Skip to main content Accessibility help

We use cookies to distinguish you from other users and to provide you with a better experience on our websites. Close this message to accept cookies or find out how to manage your cookie settings.

Close cookie message
×
Hostname: page-component-cd9895bd7-jkksz Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-12-26T06:06:35.438Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false

References

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  24 June 2021

Carmen Pérez-Llantada
Carmen Pérez-Llantada
Affiliation:
Universidad de Zaragoza
Get access

Summary

A summary is not available for this content so a preview has been provided. Please use the Get access link above for information on how to access this content.
Image of the first page of this content. For PDF version, please use the ‘Save PDF’ preceeding this image.'
Type
Chapter
Information
Research Genres Across Languages
Multilingual Communication Online
 , pp. 215 - 243
Publisher: Cambridge University Press
Print publication year: 2021

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

References

Aalbersberg, I. J., Heeman, F., Koers, H. and Zudilova-Seinstra, E. (2012). Elsevier’s Article of the Future. Enhancing the user experience and integrating data through applications. Insights: The UKSG Journal, 25(1), 33–43.Google Scholar
Abt, H. A. (2007). Changing sources for research literature. In Heck, A. and Houziaux, L., eds., Future Professional Communication in Astronomy. Bruxelles: Académie Royale de Belgique, pp. 151–160.Google Scholar
Ädel, A. (2006). Metadiscourse in L1 and L2 English. Amsterdam and Philadelphia: John Benjamins.Google Scholar
Ai, H. (2010–2017a). Web-based L2 Syntactic Complexity Analyzer. Available at https://aihaiyang.com/software/ [last accessed 5 June 2020].Google Scholar
Ai, H. (2010–2017b). Web-based Lexical Complexity Analyzer. Available at https://aihaiyang.com/software/lca/ [last accessed 5 June 2020].Google Scholar
Altbach, P. G. (2004). Globalisation and the university: Myths and realities in an unequal world. Tertiary Education and Management, 10(1), 3–25.Google Scholar
Altbach, P. G. (2007). The imperial tongue: English as the dominating academic language. Economic and Political Weekly, 42(36), 3608–3611.Google Scholar
Amano, T., González-Varo, J. P. and Sutherland, W. J. (2016). Languages are still a major barrier to global science. PLoS Biology, 14(12), e2000933.Google Scholar
Ammon, U. (2001). English as a future language of science at German universities? A question of difficult consequences, posed by the decline of German as a language of science. In Ammon, U., ed., The Dominance of English as a Language of Science. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter, pp. 343–361.Google Scholar
Ammon, U. (2006). Language planning for international scientific communication: An overview of questions and potential solutions. Current Issues in Language Planning, 7(1), 1–30.Google Scholar
Anderson, K. (2009). The ‘Article of the Future’ – Just lipstick again? Available at https://scholarlykitchen.sspnet.org/2009/07/21/the-article-of-the-future-lipstick-on-a-pig/ [last accessed on 16 April 2019].Google Scholar
Anthony, L. (2019). AntConc (Version 3.5.8) [Computer Software]. Tokyo: Waseda University. Available at www.laurenceanthony.net/software/antconc/ [last accessed on 7 July 2020].Google Scholar
Anthony, L. and Hardaker, C. (2017). FireAnt (Version 1.1.4) [Computer Software]. Tokyo: Waseda University. Available at www.laurenceanthony.net/software [last accessed on 7 July 2020].Google Scholar
Askehave, I. and Swales, J. M. (2001). Genre identification and communicative purpose: A problem and a possible solution. Applied Linguistics, 22(2), 195–212.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Atkinson, D. (2003). Writing and culture in the post-process era. Journal of Second Language Writing, 12, 49–63.Google Scholar
Atkinson, D. (2004). Contrasting rhetorics/contrasting cultures: Why contrastive rhetoric needs a better conceptualization of culture. Journal of English for Academic Purposes, 3(4), 277–289.Google Scholar
Aydinli, E. and Mathews, J. (2000). Are the core and periphery irreconcilable? The curious world of publishing in contemporary international relations. International Studies Perspectives, 1, 289–303.Google Scholar
Ayers, G. (2008). The evolutionary nature of genre: An investigation of the short texts accompanying research articles in the scientific journal Nature. English for Specific Purposes, 27, 22–41.Google Scholar
Bak, T. H. and Mehmedbegovic, D. (2017). Healthy linguistic diet: The value of linguistic diversity and language learning across the lifespan. Languages, Society & Policy, DOI: https://doi.org/10.17863/CAM.9854.Google Scholar
Bakhtin, M. M. (1981). The Dialogic Imagination. Four Essays. Emerson, C. and Holquist, M. (trans.), Holquist, M., ed. Austin: University of Texas Press.Google Scholar
Bakhtin, M. M. (1986a). Discourse in the novel. In Holquist, M., ed., The Dialogic Imagination (trans. Emerson, C. and Holquist, M.). Austin: University of Texas Press, pp. 259–422.Google Scholar
Bakhtin, M. M. (1986b). Speech Genres and Other Late Essays. McGee, V. W. (trans.), Emerson, C. and Holquist, M., eds. Austin: University of Texas Press.Google Scholar
Ball, Ch. E. (2016). The shifting genres of scholarly multimedia: Webtexts as innovation. The Journal of Media Innovations, 3(2), 52–71.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Ball, D. (2016). The Impact of Open Science. Available at www.fosteropenscience.eu/content/impact-open-science [last accessed 1 July 2020].Google Scholar
Barbieri, F. (2018). I don’t want to and don’t get me wrong: Lexical bundles as a window to subjectivity and intersubjectivity in American blogs. In Kopaczyk, J. and Tyrkkö, J., eds., Applications of Pattern-Driven Methods in Corpus Linguistics. Amsterdam and Philadelphia: John Benjamins, pp. 251–276.Google Scholar
Baron, N. S. (2016). The impact of electronically-mediated communication on language standards and style. In Nevalainen, T. and Traugott, E. C., eds., The Oxford Handbook of the History of English. Oxford: Oxford University Press, pp. 329–340.Google Scholar
Barras, R. (1978). Scientists Must Write. A Guide to Better Writing for Scientists, Engineers and Students. London and New York: Chapman & Hall.Google Scholar
Barton, D. (2001). Directions for literacy research: Analysing language and social practices in a textually mediated world. Language and Education, 15(2), 92–104.Google Scholar
Barton, D. (2007). Literacy. An Introduction to the Ecology of Written Language. Malden: Blackwell Publishing.Google Scholar
Barton, D. and Hamilton, M. (2012). Local Literacies. Reading and Writing in One Community. 2nd ed. London and New York: Routledge.Google Scholar
Barton, D., Hamilton, M. and Ivanič, R., eds. (2000). Situated Literacies. Reading and Writing in Context. 1st ed. London and New York: Routledge.Google Scholar
Bateman, J. A. (2017). Triangulating transmediality: A multimodal semiotic framework relating media, modes and genres. Discourse, Context and Media, 20, 160–174. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.dcm.2017.06.009.Google Scholar
Bauman, Z. (2000). Liquid Modernity. Cambridge: Polity Press.Google Scholar
Bawarshi, A. (2001). The ecology of genre. In Dobrin, S. I. and Weisser, C. R., eds., Ecocomposition: Theoretical and Pedagogical Approaches. New York: University of New York Press, pp. 69–80.Google Scholar
Bawarshi, A. (2016). Accounting for genre performances: Why uptake matters. In Artemeva, N. and Freedman, A., eds., Trends and Traditions in Genre Studies. Edmonton: Inkshed Publications, pp. 186–206.Google Scholar
Bawarshi, A. S. and Reiff, M. J. (2010). Genre. An Introduction to History, Theory, Research and Pedagogy. 1st ed. West Lafayette, IN: Parlor Press.Google Scholar
Bazerman, C. (1994). Systems of genres and the enactment of social intentions. In Freedman, A. and Medway, P., eds., Genre and the New Rhetoric. London: Taylor & Francis, pp. 79–101.Google Scholar
Bazerman, C. (2004a). Speech acts, genres, and activity systems: How texts organize activity and people. In Bazerman, C. and Prior, P., eds., What Writing Does and How It Does It: An Introduction to Analysing Texts and Textual Practices. New York: Taylor & Francis, pp. 309–339.Google Scholar
Bazerman, C. (2004b). Intertextuality: How texts rely on other texts. In Bazerman, C. and Prior, P., eds., What Writing Does and How It Does It: An Introduction to Analysing Texts and Textual Practices. New York: Taylor & Francis, pp. 83–96.Google Scholar
Bazerman, C. (2011). Genre as social action. In Gee, J. P. and Handford, M., eds., Routledge Handbook of Discourse Analysis. London and New York: Routledge, pp. 226–238.Google Scholar
Bazerman, C. (2015). A genre-based theory of literate action. In Artemeva, N. and Freedman, A., eds., Genre Studies around the Globe: Beyond the Three Traditions. Edmonton: Inkshed Publications, pp. 80–94.Google Scholar
Bazerman, C. and Prior, P., eds. (2004). What Writing Does and How It Does It: An Introduction to Analysing Texts and Textual Practices. New York: Taylor & Francis.Google Scholar
Beaufort, A. (2007). College Writing and Beyond: A New Framework for University Writing Instruction. Logan: Utah State University Press.Google Scholar
Becher, T. (1981). Towards a definition of disciplinary cultures. Studies in Higher Education, 6(2), 109–122.Google Scholar
Becher, T. and Trowler, P. (2001). Academic Tribes and Territories. Intellectual Enquiry and the Culture of Disciplines. Buckingham: The Society of Research into Higher Education and Open University Press.Google Scholar
Belcher, D. (2009). How research space is created in a diverse research world. Journal of Second Language Writing, 18(4), 221–234.Google Scholar
Bennett, K., ed. (2014). The Semiperiphery of Academic Writing: Discourses, Communities and Practices. Basingstoke: Palgrave Macmillan.Google Scholar
Berkenkotter, C. and Huckin, T. N. (1995). Genre Knowledge in Disciplinary Communication: Cognition/Culture/Power. Hillsdale: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.Google Scholar
Besley, J. C., Dudo, A. and Storksdieck, M. (2015). Scientists’ views about communication training. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 52(2), 199–220.Google Scholar
Bhatia, V. K. (2004). Worlds of Written Discourse. London: Continuum.Google Scholar
Bhatia, V. K. (2005). Generic patterns in promotional discourse. In Halmari, H. and Virtanen, T., eds., Persuasion across Genres: A Linguistic Approach. Amsterdam and Philadelphia: John Benjamins, pp. 213–225.Google Scholar
Bhatia, V. K. (2017). Critical Genre Analysis: Investigating Interdiscursive Performance in Professional Practice. London and New York: Routledge.Google Scholar
Biber, D. and Gray, B. (2010). Challenging stereotypes about academic writing: Complexity, elaboration, explicitness. Journal of English for Academic Purposes, 9, 2–20.Google Scholar
Biber, D. and Gray, B. (2016). The competing demands of popularisation vs. economy: Written language in the age of mass literacy. In Nevalainen, T. and Traugott, E. C., eds., The Oxford Handbook of the History of English. Oxford: Oxford University Press, pp. 314–328.Google Scholar
Biber, D., Johansson, S., Leech, G., Conrad, S. and Finegan, E., eds. (1999). Longman Grammar of Spoken and Written English. Harlow: Pearson Education Limited.Google Scholar
Blommaert, J. (2010). The Sociolinguistics of Globalization. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Blommaert, J. and Dong, J. (2010). Ethnographic Fieldwork. A Beginner’s Guide. Bristol: Multilingual Matters.Google Scholar
Blommaert, J., Collins, J. and Slembrouck, S. (2005). Spaces for multilingualism. Language and Communication, 25, 197–216.Google Scholar
Bocanegra-Valle, A. (2015). Peer reviewers’ recommendations for language improvements in research writing. In Plo Alastrué, R. and Pérez-Llantada, C., eds., English as a Scientific and Research Language. Debates and Discourses. Berlin: De Gruyter Mouton, pp. 207–230.Google Scholar
Bocanegra-Valle, A. (2016). Needs analysis for curriculum design. In Hyland, K. and Shaw, P., eds., The Routledge Handbook of English for Academic Purposes. Abingdon, Oxford: Routledge, pp. 560–576.Google Scholar
Boekholt, P., Edler, J., Cunningham, P. and Flanagan, K. (2009). Drivers of International collaboration in research Final Report. Retrieved from https://ec.europa.eu/research/evaluations/pdf/archive/other_reports_studies_and_documents/drivers_of_international_cooperation_in_research.pdf [last accessed on 6 July 2020].Google Scholar
Bolter, J. D. and Grusin, R. (1999). Remediation – Understanding New Media. Cambridge: The MIT Press.Google Scholar
Bondi, M., Cacchiani, S. and Mazzi, D. (2015). Discourse in and through the media: Recontextualizing and reconceptualizing expert discourse. In Bondi, M., Cacchiani, S. and Mazzi, D., eds., Discourse In and Through the Media: Recontextualizing and Reconceptualizing Expert Discourse. Newcastle upon Tyne: Cambridge Scholars Publishing, pp. 1–21.Google Scholar
