1
References
Ahearn, L. M. (2001). Language and agency. Annual Review of Anthropology, 30(1), 109-137.
Allen, M. C. (2004). The rhetorical situation of the scientific paper and the “appearance” of
objectivity. Young Scholars in Writing: Undergraduate Research in Writing and
Rhetoric, 2(4), 94-102.
Ard, J. (1985). Vantage points for the analysis of scientific discourse. English for Specific
Purposes, 4(1), 3-19.
Atkinson, D. (1999). Language and science. Annual Review of Applied Linguists, 19, 193-214.
Baake, K. (2003). Metaphor and knowledge: The challenges of writing science. Albany, NY:
State of University of New York Press.
Banks, D. (2005). Emerging scientific discourse in the late seventeenth century: A comparison of
Newton’s Opticks, and Huygen’s Traité del la lumière. Functions of Language, 12(1), 6586.
Barber, C. L. (1962). Some measurable characteristics of modern scientific prose. In F. Behre
(Ed.), Contributions to English syntax and Philology (pp. 21-43). Gothenburg, DE:
Almqvist and Wiksel.
Barthes, R. (1975). The pleasure of the text (R. Miller, Trans.). New York, NY: Hill and Wang.
Bartholomae, D. (1986). Inventing the university. Journal of Basic Writing, 5, 4-23.
Bazerman, C. (1984a). Modern evolution of the experimental report in Physics: Spectroscopic
articles in Physical Review, 1893-1980. Social Studies of Science, 14(2), 163-196.
Bazerman, C. (1984b). The writing of scientific non-fiction: Contexts, choices, constraints. Pre/
Text: A Journal of Rhetorical Theory, 5, 39-74.
2
Bazerman, C. (1997). Reporting the experiment: The changing account of scientific doings in the
Philosophical Transactions of the Royal Society, 1665-1800. In R. A. Harris (Ed.),
Landmark essays on the rhetoric of science: Case studies (pp. 169-186). Mahwah, NJ:
Hermagoras.
Bazerman, C. (2000). Shaping written knowledge: The genre and activity of the experimental
article in science. (Original work published 1988) Retrieved from
http://wac.colostate.edu/books/bazerman_shaping/
Bhatia, V. K. (1993). Analysing genre: Language use in professional settings. New York, NY:
Longman.
Biber, D., Conrad, S., & Reppen, R. (1998). Corpus linguistics: Investigating language structure
and use. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press.
Bostian, L. R. (1983). How active, passive and nominal styles affect readability of science
writing. Journalism Quarterly, 60(4), 635-670.
Bowker, L., & Pearson, J. (2002). Working with specialized language: A practical guide to using
corpora. London, UK: Routledge.
Braddock, R. (1974). The frequency and placement of topic sentences in expository prose.
Research in the Teaching of English, 8(3), 287-302.
Britton, E. (1973). Personality in scientific writing. Technical Communication: Journal of the
Society for Technical Communication, 20(3), 8-11.
Burrough-Boenisch, J. (2003). Shapers of published NNS research articles. Journal of Second
Language Writing, 12, 223-243.
Bushnell, J. (2003). Writing through science. Technical Communication Quarterly, 12(1), 251266.
3
Campbell, K. K., & Jamieson, K. H. (Eds.). (1978). Form and genre: Shaping rhetorical action.
Falls Church, VA: The Speech Communication Association.
Campbell, P. N. (1975). The personae of scientific discourse. Quarterly Journal of Speech,
61(4), 391-405.
Carciu, O. M. (2009). An intercultural study of first-person plural references in biomedical
writing. Iberica, (18), 71-92.
Ceccarelli, L. (2001). Shaping science with rhetoric: The cases of Dobzhansky, Schrödinger, and
Wilson. Chicago, IL: University of Chicago Press.
Chafe, W. (1985). Linguistic differences produced by differences between speaking and writing.
In D. Olson, N. Torrannce, & A. Hildyard (Eds.), Literature, language and learning: The
nature and consequences of reading and writing (pp. 105-123). Cambridge, UK:
Cambridge University Press.
