Cover not available
Part of
“All families and genera”: Exploring the Corpus of English Life Sciences Texts
Edited by Isabel Moskowich, Inés Lareo and Gonzalo Camiña
[Not in series 237] 2021
► pp. 147–168

Chapter 8
Linguistic indicators of persuasion in female authors in the Corpus of English Life Sciences Texts

ORCID logo | University of A Coruña
Article outline
  • 1.Introduction
  • 2.Women scientists, prefaces and persuasion
  • 3.Material and methodology
  • 4.Data analysis and discussion
    • 4.1Prefaces and bodies: General data
      • a.Prefaces and bodies: Specific data
      • b.Linguistic features
  • 5.Concluding remarks
  • Works cited
Published online: 10 September 2021
DOI logo
https://doi.org/10.1075/z.237.08cre
References (36)
Works cited
Anthony, Laurence. 2018. AntConc (Version 3.5.7) [Computer Software]. Tokyo, Japan: Waseda University. Retrieved January 20, 2020, from [URL]
Arakelyan, Rouzanna and Muradyan, Gevorg. 2016. Language as an Influential Tool for Persuasion. Armenian Folia Anglistika, 1/15: 39–45. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Argamon, Shlomo, Moshe Koppel; Fine, Jonathan and Shimoni, Anat Rachel. 2003. Gender, Genre, and Writing Style in Formal Written Texts. Text, 23/3: 321–346.Google 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
Barsaglini-Castro, Anabella, Valcarce, Daniel. 2020. The Coruña Corpus Tool: Ten Years On. Procesamiento del Lenguaje Natural, 64: 13–19.Google Scholar
Bhatia, Vijay K. 1997. Genre-mixing in academic introductions. English for Specific Purposes, 16/3: 181–195. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Biber, Douglas and Conrad, Susan. 2001. “Register variation: A corpus approach”. In Schiffrin, Deborah; Tannen, Deborah and Hamilton, Heidi (eds.), The handbook of discourse analysis. Oxford: Blackwell. 175–96.Google Scholar
Biber, Douglas; Johansson, Stig; Leech, Geoffrey; Conrad, Susan and Finegan, Edward. 1999. Longman Grammar of Spoken and Written English. Essex: Longman.Google Scholar
Biber, Douglas. 1988. Variation across Speech and Writing. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Cameron, Deborah. 1992. Feminism and Linguistic Theory. Palgrave Macmillan. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Cameron, Deborah, McAlinden, Fiona and O’Leary, Kathy. 1989. “Lakoff in context: the social and linguistic functions of tag questions”. In Cameron, Deborah. and Coates, Jennifer (eds.), Women in Their Speech Communities: new perspectives on language and sex. London; New York: Longman. 74–93.Google Scholar
Connor, Ulla. and Upton, Thomas. 2003. “Linguistic Dimensions of Direct Mail Letters”. In Leystina, Pepi and Meyer, Charles F. (eds.), Corpus Analysis. Language Structure and Language Use. Amsterdam: Rodopi. 71–86. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Crespo, Begoña. 2016. On writing Science in the Age of Reason. Revista Canaria de Estudios Ingleses (RCEI), 72: 53–78.Google Scholar
. 2019. “How intimate was the tone of female history writing in the Modern period? Evidence from the Corpus of History English Texts”. In Moskowich, Isabel; Crespo, Begoña; Puente-Castelo, Luis and Monaco, Leida Maria (eds.), Writing history in Late Modern English: Explorations of the Coruña Corpus. Amsterdam/Philadelphia: John Benjamins. 186–213. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Dillard, James Pryce. 2014. “Language style and persuasion”. In Holtgraves, Thomas (ed.), The Oxford Handbook of Language and Social Psychology. Oxford: Oxford University Press. 177–187.Google Scholar
Gregory, Emily Lovira. 1895. Elements of Plant Anatomy. Boston, London: Published by Ginn & company.Google Scholar
Halliday, Michael Alexander Kirkwood. 1988. “On the Language of Physical Science”. In Ghadessy, Mohsen (ed.), Registers of Written English: Situational Factors and Linguistic Features. (OLS). London: Pinter. 162–178.Google Scholar