Bonney, R., Cooper, C. B., Dickinson, J., Kelling, S., Phillips, T., Rosenberg, K. V. and Shirk, J. (2009). Citizen science: A developing tool for expanding science knowledge and scientific literacy. BioScience, 59(11), 977–984.Google Scholar
Bosch, T. (2012). Blogging and tweeting climate change in South Africa. Ecquid Novi: African Journalism Studies, 33(1), 44–53.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
boyd, D. M. (2002). Faceted Identity: Managing Representation in a Digital World. Unpublished master’s thesis. Cambridge, Massachusetts Institute of Technology.Google Scholar
Breeze, R. (2016). Tracing the development of an emergent part-genre: The author summary. English for Specific Purposes, 42, 50–65.Google Scholar
Breeze, R. (2019). Continuity and change. Negotiating relationships in traditional and online peer review genres. In Luzón, M.-J. and Pérez-Llantada, C., eds., Science Communication on the Internet: Old Genres Meet New Genres. Amsterdam and Philadelphia: John Benjamins, pp. 107–129.Google Scholar
Breiteneder, A. (2009). English as a lingua franca in Europe: An empirical perspective. World Englishes, 28(2), 256–269.Google Scholar
Briggs, C. L. and Bauman, R. (1992). Genre, intertextuality and social power. Journal of Linguistic Anthropology, 2(2), 131–172.Google Scholar
Britton, B., Jackson, C. and Wade, J. (2019). The reward and risk of social media for academics. Nature Reviews Chemistry, 3(8), 459–461.Google Scholar
Brutt-Griffler, J. (2002). World English. A Study of Its Development. Bristol: Multilingual Matters.Google Scholar
Büchi, M. (2016). Microblogging as an extension of science reporting. Public Understanding of Science, 26(8), 953–968.Google Scholar
Buck, A. (2012). Examining digital literacy practices on social network sites. Research in the Teaching of English, 47(1), 9–38.Google Scholar
Buckingham, L. (2014). Building a career in English: Users of English as an Additional Language in academia in the Arabian Gulf. TESOL Quarterly, 48, 6–33.Google Scholar
Buehl, J. (2016). Assembling Arguments: Multimodal Rhetoric and Scientific Discourse. Columbia: University of South Carolina Press.Google Scholar
Burrough-Boenisch, J. (2002). Culture and Conventions: Writing and Reading Dutch Scientific English. Utrecht, LOT dissertation series 59, Utrecht.Google Scholar
Caliendo, G. (2012). The popularisation of science in web-based genres. In Caliendo, G. and Bongo, G., eds., The Language of Popularisation: Theoretical and Descriptive Models. Bern: Peter Lang, pp. 101–132.Google Scholar
Canagarajah, S. (1996). Non-discursive requirements in academic publishing, material resources of periphery scholars, and the politics of knowledge production. Written Communication, 13(4), 435–472.Google Scholar
Canagarajah, S. (2002a). A Geopolitics of Academic Writing. Pittsburgh: University of Pittsburgh Press.Google Scholar
Canagarajah, S. (2002b). Multilingual writers and the academic community: Towards a critical relationship. Journal of English for Academic Purposes, 1(1), 29–44.Google Scholar
Canagarajah, S.（2007). Lingua franca English, multilingual communities, and language acquisition. The Modern Language Journal, 91, 923–939.Google Scholar
Canagarajah, S. (2013). Translingual Practice. Global Englishes and Cosmopolitan Relations. London and New York: Routledge.Google Scholar
Canagarajah, S. (2018). Translingual practice as spatial repertoires: Expanding the paradigm beyond structuralist orientations. Applied Linguistics, 39(1), 31–54.Google Scholar
Canagarajah, S. and Said, S. (2011). Linguistic imperialism. In Simpson, J., ed., The Routledge Handbook of Applied Linguistics. London and New York: Routledge, pp. 388–400.Google Scholar
Carli, A. and Ammon, U., eds. (2007). Linguistic inequality in scientific communication today. What can future applied linguistics do to mitigate disadvantages for non-Anglophones? AILA Review, 20.Google Scholar
Carter, R. (2003). Language awareness. ELT Journal, 57(1), 64–65.Google Scholar
Casanave, C. P. (2008). The stigmatizing effect of Goffman’s stigma label: A response to John Flowerdew. Journal of English for Academic Purposes, 7, 264–267.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Casanave, C. P. and Vandrick, S., eds. (2002). Writing for Scholarly Publication: Behind the Scenes in Language Education. Mahwah: Lawrence Erlbaum.Google Scholar
Casper, C. F. (2016). The online research article and the ecological basis of new digital genres. In Gross, A. G. and Buehl, J., eds., Science and the Internet: Communicating Knowledge in a Digital Age. Amityville: Baywood’s Technical Communications Series, pp. 77–98.Google Scholar
Chapelle, C. A. (2001). Computer Applications in Second Language Acquisition. Foundations for Teaching, Testing and Research. 1st ed. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Charles, M. (2007). Reconciling top-down and bottom-up approaches to graduate writing: Using a corpus to teach rhetorical functions. Journal of English for Academic Purposes, 6(4), 289–302.Google Scholar
Charles, M. (2012). ‘Proper vocabulary and juicy collocations’: EAP students evaluate do-it-yourself corpus-building. English for Specific Purposes, 31(2), 93–102.Google Scholar
Charles, M. (2015). Same task, different corpus: The role of personal corpora in EAP classes. In Leńko-Szymańka, A. and Boulton, A., eds., Multiple Affordances of Language Corpora for Data-driven Learning. Amsterdam and Philadelphia: John Benjamins, pp. 131–154.Google Scholar
Charles, M. (2018). Corpus-assisted editing for doctoral students: More than just concordancing. Journal of English for Academic Purposes, 36, 15–25.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Chen, M. and Flowerdew, J. (2018). A critical review of research and practice in data-driven learning (DDL) in the academic writing classroom. International Journal of Corpus Linguistics, 23(3), 335–369.Google Scholar
Cheng, A. (2016). EAP at the tertiary level in China. In Hyland, K. and Shaw, P., eds., The Routledge Handbook of English for Academic Purposes. London: Routledge, pp. 97–108.Google Scholar
Cheng, A. (2019). Examining the “applied aspirations” in the ESP genre analysis of published journal articles. Journal of English for Academic Purposes, 38, 36–47. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jeap.2018.12.005.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Cheng, W. (2007). Concgramming: A corpus-driven approach to learning the phraseology of discipline-specific texts. CORELL: Computer Resources for Language Learning, 1, 22–35.Google Scholar
Claridge, C. (2016). From manuscript to printing. Transformation of genres in the history of English. In Nevalainen, T. and Traugott, E. C., eds., The Oxford Handbook of the History of English. Oxford: Oxford University Press, pp. 304–313.Google Scholar
Cody, E. M., Reagan, A. J., Mitchell, L., Dodds, P. S. and Danforth, C. M. (2015). Climate change sentiment on Twitter: An unsolicited public opinion poll. PLoS ONE, 10(8), e0136092. https://dx.plos.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0136092Google Scholar
Cogo, A. and Dewey, M. (2006). Efficiency in ELF communication: From pragmatic motives to lexico-grammatical innovation. Nordic Journal of English Studies, 5(2), 59–93.Google Scholar
Collins, J. and Blot, R. (2003). Literacy and Literacies. Texts, Power, and Identity. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Connor, U. (1996). Contrastive Rhetoric. Cross-cultural Aspects of Second Language Writing. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Connor, U. (2011). Intercultural Rhetoric in the Writing Classroom. Ann Arbor: University of Michigan Press.Google Scholar
Cook, V. (2013). ELF: Central or atypical second language acquisition? In Singleton, D., Fishman, J. A., Aronin, L. and Laoire, M. O., eds., Current Multilingualism: A New Linguistic Dispensation. Berlin: De Gruyter, pp. 27–44.Google Scholar
Cook, V. and Singleton, D. (2014). Key Topics in Second Language Acquisition. Bristol: Multilingual Matters.Google Scholar
Corcoran, J. N., Englander, K. and Muresan, L.-M. (2019). Diverse global perspectives on scholarly writing for publication. In Corcoran, J. N., Englander, K. and Muresan, L.-M., eds., Pedagogies and Policies on Publishing Research in English: Local Initiatives Supporting International Scholars. New York: Routledge, pp. 1–16.Google Scholar
Cortes, V. (2004). Lexical bundles in published and student disciplinary writing: Examples from history and biology. English for Specific Purposes, 23(4), 397–423.Google Scholar
Cortes, V. (2013). ‘The purpose of this study is to’: Connecting lexical bundles and moves in research article introductions. Journal of English for Academic Purposes, 12, 33–43.Google Scholar
Council of Europe (2018). Common European Framework of Reference for Languages: Learning, Teaching, Assessment. Companion Volume with New Descriptors. Strasbourg: Council of Europe. https://rm.coe.int/cefr-companion-volume-with-new-descriptors-2018/1680787989 [last accessed on 7 February 2020].Google Scholar
Coupland, N., ed. (2010). Handbook of Language and Globalization. Malden: Wiley-Blackwell.Google Scholar
Cox, L. (2015). Are Graphical Abstracts Changing the Way We Publish? https://www.wiley.com/network/researchers/promoting-your-article/are-graphical-abstracts-changing-the-way-we-publish [last accessed 20 June 2020].Google Scholar
Crawford Camiciottoli, B. (2018). OpenCourseWare lectures: A new genre for knowledge dissemination?. Paper presented at the CERLIS Conference 2018, Bergamo, Italy, 21–23 June 2018.Google Scholar
Creswell, J. W. (2013). Research Design: Qualitative, Quantitative, and Mixed Methods Approaches. 4th ed. Thousand Oaks: SAGE Publications, Inc.Google Scholar
Crystal, D. (2003). The Cambridge Encyclopaedia of the English Language. 2nd ed. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Cumming, A. (2013). Multiple dimensions of academic language and literacy development. Language Learning, 63(1), 130–152.Google Scholar
Curry, M. J. and Lillis, T. (2019). Unpacking the lore on multilingual scholars publishing in English: A discussion paper. Publications, 7, 1–27.Google Scholar
Davis, J. L. and Jurgenson, N. (2014). Context collapse: Theorizing context collusions and collisions. Information, Communication and Society, 17(4), 476–485.Google Scholar
Demarest, B. and Sugimoto, C. S. (2014). Argue, observe, assess: Measuring disciplinary identities and differences through socio-epistemic discourse dissertations. Journal of the Association for Information Science and Technology, 66(7), 1374–1387.Google Scholar
Desnoyers, L. (2011). Visuals and text in scientific articles. Information Design Journal, 19(2), 155–171.Google Scholar
Devitt, A. J. (2004). Writing Genres. Carbondale: Southern Illinois University.Google Scholar
Devitt, A. J. (2009). Re-fusing form in genre study. In Giltrow, J. and Stein, D., eds., Genres in the Internet: Issues in the Theory of Genre. Philadelphia: John Benjamins Publishing Company, pp. 27–47.Google Scholar
Ding, H. (2008). The use of cognitive and social apprenticeship to teach a disciplinary genre: Initiation of graduate students into NIH grant writing. Written Communication, 25(1), 3–52.Google Scholar
Duszak, A. and Lewkowicz, J. (2008). Publishing academic texts in English: A Polish perspective. Journal of English for Academic Purposes, 7, 108–120.Google Scholar
Eaquals (2016). The Eaquals Framework for Language Teacher Training and Development. https://www.eaquals.org/wp-content/uploads/The-Eaquals-Framework-for-Language-Teacher-Training-and-Development-Online.pdfGoogle Scholar
Edminster, J. and Moxley, J. (2002). Graduate education and the evolving genre of electronic theses and dissertations. Computers and Composition, 19(1), 89–104.Google Scholar
Eitzel, M. V., Cappadonna, J. L., Santos-Lang, C., Duerr, R. E., Virapongse, A., West, S. E. et al. (2017). Citizen science terminology matters: Exploring key terms. Citizen Science: Theory and Practice, 2(1), 1.Google Scholar
Engberg, J. and Maier, C. D. (2015). Exploring the hypermodal communication of academic knowledge beyond generic structures. In Bondi, M., Cacchiani, S. and Mazzi, D., eds., Discourse In and Through the Media: Recontextualising and Reconceptualising Expert Discourse. Newcastle upon Tyne: Cambridge Scholars, pp. 46–65.Google Scholar
Engeström, Y., Engeström, R. and Kärkkäinen, M. (1995). Polycontextuality and boundary crossing in expert cognition: Learning and problem solving in complex work activities. Learning and Instruction, 5(4), 319–336.Google Scholar
Erickson, T. (2000). Making sense of computer-mediated communication (CMC): Conversations as genres, CMC systems as genre ecologies. In Sprague, Ralph H Jr., ed., 33rd Hawaii International Conference on System Sciences, vol. 2. Maui, HI: IEEE Computer Society Press.Google Scholar
Fahnestock, J. (1986). Accommodating science: The rhetorical life of scientific facts. Written Communication, 3(3), 275–296.Google Scholar
