Volume 1, Issue 1
  • ISSN 2542-9477
  • E-ISSN: 2542-9485
Buy:$35.00 + Taxes



Susan Conrad, Professor of Applied Linguistics at Portland State University (USA), contributes this article on the applications of register research to English for Academic Purposes (EAP) and English for Specific Purposes (ESP). Her research focuses on topics including academic register variation, discipline-specific language, student and workplace writing, and grammar and writing pedagogy. Since the 1990s, her work has advocated for and exemplified the ways in which register-based descriptions can facilitate language teaching, including building awareness of register variation in learners and novice writers themselves. This focus is illustrated in her book (Conrad & Biber 2009, Pearson Longman), which takes many of the major register-based patterns of variation in English grammar (described in the Biber et al. 1999) and translates them into practical grammar lessons for language learners, making explicit how grammar use is mediated by register. Her applied focus is also evident in her work as Principal Investigator for the Civil Engineering Writing Project <http://www.cewriting.org/>. The project, funded by the National Science Foundation, addresses the writing needs of Civil Engineering students through corpus-based register comparisons (of university student writing, practitioner workplace writing, and published academic writing), applying the results to the development and evaluation of pedagogical materials that improve students’ preparation for writing in the workplace.


Article metrics loading...

Loading full text...

Full text loading...


  1. Atkinson, D.
    (1992) The evolution of medical research writing from 1735 to 1985: The case of the Edinburgh Medical Journal. Applied Linguistics, 13(4), 337–374. 10.1093/applin/13.4.337
    https://doi.org/10.1093/applin/13.4.337 [Google Scholar]
  2. (1996) The philosophical transactions of the Royal Society of London, 1675–1975: A sociohistorical discourse analysis. Language in Society, 25(3), 333–371. 10.1017/S0047404500019205
    https://doi.org/10.1017/S0047404500019205 [Google Scholar]
  3. Baffy, M.
    (2017) Shifting frames to construct a Legal English class. English for Academic Purposes, 25, 58–70. 10.1016/j.jeap.2016.11.003
    https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jeap.2016.11.003 [Google Scholar]
  4. Banks, D.
    (2008) The development of scientific writing: Linguistic features and historical context. London: Equinox.
    [Google Scholar]
  5. Banset, E., & Parsons, G.
    (1989) Communications failure in Hyatt Regency disaster. Journal of Professional Issues in Engineering, 115(3), 273–288. 10.1061/(ASCE)1052‑3928(1989)115:3(273)
    https://doi.org/10.1061/(ASCE)1052-3928(1989)115:3(273) [Google Scholar]
  6. Barber, C.
    (1962) Some measurable characteristics of modern scientific prose. InF. Behre (Ed.), Contributions to English syntax and philology (pp.21–43). Gothenborg: Almquist & Wiksell.
    [Google Scholar]
  7. Beer, D., & McMurrey, D.
    (2014) A guide to writing as an engineer, 4th ed.Hoboken, NJ: John Wiley and Sons.
    [Google Scholar]
  8. Bhatia, V.
    (1993) Analysing genre: Language use in professional settings. London: Longman.
    [Google Scholar]
  9. Bhatia, V., & Bremner, S.
    (2012) English for business communication. Language Teaching, 45(4), 410–445. 10.1017/S0261444812000171
    https://doi.org/10.1017/S0261444812000171 [Google Scholar]
  10. Biber, D.
    (1986) Spoken and written textual dimensions in English: Resolving the contradictory findings. Language62(2), 384–414. 10.2307/414678
    https://doi.org/10.2307/414678 [Google Scholar]
  11. (1988) Variation across speech and writing. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. 10.1017/CBO9780511621024
    https://doi.org/10.1017/CBO9780511621024 [Google Scholar]
  12. (1995) Dimensions of register variation: A cross-linguistic comparison. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. 10.1017/CBO9780511519871
    https://doi.org/10.1017/CBO9780511519871 [Google Scholar]
  13. (2006) University language: A corpus-based study of spoken and written registers. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. 10.1075/scl.23
    https://doi.org/10.1075/scl.23 [Google Scholar]
  14. (2012) Register as a predictor of linguistic variation. Corpus Linguistics and Linguistic Theory, 8(1), 9–37. 10.1515/cllt‑2012‑0002
    https://doi.org/10.1515/cllt-2012-0002 [Google Scholar]
