsin Press.Google Scholar
Newell, W. (2007). Decision-making in interdisciplinary studies. In Morçöl, G., ed., Handbook of Decision Making. Boca Raton: CRC/Taylor & Francis, pp. 245–64.Google Scholar
Oakey, D., Mathias, P., and Thompson, T. (2011). Improving inter-professional communication in health and social care: levels and types of cooperation, corpus linguistics and professional practice. Paper presented at the First Interdisciplinary Conference on Applied Linguistics and Professional Practice. University of Cardiff, Wales, June 23, 2011.Google Scholar
O’Keeffe, A., McCarthy, M., and Carter, R. (2007). From Corpus to Classroom: Language Use and Language Teaching. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Osborne, T. (2013). Inter that discipline! In Barry, A. and Born, G., eds., Interdisciplinarity: Reconfigurations of the Social and Natural Sciences. London: Routledge, pp. 82–98.Google Scholar
Patten, K. and Campbell, S. (2011). Introduction: educational neuroscience. Educational Philosophy and Theory, 43(1), 1–6.Google Scholar
Peacock, M. (2014). Modals in the construction of research articles: a cross-disciplinary perspective. Ibérica, 27, 143–64.Google Scholar
Petrić, B. (2012). Legitimate textual borrowing: direct quotation in L2 student writing. Journal of Second Language Writing, 21, 102–17.Google Scholar
Petts, J., Owens, S., and Bulkeley, H. (2008). Crossing boundaries: interdisciplinarity in the context of urban environments. Geoforum, 39, 593–601.Google Scholar
Pickard, V. (1995). Citing previous writers: what can we say instead of “say”? Hong Kong Papers in Linguistics and Language Teaching, 18, 89–102.Google Scholar
Pickering, S. and Howard-Jones, P. (2007). Educators’ views on the role of neuroscience in education: findings from a study of UK and international perspectives. Mind, Brain, & Education, 1(3), 109–13.Google Scholar
Rayson, P. (2017). Log-likelihood and effect size calculator. Retrieved May 18, 2020 from http://ucrel.lancs.ac.uk/llwizard.html.Google Scholar
Repko, A. and Szostak, R. (2017). Interdisciplinary Research: Process and Theory, 3rd ed. Los Angeles: SAGE.Google Scholar
Repko, A., Szostak, R., and Buchberger, M. (2017). Introduction to Interdisciplinary Studies, 2nd ed. Thousand Oaks: SAGE.Google Scholar
Ritter, H. and Horn, T. (1986). Interdisciplinary history: a historiographical review. The History Teacher, 19(3), 427–48.Google Scholar
Schwartz, D., Blair, K., and Tsang, J. (2012). How to build educational neuroscience: two approaches with concrete instances. British Journal of Educational Psychology Monograph Series II, 8, 9–27.Google Scholar
Shanahan, M. (2015). Discipline identity in economic history: reflecting on an interdisciplinary community. Arts & Humanities in Higher Education, 14(2), 181–93.Google Scholar
Shaw, P. (1992). Reasons for the correlation of voice, tense, and sentence function in reporting verbs. Applied Linguistics, 13(3), 302–19.Google Scholar
Sigman, M., Peña, M., Goldin, A., and Ribeiro, S. (2014). Neuroscience and education: prime time to build the bridge. Nature Neuroscience, 17(4), 497–502.Google Scholar
Silver, M. (2003). The stance of stance: a critical look at ways stance is expressed and modeled in academic discourse. Journal of English for Academic Purposes, 2(4), 359–74.Google Scholar
Sinclair, J. (1988). Mirror for a text. Journal of English and Foreign Languages, 1, 15–44.Google Scholar
Stubbs, M. (2001). Texts, corpora, and problems of interpretation: a response to Widdowson. Applied Linguistics, 22(2), 149–72.Google Scholar
Swales, J. (1986). Citation analysis and discourse analysis. Applied Linguistics, 7, 39–56.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Swales, J. (1990). Genre Analysis: English in Academic and Research Settings. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Swales, J. (2004). Research Genres: Exploration and Applications. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Swales, J. (2014). Variation in citational practice in a corpus of student biology papers: from parenthetical plonking to intertextual storytelling. Written Communication, 31, 118–41.Google Scholar