Fairclough, N. (1992). Discourse and Social Change. Cambridge: Polity Press.Google Scholar
Feak, C. B. (2011). Putting strategy into ESP materials development. In Pérez-Llantada, C. and Watson, M., eds., Specialized Languages in the Global Village. Newcastle: Cambridge Scholars Publishing, pp. 239–260.Google Scholar
Feak, C. B. and Swales, J. M. (2009). Telling a Research Story. Writing a Literature Review. Ann Arbor: Michigan University Press.Google Scholar
Feak, C. B. and Swales, J. M. (2010). Writing for publication: Corpus-informed materials for post-doctoral fellows in perinatology. In Harwood, N., ed., English Language Teaching Materials: Theory and Practice. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, pp. 279–300.Google Scholar
Feak, C. B. and Swales, J. M. (2011). Creating Contexts. Writing Introductions across Genres. Ann Arbor: Michigan University Press.Google Scholar
Fecher, B. and Friesike, S. (2014). Open science: One term, five schools of thought. In Bartling, S. and Friesike, S., eds., Opening Science. Cham: Springer, pp. 17–47.Google Scholar
Ferguson, G. R. (2006). Language Planning and Education. Amsterdam and Philadelphia: John Benjamins.Google Scholar
Ferguson, G. R. (2007). The global spread of English, scientific communication and ESP: Questions of equity, access and domain loss. Iberica, Journal of the European Association of Languages for Specific Purposes, 13, 7–38.Google Scholar
Ferguson, G. R. (2012). English in language policy and management. In Spolsky, B., ed., Cambridge Handbook of Language Policy. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, pp. 475–498.Google Scholar
Ferguson, G. R., Pérez-Llantada, C. and Plo, R. (2011). English as an international language of scientific publication: A study of attitudes. World Englishes, 29(3), 41–59.Google Scholar
Fill, A. and Mühlhäusler, P. (2001). The Ecolinguistics Reader. London: Continuum.Google Scholar
de Fina, A., Ikizoglu, D. and Wegner, J., eds. (2017). Diversity and Super-diversity. Washington, DC: Georgetown University Press.Google Scholar
Fish, S. (1980). Is There a Text in This Class? The Authority of Interpretive Communities. Cambridge: Harvard University Press.Google Scholar
Fishelov, D. (1993). Metaphors of Genre. The Role of Analogies in Genre Theory. University Park: Penn State University Press.Google Scholar
Fletcher, W. H. (2002–2007). KfNgram. Annapolis: USNA.Google Scholar
Flowerdew, J. (1999). Writing for scholarly publication in English: The case of Hong Kong. Journal of Second Language Writing, 8, 123–146.Google Scholar
Flowerdew, L. (2004). The argument for using English specialized corpora to understand academic professional language. In Connor, U. and Upton, T. A., eds., Discourse in the Professions: Perspectives from Corpus Linguistics. Amsterdam and Philadelphia: John Benjamins, pp. 11–33.Google Scholar
Flowerdew, J. (2008). Scholarly writers who use English as an additional language: What can Goffman’s stigma tell us? Journal of English for Academic Purposes, 7(4), 77–86.Google Scholar
Follett, R. and Strezov, V. (2015). An analysis of citizen science based research: Usage and publication patterns. PLoS ONE 10(11), e0143687. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0143687.Google Scholar
Fujun, R. (2013). The connotation and goal of science popularisation in modern China. Journal of Scientific Temper, 1, 29–45.Google Scholar
Gates, D. (1968). Energy exchange and ecology. BioScience, 18(2), 90–95.Google Scholar
Gee, J. P. (1996). Social Linguistics and Literacies: Ideologies in Discourse. London: Taylor & Francis.Google Scholar
Geertz, C. (1983). Local Knowledge: Further Essays in Interpretive Anthropology. New York: Basic Books.Google Scholar
Genette, G. (1997). Paratexts. Thresholds of Interpretation. Foreword by Macksey, Richard. Translated by Lewin, Jane E. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press DOI: https://doi.org/10.1017/CBO9780511549373Google Scholar
Geng, Y. and Wharton, S. (2016). Evaluative language in discussion sections of doctoral theses: Similarities and differences between L1 Chinese and L1 English writers. Journal of English for Academic Purposes, 22, 80–91.Google Scholar
Gentil, G. (2011). A biliteracy agenda for genre research. Journal of Second Language Writing, 20(1), 6–23.Google Scholar
Gentil, G. (2017). Afterword: Moving forward with academic biliteracy research. In Palfreyman, D. and van der Walt, C., eds., Academic Biliteracies: Translanguaging and Multilingual Repertoires in Higher Education Settings. Clevendon: Multilingual Matters, pp. 206–220.Google Scholar
Gentil, G. and Séror, J. (2014). Canada has two official languages – or does it? Case studies of Canadian scholars’ language choices and practices in disseminating knowledge. Journal of English for Academic Purposes, 13(1), 17–30.Google Scholar
Geuna, A. (2015). Global Mobility of Research Scientists. The Economics of Who Goes Where and Why. San Diego: Academic Press.Google Scholar
Giampapa, F. and Canagarajah, S. (2017). Skilled migration and global English. Globalisation, Societies and Education, 15(1), 1–4.Google Scholar
Giannoni, D. (2008). Medical writing at the periphery: The case of Italian journal editorials. Journal of English for Academic Purposes, 7(2), 97–107.Google Scholar
Giddens, A. (1986). The Constitution of Society. Outline of the Theory of Structuration. Cambridge: Polity Press.Google Scholar
Giddens, A. (1990). The Consequences of Modernity. Cambridge: Cambridge Polity Press.Google Scholar
Giddens, A. (1999). Runaway World: How Globalization is Reshaping our Lives. London: Profile Books.Google Scholar
Gilbert, J. (2005). Catching the Knowledge Wave? The Knowledge Society and the Future of Education. Wellington: NZGER Press.Google Scholar
Gilquin, G., Granger, S. and Paquot, M. (2007). Learner corpora: The missing link in EAP pedagogy. Journal of English for Academic Purposes, 6(4), 319–335.Google Scholar
Giltrow, J. (1994). Genre and the pragmatic concept of background knowledge. In Freedman, A. and Medway, P., eds., Genre and the New Rhetoric. Critical Perspectives on Literacy and Education. London: Taylor & Francis, pp. 155–178.Google Scholar
Giltrow, J. (2017). Bridge to genre: Spanning technological change. In Miller, C. R. and Kelly, A. R., eds., Emerging Genres in New Media Environments. Baltimore: Palgrave Macmillan, pp. 39–61.Google Scholar
Giltrow, J. and Stein, D. (2009). Genres in the Internet: Issues in the Theory of Genre. Amsterdam and Philadelphia: John Benjamins.Google Scholar
Gimenez, J., Baldwin, M., Breen, P., Green, J., Gutierrez, E., Paterson, R. et al. (2020). Reproduced, reinterpreted, lost: Trajectories of scientific knowledge across contexts. Text & Talk, 40(3), 293–324.Google Scholar
Gladkova, O. L., DiMarco, C. and Harris, R. A. (2015). Argumentative meanings and their stylistic configurations in clinical research publications. Argument and Computation, 6(3), 310–346.Google Scholar
Glänzel, W., Debackere, K. and Meyer, M. (2007). Triad or tetrad? On global changes in a dynamic world. Working Paper Series, 1–17.Google Scholar
Glänzel, W. and Schubert, A. (2004). Analysing scientific networks through co-authorship. In Moed, H. F., Glänzel, W. and Schmoch, U., eds., Handbook of Quantitative Science and Technology Research. Dordrecht: Kluwer Academic Publishers, pp. 257–276.Google Scholar
Glaser, E., Guilherme, M., Méndez García, M. C. and Mughan, T. (2007). Intercultural Competence for Professional Mobility. Graz: Council of Europe.Google Scholar
Goodrum, A. A., McCain, K. W., Lawrence, S. and Giles, C. L. (2001). Scholarly publishing in the Internet age: A citation analysis of computer science literature. Information Processing and Management, 37, 661–675.Google Scholar
Goodwin, S., Jeng, W. and He, D. (2014). Changing communication on ResearchGate through interface updates. Proceedings of the American Society for Information Science and Technology, 51(1), 1–4.Google Scholar
Gordin, M. F. (2015). Scientific Babel: How Science Was Done Before and After Global English. Chicago: The University of Chicago Press.Google Scholar
Gosden, H. (2001). Thank you for your critical comments and helpful suggestions: Compliance and conflict in authors’ replies to referees’ comments in peer reviews of scientific research papers. Ibérica, Journal of the European Association of Languages for Specific Purposes, 3, 3–17.Google Scholar
Gosden, H. (2003). ‘Why not give us the full story?’: Functions of referees’ comments in peer reviews of scientific research papers. Journal of English for Academic Purposes, 2(2), 87–101.Google Scholar
Gotti, M. (2014). Reformulation and recontextualisation in popularisation discourse. Ibérica, Journal of the European Association of Languages for Specific Purposes, 27, 15–34.Google Scholar
Greaves, C. and Warren, M. (2007). Concgramming: A computer driven approach to learning the phraseology of English. ReCALL, 19(3), 287–306.Google Scholar
Greenbaum, S. (1996). The Oxford English Grammar. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Gross, A. G. (1990). The Rhetoric of Science: The Rhetorical Analysis of Scientific Texts. Cambridge: Harvard University Press.Google Scholar
Gross, A. G. (1994). The roles of rhetoric in the public understanding of science. Public Understanding of Science, 3, 3–23.Google Scholar
Gross, A. G. (2016). Why all scientists write in English. Metascience, 25(1), 125–129.Google Scholar
Gross, A. G. and Buehl, J. (2016). Science and the Internet: Communicating Knowledge in a Digital Age. Amityville, NY: Baywood’s Technical Communications Series.Google Scholar
Gross, A. G. and Harmon, J. E. (2016). The Internet Revolution in the Sciences and Humanities. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Gross, A. G., Harmon, J. and Reidy, M. (2002). Communicating Science: The Scientific Article from the 17th Century to the Present. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Guillén-Galve, I. and Vázquez, I., eds. (2018). English as a Lingua Franca and Intercultural Communication: Implications and/or Applications to the Feld of English Language Teaching. Bern: Peter Lang.Google Scholar
Guillén-Galve, I. and Bocanegra-Valle, A., eds. (2021). Ethnographies of Academic Writing Research: Theory, Methods, and Interpretation. Amsterdam and New York: John Benjamins.Google Scholar
Gunnarsson, A. and Elam, M. (2012). Food fight! The Swedish Low-Carb/High Fat (LCHF) movement and the turning of science popularisation against the scientists. Science as Culture, 21(3), 315–334.Google Scholar
Guthrie, S., Lichten, C., Corbett, J. and Wooding, S. (2017a). International Mobility of Researchers. A Review of the Literature. Santa Monica, CA, and Cambridge, UK: RAND Corporation. www.rand.org/content/dam/rand/pubs/research_reports/RR1900/RR1991/RAND_RR1991z1.pdf [last accessed on 5 July 2020].Google Scholar
Guthrie, S., Lichten, C., Harte, E., Parks, S. and Wooding, S. (2017b). International Mobility of Researchers. A Survey of Researchers in the UK. Santa Monica, CA, and Cambridge, UK: RAND Corporation.Google Scholar
Haberland, H. (2005). Domains and domain loss. In Preisler, B, Fabricius, A., Haberland, H., Kjærbeck, S. and Risager, K., eds., The Consequences of Mobility. Roskilde: Roskilde University, Department of Language and Culture, pp. 227–237.Google Scholar
Hafner, C. A. (2018). Genre innovation and multimodal expression in scholarly communication: Video methods articles in experimental biology. Ibérica, Journal of the European Association of Languages for Specific Purposes, 36, 15–42.Google Scholar
Hafner, C. A. and Miller, L. (2011). Fostering learner autonomy in English for science: A collaborative digital video project in a technological learning environment. Language Learning and Technology, 15(3), 68–86.Google Scholar
Halliday, M. A. K. and Martin, J. R., eds. (1993). Writing Science: Literacy and Discursive Power. London and Washington, DC: The Falmer Press.Google Scholar
Hamel, R. E. (2006a). The development of language empires. In Ammon, U., Dittmar, N., Mattheier, K. and Trudgill, P., eds., Sociolinguistics. An International Handbook of the Science of Language and Society. Berlin: Walter de Gruyter, pp. 2240–2258.Google Scholar
Hamel, R. E. (2006b). Spanish in science and higher education: Perspectives for a plurilingual language policy in the Spanish-speaking world. Current Issues in Language Planning, 7(1), 95–125.Google Scholar
Hamel, R. E. (2007). The dominance of English in the international scientific periodical literature and the future of language use in science. AILA Review, 20, 53–71.Google Scholar
Hancioğlu, N., Neufeld, S. and Eldridge, J. (2008). Through the looking glass and into the land of lexico-grammar. English for Specific Purposes, 27, 459–479.Google Scholar
Hara, N., Abbazio, J. and Perkins, K. (2019). An emerging form of public engagement with science: Ask Me Anything (AMA) sessions on Reddit r/science. PLoS ONE. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0216789Google Scholar
