References
Afifi, T. (2017). Interdisciplinary journals. In Allen, M., ed., The SAGE Encyclopedia of Communication Research Methods. Thousand Oaks: Sage, pp. 758–61.
Ansari, D. and Coch, D. (2006). Bridges over troubled waters: education and cognitive neuroscience. Trends in Cognitive Sciences, 10(4), 146–51.
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.
Baker, D., Salina, D., and Eslinger, P. (2012). An envisioned bridge: schooling as a neurocognitive developmental institution. Developmental Cognitive Neuroscience, 2(1), 6–17.
Barry, A. and Born, G. (2013). Interdisciplinarity: Reconfigurations of the Social and Natural Sciences. London: Routledge.
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.
Becher, T. (1981). Towards a definition of disciplinary cultures. Studies in Higher Education, 6(2), 109–22.
Becher, T. (1987). Disciplinary discourse. Studies in Higher APPENDIXcation, 12, 261–74.
Becher, T. and Trowler, P. (2001). Academic Tribes and Territories, 2nd ed. Buckingham: Society for Research into Higher Education and Open University Press.
Berkenkotter, C. and Huckin, T. (1995). Genre Knowledge in Disciplinary Communication: Cognition/Culture/Power. Hillsdale: Erlbaum.
Biber, D. (1990). Methodological issues regarding corpus-based analyses of linguistic variation. Literary and Linguistic Computing, 5(4), 257–69.
Biber, D. (1993). Representativeness in corpus design. Literary and Linguistic Computing, 8(4), 243–57.
Biber, D. (1995). Dimensions of Register Variation: A Cross-Linguistic Comparison. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Biber, D., Conrad, S., and Reppen, R. (1998). Corpus Linguistics: Investigating Language Structure and Use. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
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.
Biglan, A. (1973). The characteristics of subject matter in different academic areas. Journal of Applied Psychology, 57(3), 195–203.
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.
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. 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.
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.
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.
Brezina, V. (2018). Statistics in Corpus Linguistics: A Practical Guide. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
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.
Bruer, J. (1997). Education and the brain: a bridge too far. Educational Researcher, 26(8), 4–6.
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.
Bruun, H., Hukkinen, J., Huutoniemi, K., and Klein, J. (2005). Promoting Interdisciplinary Research: The Case of the Academy of Finland. Helsinki: Academy of Finland.
Campbell, S. (2011). Educational neuroscience: motivations, methodology, and implications. Educational Philosophy and Theory. Special Issue: Educational Neuroscience, 43(1), 7–16.
Canagarajah, S. (2002). A Geopolitics of Academic Writing. Pittsburgh: University of Pittsburgh Press.
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.
Carter, R. (2004). Language and Creativity: The Art of Common Talk. London: Routledge.
Centre for Corpus Research (2017). Preparing to write for an interdisciplinary audience. University of Birmingham: Elsevier Publishing Campus.
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.
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.
Charles, M. and Pecorari, D. (2016). Introducing English for Academic Purposes. London: Routledge.
Choi, S. and Richards, K. (2017). Interdisciplinary Discourse: Communicating across Disciplines. London: Palgrave.
Coffin, C. (2009). Incorporating and evaluating voices in a film studies thesis. Writing & Pedagogy, 1, 163–93.
Crookes, G. (1990). The utterance and other basic units for discourse analysis. Applied Linguistics, 11(1), 183–99.
Cuthbert, A. (2015). Neuroscience and education: an incompatible relationship. Sociology Compass, 9(1), 49–61.
Dahl, T. (2004). Textual metadiscourse in research articles: a marker of national culture or of academic discipline? Journal of Pragmatics, 36(10), 1807–25.
Dubois, B. (1988). Citation in biomedical journal articles. English for Specific Purposes, 7, 181–93.
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.
Duff, P. (2018). Case study research in applied linguistics. In Litosseliti, L., ed., Research Methods in Linguistics, 2nd ed. London: Bloomsbury, pp. 305–30.
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.
Feak, C. and Swales, J. (2009). Telling a Research Story: Writing a Literature Review. Ann Arbor: Michigan University Press.
Felt, U., Rayvon, C., and Miller, L. (2017). The Handbook of Science and Technology Studies. Cambridge, MA: MIT.
Fischer, K., Goswami, U., and Geake, J. (2010). The future of educational neuroscience. Mind, Brain, & Education, 4(2), 68–80.
Fløttum, K., Dahl, T., and Kinn, T. (2006). Academic Voices: Across Languages and Disciplines. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.
