How do applied linguistics researchers structure coherence relations in the process of establishing a niche for their research?

References

Basturkmenk, Helen & Janet von Randow. 2014. Guiding the reader (or not) to re-create coherence: Observations on postgraduate student writing in an academic argumentative writing task. Journal of English for Academic Purposes 16. 14–22. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jeap.2014.07.005.Search in Google Scholar

Berzlánovich, Ildikó, Markus Egg & Gisela Redeker. 2008. Coherence structure and lexical cohesion in expository and persuasive texts. In Proceedings of the workshop constraints in discourse III, 19–26.10.1075/pbns.223.06berSearch in Google Scholar

Bruce, Ian. 2014. Expressing criticality in the literature review in research article introductions in applied linguistics and psychology. English for Specific Purposes 36. 85–96. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.esp.2014.06.004.Search in Google Scholar

Bublitz, Wolfram. 1999. Introduction: Views of coherence. In Wolfram Bublitz, Uta Lenk & Eija Ventola (eds.), Coherence in spoken and written discourse: How to create it and how to describe it, 1–7. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.10.1075/pbns.63.03bubSearch in Google Scholar

Candlin, Christopher, Guenter Plum, Sue Spinks & National Centre for English Language Teaching and Research. 1998. Researching academic literacies. Sydney: Macquarie University.Search in Google Scholar

Cho, Seonhee. 2004. Challenges of entering discourse communities through publishing in English: Perspectives of nonnative-speaking doctoral students in the United States of America. Journal of Language, Identity and Education 3(1). 47–72. https://doi.org/10.1207/s15327701jlie0301_3.Search in Google Scholar

Cooley, Linda & Jo Lewkowicz. 1997. Developing awareness of the rhetorical and linguistic conventions of writing a thesis in English. In Duszak Anna (ed.), Culture and styles of academic discourse, 113–130. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter.10.1515/9783110821048.113Search in Google Scholar

Flowerdew, John. 2000. Discourse community, legitimate peripheral participation, and the nonnative-English-speaking scholar. TESOL Quarterly 34(1). 127–150. https://doi.org/10.2307/3588099.Search in Google Scholar

Golebiowski, Zosia. 2006. The distribution of discoursal salience in research papers: Relational hypotaxis and parataxis. Discourse Studies 8(2). 259–278. https://doi.org/10.1177/1461445606061796.Search in Google Scholar

Golebiowski, Zosia. 2009. Prominent messages in Education and Applied Linguistic abstracts: How do authors appeal to their prospective readers? Journal of Pragmatics 41(4). 753–769. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.pragma.2008.10.009.Search in Google Scholar

Gosden, Hugh. 1992. Research writing and NNSs: From the editors. Journal of Second Language Writing 1(2). 123–139. https://doi.org/10.1016/1060-3743(92)90012-e.Search in Google Scholar

Grabe, William & Robert B. Kaplan. 1996. Theory and practice of writing: An applied linguistics perspective. Harlow: Pearson Education.Search in Google Scholar

Gruber, Helmut & Peter Muntigl. 2005. Generic and rhetorical structures of texts: Two sides of the same coin? Folia Linguistica 39(1–2). 75–114. https://doi.org/10.1515/flin.2005.39.1-2.75.Search in Google Scholar

Hyland, Ken. 2003. Genre-based pedagogies: A social response to process. Journal of Second Language Writing 12(1). 17–29. https://doi.org/10.1016/s1060-3743(02)00124-8.Search in Google Scholar

Hyland, Ken. 2005. Metadiscourse. London: Continuum.Search in Google Scholar

Kawase, Tomoyuki. 2019. Coherence relations in research article discussions: How are sentences organised to realise genre moves? English Text Construction 12(2). 235–264. https://doi.org/10.1075/etc.00028.kaw.Search in Google Scholar

Lautamatti, Liisa. 1990. Coherence in spoken and written discourse. In Ulla Connor & Ann M. Johns (eds.), Coherence in writing: Research and pedagogical perspectives, 29–40. Alexandria, Va: Teachers of English to Speakers of Other Languages.10.1017/S033258650000086XSearch in Google Scholar

Lee, Icy. 2002. Teaching coherence to ESL students: A classroom inquiry. Journal of Second Language Writing 11(2). 135–159. https://doi.org/10.1016/s1060-3743(02)00065-6.Search in Google Scholar

Lewin, Beverly, Jonathan Fine & Lynne Young. 2001. Expository discourse: A genre-based approach to social science research texts. London: Continuum.Search in Google Scholar

Lim, Jason Miin-Hwa. 2012. How do writers establish research niches? A genre-based investigation into management researchers’ rhetorical steps and linguistic mechanisms. Journal of English for Academic Purposes 11(3). 229–245. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jeap.2012.05.002.Search in Google Scholar

Łyda, Andrzej & Krystyna Warchał. 2008. Modality and the move structure in concession in academic spoken English. In Sally Burgess & Pedro Martín-Martín (eds.), English as an additional language in research publication and communication, 83–103. Bern, Switzerland: Peter Lang CH.Search in Google Scholar