Harmon, J. E. (2019). At the frontiers of the online scientific article. In Luzón, M.-J. and Pérez-Llantada, C., eds., Genres and Science in the Digital Age: Connecting Traditional and New Genres. Amsterdam and Philadelphia: John Benjamins, pp. 19–40.Google Scholar
Harwood, N., ed. (2010). English Language Teaching Materials: Theory and Practice. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Harzing, A. W. K. and van der Wal, R. (2009). A Google Scholar H-Index for journals: An alternative metric to measure journal impact in economics and business? Journal of the American Society for Information Science and Technology, 60(1), 41–46.Google Scholar
Hendges, G. R. and Florek, C. S. (2019). The graphical abstract as a new genre in the promotion of science. In Luzón, M.-J. and Pérez-Llantada, C., eds., Science Communication on the Internet. Old Genres Meet New Genres. Amsterdam and Philadelphia: John Benjamins, pp. 59–80.Google Scholar
Herdina, P. and Jessner, U. (2002). A Dynamic Model of Multilingualism. Perspectives of Change in Psycholinguistics. Amsterdam and Philadelphia: John Benjamins.Google Scholar
Herring, S. (2013). Discourse in Web 2.0: Familiar, reconfigured, and emergent. In Tannen, D. and Trester, A., eds., Discourse 2.0. Georgetown: Georgetown University Press, pp. 1–25.Google Scholar
Hewings, A., Lillis, T. and Vladimirou, D. (2010). Who’s citing whose writings? A corpus based study of citations as interpersonal resource in English medium national and English medium international journals. Journal of English for Academic Purposes, 9(2), 102–115.Google Scholar
Hirvela, A. and Belcher, D. (2001). Coming back to voice: The multiple voices and identities of mature multilingual writers. Journal of Second Language Writing, 10(1–2), 83–106.Google Scholar
Hoey, M. (1983). On the Surface of Discourse. London: George Allen and Unwin.Google Scholar
Hook, D. W., Porter, S. J. and Herzog, C. (2018). Dimensions: Building context for search and evaluation. Frontiers in Research Metrics Analytics, 3, 1–11, DOI: 10.3389/frma.2018.00023 (online).Google Scholar
House, J. (2003). English as a lingua franca. A threat to multilingualism? Journal of Sociolinguistics, 7(4), 556–578.Google Scholar
Huckin, T. (2001). Abstracting from abstracts. In Hewings, M., ed., Academic Writing in Context. Implications and Applications. Birmingham: The University of Birmingham Press, pp. 93–103.Google Scholar
Hultgren, A. K., Gregersen, F. and Thøgersen, J. (2014). English in Nordic Universities: Ideologies and Practices. Amsterdam and Philadelphia: John Benjamins, pp. 1–26.Google Scholar
Hyland, K. (1998). Persuasion and context. The pragmatics of academic metadiscourse. Journal of Pragmatics, 30, 437–455.Google Scholar
Hyland, K. (1999). Academic attribution: Citation and the construction of disciplinary knowledge. Applied Linguistics, 20(3), 341–367.Google Scholar
Hyland, K. (2005). Stance and engagement: A model of interaction in academic discourse. Discourse Studies, 6(2), 173–191.Google Scholar
Hyland, K. (2008). As can be seen: Lexical bundles and disciplinary variation. English for Specific Purposes, 27, 4–21.Google Scholar
Hyland, K. (2009). Academic Discourse. London: Continuum.Google Scholar
Hyland, K. (2010). Constructing proximity: Relating to readers in popular and professional science. English for Academic Purposes, 9(2), 116–127.Google Scholar
Hyland, K. (2012). Disciplinary Identities. Individuality and Community in Academic Discourse. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Hyland, K. (2016). Academic publishing and the myth of linguistic injustice. Journal of Second Language Writing, 31, 58–69.Google Scholar
Hyland, K. (2018). Narrative, identity and academic storytelling. ILCEA (online), 31. DOI: http:///doi.org/10.4000/ilcea.4677Google Scholar
Hyland, K. and Jiang, F. (K.) (2019). Academic Discourse and Global Publishing. London and New York: Routledge.Google Scholar
Hyland, K. and Tse, P. (2005). Hooking the reader: A corpus study of evaluative that in abstracts. English for Specific Purposes, 24, 12–39.Google Scholar
Hynninen, N. (2018). Exploring regimes of academic writing: Introduction to the special issue. Language and Education, 32(6), 471–476.Google Scholar
Hynninen, N. and Kuteeva, M. (2017). ‘Good’ and ‘acceptable’ English in L2 research writing: Ideals and realities in history and computer science. Journal of English for Academic Purposes, 30, 53–65.Google Scholar
Irwin, D. (2020). The pandemic adds momentum to the deglobalisation trend. VOX CEPR Policy Portal. Retrieved from https://voxeu.org/article/pandemic-adds-momentum-deglobalisation-trend [last accessed on 1 July 2020].Google Scholar
Ivanič, R. (1998). Writing and Identity. The Discoursal Construction of Identity in Academic Writing. Amsterdam and Philadelphia: John Benjamins.Google Scholar
Jamieson, K. M. (1975). Antecedent genre as rhetorical constraint. Quarterly Journal of Speech, 61, 406–415.Google Scholar
Jamieson, K. H. and Campbell, K. K. (1982). Rhetorical hybrids: Fusions of generic elements. Quarterly Journal of Speech, 69, 146–157.Google Scholar
Jeng, W., Goodwin, S., He, D. and Li, L. (2017). Information exchange on an academic social networking site: A multidiscipline comparison on ResearchGate Q&A. Journal of the Association for Information Science & Technology, 68(3), 638–652.Google Scholar
Jenkins, J. (2000). The Phonology of English as an International Language. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Jenkins, J. (2015). Repositioning English and multilingualism in English as a Lingua Franca. Englishes in Practice, 2(3), 49–85.Google Scholar
Johns, A. M. (1997). Text, Role and Context: Developing Academic Literacies. 1st ed. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Johns, A. M., ed. (2002). Genre in the Classroom: Multiple Perspectives. Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.Google Scholar
Johns, A. M. and Swales, J. M. (2002). Literacy and disciplinary practices: Opening and closing perspectives. Journal of English for Academic Purposes, 1, 13–28.Google Scholar
Johns, T. (1991). Should you be persuaded: Two samples of data-driven learning. English Language Research Journal, 4, 1–16.Google Scholar
Jones, R. and Hafner, C. (2012) Understanding Digital Literacies: A Practical Introduction. 1st ed. Oxon: Routledge.Google Scholar
Jordan, K. (2014). Academics and their online networks: Exploring the role of academic social networking sites. First Monday, 19(11). DOI: http://doi.org/http://dx.doi.org/10.5210/fm.v19i11.4937Google Scholar
Jørgensen,  J. N. (2010). Languaging. Nine Years of Poly-Lingual Development of Young Turkish-Danish Grade School Students. Copenhagen: University of Copenhagen, Faculty of Humanities.Google Scholar
Jørgensen, J. N., Karrebæk, M. S., Madsen, L. M. and Møller, J. S. (2011). Polylanguaging in superdiversity. Diversities, 13(2), 23–38. Retrieved from www.unesco.org/shs/diversities/vol13/issue2/art2 [last accessed on 26 January 2020].Google Scholar
Kachru, B. B. (1985). Standards, codification and sociolinguistic realism: The English language in the outer circle. In Quirk, R. and Widdowson, H., eds., English in the World: Teaching and Learning the Language and the Literatures. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press in Association with the British Council, pp. 11–30.Google Scholar
Kachru, B. B. (1986). The power and politics of English. World Englishes, 5(2–3), 121–140.Google Scholar
Kaplan, R. (1966). Cultural thought patterns in intercultural education. Language Learning, 16(1), 1–20.Google Scholar
Kelly, A. R. and Maddalena, K. (2016). Networks, genres, and complex wholes: Citizen science and how we act together through typified text. Canadian Journal of Communication, 41(2), 287–303.Google Scholar
Kelly, A. R. and Miller, C. R. (2016). Intersections: Scientific and parascientific communication on the Internet. In Gross, A. G. and Buehl, J., eds., Science and the Internet: Communicating Knowledge in a Digital Age. Amityville, NY: Baywood, pp. 221–245.Google Scholar
Kim, L. C. and Lim, J. M. (2013). Metadiscourse in English and Chinese research article introductions. Discourse Studies, 15(2), 129–146.Google Scholar
Kirilenko, A. P. and Stepchenkova, S. O. (2014). Public microblogging on climate change: One year of Twitter worldwide. Global Environmental Change, 26, 171–182.Google Scholar
Kjellberg, S. (2009). Scholarly blogging practice as situated genre: An analytical framework based on genre theory. Information Research, 14(3), paper 410. Retrieved from http://InformationR.net/ir/14-3/paper410.html [last accessed on 5 July 2020].Google Scholar
Knievel, M. (2009). What is humanistic about computers and writing? Historical patterns and contemporary possibilities for the field. Computers and Composition, 26(2), 92–106.Google Scholar
Kravchenko, A. V. (2016). Two views on language ecology and ecolinguistics. Language Sciences, 54, 102–113.Google Scholar
Kress, G. and Van Leeuwen, T. (2001). Multimodal Discourse: The Modes and Media of Contemporary Communication. London: Arnold.Google Scholar
Kress, G. R. (2003). Literacy in the New Media Age. London: Routledge.Google Scholar
Kress, G. R. (2010). Multimodality: A Social Semiotic Approach to Contemporary Communication. London: Taylor & Francis, Routledge.Google Scholar
Kuteeva, M. (2007). The use of online forums in language teaching: The importance of task design. In Nunes, M. B., McPherson, M. and Isaĺas, P., eds., IADIS International Conference Proceedings: E-Learning, 6–8 July, Lisbon, Portugal, IADIS, Lisbon (2007), pp. 305–308.Google Scholar
Kuteeva, M. (2016). Research blogs, tweets and wikis. In Hyland, K. and Shaw, P., eds., The Routledge Handbook of English for Academic Purposes. London: Routledge, pp. 433–445.Google Scholar
Kuteeva, M. and Mauranen, A. K. (2018). Digital academic discourse: Texts and contexts. Introduction. Discourse, Context and Media, 24, 1–7.Google Scholar
Kuteeva, M. and McGrath, L. (2014). Taming tyrannosaurus rex: English use in the research and publication practices of humanities scholars in Sweden. Multilingua: Journal of Cross-Cultural and Interlanguage Communication, 33(3–4), 367–389.Google Scholar
Kwok, R. (2018). Lab notebooks go digital. Nature, 560, 269–270.Google Scholar
Latour, B. and Woolgar, S. (1986). Laboratory Life: The Construction of Scientific Facts. Princeton: Princeton University Press.Google Scholar
Lave, J. and Wenger, E. (1991). Situated Learning: Legitimate Peripheral Participation. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Lee, H. and Lee, K. (2013). Publish (in international indexed journals) or perish: Neoliberal ideology in a Korean university. Language Policy, 12(3), 215–230.Google Scholar
Lejano, R. P., Tavares-Reager, J. and Berkes, F. (2013). Climate and narrative: Environmental knowledge in everyday life. Environmental Science and Policy, 31, 61–70.Google Scholar
Lillis, T. (2008). Ethnography as method, methodology, and ‘deep theorizing’: Closing the gap between text and context in academic writing research. Written Communication, 25(3), 353–388.Google Scholar
Lillis, T. and Curry, M. J. (2010). Academic Writing in a Global Context. London: Routledge.Google Scholar
Lillis, T., Hewings, A., Vladimirou, D. and Curry, M. J. (2010). The geolinguistics of English as an academic lingua franca: Citation practices across English‐medium national and English‐medium international journals. International Journal of Applied Linguistics, 20(1), 111–135.Google Scholar
Linares, E. (2019). Afterword: Socialization to the practice of multilingual research. Critical Multilingualism Studies, 7(1), 124–129.Google Scholar
Linn, A. (2016). Investigating English in Europe: Contexts and Agendas. Boston and Berlin: Walter de Gruyter.Google Scholar
Ljosland, R. (2007). English in Norwegian academia: A step towards diglossia? World Englishes, 26(4), 395–410.Google Scholar
Loroño-Leturiondo, M. and Davies, S. R. (2018). Responsibility and science communication: Scientists’ experiences of and perspectives on public communication activities. Journal of Responsible Innovation, 5(2), 170–185.Google Scholar
Lu, X. (2010). Automatic analysis of syntactic complexity in second language writing. International Journal of Corpus Linguistics, 15(4), 474–496.Google Scholar
Luzón, M. J. (2011). Interesting post, but I disagree: Social presence and antisocial behaviour in academic weblogs. Applied Linguistics, 32(5), 517–540.Google Scholar
Luzón, M. J.  (2013). Public communication of science in blogs: Recontextualizing scientific discourse for a diversified audience. Written Communication, 30(4), 428–457.Google Scholar
Luzón, M. J. (2017). Connecting genres and languages in online scholarly communication. Written Communication, 34(4), 441–471.Google Scholar
Luzón, M. J. (2018a). Features of online ELF in research group blogs written by multilingual scholars. Discourse, Context and Media, 24, 24–32.Google Scholar