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.
Francis, G., Hunston, S., and Manning, E. (1996). Collins COBUILD Grammar Patterns 1: Verbs. London: HarperCollins.
Frickel, S. (2004). Building an interdiscipline: collective action framing and the rise of genetic toxicology. Social Problems, 51(2), 269–87.
Frodeman, R., Klein, J., and Pacheco, R. (2017). The Oxford Handbook of Interdisciplinarity, 2nd ed. New York: Oxford University Press.
Fuchsman, K. (2012). Interdisciplines and interdisciplinarity: political psychology and psychohistory compared. Issues in Integrative Studies, 30, 128–54.
Gabrieli, J. (2016). The promise of educational neuroscience: comment on Bowers (2016). Psychological Review, 123, 613–19.
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.
Graff, H. (2015b). Undisciplining Knowledge: Interdisciplinarity in the Twentieth Century. Baltimore: Johns Hopkins University Press.
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.
Groom, N. (2005). Patterns and meaning across genres and disciplines: an exploratory study. Journal of English for Academic Purposes, 4(3), 257–77.
Halliday, M. (1994). An Introduction to Functional Grammar, 2nd ed. London: Arnold.
Halliday, M. and Martin, J. (1993). Writing Science: Literacy and Discursive Power. Pittsburgh: University of Pittsburgh Press.
Halliday, M. and Matthiessen, C. (2004). An Introduction to Functional Grammar. London: Edward Arnold.
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.
Harwood, N. (2009). An interview-based study of the functions of citations in academic writing across two disciplines. Journal of Pragmatics, 41, 497–518.
Harwood, N. and Petrić, B. (2012). Performance in the citing behaviour of two student writers. Written Communication, 29, 55–103.
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.
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.
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.
Hu, G., and Wang, G. (2014). Disciplinary and ethnolinguistic influences on citation in research articles. Journal of English for Academic Purposes, 14, 14–28.
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.
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.
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.
Hunston, S. (2002). Corpora in Applied Linguistics. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
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.
Hunston, S. (2011). Corpus Approaches to Evaluation: Phraseology and Evaluative Language. London: Routledge.
Hunston, S. (2013). Systemic functional linguistics, corpus linguistics, and the ideology of science. Text & Talk, 33(4–5), 617–40.
Hursh, B., Haas, P., and Moore, M. (1983). An interdisciplinary model to implement general education. Journal of Higher Education, 54(1), 42–49.
Hyland, K. (1999). Academic attribution: citation and the construction of disciplinary knowledge. Applied Linguistics, 20, 341–67.
Hyland, K. (2000). Disciplinary Discourses: Social Interactions in Academic Writing. London: Longman.
Hyland, K. (2012). Disciplinary Identities: Individuality and Community in Academic Writing. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
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.
Hyland, K. and Bondi, M. (2006). Academic Discourse across Disciplines. Bern: Peter Lang.
Jakobs, E. (2003). Reproductive writing: writing from sources. Journal of Pragmatics, 35(893), 906.
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.
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.
Kagan, J. (2009). The Three Cultures: Natural Sciences, Social Sciences and the Humanities in the 21st Century. New York: Cambridge University Press.
Klein, J. (1996). Crossing Boundaries: Knowledge, Disciplinarities, and Interdisciplinarities. Charlottesville: University Press of Virginia.
Klein, J. (2004). Interdisciplinarity and complexity: an evolving relationship. E:CO, 6(1), 2–10.
Klein, J. (2005). Humanities, Culture, and Interdisciplinarity: The Changing American Academy. Albany: State University of New York Press.
Klein, J. (2010). Creating Interdisciplinary Campus Cultures: A Model for Strength and Sustainability. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.
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.
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.
Lamoreaux, N. (2015). The future of Economic History must be interdisciplinary. Journal of Economic History, 75, 1151–7.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
Martin, J. and White, P. (2005). The Language of Evaluation: Appraisal in English. New York: Palgrave Macmillan.
McEnery, T., Xiao, R., and Tono, Y. (2006). Corpus Based Language Studies: An Advanced Resource Book. London: Routledge.
Merriam, S. (2009). Qualitative Research: A Guide to Design and Implementation. San Francisco: John Wiley.
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.
Moon, R. (1998). Fixed Expressions and Idioms in English: A Corpus-Based Approach. Oxford: Clarendon.
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.
