Cover not available
Part of
Writing History in Late Modern English: Explorations of the Coruña Corpus
Edited by Isabel Moskowich, Begoña Crespo, Luis Puente-Castelo and Leida Maria Monaco
[Not in series 225] 2019
► pp. 185–213

Chapter 10
How intimate was the tone of female History writing in the Modern period?

Evidence from the Corpus of History English Texts

 | Universidade da Coruña
Article outline
  • 1.Introduction
  • 2.Authorial presence in scientific discourse: Identity and interaction
  • 3.Materials and methodology
  • 4.Analysis and discussion
    • 4.1The time variable
    • 4.2The communicative format variable
    • 4.3Detailed analysis of the most frequent involvement features
  • 5.Concluding remarks
  • Acknowledgements
  • References
Published online: 9 October 2019
DOI logo
https://doi.org/10.1075/z.225.10cre
References (35)
References
Argamon, Shlomo, Moshe Koppel, Jonathan Fine & Anat Rachel Shimoni. (2003). Gender, Genre, and Writing Style in Formal Written Texts. Text, 23 (3), 321–346. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Atkinson, Dwight. (1999). Scientific Discourse in Sociohistorical Context: The Philosophical Transactions of the Royal Society of London, 1675–1975. Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.Google Scholar
Bennett, Karen. (2009). English academic style manuals: A survey. Journal of English for Academic Purposes, 8(1), 43–54. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Besnier, Niko. (1994). Involvement in linguistic practice: An Ethnographic Appraisal. Journal of Pragmatics, 22, 279–299. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Biber, Douglas. (1988). Variation across speech and writing. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Biber, Douglas & Jená Burges. (2000). Historical change in the language use of women and men: Gender differences in dramatic dialogue. Journal of English Linguistics, 28, 21–37. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Biber, Douglas & Edward Finegan. (1997). Diachronic relations among speech-based and written registers in English. In Terttu Nevalainen & Leena Kahlas-Tarkka (Eds.), To explain the present: Studies in the changing English language in honour of Matti Rissanen (253–275). Helsinki: Societe Neophilologique. (Reprinted in Conrad & Biber (Eds.) (2001), 66–83.)Google Scholar
Cook, Albert. (1988). History/Writing. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Dontcheva-Navrátilová, Olga. (2013). Authorial presence in academic discourse: functions of author-reference pronouns. Linguistica Pragensia, 23(1), 9–30.Google Scholar
Halliday, Michael Alexander Kirkwood. (1988). On the Language of Physical Science. In Mohsen Ghadessy (Ed.), Registers of Written English: Situational Factors and Linguistic Features (162–178). London: Pinter.Google Scholar
Halliday, Michael Alexander Kirkwood & Christian Matthiessen. (2004). An Introduction to Functional Grammar. London: Arnold.Google Scholar
Harwood, Nigel. (2005). We Do Not Seem to Have a Theory … The Theory I Present Here Attempts to Fill This Gap: Inclusive and Exclusive Pronouns in Academic Writing. Applied Linguistics, 26(3), 343–3. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Holmes, Janet. (2001). An introduction to Sociolinguistics. Longman.Google Scholar
Hyland, Ken. (2002). Authority and invisibility: Authorial identity in academic writing. Journal of Pragmatics, 34, 1091–1112. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
. (2008). As can be seen: Lexical bundles and disciplinary variation. English for Specific Purposes, 27(1), 4–21. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Ivaníč, Roz. (1998). Writing and Identity. The Discoursal Construction of Identity in Academic Writing. Amsterdam and Philadelphia: John Benjamins. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Knight, David (Ed.) (1986). The Age of Science. The Scientific World-View in the Nineteenth Century. Oxford: Basil Blackwell.Google Scholar
Kroch, Anthony, Beatrice Santorini & Ariel Diertani. (2016). The Penn Parsed Corpus of Modern British English (PPCMBE2). Department of Linguistics, University of Pennsylvania. CD-ROM, second edition, release 1. Accessed [21/03/2018] from [URL]