Luzón, M. J. (2018b). English as a Lingua Franca in academic blogs: Its co-existence and interaction with other languages. In Tatsioka, Z., Seidlhofer, B., Sifakis, N. and Ferguson, G., eds., Using English as a Lingua Franca in education in Europe. Berlin and Boston: de Gruyter Mouton, pp. 125–149.Google Scholar
Luzón, M. J. and Pérez-Llantada, C., eds. (2019). Science Communication on the Internet: Old Genres Meet New Genres. Amsterdam and Philadelphia: John Benjamins, pp. 131–152.Google Scholar
Luzón, M. J. and Pérez-Llantada, C. (forthcoming). Digital Genres in Knowledge Production and Dissemination: Perspectives and Practices. Bristol: Multilingual Matters.Google Scholar
Mackenzie Owen, J. (2007). The Scientific Article in the Age of Digitization. Dordrecht: Springer.Google Scholar
Maier, C. D. and Engberg, J. (2019). The multimodal bridge between academics and practitioners in the Harvard Business Review’s digital context: A multi-levelled qualitative analysis of knowledge construction. In Luzón, M.-J. and Pérez-Llantada, C., eds., Science Communication on the Internet: Old Genres Meet New Genres. Amsterdam and Philadelphia: John Benjamins, pp. 131–152.Google Scholar
Major, J. (1969). Historical development of the ecosystem concept. In Van Dyne, G. M., ed., The Ecosystem Concept in Natural Resource Management. New York: Academic Press, pp. 9–22.Google Scholar
Marwick, A. and boyd, d. (2011). ‘I tweet honestly, I tweet passionately’: Twitter users, context collapse, and the imagined audience. New Media and Society, 13, 96–113.Google Scholar
Matsuda, P. K. and Tardy, C. M. (2007). Voice in academic writing: The rhetorical construction of author identity in blind manuscript review. English for Specific Purposes, 26(2), 235–249.Google Scholar
Mauranen, A. (1993). Cultural Differences in Academic Rhetoric. Frankfurt and Main: Peter Lang.Google Scholar
Mauranen, A. (2012). Exploring ELF: Academic English Shaped by Non-Native Speakers. 1st ed. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Mauranen, A. (2013). Hybridism, edutainment, and doubt: Science blogging finding its feet. Nordic Journal of English Studies, 13(1), 7–36.Google Scholar
Mauranen, A. (2018). Second Language Acquisition, World Englishes, and English as a Lingua Franca (ELF). World Englishes, 37(1), 106–119.Google Scholar
Mauranen, A., Pérez-Llantada, C. and Swales, J. M. (2010). Academic Englishes: A standardised knowledge? In Kirkpatrick, A., ed., The World Englishes Handbook. 1st ed. Abingdon: Routledge, pp. 634–652.Google Scholar
Mauranen, A., Pérez-Llantada, C. and Swales, J. M. (2020). Academic Englishes: A standardised knowledge? In Kirkpatrick, A. (ed.), The World Englishes Handbook. 2nd ed. Abingdon: Routledge, pp. 659–676.Google Scholar
McGrath, L. (2016). Open-access writing: An investigation into the online drafting and revision of a research article in pure mathematics. English for Specific Purposes, 43, 25–36.Google Scholar
McLuhan, M. (1987). Understanding Media. The Extensions of Man. London: Ark.Google Scholar
Mehlenbacher, A. R. (2017). Crowdfunding science: Exigencies and strategies in an emerging genre of science communication. Technical Communication Quarterly, 26(2), 127–144.Google Scholar
Mehlenbacher, A. R. (2019a). Registered reports: An emerging scientific research article genre. Written Communication, 36(1), 38–67.Google Scholar
Mehlenbacher, A. R. (2019b). Science Communication Online. Engaging Experts and Publics on the Internet. Columbus: The Ohio State University Press.Google Scholar
Mehlenbacher, A. R. and Mehlenbacher, B. (2019). The case of the scientific research article and lessons concerning genre change online. In Luzón, M.-J. and Pérez-Llantada, C., eds., Science Communication on the Internet. Old Genres Meet New Genres. Amsterdam and Philadelphia: John Benjamins, pp. 41–58.Google Scholar
Meriläinen, S., Tienari, J., Thomas, R. and Davies, A. (2008). Hegemonic academic practices: Experiences of publishing from the periphery. Organization, 15, 584–597.Google Scholar
Mewburn, I. and Thomson, P. (2013). Why do academics blog? An analysis of audiences, purposes and challenges. Studies in Higher Education, 38(8), 1105–1119.Google Scholar
Miller, C. R. (1984). Genre as social action. Quarterly Journal of Speech, 70(2), 151–167.Google Scholar
Miller, C. R. (1994). Rhetorical community. The cultural basis of genre’s understanding how to participate in the actions of a community. In Freedman, A. and Medway, P., eds., Genre and the New Rhetoric. Abingdon: Taylor & Francis, pp. 67–78.Google Scholar
Miller, C. R. (2011). Exploring genres in cultural contact zones. Featured Presentation. 22nd Penn State Conference on Rhetoric and Composition: Rhetoric and Writing across Language Boundaries. Penn State University, July 2011.Google Scholar
Miller, C. R. and Kelly, A. R., eds. (2017). Emerging Genres in New Media Environments. London: Palgrave Macmillan.Google Scholar
Miller, C. R. and Shepherd, D. (2004). Blogging as social action: A genre analysis of the weblog. In Gurak, L., ed., Into the Blogosphere: Rhetoric, Community, and the Culture of Weblogs. Minneapolis: University of Minnesota Libraries. Retrieved from http://hdl.handle.net/11299/172818 [last accessed on 5 July 2020].Google Scholar
Misăk, A., Marusìć, M. and Marusìć, A. (2005). Manuscript editing as a way of teaching academic writing: Experience from a small scientific journal. Journal of Second Language Writing, 14, 122–131.Google Scholar
Mogull, S. A. and Stanfield, C. T. (2015). Current use of visuals in scientific communication. Proceedings of the IEEE, 1–7. DOI: 10.1109/IPCC.2015.7235818Google Scholar
Mort, P. and Drury, H. (2012). Supporting student academic literacy in the disciplines using genre-based online pedagogy. Journal of Academic Language and Learning, 6(3), A1-A15. Retrieved from https://journal.aall.org.au/index.php/jall/article/view/173Google Scholar
Motta-Roth, D. (2009). Popularização da ciência como prática social e discursiva. In Motta-Roth, D. and Giering, M. E., orgs., Discursos de popularização da ciência. Hipers@beres. Santa Maria, RS: PPGL Editores, pp. 131–195.Google Scholar
Motta-Roth, D. and Scherer, A. S. (2016). Science popularization: Interdiscursivity among science, pedagogy, and journalism. Bakhtiniana, 11(2), 171–194.Google Scholar
Mufwene, S. (2001). The Ecology of Language Evolution. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Mufwene, S. (2013). Globalization, Global English and World English(es), myths and facts. In Coupland, N., ed., The Handbook of Language and Globalization. Chichester: Wiley-Blackwell, pp. 31–55.Google Scholar
Mühlhäusler, P. (1996). Linguistic Ecology. London: Routledge.Google Scholar
Mühlhäusler, P. (2003). Language of Environment, Environment of Language: A Course in Ecolinguistics. London: Battlebridge Publications.Google Scholar
Muresan, L.-M. and Nicolae, M. (2015). Addressing the challenge of publishing internationally in a non-Anglophone academic context: Romania – a case in point. In Plo Alastrué, R. and Pérez-Llantada, C., eds., English as a Scientific and Research Language. Debates and Discourses. Amsterdam: John Benjamins, pp. 281–310.Google Scholar
Muresan, L.-M. and Pérez-Llantada, C. (2014). English for research publication and dissemination in bi-/multiliterate environments: The case of Romanian academics. Journal of English for Academic Purposes, 13, 53–64.Google Scholar
Myers, G. (1990). Stories and styles in two molecular biology review articles. In Bazerman, C. and Paradis, J., eds., Textual Dynamics in the Professions. Madison: University of Wisconsin Press, pp. 45–75.Google Scholar
Myers, G. (2010). The Discourse of Blogs and Wikis. London: Continuum.Google Scholar
Negretti, R. (2012). Metacognition in student academic writing: A longitudinal study of metacognitive awareness and its relation to task perception, self-regulation, and evaluation of performance. Written Communication, 29(2), 142–179.Google Scholar
Negretti, R. and McGrath, L. (2018). Scaffolding genre knowledge and metacognition: Insights from an L2 doctoral research writing course. Journal of Second Language Writing, 40, 12–31.Google Scholar
Nicholas, D., Huntington, P. and Watkinson, A. (2005). Scholarly journal usage: The results of deep log analysis. Journal of Documentation, 61(2), 248–280.Google Scholar
Nieman, A. (2000). The Popularisation of Physics: Boundaries of Authority and the Visual Culture of Science. Unpublished thesis. Faculty of Applied Sciences and Faculty of Humanities, University of the West of England, Bristol.Google Scholar
North, B. and Piccardo, E. (2016). Developing illustrative descriptors of aspects of mediation for the Common European Framework of Reference (CEFR), a Council of Europe project. Language Teaching, 49(3), 455–459.Google Scholar
O’Donnell, M. B., Römer, U. and Ellis, N. C. (2013). The development of formulaic sequences in first and second language writing. Investigating effects of frequency, association, and native norm. International Journal of Corpus Linguistics, 18(1), 83–108.Google Scholar
Okamura, A. (2008). Citation forms in scientific texts: Similarities and differences in L1 and L2 professional writing. Nordic Journal of English Studies, 7(3), 61–81.Google Scholar
Olmos-López, P. (2019). Back and forth between languages: An early-career bilingual academic’s writing odyssey. Critical Multilingualism Studies, 7(1), 32–43.Google Scholar
O’Neil, D. (2018). English as the lingua franca of international publishing. World Englishes, 37(2), 146–165.Google Scholar
Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development (OECD). (2008). Main Science and Technology Indicators 2008. Paris: OECD.Google Scholar
Orlikowski, W. J. and Yates, J. (1994). Genre repertoire: The structuring of communicative practices in organizations. Administrative Science Quarterly, 39(4), 541–574.Google Scholar
Orpin, D. (2019) #Vaccineswork: Recontextualizing the content of epidemiology reports on Twitter. In Luzón, M.-J. and Pérez-Llantada, C., eds., Science Communication on the Internet. Old Genres Meet New Genres. Amsterdam and Philadelphia: John Benjamins, pp. 173–194.Google Scholar
Ostergren, M. (2013). How Scientists Develop Competence in Visual Communication. Doctoral dissertation. Retrieved from http://faculty.washington.edu/ostergrn/Dissertation/OstergrenDissertationFINAL.pdf [last accessed on 1 March 2020]Google Scholar
Owen, R., Macnaghten, P. and Stilgoe, J. (2012). Responsible research and innovation: From science in society to science for society, with society. Science and Public Policy, 39(6), 751–760.Google Scholar
Paltridge, B. (2020). Writing for academic journals in the digital era. RELC Journal, 51(1), 147–157. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1177/0033688219890359Google Scholar
Paltridge, B. and Starfield, S. (2007). Thesis and Dissertation Writing in a Second Language: A Handbook for Supervisors. London and New York: Routledge.Google Scholar
Paltridge, B., Starfield, S. and Ravelli, L. J. (2012). Change and stability: Examining the macrostructures of doctoral theses in the visual and performing arts. Journal of English for Academic Purposes, 11, 332–344.Google Scholar
Pasquali, M. (2007). Video in science. Protocol videos: The implications for research and society. EMBO reports, 8(8), 712–716.Google Scholar
Patrão, A. (2018). Linguistic relativism in the age of global ‘lingua franca’ reconciling cultural and linguistic diversity with globalization. International Review of General Linguistics, 210 –211, 30–41.Google Scholar
Paulus, T. M. and Roberts, K. R. (2018). Crowdfunding a real-life superhero: The construction of worthy bodies in medical campaign narratives. Discourse, Context and Media, 21, 64–72.Google Scholar
Pauwels, L. (2006). Visual Cultures of Science: Rethinking Representational Practices in Knowledge Building and Science Communication. Lebanon, NH: Dartmouth College Press.Google Scholar
Pennycook, A. (2007). Global Englishes and Transcultural Flows. London and New York: Routledge.Google Scholar
Pennycook, A. (2010a). The future of Englishes: One, many or none? In Kirkpatrick, A., ed., The Routledge Handbook of World Englishes. Abingdon: Routledge, pp. 673–688.Google Scholar
Pennycook, A. (2010b). Language as a Local Practice. London and New York: Routledge.Google Scholar
Pennycook, A. (2018). Repertoires, registers and linguistic diversity. In Creese, A. and Backledge, A., eds., The Routledge Handbook of Language and Superdiversity. London: Routledge, pp. 3–15.Google Scholar
Pérez-Llantada, C. (2010). The discourse functions of metadiscourse in published writing. Culture and language issues. Nordic Journal of English Studies, 9(2), 41–68.Google Scholar
Pérez-Llantada, C. (2011). Heteroglossic (dis)engagement and the construal of the ideal readership: Dialogic spaces in academic texts. In Bhatia, V., Sánchez, P. and Pérez-Paredes, P., eds., Researching Specialized Languages. Amsterdam and Philadelphia: John Benjamins, pp. 25–45.Google Scholar
Pérez-Llantada, C. (2012). Scientific Discourse and the Rhetoric of Globalization. The Impact of Culture and Language. London and New York: Continuum.Google Scholar
