Aijmer, Karin 2009. ‘Seem and evidentiality’, Functions of Language 16(1): 63–88.Google Scholar

Aktas, Rahime Nur and Cortes, Viviana 2008. ‘Shell nouns as cohesive devices in published and ESL student writing’, Journal of English for Academic Purposes 7: 3–14.Google Scholar

Altenberg, Bengt and Granger, Sylviane 2001. ‘The grammatical and lexical patterning of MAKE in native and non-native student writing’, Applied Linguistics 22(2): 173–195.Google Scholar

Archer, Arlene 2008. ‘“The place is suffering”: Enabling dialogue between students’ discourses and academic literacy conventions in engineering’, English for Specific Purposes 27: 255–266.Google Scholar

Aronoff, Mark 1985. ‘Orthography and linguistic theory: The syntactic basis of Masoretic Hebrew Punctuation’, Language 61(1): 28–72.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Atkinson, Dwight 1999. Scientific Discourse in Sociohistorical Context: The Philosophical Transactions of the Royal Society of London, 1675–1975. Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.Google Scholar

Banks, David 2005. ‘On the historical origins of nominalized process in scientific text’, English for Specific Purposes 24: 347–357.Google Scholar

Banks, David 2008. The Development of Scientific Writing: Linguistic Features and Historical Context. London: Equinox.Google Scholar

Baratta, Alexander 2009. ‘Revealing stance through passive voice’, Journal of Pragmatics 41: 1406–1421.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Barber, Charles 1964. Linguistic Change in Present-day English. London and Edinburgh: Oliver and Boyd.Google Scholar

Basturkmen, Helen 2009.‘Commenting on results in published research articles and masters dissertations in Language Teaching’, Journal of English for Academic Purposes 8: 241–251.Google Scholar

Bazerman, Charles 1988. Shaping Written Knowledge. Madison, WI: University of Wisconsin Press.Google Scholar

Berkenkotter, Carol and Huckin, Thomas 1995. Genre Knowledge in Disciplinary Communication: Cognition/Culture/Power. Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.Google Scholar

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

Biber, Douglas 1985. ‘Investigating macroscopic textual variation through multifeature/multi-dimensional analyses’, Linguistics 23: 337–360.Google Scholar

Biber, Douglas 1986. ‘Spoken and written textual dimensions in English: Resolving the contradictory findings’, Language 62: 384–414.Google Scholar

Biber, Douglas 1988. Variation across Speech and Writing. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Biber, Douglas 1995. Dimensions of Register Variation: A Cross-linguistic Comparison. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar

Biber, Douglas 2001. ‘Dimensions of variation among 18th century registers’, in Diller, H.-J. and Gorlach, M. (eds.), Towards a History of English as a History of Genres, pp. 89–110. Heidelberg: C. Winter. [Reprinted in Conrad & Biber (eds.) 2001, pp. 200–214]Google Scholar

Biber, Douglas 2003. ‘Compressed noun phrase structures in newspaper discourse: The competing demands of popularization vs. economy’, in Aitchison, J. and Lewis, D. (eds.), New Media Discourse, pp. 169–181. London: Routledge.Google Scholar

Biber, Douglas 2004. ‘Historical patterns for the grammatical marking of stance: A crossregister comparison’, Journal of Historical Pragmatics 5: 107–135.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Biber, Douglas 2006a. University Language: A Corpus-based Study of Spoken and Written Registers. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.Google Scholar

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

Biber, Douglas 2009. ‘Are there linguistic consequences of literacy? Comparing the potentials of language use in speech and writing’, in Olson, D. and Torrance, N. (eds.), Cambridge Handbook of Literacy, pp. 75–91. Berlin: Wissenschaftlicher Verlag Trier.Google Scholar

Biber, Douglas 2012. ‘Register as a predictor of linguistic variation’, Corpus Linguistics and Linguistic Theory 8: 9–37.Google Scholar

Biber, Douglas 2014. Using multi-dimensional analysis to explore cross-linguistic universals of register variation. Languages in Contrast 14(1): 7–34.Google 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 Fanego, T., López-Couso, M. José and Pérez-Guerra, J. (eds.), English Historical Syntax and Morphology, pp. 43–66. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.Google Scholar

Biber, Douglas and Conrad, Susan 2009. Register, Genre, and Style. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google 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.Google Scholar

Biber, Douglas, Conrad, Susan and Reppen, Randi 1998. Corpus Linguistics: Investigating Language Structure and Use. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar

Biber, Douglas, Egbert, Jesse, Gray, Bethany, Oppliger, Rahel and Szmrecsanyi, Benedikt 2016. ‘Variation versus text-linguistic approaches to grammatical change in English: Nominal modifiers of head nouns’, in Kyto, M. and Paivi, P. (eds.), Handbook of English Historical Linguistics. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar

Biber, Douglas and Finegan, Edward 1988. ‘Adverbial stance types in English’, Discourse Processes 11: 1–34.Google Scholar

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

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

Biber, Douglas and Finegan, Edward 1997. ‘Diachronic relations among speech-based and written registers in English’, in Nevalainen, T. ad Kahlas-Tarkka, L. (eds.), To Explain the Present: Studies in Changing English in Honor of Matti Rissanen, pp. 253–276. Helsinki: Société Néophilologique. [reprinted in Conrad and Biber 2001, pp. 66–83]Google Scholar

