Termout.org logo/LING


Update: February 24, 2023 The new version of Termout.org is now online, so this web site is now obsolete and will soon be dismantled.

Lista de candidatos sometidos a examen:
1) discourse (*)
(*) Términos presentes en el nuestro glosario de lingüística

1) Candidate: discourse


Is in goldstandard

1
paper corpusSignosTxtLongLines139 - : McDaniel, M. A., Blischak, D., & Einstein, G. O. (1995). Understanding the special mnemonic characteristics of fairy tales. En C. A. Weaver, III, S. Mannes, & C. R. Fletcher (Eds.), Discourse comprehension: Essays in honor of Walter Kintsch (pp . 157-176). Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum. [ [133]Links ]

2
paper corpusSignosTxtLongLines159 - : Ambiguity, abstraction, and polyphony in academic discourse: Interpretation of nominalizations

3
paper corpusSignosTxtLongLines171 - : "Following a suggestion by Harder (1996), we might think of linguistic structures (of whatever size) as instructions to modify the current discourse space in particular ways. Each instruction involves the focusing of attention within a viewing frame. A discourse comprises a succession of frames each representing the scene being "viewed" and acted on by the speaker and hearer at a given instant" (Langacker, 2001: 151 ).

4
paper corpusSignosTxtLongLines173 - : Specialized written discourse comprehension in technical-professional domains: ¿Learning from text ?

5
paper corpusSignosTxtLongLines173 - : ABSTRACT: In this article we approach the cognitive processing of specialized written discourse in three areas of technical-professional education: maritime, industrial, commerce . We search into the influence of some text variables in reading specialized comprehension by a group of 234 students attending last year of secondary professional high schools, in Valparaíso, Chile. More specifically, we explore some relationships between the process of discourse comprehension and a group of written texts with specialized contents, hierarchically organized according to specific text structures and to dimensions of communicative linguistic features co-occurring systematically in the texts, identified upon of what we called Dimension Informational Focus (Parodi 2005a). To accomplish this, we designed and administered six comprehension texts to the group of students previously mentioned. Results show that there is enough empirical evidence to claim that some linguistic structures that identify

6
paper corpusSignosTxtLongLines173 - : van Dijk, T. (1995). On macrostructures, mental models, and other inventions: A brief, personal history of the Kintsch-van Dijk theory. En C. Weaver, S. Mannes & C. Fletcher (Eds.), Discourse comprehension: Essays in honor of Walter Kintsch (pp . 383-407). Mahwah, NJ: Erlbaum. [ [117]Links ]

7
paper corpusSignosTxtLongLines180 - : Discourse and manipulation: Theoretical discussion and some applications

8
paper corpusSignosTxtLongLines182 - : “The aim of discourse studies is to provide an explanatory description of the intricate relation between forms of discourse element and their functions in communication” (2004: 2 ).

9
paper corpusSignosTxtLongLines183 - : Arús, J. (2004). Understanding 'how' we mean through discourse analysis: A contrastive example using Systemic-Functional Grammar . En M. Carretero, H. Herrera-Soler, G. Kristiansen & J. Lavid (Eds.), Estudios de lingüística aplicada a la comunicación (pp. 29-64). Madrid: Departamento de Filología Inglesa de la Universidad Complutense de Madrid. [ [71]Links ]

10
paper corpusSignosTxtLongLines186 - : In this paper we study grammatical features relevant in Spanish from a functional point of view, to the extent that they can be associated with semantic and pragmatic functions of discourse (Halliday, 1994; Biber, Conrad & Reppen, 1998). Specifically, we analyse the occurrence of grammatical features associated with two textual characteristics, subjectivity and argumentation, in three discourse genres: didactic genres (school book, professional school manual, etc .), popularized genres (popularized article, popularized book, review, etc.), and behaviour-regulating genres (contract, agreement, law, etc.). In this research we study texts included in the corpus of the Royal Academy of Spanish Language (RAE), available in Internet, in order to obtain and to quantify automatically the features observed. The results show differences in grammatical characteristics of each discourse genres, both from a quantitative perspective and a qualitative one, in other words, the grammatical units observed are

11
paper corpusSignosTxtLongLines206 - : Without any doubt, for a researcher in the area of discourse comprehension, it is essential to know the disciplines underlying a theoretical model under study, the cognitive approach to which it adheres, and, of course, the originality of its postulates . From this standpoint, in this article, we describe and critically analyze the work of Rolf Zwaan in the area of discourse comprehension, stating, in the first place, that research in the area of language processing is, primarily, interdisciplinary and cumulative. In this sense, we argue that a fundamental step in approaching any model of discourse comprehension or any research work in the area involves finding out the historical and scientific context in which it has emerged. It implies having an idea of the way in which research in the area of discourse comprehension and the cognitive sciences has developed. To carry out this study, we have selected two scientific proposals, considered representative of Rolf Zwaan’s last decade research

12
paper corpusSignosTxtLongLines209 - : Specialized written discourse at university and professional domains: Composition of a corpus

13
paper corpusSignosTxtLongLines209 - : “The first reason is that disciplinary discourse is considered to be a rich source of information about the social practices of academics […] The second reason given to academic writing is the fact that what academics principally do is write: they publish articles, books, reviews, conference papers and research notes ; they communicate with colleagues by e-mail, reprint requests, and referee evaluations; they communicate with students by handouts, study guides and textbooks; they contribute to electronic lists and to university reports; and they submit applications for grants and equipments” (Hyland, 2000: 2-3).

14
paper corpusSignosTxtLongLines227 - : communicative purpose according to the strategic functions of the ideological discourse: to legitimate a particular sector and illegitimate the other one .

15
paper corpusSignosTxtLongLines230 - : Discourse abilities in Spanish in pre-universitary context: A SFL approach

16
paper corpusSignosTxtLongLines250 - : Legal discourse across languages and cultures: Globalising trends and local identities

17
paper corpusSignosTxtLongLines250 - : El análisis presentado en este artículo se basa en los resultados de un proyecto de investigación denominado Generic integrity in legislative discourse in multilingual and multicultural contexts ([28]http://roweb .cityu.edu.hk/researchreport/2002-2003/project/9040474P.htm). En su marco, se ha indagado respecto de la integridad genérica del discurso legislativo, analizando las propiedades lingüísticas y discursivas de un corpus multilingüe de leyes de arbitraje internacional obtenido de varios países, culturas y trasfondos sociopolíticos, escritas en diferentes lenguas, usadas ahora dentro y entre una variedad de sistemas jurídicos^[29]2. Para ilustrar los diversos fenómenos, se sacarán ejemplos de la legislatura sobre el arbitraje internacional basados en la Ley Modélica sobre el Arbitraje Comercial Internacional (LM) y las Reglas de Arbitraje de la CLCINU (RA) elaborada por las Naciones Unidas y, posteriormente, integradas en las leyes de varios países con diversas condiciones

18
paper corpusSignosTxtLongLines252 - : "ESP... is a linguistic approach applying theories of functional grammar and discourse and concentrating on the lexical-grammatical and rhetorical realization of the communicative purposes embodied in a genre... with an additional interest in organizational patterns at the discourse level" (Johns, 2002: 91 ).

19
paper corpusSignosTxtLongLines265 - : Ideological solidarity in the historical discourse: Tension between monoglossic and heteroglossic orientations

20
paper corpusSignosTxtLongLines266 - : Santibáñez, C. (2007). Sayings in political discourse: Argumentative and rhetorical uses . En F. van Eemeren, A. Blair, Ch. Willard & B. Garssen (Eds.), Proceedings of the Sixth Conference of the International Society for the Study of Argumentation (pp. 1227-1232). Amsterdam: Sic Sat. [ [54]Links ]

21
paper corpusSignosTxtLongLines274 - : The aims of this article are a) to contribute to the comprehension of institutional religious discourse based on the analysis of the documents of the Argentinean Conference of Catholic Bishops (CEA); and b) to examine its discourse strategies during the process of transition towards democracy initiated in December, 1983. In order to do this, we look at the system of discourse genres by focusing on three of them that register a significant quantitative variation: the 'political letter' and the 'declaration', which were the most employed genres between 1965 and 1983, though both disappear in the period beginning in 1984 ; and the 'communiqué', which becomes the most employed genre in democracy. Our research question is, does this quantitative variation involve a qualitative change in the discursive strategies used by the Argentinean episcopate? To answer it, we compare the three genres in a synchronic and diachronic way, in both periods, adopting the perspective of German text linguistics. The

22
paper corpusSignosTxtLongLines277 - : Fawcett, R. (2007b). Modelling "selection" between referents in the English nominal group: An essay in scientific inquiry in linguistics. En C. Butler, R. Hidalgo Downing & J. Lavid (Eds.), Functional Perspectives on Grammar and Discourse: Papers In Honour of Angela Downing (pp . 165-204). Amsterdam: John Benjamins.

23
paper corpusSignosTxtLongLines282 - : [...] a comprehensive map of appraisal resources that we could deploy systematically in discourse analysis, both with a view to understanding the rhetorical effect of evaluative lexis as texts unfold, and to better understanding the interplay of interpersonal meaning and social relations in the model of language and the social we were developing, especially in the area of solidarity (Martin, 2000: 148 ).

24
paper corpusSignosTxtLongLines282 - : Figure 3. Heteglossia in discourse within the system of ENGAGEMENT (White, 2002: 10 ).

25
paper corpusSignosTxtLongLines282 - : Following is the analysis of each of the heteroglossic categories within the framework of Appraisal -Contract and Expand, corresponding to whether authors restrict or entertain external voices, respectively. In the texts analyzed, there is an apparent tendency to use Expand over Contract. Results show that authors make use of both types of Expand –entertain as well as attribute. These writers used expansive forms far more frequently than contractive forms (twenty-four instances for Expand versus fourteen for Contract). Within Expand, the most frequent type was entertain. It may be worth mentioning that the voices engaged through this subcategory were agentless or vaguely incorporated to the discourse, as may be seen in the following examples:

26
paper corpusSignosTxtLongLines282 - : Esta obra está dirigida tanto a especialistas en los estudios del discurso como a aquellos que se introducen en el análisis de las relaciones discursivas y que cuentan con conocimientos básicos sobre nociones como: cohesión, coherencia, texto y discurso. Asimismo, The texture of discourse no solo es un libro de consulta para investigadores sino un manual para docentes que se dedican a la enseñanza de los fenómenos discursivos relacionados con la conectividad . Esto lo refrenda la destacada trayectoria que Jan Renkema ha seguido en el campo de la investigación y su reconocida experiencia como docente y autor de diversas obras dedicadas al estudio del discurso: Discourse, of course: An overview of research in discourse studies (2009), Introduction to discourse studies (2004) y Discourse studies: An introductory textbook (1993) traducido al español como Introducción a los estudios sobre el discurso (1999).

27
paper corpusSignosTxtLongLines282 - : Ahora bien, cabe añadir que el Modelo de Conectividad desarrollado por Renkema es altamente complejo puesto que presenta diversos niveles de clasificación, cada uno de ellos apoyado en nociones teóricas precisas. Desde esta perspectiva, considero que la aplicabilidad de este modelo puede verse reducida en dos sentidos: por el conocimiento superficial de los niveles de análisis por parte del analista y por la numerosa cantidad de categorías que se deben tener en cuenta a la hora de llevar a cabo el estudio de las relaciones discursivas. En efecto, The texture of discourse implica una lectura profunda y detallada por parte del investigador y compromete a su autor, Jan Renkema, con la tarea de realizar más publicaciones en las que se evidencie el uso efectivo del Modelo de Conectividad . En definitiva, es en la práctica donde se valida la aplicabilidad y pertinencia de este modelo.

28
paper corpusSignosTxtLongLines283 - : [...] a comprehensive map of appraisal resources that we could deploy systematically in discourse analysis, both with a view to understanding the rhetorical effect of evaluative lexis as texts unfold, and to better understanding the interplay of interpersonal meaning and social relations in the model of language and the social we were developing, especially in the area of solidarity (Martin, 2000: 148 ).

29
paper corpusSignosTxtLongLines283 - : Figure 3. Heteglossia in discourse within the system of ENGAGEMENT (White, 2002: 10 ).

30
paper corpusSignosTxtLongLines283 - : Following is the analysis of each of the heteroglossic categories within the framework of Appraisal -Contract and Expand, corresponding to whether authors restrict or entertain external voices, respectively. In the texts analyzed, there is an apparent tendency to use Expand over Contract. Results show that authors make use of both types of Expand –entertain as well as attribute. These writers used expansive forms far more frequently than contractive forms (twenty-four instances for Expand versus fourteen for Contract). Within Expand, the most frequent type was entertain. It may be worth mentioning that the voices engaged through this subcategory were agentless or vaguely incorporated to the discourse, as may be seen in the following examples:

31
paper corpusSignosTxtLongLines286 - : [2]vol.43 número73 [3]El papel de la reformulación en los intercambios adulto-niño: Un estudio de caso [4]Renkema, J. (2009). The texture of discourse: Towards an outline of Connectivity Theory [5] índice de autores [6]índice de materia [7]búsqueda de artículos [8]Home Page [9]lista alfabética de revistas

32
paper corpusSignosTxtLongLines287 - : Esta obra está dirigida tanto a especialistas en los estudios del discurso como a aquellos que se introducen en el análisis de las relaciones discursivas y que cuentan con conocimientos básicos sobre nociones como: cohesión, coherencia, texto y discurso. Asimismo, The texture of discourse no solo es un libro de consulta para investigadores sino un manual para docentes que se dedican a la enseñanza de los fenómenos discursivos relacionados con la conectividad . Esto lo refrenda la destacada trayectoria que Jan Renkema ha seguido en el campo de la investigación y su reconocida experiencia como docente y autor de diversas obras dedicadas al estudio del discurso: Discourse, of course: An overview of research in discourse studies (2009), Introduction to discourse studies (2004) y Discourse studies: An introductory textbook (1993) traducido al español como Introducción a los estudios sobre el discurso (1999).

33
paper corpusSignosTxtLongLines287 - : Ahora bien, cabe añadir que el Modelo de Conectividad desarrollado por Renkema es altamente complejo puesto que presenta diversos niveles de clasificación, cada uno de ellos apoyado en nociones teóricas precisas. Desde esta perspectiva, considero que la aplicabilidad de este modelo puede verse reducida en dos sentidos: por el conocimiento superficial de los niveles de análisis por parte del analista y por la numerosa cantidad de categorías que se deben tener en cuenta a la hora de llevar a cabo el estudio de las relaciones discursivas. En efecto, The texture of discourse implica una lectura profunda y detallada por parte del investigador y compromete a su autor, Jan Renkema, con la tarea de realizar más publicaciones en las que se evidencie el uso efectivo del Modelo de Conectividad . En definitiva, es en la práctica donde se valida la aplicabilidad y pertinencia de este modelo.

34
paper corpusSignosTxtLongLines295 - : Applying the functional notion of cultural context to genre theories, we could say that Halliday's (1978) concept of context of culture is similar to Swales (1990) concept of 'discourse community', according to which discourse operates within conventions defined by communities, be they academic disciplines or social groups. To operate as orderly sites of linguistic and social interaction, discourse communities are characterized by certain traits that also apertain to what Halliday calls different 'social cultures':

35
paper corpusSignosTxtLongLines295 - : To sum up, language plays a three-fold role in language education: in linguistic terms, it is the 'substance' of what is being learned, it is what we have to master in order to perform; in extralinguistic terms, it is the 'instrument' through which we learn, and in that sense it constitutes a resource for learning; and in 'metalinguistic' terms it is the object of learning, the content we have to learn about. According to Halliday (1978), what unites these aspects of language education is that learners are expected, through a contact with language as substance, instrument and object, to create a system, a meaning potential, from the instantiations of language (texts) they are exposed to. And the key to this transformation is the context of situation, that is, "the coherent pattern of activities from which the discourse gains its relevance" (Halliday, 1978: 22 ). And it is also from the context of situation that the language learner will be able to construe a higher level system −the context

36
paper corpusSignosTxtLongLines309 - : "We need to reanalyze virtually all of English grammar at the discourse level in order to be able to teach our students rules of grammar that will serve them when they read and write English for academic purposes" (Celce-Murcia, 2002: 156 ).

37
paper corpusSignosTxtLongLines311 - : In his later work Bernstein (1996, 2000) further developed his concern with common and uncommon sense, distinguishing between horizontal and vertical discourse, and within vertical discourse between hierarchical and horizontal knowledge structures (outlined in [27]Figure 1). His characterisations of these discourses are as follows:

38
paper corpusSignosTxtLongLines311 - : 2. History discourse: An SFL perspective

39
paper corpusSignosTxtLongLines313 - : Romanian workplace communication has changed significantly in the past two decades. Multinational companies have implemented Western European and American communicative practices and pattern. Thus, new communicative patterns have emerged in professional Romanian. In this paper we present part of the results of a larger on-going research project, 'Professional Language in Present-day Romanian. Linguistic Patterns and Discursive Structures', which is supported by a governmental, grant (CNCSIS, ID 142). Within the frameworks of sociolinguistics and discourse analysis, we will focus on three aspects that cover various linguistic compartments: new textual patterns, lexico-semantic innovations, and salutation formulas . The data for this paper have been selected from the corpus 'Workplace communication. Tentative typology of Romanian professional written texts'. The corpus contains 126 texts, which were written in various fields of activity (commercial, production, administrative, educational,

40
paper corpusSignosTxtLongLines313 - : Business e-mails were approached in an earlier study (Mada, 2004) from various perspectives: the oral-literate continuum and the reduced cue context that is specific to e-mails, the "framing devices" (Herring, 1996: 84) which assist the reader in understanding e‑mail messages, and the role of the "participation framework" (Schiffrin, 1987: 27) in dividing e-mail messages into 'public', 'private' and 'overhearing'. In the present study, we have emphasised the new discourse patterns which have emerged in Romanian business communication via electronic mail: jokes, announcements, invitations, and programmes .

