Engagement and strategic alignment in academic talks across languages and disciplines

References

Baumgarten, Nicole & Juliane House. 2010. I think and I don’t know in English as lingua franca and native English discourse. Journal of Pragmatics 42(5). 1184–1200. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.pragma.2009.09.018.Suche in Google Scholar

Brezina, Vaclav. 2013. Compiling and analyzing a spoken academic corpus. www.lknol.com. Suche in Google Scholar

Carrio-Pastor, María Luisa. 2019. Authorial engagement in business emails: A cross-cultural analysis of attitude and engagement markers. In Maurizi Gotti & Stefania Maci (eds.), Engagement in professional genres, 47–65. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.10.1075/pbns.301.03carSuche in Google Scholar

Cohen, Jacob. 2013[1998]. Statistical power analysis for the behavioral sciences. New York: Routledge.10.4324/9780203771587Suche in Google Scholar

Dahl, Trine. 2004. Textual metadiscourse in research articles: A marker of national culture or of academic discipline. Journal of Pragmatics 36. 1807–1825. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.pragma.2004.05.004.Suche in Google Scholar

Dontcheva-Navratilova, Olga. 2021. Engaging with the reader in research articles in English: Variation across disciplines and linguacultural backgrounds. English for Specific Purposes 63. 18–32. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.esp.2021.02.003.Suche in Google Scholar

Duan, Yuxiang & Liesbeth, Degand. 2024. Attitudinal resources in academic talks: A corpus-based analysis across languages. Corpus Pragmatics 8. 335–358.10.1007/s41701-024-00171-4Suche in Google Scholar

Duszak, Anna. 1997. Cross-cultural academic communication: A discourse-community view. Trends in Linguistics Studies and Monographs 104. 11–40. https://doi.org/10.1515/9783110821048.11.Suche in Google Scholar

Edmondson, Willis J., Juliane House & Dániel Z. Kádár. 2023. Expressions, speech acts and discourse: A pedagogic interactional grammar of English. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.10.1017/9781108954662Suche in Google Scholar

Fernández-Polo, Francisco Javier. 2018. Functions of “you” in conference presentations. English for Specific Purposes 49. 14–25. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.esp.2017.10.001.Suche in Google Scholar

Fløttum, Kjersti, Trine Dahl & Torodd Kinn. 2006. Academic voices: Across languages and disciplines. Amsterdam & Philadelphia: John Benjamins.10.1075/pbns.148Suche in Google Scholar

Gao, Ge. 1998. “Don’t take my word for it.” – understanding Chinese speaking practices. International Journal of Intercultural Relations 22(2). 163–186. https://doi.org/10.1016/s0147-1767-98-00003-0.Suche in Google Scholar

Goffman, Erving. 2023 [1959]. The presentation of self in everyday life. In Social theory Re-Wired, 450–459. London: Routledge.10.4324/9781003320609-59Suche in Google Scholar

Groom, Nicholas. 2009. Phraseology and epistemology in academic book reviews: A corpus-driven analysis of two humanities disciplines. In Academic evaluation: Review genres in university settings, 122–142. Basingstoke: Palgrave MacMillan.10.1057/9780230244290_8Suche in Google Scholar

Hunston, Susan & Geoffrey Thompson. 2000. Evaluation in text: Authorial stance and the construction of discourse. NewYork: Oxford University Press.10.1093/oso/9780198238546.001.0001Suche in Google Scholar

Hunt, Kellogg W. 1965. Grammatical structures written at three grade levels. National Council of Teachers of English 3.Suche in Google Scholar

Hyland, Ken. 2001. Bringing in the reader: Addressee features in academic articles. Written Communication 18(4). 549–574. https://doi.org/10.1177/0741088301018004005.Suche in Google Scholar

Hyland, Ken. 2002a. Directives: Argument and engagement in academic writing. Applied Linguistics 23(2). 215–239. https://doi.org/10.1093/applin/23.2.215.Suche in Google Scholar

Hyland, Ken. 2002b. What do they mean? Questions in academic writing. Text & Talk 22(4). 529–557. https://doi.org/10.1515/text.2002.021.Suche in Google Scholar

Hyland, Ken. 2004a. Disciplinary discourse: Social interactions in academic writing. London: Longman.Suche in Google Scholar

Hyland, Ken. 2004b. Engagement and disciplinary: The other side of evaluation. In Academic discourse: New insights into evaluation, 13–30. Bern: Peter Lang.Suche in Google Scholar

Hyland, Ken. 2005a. Metadiscourse: Exploring interaction in writing. New York: Continuum.Suche in Google Scholar

Hyland, Ken. 2005b. Stance and engagement: A model of interaction in academic discourse. Discourse Studies 7(2). 173–192. https://doi.org/10.1177/1461445605050365.Suche in Google Scholar

Hyland, Ken. 2006. Disciplinary differences: Language variation in academic discourses. In Academic discourse across disciplines, 17–45. Frankfort: Peter Lang.10.3726/978-3-0351-0446-2Suche in Google Scholar

Hyland, Ken. 2012. Disciplinary identities: Individuality and community in academic discourse. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.10.1017/9781009406512Suche in Google Scholar

Hyland, Ken & Feng Jiang. 2016. “We must conclude that…”: A diachronic study of academic engagement. Journal of English for Academic Purposes 24. 29–42. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jeap.2016.09.003.Suche in Google Scholar

Jiang, Feng & Xiaohao Ma. 2018. ‘As we can see’: Reader engagement in PhD candidature confirmation reports. Journal of English for Academic Purposes 35. 1–15. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jeap.2018.05.003.Suche in Google Scholar