Biber, Douglas, Finegan, Edward and Atkinson, Dwight 1994. ‘ARCHER and its challenges: Compiling and exploring a Representative Corpus of Historical English Registers’, in Fries, U., Tottie, G. and Schneider, P. (eds.), Creating and Using English Language Corpora, pp. 1–14. Amsterdam: Rodopi.Google Scholar

Biber, Douglas and Gray, Bethany 2010. ‘Challenging stereotypes about academic writing: Complexity, elaboration, explicitness’, Journal of English for Academic Purposes 9: 2–20.Google Scholar

Biber, Douglas and Gray, Bethany 2012. ‘The competing demands of popularization vs. economy: Written language in the age of mass literacy’, in Nevalainen, T. & Traugott, E. (eds.), The Oxford Handbook of the History of English, pp. 314–328. Oxford: Oxford University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Biber, Douglas and Gray, Bethany 2013a. Discourse Characteristics of Writing and Speaking Task Types on the TOEFL iBT Test: A Lexico-grammatical Analysis. TOEFLiBT Research Report (TOEFL iBT-19). Princeton, NJ: Educational Testing Service.Google Scholar

Biber, Douglas and Gray, Bethany 2013b. ‘Being specific about historical change: The influence of sub-register’, Journal of English Linguistics 41(2): 104–134.Google Scholar

Biber, Douglas, Gray, Bethany and Poonpon, Kornwipa 2011. ‘Should we use characteristics of conversation to measure grammatical complexity in L2 writing development?’, TESOL Quarterly 45(1): 5–35.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Biber, Douglas, Gray, Bethany and Poonpon, Kornwipa 2013. ‘Pay attention to the phrasal structures: Going beyond T-units—A response to WeiWei Yang’, TESOL Quarterly 47(1): 192–201.Google Scholar

Biber, Douglas, Gray, Bethany and Staples, Shelley. 2014. Predicting patterns of grammatical complexity across language exam task types and proficiency levels. Applied Linguistics. (Currently available through Advanced Access: http://applij.oxfordjournals.org/content/early/2014/10/21/applin.amu059.short?rss=1).Google Scholar

Biber, Douglas, Johansson, Stig, Leech, Geoffrey, Conrad, Susan and Finegan, Edward 1999. Longman Grammar of Spoken and Written English. London: Longman.Google Scholar

Biber, Douglas and Jones, James 2009. ‘Quantitative methods in corpus linguistics’, in Lüdeling, A. & Kytö, M. (eds.), Corpus Linguistics: An International Handbook, pp. 1286–1304. Berlin: Walter de Gruyter.Google Scholar

Biber, Douglas and Kurjian, Jerry 2007. ‘Towards a taxonomy of web registers and text types: A multi-dimensional analysis’, in Hundt, M., Nesselhauf, N., and Biewer, C. (eds.), Corpus Linguistics and the Web, pp. 109–132. Amsterdam: Rodopi.Google Scholar

Bloomfield, Leonard 1933. Language. New York: Holt, Reinhart & Winston.Google Scholar

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

Brown, Annie, Iwashita, Noriko and McNamara, Tim 2005. ‘An examination of rater orientations and test-taker performance on English-for-Academic-Purposes speaking tasks’, TOEFL Monograph Series MS-29. Princeton, NJ: Educational Testing Service.Google Scholar

Brown, Gillian and Yule, George 1983. Discourse Analysis. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar

Bruce, Ian 2008. ‘Cognitive genre structures in Methods sections of research articles: A corpus study’, Journal of English for Academic Purposes 7: 38–54.Google Scholar

Bruce, Ian 2009. ‘Results sections in sociology and organic chemistry articles: A genre analysis’, English for Specific Purposes 28: 105–124.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

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

Bybee, Joan and Hopper, Paul (eds.) 2001. Frequency and the Emergence of Linguistic Structure. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.Google Scholar

Carter, Ronald and McCarthy, Michael 2006. Cambridge Grammar of English. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar

Chafe, Wallace 1982. ‘Integration and involvement in speaking, writing, and oral literature’, in Tannen, D. (ed.), Spoken and Written Language: Exploring Orality and Literacy, pp. 35–54. Norwood, NJ: Ablex.Google Scholar

Chambers, J.K. 2002. ‘Patterns of variation including change’, in Chambers, J.K., Trudgill, P., and Schilling-Estes, N. (eds.), The Handbook of Language Variation and Change, pp. 349–373. Oxford: Wiley-Blackwell.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.Google Scholar

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

Charles, Maggie 2006b. ‘The construction of stance in reporting clauses: A cross-disciplinary study of theses’, Applied Linguistics 27: 492–518.Google Scholar

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

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

Conrad, Susan and Biber, Douglas 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(4): 397–423.Google Scholar

Coxhead, Averil 2000. ‘A new academic word list’, TESOL Quarterly 34(2): 213–238.Google Scholar

Crespo García, Begoña and Moskowich-Spiegel Fandiño, Isabel 2010. ‘CETA in the context of the Coruña Corpus’, Literary and Linguistic Computing 25(2): 153–164.Google Scholar