  15. Biber, D., Connor, U., & Upton, T.
    (2007) Discourse on the move: Using corpus analysis to describe discourse structure. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. 10.1075/scl.28
    https://doi.org/10.1075/scl.28 [Google Scholar]
  16. Biber, D., & Conrad, S.
    (2009) Register, genre, style. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. 10.1017/CBO9780511814358
    https://doi.org/10.1017/CBO9780511814358 [Google Scholar]
  17. (in press). Register, genre, style, 2nd ed.Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
    [Google Scholar]
  18. Biber, D., Conrad, S., & Cortes, V.
    (2004) If you look at…: Lexical bundles in university teaching and textbooks. Applied Linguistic, 25(3), 371–405. 10.1093/applin/25.3.371
    https://doi.org/10.1093/applin/25.3.371 [Google Scholar]
  19. Biber, D., & Egbert, J.
    (2016) Register variation on the searchable web. Journal of English Linguistics, 44(2), 95–137. 10.1177/0075424216628955
    https://doi.org/10.1177/0075424216628955 [Google Scholar]
  20. Biber, D., & Finegan, E.
    (1989) Styles of stance in English: Lexical and grammatical marking of evidentiality and affect. Text, 9(1), 93–124. 10.1515/text.1.1989.9.1.93
    https://doi.org/10.1515/text.1.1989.9.1.93 [Google Scholar]
  21. (2001) Diachronic relations among speech-based and written registers in English. InS. Conrad & D. Biber (Eds.), Variation in English: Multi-dimensional studies (pp.66–83). Harlow: Pearson.
    [Google Scholar]
  22. Biber, D., & Gray, B.
    (2010) Challenging stereotypes about academic writing: Complexity, elaboration, explicitness. Journal of English for Academic Purposes, 9(1), 2–20. 10.1016/j.jeap.2010.01.001
    https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jeap.2010.01.001 [Google Scholar]
  23. Biber, D., Gray, B., & Poonpon, K.
    (2011) Should we use characteristics of conversation to measure grammatical complexity in L2 writing development?TESOL Quarterly, 45(1), 5–35. 10.5054/tq.2011.244483
    https://doi.org/10.5054/tq.2011.244483 [Google Scholar]
  24. Biber, D., Johansson, S., Leech, G., Conrad, S., & Finegan, E.
    (1999) The Longman grammar of spoken and written English. Harlow: Pearson Education.
    [Google Scholar]
  25. Cao, Y., & Xiao, R.
    (2013) A multi-dimensional contrastive study of English abstracts by native and non-native writers. Corpora, 8(2), 209–234. 10.3366/cor.2013.0041
    https://doi.org/10.3366/cor.2013.0041 [Google Scholar]
  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(3), 310–331. 10.1016/j.esp.2005.05.003
    https://doi.org/10.1016/j.esp.2005.05.003 [Google Scholar]
  27. Charles, M., & Pecorari, D.
    (2016) Introducing English for academic purposes. Abingdon: Routledge.
    [Google Scholar]
  28. Chen, S., Boyajian, D., & Inyang, H.
    (2011) SLSE damage detection technique for foundation strengthening using plates. Geotechnical and Geological Engineering, 29(3), 237–248. 10.1007/s10706‑010‑9367‑8
    https://doi.org/10.1007/s10706-010-9367-8 [Google Scholar]
  29. Chen, Y., & Baker, P.
    (2010) Lexical bundles in L1 and L2 academic writing. Language Learning & Technology, 14(2), 30–49.
