The Limits of Variation in Scientific Abstracts – Syntactic and Functional Constraints

References

1. ATKINSON, DWIGHT
   (1992): “The evolution of medical research writing from 1735 to 1985”. Applied Linguistics13: 337–374.
   [Google Scholar]
2. ATKINSON, DWIGHT
   (1996): “The Philosophical Transactions of the Royal Society of London, 1675–1975: A sociohistorical discourse analysis”. Language in Society25: 333–371.
   [Google Scholar]
3. BIBER, DOUGLAS and EDWARD FINEGAN
   (1997): Diachronic relations among speech-based and written registers in English. In: Terttu Nevalainen (ed.), To Explain the Present: Studies in the Changing English Language in Honour of Matti Rissanen, 253-275. Helsinki: Société Neophilologique.
   [Google Scholar]
4. BIBER, DOUGLAS , SUSAN CONRAD , AND RANDI REPPEN
   (1998): Corpus Linguistics. (Cambridge Approaches to Linguistics) Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
   [Google Scholar]
5. BIBER, DOUGLAS , STIG JOHANSSON , GEOFFREY LEECH , SUSAN CONRAD , AND EDWARD FINEGAN
   (1999): Longman Grammar of Spoken and Written English. Harlow: Longman.
   [Google Scholar]
6. BROWN, PENELOPE
   (1987): Politeness: Some Universals in Language Usage. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
   [Google Scholar]
7. BROWN, PENELOPE AND STEPHEN LEVINSON
   : (1978): “Politeness in language usage: Politeness phenomena”. In: Esther Goody (ed. 1978), Questions and Politeness: Strategies in Social Interaction (Cambridge Papers in Social Anthropology8), 56-289. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
   [Google Scholar]
8. CRYSTAL, DAVID
   (1998): English as a Global Language. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
   [Google Scholar]
9. DOWTY, DAVID
   (1979): Word Meaning and Montague Grammar. Dordrecht: Reidel.
   [Google Scholar]
10. DOWTY, DAVID
    (1991): “Thematic proto-roles and argument selection”. Language67: 547–619.
    [Google Scholar]
11. FILLMORE, CHARLES
    (1968): “The case for case”. In: Emmon Bach and Robert Harms (eds.), Universals in Linguistic Theory, 1-90. New York: Holt, Rinehart and Winston.
    [Google Scholar]
12. GARCES-CONEJOS, PILAR AND ANTONIA SANCHEZ-MACCARO
    (1998): “Scientific discourse as interaction - scientific articles vs. popularisations”. In: Antonia Sánchez-Maccaro and Ronald Carter (eds.), Linguistic Choice Across Genres: Variation in Spoken and Written English, 173-190. Amsterdam/Philadelphia: Benjamins.
    [Google Scholar]
13. GlVÓN, TALMY
    (1993): English Grammar: A Function-Based Introduction. Amsterdam/Philadelphia: Benjamins.
    [Google Scholar]
14. GRAETZ, NAOMI
    (1985): “Teaching EFL students to extract structural information from abstracts.” In: Jan M. Ulijn and K. Anthony Pugh (eds. 1985), Reading For Professional Purposes, 123-135. Leuven: ACCO.
    [Google Scholar]
15. GRIMSHAW, JANE
    (1990): Argument Structure. (Linguistic Inquiry Monographs18) Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.
    [Google Scholar]
16. HALLIDAY, MICHAEL
    (1988): “On the language of physical science”. In: Mohsen Ghadessy (ed. 1988), Registers of Written English, 162-178. London/New York: Pinter.
    [Google Scholar]
17. LEVIN, BETH
    (1993): English Verb Classes and Alternations. A Preliminary Investigation. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.
    [Google Scholar]
18. MARíN-ARRESE, JUANA , ELENA MARTíNEZ-CARO , AND SOLEDAD PéREZ DE AYALA BECERRIL
    (2001): “A corpus study of impersonalizaron strategies in newspaper discourse in English and Spanish”. In: Paul Rayson et al. (eds. 2001), Proceedings of Corpus Linguistics 2001 (Technical Papers Vol. 13), 369-377. Lancaster: University Centre for Computer Corpus Research on Language.
    [Google Scholar]
19. MYERS, GREG
    (1992): “‘In this paper we report …’: Speech acts and scientific facts”. Journal of Pragmatics17: 295–313.
    [Google Scholar]
20. NEWMEYER, FREDERICK
    (1998): Language Form and Language Function. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.
    [Google Scholar]
21. ORASAN, CONSTANTIN
    (2001): “Patterns in scientific abstracts.”In: Paul Rayson et al. (eds. 2001), Proceedings of Corpus Linguistics 2001 (Technical Papers Vol. 13), 433-442. Lancaster: University Centre for Computer Corpus Research on Language.
    [Google Scholar]
22. OOSTEN, JEANNE VAN
    (1986): The Nature of Subjects, Topics and Agents: A Cognitive Explanation. Indiana: Indiana University Linguistics Club.
23. PINKER, STEVEN
    (1989): Learnability and Cognition. The Acquisition of Argument Structure. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.
    [Google Scholar]
24. SALANGER-MEYER, FRANçOISE
    (1990): “Discoursal flaws in medical English abstracts: a genre analysis per research- and text type”. Text10: 365–384.
    [Google Scholar]
25. SWALES, JOHN
    (1990): Genre Analysis: English in Academic and Research Settings. (Cambridge Applied Linguistics) Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
    [Google Scholar]
26. VENTOLA, EIJA
    (1996): “Packing and unpacking of information in academic texts.”In: Eija Ventola and Anna Mauranen (eds. 1996): Academic Writing: Intercultural and Textual Issues153-104. Amsterdam/Philadelphia: Benjamins.
    [Google Scholar]
27. WANNER, ANJA
    (1999): Verbklassifizierung und aspektuelle Alternationen im Enghschen. (Lmguistische Arbeiten 398) Tübingen: Niemeyer
    [Google Scholar]