Croft, William 2000. Explaining Language Change: An Evolutionary Approach. London: Longman.Google Scholar

Crompton, Peter 1997. ‘Hedging in academic writing: Some theoretical problems’, English for Specific Purposes 16(4): 271–287.Google Scholar

Culpeper, Jonathan and Kytö, Merja 2010. Early Modern English Dialogues: Spoken Interaction as Writing. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar

Davies, Mark 2010. ‘The Corpus of Contemporary American English as the first reliable monitor corpus of English’, Literary and Linguistic Computing 25(4): 447–464.Google Scholar

Davies, Mark 2012. ‘Expanding horizons in historical linguistics with the 400-million word Corpus of Historical American English’, Corpora 7(2): 121–157.Google Scholar

Denison, David 1998. ‘Syntax’, in Romaine, S. (ed.), The Cambridge History of the English Language, vol. IV, 1776–1997, pp. 92–329. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar

DeVito, Joseph 1966. ‘Psychogrammatical factors in oral and written discourse by skilled communicators’, Speech Monographs 33: 73–76.Google Scholar

Diani, Giuliana 2008. ‘Emphasizers in spoken and written academic discourse: The case of really’, International Journal of Corpus Linguistics 13(3): 296–321.Google Scholar

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

Ellis, Nick, Simpson-Vlach, Rita and Maynard, Carson 2008. ‘Formulaic language in native and second language speakers: Psycholinguistics, corpus linguistics, and TESOL’, TESOL Quarterly 42(3): 375–396.Google Scholar

Ellis, Rod and Yuan, Fangyuan 2004. ‘The effects of planning on fluency, complexity, and accuracy in second language narrative writing’, Studies in Second Language Acquisition 26: 59–84.Google Scholar

Fairclough, Norman 1992. Discourse and Social Change. Cambridge: Polity.Google Scholar

Fang, Zhihui, Schleppergrell, Mary and Cox, Beverly 2006. ‘Understanding the language demands of schooling: Nouns in academic registers’, Journal of Literacy Research 38(3): 247–273.Google Scholar

Feist, Jim 2012. Premodifiers in English: Their Structure and Significance. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar

Fennell, Barbara 2001. A History of English. Malden, MA: Blackwell.Google Scholar

Ferguson, Gibson 2001 ‘If you pop over there: A corpus-based study of conditionals in medical discourse’, English for Specific Purposes 20(1): 61–82.Google Scholar

Fillmore, Charles. 1981. ‘Pragmatics and the description of discourse’, in Cole, P. (ed.), Radical Pragmatics, pp. 143–166. New York: Academic Press.Google Scholar

Finegan, Edward 2008. Language: Its Structure and Use (5th ed). Boston, MA: Thompson Wadsworth.Google Scholar

Flowerdew, John (ed.) 2002. Academic Discourse. New York: Longman.Google Scholar

Flowerdew, John 2006. ‘Use of signaling nouns in a learner corpus,’ International Journal of Corpus Linguistics 11(3): 345–362.Google Scholar

Flowerdew, Lynn 2002. ‘Corpus-based analyses in EAP’, in Flowerdew, J. (ed.), Academic Discourse, pp. 95–115.Google Scholar

Fortanet, Inmaculada 2008. ‘Evaluative language in peer review referee reports’, Journal of English for Academic Purposes 7: 27–37.Google Scholar

Fox, Barbara 2007. ‘Principles shaping grammatical practices’, Discourse Studies 9: 299–318.Google Scholar

Freddi, Maria 2005. ‘Arguing linguistics: Corpus investigation of one functional variety of academic discourse’, Journal of English for Academic Purposes 4: 5–26.Google Scholar

Gardner, Dee and Davies, Mark 2014. ‘A new academic vocabular list’, Applied Linguistics 35(3): 305–327.Google Scholar

Gardner, Sheila and Nesi, Hilary 2012. ‘A classification of genre families in university student writing’, Applied Linguistics 34(1): 1–29.Google Scholar

Gilbert, G. Nigel and Mulkay, Michael 1984. Opening Pandora’s Box: A Sociological Analysis of Scientific Discourse. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar

Gledhill, Chris 2000. ‘The discourse function of collocation in research article introductions’, English for Specific Purposes 19(2): 115–135.Google Scholar

Grabe, William and Kaplan, Robert 1996. Theory and Practice of Writing: An Applied Linguistic Perspective. London: 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 Markkanen, R. and Schroder, H. (eds.), Hedging and Discourse: Approaches to the Analysis of a Pragmatic Phenomenon in Academic Texts, pp. 151–167. Berlin: Walter de Gruyter.Google Scholar

Grant, Leslie and Ginther, , April 2000. ‘Using computer-tagged linguistic features to describe L2 writing differences’, Journal of Second Language Writing 9(2): 123–145.Google Scholar

Gray, Bethany 2010. ‘On the use of demonstrative pronouns and determiners as cohesive devices: A focus on sentence-initial this/these in academic prose’, Journal of English for Academic Purposes 9: 167–183.Google Scholar

Gray, Bethany 2013. ‘More than discipline: Uncovering multi-dimensional patterns of variation in academic research articles’, Corpora 8(2): 153–181.Google Scholar