41
paper corpusSignosTxtLongLines318 - : Abstract: This study presents gender differences in the evaluative component (Labov & Waletzky, 1967; Labov, 1972) in a specific sub-type of narrative discourse in young people from Santiago, Chile: personal narratives . These differences were collected from a sample of 64 (32 female; 32 males) culturally stratified sociolinguistic interviews. Thus, a representative sample of recorded natural discourse was comprised, what Labov (1972) calls vernacular. The hypothesis is the existence of gender differences in the narrative discourse of young speakers, especially in relation to the evaluative component; therefore, the main objective of this investigation consisted in establishing the occurrence of these differences, if any, in the development of the narrations. After analyzing all 64 accounts, the existence of gender differences in the evaluative constituent of narrations was detected in 61 of them. Following Jiménez (2006), this study also includes an analysis of seven evaluative categories

42
paper corpusSignosTxtLongLines329 - : Tanenhaus, M., Spyvey-Knowlton, M. & Hanna, J. (2000). Modeling thematic and discourse context effects on syntactic ambiguity resolution within a multiple constraints framework: Implications for the architecture of the language processing system . En M. Pickering, C. Clifton & M. Crocker (Eds.), Architecture and mechanism of the language processing system (pp. 90-118). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. [ [67]Links ]

43
paper corpusSignosTxtLongLines335 - : Written Discourse Comprehension: A theoretical and methodological framework for its assessment

44
paper corpusSignosTxtLongLines349 - : "Mental spaces are small conceptual packets constructed as we think and talk, for purposes of local understanding and action. Mental spaces are very partial assemblies containing elements, and structured by frames and cognitive models. They are interconnected, and can be modified as thought and discourse unfold" (Fauconnier & Turner, 1998: 139 ).

45
paper corpusSignosTxtLongLines353 - : Arús, J. (2004b). Understanding ‘how’ we mean through discourse analysis: A contrastive example using Systemic Functional Grammar . In M. Carretero, H. Herrera-Soler, G. Kristiansen & J. Lavid (Eds.), Estudios de lingüística aplicada a la comunicación (pp. 29-64). Madrid: Departamento de Filología Inglesa de la Universidad Complutense de Madrid.

46
paper corpusSignosTxtLongLines364 - : Close analysis of CSR reports from PetroChina reveals a not entirely unexpected mixing of promotional elements in the reporting discourse, which seems to flout the basic principles laid out in GCRIAR: ‘understandability’, ‘reliability’ and ‘variability’ . A number of recent studies in critical discourse analysis (Fairclough, 1993) and genre analysis (Bhatia, 2005) indicate that promotional discourse has become an incredibly versatile genre, gradually influencing/invading other genres, both academic as well as professional. Promotional discourse has thus become ‘a subtle art form rather than traditional hard selling’ (Bhatia, 2005). Frankental (2001: 20) similarly mentions,

47
paper corpusSignosTxtLongLines364 - : The reporting template laid down by the UN and by ISO 26000 aims to help companies standardize reports, and convey information in the most comprehensible and objective manner. However, the invasion of promotional discourse in the reporting genre results in material, which is not entirely "free from material error and bias" (GCRIAR, 2008: 13 ) or necessarily "conveyed in a manner understandable to the reader".

48
paper corpusSignosTxtLongLines364 - : The extracts below illustrate how PetroChina justifies the nature of its industry through its promotional discourse:

49
paper corpusSignosTxtLongLines377 - : Multisemiotic artifacts and academic discourse of Economics: Knowledge construction in the Textbook genre

50
paper corpusSignosTxtLongLines377 - : Ahora bien, pasados trece años de la publicación de Hyon (1996), Swales (2009) compara cuatro libros relativos a los géneros discursivos pertenecientes a las mismas tradiciones, pero con el desarrollo teórico que implica aproximadamente una década de investigaciones. De la tradición del ESP, los libros son Worlds of Written Discourse: A Genre-Based View (Bathia, 2004) y Research Genres: Exploration and Applications (Swales, 2004 ); de la Nueva Retórica, el ejemplar es Writting Genres (Devitt, 2004); mientras que de la tradición sistémico funcional, el texto es Genre (Frow, 2006). El análisis comparativo de estos textos, en opinión de Swales (2009), reveló que estas corrientes superaron ciertas diferencias, alineándose de alguna forma, de modo que es posible percibir que las fronteras que dividían las tres tradiciones en el pasado se volvieron difusas, si es que no desaparecieron por completo (Swales, 2009).

51
paper corpusSignosTxtLongLines382 - : Starting from Goffman’s (1972, 1981) distinction between ‘direct participants’, ‘side participants’ and ‘overhearers’ further development of dialogue roles, i.e. participants vs. non- participants, Ilie (2010a) develops a corresponding taxonomy of parliamentary participant roles and institutional identities. Parliamentary discourse may be analysed following Ilie’s (2010a) proposal of discourse frames: spatial-temporal, participant and interaction . When it comes to the participant frames, it is worth mentioning that, apart from deputies and senators, other overhearers may attend the sessions: representatives of the Government, representatives of the mass-media or ordinary citizens. The most important person during the session is the President of the Chamber of Deputies as he/she presents the agenda, establishes the order for voting, chairs the proceedings, gives the floor to speakers, moderates the debate, makes sure that the debates are orderly organized.

52
paper corpusSignosTxtLongLines382 - : A ‘discourse’ is a way of representing some part or aspect of the world, characterised by specific vocabulary and grammatical features, e.g. "the neo-liberal economic" discourse (Fairclough, 2006: 3 ), political discourse, parliamentary discourse.

53
paper corpusSignosTxtLongLines382 - : Drawing on these distinctions, we can say that political discourse is enacted, among other discourses, by parliamentary discourse, that "displays particular institutionalised discursive features and ritualised interaction strategies" (Ilie, 2010c: 62 ). Parliamentary discourse is therefore a particular genre of political discourse, which in its turn displays several subgenres (Ilie, 2010a: 8-9), the debate being one of them. A debate is "a formal discussion on a particular topic and which is strictly controlled by an institutional set of rules and a moderator, who in Parliament is the Speaker or the President" (Ilie, 2010a: 10), therefore a mediated discourse, whose major strength is "the necessity of confrontation" and "the existence of opposite sides" (Ilie, 2010a: 10).

54
paper corpusSignosTxtLongLines382 - : Politicians introduce conversational resources and themes from everyday interaction in their discourse, with the purpose of creating:

55
paper corpusSignosTxtLongLines382 - : Politicians cross the boundaries of their official role and social status, getting engaged in the so-called ‘political cross-discourse’ (Álvarez-Cáccamo & Prego-Vázquez, 2003). In this particular type of institutional discourse, humour is an instance of crossing the border: humour is ‘informal talk in formal settings’ (Archakis & Tsakona, 2011 ).

56
paper corpusSignosTxtLongLines382 - : Ornatowski, C. (2010). Parliamentary discourse and political transition: Polish parliament after 1989 . In C. Ilie (Ed.), European Parliaments under Scrutiny (pp. 223-265). Amsterdam/Philadelphia: John Benjamins. [ [57]Links ]

57
paper corpusSignosTxtLongLines391 - : Discourse markers as a distinctive feature of Basque legal texts: A statistical approach applicable to legal language studies

58
paper corpusSignosTxtLongLines396 - : A case study of building and animal metaphors in specialized discourse: Are scholars’ metaphorical conceptualizations represented in discourse ?

59
paper corpusSignosTxtLongLines396 - : A diachronic study of the use of building and animal metaphors could also reveal the evolution of the preferences for one metaphor over the other in a given period of time, while possibly providing insight into the changes in discourse practices under the impact of scholarly publications . A study of Bredillet’s (2008) metaphors over time would be suitable for further research in this line.

60
paper corpusSignosTxtLongLines404 - : “The function of topic framing is to shift the scene by setting a new domain for the following text. A sequential technique of topic introducion then follows, by which the discussion of this new domain is initiated […].Topic framing was found to be indicated by a wide range of topic signals in expository texts. These include paragraph breaks, metadiscursive ítems, discourse markers, initial adjuncts, encapsulation and predictive items” (Goutsos, 1997: 46-48 ).

61
paper corpusSignosTxtLongLines406 - : In English, evaluative language plays a critical role in the textualization of authors’ positions vis-à-vis disciplinary issues and other authors in a field (Hyland, 2005; Hood, 2006). For that reason, we chose to use discourse organizer inspired in Appraisal Theory (Martin & White, 2005) and developed by Wallace (2003) and Perales Escudero (2011). For each evaluative segment, this discourse organizer prompts students to identify the source of the evaluation, or Appraiser, and the focus of the evaluation, or Appraised. We didn’t use the SFL metalinguistic terms because a previous study (Perales Escudero, 2011) has shown that ‘evaluation’ is much more readily grasped by the target kind of learners than ‘Appraisal’ or ‘Attitude’ are. Table 3 shows an example of this discourse organizer filled for the following paragraph in Bardovi-Harlig (1999: 472 ).

62
paper corpusSignosTxtLongLines41 - : ^1 Según P. de Man, todo texto se construye a partir de una secuencia de tropos, que confieren al lenguaje un sentido diferente del "literal". De ahí que toda lectura se constituya en un proceso alegórico. Hamacher ([86]1989:182) acota: "The literary texts devoted to this tension are not exhausted in figurative -and in the last analysis, this means metaphorical- discourse and its destruction, but rather, by reiterating its aporia, at the same time they expose another way of reading them: they are allegories ."

63
paper corpusSignosTxtLongLines412 - : Strategic functions of metaphor networks on political discourse: An Hugo Chavez interactional discourse analysis

64
paper corpusSignosTxtLongLines418 - : Scott, C. (2010). Assessing expository texts produced by school age children and adolescents. En M. Nippold & C. Scott (Eds.), Expository discourse in children, adolescents, and adults: Development and disorders (pp . 191-214). Nueva York: Taylor & Francis Group, Psychology Press. [ [77]Links ]

65
paper corpusSignosTxtLongLines421 - : The written language of the posters analysed shows the characteristics of political discourse, whose main purpose is to persuade the audience to vote for Fianna Fáil: use of ellipsis, positive language, repetitions, and short phrases are the main features of the slogans found in the posters . In this sense, the different slogans and the visual representation of Bertie Ahern and Micheál Martin as secure political leaders suggest the idea of Ireland as a European country that was in a process of socio-economic development in Europe and whose expansion was progressively growing.

66
paper corpusSignosTxtLongLines426 - : In this respect, in spite of their distinct names in different disciplines, and considering the further definitions by Werth and Zarefsky, one can draw a parallel line between rhetorical space in Rhetorical Studies and discourse in Linguistics, the latter one defined as “a combination of text and its relevant context” (Werth, 1999: 47), where the context refers to “the situational context surrounding the speech event itself” (Werth, 1999: 83 ), and the text to both oral and written discourse. In the first case, it takes the form of transcription of speeches, which are normally used for this type of studies.

67
paper corpusSignosTxtLongLines426 - : Deixis plays an important role in political discourse, where it has been studied “ranging from personal to political, from persuasive to manipulative”, taking into account “both the context of production and the speaker’s intentions” (Adetunji, 2006: 181 ). Interestingly, the major number of these studies is devoted to the use of person deixis by politicians, as “the ambiguous use of pronominal deixis is especially relevant in political language” (Arroyo, 2000: 4). Mainly, their focus is on the role of first-person plural deictic pronouns (Petersoo, 2007). It has been argued that they may play a powerful persuasive role “since they have the potential to encode group memberships and identifications” (Zupnik, 1994: 340) by indexing different groups as included or excluded in the pronoun we (Mulderrig, 2012). As a result, Zupnik (1994) points out the crucial role in the analysis of vague deixis using the example of one interlocutor’s responses in a televised political speech event. She argues

68
paper corpusSignosTxtLongLines426 - : that “based on the cohesive ties among the various utterances of the discourse, there are several potential referents of the indexicals” and “hearers may choose to include themselves as members of the class of referents” (Zupnik, 1994: 340 ). Thus, it may facilitate the achievement “of the main goal of political speech: to persuade listeners of the speaker’s viewpoint” (Zupnik, 1994: 340).

69
paper corpusSignosTxtLongLines427 - : Otro tipo de relaciones genéricas son las existentes entre géneros de similares propósitos comunicativos, conformando lo que Bhatia (2002) denomina “colonias de géneros” y que entiende como: “a constellation of closely related and overlapping genre, sometimes within often across discourse communities” (Bathia, 2002: 10 ). En otras palabras, los miembros de una colonia, además de los propósitos comunicativos, comparten ciertas convenciones retóricas y contextos y presentan características léxico-gramaticales parecidas. Sin embargo, pueden presentar diferencias en cuanto a la afiliación profesional, los contextos de uso o bien las relaciones entre los participantes. Esto implica que existan géneros que pertenecen a más de una colonia, como por ejemplo, algunos géneros académicos (informe psicológico) se cruzan con géneros profesionales (Parodi, 2008).

70
paper corpusSignosTxtLongLines434 - : Procedural meaning and Spanish discourse particles: An experimental approach

71
paper corpusSignosTxtLongLines434 - : This work aims at showing that, due to their mainly procedural meaning, discourse particles are linguistic devices used as instructions to ostensively guide a hearer during information processing. By means of a set of eye-tracking reading experiments, we have analyzed how counter-argumentative connectives and focus operators contribute to constraining inferential computations during reading comprehension. Results, based on these experiments, provide empirical evidence that allows supporting three theoretical arguments concerning discourse particles: a ) discourse particles are not irrelevant devices in communication (cfr. § 2.1); b) discourse particles have a mainly procedural meaning (cfr. § 2.2); and c) the processing patterns to which discourse particles give rise in utterances depend on the interaction of two factors: the properties of discourse particles themselves and the properties of the utterances in which they occur (cfr. § 2.3).

72
paper corpusSignosTxtLongLines440 - : Mental representations in discourse comprehension: From lineal signifier to situation model

73
paper corpusSignosTxtLongLines454 - : Herring, S. C. (2004). Computer-mediated discourse analysis: an approach to researching online communities . In S. A. Barab, R. Kling & J. H. Gray (Eds.), Designing for Virtual Communities in the Service of Learning (pp. 338-376). Cambridge and New York: Cambridge University Press. [ [142]Links ]

74
paper corpusSignosTxtLongLines463 - : This paper is part of a comprehensive study on the psycholinguistic processing of causality and counter-causality in discourse. The particular aim is to analyze the articulation between the semantic and syntactic information during this process. That is, how the syntactic complexity is related to the processing complexity when readers have to understand pieces of discourse that express particular semantic relationships: causal and counter-causal . One of the main objectives will be to study how the performance pattern changes when the possibility / impossibility to involve world knowledge conditions the process. We present a psycholinguistic experiment, which aims at analyzing the comprehension of causal and counter-causal relations, expressed by sentences with different syntactic structure -coordinates and subordinates- and in two conditions regarding the type of information: every-day items -the speaker may involve their world knowledge- and technical items -this intervention of previous

75
paper corpusSignosTxtLongLines474 - : 1.2. Email as discourse genre: A new genre with specific features

76
paper corpusSignosTxtLongLines493 - : En “The development of narrative discourse in french by 5 to 10 years old children: some insights from a Conversational Interaction Method”, Edy Veneziano estudia si niños pequeños pueden producir textos narrativos más complejos y orientados a aspectos mentales, tras participar en una conversación en torno a las causas de los eventos de la historia . Los resultados muestran que, tras tomar parte en este método, los niños produjeron textos más coherentes y orientados a la mente, mejora que no se encontró en el grupo control. En la misma línea, “The Relationships Between Oral and Written Sentence Generation in English Speaking Children: The Role of Language and Literacy Skills”, por Julie E. Dockrell y Vincent Connelly, aborda la interacción entre oraciones escritas y orales producidas por niños en dos sesiones diferentes. Si bien el desempeño en ambas modalidades mejoró, el progreso en la prueba oral fue considerablemente mayor y se determinó que el desempeño en la oralidad

77
paper corpusSignosTxtLongLines523 - : “Specific purposes teaching refers to a distinctive approach to language education based on identification of the specific language features, discourse practices, and communicative skills of target groups, and on teaching practices that recognize the particular subject matter needs and expertise of learners” (^[41]Hyland, 2009: 201 ).

78
paper corpusSignosTxtLongLines543 - : ^1“Any text in spoken English is organized into what may be called “information unit” The distribution of the discourse into information units is obligatory in the sense that the text must consist of a sequence of such units […] the speaker is free to decide where each information unit begins and ends and how it is organized internally […] is realized phonologically by “tonality” the distribution of the text into tone groups: one information unit is realized as one tone group” (Halliday, 1967: 199-200 ).

