Volume 16, Issue 2
  • ISSN 1387-6759
  • E-ISSN: 1569-9897
Buy:$35.00 + Taxes


This paper provides an analysis of the lexico-grammatical features used in English and Spanish in the rhetorical part pertaining to the step of a particular genre, . The results have been used in the construction of a computerized writing aid designed to assist Spanish writers when writing minutes in English. Corpus-based contrast reveals that minutes share a common rhetorical structure but show differences in the lexico-grammatical choices associated with the various rhetorical parts. Proposals are conveyed both in English and Spanish by means of lexical verbs, deverbal constructions and certain clause types. Cross-linguistic differences are in the choice of tense, mood and voice. The analysis also suggests different degrees of conventionalization of these resources in the two languages. Results form part of a linguistic prototype that includes three main components: rhetorical information in Spanish, grammatical strings in English and bilingual genre/move restricted glossaries.


Article metrics loading...

Loading full text...

Full text loading...


  1. Bhatia, V.K
    1993Analysing Genre: Language Use in Professional Settings. London: Longman.
    [Google Scholar]
  2. 2004Worlds of Written Discourse. A Genre-based View. London: Continuum.
    [Google Scholar]
  3. Biber, D. and Conrad, S
    2009Register, Genre and Style. Cambridge: CUP. doi: 10.1017/CBO9780511814358
    https://doi.org/10.1017/CBO9780511814358 [Google Scholar]
  4. Biber, D. , Connor, U. and Upton, T.A
    2007 (eds). Discourse on the Move. Using Corpus Analysis to Describe Discourse Structure. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. doi: 10.1075/scl.28
    https://doi.org/10.1075/scl.28 [Google Scholar]
  5. Bondi, M
    2011 Perspectives on Keywords and Keyness: An Introduction. InKeyness in Texts, M. Bondi , and M. Scott , (eds), 1–18. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. doi: 10.1075/scl.41.01bon
    https://doi.org/10.1075/scl.41.01bon [Google Scholar]
  6. Bowker, J
    2012 From ‘Communities of Practice’ to ‘Communities of Learning’: Interdiscursivity in Changing Corporate Priorities. InResearching Discourse in Business Genres, P. Gillaerts , E. de Groot , S. Dieltjens , P. Heynderickx and G. Jacobs (eds), 115–138. Bern: Lang.
    [Google Scholar]
  7. Connor, U
    2000 Variation in Rhetorical Moves in Grant Proposals of US Humanists and Scientists. Text20(1):1–28.
    [Google Scholar]
  8. Connor, U. and Mauranen, A
    1999 Linguistic Analysis of Grant Proposals: European Union Research Grants. English for Specific Purposes18(1): 47–62. doi: 10.1016/S0889‑4906(97)00026‑4
    https://doi.org/10.1016/S0889-4906(97)00026-4 [Google Scholar]
  9. Fernández de Castro, F
    1999Las perífrasis verbales en el español actual. Madrid: Gredos.
    [Google Scholar]
  10. Gillaerts, P. and Gotti, M
    (eds) 2008Genre Variation in Business Letters. Bern: Lang.
    [Google Scholar]
  11. Handford, M
    2010The Language of Business Meetings. Cambridge: CUP. doi: 10.1017/CBO9781139525329
    https://doi.org/10.1017/CBO9781139525329 [Google Scholar]
  12. Henry, A. and Roseberry, R.L
    2001 A Narrow-Angled Corpus Analysis of Moves and Strategies of the Genre: Letter of Application. English for Specific Purposes20(2):153–167. doi: 10.1016/S0889‑4906(99)00037‑X
    https://doi.org/10.1016/S0889-4906(99)00037-X [Google Scholar]
  13. Hyland, K
    1998 Persuasion and Context: The Pragmatics of Academic Metadiscourse. Journal of Pragmatics30(4):437–455. doi: 10.1016/S0378‑2166(98)00009‑5
    https://doi.org/10.1016/S0378-2166(98)00009-5 [Google Scholar]
  14. Krzeszowski, T.P
    1990Contrasting Languages. The Scope of Contrastive Linguistics. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter. doi: 10.1515/9783110860146
    https://doi.org/10.1515/9783110860146 [Google Scholar]
  15. Labrador, B. , Ramón, N. , Alaiz-Moretón, H. and Sanjurjo-González, H
    2014 Rhetorical Structure and Persuasive Language in the Subgenre of Online Advertisements. English for Specific Purposes34:38–47. doi: 10.1016/j.esp.2013.10.002
    https://doi.org/10.1016/j.esp.2013.10.002 [Google Scholar]