Gray, Bethany 2015a. ‘On the complexity of academic writing: Disciplinary variation and structural complexity’, in Cortes, V. and Csomay, E. (eds.), Corpus-based Research in Applied Linguistics. In Honor of Douglas Biber, pp. 49–77. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Gray, Bethany 2015b. Linguistic Variation in Research Articles: When Discipline Tells Only Part of the Story. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.Google Scholar

Gray, Bethany and Cortes, Viviana 2010. ‘Perception vs. evidence: An analysis of this and these in academic prose’, English for Specific Purposes 30(1): 31–43.Google Scholar

Green, Christopher, Christopher, Elsie and Mei, Jaquelin Lam Kam 2000. ‘The incidence and effects on coherence of marked themes in interlanguage texts: A corpus-based enquiry’, English for Specific Purposes 19: 99–113.Google Scholar

Grieve, Jack, Biber, Douglas, Friginal, Eric and Nekrasova, Tatiana 2011. ‘Variation among blogs: A multi-dimensional analysis’, in Mehler, A., Sharoff, S. and Santini, M. (eds.), Genres on the Web: Computational Models and Empirical Studies, pp. 303–322. Springer.Google Scholar

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

Gross, Alan, Harmon, Joseph and Reidy, Michael 2002. Communicating Science: The Scientific Article from the 17th Century to the Present. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar

Hall, Robert 1964. Introductory Linguistics. Philadelphia: Chilton Books.Google Scholar

Halliday, M.A.K. 1979. ‘Differences between spoken and written language: Some implications for language teaching’, in Page, G. et al. (eds.), Communication through Reading: Proceedings of the 4th Australian Reading Conference, pp. 37–52. Adelaide: Australian Reading Association.Google Scholar

Halliday, M.A.K. and Martin, J.R. 1993/1996. Writing Science: Literacy and Discursive Power. London: Falmer Press.Google Scholar

Halliday, M.A.K. 1988. ‘On the language of physical science’, in Ghadessy, M. (ed.), Registers of Written English, pp. 162–178. London: Pinter. [reprinted in M.A.K. Halliday 2004]Google Scholar

Halliday, M.A.K. 2004. The Language of Science. London: Continuum.Google Scholar

Halliday, M.A.K. and Martin, J.R. 1993. Writing Science: Literacy and Discursive Power. Pittsburgh: University of Pittsburgh Press.Google Scholar

Hardy, Jack and Römer, Ute 2013. ‘Revealing disciplinary variation in student writing: A multi-dimensional analysis of the Michigan Corpus of Upper-Level Student Papers (MICUSP)’, Corpora 8(2): 183–207.Google Scholar

Hewings, Ann, Lillis, Theresa and Vladimirou, Dimitra 2010. ‘Who’s citing whose writings? A corpus based study of citations as interpersonal resource in English medium national and English medium international journals’, Journal of English for Academic Purposes 9: 83–150.Google Scholar

Hewings, Martin (ed.) 2001. Academic Writing in Context: Implications and Applications. Birmingham: The University of Birmingham Press.Google Scholar

Hewings, Martin and Hewings, Ann 2001. ‘Anticipatory “it” in academic writing: An indicator of disciplinary difference and developing disciplinary knowledge’, in Hewings, M. (ed.), Academic Writing in Context: Implications and Applications, pp. 199–214.Google Scholar

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.Google Scholar

Hinkel, Eli 2003. ‘Simplicity without elegance: Features of sentences in L1 and L2 academic texts’, TESOL Quarterly 37(2): 275–301.Google Scholar

Hinrichs, Lars and Szmrecsanyi, Benedikt 2007. ‘Recent changes in the function and frequency of standard English genitive constructions: A multivariate analysis of tagged corpora’, English Language and Linguistics 11(3): 437–474.Google Scholar

Hoffmann, Sebastian 2005. Grammaticalization and English Complex Prepositions: A Corpus-based Study. London: Routledge.Google Scholar

Holmes, Janet 1986. ‘Doubt and certainty in ESL textbooks’, Applied Linguistics 9: 21–43.Google Scholar

Holmes, Janet 1992. An Introduction to Sociolinguistics. Harlow, England: Longman.Google Scholar

Hopper, Paul J. and Traugott, Elizabeth C. 2003. Grammaticalization (2nd edition). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar

Huckin, Thomas and Pesante, Linda Hutz 1988. ‘Existential there’, Written Communication 5(3): 368–391.Google Scholar

Huckin, Thomas, Haynes, Margot and Coady, James (eds.) 1995. Second Language Reading and Vocabulary Learning. Norwood, NJ: Ablex Publishing Corporation.Google Scholar

Huddleston, Rodney 1984. Introduction to the Grammar of English. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar

Huddleston, Rodney and Pullum, Geoffrey K. 2002. The Cambridge Grammar of the English Language. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar

Hughes, Rebecca 1996. English in Speech and Writing: Investigating Language and Literature. London: Routledge.Google Scholar

Hundt, Marianne 2004. ‘Animacy, agentivity, and the spread of the progressive in Modern English’, English Language and Linguistics 8: 47–69.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.Google Scholar