Kuo, Chih-Hua. (1999). The use of personal pronouns: Role relationships in scientific journal articles. English for Specific Purposes, 18(2), 121–138. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Lakoff, Robin T. (1990). Talking power: The politics of language in our lives. New York: Basic Books.Google Scholar
Mischke, Gertruda E. (2005). Analysing ‘involvement’ in Distance Education Study Guides: An Appraisal-based Approach. The University of South Africa.Google Scholar
Monaco, Leida Maria. (2017). A Multidimensional analysis of Late Modern English Scientific Texts from the Coruña Corpus. Unpublished PhD Diss. Universidade da Coruña.Google Scholar
Moskowich, Isabel. (2017). “Pronouns as stance markers in the Coruña Corpus: An analysis of the CETA, CEPhiT and CHET”. In Francisco Alonso-Almeida (Ed.), Stancetaking in Late Modern English Scientific Writing. Evidence from the Coruña Corpus (73–91). Colección Scientia [Applied Linguistics]. Valencia: Servicio de Publicaciones de la Universidad Politécnica de Valencia.Google Scholar
Moskowich, Isabel & Begoña Crespo. (2016). “Classifying communicative formats in CHET, CECHeT and others”. EPiC Series in Language and Linguistics, 1, 308–320. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Pagliawan, Dominador L. (2017). Feature Style for Academic and Scholarly Writing. Academic Journal of Interdisciplinary Studies, 6(2), 35–41. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Porter, Theodore & Dorothy Ross (Eds.) (2003). The Cambridge History of Science. Vol. 7. The Modern Social Sciences. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Prelli, Lawrence J. (1989). A Rhetoric of Science: Inventing Scientific Discourse. Columbia, SC: University of South Carolina Press.Google Scholar
Puente-Castelo, Luis. (2017). On Conditionality: A Corpus-based study of conditional structures in Late Modern English Scientific Texts. Unpublished PhD Diss. Universidade da Coruña.Google Scholar
Quirk, Randolph, Sidney Greenbaum, Geoffrey Leech, & Jan Svartvik. (1985). A Comprehensive Grammar of the English Language. London: Longman.Google Scholar
Simó, Judit. (2012). Involvement and Subjectivity in the Linguistic Description of Counterfactual Scenarios in Chess Commentaries, 2012. Selected Papers from UK-CLA Meetings, Vol 1, 78–93. Accessed [21/03/2018] from [URL]
Stromberg, Roland N. (1951). History in the Eighteenth Century. Journal of the History of Ideas, 12(2), 295–304. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Taavitsainen, Irma. (1994). On the Evolution of Scientific Writings between 1375 and 1675: Repertoire of Emo-tive Features. In Francisco Fernández et al. (Eds.), Papers from the 7th International Conference on English Historical Linguistics, Valencia, Sept. 1992 (329–342). Amsterdam/Philadelphia: John Benjamins. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Tang, Ramona & Suganthi John. (1999). The ‘I’ identity: Exploring Writer Identity in Student Academic Writing Through the First-Person Pronoun. English for Specific Purposes, 18, 23–39. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Thompson, Geoff. (2001). Interaction in Academic Writing: Learning to Argue with the Reader. Applied Linguistics, 22(1), 58–78. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Yang, Xinzhang. (2017). Linguistics Features of Knowledge Construction in Chemistry Textbooks. In Jonathan J. Webster & ‎Xuanwei Peng (Eds.), Applying Systemic Functional Linguistics: The State of the Art in China Today (337–350). London: Bloomsbury Publishing.Google Scholar
Cited by (3)

Cited by three other publications

Montoya Reyes, Ana & Anabella Barsaglini-Castro
2024. A semantic approach for the analysis of verbs in life sciences texts. Studia Neophilologica ► pp. 1 ff. DOI logo
Crespo, Begoña
2021. Linguistic indicators of persuasion in female authors in the Corpus of English Life Sciences Texts. In “All families and genera”, ► pp. 147 ff. DOI logo
Crespo, Begoña
2022. Analysing the Coruña Corpus: Subjectivity and Intersubjectivity Markers. Studia Anglica Posnaniensia 57:1 ► pp. 199 ff. DOI logo

This list is based on CrossRef data as of 17 december 2024. Please note that it may not be complete. Sources presented here have been supplied by the respective publishers. Any errors therein should be reported to them.