Tadros, A. (1993). The pragmatics of text averral and attribution in academic texts. In Hoey, M., ed., Data, Description, Discourse. London: Harper Collins, pp. 98–114.Google Scholar
Teich, E. and Holtz, M. (2009). Scientific registers in contact: an exploration of the lexicogrammatical properties of interdisciplinary discourses. International Journal of Corpus Linguistics, 14 (4), 524–48.Google Scholar
Thomas, S. and Hawes, T. (1994). Reporting verbs in medical journal articles. English for Specific Purposes, 13(2), 129–48.Google Scholar
Thompson, G. and Ye, P. (1991). Evaluation in the reporting verbs used in academic papers. Applied Linguistics, 12(4), 365–82.Google Scholar
Thompson, P. (2001). A pedagogically-motivated corpus-based examination of PhD theses: macrostructure, citation practices and uses of modal verbs. Unpublished PhD thesis, University of Reading.Google Scholar
Thompson, P. (2005). Aspects of identification and position in intertextual references in PhD theses. In Tognini-Bonelli, E. and Del Lungo Camiciotti, G., eds., Strategies in Academic Discourse. Amsterdam: John Benjamins, pp. 31–50.Google Scholar
Thompson, P. (2012). Achieving a voice of authority in PhD theses. In Hyland, K. and Sancho-Guinda, C., eds., Stance and Voice in Academic Writing. Basingstoke: Palgrave MacMillan, pp. 119–33.Google Scholar
Thompson, P. (2015). Writing for an interdisciplinary audience: corpus perspectives [Powerpoint slides]. Talk given at the Federal University of Santa Catarina, Florianopolis, Brazil, April 15, 2016.Google Scholar
Thompson, P. and Hunston, S. (2020). Interdisciplinary Research Discourse: Corpus Investigations into Environment Journals. London: Routledge.Google Scholar
Thompson, P. and Tribble, C. (2001). Looking at citations: using corpora in English for academic purposes. Language Learning & Technology, 5, 91–105.Google Scholar
Thompson, P., Hunston, S., Murakami, A., and Vajn, D. (2017). Multi-dimensional analysis, text constellations, and interdisciplinary discourse. International Journal of Corpus Linguistics, 22(2), 153–86.Google Scholar
Trowler, P. (2012). Disciplines and interdisciplinarity: conceptual groundwork. In Trowler, P., Sanders, M., and Bamber, V., eds., Tribes and Territories in the 21st Century: Rethinking the Significance of Disciplines in Higher Education. London: Routledge, pp. 5–29.Google Scholar
Trowler, P. (2013). Depicting and researching disciplines: strong and moderate essentialist approaches. Studies in Higher Education, 39(10), 1720–31.Google Scholar
Trowler, P., Saunders, M., and Bamber, R. (2012). Tribes and Territories in the 21st Century: Rethinking the Significance of Disciplines in Higher Education. London: Routledge.Google Scholar
Weingart, P. (2000). Interdisciplinarity: the paradoxical discourse. In Weingart, P. and Stehr, N., eds., Practising Interdisciplinarity. Toronto: University of Toronto Press, pp. 25–41.Google Scholar
Weingart, P. and Stehr, N. (2000). Practising Interdisciplinarity. Toronto: University of Toronto Press.Google Scholar
Welch, J. (2011). The emergence of interdisciplinarity from epistemological thought. Issues in Integrative Studies, 29, 1–39.Google Scholar
Welch, J. (2014). Mary Jo Ragan Lecture on Interdisciplinary Studies 2014. University of Science and Arts of Oklahoma. Retrieved from www.youtube.com/watch?v=S8egjjkiHss.Google Scholar
White, P. (2003). Beyond modality and hedging: a dialogic view of the language of intersubjective stance. Text, Special Edition on Appraisal, 23(3), 259–84.Google Scholar
Willis, J. (2008). Building a bridge from neuroscience to the classroom. Phi Delta Kappan, 89(6), 424–7.Google Scholar
Wolfe, C. and Haynes, C. (2003). Interdisciplinary writing assessment profiles. Issues in Integrative Studies, 21, 126–69.Google Scholar
- 9
- Cited by