Chang, C.-F., & Kuo, C.-H. (2011). A corpus-based approach to online materials development
for writing research articles. English for Specific Purposes, 30(3), 222-234.
Charles, M. (2006). The construction of stance in reporting clauses: A cross-disciplinary study of
theses. Applied Linguistics, 27(3), 492-518.
Cherry, R. (1988). Ethos vs persona: Self-representation in written discourse. Written
Communication, 5, 251-276.
Constantinides, H. (2001). The duality of scientific prose: Deep and surface structures. Quarterly
Journal of Speech, 87(1), 61-72.
Crismore, A., & Farnsworth, R. (1990). Metadiscourse in popular and professional science
discourse. In W. Nash (Ed.), The writing scholar: Studies in academic discourse (pp.
118-136). London, UK: Sage.
4
Crismore, A., & Vande Kopple, W. J. (1988). Readers’ learning from prose: The effects of
hedges. Written Communication, 5(2), 184-202.
Darian, S. (1997). The language of classifying introductory science texts. Journal of Pragmatics,
27, 815-839.
Datson, L., & Galison, P. (2010). Objectivity. New York, NY: Zone Books.
Day, R. A. (1998). How to write & publish a scientific paper (5th ed.). Phoenix, AZ: Oryx Press.
Ding, D. (1998). Rationality reborn: Historical roots of the passive voice in scientific discourse.
In Essays in the study of scientific discourse: Methods, practice, and pedagogy (pp. 117134). Greenwich, CT: Ablex.
Ding, D. (2002). The passive voice and social values in science. Journal of Technical Writing
and Communication, 32(2), 137-154.
Englander, K., & Lopez-Bonilla, G. (2011). Acknowledging or denying membership: Reviewers’
responses to non-anglophone scientists’ manuscripts. Discourse Studies, 13(4), 395-416.
Ervin, E. (1993). Interdisciplinarity or “An elaborate edifice built on sand”? Rethinking
rhetoric’s place . Rhetoric Review, 12(1), 84-105.
Fang, Z. (2004). Scientific literary: A systemic functional linguistics perspective. Science
Education, 89(2), 335-347. doi:10.1002/sce.20050
Fløttum, K. (2005). The self and the others; Polyphonic visibility in research articles.
International Journal of Applied Linguistics, 45(1), 29-44.
Foucault, M. (1972). The archaeology of knowledge: And the discourse of language (A. M. S.
Smith, Trans.). New York, NY: Vintage Books.
5
Fujii, Y. (2008). The asymmetrical relationship between active and passive voice: Implications
for teaching Japanese-to-English translation of specialized scientific texts. The
Linguistics Journal, 3(1), 40-74.
Gilbert, G. N. (1976). The transformation of research findings into scientific knowledge. Social
Studies of Science, 6(3/4), 281-306.
Gilbert, G. N., & Mulkay, M. (1984). Opening Pandora’s Box: A sociological analysis of
scientific discourse. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press.
Goldbort, R. (2006). Writing for science. New Haven, CT: Yale University Press.
Gooding, D. (1992). Putting agency back into experiment. In A. Pickering (Ed.), Science as
practice and culture (pp. 65-112). Chicago, IL: University of Chicago.
Gopen, G. D., & Swan, J. A. (1990). The science of scientific writing. American Scientist, 78(6),
550-558.
Gosden, H. (1992). Discourse functions of marked theme in scientific research articles. English
for Specific Purposes, 11, 207-224.
Gosden, H. (1993). Discourse functions of subject in scientific-research articles. Applied
Linguistics, 14(1), 56-75.
Gross, A. (2006). Starring the text: The place of rhetoric in science studies. Carbondale, IL:
Southern Illinois University Press.
Gross, A., Harmon, J. E., & Reidy, M. (2002). Communicating science: The scientific article
from the 17th century to the present. New York, NY: Oxford University Press.
Gunnarsson, B.-L. (1997). On the sociohistorical construction of scientific discourse. In B.-L.