Hyland, Ken. 2005. Stance and engagement: a model of interaction in academic discourse. Discourse Studies, 7/2: 173–192. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Hyland, K. 2015. Genre, Discipline and identity. Journal of English for Academic Purposes, 19: 32–43. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Knight, Dan. (ed.). 1986. The Age of Science. The Scientific World-View in the Nineteenth Century. Oxford: Basil Blackwell.Google Scholar
Lakoff, Robin. 1975. Language and Women’s Place. New York: Harper and Row.Google Scholar
Lareo, Inés; Monaco, Leida Maria; Esteve-Ramos, María José and Moskowich, Isabel (comps.). 2020. The Corpus of English Life Sciences Texts (CELiST). DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Mischke, G. Elizabeth. 2005. Analysing involvement in distance-education study-guides: an appraisal-based approach. UNISA. Retrieved May 20, 2020, from [URL]
Moskowich, Isabel. and Crespo, Begoña. 2014. Stance is present in scientific writing, indeed. Evidence from the Coruña Corpus of English Scientific Writing. Token. A Journal of English Linguistics, 3: 91–114.Google Scholar
Moskowich, Isabel. 2021. “The making of CELiST, a bunch of disciplines”. In Moskowich, Isabel; Lareo, Inés and Camiña, Gonzalo (eds.), “All families and genera”: Exploring the Corpus of English Life Sciences Texts. Amsterdam/Philadelphia: John Benjamins. 1–19. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Moskowich, Isabel; Camiña-Riobóo, Gonzalo; Lareo, Inés and Crespo, Begoña (comps.) 2018. Corpus of English Philosophy Texts (CEPhiT). A Coruña: Universidade da Coruña. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
O’Keefe, Daniel J. 1990. Current communication: An advanced text series, Vol. 2. Persuasion: Theory and research. Newbury Park, CA: Sage Publications, Inc.Google Scholar
Perloff, Richard M. 2003. The Dynamics of Persuasion: Communication and Attitudes in the Twenty-First Century. UK: Lawrence Erlbaum Publishing.Google Scholar
Pratt, Anne. 1840. Flowers and their Associations. London: Charles Knight and Co.Google Scholar
Prelli, Lawrence J. 1989. The rhetorical construction of scientific ethos. In Simon, Herbert W. (ed.), Rhetoric in the human science. London: Sage. 87–104.Google Scholar
Quirk, Randolph; Greenbaum, Sidney; Leech, Geoffrey and Svartvik, Jan. 1985. A Comprehensive Grammar of the English Language. London: Longman.Google Scholar
Smellie, William. 1790. The philosophy of natural history. Vol. I. Dublin: printed by William Porter. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Swales, John. 1990. Genre Analysis English in Academic and Research Settings. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Taavitsainen, Irma. 1994. “On the Evolution of Scientific Writings between 1375 and 1675: Repertoire of Emotive Features”. In Fernández, Francisco et al. (eds.), Papers from the 7th International Conference on English Historical Linguistics. Valencia, Sept. 1992 Amsterdam/Philadelphia: John Benjamins. 329–342. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Tannen, Deborah. 1993. “The Relativity of Linguistic Strategies: Rethinking Power and Solidarity in Gender and Dominance”. In Tannen, Deborah (ed.), Gender and Conversational Interaction. Oxford: Oxford University Press. 165–188.Google Scholar
Wakefield, Priscilla. 1816. An introduction to the Natural History and Classification of Insects, in a series of familiar Letters. With Illustrative Engravings. London: printed for Darton, Harvey and Darton. DOI logoGoogle 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
Barsaglini-Castro, Anabella
2021. Persuasion in English scientific writing. In “All families and genera”, ► pp. 169 ff. DOI logo
Puente-Castelo, Luis
2021. “If you will take the trouble to inquire into it rather closely, I think you will find that it is not worth very much”. In “All families and genera”, ► pp. 189 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.