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. 259–276

Chapter 13
On cognitive complexity in scientific discourse

A corpus-based study on additive coherence relations

| Ruprecht-Karls-Universität Heidelberg
Article outline
  • 1.Introduction
  • 2.Additive focus operators
  • 3.Additive connectives
  • 4.Methodology
  • 5.Data analysis
    • 5.1Gender
    • 5.2Place of origin
    • 5.3Text types
  • 6.Conclusions and suggestions for further research
  • Acknowledgements
  • Notes
  • References
Published online: 9 October 2019
DOI logo
https://doi.org/10.1075/z.225.13vir
References (73)
References
Albentosa Hernández, José Ignacio. (1997). La sustantivación en el discurso científico en lengua inglesa. CAUCE. Revista de Filología y su Didáctica, 20–21, 329–344.Google Scholar
Albentosa Hernández, José Ignacio & Arsenio Jesús Moya Guijarro. (2000). La reducción del grado de transitividad de la oración en el discurso científico en lengua inglesa. Revista Española de Lingüística, 30 (1), 445–468.Google Scholar
Andorno, Cecilia. (2000). Focalizzatori fra connessione e messa a fuoco. Il punto di vista delle varietà di apprendimento. Milano: Angeli.Google Scholar
Adorno, Cecilia & Anna Maria De Cesare (2017). Mapping additivity through translation. In Anna Maria De Cesare & Cecilia Adorno (Eds.), Focus on additivity: Adverbial modifiers in Romance, Germanic and Slavic languages (157–200). Amsterdam/Philadelphia: John Benjamins.Google Scholar
Argamon, Shlomo, Moshe Koppel, Jonathan Fine, & Anat Rachel Shimoni. (2003). Gender, genre, and writing style in formal written texts. Interdisciplinary journal for the study of discourse, 23/3, 321–346.Google Scholar
Atkinson, Dwight. (1998). Scientific discourse in sociohistorical context: The philosophical transactions of the Royal Society of London 1675–1975. Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Banks, David. (2001). Analyse des discours spécialisés: Le domaine anglais. Revue française de linguistique appliquée, VI (2), 7–16. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
. (2003). The evolution of grammatical metaphor in scientific writing. In Anne Marie Simon-Vandenbergen, Miriam Taverniers & Louise Ravelli (Eds.), Grammatical metaphor: views from functional Linguistics (127–147). Amsterdam: John Benjamins. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
. (2005a). Emerging scientific discourse in the late seventeenth century. Functions of Language, 12 (1), 65–86. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
. (2005b). On the historical origins of nominalized process in scientific text. English for Specific Purposes, 24 (3), 347–357. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
. (2007). L’évolution de la phrase en anglais scientifique. In David Banks (Ed.), La coordination et la subordination dans le texte de spécialité (203–221). Paris: L’Harmattan.Google Scholar
. (2008). The development of scientific writing: linguistic features and historical context. London: Equinox.Google Scholar
Barber, Charles. (1993). The English language: A historical introduction. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Beal, Joan C. (2012). Late modern English in its historical context. In Isabel Moskowich & Begoña Crespo (Eds.), Astronomy ‘playne and simple’: The writing of science between 1700 and 1900 (1–14). Amsterdam/Philadelphia: John Benjamins Publishing Company.Google Scholar
Bello, Iria. (2010). A diachronic study of nominalizations in Astronomy and Philosophy texts. Paper delivered at the 6th International Contrastive Linguistics Conference, Freie Universität Berlin, Berlin, 30/09-02/10/2010.
. (2016a). Nominalizations and female scientific writing in the late Modern Period. Revista canaria de estudios ingleses, 72, 35–52.Google Scholar
. (2016b). Nominalization use in late Modern English scientific texts written by women. Evidence from the Coruña Corpus . Paper delivered at the Sociolinguistics Symposium 21 , 15th-18th June, 2016, Universidad de Murcia (Spain).
Biber, Douglas, Susan Conrad, & Randi Reppen. (1998). Corpus Linguistics investigating language structure and use. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Blakemore, Diane. (1987). Semantic constraints on relevance. Oxford: Blackwell.Google Scholar
Bloom, Lois, Margaret Lahey, Lois Hood, Karin Lifter, & Kathleen Fiess. (1980). Complex sentences: acquisition of syntactic connectives and the semantic relations they encode. Journal of child language, 7, 235–261. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Camiña Rioboo, Gonzalo. (2012). Accounting for observations of the heavens in the 18th century: new nouns to explain old phenomena. In Isabel Moskowich & Begoña Crespo (Eds.), Astronomy ‘playne and simple’: The writing of science between 1700 and 1900 (93–121). Amsterdam/Philadelphia: John Benjamins Publishing Company.Google Scholar
. (2013). Word formation in the scientific register of early Modern English: A corpus-based approach. (Unpublished Doctoral dissertation). Available from Repositorio da Universidade da Coruña.Google Scholar