Hunston, Susan 1993. ‘Evaluation and ideology in scientific writing’, in Ghadessy, M. (ed.), Register Analysis: Theory and Practice, pp. 57–73. London: Pinter.Google Scholar

Hunston, Susan 1994. ‘Evaluation and organization in a sample of written academic discourse’, in Coulthard, M. (ed.), Advances in Written Text Analysis, pp. 191–218. London: Routledge.Google Scholar

Hyland, Ken 1994. ‘Hedging in academic writing and EAP textbooks’, English for Specific Purposes 13(3): 239–256.Google Scholar

Hyland, Ken 1996a. ‘Talking to the academy: Forms of hedging in science research articles’, Written Communication 13(2): 251–281.Google Scholar

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

Hyland, Ken 1998a. ‘Boosting, hedging and the negotiation of academic knowledge’, Text 18(3): 349–382.Google Scholar

Hyland, Ken 1998b. Hedging in Scientific Research Articles. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.Google Scholar

Hyland, Ken 1999. ‘Academic attribution: Citation and the construction of disciplinary knowledge’, Applied Linguistics 20(3): 341–367.Google Scholar

Hyland, Ken 2001. ‘Bringing in the reader: Addressee features in academic articles’, Written Communication 18(4): 549–574.Google Scholar

Hyland, Ken 2002a. ‘Directives: Argument and engagement in academic writing’, Applied Linguistics 23(2): 215–239.Google Scholar

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

Hyland, Ken 2002c. ‘Authority and invisibility: Authorial identity in academic writing’, Journal of Pragmatics 34(8): 1091–1112.Google Scholar

Hyland, Ken 2007. ‘Applying a gloss: Exemplifying and reformulating in academic discourse’, Applied Linguistics 28(2): 266–285.Google Scholar

Hyland, Ken 2008. ‘As can be seen: Lexical bundles and disciplinary variation’, English for Specific Purposes 27: 4–21.Google 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.Google Scholar

Jarvis, Scott, Grant, Leslie, Bikowski, Dawn and Ferris, Dana 2003. ‘Exploring multiple profiles of highly rated learner compositions’, Journal of Second Language Writing 12: 377–403.Google Scholar

Johns, Ann 1997. Text, Role, and Context: Developing Academic Literacies. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar

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

Kay, Paul 1977. ‘Language evolution and speech style’, in Blount, B. and Sanches, M. (eds.), Sociocultural Dimensions of Language Change, pp. 21–33. New York: Academic Press.Google Scholar

Keen, John 2004. ‘Sentence-combining and redrafting processes in the writing of secondary school students in the UK’, Linguistics and Education 15: 81–97.Google Scholar

Kemmer, Suzanne and Barlow, Michael 2000. ‘Introduction: A usage-based conception of language’, in Barlow, M. and Kemmer, S. (eds.), Usage Based Models of Language, pp. vii–xxviii. Chicago, IL: The University of Chicago Press.Google Scholar

Koutsantoni, Dimitra 2006. ‘Rhetorical strategies in engineering research articles and research theses: Advanced academic literacy and relations of power’, Journal of English for Academic Purposes 5: 19–36.Google Scholar

Kroll, Barbara 1977. ‘Ways communicators encode propositions in spoken and written English: A look at subordination and coordination’, in Keenan, E. O. and Bennett, T. (eds.), Discourse across Time and Space (SCOPIL no. 5), pp. 69–108. Los Angeles: University of Southern California.Google Scholar

Krug, Manfred 2000. Emerging English Modals: A Corpus-based Study of Grammaticalization. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter.Google Scholar

Labov, William 1994. Principles of Linguistic Change, vol. I, Internal Factors. Oxford: Blackwell.Google Scholar

Labov, William 2001. Principles of Linguistic Change, vol. II, Social Factors. Oxford: Blackwell.Google Scholar

Labov, William 2010. Principles of Linguistic Change, vol. III, Cognitive and Cultural Factors. Oxford: Blackwell.Google Scholar

Langacker, Ronald 1987. Foundations of Cognitive Grammar. Stanford University Press.Google Scholar

Larsen-Freeman, Diane 2006. ‘The emergence of complexity, fluency, and accuracy in the oral and written production of five Chinese learners of English’, Applied Linguistics 27: 590–619.Google Scholar

Leech, Geoffrey 2003. ‘Modal on the move: The English modal auxiliaries 1961–1992’, in Facchinetti, R., Palmer, F. and Krug, M. (eds.), Modality in Contemporary English, pp. 223–240. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter.Google Scholar

Leech, Geoffrey 2011. ‘The modals ARE declining. Reply to Neil Millar’s “Modal verbs in TIME: The English modal auxiliaries 1961–1991”’, International Journal of Corpus Linguistics 16(4): 547–564.Google Scholar

Leech, Geoffrey, Hundt, Marianne, Mair, Christian and Smith, Nicholas 2009. Change in Contemporary English: A Grammatical Study. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar

Lewin, Beverly 2005. ‘Contentiousness in science: The discourse of critique in two sociology journals’, Text 25: 723–744.Google Scholar

Li, Li-Juan and Ge, Guang-Chun 2009. ‘Genre analysis: Structural and linguistic evolution of the English-medium medical research article (1985–2004)’, English for Specific Purposes 28: 93–104.Google Scholar