79
paper corpusSignosTxtLongLines544 - : Causino Lamar, M. A., Obler, L. K., Knoefel, J. E. & Albert, M. L. (1994). Communication patterns in end-stage Alzheimer’s disease: Pragmatic analysis. En R. L. Bloom, L. K. Obler, S. DeSanti & J. S. Ehrlich (Eds.) Discourse analysis and applications: Studies in adult clinical populations (pp . 127-235). Hillsdale: Lawrence Erlbaum. [ [96]Links ]

80
paper corpusSignosTxtLongLines551 - : The aim of this article is to account for the analysis of the reality represented in the construction of discourse, from a case of a qualitative etnographic study which blends into a double aspect: the disappearance of a minor which ended in tragedy and the supposed guilt of an immigrant belonging to the black race in a murder which had a wide spread media impact . Thus, in this discourse analysis and categorization analysis of the actants, we will try to clarify the different features, components and treatment in the official sites of Twitter and Facebook of four Spanish mass media: @telecincoes, @laSextaNoticias, @NoticiasCuatro and @A3Noticias. The results bring to light how discourse in social networks has a much wider projection if it is based on aporophobia, revealing itself as a ‘parallel trial’ normalized before certain social events, approach which is boosted by mass media itself.

81
paper corpusSignosTxtLongLines562 - : The discourse origins of the proceduralized mitigators tipo, onda, corte and rollo: A micro-diachronic exploration

82
paper corpusSignosTxtLongLines574 - : Recio, I., Nadal, L. & Loureda, Ó. (2018). On argumentative relations in Spanish: Experimental evidence on the grammaticalization of cause-consequence discourse markers. Discourse Markers in Grammaticalization and Constructionalization: New Issues in the Study of Language Change . Brill, Leiden. [ [158]Links ]

83
paper corpusSignosTxtLongLines577 - : Grammar features and discourse style in digital genres: The case of science-focused crowdfunding projects

84
paper corpusSignosTxtLongLines577 - : Regarding RQ2: ‘What is the discourse style of crowdfunding projects in terms of grammatical complexity, elaboration and degree of explicitness of meanings?’, this exploratory study strongly suggests that grammar is a key language variable that shapes the discourse style of this genre and, above all, that language forms “functionally match the requirements” of a particular situation (^[131]Biber & Conrad, 2019). Supporting the claim that emerging genres in the Internet draw on features of existing genres (^[132]Herring, 2013; ^[133]Giltrow, 2017), the discourse style of the proposals proved to be to some extent similar to that of an already existing genre, the research project proposal: a style characterised by structurally complex grammar patterns that convey information very explicitly and, therefore, a style strongly associated with densification and economy . This is precisely the style of informational registers in English and Spanish (^[134]Biber et al., 1999; ^[135]Parodi, 2010,

85
paper corpusSignosTxtLongLines577 - : characteristic of formal academic prose. They need to ‘tell’ as well as to ‘sell’ scientific research. In incorporating features of both scientific discourse, didactic discourse and persuasive discourse, the present analysis supports the view that “the media context is constituted as a space between the primary ‘context of production’ of scientific research and ‘non-specialist contexts’ of wider society” (^[182]Motta Roth & Scotti Scherer, 2016: 174 ).

86
paper corpusSignosTxtLongLines577 - : Engberg, J. & Maier, C. D. (2015). Exploring the hypermodal communication of academic knowledge beyond generic structures. In M. Bondi, S. Cacchiani & D. Mazzi (Eds.), Discourse in and through the media: Recontextualizing and reconceptualizing expert discourse (pp . 46-65). Newcastle upon Tyne: Cambridge Scholars. [ [204]Links ]

87
paper corpusSignosTxtLongLines579 - : Genre analysis deals with the question of how language is used in institutional and professional settings. The followers of this approach are interested in both functional and linguistic descriptions of different genres. A genre is defined as “a distinctive category of discourse of any type, spoken or written” (^[33]Swales, 1990: 33 ), having its communicative purpose understood by the members of the genre community (^[34]Bhatia, 1993). There are three main theoretical trends and schools of genre studies: the Swalesean approach (^[35]1981, ^[36]1990), the New Rhetoric studies (^[37]Hyon, 1996) and the systemic-functional approach (^[38]Halliday, 1978; ^[39]Halliday & Hasan, 1989). We will focus on the Swalesean genre analysis, as this research article draws on it.

88
paper corpusSignosTxtLongLines581 - : This paper examines a type of discourse that is becoming increasingly meaningful in our culture: the automated email, text and phone messages . It is part of an ongoing research project regarding the grammatical and discursive constraints of the phenomenon of agentivity. We specifically analyze the effects of agentivity related to negotiation of responsibility in automatically generated messages. We use the Systemic Functional Grammar (Halliday, 1994, 2008; Halliday & Matthiessen, 2004), supplemented by a discursive strategic approach (Menéndez, 2000, 2005), to analyze how agency is structured and distributed among participants: the institutional sender and the noninstitutional addressee. The results confirm our hypothesis: the strategy is oriented to personalize the Addresse, to whom the responsibility over the predicated actions is pointed. The participant ‘sender’, on the other hand, is constructed by a discourse strategy oriented to impersonalization.

89
paper corpusSignosTxtLongLines583 - : Flores-Ferrán, N. (2012). Pragmatic variation in therapeutic discourse: An examination of mitigating devices employed by Dominican female clients and a Cuban American therapist . En J. C. Félix Brasdefer & D. A. Koike (Eds.), Pragmatic variation in first and second language contexts: Methodological issues; Impact: studies in language and society (pp. 81-112). Filadelfia: John Benjamins. [ [147]Links ]

90
paper corpusSignosTxtLongLines591 - : García Negroni, M. M. & Libenson, M. (2019). A propósito de las causas dialógicas de la enunciación. El caso de las enunciaciones mirativas con el marcador Mir. Ponencia presentada en el 6th International Conference Discourse Markers in Romance Languages: Crosslinguistic approaches in Romance and beyond . Universidad de Bérgamo, Bérgamo, Italia. [ [136]Links ]

91
paper corpusSignosTxtLongLines591 - : Gennari, S. (2002). Spanish past and future tenses: Less (semantics) is more. En J. Gutiérrez-Rexach (Ed.), From words to discourse: Trends in Spanish semantics and pragmatics (pp . 21-36). Ámsterdam: Elsevier [en línea]. Disponible en: [140]http://eventcognition.org/silvia_gennari/resources/Spanish_tenses.pdf) [ [141]Links ]

92
paper corpusSignosTxtLongLines594 - : Indeed, while SFL emphasizes structural accuracy (similar to traditional grammar), it demonstrates how language is used contextually in response to the field (i.e., what the writing is about), tenor (i.e., who is involved in the writing, including its writer and audience), and mode (i.e., the way of presenting the writing) (^[41]Rose & Martin, 2012). The three contextual variables (i.e., field, tenor, and mode) respectively relate to three meanings constituting discourse content: ideational meaning (i .e., the meaning of the core discourse content as well as the logical relationships between the discourse contents), interpersonal meaning (i.e., the meaning about engaging with the audience or showing evaluative stances), and textual meaning (i.e., the fluency of sentences) (^[42]Martin & White, 2003).

93
paper corpusSignosTxtLongLines595 - : Martin, J. R. (1996). Types of structure: Deconstructing notions of constituency in clause and text. En E. H. Hovy & D. R. Scott (Eds.), Computational and Conversational Discourse: Burning Issues - an Interdisciplinary Account (pp . 39-66). Heidelberg: Springer, NATO Advanced Science Institute Series F - Computer and Systems Sciences. [ [230]Links ]

94
paper corpusSignosTxtLongLines596 - : The integrative approach to metadiscourse proposed by ^[63]Hyland (2005) includes two dimensions: the interactive and the interactional . The former includes code glosses, endophoric markers, evidentials, frame markers and transition markers. The latter involves attitude markers, boosters, engagement markers, hedges and self-mention. Readers are an integral part of specialised discourse, and authors seek to promote and guide effective interaction with their readers. The use of metadiscourse devices is, therefore, essential in this regard. In addition, these mechanisms enable to highlight the authors’ epistemological positioning and preferences while they also organise and develop information in a logical way. ^[64]Mur-Dueñas (2011) explains the relation between the interactive and the interactional dimensions of metadiscourse in the following terms:

95
paper corpusSignosTxtLongLines599 - : “Metadiscourse is the commentary on a text made by its producer in the course of speaking or writing and it is a widely used term in current discourse analysis and language teaching” (^[44]Hyland, 2017:16 ).

96
paper corpusSignosTxtLongLines599 - : He explores the strengths and shortcomings of metadiscourse, offering a general overview of the concept and pointing out that it is a powerful analytical tool; specifically, he states that “[…] metadiscourse has inspired a considerable amount of scholarship and continues to contribute enormously” (^[45]Hyland, 2017: 27 ). Metadiscourse is generally divided into two categories, i.e. textual (the devices that provide cohesion and coherence to a text and guide readers and listeners along the discourse) and interactional (the devices used to interact with listeners and readers, engaging them and showing readers the importance of the message). In this paper, we focus on one sub-category of the interactional metadiscourse devices, i.e. boosters, with the aim of studying the variation that can be caused by the nature of the specific field of knowledge. Our analysis is based on a quantitative analysis of academic corpora from three specific fields of knowledge, i.e. Engineering, Medicine and

97
paper corpusSignosTxtLongLines600 - : [2]vol.54 número106 [3]A cross-disciplinary study of verb boosters in research articles from Engineering, Medicine and Linguistics: Frequency and co-text variations [4]English L2 connectives in academic bilingual discourse: A longitudinal computerised analysis of a learner corpus [5] índice de autores [6]índice de materia [7]búsqueda de artículos [8]Home Page [9]lista alfabética de revistas

98
paper corpusSignosTxtLongLines600 - : [157]Table 5 below indicates that only functions 1 (state goals) and 8 (organise discourse) are used in a fairly similar way in all the three disciplines under analysis across both the sections under analysis ; that is, researchers in these fields state goals and organise discourse both in the introduction and post-method sections with varying degrees of frequency, but with no significant difference from a statistical point of view.

99
paper corpusSignosTxtLongLines601 - : English L2 connectives in academic bilingual discourse: A longitudinal computerised analysis of a learner corpus

100
paper corpusSignosTxtLongLines601 - : The texts produced by the students were tagged by test and student and introduced in Coh-Metrix (version 3.0). Coh-Metrix is an automated web tool that generates indices of the discourse and linguistic representations of texts within five major dimensions: “narrativity, syntactic simplicity, word concreteness, referential cohesion, and deep (causal ) cohesion” (^[91]McNamara et al., 2014). For the authors, computerisation therefore replaces other methods used in the past to measure L1/L2 language development, like linguistic analysis provided by hand and other traditional classifications (e.g. Hunt analysis). Other automated tools like Synlex, which has been previously used for the cross-sectional description of bilingual discourse (^[92]Lorenzo, 2017; ^[93]Lu, 2010, for further information on this tool) and other types of software like Trijamod, Childes and Freeling were considered, but they were found less appropriate to the ends of this study.

101
paper corpusSignosTxtLongLines602 - : [2]vol.54 número106 [3]English L2 connectives in academic bilingual discourse: A longitudinal computerised analysis of a learner corpus [next0 .gif] [4] índice de autores [5]índice de materia [6]búsqueda de artículos [7]Home Page [8]lista alfabética de revistas

102
paper corpusSignosTxtLongLines75 - : Teaching argumentation to high school students raises the problem of defining the theoretical fundamentals that support it. This study presents a dual purpose analysis of the discourse of the pedagogical formulation of the Chilean educational reform: first, to confirm the hypothesis about which theory of argumentation underlies the discourse and, second, to justify the inclusion of a pragmadialectic perspective in a pedagogical proposal . The work examines the draft "Spanish Language and Communication" program for third year secondary school students, and the corresponding Student´s Handbook, published by the Chilean Ministry of Education. The analysis followed guidelines to quantify the presence of three theoretical positions logic, new rhetoric and pragmadialectics in the selected texts, according to five categories or dimensions for analysis. The results confirmed that new rhetoric is the prevailing theory, with one very limited instance of pragmadialectics in one of the documents, and

Evaluando al candidato discourse:


3) genre: 17 (*)
4) texts: 17 (*)
6) comprehension: 14 (*)
9) genres: 14 (*)
10) context: 13
13) linguistic: 12 (*)
18) academic: 12

discourse
Lengua: eng
Frec: 1683
Docs: 324
Nombre propio: 14 / 1683 = 0%
Coocurrencias con glosario: 5
Puntaje: 5.652 = (5 + (1+6.64385618977473) / (1+10.7176764230664)));
Candidato aceptado