    [Google Scholar]
  30. Cheng, W., Greaves, C., & Warren, M.
    (2008) A corpus-driven study of discourse intonation. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. 10.1075/scl.32
    https://doi.org/10.1075/scl.32 [Google Scholar]
  31. Conrad, S.
    (2015) Register variation. InD. Biber & R. Reppen (Eds.), Cambridge handbook of English corpus linguistics (pp.309–329). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. 10.1017/CBO9781139764377.018
    https://doi.org/10.1017/CBO9781139764377.018 [Google Scholar]
  32. (2017) A comparison of practitioner and student writing in civil engineering. Journal of Engineering Education, 106(2), 191–217. 10.1002/jee.20161
    https://doi.org/10.1002/jee.20161 [Google Scholar]
  33. (2018) The use of passives and impersonal style in civil engineering writing. Journal of Business and Technical Communication, 32(1), 38–76. 10.1177/1050651917729864
    https://doi.org/10.1177/1050651917729864 [Google Scholar]
  34. Conrad, S., & Biber, D.
    (2001) Multi-dimensional methodology and the dimensions of register variation in English. InS. Conrad & D. Biber (Eds.), Variation in English: Multi-dimensional studies (pp.13–42). Harlow: Pearson.
    [Google Scholar]
  35. Conrad, S. & Biber, D.
    (2009) Real grammar: A corpus-based approach to English. Harlow: Pearson Longman.
    [Google Scholar]
  36. Conrad, S., Kitch, W., Pfeiffer, T., Smith, T., & Tocco, J.
    (2015) Students writing for professional practice: A model for collaboration among faculty, practitioners and writing specialists. Proceedings of the 2015 American Society for Engineering Education Conference, Seattle, Washington. https://peer.asee.org/24769 10.18260/p.24769
    https://doi.org/10.18260/p.24769 [Google Scholar]
  37. Conrad, S., Lamb, K., & Pfeiffer, T.
    (2018) Where grammar, content, and professional practice meet: The case of the passive voice. Proceedings of the 2018 American Society for Engineering Education Conference and Exposition, Salt Lake City, UT. https://peer.asee.org/31240
    [Google Scholar]
  38. Cortes, V.
    (2004) Lexical bundles in published and student disciplinary writing: Examples from history and biology. English for Specific Purposes, 23(4), 397–423. 10.1016/j.esp.2003.12.001
    https://doi.org/10.1016/j.esp.2003.12.001 [Google Scholar]
  39. (2013) The purpose of this study is to: Connecting lexical bundles and moves in research article introductions. Journal of English for Academic Purposes, 12(1), 33–43. 10.1016/j.jeap.2012.11.002
    https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jeap.2012.11.002 [Google Scholar]
  40. Couture, B.
    (1992) Categorizing professional discourse: Engineering, administrative, and technical/professional writing. Journal of Business and Technical Communication, 6(1), 5–37. 10.1177/1050651992006001001
    https://doi.org/10.1177/1050651992006001001 [Google Scholar]
  41. Coxhead, A.
    (2000) A new academic word list. TESOL Quarterly, 34(2), 213–238. 10.2307/3587951
    https://doi.org/10.2307/3587951 [Google Scholar]
  42. Csomay, E., & Prades, A.
    (2018) Academic vocabulary in ESL student papers: A corpus-based study. Journal of English for Academic Purposes, 33, 100–118. 10.1016/j.jeap.2018.02.003
    https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jeap.2018.02.003 [Google Scholar]
  43. Ding, D.
    (2002) The passive voice and social values in science. Journal of Business and Technical Communication, 32(2), 137–154.