Pérez-Llantada, C. (2013a). ‘Glocal’ rhetorical practices in academic writing: An intercultural rhetoric approach to L2 English discoursal hybridisation. European Journal of English Studies, 17(3), 251–268.Google Scholar
Pérez-Llantada, C. (2013b). The Article of the Future: Strategies for genre stability and change. English for Specific Purposes, 32(4), 221–235. DOI: https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/abs/pii/S1475158515300059Google Scholar
Pérez-Llantada, C. (2014). Formulaic language in L1 and L2 expert academic writing: Convergent and divergent usage. Journal of English for Academic Purposes, 14, 84–94.Google Scholar
Pérez-Llantada, C. (2015). Genres in the forefront, languages in the background: The scope of genre analysis in language-related scenarios. Journal of English for Academic Purposes, 19, 10–21. DOI: 10.1016/j.jeap.2015.05.005Google Scholar
Pérez-Llantada, C. (2016). How is the digital medium shaping research genres? Some cross-disciplinary trends. ESP Today, 4(1), 22–42.Google Scholar
Pérez-Llantada, C. (2018). Bringing into focus multilingual realities: Faculty perceptions of academic languages on campus. Lingua, 212, 30–43. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.lingua.2018.05.006Google Scholar
Pérez-Llantada, C. (2019). Ecologies of genres and an ecology of languages of science: Current and future debates. In Gruber, D. R. and Walsh, L., eds., Routledge Handbook of Language and Science. New York: Routledge, pp. 361–374.Google Scholar
Pérez-Llantada, C. (2021a). Grammar features and discourse style in digital genres: The case of science-focused crowdfunding projects. Revista Signos. Estudios de Lingüística, 54(105), 73–96.Google Scholar
Pérez-Llantada, C. (2021b). Genres and languages in science communication: The multiple dimensions of the science-policy interface, Language & Communication. 78, 65–76. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.langcom.2021.02.004Google Scholar
Pérez-Llantada, C. and Swales, J. M. (2017). English for Academic Purposes. In Hinkel, E., ed., Handbook of Research in Second Language Teaching and Learning III. New York: Routledge, pp. 42–55.Google Scholar
Phillipson, R. (1992). Linguistic Imperialism. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Phillipson, R. (2003). English-Only Europe? Challenging Language Policy. London: Routledge.Google Scholar
Phillipson, R. and Skutnabb-Kangas, T. (1993). Sproglige menneskerettigheder. In Holmen, A., Phillipson, R. and Skutnabb-Kangas, T., eds., Minoriteter og uddannelse. Københavnerstudier i tosprogethed 18. Copenhagen: Danmarks Lærerhøjskole, Center for multikulturelle studier, pp. 8–19.Google Scholar
Phothongsunan, S. (2016). Thai university academics’ challenges of writing for publication in English. Theory and Practice in Language Studies, 6(4), 681–685.Google Scholar
Pienemann, M. (2005). Cross-Linguistic Aspects of Processability Theory. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.Google Scholar
Pienemann, M., Di Biase, B., Kawaguchi, S. and Håkansson, G. (2005). Processing constraints on L1 transfer. In Kroll, J. F. and DeGroot, A. M. B., eds., Handbook of Bilingualism: Psycholinguistic Approaches. New York: Oxford University Press, pp. 128–153.Google Scholar
Piller, I. (2015). Language ideologies. In Tracy, K., Ilie, C. and Sandel, T., eds., The International Encyclopedia of Language and Social Interaction. West Sussex: Wiley-Blackwell, pp. 917–927.Google Scholar
Plastina, A. F. (2017). Professional discourse in video abstracts: Re-articulating the meaning of written research article abstracts. In Garzone, G., Catenaccio, P., Grego, K. and Doerr, R., eds., Specialised and Professional Discourse across Media and Genres. Milano: Ledizioni, pp. 57–74.Google Scholar
Plo Alastrué, R. and Pérez-Llantada, C. (2015). English as a Scientific and Research Language. Debates and Discourses. Amsterdam and Philadelphia: John Benjamins.Google Scholar
Pluchino, A., Burgio, J., Rapisarda, A., Biondo, A. E., Pulvirenti, A. Ferro, A. and Giorgino, T. (2019). Exploring the role of interdisciplinarity in physics: Success, talent and luck. PLoS ONE, 14, 6. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0218793Google Scholar
Politzer-Ahles, S., Holliday, J. J., Girolamo, T., Spychalska, M. and Berkson, K. H. (2016). Is linguistic injustice a myth? A response to Hyland (2016). Journal of Second Language Writing, 34, 3–8.Google Scholar
Porter, J. E. (1986). Intertextuality and the discourse community. Rhetoric Review, 5(1), 34–47.Google Scholar
Prior, P. A. (1998). Writing/Disciplinarity. A Sociohistoric Account of Literate Activity in the Academy. Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.Google Scholar
Prior, P. A. (2009). From speech genres to mediated multimodal genre systems: Bakhtin, Voloshinov, and the question of writing. In Bazerman, C., Bonini, A. and Figueiredo, E., eds., Genre in a Changing World. Fort Collins: Parlor Press, pp. 17–34.Google Scholar
Prior, P. A. (2013). Multimodality and ESP research. In Paltridge, B. and Starfield, S., eds., The Handbook of English for Specific Purposes. 1st ed. Boston: Wiley-Blackwell, pp. 519–534.Google Scholar
Prior, P. and Bilbro, R. (2012). Academic enculturation: Developing literate practices and disciplinary identities. In Castelló, M. and Donahue, C., eds., University Writing: Selves and Texts in Academic Societies. Bingley: Emerald, pp. 20–31.Google Scholar
Prior, P. and Hengst, J. (2010). Introduction: Exploring semiotic remediation. In Prior, P. and Hengst, J., eds., Exploring Semiotic Remediation as Discourse Practice. New York: Palgrave, pp. 1–23.Google Scholar
Puschmann, C. (2014). (Micro)blogging science? Notes on potentials and constraints of new forms of scholarly communication. In Friesike, S. and Bartling, S., eds., Opening Science. New York: Springer, pp. 89–106.Google Scholar
Putnam, L. L. (2009). Symbolic capital and academic fields: An alternative discourse on journal rankings. Management Communication Quarterly, 23(1), 127–134.Google Scholar
Rakedzon, T., Segev, E., Chapnik, N. Yosef, R. and Baram-Tsabari, A. (2017). Automatic jargon identifier for scientists engaging with the public and science communication educators. PLoS ONE. 12(8), e0181742. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0181742.Google Scholar
Rayson, P. and Garside, R. (2000). Comparing corpora using frequency profiling. In Proceedings of the Workshop on Comparing Corpora, held in Conjunction with the 38th Annual Meeting of the Association for Computational Linguistics (ACL 2000). 1–8 October 2000, Hong Kong, pp. 1–6.Google Scholar
Reid, G. (2019). Compressing, expanding, and attending to scientific meaning: Writing the semiotic hybrid of science for professional and citizen scientists. Written Communication, 36(1), 68–98.Google Scholar
Reid, G. and Anson, C. M. (2019). Public- and expert-facing communication: A case study of polycontextuality and context collapse in Internet-mediated citizen science. In Luzón, M.-J. and Pérez-Llantada, C., eds., Science Communication on the Internet. Old Genres Meet New Genres. Amsterdam and Philadelphia: John Benjamins, pp. 219–238.Google Scholar
Riboni, G. (2020). Vlogging science: Scholarly vlogs between scholarship and popularisation. In Gotti, M., Maci, S. and Sala, M., eds., Scholarly Pathways. Knowledge Transfer and Knowledge Exchange in Academia. Bern: Peter Lang, pp. 255–280.Google Scholar
Ringdal, K. G., Lossius, H. M. and Søreide, K. (2009). Getting your message through: An editorial guide for meeting publication standards. Scandinavian Journal of Trauma, Resuscitation and Emergency Medicine, 17, 1–4. Retrieved from www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC2804571/?tool=pubmed [last accessed on 10 April 2020].Google Scholar
Römer, U. (2011). Corpus research applications in second language teaching. Annual Review of Applied Linguistics, 31, 205–225.Google Scholar
Roque, G. (2017). Rhetoric, argumentation, and persuasion in a multimodal perspective. In Tseronis, A. and Forceville, C., eds., Multimodal Argumentation and Rhetoric in Media Genres. Amsterdam and Philadelphia: John Benjamins, pp. 25–50.Google Scholar
Rounsaville, A., Goldberg, R. and Bawarshi, A. (2008). From incomes to outcomes: FYW students’ prior genre knowledge, meta-cognition, and the question of transfer. WPA: Writing Program Administration, 32(1–2), 97–112.Google Scholar
Royal Society (2011). Knowledge Networks and Nations: Global Scientific Communication in the 21st Century. London: The Royal Society.Google Scholar
Rozycki, W. and Johnson, N. H. (2013). Non-canonical grammar in Best Paper award winners in engineering. English for Specific Purposes, 32(3), 157–169.Google Scholar
Rubin, D. L. and Kang, O. (2008). Writing to speak: What goes on across the two-way street. In Belcher, D. and Hirvela, A., eds., The Oral-Literate Connection. Ann Arbor: The University of Michigan Press, pp. 210–225.Google Scholar
Russell, D. (1995). Activity theory and its implications for writing instruction. In Petraglia, J., ed., Reconceiving Writing, Rethinking Writing Instruction. Mahwah: Lawrence Erlbaum, pp. 51–78.Google Scholar
Salager-Meyer, F. (2008). Scientific publishing in developing countries: Challenges for the future. Journal of English for Academic Purposes, 7(2), 121–132.Google Scholar
Salö, L. (2015). The linguistic sense of placement. Habitus and the entextualization of translingual practices in Swedish academia. Journal of Sociolinguistics, 19(4), 511–534.Google Scholar
Salö, L. and Hanell, L. (2014). Performance of unprecedented genres. Interdiscursivity in the writing practices of a Swedish researcher. Language & Communication, 37, 12–28. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.langcom.2014.04.001Google Scholar
Salter, A. J. and Martin, B. R. (2001). The economic benefits of publicly funded basic research. A critical review. Research Policy, 30, 509–532.Google Scholar
Samraj, B. and Swales, J. M. (2000). Writing in conservation biology: Searching for an interdisciplinary rhetoric? Language and Learning across the Disciplines, 3(3), 36–56.Google Scholar
Sancho-Guinda, C. (2019). Promoemotional science? Emotion and intersemiosis in graphical abstracts. In Mackenzie, J. L. and Alba Juez, L., eds., Emotion in Discourse. Amsterdam, Philadelphia: John Benjamins, pp. 357–386.Google Scholar
Schmidt, R. (1993). Awareness and second language acquisition. Annual Review of Applied Linguistics, 13, 206–226.Google Scholar
Schryer, C. F. (1994). The lab vs. the clinic: Sites of competing genres. In Freedman, A. and Medway, P., eds., Genre and the New Rhetoric. London: Taylor & Francis, pp. 105–124.Google Scholar
Schryer, C. F. (2011). Investigating texts in their social contexts: The promise and peril of rhetorical genre studies. In Starke-Meyerring, D., Paré, A., Artemeva, N., Horne, M., and Yousoubova, L., eds., Writing in Knowledge Societies. Anderson: Parlor Press, pp. 31–52.Google Scholar
Schulson, M. (2018). Science’s ‘reproducibility crisis’ is being used as political ammunition. Wired, 20 April 2018. Available online: www.wired.com/story/sciences-reproducibility-crisis-is-being-used-as-political-ammunition/ [last accessed on 10 April 2020].Google Scholar
Science Europe (2017). The rationales of Open Science: Digitalisation and democratisation in research. Science Europe High-Level Workshop, September 14, 2017, Berlin.Google Scholar
Scollon, R. (1998). Mediated Discourse as Social Interaction. London: Longman.Google Scholar
Scott, M. (2008). Wordsmith Tools 5. Liverpool: Lexical Analysis Software.Google Scholar
Selinker, L. (1972). Interlanguage. International Review of Applied Linguistics in Language Teaching, 10(1–4), 209–231.Google Scholar
Shaw, P. and Vassileva, I. (2009). Co-evolving academic rhetoric across culture: Britain, Bulgaria, Denmark, Germany in the 20th century. Journal of Pragmatics, 41(2), 290–305.Google Scholar
Shema, H., Bar-Ilan, J. and Thelwall, M. (2012). Research blogs and the discussion of scholarly information. PLoS ONE, 7(5), e35869. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0035869.Google Scholar
Shih, R. (2011). Can Web 2.0 technology assist college students in learning English writing? Integrating ‘Facebook’ and peer assessment with blended learning. Australasian Journal of Educational Technology, 27, 829–845.Google Scholar
Shohamy, E. (2006). Language Policy. Hidden Agendas and New Approaches. London: Routledge.Google Scholar
Shohamy, E. (2017). Linguistic landscape: Interpreting and expanding language diversities. In de Fina, A., Ikizoglu, D. and Wegner, J., eds., Diversity and Super-diversity. Washington, DC: Georgetown University Press, pp. 37–64.Google Scholar
Silverstein, M. (2015). How language communities intersect: Is ‘superdiversity’ an incremental or transformative condition? Language & Communication, 44, 7–18. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.langcom.2014.10.015Google Scholar