Referencias bibliográficas encontradas sobre cada término

(Que existan referencias dedicadas a un término es también indicio de terminologicidad.)
discourse
: “the latter is expressed over stretches of discourse, whilst by and large lexicographers […] find it easy and natural to think in terms of individual word meaning” (Morley & Partington, 2009: 151).
: According to Fairclough (2006), a distinction should be made between discourses, genres and styles. He describes the relationship between the three as follows: a discourse is operationalised through the following processes:
: Achugar, M. (2008). What we remember. The construction of memory in military discourse. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.
: Achugar, M. (2009b). Remembering and explaining a traumatic past: the Uruguayan military's narrative about the dictatorship. Critical Discourse Studies, 6(4), 283-295.
: Adams-Smith, D. (1984). Medical Discourse: Aspects of Author’s Comment. The ESP Journal, 3, 25-36.
: Adetunji, A. (2006). Inclusion and exclusion in political discourse: Deixis in Olusegun Obasanjo’s Speeches. Journal of Language and Linguistics, 5(2), 177-191.
: Albelda, M. & Estellés, M. (2018). Introduction to the special issue: Discourse approaches to evidentiality. Pragmatics and Society, 9(3), 333-339.
: Allan, S. (1998). News from NowHere: Televisual News Discourse and the Construction of Hegemony. En Bell, A. y Garret, P. (Eds.), Approaches to Media Discourse. Blackwell Publishers: 105-141.
: Along the same lines, Stubbs (2001a) underlines the pragmatic and discourse function of semantic prosody, so he prefers the term ‘discourse prosody’. In fact, Stubbs (2001a: 65) underlines the attitudinal nature of semantic prosody by stating that:
: Alonso-Almeida, F. (2015). The functions of seem and parecer in Early Medical Writing. Discourse Studies, 17(2), 121-40.
: Andersen, R. W. & Shirai, Y. (1994). Discourse motivations for some cognitive acquisition principles. Studies in Second Language Acquisition, 16, 135-156.
: Antaki, Ch., Billig, M., Edwards, D. & Potter, J. (2003). Discourse analysis means doing analysis: A critique of six analythic shortcomings. Discourse Analysis Online. [en línea]. Disponible en: [40]http://www.shu.ac.uk/daolprevious/v1/n1/index.htm
: Aponte Moreno, M. (2008). Metaphors in Hugo Chavez’s Political Discourse: Conceptulizing Nation, Revolution and Opposition. Tesis doctoral, Unviversidad de Nueva York, Nueva York, Estados Unidos.
: Augoustinos, M., Lecouteur, A. & Soyland, J. (2002). Self-sufficient arguments in political rhetoric: Constructing reconciliation and apologizing to the stolen generations. Discourse & Society, 13(1), 105-142.
: BROWN, G. y YULE G. (1987), "Representing background knowledge", en Discourse Processes (p. 237-271).
: Bajtín, M. (1981). Discourse in the novel. En M. Holquist (Ed.), The Dialogical Imagination (pp. 259-422). Austin: University of Texas Press.
: Baker, C. (2000). Locating culture in action: Membership categorisation in texts and talk. En A. Lee & C. Poynton (Eds.), Culture and Text: Discourse and Methodology in Social Research and Cultural Studies (pp. 99-113). St Leonards, NSW: Allen & Unwin.
: Baker, P. (1997). Using corpora in discourse analysis. Londres: British Library Cataloguing in Publication Data.
: Baker, P. (2006). Using corpora in Discourse Analysis. London and New York: Continuum.
: Balaban, V. (1999). Self and agency in religious discourse. Perceptual metaphors for knowledge at a Marian apparition site. En L. Boeve & K. Feyaerts (Eds.), Metaphor and God-talk. Religions and Discourse (pp. 125-144). Nueva York: Peter Lang.
: Ball, F. & Tucker, G. (2004). On the preferential co-occurence of Processes and Circumstantial Adjuncts: Some corpus evidence. En J. Foley (Ed.), Language, Education and Discourse (pp. 305-323). Londres: Continuum.
: Bamberg, M. & Moissinac, L. (2003). Discourse development. En A. Graesser, M. Gernsbacher & S. Goldman (Eds.), Handbook of Discourse Processes (pp. 39-437). Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.
: Bamberg, M., de Fina, A. & Schiffrin, D. (2011). Discourse and identity construction. En S. J. Schwartz, K. Luyckx & V. L. Vignoles (Eds.), Handbook of Identity Theory and Research (pp. 177-199). Nueva York: Springer.
: Bamford, J. & Bondi, M. (Eds.) (2005). Dialogue within discourse communities. metadiscursive perspectives on Academic Genres. Berlin: De Gruyter.
: Bardovi-Harlig, K. (1992). The telling a tale: Discourse structure and tense use in learners’ narratives. Pragmatics and Language Learning, 3, 144-161.
: Basturkmen, H., Meast, M. & Bitchener, J. (2014). Supervisors' on-script feedback comments on drafts of dissertations: socializing students into the academic discourse community. Teaching in Higher Education, 19(4), 432-445.
: Bateman, J. & Rondhuis, K. (1997). Coherence relations: Towards a general specification. Discourse Processes, 24, 3-49.
: Bathia, V. (2002). A generic view of academic discourse. En J. Flowerdew (Ed.), Academic discourse (pp. 21-39). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
: Bazerman, Ch. (1998). Emerging perspectives on the many dimensions of scientific discourse. En J. Martin & R. Veel (Eds.), Reading science. Critical and functional perspectives on discourses of science (pp. 15-28). London: Routledge.
: Beaugrande, R. De. (1980) Text, discourse and process. Norwood, N.J.: Ablex.
: Bednarek, M. (2006). Evaluation in media discourse: Analysis of a newspaper corpus. Londres: Continuum.
: Bell, A. & Garrett, P. (Eds.) (1998). Approaches to Media Discourse. Oxford: Blackwell.
: Belotti, U. (2003). Generic integrity in italian arbitration rules. En V. Bhatia, C. Candlin & M. Gotti (Eds.), Legal discourse in multilingual and multicultural contexts: Arbitration texts in Europe (pp. 19-40). Bern: Peter Lang.
: Benítez Castro, M. A. & Thompson, P. (2015). Shell-nounhood in academic discourse. A critical state-of-the art review. International Journal of Corpus Linguistics, 20(3), 378-404.
: Berman, R. & Nir, B. (2007). Comparing narrative and expository text construction across adolescence: a developmental paradox. Discourse Processes, 43(2), 79-120.
: Berman, R., Ragnarsdóttir, H. & Strömqvist, S. (2002). Discourse stance. Written Languages and Literacy, 5, 255-290.
: Bernardo Paniagua, J. Mª, López García, G., Sancho Cremades, P. & Serra Alegre, E. (Eds.) (2007). Critical discourse analysis of media texts. Valencia: Universidad de Valencia.
: Bernstein, B. (1990). Class, Codes and Control 4: The structuring of pedagogic discourse. London: Routledge.
: Bernstein, B. (1999). Vertical and horizontal discourse: An essay. British Journal of Sociology of Education, 20(2), 157-173.
: Bernstein, B. (2003). Class, codes and control Vol. IV. The structuring of pedagogic discourse. Londres: Routledge .
: Berry, M. (1981a). Systemic linguistics and discourse analysis: A multi–layered approach to exchange structure. M. Coulthard & M. Montgomery (Eds.), Studies in Discourse Analysis (pp. 120–145). London: Routledge & Kegan Paul.
: Bhatia, A. & Bhatia, V. (2011). Discursive Illusions in Legislative Discourse: A Socio-Pragmatic Study. International Journal for the Semiotics of Law, 24-1 [en línea]. Disponible en: [63]http://www.springerlink.com/content/0952-8059/24/1/.
: Bhatia, V. (2002). A generic view of academic discourse. En J. Flowerdew (Ed.), Academic discourse (pp. 21-39). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
: Bhatia, V. (2004). World of written discourse. A genre-based view. Londres: Continuum.
: Bhatia, V. K. (2005). Generic patterns in promotional discourse. En H. Halmari & T. Virtanen (Eds.), Persuasion Across Genres (pp. 213-225). The Netherlands: John Benjamins.
: Bhatia, V. K. (2010). Interdiscursivity in professional communication. Discourse & Communication, 21(1), 32-50.
: Bhatia, V., Candlin, C. & Engberg, J. (Eds.) (2007). Legal discourse across cultures and systems. Hong Kong: Hong Kong University Press.
: Bhatia, V., Candlin, C. & Gotti, M. (Eds.) (2003). Legal discourse in multilingual and multicultural contexts: Arbitration texts in Europe. Bern: Peter Lang.
: Bhatia, V., Langton, N. & Lung, J. (2004). Legal discourse: Opportunities and threats for corpus linguistics. En U. Connor & T. Upton (Eds.), Discourse in the professions. Perspectives from corpus linguistics (pp. 203-231). Amsterdam: Benjamins.
: Biber, D., Connor, U. & Upton, T. (2007). Discourse on the Move: Using Corpus Analysis to Describe Discourse Structure. Amsterdam: Benjamins.
: Bizzell, P. (1982) College composition: Initiation into the academic discourse community. Curriculum Inquiry , 12, 191-207.
: Blakemore, D. (2002). Relevance and Linguistic Meaning: The Semantics and pragmatics of Discourse Markers. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
: Blass, R. (1990). Relevance relations in discourse: A study with special reference to Sissala. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
: Blommaert, J. (2005). Discourse. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
: Blum-Kulka, S. (1997). Dinner talk: Cultural patterns of sociability and socialization in family discourse. Mahwah, NJ: Erlbaum.
: Blühdorn, H. (2008). Subordination and coordination in syntax, semantics and discourse: Evidence from the Study of connectives. En C. Fabricius-Hansen & W. Ramm (Eds.), Subordination versus Coordination in Sentence and Text (pp. 59-85). Ámsterdam: John Benjamins.
: Bolger, D. J., Balass, M., Landen, E. & Perfetti, C. A. (2008). Context variation and definitions in learning the meanings of words: An instance-based learning approach. Discourse Processes, 45(2), 122-159.
: Bolívar, A. & Parodi, G. (2014). Academic and professional discourse. En M. Lacorte (Ed.), Routledge Encyclopedia of Hispanic Applied Linguistics. Londres: Routledge (en prensa).
: Bolívar, A. (1986). Interaction through written text. Discourse analysis of newspaper editorials. Tesis doctoral no publicada, University of Birmingham.
: Bolívar, A. (2001). Changes in Venezuelan Political Dialogue: the role of advertising during electoral campaigns. Discourse and Society,12 (1), 23-46.
: Bondi, M. (1999). English Across Genres: Language Variation in the Discourse of Economics. Modena: Il Fiorino.
: Bondi, M. (2010). Arguing in economics and business discourse: Phraseological tools in research articles. Bulletin Suisse de Linguistique Appliqué, 2, 219-234.
: Bondi, M. (2017). What came to be called: Evaluative what and authorial voice in the discourse of history. Text & Talk, 37, 25-46.
: Bova, A. & Arcidiacono, F. (2013b). Investigating children’s Why-questions. A study comparing argumentative and explanatory function. Discourse Studies, 15(6), 713-734.
: Brandão, L., Lima, T. M., Parente, M. & Peña-Casanova, J. (2017). Discourse coherence and its relation with cognition in Alzheimer’s disease. Revista Psicologia em Pesquisa, 7(1), 99-107.
: Briner, S.W., Virtue, S. & Kurby, C.A. (2011). Processing causality in narrative events: Temporal order matters. Discourse Processes, 49(1), 61-77.
: Brit, M., Perfetti, C., Garrod, S. & Rayner, K. (1992). Parsing and discourse: Context effects and their limits. Journal of Memory and Language, 31, 293- 314.
: Briz, A. & Estellés, M. (2010). On the relationship between Attenuation, Discourse Particles and Position. En G. Kaltenböck, W. Mihatsch & S. Schneider (Eds.), Studies in Pragmatics 9. New Approaches to Hedging (pp. 289-304). United Kingdom: Emerald Group Publishing.
: Brown, G. & Yule, G. (1983). Discourse Analysis. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
: Bunton, D. (2002). Generic moves in Ph.D. thesis introductions. En J. Flowerdew (Ed.), Academic discourse (pp. 57-75). Essex: Pearson Education.
: Butler, C. (2003b). Structure and function: An introduction to three major structural-functional theories. II: From clause to discourse and beyond. Ámsterdam: John Benjamins.
: Cabedo, A. & Figueras, C. (2018). Evidentiality in discourse. En C. Figueras & A. Cabedo (Eds.), Perspectives on evidentiality in Spanish (pp. 1-24). Ámsterdam: John Benjamins.
: Caffarel, A. (2006). A Systemic Functional Grammar of French. From grammar to discourse. Londres: Continuum.
: Calsamiglia, H. & López, C. (2003). Role and position of scientific voices: Reported speech in the media. Discourse Studies, 5(2), 147-173.
: Calsamiglia, H. (2003). Popularization discourse. Discourse studies, 5 (2), 139-146.
: Candlin, C. & Gotti, M. (Eds.) (2004b). Intercultural discourse in domain-specific English. Textus. 17(1).
: Carlson, L. & Marcu, D. (2001). Discourse tagging referencemanual. Unpublished paper [en línea]. Disponible en: [24]http://www.isi.edu/~marcu/discourse/tagging-ref-manual.pdf
: Cazden, C. (2001). Classroom discourse: The language of teaching and learning. Portsmouth, NH.: Heinemann.
: Cazden, C.S. Classroom Discourse. The Language ofTeaching and Learning. London: Routledge y Kegan Paul, 1986.
: Chafe, W. (1987). Cognitive contrasts on information flow. En R. Tomlin (Ed.), Coherence and grounding in discourse. Typological studies in language (pp. 21-51). Ámsterdam: Jonh Benjamins.
: Chafe, W. (1994). Discourse, consciousness and time. Chicago: The University of Chicago Press.
: Channell, J. (1999). Corpus-based analysis of evaluative lexis. In S. Hunston & G. Thompson (Eds.), Evaluation in Text: Authorial Stance and the Construction of Discourse (pp. 38-55). Oxford: Oxford University Press.
: Chapman, S. B., Highley, A. P. & Thompson, J. L. (1998). Discourse in fluent aphasia and Alzheimer’s disease: Linguistic and pragmatic considerations. Journal of Neurolinguistics: Special Issue, 11, 55-78.
: Chaudron, C. (1977). A descriptive model of discourse in the corrective treatment of learner`s errors. Language Learning, 27, 29-46.
: Cherry, R. D. (1988). Ethos versus persona: Self-representation in written discourse. Written communication, 5, 251-276.
: Chilton, P. & Ilyin, M.V. (1993). Metaphor in political discourse: The case of the ‘Common European House’. Discourse and Society, 4(1), 7-31.
: Chilton, P. & Schèaffner, C. (Eds.) (2002). Politics as text and talk: Analytic approaches to political discourse. Amsterdam and Philadelphia: John Benjamins.
: Chilton, P. A. (2004). Analysing political discourse: Theory and practice. London: Routledge.
: Christie, F. & Derewianka, B. (2008). School discourse. Learning to write across the years of schooling. Londres/Nueva York: Continuum.
: Christie, F. & Derewianka, B. (2010). School discourse. Londres: Continuum.
: Christie, F. (1998). Science and apprenticeship. The pedagogic discourse. En J. Martin & R. Veel (Eds.), Reading Science. Critical and functional perspectives on discourse of science (pp. 152-180). London: Routledge.
: Christie, F. (2002). Classroom discourse analysis: A functional perspective. Londres: Continuum .
: Clark, H. (1994). Discourse in production. En M.A. Gernsbacher (Ed.), Handbook of psycholinguistics, (985-1021). San Diego: Academic Press.
: Clark, H. H. & Marshall, C. R. (1981). Definite reference and mutual knowledge. En A. H. Joshe, B. Webber & I. A. Sag (Eds.), Elements of discourse understanding (pp. 10-63). Cambridge, Inglaterra: Cambridge University Press.
: Clary-Lemon, J. (2010). ‘We’re not ethnic, we’re Irish!’: Oral histories and the discursive construction of immigrant identity. Discourse & Society, 21(1), 5-25.
: Clements, J. C. (2005). ´Ser´ and ´estar´ in the predicate adjective construction. In J. C. Clements & J. Yoon (Eds.), Functional approaches to Spanish syntax: Lexical semantics, discourse, and transitivity (pp. 161-202). London: Palgrave-Macmillan.
: Coffin, C. (2006). Historical discourse. The language of time, cause and evaluation. Londres: Continuum.
: Coffin, C. (2006). Reconstructing personal time as collective time: Learning the discourse of history. En R. Whittaker, M. O'Donnell & A. McCabe (Eds.), Language and literacy: Functional approaches (pp. 15-45). Londres: Continuum.
: Coffin, C. (2009). Historical discourse. London: Continuum .
: Connor, U. & Upton, T. (2004b). The genre of grant proposals: A corpus linguistics analysis. En U. Connor & T. Upton (Eds.), Discourse in the professions. Perspectives from corpus linguistics (pp. 235-255). Amsterdam: Benjamins.
: Connor, U. & Upton, T. (Eds.) (2004a). Discourse in the professions. Perspectives from corpus linguistics. Amsterdam: Benjamins.
: Conrad, S. & Biber, D. (2001). Adverbial marking of stance in speech and writing. En S. Hunston & G. Thompson (Eds.), Evaluation in Text. Authorial Stance and the Construction of Discourse (pp. 56-73). Oxford: Oxford University Press .
: Cook, A. & Guéraud, S. (2005). What have we been missing? The role of general world knowledge in discourse processing. Discourse Processes, 39(2&3), 265-278.
: Cook, G. (2005). Genetically modified language. The discourse of arguments for GM crops and food. London: Routledge.
: Cook, G., Pieri, E. & Robbins, P. (2004). ‘The scientists think and the public feels’: Expert perceptions of the discourse of GM food. Discourse and Society, 15 (4), 433-449.
