<= /map>

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