Camiña Rioboo, Gonzalo, María José Esteve, & Inés Lareo. (2012). A study of nouns and their provenance in the astronomy section of the Coruña Corpus of Scientific English Writing: Some preliminary considerations. In José Luis Cifuentes Honrubia, Adelina Gómez Gonzalez-Jover, Antonio Lillo Buades, José Mateo Martínez & Francisco Yus Ramos (Eds.), Los caminos de la lengua. Estudios en homenaje a Enrique Alcaraz Varó (537–547). Alicante: Universidad de Alicante.Google Scholar
De Cesare, Anna Maria. (2017). Introduction: on ‘Addititvity’ as a Multidisciplinary Research Field. In Anna Maria De Cesare and Cecilia Andorno (Eds.), Focus on additivity. adverbial modifiers in Romance, Germanic and Slavic languages (1–22). Amsterdam/Philadelphia: John Benjamins. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Crespo, Begoña. (2015). Women writing science in the Eighteenth Century: a preliminary approach to their language in use. ANGLICA. An international journal of English studies, 24/2, 103–128.Google Scholar
. (2016). On writing science in the Age of Reason. Revista Canaria de Estudios Ingleses, 72, 53–78.Google Scholar
van Dijk, Teun & Walter Kintsch. (1983). Strategies of discourse comprehension. New York: Academic.Google Scholar
Domínguez García, Noemí. (2007). Conectores discursivos en textos argumentativo breves. Madrid: Arco/Libros.Google Scholar
Eisenberg, Ann R. (1980). A syntactic, semantic and pragmatic analysis of conjunction. Stanford papers and reports on child language development, 19, 70–78.Google Scholar
Escandell-Vidal, Victoria & Manuel Leonetti. (2011). On the rigidity of procedural meaning. In Victoria Escandell-Vidal, Manuel Leonetti, & Aoife Ahern (Eds.), Procedural meaning: problems and perspectives (81–103). Bingley: Emerald Group Publishing.Google Scholar
Fauconnier, Gilles. (1975). Polarity and the scale principle. In Papers of the eleventh regional meeting of the Chicago Linguistic Society (188–199). Chicago, IL: Chicago Linguistic Society.Google Scholar
Gast, Volker. (2017). The scalar operator even and its German equivalents. In Anna Maria De Cesare & Cecilia Andorno (Eds.), Focus on additivity. Adverbial modifiers in Romance, Germanic and Slavic languages (201–234). Amsterdam/Philadelphia: John Benjamins. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Gast, Volker & Jan van der Auwera. (2011). Scalar additive operators in the languages of Europe. Language, 87/1, 2–54. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Gast, Volker, & Christoph Rzymski. (2015). Towards a corpus-based analysis of evaluative scales associated with even . Linguistik Online, 71/2.Google Scholar
Gotti, Maurizio. (2011). The development of specialized discourse in the Philosophical Transactions. In Irma Taivitsainen & Paivi Pahta (Eds.), Medical writing in early Modern English (204–220). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
. (2012). Variation in academic texts. In Maurizio Gotti (Ed.), Academic identity traits: A corpus-based investigation (23–42). Bern: Peter Lang. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
. (2013). The formation of the Royal Society as a community of practice and discourse. In Joanna Kopaczyk & Andreas Jucker (Eds.), Communities of practice in the history of English (269–285). Amsterdam: John Benjamins. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Greene, John C. (1954). Some aspects of American astronomy 1750–1815. Isis, 45 (4), 339–358. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Halliday, Michael A. K. (2004). On the language of physical science. In John Webster (Ed.), The language of physical science (162–178). London: Continuum.Google Scholar
Halliday, Michael A. K. & Ruqaiya Hassan. (1976). Cohesion in English. Harlow: Longman.Google Scholar
Halliday, Michael A. K. & James Martin. (1993). Writing science. London: The Falmer Press.Google Scholar
Huddleston, Rodney & Geoffrey Pullum. (2002). The Cambridge grammar of English language. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Jacobs, Joachim. (1983). Fokus und Skalen. Zur Syntax uns Semantik der Gradpartikeln im Deutschen. Tübingen: Niemeyer.Google Scholar
Katz, Evelyn W. & Sandor D. Brent. (1968). Understanding connectives. Journal of verbal learning and verbal behavior, 7, 501–509. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Kay, Paul. (1990). Even. Linguistics and Philosophy, 13, 59–111. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Kintsch, Walter, & Teun van Dijk. (1978). Toward a model of text comprehension and production. Psychological review, 85, 363–394. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
König, Ekkehard. (1991). The Meaning of focus particles: a comparative perspective. London: Routledge. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Lareo, Inés. (2011). Using complex predicates in the writings on astronomy in nineteenth-century English. Exploitation of the corpus of English texts on astronomy. Revista de lenguas para fines específicos, 17, 229–252.Google Scholar
Levinson, Stephen. (2000). Presumptive meanings – The theory of generalized conversational implicature. Cambridge (MA): MIT Press. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Loureda, Óscar, Adriana Cruz, Martha Rudka, Laura Nadal, Inés Recio, & Margarita Borreguero Zuloaga. (2015). Focus particles in information processing: an experimental study on pragmatic scales with Spanish incluso . In Anna Maria De Cesare, & Cecilia Andorno (Eds.), Focus particles in the Romance and Germanic languages. Experimental and corpus-based approaches. Linguistic Online, 71/2.Google Scholar