Mann, William C., Christian M. I. M. Matthiessen & Sandra A. Thompson. 1992. Rhetorical structure theory and text analysis. In William C. Mann & Sandra A. Thompson (eds.), Discourse description: Diverse linguistic analyses of a fund-raising text, 39–78. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.10.1075/pbns.16.04manSearch in Google Scholar

Mann, William C. & Sandra A. Thompson. 1988. Rhetorical structure theory: Toward a functional theory of text organization. Text 8(3). 243–281. https://doi.org/10.1515/text.1.1988.8.3.243.Search in Google Scholar

Mann, William C. & Maite Taboada. 2018. The RST Site: Relation definitions. https://www.sfu.ca/rst/01intro/definitions.html.Search in Google Scholar

McCagg, Peter. 1990. Towards understanding coherence: A response proposition taxonomy. In Ulla Connor & Ann M. Johns (eds.), Coherence in writing: Research and pedagogical perspectives, 111–127. Alexandria, VA: Teachers of English to Speakers of Other Languages.Search in Google Scholar

McNabb, Richard. 2001. Making the gesture: Graduate student submissions and the expectation of journal referees. Composition Studies 29(1). 9–26. http://www.jstor.org/stable/43501473.Search in Google Scholar

Moghaddasi, Shahin & Heather A. B. Graves. 2017. “Since Hadwiger’s conjection… is still open”: Establishing a niche for research in discrete mathematics research article introductions. English for Specific Purposes 45. 69–85. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.esp.2016.09.003.Search in Google Scholar

Musi, Elena. 2018. How did you change my view? A Corpus-based study of concessions’ argumentative role. Discourse Studies 20(2). 270–288. https://doi.org/10.1177/1461445617734955.Search in Google Scholar

O’Brien, Teresa. 1995. Rhetorical structure analysis and the case of the inaccurate, incoherent source-hopper. Applied Linguistics 16(4). 442–482. https://doi.org/10.1093/applin/16.4.442.Search in Google Scholar

O’Donnell, Mike. 2002. RST tool – An RST markup tool. Available at: http://www.wagsoft.com/RSTTool/.Search in Google Scholar

Östman, Jan-Ola. 1999. In Wolfram Bublitz, Uta Lenk & Eija Ventola (eds.), Coherence in spoken and written discourse: How to create it and how to describe it, 77–100. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.10.1075/pbns.63.08ostSearch in Google Scholar

Paltridge, Brian & Sue Starfield. 2007. Thesis and dissertation writing in a second language: A handbook for supervisors. London: Routledge.10.4324/9780203960813Search in Google Scholar

Peacock, Mathew. 2002. Communicative moves in the discussion section of research articles. System 30(4). 479–497. https://doi.org/10.1016/s0346-251x(02)00050-7.Search in Google Scholar

Redeker, Gisela. 2000. Coherence and structure in text and discourse. In Harry & William Black (eds.), Abduction, belief, and context in dialogue: Studies in computational pragmatics, 233–263. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.10.1075/nlp.1.06redSearch in Google Scholar

Redeker, Gisela & Helmut Gruber. 2014. Introduction. In Helmut Gruber & Gisela Redeker (eds.), The pragmatics of discourse coherence, 1–20. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.10.1075/pbns.254.01redSearch in Google Scholar

Samraj, Betty. 2002. Introductions in research articles: Variations across disciplines. English for Specific Purposes 21(1). 1–17. https://doi.org/10.1016/s0889-4906(00)00023-5.Search in 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(1). 55–67. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jeap.2008.02.005.Search in Google Scholar

Stede, Manfred. 2008. RST revisited: Disentangling nuclearity. In Cathrine Fabricius-Hansen & Wiebke Ramm (eds.), Subordination verses coordination in sentence and text—from a cross-linguistic perspective, 33–58. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.10.1075/slcs.98.03steSearch in Google Scholar

Swales, John M. 1990. Genre analysis: English in academic and research settings. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Search in Google Scholar

Swales, John M. 2004. Research genres: Explorations and applications. New York: Cambridge University Press.10.1017/CBO9781139524827Search in Google Scholar

Swales, John M. & Christine B. Feak. 2012. Academic writing for graduate students: Essential tasks and skills, 3rd edn. Ann Arbor: University of Michigan Press.10.3998/mpub.2173936Search in Google Scholar

Taboada, Maite. 2006. Discourse markers as signals (or not) of rhetorical relations. Journal of Pragmatics 38(4). 567–592. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.pragma.2005.09.010.Search in Google Scholar

Taboada, Maite & Julia Lavid. 2003. Rhetorical and thematic patterns in scheduling dialogues: A generic characterization. Functions of Language 10(2). 147–178. https://doi.org/10.1075/fol.10.2.02tab.Search in Google Scholar

Tardy, Christine M. 2005. “It’s like a story”: Rhetorical knowledge development in advanced academic literacy. Journal of English for Academic Purposes 4(4). 325–338. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jeap.2005.07.005.Search in Google Scholar

Wang, Weihong & Chengsong Yang. 2015. Claiming centrality as promotion in applied linguistics research article introductions. Journal of English for Academic Purposes 20. 162–175. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jeap.2015.05.002.Search in Google Scholar