    [Google Scholar]
  44. Dreyfus, S., Humphrey, S., Mahboob, A., & Martin, J.
    (2016) Genre pedagogy in higher education. London: Palgrave Macmillan. 10.1007/978‑1‑137‑31000‑2
    https://doi.org/10.1007/978-1-137-31000-2 [Google Scholar]
  45. Egbert, J.
    (2014) Student perceptions of stylistic variation in introductory university textbooks. Linguistics and Education, 25, 64–77. 10.1016/j.linged.2013.09.007
    https://doi.org/10.1016/j.linged.2013.09.007 [Google Scholar]
  46. (2015) Publication type and discipline variation in published academic writing: Investigating statistical interaction in corpus data. International Journal of Corpus Linguistics, 20(1), 1–29. 10.1075/ijcl.20.1.01egb
    https://doi.org/10.1075/ijcl.20.1.01egb [Google Scholar]
  47. English for Specific Purposes: An international research journal
    English for Specific Purposes: An international research journal (2018) <https://www.journals.elsevier.com/english-for-specific-purposes
  48. Ferguson, C.
    (1983) Sports announcer talk: Syntactic aspects of register variation. Language in Society, 12(2), 153–72. 10.1017/S0047404500009787
    https://doi.org/10.1017/S0047404500009787 [Google Scholar]
  49. Fouché, I., van Dyk, T., & Butler, G.
    (2017) An “enlightening course that empowers first years”?: A holistic assessment of the impact of a first-year academic literacy course. Journal of English for Academic Purposes, 27, 14–30. 10.1016/j.jeap.2017.02.006
    https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jeap.2017.02.006 [Google Scholar]
  50. Friginal, E., Li, M., & Weigle, S.
    (2014) Revisiting multiple profiles of learner compositions: A comparison of highly rated NS and NNS essays. Journal of Second Language Writing, 23, 1–14. 10.1016/j.jslw.2013.10.001
    https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jslw.2013.10.001 [Google Scholar]
  51. Friginal, E., & Mustafa, S.
    (2017) A comparison of U.S.-based and Iraqi English research article abstracts using corpora. English for Academic Purpose, 25, 45–57. 10.1016/j.jeap.2016.11.004
    https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jeap.2016.11.004 [Google Scholar]
  52. Gardner, D., & Davies, M.
    (2014) A new academic vocabulary list. Applied Linguistics, 35(3), 305–327. 10.1093/applin/amt015
    https://doi.org/10.1093/applin/amt015 [Google Scholar]
  53. Gardner, S.
    (2012) Genres and registers of student report writing: An SFL perspective on texts and practices. Journal of English for Academic Purposes, 11(1), 52–63. 10.1016/j.jeap.2011.11.002
    https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jeap.2011.11.002 [Google Scholar]
  54. Gollin-Kies, S., Hall, D., & Moore, S.
    (2015) Language for specific purposes. Houndmills: Palgrave Macmillan. 10.1057/9781137500762
    https://doi.org/10.1057/9781137500762 [Google Scholar]
  55. Gray, B.
    (2015) Linguistic variation in research articles: When discipline tells only part of the story. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. 10.1075/scl.71
    https://doi.org/10.1075/scl.71 [Google Scholar]
  56. Gries, S.
    (2008) Dispersions and adjusted frequencies in corpora. International Journal of Corpus Linguistics, 13(4), 403–437. 10.1075/ijcl.13.4.02gri
    https://doi.org/10.1075/ijcl.13.4.02gri [Google Scholar]
  57. Gwiasda, K.
    (1984) Of classrooms and contexts: Teaching engineers to write wrong. IEEE Transactions on Education, E-27, 148–150. 10.1109/TE.1984.4321688
    https://doi.org/10.1109/TE.1984.4321688 [Google Scholar]
  58. Halliday, M.
    (1993) Some grammatical problems in scientific English. InM. Halliday & J. Martin (Eds.), Writing science (pp.69–85). London: Falmer Press.