  16. López Arroyo, B. and Roberts, R.P
    2014 English and Spanish Descriptors in Wine Tasting Terminology. Terminology20(1): 25–49. doi: 10.1075/term.20.1.02lop
    https://doi.org/10.1075/term.20.1.02lop [Google Scholar]
  17. López-Arroyo, B. , Fernández-Antolín, M. and De Felipe-Boto, R
    2007 Contrasting the Rhetoric of Abstracts in Medical Discourse. Implications and Applications for English-Spanish Translation. Languages in Contrast7(1):1–28. doi: 10.1075/lic.7.1.02lop
    https://doi.org/10.1075/lic.7.1.02lop [Google Scholar]
  18. Lowie, W. and Seton, B
    2013Essential Statistics for Applied Linguistics. Basingstoke: Palgrave MacMillan.
    [Google Scholar]
  19. Martín-Martín, P
    2005The Rhetoric of the Abstract in English and Spanish Scientific Discourse. Bern: Lang.
    [Google Scholar]
  20. Matte Bon, F
    1995Gramática comunicativa del español. Madrid: Edelsa.
    [Google Scholar]
  21. Méndez-Cendón, B
    2009 Combinatorial Patterns in Medical Case Reports: An English‒Spanish Contrastive Analysis. The Journal of Specialised Translation11. www.jostrans.org/issue11/art_mendez.php [last accessed24 September 2015]
    [Google Scholar]
  22. Orris, J.B
    2011 Megastat®. blue.butler.edu/~orris/megastat/ [last accessed24 September 2015]
  23. Precht, K
    1998 A Cross-cultural Comparison of Letters of Recommendation. ESP Journal17(3):241–65.
    [Google Scholar]
  24. Quirk, R . et al
    1985A Comprehensive Grammar of the English Language. London: Longman.
    [Google Scholar]
  25. Rabadán, R
    2006 Modality and Modal Verbs in Contrast. Mapping Out a Translation(ally) Relevant Approach English-Spanish. Languages in Contrast6(2): 261–306. doi: 10.1075/lic.6.2.04rab
    https://doi.org/10.1075/lic.6.2.04rab [Google Scholar]
  26. Rabadán, R. and Izquierdo, M
    2012 Designing Writing Materials for the Business English Language Class. InIntercultural Inspirations for Language Education. Spaces for Understanding, I. Semrádová et al (eds), 46–55. Hradec Králové, Czech Republic: M & V.
    [Google Scholar]
  27. Rabadán, R . et al
    2013 Generador de actas de reuniones en lengua inglesa (GARE). contraste2.unileon.es/web/en/applications.html [last accessed24 September 2015]
  28. Rabadán, R. , Pizarro, I. and Izquierdo, M
    2013 C-GARE corpuscontraste2.unileon.es/web/en/corpus0_GARE.html [last accessed24 September 2015]
  29. RAE. Real Academia Española de la Lengua
    2009Nueva gramática de la lengua española. Madrid: Espasa
    [Google Scholar]
  30. Schutz, N
    2013 How Specific is English for Academic Purposes? A look at verbs in business, linguistics and medical research articles. InEnglish Corpus Linguistics: Variation in Time, Space and Genre, G. Andersen , and K. Bech (eds), 237–257. Leiden: Brill-Rodopi. doi: 10.1163/9789401209403_013
    https://doi.org/10.1163/9789401209403_013 [Google Scholar]
  31. Scott, M. and Tribble, C
    2006Textual Patterns: Keyword and Corpus Analysis in Language Education. Amsterdam: Benjamins. doi: 10.1075/scl.22
    https://doi.org/10.1075/scl.22 [Google Scholar]
  32. Sinclair, J
    2004 Developing Linguistic Corpora: A Guide to Good Practice. Corpus and Text - Basic Principles. ota.ahds.ac.uk/documents/creating/dlc/chapter1.htm [last accessed24 September 2015]
  33. 1991Corpus, Concordance, Collocation. Cambridge: CUP.
    [Google Scholar]
  34. Swales, J
    2004Research Genres: Exploration and Analysis. Cambridge: CUP. doi: 10.1017/CBO9781139524827
    https://doi.org/10.1017/CBO9781139524827 [Google Scholar]
  35. Williams, I.A
    2010 Cultural Differences in Academic Discourse. Evidence from First-person Verb Use in the Methods Sections of Medical Research Articles. Special Issue of International Journal of Corpus Linguistics15(2): 214–239. doi: 10.1075/ijcl.15.2.04wil
    https://doi.org/10.1075/ijcl.15.2.04wil [Google Scholar]
  • Article Type: Research Article
Keyword(s): contrast; corpus; English/Spanish; minutes; proposals
This is a required field
Please enter a valid email address
Approval was successful
Invalid data
An Error Occurred
Approval was partially successful, following selected items could not be processed due to error