Selected articles
<=
/o:p>
Week 5
<=
/o:p>
Yap, F. H., & Celce-Murcia, M. (1999). The
grammar, meaning, and referencial functions of else.=
English
Language and Linguistics 4(2), 137-181.
Oh, S. (2000=
).
Actually and in fact in American English: A data-based analysis. Engli=
sh
Language and Linguistics 4(2), 243-278
Schiffrin, D. (1999). OH as a marke=
r of <=
/span>information management. In A. Jaworski and N. Coupland
(Eds.), The
Discourse Reader (pp. 2236-251). London and New York: Ro=
utledge.
Myhill, J. (=
1997).
Should and ought to: The rise of individually oriented modality. Engli=
sh
Language and Linguistics 1(1), 3-23.
<=
/o:p>
=
Week 6
<=
/o:p>
=
Biber, D.
& Finegan, E. (1989). Styles and stance in English: Lexical and
grammatical marking of evidentiality and affect. Text =
9(1),
93-124.
Mulkay, M. (=
1985).
Agreement and disagreement in conversations and letters. Text =
5(3).,
201-227.
McCarthy, M.=
&
Carter, R. (1997). Grammar, tails, and affect: Constructing expressive
choices in discourse. Text 17(3), 405-429.
Schiffrin, D.
(1985). Conversational coherence: The role of well. Langu=
age
61(3),
640-667.
<=
/o:p>
=
Week 7
<=
/o:p>
=
Gledhill,
C. (2000). The discourse function of&n=
bsp;
collocation in research article introductions. Engli=
sh
for Specific Purposes 19, 115-135
Luzon Marco, M. J.
(2000). Collocational frameworks in medical research papers: a genre-ba=
sed
study. Engli=
sh
for Specific Purposes 19, 63-86.
Howarth, P. =
(1998).
Phraseology and second language proficiency. Appli=
ed
Linguistics 19(1), 24-44.
DeCock, S. (=
1998). A
recurrent word combination approach to the study of formulae in the spe=
ech
of native and non-native speakers of English. Inter=
national
Journal of Corpus Linguistics 3(1), 59-80.
<=
/o:p>
=
Week 8
<=
/o:p>
=
Cortes,
V. (2004). Lexical bundles in published and student disciplinary writin=
g:
Examples from history and biology. English for Specific Purposes 23<=
/span>,
397-423.
<=
/o:p>
Week 9
=
Schiffrin,
D. (1992). Conditionals as topic in discourse. Lingu=
istics
30, 165-1=
97.
Carter, R. &=
amp;
McCarthy, M. (1997). The English get-passive in spoken discourse:
description and implications for an interpersonal grammar. Engli=
sh
Language and Linguistics 3(1), 41-58.
Vande Kopple=
, W.
(1994). Some characteristics and functions of grammatical subjects in
scientific discourse. Written Communication 11(4), 534-564.
Hewings, M &=
amp;
Hewings, A. (2002). “It is interesting to note that…”=
: A
comparative study of anticipatory ‘it’ in student and publi=
shed
writing. Engli=
sh
for Specific Purposes 21, 367-383.
<=
/o:p>
=
Week 11
<=
/o:p>
=
Biber,
D. (1999). A register perspective on grammar and discourse: Variability=
in
the form and use of English Complement Clauses. Disco=
urse
Studies 1(2),
131-150.
Hiltunen, R. (1984). The type and structure=
of
clausal embedding in legal English. Text 4 (1-3),
107-121.
Noel, D. (19=
97). The
choice between infinitives and that-clauses after belie=
ve. Engli=
sh
Language and Linguistics, 1(2), 271-284
Sigley, R. (=
1997).
The influence of formality and channel on relative pronoun choice in New
Zealand English. English Language and Linguistics 1(2), 207-232.
<=
/o:p>
Week 12
<=
/o:p>
=
Thompson,
S. & Mulac, A. (1991). The discourse conditions for the use of the
complementizer that in
conversational English. Journal of Pragmatics 15, 237-251.
Martinez, I.
(2001). Impersonality in the research article as revealed by the analys=
is
of the transitivity structure. English for Specific Purposes 20,=
227-2=
47.
<=
/o:p>
Week 13
<=
/o:p>
=
Abu-Akel,
A. (1999). Episodic boundaries in conversational narratives. =
Disco=
urse
Studies 1(4),
437-453.
<=
/o:p>
=
Csomay,
E. (2004). A multi-dimensional analysis of discourse segments in univer=
sity
classroom talk. In A. Partington, J. Morley, and L. Haarman (Eds.), Corpo=
ra
and Discourse. Bern<=
/st1:City>:
Peter Lang.
<=
/o:p>
=
Labov,
W. (1999). The transformation of experience in narrative. In A. Jaworski
and N. Coupland (Eds.), The Discourse Reader (pp. 2236-251). London
and New York<=
/st1:State>:
Routledge.
<=
/o:p>
Bell, A. (1999).=
News
stories as narratives. In A. Jaworski and N. Coupland (Eds.), The
Discourse Reader (pp. 2236-251). London and New York: Ro=
utledge.
<=
/o:p>
=
Week 14
<=
/o:p>
=
Prince,
E. (1987). Toward a taxonomy of given-new information. In Cole, P. (Ed.=
), Radic=
al
Pragmatics (pp.
223-255). New York:
Academia Press.
Spiegel, D. =
L. &
Fitzgerald, J. (1990). Textual cohesion and coherence in children’=
;s
writing revisited. Research in the Teaching of English 24(1),
48-66.
Crowhurst, M.
(1987). Cohesion in Argument and narration at three grade levels. Resea=
rch
in the Teaching of English 21(2), 185-202
Hardy, D. &a=
mp;
Leuchman, A. (1996). Topic versus cohesion in the prediction of causal
ordering in English conversation. Discourse Processes 21, 237-2=
54.
<=
/o:p>
<=
/o:p>
=
Week 15
<=
/o:p>
=
Yunxia,
Z. (2000). Structural moves reflected in English and Chinese sales lett=
ers.
Disco=
urs
Studies 2(4),
473-796.
Connor, U., =
Davis,
K., & De Rycker, T. (=
1995).
Correctness and clarity in applying for overseas jobs: A cross-cultural
analysis of US and Flemish applications. Text 15(4),
457-475.
Precht, K. (=
1998). A
cross-cultural comparison of letters of recommendation. Engli=
sh
for Specific Purposes 17(3), 241-265.
<=
/o:p>
Connor, U. &=
amp;
Mauranen, A. (1999). Linguistic analysis of grant proposals: European U=
nion
research grants. English for Specific Purposes 18(1), 47-62.
<=
/o:p>
TOP
![](3D"527_files/image003.gif")