Johnson, Jane Helen & Mariangela Picciuolo. 2020. Interaction in spoken academic discourse in an EMI context: The use of questions. In Sixth international conference on higher education advances. Polytechnic University of Valencia Congress.10.4995/HEAd20.2020.11018Suche in Google Scholar

Kádár, Dániel Z. 2024. Ritual and language. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.10.1017/9781108624909Suche in Google Scholar

Kádár, Dániel Z. & Sen Zhang. 2019. (Im) politeness and alignment: A case study of public political monologues. Acta Linguistica Academica 66(2). 229–249. https://doi.org/10.1556/2062.2019.66.2.5.Suche in Google Scholar

Khatibi, Zarrin & Rajab Esfandiari. 2021. Comparative analysis of engagement markers in research article introductions and conclusions. Journal of Modern Research in English Language Studies 8(3). 1–24.Suche in Google Scholar

Kilgarriff, Adam, Pavel Rychly, Pavel Smrz & David Tugwell. 2004. The sketch engine. Proceedings of Eleventh EURALEX International Congress. 105–116.Suche in Google Scholar

Kramar, Natalie. 2019. Engagement markers in the Feynman lectures on physics: Applying Hyland’s interaction framework to spoken academic discourse. Advanced Education. 127–133. https://doi.org/10.20535/2410-8286.144603.Suche in Google Scholar

Lafuente-Millán, Enrique. 2014. Reader engagement across cultures, languages and contexts of publication in business research articles. International Journal of Applied Linguistics 24(2). 201–223. https://doi.org/10.1111/ijal.12019.Suche in Google Scholar

Lee, Joseph J. & Nicholas Subtirelu. 2015. Metadiscourse in the classroom: A comparative analysis of EAP lessons and university lecture. English for Specific Purposes 37. 52–62. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.esp.2014.06.005.Suche in Google Scholar

Li, Zhijun & Jinfen Xu. 2020. Reflexive metadiscourse in Chinese and English sociology research article introductions and discussions. Journal of Pragmatics 159. 47–59. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.pragma.2020.02.003.Suche in Google Scholar

Lian, Shuneng. 2010. Contrastive studies of English and Chinese. China: Higher Education Press.Suche in Google Scholar

Lou, Baocui & Yali Wang. 2019. Use of engagement markers in English academic writing. Contemporary Foreign Languages Studies 4. 58–69.Suche in Google Scholar

Martin, James Robert & Peter Robert Rupert White. 2007. The language of evaluation: Appraisal in English. London: Palgrave Macmillan.Suche in Google Scholar

Moore, Johanna D. & Martha E. Pollack. 1992. A problem for RST: The need for multi-level discourse analysis. Computational Linguistics 18(4).Suche in Google Scholar

Mur Dueñas, Pilar. 2008. Analysing engagement markers cross-culturally: The case of English and Spanish business. In Burgess Sally & Martin Pedro (eds.), English as an additional language in research publication and communication, 197-213. Bern: Peter Lang.Suche in Google Scholar

Ngor-To Yeung, Lorrita. 2000. The question of Chinese indirectness: A comparison of Chinese and English participative decision-making discourse. Multilingua 19(3). 221–264.10.1515/mult.2000.19.3.221Suche in Google Scholar

Pérez-Llantada, Carmen. 2003. Communication skills in academic monologic discourse. Empirical and applied perspectives. Círculo de Lingüística Aplicada a la Comunicación 3(15). 1–14.Suche in Google Scholar

Roberts, Felicia & Jeffrey D. Robinson. 2004. Interobserver agreement on first-stage conversation analytic transcription. Human Communication Research 30(3). 376–410. https://doi.org/10.1093/hcr/30.3.376.Suche in Google Scholar

Sun, Shuyi Amelia, Feng Kevin Jiang & Yanhua Liu. 2024. “Maybe, but probably not”: A cross-disciplinary study of negation in three minute thesis presentations. English for Specific Purposes 74. 117–131. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.esp.2024.02.001.Suche in Google Scholar

Thompson, Susan. 1998. Why ask questions in monologue? Language choice at work in scientific and linguistic talk. In Language at work, 137–150. Clevedon: British Association for Applied Linguistics in Association with Multilingual Matters.Suche in Google Scholar

Trnavac, Radoslava & Maite Taboada. 2021. Engagement and constructiveness in online news comments in English and Russian. Text & Talk 43(2). 1–28. https://doi.org/10.1515/text-2020-0171.Suche in Google Scholar

Xiao, Jing & Zhiqing Hu. 2017. A comparative study of engagement markers in academic papers of natural science and social science. Foreign Language Education. 93–100.Suche in Google Scholar

Xu, Xiaoyu & Hilary Nesi. 2019. Differences in engagement: A comparison of the strategies used by British and Chinese research article writers. Journal of English for Academic Purposes 38. 121–134. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jeap.2019.02.003.Suche in Google Scholar

Zhang, Man, Weiwei Sun, Huan Peng, Qiong Gan & Bo Yu. 2017. A multidimensional analysis of metadiscourse markers across spoken registers. Journal of Pragmatics 117. 106–118. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.pragma.2017.06.004.Suche in Google Scholar

Zou, Hang & Ken Hyland. 2020. “Think about how fascinating this is”: Engagement in academic blogs across disciplines. Journal of English for Academic Purposes 43. 1–12. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jeap.2019.100809.Suche in Google Scholar

Zou, Hang & Ken Hyland. 2024. “Let’s start with the basics of the virus”: Engaging the public in two forms of explainers. Journal of English for Academic Purposes 68. 101353. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jeap.2024.101353.Suche in Google Scholar