    [Google Scholar]
  59. Halliday, M., & Matthiessen, C.
    (2014) An introduction to functional grammar, 3rd ed.London: Edward Arnold. 10.4324/9780203783771
    https://doi.org/10.4324/9780203783771 [Google Scholar]
  60. Handford, M.
    (2010) The language of business meetings. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. 10.1017/CBO9781139525329
    https://doi.org/10.1017/CBO9781139525329 [Google Scholar]
  61. Hardy, J., & Römer, U.
    (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. 10.3366/cor.2013.0040
    https://doi.org/10.3366/cor.2013.0040 [Google Scholar]
  62. Hirvela, A.
    (2013) ESP and reading. InB. Paltridge & S. Starfield (Eds.), The handbook of English for specific purposes (pp.76–94). Chichester: Wiley Blackwell.
    [Google Scholar]
  63. Hunston, S.
    (2013) Systemic functional linguistics, corpus linguistics, and the ideology of science. Text & Talk, 33, 617–640. 10.1515/text‑2013‑0028
    https://doi.org/10.1515/text-2013-0028 [Google Scholar]
  64. Hutchinson, T., & Waters, A.
    (1987) English for specific purposes: A learning-centered approach. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. 10.1017/CBO9780511733031
    https://doi.org/10.1017/CBO9780511733031 [Google Scholar]
  65. Hyland, K.
    (2005) Stance and engagement: A model of interaction in academic discourse. Discourse Studies, 7, 173–192. 10.1177/1461445605050365
    https://doi.org/10.1177/1461445605050365 [Google Scholar]
  66. John, P., Brooks, B., & Schriever, U.
    (2017) Profiling maritime communication by non-native speakers: A quantitative comparison between the baseline and standard marine communication phraseology. English for Specific Purposes, 47, 1–14. 10.1016/j.esp.2017.03.002
    https://doi.org/10.1016/j.esp.2017.03.002 [Google Scholar]
  67. Kanoksilapatham, B.
    (2007) Rhetorical moves in biochemistry research articles. InD. Biber, U. Connor, & T. Upton (Eds.), Discourse on the move (pp.73–103). Amsterdam: John Benjamins. 10.1075/scl.28.06kan
    https://doi.org/10.1075/scl.28.06kan [Google Scholar]
  68. Knuttson, O., Blåsjö, M., Hållsten, S., Karlström, P.
    (2012) Identifying different registers of digital literacy in virtual learning environments. The Internet and Higher Education, 15(4), 237–246. 10.1016/j.iheduc.2011.11.002
    https://doi.org/10.1016/j.iheduc.2011.11.002 [Google Scholar]
  69. Koester, A.
    (2006) Investigating workplace discourse. London: Routledge. 10.4324/9780203015742
    https://doi.org/10.4324/9780203015742 [Google Scholar]
  70. Lee, D.
    (2001) Genres, registers, text types, domains, and styles: Clarifying the concepts and navigating a path through the BNC jungle. Language Learning & Technology, 5(3), 37–72.
    [Google Scholar]
  71. Lee, J., & Casal, J.
    (2014) Metadiscourse in results and discussion chapters: A cross-linguistic analysis of English and Spanish thesis writers in engineering. System, 46, 39–54. 10.1016/j.system.2014.07.009
    https://doi.org/10.1016/j.system.2014.07.009 [Google Scholar]
  72. Lessard-Clouston, M.
    (2010) Theology lectures as lexical environments: A case study of technical vocabulary use. Journal of English for Academic Purposes, 9(4), 308–321. 10.1016/j.jeap.2010.09.001
    https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jeap.2010.09.001 [Google Scholar]
  73. Lillis, T., & Curry, M.
    (2006) Professional academic writing by multilingual scholars. Written Communication, 23(1), 3–35. 10.1177/0741088305283754
    https://doi.org/10.1177/0741088305283754 [Google Scholar]
  74. Matthiessen, C.
    (2019) Register in systemic functional linguistics. Register Studies, 1(1), 10–14 (this issue). 10.1075/rs.18010.mat
    https://doi.org/10.1075/rs.18010.mat [Google Scholar]
  75. Mauranen, A.
    (2011) English as a lingua franca of the academic world. InD. Belcher, A. Johns, & B. Paltridge (Eds.), New directions in English for specific purposes research (pp.143–173). Ann Arbor, MI: University of Michigan Press.