: Cook, G., Robbins P. T. & Pieri, E. (2002). The discourse of the GM food debate: How language choices affect public trust. ESRC Research Grant. Final Report, Award number RES-000-22-0132 [En línea]. Disponible en: [26]http://www.regard.ac.uk/.
: Cooper, M. (1989) Why are we talking about discourse communities? Or, foundationalism rears its ugly head once more. En M. Cooper y M. Holzman (eds.), Writing as a social practice. Portsmouth, NH: Boynton/Cook. 202-20.
: Cooreman, A. & Sanford, A. (1996). Focus and syntactic subordination in discourse. Research paper nº R1-79. Edimburgo: University of Edinburgh, HCRC.
: Cornillie, B. & Gras Manzano, P. (2015). On the interactional dimension of evidentials. The case of the Spanish discourse markers. Discourse Studies, 17(2), 141-161.
: Cornillie, B. (2010). On conceptual semantics and discourse function. the case of spanish modal adverbs in informal conversation. Review of Cognitive Linguistics, 8(2), 300-320.
: Cornish, F. (1999) Anaphora, discourse, and understanding. Oxford, Oxford University Press.
: Cornish, F. (2003). The roles of (written) text and anaphor type distribution in the construction of discourse. Text, 23(1), 1-26.
: Cornish, F. (2008). How indexicals function in texts: Discourse, text, and one neo-Gricean account of indexical reference. Journal of Pragmatics, 40(6), 997-1018.
: Cornish, F. (2011). “Strict” anadeixis, discourse deixis and text structuring. Language Sciences, 33, 753-767.
: Coté, N., Goldman, S. R., & Saul, E. U. (1998). Students making sense of informational text: Relations between processing and representation. Discourse Processes, 25, 1-53.
: Coulthard, M. (1992). Advances in spoken discourse analysis. Londres: Routledge.
: Coulthard, M. C., & Montgomery, M. (Eds.). (1981). Studies in Discourse Analysis. London: Routledge y Kegan Paul.
: Couper-Kuhlen, E. & Thompson, S. (2000). Concessive patterns in conversation. En E. Couper-Kuhlen & B. Kortmann (Eds.), Cause, condition, concession, contrast: Cognitive and discourse perspectives (pp. 381-410). Berlin/Nueva York: Mouton/De Gruyter.
: Couper-Kuhlen, E. & Thompson, S. (2008). On assessing situations and events in conversation: ‘Extraposition’ and its relatives. Discourse Studies, 10, 443-467.
: Coupland, N. & Coupland, J. (1995). Discourse, identity and aging. En J. Nussbaum & J. Coupland (Eds.), Handbook of communication and aging research (pp.79-103). Mahwah, N. J.: Erlbaum.
: Cramer, J. (2010). Do we really want to be like them? Indexing Europeanness through pronominal use. Discourse & Society, 21(6), 619-637.
: Crismore, A. & Farnsworth, R. (1989). Mr Darwin and his readers: Exploring interpersonal discourse as a dimension of ethos. Rhetoric Review, 8(1), 91-112.
: Crismore, A. & Farnsworth, R. (1990). Metadiscourse in popular and professional discourse. En W. Nash (Ed.), The writing scholar: Studies in the language and conventions of academic discourse (pp. 118–136). Newbury Park, CA: Sage.
: Crismore, A. & Vande Kopple, W. (1997b). Hedges and readers: Effects on attitudes and learning. En R. Markkanen & H. Schröder (Eds.), Hedging and discourse: Approaches to the analysis of a pragmatic phenomenon in academic texts (pp. 83-114). Berlin: W. de Gruyter.
: Cuenca, M. & Marín, M. (2012). Discourse markers and modality in spoken Catalan: The case of (és) clar. Journal of Pragmatics , 44, 2211-2225.
: DE BEAUGRANDE, R. (1997). "The Story of Discourse Analisys", en T.A. Dijk (ed.), Discourse as Structures and Processes. Londres: Sage.
: Dafouz-Milne, E. (2003). Metadiscourse revisited: A contrastive study of persuasive writing in professional discourse. Estudios Ingleses de la Universidad Complutense, 11, 29-52.
: Dahl, T. (2003). Metadiscourse in research articles. En K. Fløttum & F. Rastier (Eds.), Academic discourse. Multidisciplinary approaches (pp. 120-138). Oslo: Novus Press.
: Davies, F. (1998). Reading between the lines: thematic choices as a device for presenting writers viewpoint in academic discourse. Especialist, 9, 173-200.
: Davis, B. H. & Guendouzi, J. (Eds.) (2013). Pragmatics in dementia discourse. Newcastle upon Tyne: Cambridge Scholars Publishing.
: Davis, B. H. & Maclagan, M. (2009). Examining pauses in Alzheimer’s discourse. American Journal of Alzheimer’s Disease & Other Dementias, 24(2), 141-154.
: De Fina, A. (2003). Identity in narrative: A study of immigrant discourse. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.
: Dessouter, C. (2006). Le processus de simplification du langage administratif en France. En M. Gotti & D. Giannoni (Eds.), New trends in specialized discourse analysis (pp. 163-182). Berna: Lang.
: Dijkstra, K., Bourgeois, M. S., Allen, R. S. & Burgio, L. D. (2004). Conversational coherence: Discourse analysis of older adults with and without dementia. Journal of Neurolinguistics, 17(4), 263-283.
: Domínguez, M. & Sapiña, L. (2016). Cancer metaphors in sports news: The match that must be won. En P. Ordoñez-López & N. Edo-Marzá (Eds.), Medical discourse in professional, academic and popular settings (pp. 149-172). Bristol, UK: Multilingual Matters.
: Downing, A. (1997). Encapsulating discourse topics. Estudios Ingleses de la Universidad Complutense, 5, 147-168.
: Du Bois, J. (1987). The discourse basis of ergativity. Language, 63(4), 805-53.
: Dudley-Evans, T. (1986). Genre analysis: An investigation of the introduction and discussion sections of MSc dissertation. In M. Coulthard (Ed.), Talking about text. Discourse analysis monograph 13 (pp. 128-145). Birmingham: University of Birmingham.
: Duque, E. (2014). Signaling casual coherence relations. Discourse Studies, 16(1), 25-46.
: Duranti, A. & Ochs, E. (1979). Left dislocation in Italian conversation. En T. Givón (Ed.), syntax and semantics 12. Discourse and syntax (pp. 337-416). New York: Academic Press.
: Duranti, A. (2006). The social ontology of intentions. Discourse Studies, 8, 31-40.
: Dzameshie, A. (1993). The use of politeness strategies as solidarity and deference moves in Christian sermonic discourse. The SECOL Review, 17, 113-126.
: Dzameshie, A. (1995). Social motivations for politeness behavior in Christian sermonic discourse. Anthropological linguistics, 37(2), 192-215.
: Ebrahimi, S. F. & Chan, S. H. (2014). Discourse functions of grammatical subject in result and discussion sections of research article across four disciplines. Journal of Written Research, 6(2), 125-140.
: Edwards, J. & Martin, J. (Eds.) (2004). Introduction: Approaches to Tragedy. Discourse & Society, 15(3-4), 147-154.
: Eggins, S. & Martin, J. (1996). Genres and registers of discourse. Em T. van Dijk (Ed.), Discourse: A multidisciplinary introduction (pp. 232-256). London: Sage.
: Eggins, S., Martin, J. R. & Wignell, P. (1993). The discourse of history: Distancing the recoverable past. In M. Ghadessy (Ed.), Register analysis: Theory and practice (pp. 75-109). London & New York: Pinter Publishers.
: Englebretson, R. (2007). Stancetaking in discourse: Subjectivity, interaction, evaluation. Ámsterdam: John Benjamins.
: Epstein, R. (2002). The definite article, accessibility, and the construction of discourse referents. Cognitive Linguistics, 12(4), 333–378.
: Erickson, F. (1996). Going for the zone: The social and cognitive ecology of teacher-student interaction in classroom conversations. En D. Hicks (Ed.), Discourse, Learning and Schooling (pp. 30-62). Cambridge, New York: Cambridge University Press.
: Escudero, I. & León, J.A. (en prensa). Discourse comprehension processes between types of texts: A cross-cultural/cross-language study. Journal of Cross-Cultural Psychology.
: FAIRCLOUGH N. (1995) Critical Discourse Analysis. The critical study of language. London/New York: Longman.
: FAIRCLOUGH, N. (1992). "Text and Discourse: Linguistics and Intertextual Analysis within Discourse Analysis". Discourse and Society.
: FAIRCLOUGH, N. (1995) Critical discourse analysis: The critical study of language, Londres: Longman.
: FAIRCLOUGH, N. y WODAK, R. (1998). "Critical Discourse Analysis", en T. A. van Dijk (ed.), Discourse as Social Interaction. Londres: Sage.
: Fairclough, I. & Fairclough, N. (2012). Political discourse analysis. A method for advanced students. London and New York: Routledge.
: Fairclough, N. & Wodak, R. (1997). Critical discourse analysis. En T. A. van Dijk (Comp.), Discourse as social interaction (pp. 258-284). Londres: Sage.
: Fairclough, N. (1992). Discourse and social change. Cambridge: Polity Press
: Fairclough, N. (1993). Critical discourse analysis and the marketization of public discourse: The universities. Discourse and Society, 4(2), 133-168.
: Fairclough, N. (1993). Discourse and social change. London: Polity Press.
: Fairclough, N. (1995). Critical Discourse Analysis. London: Longman
: Fairclough, N. (2003). Analysing discourse: Textual analysis for social research. Londres: Routledge.
: Fairclough, N. (2010). Critical discourse analysis: The critical study of language. Londres: Routledge.
: Fairclough, N., Mulderrig, J. & Wodak, R. (2011). Critical discourse analysis. In T. Van Dijk (Ed.), Discourse Studies: A multidisciplinary introduction (pp. 357-378). London: SAGE.
: Farrar, M. (1990). Discourse and the acquisition of grammatical morphemes. Journal of Child Language, 17(3), 607-624.
: Fauconnier, G. & Turner, M. (1996). Blending as a central process of grammar. En A. Goldberg (Ed.), Conceptual structure, discourse and language (pp. 113-129). Stanford: Center for the Study of Language and Information.
: Fawcett, R. (2007a). Auxiliary extensions: Six new elements for describing English. En R. Hasan, C. Matthiessen & J. Webster (Eds.), Continuing Discourse on Language: A Functional Perspective (pp. 710-735). Londres: Equinox.
: Fetzer, A. & Lauerbach, G. E. (Eds.). (2007). Political discourse in the media. Cross-cultural perspectives. Amsterdam and Philadelphia: John Benjamins.
: Fischer, K. (Dir.) (2006). Approaches to discourse particles. Ámsterdam: Elsevier.
: Fletcher, C. (1994). Levels of representation in memory for discourse. En M. Gernsbacher (Ed.), Handbook of psycholinguistics (pp. 589-607). San Diego, CA.: Academic.
: Flores-Ferrán, N. (2010). An examination of mitigation strategies used in Spanish psychotherapeutic discourse. Journal of Pragmatics, 42, 1964-1981.
: Flottum, K., Kinn, T. & Dahl, T. (2006). We now report on Versus Let us now see how: Author roles and interaction with readers in research articles. In K. Hyland & M. Bondi (Eds.), Academic discourse across disciplines (pp. 203-224). Bern: Peter Lang.
: Flowerdew, J. & Forest, R. W. (2015). Signalling nouns in English. A corpus-based discourse approach. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press .
: Flowerdew, J. (2003). Signalling nouns in discourse. English for Specific Purposes, 22(4), 329-346.
: Flowerdew, J. (Ed.) (2002). Academic discourse. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
: Flowerdew, L. (2004). The argument for using English specialized corpora to understand academic and professional language. En U. Connor & T. Upton (Eds.), Discourse in the professions. Perspectives from corpus linguistics (pp. 11-33). Amsterdam: Benjamins.
: Fløttum, K. (2003). Bibliographical references and polyphony in research articles. En K. Fløttum & F. Rastier (Eds.), Academic discourse. Multidisciplinary approaches (pp. 97-119). Oslo: Novus Press.
: Foltz, P. (1998) Quantitative Approches to Semantic Knowledge Representations. Discourse Processes, 25(2&3), 127-130.
: Foltz, P. , Kintsch, W. & Landauer, T. (1998). The measurement of textual coherence with latent semantic analysis. Discourse Processes, 25, 285-307.
: Fong, C. J., Lin, S. & Engle, R. A. (2016). Positioning identity in computer-mediated discourse among ESOL learners. Language Learning & Technology, 20(3), 142-158.
: Fortanet, I., Palmer, J. & Postiguillo, S. (2001). Hedging devices in technical and academic English. En J. Palmer, S. Posteguillo & I. Fortanet (Eds.), Discourse analysis and terminology in languages for specific purposes (pp. 241-257). Castelló de la Plana: Universitat Jaume I.
: Fowler, R. (1991). Language in the news: Discourse and ideology in the press. Londres: Routledge.
: Fox, B. & Thompson, S. (1990). A discourse explanation of the grammar of relative clauses in English conversation. Language, 66, 297-316.
: Francis, G. (1986). Anaphoric nouns. Discourse analysis monograph no. 11. Birmingham: English Language Research.
: Francis, G. (1994). Labelling discourse: An aspect of nominal-group lexical cohesion. En M. Coulthard (Ed.), Advances in written text analysis (pp. 179-190). Londres: Routledge.
: Francis, G. y Hunston, S. (1992). Analysing Everyday Conversation. Coulthard, M. (ed) Advances in Spoken Discourse Analysis. London: Routledge.
: Fraser, B. (1999). What are discourse markers? Journal of pgmatics 31, 931-952.
: Fraurud, K. (1990). Definiteness and the processing of noun phrases in natural discourse. Journal of Semantics 7, 395-433.
: Freedle, R. (1997). The relevance of multiple choice reading test data in studying expository passage comprehension. Discourse Processes, 23(3), 399-440.
: Fries, P. (1983). On the status of theme in English: Arguments from discourse. En J. Petöf & E. Sözer (Eds.), Micro and macro connexity of texts. Papers in Textlinguistics 45 (pp. 116-152). Hamburg: Helmut Buske Verlag.
: Fries, P. H. (1981). On the status of Theme in English: Arguments from discourse. Forum Linguisticum, 6(1), 1-38.
: Fuller, G. (1998). Cultivating science: Negotiating discourse in the popular texts of Stephen Jay Gould. En J.R. Martin & R. Veel (Eds.), Reading science: Critical and functional perspectives on discourses of science (pp. 35–62). London: Routledge.
: GAGE, J. (1984) "An adequate epistemology for composition: Classical and modern perspectives", en R. Connors, L. Ede y A. Lunsford (Eds.), Essays on classical rhetoric and modern discourse. Carbondale, Southern Illinois University Press.
: GARNHAM, A. (1988) Mental models as representation of discourse and text. Chichester: Elis Horwood.
: GIVON, T. (Ed.). (1979) Discourse and Syntax. Syntax and Semantics, Vol.12 New York: Academy Press.
: Galasiński, D. & Skowronek, K. (2001). Naming the nation. A critical analysis of names in Polish political discourse. Political Communication, 18(1), 51-66.
: Garnham, A. (1987). Mental models as representations of discourse and text. Chichester: Ellis Horwood Limited.
: Garnham, A., Oakhill, J. V., & Johnson-Laird, P. N. (1982). Referential continuity and the coherence of discourse. Cognition, 11, 29-46.
: Garrod, S. y Sanford, A. (1994) Resolving sentences in a discourse context. How discourse representation affect language understanding. En M. A. Gernsbacher (Ed.) Psycholinguistics. San Diego, Academic Press. 675-698.
: Garrod, S. y Sanford, A. (1999) Incrementality in discourse understanding. En H. van Oostendorp y S. Goldman (Eds.) The construction of mental representations during reading. Mahwah, LEA. 3-28.
: Garzone, G. (2003). Arbitration rules across legal cultures: An intercultural approach. En V. Bhatia, C. Candlin & M. Gotti (Eds.), Legal discourse in multilingual and multicultural contexts: Arbitration texts in Europe (pp. 177-220). Bern: Peter Lang.
: Gastil, J. (1992). Undemocratic discourse: A review of theory and research on political discourse. Discourse and Society, 3(4), 469-500.
: Gayraud, F., Lee, H. R. & Barkat-Defradas, M. (2011). Syntactic and lexical context of pauses and hesitations in the discourse of Alzheimer patients and healthy elderly subjects. Clinical Linguistics & Phonetics, 25(3), 198-209.
: Gee, J. & Handford, M. (2012). The Routledge Handbook of Discourse Analysis. Londres: Rouledge.
: Gee, J. (2005). An introduction to discourse analysis. Theory and method. Nueva York: Routledge.
: Gelabert-Desnoyer, J. (2008). Not so impersonal: Intentionality in the use of pronoun uno in contemporary Spanish political discourse. Pragmatics, 18(3), 407-424.
: Gennari, S. (2002). Spanish past and future tenses: Less (semantics) is more. En J. Gutiérrez-Rexach (Ed.), From words to discourse: Trends in Spanish semantics and pragmatics (pp. 21-36). Ámsterdam: Elsevier.
: Gernsbacher, M.A. (1997). Two decades of structure building. Discourse Processes, 23, 265-304.
: Ghiasinejad, S. & Golden, R. (2002). An empirical evaluation of the AUTOCODER system for automatic semantic coding of children summarization data. Poster presentado en the 12th Annual Meeting of the Society for Text and Discourse, Chicago, Estados Unidos de Norteamérica.
: Giannoni, D. (2003). The UNCITRAL model and Italian statute law: A linguistic and topical description. En V. Bhatia, C. Candlin & M. Gotti (Eds.), Legal discourse in multilingual and multicultural contexts: Arbitration texts in Europe (pp. 221-246). Bern: Peter Lang.
: Givón, T. (Ed.). (1983). Topic continuity in discourse. Amsterdam: Benjamins.
: Glosser, G. & Deser, T. (1992). A comparison of changes in macrolinguistic and microlinguistic aspects of discourse production in normal aging. Journal of Gerontology: Psychological Sciences, 47, 266-272.