Gunnarsson, P. Linell, & B. Norberg (Eds.), The construction of professional discourse
(pp. 99-126). New York, NY: Addison Wesley Longman.
6
Gustavii, B. (2008). How to write and illustrate a scientific paper (2nd ed.). New York, NY:
Cambridge University Press.
Hanania, E. A. S., & Akhtar, K. (1985). Verb form and rhetorical function in science writing: A
study of MS Theses in Biology, Chemistry, and Physics. English for Specific Purposes, 4,
49-58.
Harmon, J. E. (1992). An analysis of fifty citation superstars from the scientific literature.
Journal of Technical Writing and Communication, 22(1), 17-37.
Harris, R. A. (1997). Introduction. In R. A. Harris (Ed.), Landmark essays on rhetoric of science:
Case studies (pp. xi-xiv) [Introduction]. Mahwah, NJ: Hermagoras.
Hartley, J. (2012). New ways of making academic articles easier to read. International Journal of
Clinical Health & Psychology, 12(1), 143-160.
Harwood, N. (2005). ‘I hoped to counteract the memory problem, but I made no impact
whatsoever’: Discussing methods in computing science using I. English for Specific
Purposes, 24(3), 243-267.
Harwood, N. (2005). ‘Nowhere has anyone attempted... In this article I aim to do just that’ A
corpus-based study of self-promotional I and we in academic writing across four
disciplines. Journal of Pragmatics, 37, 1207-1231.
Harwood, N. (2005). ‘We do not seem to have a theory... The theory I present here attempts to
fill this gap’: Inclusive and exclusive pronouns in academic writing. Applied Linguistics,
26(3), 343-375.
Hyland, K. (1996). Writing without conviction? Hedging in science research articles. Applied
Linguistics, 17, 433-454.
7
Hyland, K. (1997). Scientific claims and community values: Articulating an academic culture.
Language & Communication, 17(1), 19-31. doi:10.1016/s0271-5309(96)00023-7
Hyland, K. (1999). Disciplinary discourses: Writer stance in research articles. In C. N. Candline
& K. Hyland (Eds.), Writing: Texts, processes and practices (pp. 99-121). Essex, UK:
Pearson ESL.
Hyland, K. (2001). Humble servants of the discipline? Self-mention in research articles. English
for Specific Purposes, 20, 207-226.
Hyland, K. (2002). Authority and invisibility: Authorial identity in academic writing. Journal of
Pragmatics, 34(8), 1091-1112.
Hyland, K. (2005). Stance and engagement: A model of interaction in academic discourse.
Discourse Studies, 7(2), 173-192.
Hyland, K. (2010). Constructing proximity: Relating to readers in popular and professional
science. Journal of English for Academic Purposes, 9(2), 116-127.
Ian, B. (2008). Cognitive genre structures in Methods sections of research articles: A corpus
study. Journal of English for Academic Purposes, 7(1), 338-54.
Ivanič, R. (1997). Writing and identity: The discoursal construction of identity in academic
writing. Philadelphia, PA: John Benjamins.
Ivanič, R., & Simpson, J. (1992). Who’s who in academic writing. In N. Fairclough (Ed.),
Critical language awareness (pp. 141-173). London, UK: Longman.
Kintsch, W., & Rawson, K. A. (2008). Comprehension. In The science of reading: A handbook
(pp. 209-226). Oxford, UK: Blackwell . doi:10.1002/978047057642.ch12
Kuhn, T. S. (1996). The structure of scientific revolutions (3rd ed.). Chicago, IL: University of
Chicago Press. (Original work published 1962)
8
Kuo, C.-H. (1999). The use of personal pronouns: Role relationships in scientific journal articles.
English for Specific Purposes, 18(2), 121-138.
Körner, A. M. (2008). Guide to publishing a scientific paper. New York, NY: Routledge.
(Original work published 2004)
Langacker, R. W. (2008). Cognitive grammar: A basic introduction. Oxford, UK: Oxford
University Press.