    [Google Scholar]
  76. McGrath, L.
    (2016) Self-mentions in anthropology and history research articles: Variation between and within disciplines. Journal of English for Academic Purposes, 21, 86–98. 10.1016/j.jeap.2015.11.004
    https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jeap.2015.11.004 [Google Scholar]
  77. Miller, C.
    (1984) Genre as social action. Quarterly Journal of Speech, 70(2), 151–167. 10.1080/00335638409383686
    https://doi.org/10.1080/00335638409383686 [Google Scholar]
  78. Miller, D., & Biber, D.
    (2015) Evaluating reliability in quantitative vocabulary studies: The influence of corpus design and composition. International Journal of Corpus Linguistics, 20(1), 30–53. 10.1075/ijcl.20.1.02mil
    https://doi.org/10.1075/ijcl.20.1.02mil [Google Scholar]
  79. Mudraya, O.
    (2006) Engineering English: A lexical frequency instructional model. English for Specific Purposes, 25(2), 235–256. 10.1016/j.esp.2005.05.002
    https://doi.org/10.1016/j.esp.2005.05.002 [Google Scholar]
  80. Myers, G.
    (2010) The discourse of blogs and wikis. London: Continuum.
    [Google Scholar]
  81. Nature
    Nature (2017, March). Fake news: Science journalism can be evidence-based and compelling but still get it wrong [Editorial]. Nature, 543 (7644) 150.
    [Google Scholar]
  82. Nelson, M.
    (2006) Semantic associations in Business English: A corpus-based analysis. English for Specific Purposes, 25(2), 217–234. 10.1016/j.esp.2005.02.008
    https://doi.org/10.1016/j.esp.2005.02.008 [Google Scholar]
  83. Nesi, H., & Gardner, S.
    (2012) Genres across the disciplines: Student writing in higher education. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
    [Google Scholar]
  84. Northcott, J.
    (2013) Legal English. InB. Paltridge & S. Starfield (Eds.), The handbook of English for specific purposes (pp.214–226). Chichester: Wiley Blackwell.
    [Google Scholar]
  85. Paltridge, B., & Starfield, S.
    (Eds.) (2013) The handbook of English for Specific Purposes. Chichester: Wiley Blackwell.
    [Google Scholar]
  86. Parfitt, M. & Parfitt, E.
    (2007) Failures education: The key to better engineering design. Structure Magazine, January 2007, 10–12.
    [Google Scholar]
  87. Parkinson, J.
    (2013) English for science and technology. InB. Paltridge & S. Starfield (Eds.), The handbook of English for specific purposes (pp.155–173). Chichester: Wiley Blackwell.
    [Google Scholar]
  88. Parkinson, J., & Musgrave, J.
    (2014) Development of noun phrase complexity in the writing of English for Academic Purposes students. Journal of English for Academic Purposes, 14, 48–59. 10.1016/j.jeap.2013.12.001
    https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jeap.2013.12.001 [Google Scholar]
  89. Pessoa, S., Miller, R., & Kaufer, D.
    (2014) Students’ challenges and development in the transition to academic writing at an English-medium university in Qatar. International Review of Applied Linguistics, 52(2), 127–156. 10.1515/iral‑2014‑0006
    https://doi.org/10.1515/iral-2014-0006 [Google Scholar]
  90. Reave, L.
    (2004) Technical communication instruction in engineering schools. Journal of Business and Technical Communication, 18(4), 452–490. 10.1177/1050651904267068
    https://doi.org/10.1177/1050651904267068 [Google Scholar]
  91. Research Centre for Professional Communication in English
    Research Centre for Professional Communication in English (2017) Mission. www.engl.polyu.edu.hk/RCPCE/