: Goldman, S. & Varma, S. (1995). CAPping the construction-integration model of discourse comprehension. En C. Weaver, S. Mannes & C. Fletcher (Eds.), Discourse comprehension: Essays in honor of Walter Kintsch (pp. 337-358). Mahwah, N.J.: Erlbaum.
: Goldman, S. (1997). Learning from text: Reflections on the past and suggestions for the future. Discourse Processes, 23(3), 357-398.
: González Condom, M. (2015). From truth-attesting to intensification: The grammaticalization of Spanish La verdad and Catalan La veritat. Discourse Studies, 17(2), 162-181.
: Goodrich, P. (1987). Legal discourse. Studies in linguistics, rhetoric and legal analysis. London: MacMillan.
: Gordon, P. y Scearce, K. (1995) Pronominalization and discourse coherence, discourse structure and pronoun interpretation. Memory & Cognition. 23 (3): 313-323.
: Gosden, H. (1993). Discourse functions of subject in scientific research articles. Applied Linguistics, 14(1), 56-75.
: Gotti, M. & Salager-Meyer, F. (Eds.) (2006). Advances in medical discourse analysis: Oral and written contexts. Bern: Peter Lang .
: Gotti, M. (2003). Specialised discourse: Linguistic features and changing conventions. Bern: Peter Lang .
: Gotti, M. (2008). Investigating specialised discourse. Bern: Peter Lang .
: Gotti, M. (2014). Reformulation and recontextualisation in popularisation discourse. Ibérica, Journal of the European Association of Languages for Specific Purposes, 27, 15-34.
: Goutsos, D. (1997). Modeling Discourse Topic: Sequential Relations and Strategies in Expository Text. Advances in Discourse Processes. New Jersey: Ablex Publishing Corporation.
: Graesser, A. C., Jeon, M., Yang, Y. & Cai, Z. (2007). Discourse cohesion in text and tutorial dialogue. Information Design Journal, 15(3), 199-213.
: Graesser, A., Millis, K. & Zwaan, R. (1997). Discourse comprehension. Annual Review of Psychology, 48, 163-189.
: Graesser, A.C. & Kreuz, R. (1993). A theory of inference generation during text comprehension. Discourse Processes, 16, 145-160.
: Graesser, A.C., Gernsbacher, M.A., & Goldman, S. (Eds.), (2003). Handbook of discourse processes. Mahwah, N.J.: Erlbaum.
: Graves, H., Moghaddasi, S. & Hashim, A. (2013). Mathematics is the method: Exploring the macroorganizational structure of research articles in mathematics. Discourse Studies, 15(4), 421-438.
: Grimes, J. E., (1975). The thread of discourse (Vol. 207). Nueva York: Mouton Publishers.
: Grimshaw, A. (2003). Genres, registers, and contexts of discourse. En A.C. Graesser, M. Gernsbacher & A. Goldman (Eds.), Handbook of discourse processes (pp. 25-82). Mahwah, N.J: Erlbaum.
: Grosz, B. & Sidner, C. L. (1986). Attention, intentions, and the structure of discourse. Computational linguistics, 12(3), 175-204.
: Grupo Pragglejaz (2007). MIP: A method for identifying metaphorically used words in discourse. Metaphor and Symbol, 22(1), 1-39.
: Grzech, K. (2016). Discourse enclitics in Tena Kichwa: A corpus-based account of information structure and epistemic meaning. Tesis doctoral, SOAS University of London, Londres, Reino Unido.
: Gualda, R. (2012). The discourse of Hugo Chavez in Aló Presidente: Establishing the Bolivarian revolution through television performance. Tesis doctoral, Universidad de Austin, Texas, Estados Unidos.
: Guendouzi, J. A. & Müller, N. (2006). Approaches to discourse in dementia. Nueva York: Psychology Press.
: Gumperz, J. (1981). The linguistic bases of communicative competence. En D. Tannen (Ed.) Analyzing discourse: Text and talk (pp. 71-93). Washington: Georgetown University Press.
: Gumperz, J. (1982). Discourse Strategies. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
: Gumperz, J. (1982). The linguistic bases of communicative competence. En D. Tannen (Ed.), Analyzing discourse: Text and talk (pp. 323-334). Washington: Georgetown University Press.
: Gumperz, J. (2001). Interactional sociolinguistics: A personal perspective. En D. Schiffrin, D. Tannen & H. Hamilton (Eds.), The handbook of discourse analysis (pp. 215-229). Cambridge, MA: Blackwell.
: Gumperz, J. J. (1982). Discourse strategies. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
: Gundel, J. K., Hedberg, N. & Zacharski, R. (1993). Cognitive status and the form of referring expressions in discourse. Language, 69(2), 274-307.
: Gunnarsson, B-L., Linell, P., & Nordberg, B. (Eds.) (1997). The Construction of Professional Discourse. Londres, Nueva York: Longman.
: Gunnarsson, B. (2004). The multilayered structured of enterprise discourse. Information Design Journal + Document Design, 12(1), 36-48.
: Gunnarsson, B., Linell, P. & Nordberg B. (Eds.) (1997a). The construction of professional discourse. Essex: Longman.
: Gülich, E. & Kotschi, T. (1995). Discourse Production in Oral Communication. A Study Based on French. En U. Quasthoff (Ed.), Aspects of Oral Communication (pp. 30-66). Berlín: De Gruyter.
: Gülich, E. (2003). Conversational techniques used in transferring knowledge between medical experts and non-experts. Discourse Studies, 5(2), 235-263.
: HATIM, B. y MASON, I. (1990). Discourse and the Translator. Londres: Longman.
: Haddington, P. (2007). Stancetaking as an Interactional Activity: Challenging the prior speaker. En R. Englebretson (Ed.), Stancetaking in Discourse Subjectivity, Interaction, Evaluation (pp. 253-282). Ámsterdam: John Benjamins.
: Hall, S. (2001). Foucault: Power, knowledge and discourse. En M. Wetherell, S. Taylor & S. Yates (Eds.), Discourse Theory and Practice. A Reader (pp. 72-81). Londres: Sage.
: Halliday, M. (1985). Systemic background. En D. James. & S. Greaves Benson (Eds.), Systemic perspectives on discourse (pp. 1-15). Norwood, N. J.: Ablex.
: Halliday, M. A. K. (1990). The construction of knowledge and value in the grammar of scientific discourse: Charles Darwin's The Origin of the Species. In C. De Stasio, M. Gotti & R. Bonadei (Eds.), La rappresentazione verbale e icónica (pp. 57-80). Milano: Guerini.
: Hamilton, H. E. (1994b). Requests for clarification as evidence of pragmatic comprehension difficulty: The case of Alzheimer's disease. Discourse analysis and applications: Studies in adult clinical populations, 185-199.
: Hamilton, H. E. (1996). Intratextuality, intertextuality and the construction of identity as patient in Alzheimer’s disease. Text-Interdisciplinary Journal for the Study of Discourse, 16(1), 61-90.
: Hanks, W. (1987). Discourse genres in a theory of practice. American Ethnologist, 14, 668-692.
: Harris, Z. (1952). Discourse analysis. Language, 28, 1-30.
: Harris, Z. (1982). Discourse and sublanguage. En R. Kittredge & J. Lehrberger (Eds.), Sublanguages: Studies on language in restricted semantic domains (pp. 231-236). Berlín: W. de Gruyter.
: Hasan, R. (1995). The Conception of Context in Text. En P. Fries. & M. Gregory (Eds.), Discourse in Society: Systemic Functional Perspectives (Meaning and Choice in Language: Studies for Michael Halliday). (ADPS50) (pp. 183-283). Norwood, New Jersey: Ablex.
: Hengeveld, K. & Mackenzie, J. (2008). Functional discourse grammar. A typologically-based theory of language structure. Londres & Nueva York: OUP.
: Hengeveld, K. (2004). The architecture of a Functional Discourse Grammar. En J. Lachlan Mackenzie & M. A. Gómez-González (Eds.), A new architecture for Functional Grammar (pp. 1-21). Berlín: Mouton de Gruyter.
: Heritage, J. (2013a). Action formation and its epistemic (and other) backgrounds. Discourse Studies, 15(5), 551-578.
: Herring, S. (2013). Discourse in Web 2.0: Familiar, reconfigured, and emergent. In D. Tannen & A. Trester (Eds.), Discourse 2.0 (pp. 1-25). Georgetown: Georgetown University Press.
: Hess, L. J. & Johnston, J. R. (1988). Acquisition of back channel listener responses to adequate messages. Discourse Processes: A Multidisciplinary Journal, 11(3), 319-335.
: Hester, S. & Hester, S. (2010). Conversational actions and category relations: An analysis of a children’s argument. Discourse Studies, 12(1), 33-48.
: Hewings, A. (1990). Aspects of the Language of Economics Textbooks. En T. Dudley-Evans & W. Henderson (Eds.), The language of economics: The analysis of economic discourse (pp. 29-42). Londres: Modern English Publications/British Council.
: Hickmann, M. (1995). Discourse organization and the development of reference to person, space and time. En P. Fletcher & B. MacWhinney (Eds.), The Handbook of Child Language (pp. 413-447). Oxford: Blackwell.
: Hickmann, M. (2003). Children's discourse. Person, space and time across language. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
: Hopper, J. (1979). Aspect and foregrounding in discourse. En T. Givón (Ed.), Syntax and Semantics 12: Discourse and Syntax (pp. 213-241). Nueva York: Academic Press.
: Horowitz, R. (1987) "Rethorical structure in discourse processing", en R. Horowitz y J. Samuels (Eds.) Comprehending oral and written language, New York: Academic Press, 117-155.
: Horvath, J. (2009). Critical discourse analysis of Obama’s political discourse. Language, Literature and Culture in Changing Transatlantic World, International Conference Proceedings (pp. 22-23). University Library of Presov University.
: Housen, A. (1994). Tense and aspect in second language acquisition: The Dutch interlanguage of a native speaker of English. En C. Vet & C. Vetters (Eds.), Tense and Aspect in Discourse (pp. 257-292). Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter.
: Howell, S. (1986). Speech acts as one discourse. Man, 21, 79-101.
: Hunston, S. & Sinclair, J. (2000). A local grammar of evaluation. En S. Hunston & G. Thompson (Eds.), Evaluation in Text: Authorial Stance and the Construction of Discourse (pp. 74-101). Oxford: Oxford University Press.
: Hunston, S. (1994). Evaluation and organization in a sample of written academic discourse. In M. Coulthard (Ed.), Advances in written text analysis (pp. 191-218). London: Routledge.
: Huschová, P. (2015). Exploring modal verbs conveying possibility in academic discourse. Discourse and Interaction, 8(2), 35-47.
: Hyland, K. & Bondi, M. (2006). Academic discourse across disciplines. Bern: Peter Lang.
: Hyland, K. (2002). Activity and evaluation: Reporting practices in academic writing. En J. Flowerdew (Ed.), Academic discourse (pp. 115-130). Londres: Longman.
: Hyland, K. (2004). Disciplinary discourse. Social interactions in academic writing. Ann Arbor, MI: University of Michigan Press.
: Hyland, K. (2005). Stance and engagement: A model of interaction in academic discourse. Discourse Studies, 7(2), 173-192.
: Hyland, K. (2009). Academic discourse. London: Continuum .
: Hyland, K. (2009). Academic discourse: English in a global context. Londres: Continuum.
: Hyland, K. (2009). Corpus informed discourse analysis: The case of academic engagement. En M. Charles, D. Pecorari & S. Hunston. (Eds.), Academic Writing: At the Interface of Corpus and Discourse (pp. 110-128). Londres: Continuum.
: Ibáñez, R. (2010). The disciplinary text genre as a means for accessing disciplinary knowledge: A study from genre analysis perspective. En G. Parodi (Ed.), Academic and professional discourse genres in Spanish (pp. 189-112). Amsterdam: John Benjamins.
: Iedema, R. (2003). Multimodality, resemiotization: Extending the analysis of discourse as multisemiotic practice. Visual Communication, 2(1), 29-58.
: Ignatieva, N. & Rodríguez-Vergara, D. (2015). Verbal processes in academic language in Spanish: Exploring discourse genres within the systemic functional framework. Functional Linguistics, 2(2), 1-10.
: Ignatieva, N. (2019). Transitive and attitudinal aspects in a functional analysis of academic discourse in Spanish. Open Journal of Modern Linguistics, 9, 165-178.
: Ilie, C. (2010b). Managing dissent and interpersonal relations in the Romanian Parliamentary Discourse.In C. Ilie (Ed.), European Parliaments under Scrutiny (pp. 193-223). Amsterdam/ Philadelphia: John Benjamins.
: In his turn, Maalej (2013) in the study of Hosni Mubarak’s political discourse discovers the tendency to use more royal-we than inclusive we.
: In this respect, Werth proposes the opposite view on this issue in his study of conceptual space in discourse. First, he defines discourse as (Werth, 1999: 51):
: Johnson, S. & Milani, T. M. (Eds.) (2010). Language ideologies and media discourse. Londres: Continuum.
: Johnston, A. (2006). Methodologies for the study of political advertising. In L.L. Kaid & C. Holtz-Bacha (Eds.), The Sage handbook of political discourse (pp. 15-34). London: Sage.
: Kamp, H. & Reyle, U. (1993). From discourse to logic. Introduction to modeltheoretical semantics of natural language, formal logic and discourse representation theory. Dordrecht: Kluwer.
: Kanoksilapatham, B. (2007). Rhetorical moves in biochemistry research articles. En D. Biber, U. Connor & T. A. Upton (Eds.), Discourse on the move. Using corpus analysis to describe discourse structure (pp. 73-119). Ámsterdam & Filadelfia: John Benjamins.
: Key Words: Academic discourse, professional discourse, disciplinary discourse, Corpus linguistics, Corpus PUCV-2006.
: KhosraviNik, M. (2010). The presentation of refugees, asylum seekers and immigrants in British newspapers. A critical discourse analysis. Journal of Language and Politics, 9(1), 1-28.
: KhrosraviNik, M. (2010). Actor descriptions, action attributions, and argumentation: Towards a systematization of CDA analytical categories in the representation of social groups. Critical Discourse Studies, 7(1), 55-72.
: Kintch, W. (1994) The psychology of discourse processing. En M. A. Gernsbacher (Ed.) Psycholinguistics. San Diego, Academic Press. 721-739.
: Kintsch, W (1998). The role of knowledge in discourse comprehension: A construction-integration model. Psychological Review, 95, 163-182
: Kintsch, W. &van Dijk, T. (1983). Strategies of discourse comprehension. New York: Academic Press.
: Kintsch, W. (1988) The role of knowledge in discourse comprehension: A construction-integration model. Psychological Review, 95, 2, 163-182.
: Kintsch, W. (1993) Information accretion and reduction in text processing: Inferences. Discourse Processes, 16, 193-202.
: Kintsch, W. (1994). The role of knowledge in discourse comprehension: A construction-integration model. En H. Singer y B. Rudell (Eds.), Theoretical Models and Processes of Readin, (pp. 951 -995). Newark, Delaware: IRA & Erlbaum.
: Kintsch, W. (1998) "The role of knowledge in discourse comprehension: a construction-integration model". Psychological Review. 95(2), 163-182.
: Klamer, A. (1990). The textbook presentation of economics discourse. En W. Samuels (Ed.), Economics as discourse. An analysis of the language of Economics (pp. 129-154). Londres: Kluwer.
: Klein, H. (1986). Styles of Toba discourse. En J. Sherzer & G. Urban (Eds.), Native South American discourse (pp. 213-35). Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter.
: Kong, A. P. H., Linnik, A., Law, S. P. & Shum, W. W. M. (2017). Measuring discourse coherence in anomic aphasia using Rhetorical Structure Theory. International journal of speech-language pathology, 20(4), 406-421.
: Koornneef, A.W. & Sanders, T. (2012). Establishing coherence relations in discourse: The influence on implicit causality and connectives on pronoun resolution. Language and cognitive processes, 28, 1169-1206.
: Kress, G. & Van Leeuwen, T. (2001). Multimodal discourse. The modes and media of contemporary communication. Londres: Arnold.
: Kumon-Nakamura S., Gluksberg S. & Brown M. (1995). How about another piece of pie: The allusional pretense theory of discourse irony. Journal of Experimental Psychology: General, 124, 3-21.
: Labov, W. & Fanshel, D. (1977). Therapeutic discourse: Psichotherapy as conversation. Nueva York: Academic Press.
: Lai, Y. H. (2014). Discourse features of Chinese-speaking seniors with and without Alzheimer’s disease. Language and Linguistics, 15(3), 411-434.
: Laine, M., Laakso, M., Vuorinen, E. & Rinne, J. (1998). Coherence and informativeness of discourse in two dementia types. Journal of Neurolinguistics, 11(1-2), 79-87.
: Lakoff, R. (2001). Nine ways of looking at apologies: The necessity for interdisciplinary theory and method in Discourse Analysis. En D. Schiffrin, D. Tannen & H. Hamilton (Eds.), The handbook of discourse analysis (pp. 199-214). Cambridge, MA: Blackwell.
: Lambrecht, K. (1994). Information structure and sentence form. Topic, focus, and mental representations of discourse referents. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
: Lampert, M. D. & Ervin-Trip, S. M. (1993). Structured coding for the study of language and social interaction. En J. A. Edwards & M. D. Lampert (Eds), Talking data: Transcription and coding in discourse research (pp. 169-206). Hillsdale: Lawrence Erlbaum.
: Landauer, T. K., Foltz, P. W. & Laham, D. (1998). Introduction to Latent Semantic Analysis. Discourse Processes, 25, 259-284.
: Landauer, Th. (1999) Latent Semantic Analysis: A Theory of the Psychology of language an Mind. Discourse Processes, 27(3), 303-310.
: Landauer,Th.; Foltz,P. y Laham,D. (1998) An Introduction to Latente Semantic Analysis. Discourse Processes.25(2&3), 259-284.
: Langacker, R. (2001). Discourse in cognitive grammar. Cognitive Linguistics, 12(2), 143–188.
: Larsen, S. (1983). Text Processing and Knowledge Updating in Memory for Radio News. Discourse Processes 6, 21-38.