Simpson-Vlach, R. and Ellis, N. C. (2010). An academic formulas list: New methods in phraseology research. Applied Linguistics, 31(4), 487–512. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1093/applin/amp058Google Scholar
Sivertsen, G. (2018). Balanced multilingualism in science. BiD: textos universitaris de biblioteconomia i documentació, 40. Retrieved from http://bid.ub.edu/en/40/sivertsen.htm [last accessed on 10 April 2020].Google Scholar
Skutnabb-Kangas, T. (2000). Human rights and language wrongs – A future for diversity? Language Sciences, 20(1), 5–27. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1016/S0388-0001(97)00008-9Google Scholar
Skutnabb-Kangas, T. and Phillipson, R. (2001). Language ecology. Dominance, minorisation, linguistic genocide and linguistic rights. In Østergaard, M., ed., Images of the World. Globalisation and Cultural Diversity. Copenhagen: Center for kultursamarbejde med udviklingslandene, pp. 32–47, 206–208.Google Scholar
Skutnabb-Kangas, T. and Phillipson, R. (2011). Language ecology. In Verschueren, J., Östman, J.-O, Blommaert, J. and Bulcaen, C., eds., Handbook of Pragmatics. Amsterdam and Philadelphia: John Benjamins, pp. 1–18.Google Scholar
Smart, G. (2011). Argumentation across web-based organizational discourses: The case of climate change. In Sarangi, S. and Candlin, C., eds., Handbook of Communication in Organisations and Professions. Berlin, DE: Mouton de Gruyter, pp. 363–386.Google Scholar
Smart, G. and Falconer, M. (2019). The representation of science and technology in genres of Vatican discourse: Pope Francis’s encyclical Laudato Si’ as a case study. In Luzón, M.-J. and Pérez-Llantada, C., eds., Science Communication on the Internet. Old Genres Meet New Genres. Amsterdam and Philadelphia: John Benjamins, pp. 195–218.Google Scholar
Spencer-Oatey, H. and Dauber, D. (2015). How internationalised is your university? From structural indicators to an agenda for integration. GlobalPAD Working Papers. Available at GlobalPADOpen House www.warwick.ac.uk/globalpadintercultural [last accessed on 10 April 2020].Google Scholar
Spicer, S. (2014). Exploring video abstracts in science journals: An overview and case study. Journal of Librarianship and Scholarly Communication, 2(2), eP1110.Google Scholar
Spinuzzi, C. (2003). Tracing Genres through Organizations: A Sociocultural Approach to Information Design. Cambridge: MIT Press.Google Scholar
Spinuzzi, C. (2004). Describing Assemblages: Genre Sets, Systems, Repertoires, and Ecologies. Austin, TX: Digital Writing and Research Lab.Google Scholar
Spinuzzi, C. and Guile, D. (2019). Fourth-generation Activity Theory: An integrative literature review and implications for professional communication. Paper presented at the 2019 IEEE International Professional Communication Conference (ProComm), Aachen, Germany, 2019, pp. 37–45.Google Scholar
Spinuzzi, C. and Zachry, M. (2000). Genre ecologies: An open-system approach to understanding and constructing documentation. ACM Journal of Computer Documentation, 24(3), 169–181.Google Scholar
Stilgoe, J., Lock, S. J. and Wilsdon, J. (2014). Why should we promote public engagement with science? Public Understanding of Science, 23(1), 4–15. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1177/0963662513518154Google Scholar
Stockemer, D. and Wigginton, M. J. (2019). Publishing in English or another language: An inclusive study of scholar’s language publication preferences in the natural, social and interdisciplinary sciences. Scientometrics, 118(2), 645–652. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s11192-018-2987-0Google Scholar
Stotesbury, H. (2003). Evaluation in research article abstracts in the narrative and hard sciences. Journal of English for Academic Purposes, 2, 327–341.Google Scholar
Street, B. (1984). Academic Writing. Theory and Practice. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Stubbs, M. (2001). Words and Phrases: Corpus Studies in Lexical Semantics. Oxford: Blackwell Publishers.Google Scholar
Sugimoto, C. R., Thelwall, M., Larivière, V., Tsou, A., Mongeon, P. and Macaluso, B. (2013). Scientists popularizing science: Characteristics and impact of TED talk presenters. PLoS ONE, 8(4), e62403. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0062403Google Scholar
de Swaan, A. (2001). Words of the World: The Global Language System. Cambridge: Polity Press.Google Scholar
Swales, J. M. (1990). Genre Analysis. English in Academic and Research Settings. 1st ed. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Swales, J. M. (1996). Occluded genres in the academy. The case of the submission letter. In Ventola, E. and Mauranen, A., eds., Academic Writing: Intercultural and Textual Issues. Amsterdam and Philadelphia: John Benjamins, pp. 45–58.Google Scholar
Swales, J. M. (1997). English as tyrannosaurus rex. World Englishes, 16, 373–382.Google Scholar
Swales, J. M. (1998). Other Floors, Other Voices: A Textography of a Small University Building. Mahwah: Lawrence Erlbaum.Google Scholar
Swales, J. M. (2004). Research Genres: Explorations and Applications. 1st ed. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Swales, J. M. (2009). Worlds of genre – metaphors of genre. In Bazerman, C., Bonini, A. and Figueiredo, E., eds., Genre in a Changing World. Fort Collins: Parlor Press, pp. 3–16.Google Scholar
Swales, J. M. (2019). The futures of EAP genre studies: A personal viewpoint. Journal of English for Academic Purposes, 38, 75–82. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jeap.2019.01.003Google Scholar
Swales, J. M. and Feak, C. B. (2009a). Abstracts and the Writing of Abstracts. Ann Arbor: University of Michigan Press.Google Scholar
Swales, J. M. and Feak, C. B. (2009b). Telling a Research Story. Ann Arbor: Michigan University Press.Google Scholar
Swales, J. M. and Feak, C. B. (2012). Academic Writing for Graduate Students. Essential Tasks and Skills. 3rd ed. Ann Arbor: Michigan University Press.Google Scholar
Swales, J. M. and Leeder, C. (2012). A reception study of the articles published in English for Specific Purposes from 1990–1999. English for Specific Purposes, 31(2), 137–146.Google Scholar
Tannen, D. and Trester, A., eds. (2013). Discourse 2.0. Language and New Media. Georgetown: Georgetown University Press, pp. 1–25.Google Scholar
Tardy, C. M. (2004). The role of English in scientific communication: Lingua franca or tyrannosaurus rex? Journal of English for Academic Purposes, 3(3), 247–269.Google Scholar
Tardy, C. M. (2016). Beyond Convention. Genre Innovation in Academic Writing. Ann Arbor: Michigan University Press.Google Scholar
Thelwall, M., Bailey, C., Tobin, C. and Bradshaw, N. (2019). Gender differences in research areas, methods and topics: Can people and thing orientations explain the results? Journal of Informetrics, 13(1), 149–169. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.joi.2018.12.002Google Scholar
Thomson, J. W. (2002). The death of the scholarly monograph in the humanities? Citation patterns in literary scholarship. Libri, 52, 121–136.Google Scholar
Trachtenberg, Z. M., Burns, T. J. de Beurs, K., Ellis, S. E., Gates, K. K., Kelly, J. F. et al. (2016). The Anthropocene biosphere: Supporting ‘open interdisciplinarity’ through blogging. Trends in Ecology and Evolution, 32(1), 1–3.Google Scholar
Trappes-Lomax, H. and Ferguson, G., eds. (2002). Language in Language Teacher Education. Amsterdam and Philadelphia: John Benjamins.Google Scholar
Trench, B. (2008). Internet: Turning science communication inside-out? In Bucchi, M. and Trench, B., eds., Handbook of Public Communication of Science and Technology. New York: Routledge, pp. 185–198.Google Scholar
Tribble, C. (2001). Small corpora and teaching writing. Towards a corpus-informed pedagogy of writing. In Ghadessy, M. Henry, A. and Roseberry, R. L., eds., Small Corpus Studies and ELT: Theory and Practice. Amsterdam and Philadelphia: John Benjamins, pp. 381–408.Google Scholar
Tusting, K. (2018). The genre regime of research evaluation: Contradictory systems of value around academics’ writing. Language and Education, 32(6), 477–493.Google Scholar
Tusting, K., McCulloch, S., Bhatt, I., Hamilton, M. and Barton, D. (2019). Academics Writing: The Dynamics of Knowledge Creation. London: Routledge.Google Scholar
United Nations Educational, Scientific and Cultural Organisation (UNESCO). (2010). UNESCO Science Report 2010. The Current Status of Science around the World. Paris: UNESCO Publishing. www.sciencequestinternational.com/facts-and-figures-from-the-unesco-science-report-2010/ [last accessed on 5 July 2020].Google Scholar
United Nations Educational, Scientific and Cultural Organisation (UNESCO). (2015). UNESCO Science Report: Towards 2030. Retrieved from https://en.unesco.org/unesco_science_report/sdg-9-5-2 [last accessed on 5 July 2020].Google Scholar
Uzuner, S. (2008). Multilingual scholars’ participation in core/global academic communities: A literature review. Journal of English for Academic Purposes, 7, 250–263.Google Scholar
Van Parijs, P. (2007). Tackling the Anglophones’ free ride: Fair linguistic co-operation with a global lingua franca. AILA Review, 20, 72–86.Google Scholar
Veltri, G. A. and Atanasova, D. (2015). Climate change on Twitter: Content, media ecology and information sharing behaviour. Public Understanding of Science, 26(6), 721–737.Google Scholar
Vitak, J. (2012). The impact of context collapse and privacy on social network site disclosures. Journal of Broadcasting and Electronic Media, 56, 451–470.Google Scholar
Wadman, M., Couzin-Frankel, J., Kaiser, J. and Matacic, C. (2020). How does coronavirus kill? Clinicians trace a ferocious rampage through the body, from brain to toes April 17, 2020. Retrieved from www.sciencemag.org/news/2020/04/how-does-coronavirus-kill-clinicians-trace-ferocious-rampage-through-body-brain-toes# [last accessed on 17 April 2020].Google Scholar
Wardhaugh, R. (1998). An Introduction to Sociolinguistics. Oxford: Blackwell.Google Scholar
Wei, L. (2018). Translanguaging as a practical theory of language. Applied Linguistics, 39(1), 9–30. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1093/applin/amx039Google Scholar
Wendel, J. N. (2005). Notes on the ecology of language. Bunkyo Gakuin University Academic Journal, 5, 51–76.Google Scholar
White, P. R. R. (2003). Beyond modality and hedging: A dialogic view of the language of intersubjective stance. Text & Talk, 23(2), 259–284.Google Scholar
Wickman, C. and Fitzgerald, E. (2019). Writing and science: An editorial perspective. Written Communication, 36(1), 3–8. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1177/0741088318809701Google Scholar
Wilcox, B. J. (2014). Word and image in academic writing: A study of verbal and visual meanings in marketing articles. ESP Today, 2(2), 113–133.Google Scholar
Willis, A. J. (1997). The ecosystem: An evolving concept viewed historically. Functional Ecology, 11(2), 268–271.Google Scholar
Witte, S., Latham, D. and Gross, M. (2019). Literacy Engagement through Peritextual Analysis. Chicago: ALA Editions.Google Scholar
World Bank (2016). World Bank Annual Report 2016. Available at Washington, DC: World Bank Group. http://documents.worldbank.org/curated/en/763601475489253430/World-Bank-annual-report-2016 [last accessed on 5 July 2020].Google Scholar
WrELFA (2015). The Corpus of Written English as a Lingua Franca in Academic Settings. Director: Anna Mauranen. Compilation manager: Ray Carey. www.helsinki.fi/elfa/ [last accessed on 29 January 2020].Google Scholar
Wu, X., Mauranen, A. and Lei, L. (2020). Syntactic complexity in English as a lingua franca academic writing. Journal of English for Academic Purposes, 43, 100798. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jeap.2019.100798Google Scholar
Wynne, B. (2006). Public engagement as a means of restoring public trust in science – Hitting the notes, but missing the music? Community Genetics, 9(3), 211–220.Google Scholar
Yakhontova, T. (2006). Cultural and disciplinary variation in academic discourse: The issue of influencing factors. Journal of English for Academic Purposes, 5(2), 153–167.Google Scholar
Yang, W. (2017). Audioslide presentations as an appendant genre – Key words, personal pronouns, stance and engagement. ESP Today, 5(1), 24–45.Google Scholar
Yates, J. and Orlikowski, W. J. (1992). Genres of organizational communication: A structurational approach to studying communication and media. Academy of Management Review, 17(2), 485–510.Google Scholar
Yoon, C. (2011). Concordancing in L2 writing class: An overview of research and issues. Journal of English for Academic Purposes, 10(3), 130–139.Google Scholar
Yoon, J. W. and Chung, E. K. (2017). An investigation on graphical abstracts use in scholarly articles. International Journal of Information Management, 37(1), 1371–1379.Google Scholar
Zinchenko, V. P. (1996). Developing activity theory: The zone of proximal development and beyond. In Nardi, Bonnie A., ed., Context and Consciousness: Activity Theory and Human-Computer Interaction. Cambridge: The MIT Press, pp. 283–324.Google Scholar