  92. Römer, U., & O’Donnell, M.
    (2011) From student hard drive to web corpus (part 1): The design, compilation and genre classification of the Michigan Corpus of Upper-level Student Papers (MICUSP). Corpora, 6(2), 159–77. 10.3366/cor.2011.0011
    https://doi.org/10.3366/cor.2011.0011 [Google Scholar]
  93. Sageev, P., & Romanowski, C.
    (2001) A message from recent engineering graduates in the workplace: Results of a survey on technical communication skills. Journal of Engineering Education, 90(4), 685–693. 10.1002/j.2168‑9830.2001.tb00660.x
    https://doi.org/10.1002/j.2168-9830.2001.tb00660.x [Google Scholar]
  94. Sales, H.
    (2006) Professional communication practices in engineering. Houndmills: Palgrave Macmillan. 10.1057/9780230625143
    https://doi.org/10.1057/9780230625143 [Google Scholar]
  95. Spector, T.
    (1994) Writing a scientific manuscript: Highlights for success. Journal of Chemical Education, 71(1), 47–50. 10.1021/ed071p47
    https://doi.org/10.1021/ed071p47 [Google Scholar]
  96. Staples, S.
    (2016) Identifying linguistic features of medical interactions: A register analysis. InL. Pickering, E. Friginal & S. Staples (Eds.), Talking at work: Corpus-based explorations of workplace discourse (pp.179–208). London: Palgrave Macmillan. 10.1057/978‑1‑137‑49616‑4_8
    https://doi.org/10.1057/978-1-137-49616-4_8 [Google Scholar]
  97. Swales, J.
    (1990) Genre analysis: English in academic and research settings. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
    [Google Scholar]
  98. Tardy, C.
    (2011) ESP and multi-method approaches to genre analysis. InD. Belcher, A. Johns & B. Paltridge (Eds.), New directions in English for specific purposes research (pp.143–173). Ann Arbor, MI: University of Michigan Press.
    [Google Scholar]
  99. Thomas, S., Tucker, R., & Kelly, W.
    (1998) Critical communication variables. Journal of Construction Engineering and Management, 124(1), 58–66. 10.1061/(ASCE)0733‑9364(1998)124:1(58)
    https://doi.org/10.1061/(ASCE)0733-9364(1998)124:1(58) [Google Scholar]
  100. Thompson, P., Hunston, S., Murakami, A., & Vajn, D.
    (2017) Multi-dimensional analysis, text constellations, and interdisciplinary discourse. International Journal of Corpus Linguistics, 22(2), 153–186. 10.1075/ijcl.22.2.01tho
    https://doi.org/10.1075/ijcl.22.2.01tho [Google Scholar]
  101. Walsh, S., Morton, T., & O’Keeffe, A.
    (2011) Analysing university spoken interaction: A CL/CA approach. International Journal of Corpus Linguistics, 16(3), 325–345. 10.1075/ijcl.16.3.03wal
    https://doi.org/10.1075/ijcl.16.3.03wal [Google Scholar]
  102. Widdowson, H.
    (1998) Communication and community: The pragmatics of ESP. English for Specific Purposes, 17(1), 3–14. 10.1016/S0889‑4906(97)00028‑8
    https://doi.org/10.1016/S0889-4906(97)00028-8 [Google Scholar]
  103. Wingate, U.
    (2015) Academic literacy and student diversity: The case for inclusive practice. Bristol: Multilingual Matters. 10.21832/9781783093496
    https://doi.org/10.21832/9781783093496 [Google Scholar]
  104. Wolfe, J.
    (2009) How technical communication textbooks fail engineering students. Technical Communication Quarterly, 18(4), 351–375. 10.1080/10572250903149662
    https://doi.org/10.1080/10572250903149662 [Google Scholar]
  105. Woodrow, L.
    (2017) Introducing course design in English for specific purposes. Abingdon: Routledge. 10.4324/9781315143279
    https://doi.org/10.4324/9781315143279 [Google Scholar]

Data & Media loading...

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