Li, Yili 2000. ‘Linguistic characteristics of ESL writing in task-based e-mail activities’, System 28: 229–245.Google Scholar

Lim, Jason Miin Hwa 2006. ‘Method sections of management research articles: A pedagogically motivated qualitative study’, English for Specific Purposes 25: 282–309.Google Scholar

Lindquist, Hans and Mair, Christian 2004. Corpus Approaches to Grammaticalization in English. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.Google Scholar

Loudermilk, Barbara Conner 2007. ‘Occluded academic genres: An analysis of the MBA thought essay’, Journal of English for Academic Purposes 6: 190–205.Google Scholar

Mair, Christian 1995. ‘Changing patterns of complementation, and concomitant grammaticalisation, of the verb help in present-day British English’, in Aarts, B. and Meyer, C. (eds.), The Verb in Contemporary English: Theory and Description, pp. 258–272. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar

Mair, Christian 2002. ‘Three changing patterns of verb complementation in Late Modern English: A real-time study based on matching text corpora’, English Language and Linguistics 6(1): 105–131.Google Scholar

Mair, Christian 2006. Twentieth-century English: History, Variation and Standardization. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar

Mair, Christian and Hundt, Marianne 1995. ‘Why is the progressive becoming more frequent in English? A corpus-based investigation of language change in progress’, Zeitschrift für Anglistik und Amerikanistik 43: 111–122.Google Scholar

Marco, María José Luzon 2000. ‘Collocational frameworks in medical research papers: A genre-based study’, English for Specific Purposes 19: 63–86.Google Scholar

Markkanen, Raija and Schroder, Hartmut (eds.) 1997. Hedging and Discourse: Approaches to the Analysis of a Pragmatic Phenomenon in Academic Texts. Berlin: Walter de Gruyter.Google Scholar

Mauranen, Anna and Bondi, Marina 2003. ‘Evaluation in academic discourse (special issue)’, Journal of English for Academic Purposes 2: 269–271.Google Scholar

McEnery, Tony, Xiao, Richard and Tono, Yukio 2006. Corpus-based Language Studies: An Advanced Resource Book. New York: Routledge.Google Scholar

McWhorter, John 2001. The Word on the Street: Debunking the Myth of “Pure” Standard English. New York: Basic Books.Google Scholar

Meyer, P.G. 1997. ‘Hedging strategies in written academic discourse: Strenghtening the argument by weakening the claim’, in Markkanen, R. and Schroder, H. (eds.), Hedging and Discourse: Approaches to the Analysis of a Pragmatic Phenomenon in Academic Texts, pp. 21–41. Berlin: Walter de Gruyter.Google Scholar

Millar, Neil 2009. ‘Modal verbs in TIME: Frequency changes 1923–2006’, International Journal of Corpus Linguistics 14(2): 191–220.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.Google Scholar

Musgrave, Jill and Parkinson, Jean 2014. ‘Getting to grips with noun groups’, ELT Journal 68(2): 145–154.Google Scholar

Myers, Greg 1989. ‘The pragmatics of politeness in scientific articles’, Applied Linguistics 10(1): 1–35.Google Scholar

Myers, Greg 1990. ‘The rhetoric of irony in academic writing’, Written Communication 7(4): 419–455.Google Scholar

Nation, I.S.P. 1990. Teaching and Learning Vocabulary. New York: Newbury House.Google Scholar

Nation, I.S.P. 2001. Learning Vocabulary in Another Language. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar

Nelson, Nickola and Van Meter, Adelia 2007. ‘Measuring written langauge ability in narrative samples’, Reading and Writing Quarterly 23(3): 287–309.Google Scholar

Nesi, Hilary and Gardner, Sheila 2012. Genres across the Disciplines: Student Writing in Higher Education. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar

Nesselhauf, Nadja 2007. ‘The spread of the progressive and its ‘future’ use’, English Language and Linguistics 11(1): 191–207.Google Scholar

Nevanlinna, Saara and Pahta, Päivi 1997. ‘Middle English nonrestrictive expository apposition with an explicit marker’, in Fisiak, J. (ed.), Studies in Middle English Linguistics, pp. 373–401. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter.Google Scholar

Nevalainen, Terttu 2004. ‘Three perspectives on grammaticalization: Lexico-grammar, corpora and historical sociolinguistics’, in Lindquist, H. and Mair, C. (eds.), Corpus Approaches to Grammaticalization in English, pp. 1–31. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.Google Scholar

Nevalainen, Terttu and Raumolin-Brunberg, Helena 1996. Sociolinguistics and Language History: Studies Based on the Corpus of Early English Correspondence. Amsterdam: Rodopi.Google Scholar

Nichols, Johanna 1984. ‘Functional Theories of Grammar’, Annual Review of Anthropology 13: 97–117.Google Scholar

Norrby, Catrin and Håkansson, Gisela 2007. ‘The interaction of complexity and grammatical processability: The case of Swedish as a foreign language’, International Review of Applied Linguistics 45: 45–68.Google Scholar

Ochs, Elinor, Schegloff, Emanuel and Thompson, Sandra 1996. Interaction and Grammar. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar

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

O’Donnell, Roy C., Griffin, William J. and Norris, Raymond C. 1967. Syntax of Kindergarten and Elementary School Children: A Transformational Analysis. Champaign, IL: NCTE.Google Scholar

Oakey, David 2002. ‘Formulaic language in English academic writing: A corpus-based study of formal and functional variation of a lexical phrase in different academic disciplines’, in Reppen, R., Fitzmaurice, S., and Biber, D. (eds.), Using Corpora to Explore Linguistic Variation, pp. 111–129. Philadelphia: John Benjamins.Google Scholar

Olson, David R. 1977. ‘From utterance to text: The bias of language in speech and writing’, Harvard Educational Review 47: 257–281.Google Scholar

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

Pahta, Päivi and Nevanlinna, Saara 1997. ‘Re-phrasing in Early English: The use of expository apposition with an explicit marker from 1350–1710’, In Rissanen, M., Kytö, M., and Heikkonen, K. (eds.), English in Transition: Corpus-based Studies in Linguistic Variation and Genre Styles, pp. 121–183. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter.Google Scholar

Parkinson, Jean and Musgrave, Jill 2014. ‘Development of noun phrase complexity in the writing of English for academic purposes students’, Journal of English for Academic Purposes 14: 48–59.Google Scholar

Purpura, James 2004. Assessing Grammar. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar

Raumolin-Brunberg, Helena 1991. The Noun Phrase in Early Sixteenth-century English: A Study Based on Sir Thomas More’s Writings. Helsinki: Société Néophilologique.Google Scholar

Reppen, Randi 2001. ‘Register variation in student and adult speech and writing’, in Conrad, S. and Biber, D. (eds.), Variation in English: Multi-dimensional Studies, pp. 187–199.Google Scholar

Rissanen, M. 1999. ‘Syntax’, in Lass, R. (ed.), Cambridge History of the English Language, Volume III: 1476–1776, pp. 187–331. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar

Rohdenburg, Gunter 1996. ‘Cognitive complexity and increased grammatical explicitness in English’, Cognitive Linguistics 7(2): 149–182.Google Scholar

Römer, Ute and Swales, John 2010. ‘The Michigan corpus of upper-level student papers (MICUSP)’, Journal of English for Academic Purposes 9: 249.Google Scholar

Rosenbach, Anette 2002. Genitive Variation in English: Conceptual Factors in Synchronic and Diachronic Studies. Berlin, New York: Mouton de Gruyter.Google Scholar

Rosenbach, Anette 2007. ‘Emerging variation: Determiner genitives and noun modifiers in English’, English Language and Linguistics 11: 143–189.Google Scholar

Rudanko, Juhani 2010. ‘Explaining grammatical variation and change: A case study of complementation in American English over three decades’, Journal of English Linguistics 38(1): 4–24.Google Scholar

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

Samraj, Betty 2002. ‘Introductions in research articles: Variations across disciplines,’ English for Specific Purposes 21: 1–17.Google Scholar

Samraj, Betty 2004. ‘Discourse features of the student-produced academic research paper: Variations across disciplinary courses’, Journal of English for Academic Purposes 3: 5–22.Google Scholar

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

Samraj, Betty 2008. ‘A discourse analysis of master’s theses across disciplines with a focus on introductions’, Journal of English for Academic Purposes 7: 55–67.Google Scholar

Sapir, Edward 1921. Language: An Introduction to the Study of Speech. New York: Harcourt, Brace and Co.Google Scholar

Schleppergrell, Mary 1996. ‘Conjunction in spoken English and ESL writing’, Applied Linguistics 17(3): 271–285.Google Scholar

Schmitt, Norbert 2000. Vocabulary in Langauge Teaching. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar

Schmitt, Norbert and McCarthy, Michael (eds.) 1997. Vocabulary: Description, Acquisition and Pedagogy. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar

Schneider, Edgar 2002. ‘Investigating variation and change in written documents’, in Chambers, J.K., Trudgill, P. and Schilling-Estes, N. (eds.), The Handbook of Language Variation and Change, pp. 67–96. Malden, MA: Blackwell.Google Scholar

Silver, Marc 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: 359–374.Google Scholar

Simpson-Vlach, Rita and Ellis, Nick 2010. ‘An academic formulas list: New methods in phraseology research’, Applied Linguistics 31(4): 487–512.Google Scholar

Smith, Nicholas 2002. ‘Ever moving on? The progressive in recent British English’, in Peters, P., Collins, P., and Smith, A. (eds.), New Frontiers of Corpus Research: Papers from the Twenty-first International Conference on English Language Research on Computerized Corpora, Sydney 2002, pp. 317–330. Amsterdam: Rodopi.Google Scholar

Smith, Nicholas and Rayson, Paul 2007. ‘Recent change and variation in the British English use of the progressive passive’, ICAME Journal 31: 129–159.Google Scholar

Spycher, Pamela 2007. ‘Academic writing of adolescent English learners: Learning to use “although”’, Journal of Second Language Writing 16: 238–254.Google Scholar

Strang, Barbara 1970. A History of English. London: Routledge.Google Scholar

Staples, Shelley, Egbert, Jesse, Biber, Douglas, and Gray, Bethany in press. ‘Academic writing development at the university level: Phrasal and clausal complexity across level of study, discipline, and genre’. Written Communication.Google Scholar