Lareo, I., & Reyes,, A. M. (2007). Scientific writing: Following Robert Boyle’s principles in
experimental essays- 1704 and 1998. Revista Alicantina de Estudios Ingleses, 20, 119137.
Laszlo, P. (2006). Communicating science: A practical guide. Berlin, DE: Springer.
Latour, B., & Woolgar, S. (1986). Laboratory life: The construction of scientific facts. Princeton,
NJ: Princeton University Press.
Leach, J. (2002). Rhetorical analysis. In M. W. Bauer & G. Gaskell (Eds.), Qualitative
researching with text, image and sound (pp. 207-226). London, UK: Sage.
Lemke, J. L. (2002). Ideology, intertextuality and the communication of science. In P. H. Fries,
M. Cummings, D. Lockwood, & W. Spuriel (Eds.), Relations and functions within and
around language (pp. 32-55). London, UK: Continuum.
Ling, L., & Evans, S. (n.d.). Structural patterns in empirical research articles: A crossdisciplinary study. English for Specific Purposes. doi:10.1016/j.esp.2011.10.002
Locke, D. (1992). Science as writing. New Haven, CT: Yale University Press.
Longino, H. E. (1990). Science as social knowledge: Values and objectivity in scientific inquiry.
Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press.
9
Martínez, I. A. (2005). Native and non-native writers’ use of first person pronouns in the
different sections of biology research articles in English. Journal of Second Language
Writing, 14, 174-190.
Martínez, L. A. (2003). Aspects of theme in the methods and discussion sections of biology
journal articles in English. Journal of English for Academic Purposes, 2, 103-123.
McCarthy, P. M., Renner, A. M., Duncan, M. G., Duran, N. D., Lightman, E. J., & McNamara,
D. S. (2008). Identifying topic sentencehood. Behavior Research Methods, 40(3), 647664.
Miin Hwa Lim, J. (2006). Methods sections of management research articles: A pedagogically
motivated qualitative study. English for Specific Purposes, 25, 282-309.
Millan, E. L. (2010). ‘Extending this claim, we propose ...’ The writer’s presence in research
articles from different disciplines. Iberica, (20), 35-56.
Molino, A. (2010). Personal and impersonal authorial references: A contrastive study of English
and Italian linguistics research articles. Journal of English for Academic Purposes, 9(2),
86-101.
Myers, G. (2003). Discourse studies of scientific popularization: Questioning the boundaries.
Discourse Studies, 5, 265-279. doi:10.1177/1461445603005002006
Osborne, J. (2001). Promoting argument in the science classroom: A rhetorical perspective.
Canadian Journal of Science, Mathematics and Technology Education, 1(3), 271-290.
Pare, A. (1993). Discourse regulations and the production of knowledge. In Writing in the
workplace: New research perspectives (pp. 111-123). Carbondale, IL: Southern Illinois
University Press.
Pennycook, A. (1994). The politics of pronouns. ELT Journal, 48(2), 173-178.
10
Popping, R. (2000). Computer-assisted text analysis. London, UK: Sage.
Riley, K. (1991). Passive voice and rhetorical role in scientific writing. Journal of Technical
Writing and Communication, 21(3), 239-257.
Rodman, L. (1981). The passive in technical and scientific writing. Journal of Advanced
Composition, ll(1-2), 165-172.
Rodman, L. (1994). The active voice in scientific articles: Frequency and discourse functions.
Journal of Technical Writing and Communication, 24, 309-331.
Rowley-Jolivet, E., & Carter-Thomas, S. (2005). Genre awareness and rhetorical appropriacy:
Manipulation of information structure by NS and NNS scientists in the international
conference setting. English for Specific Purposes, 24, 41-64.
Rundblad, G. (20008). We, ourselves and who else? Differences in use of passive voice and
metonymy for oneself versus other researchers in medical research articles. English Text
Construction, 1(1), 23-40. doi:10.1075/etc.1.104run
Russell, N. (2010). Communicating science: Professional, popular, literary. New York, NY:
Cambridge University Press.