: Larson, M. L. (1977). The function of reported speech in discourse. Tesis doctoral, University of Texas at Arlington, Arlington, Estados Unidos.
: Lascarides, A. & Asher, N. (1991). Discourse relations and defeasible knowledge. En Proceedings of the 29^th Annual Meeting of the Association for Computational Linguistics (pp. 55-63). Morris-ton, N.J.: Association for Computational Linguistics.
: Lascarides, A. & Asher, N. (2008). Segmented discourse representation theory: Dynamic semantics with discourse structure. En H. Bunt & R. Muskens (Eds.), Computing meaning (pp. 87-124). Dordrecht: Springer.
: Lemke, J. (1992). Interpersonal meaning in discourse: Value orientations. En M.Davies & L.Ravelli (Eds.), Advances in systemic linguistics. Recent theory and practice (pp. 82-104). London: Pinter.
: Lemke, J. L. (1985). Ideology, intertextuality, and the notion of register. Systemic Perspectives on Discourse, 1, 275-294.
: Lemke, J. L. (1995). Textual Politics: discourse and social dynamics. London: Taylor & Francis.
: Lewin, B. A., Fine, J. & Young, L. (2001). Expository discourse: A genre-based approach to social science research texts. New York: Continuum.
: León, J.A. & Peñalba, G. (2002). Understanding causality and temporal sequence in scientific discourse. En J. Otero, J.A. León & A.C. Graesser (Eds.), The psychology of science text comprehension (pp. 199-221). Mahwah, N.J.: Erlbaum.
: León, J.A. & Pérez, O. (2001). The infuence of prior knowledge on the time course of clinical diagnosis inferences: A comparison of experts and novices. Discourse Processes, 31, 187-213.
: Li, H. Z. (2006). Backchannel responses as misleading feedback in intercultural discourse. Journal of Intercultural Communication Research, 35(2), 99-116.
: Linderholm, T. , Virtue, S., van den Broek, P. & Tzeng, Y. (2004). Fluctuations in the availability of information during reading: Capturing cognitive processes using the landscape model. Discourse Processes, 37(2), 165-186.
: Linell, P. (1998). Discourse across boundaries: On recontextualisation and the blending of voices in professional discourse. Text, 18(2), 143-157.
: Logan, S. L. (1999). We are coming: The persuasive discourse of nineteenth-century black women. Carbondale: Southern Illinois University Press.
: Long, D., & Golding, J. (1993). Superordinate goal inferences: Are they automatically generated during comprehension? Discourse Processes, 16, 55-74.
: Longacre, R. (1983). The Grammar of Discourse. New York: Plenum Press.
: Lorenzo, F. (2008). Instructional discourse in bilingual settings. An empirical study of linguistic adjustments in content and language integrated learning. Language Learning Journal, 36, 21-33.
: Louwerse, M. & Graesser, A.C. (2004). Coherence in discourse. En Strazny, P. (Ed.), Encyclopedia of linguistics. Chicago: Fitzroy Dearborn. [En Prensa].
: Louwerse, M. & Jeuniaux, P. (2009). Computational psycholinguistic techniques to measure cohesion in discourse. En J. Renkema (Ed.), Discourse of course (pp.213-226). Amsterdam: Benjamins.
: Louwerse, M.M. & Graesser, A.C. (2004). Coherence in discourse. In P. Strazny (Ed.), Encyclopedia of linguistics. Chicago: Fitzroy Dearborn.
: Luukka, M. & Markkanen, R. (1997). Impersonalization as a form of hedging. En R. Markkanen & H. Schröder (Eds.), Hedging and discourse. Approaches to the analysis of a pragmatic phenomenon in academic texts (pp. 168-187). Berlin: W. de Gruyter.
: Luzón, M. J. (2013). Public communication of science in blogs: Recontextualizing scientific discourse for a diversified audience. Written Communication, 30(4), 428-457. [216]https://doi.org/10.1177/0741088313493610
: Lyster, R. (1997). Recasts, repetition, and ambiguity in L2 classroom discourse. Studies in Second Language Acquisition, 20, 51-81.
: López-Arroyo, B., Fernández-Antolín, M. & de Felipe-Boto, R. (2007). Contrasting the rhetoric of abstracts in medical discourse. Implications and applications for English-Spanish translations. Languages in Contrast, 7(1), 1-28. DOI:10.1075/lic.7.1.02lop
: López-Maestre, M.D. & Scheu Lottgen, D. (2003). Student’s Discourse on Immigration Attitudes and Ideological Values: A Critical View. International Journal of English Studies, 3, 209-233.
: Macaulay, R. (2003). Discourse variation. En J. Chambers, P. Trudgill & N. Schilling-Estes (Eds.), The Handbook of Language Variation and Change (pp. 283-305). Oxford: Blackwell.
: Machin, D. & van Leeuwen, T. (2007). Global media discourse: A critical introduction. London and New York: Routledge.
: Magaña, D. & Matlock, T. (2018). How Spanish speakers use metaphor to describe their experiences with cancer. Discourse & Communication, 12(6), 627-644.
: Magliano, J. P., Millis, K. K., Miller, J., & Schleich, M. C. (1999). Revealing differences between good and poor readers based on thinking aloud. Ponencia presentada en the Society for Text and Discourse, Vancouver, BC.
: Magliano, J.P. & Shleich, M. (2000). Verb aspect and situation models. Discourse Processes, 29, 83-112.
: Mann, W. & Thompson, S. (1988). Rhetorical structure theory: Toward a functional theory of text organization. Text-Interdisciplinary Journal for the Study of Discourse, 8(3), 243-281.
: Mann, W. C., Matthiessen, C. M. & Thompson, S. A. (1992). Rhetorical structure theory and text analysis. Discourse description: Diverse linguistic analyses of a fund-raising text, 39-78.
: Marcu, D. (2000). The Theory and Practice of Discourse Parsing and Summarization. Massachusetts, Londres: The MIT Press Cambridge.
: Markkanen, R. & Schröder, H. (1997). Hedging: A challenger for pragmaticis and discourse analysis. En R. Markkanen & H. Schröder (Eds.), Hedging and discourse. Approaches to the analysis of a pragmatic phenomenon in academic texts (pp. 3-18). Berlin: W. de Gruyter.
: Martin J. & Rose, D. (2003). Working with Discourse. Meaning beyond the clause. London: Continuum.
: Martin, J. & Rose, D. (2013). Pedagogic Discourse: Contexts of Schooling. RASK: International Journal of Language and Communication, 38, 219-264.
: Martin, J. (1998). Discourse of science: Recontextualisation, genesis, intertextuality and hegemony. En J. Martin & R. Veel (Eds.), Reading Science: Critical and functional perspectives on discourses of science (pp. 3-14). London: Routledge.
: Martin, J. (2000). Beyond Exchange: APPRAISAL Systems in English. Em S. Hunston & G. Thompson (Eds.), Evaluation in Text: Authorial Stance and the Construction of Discourse (pp. 142-175). Oxford: Oxford University Press.
: Martin, J. (2004). Sense and sensibility: Texturing evaluation. En J. Foley (Ed.), Language, education and discourse: Functional approaches (pp. 270-304). London: Continuum.
: Martin, J. R. & Rose, D. (2003). Working with Discourse: Meaning beyond the Clause. London and New York: Continuum.
: Martin, J. R. & Rose, D. (2005). Designing literacy pedagogy: Scafolding democracy in the classroom. En J. Webster, C. Matthiessen & R. Hassan (Eds.), Continuing discourse on language (pp. 251-280). Londres: Equinox.
: Martin, J. R. & Rose, D. (2007). Working with discourse. Meaning beyond the clause. Londres & Nueva York: Continuum.
: Martin, J. R. (1997b). Register and genre: modelling social context in functional linguistics - narrative genres. En E. Pedro (Ed.), Proceedings of the First Lisbon International Meeting on Discourse Analysis. Lisbon: Colibri/APL.
: Martin, J. R. (2000). Beyond exchange: Appraisal systems in English. En S. Hunston & G. Thompson (Eds.), Evaluation in Text: Authorial Stance and the Construction of Discourse (pp.142-175). Oxford: OUP.
: Martin, J. R. (2001). Cohesion and texture. En D. Schiffrin, D. Tannen & H. Hamilton (Eds.), The Handbook of Discourse Analysis (pp. 35-53). Massachussets: Blackwell Publishers.
: Martin, J. R. (2002). Blessed are the peacemakers: Reconciliation and evaluation. En C. Candlin (Ed.), Research and Practice in Professional Discourse (pp.187-227). Hong Kong: City University of Hong Kong Press.
: Martin, J., Maton, K. & Matruglio, E. (2010). Historical cosmologies: Epistemology and axiology in Australian secondary school history discourse. Revista Signos. Estudios de Lingüística, 43(74), 433-463.
: Martin, J.R. & Rose, D. (2003). Working with discourse. Meaning beyond the clause. London: Continuum.
: Martin, J.R. & Rose, D. (2005). Designing literacy pedagogy: Scaffolding asymmetries. En J. Webster; C. Mathiessen & R. Hassan (Eds.), Continuing discourse on language (pp. 251-280). London: Continuum.
: Martin, J.R. & Stenglin, M. [en prensa]. Materialising reconciliation: Negotiating difference in a post–colonial exhibition. En T. Royce & W. Bowcher. (Eds.), New directions in the analysis of multimodal discourse. Mahwah, N.J.: Erlbaum.
: Martin, J.R. (2000). Beyond exchange: Appraisal systems in English. In S. Hunston & G. Thompson (Eds.), Evaluation in text: Authorial stance and the construction of discourse (pp. 142-175). Oxford: Oxford University Press.
: Martin, J.R. (2004). Positive discourse analysis: Power, solidarity and change. Revista Canaria de Estudios Ingleses, 49, 179-200.
: Martín-Martín, P. (2005). The rhetoric of the abstract in English and Spanish scientific discourse. Berna: Peter Lang.
: Marín Arrese, J. I. (2009). Effective vs. epistemic stance, and subjectivity/intersubjectivity in political discourse. A case study. In A. Tsangalidis & R. Facchinetti (Eds.), Studies on English modality. In honour of Frank R. Palmer (pp. 23-52). Bern: Peter Lang .
: Mathews, E., Jackson, G., Person, N. & Graesser, A. (2003). Discourse patterns in why/AutoTutor. Actas de the 2003 AAAI Spring Symposia on Natural Language Generation in Spoken and Written Dialogue. (pp. 97-103). Palo Alto, Estados Unidos de Norteamérica.
: Matsuda, P. & Jeffery, J. (2012). Voice in student essays. En K. Hyland & C. Sancho Guinda (Eds.), Stance and voice in academic discourse (pp. 151-156). Basingstoke, UK: Palgrave Macmillan.
: Mauranen, A. (1997). Hedging in Language Revisers Hands. En R. Markkanen & H. Schröder (Eds.), Hedging and Discourse: Approaches to the Analysis of a Pragmatic Phenomenon in Academic Texts (pp. 115-133). Berlín & Nueva York: Walter de Gruyter.
: Mauranen, A. (2003). Evaluative language use in academic discourse. Journal of English for Academic Purposes, 2, 269-271.
: Mauranen, A. (2010). Discourse Reflexivity -A Discourse Universal? The Case of ELF. Nordic Journal of English Studies, 9(2), 13-40.
: Maynard, C. & Leicher, S. (2007). Pragmatic annotation of an academic spoken corpus for pedagogical purposes. En E. Fitzpatrick (Ed.), Corpus Linguistics beyond the word: Corpus research from phrase to discourse. Ámsterdam: Rodopi.
: Mazzi, D. (2011). ‘In Other Words,…’: A corpus-based Study of Reformulations in Judicial Discourse. Hermes, Journal of Language and Communication Studies, 46, 11-24.
: McCarthy, M. & Carter, R. (1994). Language as discourse: Perspectives for language teaching. Londres/Nueva York: Longman.
: McCarthy, M. & Handford, M. (2004). Invisible to us: A preliminary corpus-based study of spoken business English. En U. Connor & T. Upton (Eds.), Discourse in the professions. Perspectives from corpus linguistics (pp. 167-202). Amsterdam: Benjamins.
: McCutchen, D. & Perfetti, C. A. (1982). Coherence and connectedness in the development of discourse production. Text-Interdisciplinary Journal for the Study of Discourse, 2(1-3), 113-140.
: McGlone, S., Glucksberg, S. & Cacciari, C. (1994). Semantic productivity and idiom comprehension. Discourse Processes, 17(2), 167-190.
: McKoon, G. & Ratcliff, R. (1995). The minimalist hypothesis: Directions for research. En C. Weaver, S. Mannes & C. Fletcher (Eds.), Discourse comprehension: Essays in honor of Walter Kintsch (pp. 97-116). Mahwah, N.J.: Erlbaum.
: McNamara, D. & Kintsch, W. (1996). Learning from texts: Effects of prior knowledge and text coherence. Discourse Processes, 22, 247-288.
: McNamara, D. S. (2003). SERT: Self-explanation reading training. Submitted to Discourse Processes.
: McNamara, D. S., & Kintsch, W. (1996). Learning from texts: Effects of prior knowledge and text coherence. Discourse Processes, 22, 247-288.
: McNamara, D. S., Louwerse, M. M., Cai, Z. & Graesser, A. (2014). Automated Evaluation of Text and Discourse with Coh-Metrix. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press .
: McNamara, D.S. & Kintsch, W. (1996). Learning from text: Effects of prior knowledge and text coherence. Discourse Processes, 22, 247-287.
: Menéndez, S. M. (2005a). Gramática, análisis del discurso e interpretación crítica: Las relaciones no tan evidentes. Proceedings of the Internacional Conference on Critical Discourse Analysis. Valencia: Universitat de Valencia. (Edición en CD).
: Merino, M. E. & Tileaga, C. (2010). The construction of ethnic minority identity: A discursive psychological approach. Discourse and Society, 22(1), 1-16.
: Messineo, C. (2004). Toba discourse as verbal art. Anthropological Linguistics, 46(4), 216-238. Bloomington: Indiana University Press.
: Miller, D. (2004). "...to meet our common challenge": ENGAGEMENT strategies of alignment and alienation in current US international discourse. Textus, XVIII(1), 39-62.
: Moirand, S. (2003a). Communicative and cognitive dimensions of discourse on science in the French mass media. Discourse Studies, 5(2), 175-206.
: Montero-Fleta, B., Montesinos-López, A., Pérez-Sabater, C. & Turney, E. (2009). Computer mediated communication and informalization of discourse: The influence of culture and subject matter. Journal of Pragmatics, 41(4), 770-779.
: Montgomery, M. (2011). Discourse and the news. En K. Hyland & B. Paltridge (Eds.), The Continuum Companion to Discourse Analysis (pp. 213-227). Londres: Continuum.
: Moore, J. & Pollack, M. (1992). A problem for RST: The need for multi-level discourse analysis. Computational Linguistics, 18, 537-544.
: Moreno, V. & De Vega, M. (2005). Animating words during the comprehension of transference sentences. Comunicación presentada en 15th Annual Meeting of the Society for Text and Discourse, Vrije Universiteit, Amsterdam.
: Morita, N. (2000). Discourse socialization through oral classroom activities in a TESL graduate program. TESOL Quarterly, 34, 279-310.
: Morris, T. (1998). Topicity vs. thematicity: Topic prominence in impromptu Spanish discourse. Journal of pragmatics, 29, 93-203.
: Mulderrig, J. (2012). The hegemony of inclusion: A corpus-based critical discourse analysis of deixis in educational policy. Discourse & Society, 23(6), 701-728.
: Mushin, I. (2013). Making knowledge visible in discourse: Implications for the study of linguistic evidentiality.Discourse studies,15(5), 627-645.
: Myers, G. (2003). Discourse studies of scientific popularization: Questioning the boundaries. Discourse Studies, 5 (2), 265-278.
: Myers, G. A. (1991). Lexical cohesion and specialised knowledge in science and popular science texts. Discourse Processes, 14(1), 1-26.
: Myers, J. & O’Brien, E. (1998). Accessing the discourse representation during reading. Discourse Processes, 26, 131-157.
: Nakahama, Y., Tyler, A. & Van Lier, L. (2001). Negotiation of meaning in conversational and information gap activities: A comparative discourse analysis. Tesol Quarterly, 35(3), 377-405.
: Nikitina, T. (2012). Personal deixis and reported discourse: Towards a typology of person alignment. Linguistic Typology, 16, 233-263.
: Nippold, M. & C. M. Scott, (2010). Expository discourse in children, adolescents, and adults: Development and disorders. Nueva York: Psychology Press/Taylor & Francis.
: Noordman, L. & Vonk, W. (1997). The different functions of a conjunction in constructing a representation of the discourse. En J. Costermans & M. Fayol (Eds.), Processing interclausal relationships (pp.75- 93). Mahwah NJ: Earlbaum.
: Nwogu, K. (1995). Structuring scientific discourse using the "given-new" perspective. English Teaching Forum, 33(4), 22-28.
: Nystrand, M. (1982) What writers know: the language, process, and structure of written discourse, New York: Academic Press.
: Orna-Montesinos, C. (2012). Constructing professional discourse: A multiperspective approach to domain-specific discourses. Newcastle upon Tyne: Cambridge Scholars.
: Oswick, C., Keenoy, T. & Grant, D. (2000). Discourse, organizations and organizing: Concepts, objects and subjects. Human Relations, 53(9), 1.116-1.123.
: Oteíza, T. & Pinto, D. (2008). Agency, responsibility and silence in the construction of contemporary history in Chile and Spain. Discourse & Society, 19(3), 333-358.
: Oteíza, T. & Pinuer, C. (2013). Valorative prosody and the symbolic construction of time in historical recent national discourses. Discourse Studies, 15(1), 43-64.
: Oteíza, T. (2003). How contemporary history is presented in Chilean middle school textbooks. Discourse & Society, 14(5), 639-660.
: Oteíza, T. (2009a). Evaluative patterns in the official discourse of Human Rights in Chile: Giving value to the past and building historical memories in society. Delta, 25, 609-640.
: Oyebode, O. & Unuabonah, F. O. (2013). Coping with HIV/AIDS: A multimodal discourse analysis of selected HIV/AIDS posters in south-western Nigeria. Discourse & Society, 24(6), 810-827.