Stoller, Fredricka and Robinson, Marin 2013. ‘Chemistry journal articles: An interdisciplinary approach to move analysis with pedagogical aims’, English for Specific Purposes 32: 45–57.Google Scholar

Swales, John 1990. Genre Analysis: English for Academic and Research Settings. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar

Swales, John and Burke, Amy 2003. ‘“It’s really fascinating work”: Differences in evaluative adjectives across academic registers’, in Leistyna, P. and Meyer, C. (eds.), Corpus Analysis: Language Structure and Language Use, pp. 1–18. Amsterdam: Rodopi.Google Scholar

Swales, John, 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: 97–121.Google Scholar

Szmrecsanyi, Benedikt, Biber, Douglas, Egbert, Jesse, and Franco, Karlien 2015. Two is company, three is a crowd: Modeling genitive variation in Late Modern English. Working paper.Google Scholar

Tagliamonte, Sali 2004. ‘Have to, gotta, must: Grammaticalisation, variation and specialization in English deontic modality’, in Lindquist, H. and Mair, C. (eds.), Corpus Approaches to Grammaticalization in English, pp. 33–55. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.Google Scholar

Tagliamonte, Sali 2006. ‘“So cool, right?”: Canadian English entering the 21st century’, The Canadian Journal of Linguistics 51: 309–331.Google Scholar

Taguchi, Naoko, Crawford, William, and Wetzel, Danielle Zawodny 2013. ‘What linguistic features are indicative of writing quality? A case of argumentative essays in a college composition program’, TESOL Quarterly 47: 420–430.Google Scholar

Tarone, Elaine, Dwyer, Sharon, Gillette, Susan and Icke, Vincent 1998. ‘On the use of the passive and active voice in astrophysics journal papers: With extensions to other language and other fields’, English for Specific Purposes 17(1): 113–132.Google Scholar

Traugott, Elizabeth 2003. ‘From subjectification to intersubjectification’, in Hickey, R. (ed.), Motives for Language Change, pp. 124–139. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar

Tucker, Paul 2003. ‘Evaluation in the art-historical research article’, Journal of English for Academic Purposes 2: 291–312.Google Scholar

Valle, Ellen 1999. ‘A collective intelligence: The life sciences in the Royal Society as a scientific discourse community, 1665–1965’. Unpublished doctoral dissertation: University of Turku.Google Scholar

van Gelderen, Elly 2006. A History of the English Language. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.Google Scholar

Vande Kopple, William 1994. ‘Some characteristics and functions of grammatical subjects in scientific discourse’, Written Communication 11(4): 534–564.Google Scholar

Varttala, Teppo 2003. ‘Hedging in scientific research articles: A cross-disciplinary study’, in Cortese, G. and Riley, P. (eds.), Domain-specific English: Textual Practices across Communities and Classrooms, pp. 141–174. New York: Peter Lang.Google Scholar

Warchal, Krystyna 2010. ‘Moulding interpersonal relations through conditional clauses: Consensus-building strategies in written academic discourse’, Journal of English for Academic Purposes 9: 140–150.Google Scholar

Webber, Pauline 1994. ‘The function of questions in different medical journal genres’, English for Specific Purposes 13(3): 257–268.Google Scholar

Wells, Rulon 1960. ‘Nominal and verbal style’, in Sebeok, T.A. (ed.), Style in Language, pp. 213–220. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar

Williams, Gelffrey 1998. ‘Collocational networks: Interlocking patterns of lexis in a corpus of plant biology research articles’, International Journal of Corpus Linguistics 3: 151–171.Google Scholar

Willis, Dave 2003. Rules, Patterns and Words: Grammar and Lexis in English Language Teaching. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar

Wolfe-Quintero, Kate, Inagaki, Shunji and Kim, Hae-Young 1998. Second language development in writing: Measures of fluency, accuracy, and complexity (Technical Report No. 17). Honolulu, HI: Second Language Teaching & Curriculum Center, University of Hawaii.Google Scholar

Wolfram, Walt and Schilling-Estes, Natalie 2005. American Dialects: Dialects and Variation (2nd ed). Malden, MA: Blackwell Publishing.Google Scholar

Wolk, Christoph, Bresnan, Joan, Rosenbach, Anette and Szmrecsanyi, Benedikt 2013. ‘Dative and genitive variability in Late Modern English: Exploring cross-constructional variation and change’, Diachronica 30(3): 382–419.Google Scholar

Wright, Laura J. 2008. ‘Writing science and objectification: Selecting, organizing, and decontextualizing knowledge’, Linguistics and Education 19: 265–293.Google Scholar

Xiao, Richard 2009. ‘Multidimensional analysis and the study of world Englishes’, World Englishes 28(4): 421–450.Google Scholar

Yáñez-Bouza, Nuria 2011. ‘ARCHER: Past and present (1990–2010)’, ICAME Journal 35: 205–36Google Scholar

Yeung, Lorrita 2007. ‘In search of commonalities: Some linguistic and rhetorical features of business reports as a genre’, English for Specific Purposes 26: 156–179.Google Scholar