Samson, C. (2004). Discourse patterns in spoken and written corpora (K. Aijmer & A.-B.
Stenström, Eds., pp. 199-216). Phildelphia, PA: John Benjamins.
Shehzad, W. (2007). Explicit author in scientific discourse: A corpus-based study of the author’s
voice. Malaysian Journal of ELT Research, 2, 56-73.
Statzner, B., & Resh, V. H. (2010). Negative changes in the scientific publication process in
ecology: Potential causes and consequences. Freshwater Biology, 55(12), 2639-2653.
Steiner, C. J. (1999). Getting personal: Individuality, innovation, and technical communication.
Journal of Technical Writing and Communication, 29(4), 383-400.
11
Swales, J. M. (1971). Impersonal scientific statements-the passive. In Writing scientific English:
A textbook of English as a foreign language for students of physical and engineering
sciences (pp. 37-53). Frome, UK: Butler & Tanner.
Swales, J. M. (1990). The Cambridge Applied Linguistics Series: Genre analysis: English in
academic and research settings. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press.
Taavitsainem, I. (2002). Historical discourse analysis: Scientific language and changing thoughtstyles. In International Conference on English Historical Linguistics (pp. 201-226).
Philadelphia, PA: John Benjamins.
Tarone, E., Dwyer, S., Gillette, S., & Icke, V. (1998). On the use of the passive and active voice
in astrophysics journal papers: With extensions to other languages and other fields.
English for Specific Purposes, 17(1), 113-132. doi:10.1016/s0889-4906(97)00032-x
Taş, E.E.I. (2010). “In this paper I will discuss…”: Current trends in academic writing. Procedia
- Social and Behavioral Sciences, 3(0), 121-126.
Thayer, A., Evans, M. B., McBride, A. A., & Spyridakis, J. H. (2010). I, pronoun: A study of
formality in online content. Journal of Technical Writing and Communication, 40(4),
447-458.
Thomas Reuters. (2011). 2010 journal citation reports science edition. New York, NY: Thomas
Reuters.
Valle, E. (1997). A scientific community and its texts: A historical study. In B.-L. Gunnarsson,
B. Norberg, & P. Linell (Eds.), The construction of professional discourse (pp. 76-98).
London, UK: Longman.
Vande Kopple, W. J. (1994). Some characteristics and functions of grammatical subjects in
scientific discourse. Written Communication, 11(1), 534-564.
12
Wales, K. (1996). Personal pronouns in present-day English. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge
University Press.
Whitburn, M. D. (1976). Personality in scientific and technical writing. Journal of Technical
Writing and Communication, 6(4), 299-306.
White, L. (2005). Writes of passage: Writing an empirical journal article. Journal of Marriage
and Family, 67(4), 791-798.
Whorf, B. L. (1969). Language, thought, and reality: Selected writings of Benjamin Lee Whorf
(J. B. Carroll, Ed.). Cambridge, MA: The M. I. T. Press. (Original work published 1956)
Williams, I. A. (2010). Cultural differences in academic discourse: Evidence from first-person
verb use in the methods sections of medical research articles. International Journal of
Corpus Linguistics, 15(2), 214-239.
Wu, J. (2011). Improving the writing of research papers: IMRAD and beyond [Editorial].
Landscape Ecology, 26(10), 1345-1349.
Yang, C. C., & Wang, A. F. L. (2003). Fractual summarization; Summarization based on fractal
theory. In SIGIR 2003; Proceedings of the Twenty-Sixth Annual International ACM
SIGIR Conference on Research and Development in Information Retrieval (pp. 391-392).
Toronto, CA.
Yore, L. D., Florence, M. K., Pearson, T. W., & Weaver, A. J. (2006). Written discourse in
scientific communities: A conversation with two scientists about their views of science,
use of language, role of writing in doing science, and compatibility between their
epidemic views and language. International Journal of Science Education, 28(2-3), 109141.
13
Yore, L. D., Hand, B. M., & Prain, V. (2002). Scientists as writers. Science Education, 86(5),
672-692.