Murphy, A. (2005). Markers of attribution in English and Italian opinion articles: a comparative corpus-based study. ICAME Journal, 29, 131–50.
Myers, G. (1990). Writing Biology: Texts in the Social Construction of Scientific Knowledge. Madison: University of Wisconsin Press.
Newell, W. (2007). Decision-making in interdisciplinary studies. In Morçöl, G., ed., Handbook of Decision Making. Boca Raton: CRC/Taylor & Francis, pp. 245–64.
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.
O’Keeffe, A. (2006). Investigating Media Discourse. London: Routledge.
O’Keeffe, A., McCarthy, M., and Carter, R. (2007). From Corpus to Classroom: Language Use and Language Teaching. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
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.
Patten, K. and Campbell, S. (2011). Introduction: educational neuroscience. Educational Philosophy and Theory, 43(1), 1–6.
Peacock, M. (2014). Modals in the construction of research articles: a cross-disciplinary perspective. Ibérica, 27, 143–64.
Penny, S. (2006). Interview with Simon Penny. University of California, Irvine.
Petrić, B. (2012). Legitimate textual borrowing: direct quotation in L2 student writing. Journal of Second Language Writing, 21, 102–17.
Petts, J., Owens, S., and Bulkeley, H. (2008). Crossing boundaries: interdisciplinarity in the context of urban environments. Geoforum, 39, 593–601.
Pickard, V. (1995). Citing previous writers: what can we say instead of “say”? Hong Kong Papers in Linguistics and Language Teaching, 18, 89–102.
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.
Repko, A. and Szostak, R. (2017). Interdisciplinary Research: Process and Theory, 3rd ed. Los Angeles: SAGE.
Repko, A., Szostak, R., and Buchberger, M. (2017). Introduction to Interdisciplinary Studies, 2nd ed. Thousand Oaks: SAGE.
Ritter, H. and Horn, T. (1986). Interdisciplinary history: a historiographical review. The History Teacher, 19(3), 427–48.
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.
Shanahan, M. (2015). Discipline identity in economic history: reflecting on an interdisciplinary community. Arts & Humanities in Higher Education, 14(2), 181–93.
Shaw, P. (1992). Reasons for the correlation of voice, tense, and sentence function in reporting verbs. Applied Linguistics, 13(3), 302–19.
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.
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.
Sinclair, J. (1988). Mirror for a text. Journal of English and Foreign Languages, 1, 15–44.
Stake, R. (1995). The Art of Case Study Research. Thousand Oaks: SAGE.
Stubbs, M. (2001). Texts, corpora, and problems of interpretation: a response to Widdowson. Applied Linguistics, 22(2), 149–72.
Swales, J. (1986). Citation analysis and discourse analysis. Applied Linguistics, 7, 39–56.
Swales, J. (1990). Genre Analysis: English in Academic and Research Settings. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Swales, J. (2004). Research Genres: Exploration and Applications. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
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.
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.
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.
Thomas, S. and Hawes, T. (1994). Reporting verbs in medical journal articles. English for Specific Purposes, 13(2), 129–48.
Thompson, G. and Ye, P. (1991). Evaluation in the reporting verbs used in academic papers. Applied Linguistics, 12(4), 365–82.
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.
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.
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.
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.
Thompson, P. and Hunston, S. (2020). Interdisciplinary Research Discourse: Corpus Investigations into Environment Journals. London: Routledge.
Thompson, P. and Tribble, C. (2001). Looking at citations: using corpora in English for academic purposes. Language Learning & Technology, 5, 91–105.
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.
Tognini-Bonelli, E. (2001). Corpus Linguistics at Work. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.
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.
Trowler, P. (2013). Depicting and researching disciplines: strong and moderate essentialist approaches. Studies in Higher Education, 39(10), 1720–31.
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.
Weingart, P. (2000). Interdisciplinarity: the paradoxical discourse. In Weingart, P. and Stehr, N., eds., Practising Interdisciplinarity. Toronto: University of Toronto Press, pp. 25–41.
Weingart, P. and Stehr, N. (2000). Practising Interdisciplinarity. Toronto: University of Toronto Press.
Welch, J. (2011). The emergence of interdisciplinarity from epistemological thought. Issues in Integrative Studies, 29, 1–39.
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.
Willis, J. (2008). Building a bridge from neuroscience to the classroom. Phi Delta Kappan, 89(6), 424–7.
Wolfe, C. and Haynes, C. (2003). Interdisciplinary writing assessment profiles. Issues in Integrative Studies, 21, 126–69.