McNamara, Danielle S., Eileen Kintsch, Nancy Butler Songer, & Walter Kintsch. (1996). Are good texts always better? Interactions of text coherence, background knowledge, and levels of understanding in learning from text. Cognition and instruction, 14/1, 1–43. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Moskowich, Isabel. (2012). CETA as a tool for the study of modern astronomy in English. In Isabel Moskowich & Begoña Crespo (Eds.), Astronomy ‘playne and simple’: The writing of science between 1700 and 1900 (35–57). Amsterdam/ Philadelphia: John Benjamins Publishing Company.Google Scholar
Moskowich, Isabel & Begoña Crespo. (2012). Astronomy ‘playne and simple’: The writing of science between 1700 and 1900. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Moskowich, Isabel & Leida Maria Monaco. (2016). Linking ideas in women’s writing: Evidence from the Coruña Corpus . Revista de lingüística y lenguas aplicadas, 11, 35–49. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Mulac, Anthony, Giles Howard, James Bradac, & Nicholas Palomares. (2013). The gender-linked language effect: an empirical test of a general process model. Language Sciences, 38, 22–31. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Nadal, Laura, Inés Recio, Martha Rudka, & Óscar Loureda. (2017). Processing additivity in Spanish: incluso vs además . In Anna Maria De Cesare & Cecilia Andorno, (Eds.), Focus on additivity. Adverbial modifiers in Romance, Germanic and Slavic languages (136–156). Amsterdam/Philadelphia: John Benjamins. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Palander-Collin, Minna. (1999). Male and female styles in 17th century correspondence. Language variation and change, 11, 123–141. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Pander Maat, Henk & Ted Sanders. (2006). Connectives in text. In Keith Brown (Ed.), Encyclopedia of language and linguistics (33–41). Amsterdam: Elsevier (Volume 3). DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Piaget, Jean. (1969). Judgement and reasoning in the child. London: Routledge and Paul Kegan.Google Scholar
Portolés, José. (2007). Escalas aditivas. Pruebas del español. Spanish in Context, 4/2: 135–157. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Quirk, Randolph, Sidney Greenbaum, Geoffrey Leech & Jan Svartvik. (1985). A Comprehensive grammar of the English language. London: Longman.Google Scholar
Sanders, Ted. (2005). Coherence, causality and cognitive complexity in discourse. Proceedings/Actes SEM-05, First international symposium on the exploration and modelling of meaning, 105–114.Google Scholar
Sanders, Ted & Henk Pander Maat. (2006). Cohesion and coherence: linguistic approaches. In Keith Brown (Ed.), Encyclopedia of language and Linguistics (591–595). London: Elsevier (Volume 2). DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Sanders, Ted, Wilbert Spooren & Leo Noordman. (1992). Toward a taxonomy of coherence relations. Discourse processes, 15, 1–35. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
. (1993). Coherence relations in a cognitive theory of discourse representation. Cognitive Linguistics, 4, 93–134. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Schwenter, Scott. (1999). Pragmatics of conditional marking: implicature, scalarity and exclusivity. New York: Garland.Google Scholar
Sperber, Dan & Deirdre Wilson. (1995). Relevance. Oxford: Blackwell.Google Scholar
. (2002). Pragmatics, modularity and mind-reading. Mind and Language, 17, 3–23. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Spooren, Wilbert & Ted Sanders. (2008). The acquisition order of coherence relations: On cognitive complexity in discourse, Journal of Pragmatics, 40, 2003–2026. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Taavitsainen, Irma. (2001). Changing conventions of writing: The dynamics of genres, text types, and text traditions. European journal of English studies, 5 (2), 139–150. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Taavitsainen, Irma & Paivï Pahta. (1997). The Corpus of Early English Medical Writing: linguistic variation and prescriptive collocations in scholastic style. In Terttu Nevalainen & Leena Kahlas-Tarkka (Eds.), To explain the present: studies in changing English language in honour of Matti Rissanen (209–225). Helsinki: Société Néophilologique.Google Scholar
Vázquez Orta, Ignacio. (2006). A corpus-based approach to the distribution of nominalization in academic discourse. In María José Luzón, Silvia Murillo & Ana María Hornero (Eds.), Corpus linguistics: applications for the study of English (399–416). Bern: Peter Lang.Google Scholar
Wilson, Deirdre & Dan Sperber. (2002). Relevance theory. Working papers in Linguistics, 14, 249–287.Google Scholar
Cited by (1)

Cited by one other publication

Bello Viruega, Iria & Elisa Narváez García
2021. Chapter 14. A study of coherence relations in the English scientific register. In “All families and genera”, ► pp. 266 ff. DOI logo

This list is based on CrossRef data as of 29 july 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.