Save book to Kindle

To save this book to your Kindle, first ensure no-reply@cambridge.org is added to your Approved Personal Document E-mail List under your Personal Document Settings on the Manage Your Content and Devices page of your Amazon account. Then enter the ‘name’ part of your Kindle email address below. Find out more about saving to your Kindle.

Note you can select to save to either the @free.kindle.com or @kindle.com variations. ‘@free.kindle.com’ emails are free but can only be saved to your device when it is connected to wi-fi. ‘@kindle.com’ emails can be delivered even when you are not connected to wi-fi, but note that service fees apply.

Find out more about the Kindle Personal Document Service.

  • References
  • Carmen Pérez-Llantada, Universidad de Zaragoza
  • Book: Research Genres Across Languages
  • Online publication: 24 June 2021
  • Chapter DOI: https://doi.org/10.1017/9781108870528.009
Available formats
×

Save book to Dropbox

To save content items to your account, please confirm that you agree to abide by our usage policies. If this is the first time you use this feature, you will be asked to authorise Cambridge Core to connect with your account. Find out more about saving content to Dropbox.

  • References
  • Carmen Pérez-Llantada, Universidad de Zaragoza
  • Book: Research Genres Across Languages
  • Online publication: 24 June 2021
  • Chapter DOI: https://doi.org/10.1017/9781108870528.009
Available formats
×

Save book to Google Drive

To save content items to your account, please confirm that you agree to abide by our usage policies. If this is the first time you use this feature, you will be asked to authorise Cambridge Core to connect with your account. Find out more about saving content to Google Drive.

  • References
  • Carmen Pérez-Llantada, Universidad de Zaragoza
  • Book: Research Genres Across Languages
  • Online publication: 24 June 2021
  • Chapter DOI: https://doi.org/10.1017/9781108870528.009
Available formats
×