: O’Halloran, K. (2005). Mathematical Discourse: Language, Symbolism and Visual Images. Londres/Nueva York: Continuum.
: O’Halloran, K. (2007). Critical discourse analysis and the corpus-informed interpretation of metaphor at the register level. Applied Linguistics, 28, 1-24.
: O’Halloran, K. L. (2011). Multimodal discourse analysis. In K. Hyland & B. Paltridge (Eds.), The Continuum companion to discourse analysis (pp. 120-137). London and New York: Continuum.
: O’Halloran, K. L., Tan, S., Smith, B. A. & Podlasov, A. (2011). Multimodal analysis within an interactive software environment: Critical discourse perspectives. Critical Discourse Studies, 8, 109-25.
: Parodi, G. (2010). Academic and professional discourse genres in Spanish. Ámsterdam: John Benjamins.
: Parodi, G. (2010). The rhetorical organization of the textbook genre across disciplines: A ‘colony-in-loops’? Discourse Studies, 12(2), 195-222.
: Parodi, G. (2010a). Academic and professional genres: Variation across four disciplines. En G. Parodi (Ed.), Academic and professional discourse genres in Spanish (pp. 65-82). Amsterdam: John Benjamins.
: Parodi, G. (Ed.) (2010). Academic and professional discourse genres in Spanish. Amsterdam/Philadelphia: John Benjamins.
: Parodi, G. (Ed.). (2007b). Working with Spanish corpora. London: Continuum (Researchin Corpus and Discourse) Valparaíso: Ediciones Universitarias de Valparaíso.
: Parodi, G., Ibáñez, R. & Venegas, R. (2010). Discourse Genres in PUCV-2006 Corpus of Academic and Professional Spanish. Criteria, Definitions and Examples. En G. Parodi (Ed.), Discourse genres in Spanish: Academic and professional connections (pp. 37–63). Amsterdam: Benjamins.
: Parodi, G., Ibáñez, R. & Venegas, R. (2010). Discourse genres in Spanish: Academic and professional connections. Amsterdam: Benjamins.
: Paulus, T. M. & Roberts, K. R. (2018). Crowdfunding a ‘‘real-life superhero”: The construction of worthy bodies in medical campaign narratives. Discourse, Context & Media, 21, 64-72. [233]https://doi.org/10.1016/j.dcm.2017.09.008
: Penrose, A. & Katz, B. (2004). Writing in the Sciences: Exploring conventions of scientific discourse. Nueva York: Longman.
: Perfetti, Ch. (1998) The limits of Co-Occurrence: Tools and Theories in Language Research. Discourse Processes, 25(2&3), 365-377.
: Peronard, M.(1999b) "What children know about reading before they learn to read" poster presentado en IX Annual Meeting of the Text and Discourse Society, Vancouver, Canadá.
: Person, N. & Graesser, A. (1999). Evolution of discourse in cross-age tutoring. En A. O’Donnell & A. King (Eds.), Cognitive perspectives on peer learning (pp. 69-86). Mahwah, NJ: Erlbaum.
: Pho, P. (2008). Research article abstracts in applied linguistics and educational technology: A study of linguistic realizations of rhetorical structure and authorial stance. Discourse Studies, 10, 231-250.
: Pic, E. & Furmaniak, G. (2012). A study of epistemic modality in academic and popularised discourse: The case of possibility adverbs perhaps, maybe and possibly. Revista de Lenguas para Fines Específicos, 18, 13-44.
: Pinto, D. (2004). Indoctrinating the youth of Post-war Spain: A discourse analysis of a fascist civics textbook. Discourse & Society, 15(5), 649-667.
: Piqué-Angordans, J. & Posteguillo, S. (2006). Medical discourse and academic genres. In K. Brown (Ed.), The Encyclopedia of Language and Linguistics (pp. 649-657). London: Elsevier.
: Pistono, A., Jucla, M., Barbeau, E. J., Saint-Aubert, L., Lemesle, B., Calvet, B. & Pariente, J. (2016). Pauses during autobiographical discourse reflect episodic memory processes in early Alzheimer’s disease. Journal of Alzheimer’s Disease, 50(3), 687-698.
: Plantin, C. (1998). Les raisons des émotions. En M. Bondi (Ed.), Forms of argumentative discourse / Per un'analisi lingüistica dell'argomentare (pp. 3-50). Bologne: CLUEB.
: Poesio, M., Sturt, P., Arstein, R. & Filik, R. (2006). Underspecification and anaphora: Theoretical issues and preliminary evidence. Discourse Processes, 42(2), 157-175.
: Polanyi, L. (1996). The linguistic structure of discourse. Países Bajos: Tilburg University.
: Ponterotto, D. (2000). The cohesive role of cognitive metaphor in discourse and conversation. En A. Barcelona (Ed.), Metaphor and metonymy at the crossroads (pp. 283-298). Berlin: Gruyter.
: Porter, J. (1986). Intertextuality and the discourse community. Rhetoric Review, 5(1), 34-47.
: Potter, J. & Wetherell, M. (1987). Discourse and Social Psychology: Beyond attitudes and behaviour. Londres: Sage.
: Potter, J. (1996). Representing reality: Discourse, rhetoric and social construction. Londres: Sage.
: Pragglejaz Group (2007). MIP: A method for identifying metaphorically used words in discourse. Metaphor and Symbol, 22(1), 1-39.
: Prince, E. F. (1990). Syntax and discourse: A look at resumptive pronouns. En D. J. Costa (Ed.), Proceedings of the Sixteenth Annual Meeting of the Berkeley Linguistics Society (pp. 482-497). California: Berkeley Linguistic Society.
: Prince, E., Bosk, C. & Frader, J. (1982). On hedging in physician-physician discourse. En J. di Pietro (Ed.), Linguistics and the professions (pp. 83-97). Norwood: Ablex.
: Prior, P. (2001). Voices in text, mind, and society. Sociohistoric accounts of discourse acquisition and use. Journal of Second Language Writing, 10, 55-81.
: Pérez-Llantada, C. (2010). The discourse functions of metadiscourse in published academic writing: Issues of culture and language. Nordic Journal of English Studies, 9(2), 41-68.
: Ravelli, L. J. (1988). Grammatical metaphor. An initial analysis. En E. Steiner & R. Veltman (Eds.), Pragmatics, discourse and text. Some systemically-inspired approaches (pp. 133-147). Londres: Pinter Publishers.
: Ravid, D. & Berman, R. (2006). Information density in the development of spoken and written narratives in English and Hebrew. Discourse Processes, 41(2), 117-149.
: Rees, A. (1983). Pronouns of person and power: A Study of personal pronouns in public discourse. Unpublished Master’s Thesis. Department of Linguistics. University of Sheffield.
: Rehder, B., Schreiner, M. E., Wolfe, M. B., Laham, D., Landauer, T. K. & Kintsch, W. (1998). Using Latent Semantic Analysis to assess knowledge: Some technical considerations. Discourse Processes, 25, 337-354.
: Reisfield, G. & Wilson, G. (2004). Use of metaphor in the discourse on cancer. Journal of Clinical Oncology, 22(19), 4024-4027.
: Reisigl, M. & Wodak, R. (2001). Discourse and discrimination: Rhetorics of racism and anti-semitism. London: Routledge.
: Renkema, J. (1993). Discourse studies: An introductory textbook. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.
: Renkema, J. (2004). Introduction to discourse studies. Amsterdam: Benjamins.
: Renkema, J. (2009). Discourse, of course: An overview of research in discourse studies. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.
: Renkema, J. (2009). The texture of discourse. Ámsterdam: John Benjamins .
: Renkema, J. (2009). The texture of discourse: Towards an outline of Connectivity Theory. 213 pp. Amsterdam: John Benjamins Publishing Company. ISBN: 9789027232663.
: Renkema, Jan (2004). Introduction to Discourse Studies.
: Reppen, R. (2004). Academic language: An exploration of university classroom and textbook language. En U. Connor & T. Upton (Eds), Discourse in the professions. Perspectives from corpus linguistics (pp. 65-87). Amsterdam: Benjamins.
: Richardson, D. & Dale, R. (2005). Looking to understand: The coupling between speakers’ and listeners’ eye movements and its relationship to discourse comprehension. Cognitive Science, 29, 1045-1060.
: Richardson, J. (2007). Analysing newspapers: An approach from critical discourse analysis. Londres: Palgrave Macmillan.
: Ricoeur, P. (1976). Interpretation theory: Discourse and the surplus of meaning, fort worth. Texas: The Texas Christian University Press.
: Ripich, D. N. & Terrell, B. Y. (1988). Patterns of discourse cohesion and coherence in Alzheimer’s disease. Journal of Speech and Hearing Disorders, 53(1), 8-15.
: Rochester, S. & Martin, J. (1979). Crazy talk: A study of the discourse of schizophrenic speakers. New York: Plenum.
: Rogers, R. (2004). An introduccion to critical discourse analysis. Nueva Yersey: Lawrence Erlbaum.
: Rogoff, B. & Toma Ch. (1997). Shared thinking: Community and institutional variations. Discourse Processes, 23(3), 471-497.
: Rose, D. (1998). Science discourse an industrial hierarchy. En J. Martin & R. Veel (Eds.), Reading science. Critical and functional perspectives on discourses of science (pp. 236-265). London: Routledge.
: Rose, D. (2014). Analysing pedagogic discourse: An approach from genre and register. Functional Linguistics 1(11), 1-13 [en línea]. Disponible en: [205]https://doi.org/10.1186/s40554-014-0011-4
: Rosemberg, C. & Silva, M. L. (2009). Teacher children interaction and concept- development in kindergarten. Discourse Processes, 46(6), 572-591.
: Royce, T. (2007). Inter-semiotic complementarity: A framework for multimodal discourse analysis. En T. Royce & W. Bowcher (Eds.), New directions in the analysis of multimodal discourse (pp. 63-109). Mahwah, NJ: Erlbaum.
: Rundbald, G. (2007). Impersonal, general, and social: The use of metonymy versus passive voice in medical discourse. Written Communication, 24(3), 250-277.
: SEUREN, P.A.M. (1985) Discourse semantics. Oxford: Blackwell.
: Sadoski, M. (2009). Embodied cognition, discourse, and Dual Coding Theory: New directions. En J. Renkema (Ed.), Discourse, of course: An overview of research in discourse studies (pp. 187-223). Amsterdam: Benjamins.
: Salager Meyer, F. & Alcaraz Ariza, M.A. (2003). Academic criticism in Spanish medical discourse: A cross-generic approach. International Journal of Applied Linguistics, 13(1), 96-114.
: Salager-Meyer, F. (1991). A text-type based discourse analysis of medical English. Abstracts internal structuring. Ponencia presentada en the Second Latin American ESP Colloquium, Santiago de Chile, Chile.
: Salager-Meyer, F. (1994). Hedges and textual communicative function in Medical English written discourse. English for Specific Purposes, 13(2), 149-170.
: Salager-Meyer, F., Defives, G. & Hamelynck, M. (1996). Epistemic modality in 19th and 20th century medical English written discourse: A principal component analysis. Interface. Journal of Applied Linguistics, 10, 163-199.
: Salager–Meyer, F. (1993). Hedges and textual communicative function in medical English written discourse. English for Specific Purposes, 13(2), 140– 170.
: Salager–Meyer, F. (1997). I think that perhaps you should: A study of hedges in written scientific discourse. En T. Miller (Ed.), Functional approaches to written text: Classroom applications (pp. 105–118). Washington, D.C.: USIA.
: Salmeron, L., Canas, J., Kintsch, W. & Fajardo, I. (2005). Reading strategies and hypertext comprehension. Discourse Processes, 40(3), 71-91
: Salmi-Tolonen, T. (2003). Arbitration law as action: An analysis of the Finnish arbitration act. En V. Bhatia, C. Candlin & M. Gotti (Eds.). Legal discourse in multilingual and multicultural contexts: Arbitration texts in Europe (pp. 313-332). Bern: Peter Lang.
: Samraj, B. (2002). Disciplinary variation in abstracts: The case of wildlife behavior and conservation biology. En J. Flowerdew (Ed.), Academic Discourse (pp. 40-56). Harlow: Longman.
: Samraj, B. (2008). A discourse analysis of master's theses across disciplines with a focus on introductions. Journal of English for academic purposes, 7(1), 55-67.
: Samraj, B. (2016). Discourse structure and variation in manuscript review. Implications for genre categorization. English for Specific Purposes, 42, 76-88.
: Sanders, T. (2005). Coherence, causality and cognitive complexity in discourse. En D. Aurnague, M. Bras, A. Le Draoulec & L. Vieu (Eds.), Proceedings/Actes SEM-05, First International Symposium on the exploration and modelling of meaning (pp. 105-114).
: Sanders, T. J. M. & Noordman, L. G. M. (2000). The role of coherence relations and their linguistic markers in processing. Discourse Processes, 29(1), 37-60.
: Sanders, T., Spooren, W. & Noordman, L. (1992). Toward a taxonomy of coherence relations. Discourse processes, 15(1), 1-35.
: Santa Ana, O. (2002). Brown tide rising: Metaphors of Latinos in contemporary American public discourse. Austin: University of Texas Press.
: Sarangi, S. & Roberts, C. (1999). The dynamics of interactional and institutional orders in work-related settings. En S. Sarangi & C. Roberts (Eds.), Talk, work and the institutional order: Discourse in medical, mediation and management settings (pp. 1-57). Berlin: de Gruyter.
: Sarangi, S. (2000). Activity types and discourse types and interact ional hybridity: The case of genetic counselling. En S. Sarangi & M. Coulthard (Eds.), Discourse and social life (pp. 1-27). London: Longman.
: Sarangi, S. (2002). Discourse practitioners as a community of interprofessional practice: Some insights from health communication research. En C. Candlin (Ed.), Research and practice in professional discourse (pp. 93-135). Hong Kong City: University of Hong Kong Press.
: Schegloff, E. (1982). Discourse as an interactional achievement: Somes uses of ‘uh, huh’ and other things that comes between sentences. En D. Tannen (Ed.), Analizing Discourse Text and Talk (pp. 71-93). Washington, DC: Georgetown University Press.
: Scheibman, J. (2007). Subjective and intersubjective uses of generalizations in English conversation. En R. Englebretson (Ed.), Stancetaking in Discourse Subjectivity, Interaction, Evaluation (pp. 111-138). Ámsterdam: John Benjamins.
: Schiffrin, D. (1987). Discourse markers. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
: Schiffrin, D. (2003). Discourse markers: Language, meaning and context. En D. Schiffrin, D. Tannen & H. E. Hamilton (Eds.), The Handbook of Discourse Analysis (pp. 54-75). Oxford: Blackwell.
: Schmalhofer, F. , McDaniel, M. & Keefe, D. (2002). A unifed model of predictive and bridging inferences. Discourse Processes, 33(2), 105-132.
: Schmitt, C., Holtheuer, C. & Miller, K. (2004). Acquisition of copulas ser and estar in Spanish: Learning lexico-semantics, syntax and discourse [online]. Retrieved from: [63]http://www.bu.edu/linguistics/APPLIED?BUCLD/supp.html
: Scollon, R. & Scollon, S. W. (1995). Intercultural communication. A discourse approach. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press .
: Scott, C. & Windsor, J. (2000). General language performance measures in spoken and written narrative and expository discourse of school age children with language learning disabilities. Journal of Speech, Language, and Hearing Research, 43, 324-339.
: Serrano, M. J. & Aijón Oliva, M. A. (2013b). Discourse objectivization, Social variation and style in the use of Spanish tú. Folia Linguistica, 47 (en prensa).
: Sherzer, J. & Urban, G. (1986). Native South American discourse. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter.
: Sherzer, J. (1982). Poetic structuring of Kuna discourse: The line. Language in society, 11, 371-390.
: Shiffrin, D. (1994). Approaches to discourse. Oxford: Blackwell.
: Shäffner, C. & Bassnett, S. (2010). Political discourse, media and translation. Newcastle upon Type: Cambridge Scholars Publishers.
: Silverstein, M. (1993). Metapragmatic discourse and metapragmatic function. En J. Lucy (Ed.), Reflexive language. Reported speech and metapragmatics (pp. 33-58). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
: Silvestri, A. (1999). Bajtín y Vygotski: Teoría del enunciado y concepción socio-cultural del psiquismo. En P. del Rio (Comp.), Explorations in Socio-cultural Studies: Historical and Theoretical Discourse (pp. 214-219). Madrid: Infancia y Aprendizaje.
: Simpson, R. (2004). Stylistic features of academic speech: The role of formulaic expressions. En U. Connor & T. Upton (Eds.), Discourse in the professions. Perspectives from corpus linguistics (pp. 37-64). Amsterdam: Benjamins.
: Sinclair, J. & Coulthard, M. (1992). Towards an analysis of discourse. En M. Coulthard (Ed.), Advances in spoken discourse analysis (pp. 1-35). Londres: Routledge.
: Sinclair, J. & Coulthard, R. M. (1975). Towards an analysis of discourse: The English used by teachers and pupils. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
: Sinclair, J. (1986). Fictional worlds. En M. Coulthard (Ed.), Talking about text. Discourse Analysis Monographs 13 (pp.43-60). Birmingham: English Language Research, University of Birmingham.
: Sinclair, J. (2004). Trust the text. Language, corpus and discourse. Londres: Routledge .
: Sinclair, J. (2005). Language as a string of beads: Discourse and the M-word. En E. Tognini-Bonelli & G. Del Lungo Camiciotti (Eds.), Strategies in academic discourse (pp. 163-168). Ámsterdam: John Benjamins.
: Sinclair, J. M., & Coulthard, R. M. (1975). Towards an Analysis of Discourse: the English used by teachers and pupils. London: Oxford University Press.
: Singer, M. & Kintsch, W. (2001). Text retrieval: A theoretical exploration. Discourse Processes, 31, 27-59.
: Singer, M. (1990) Psychology of language: an introduction to sentence and discourse processes. Hillsdale. New Jersey: Erlbaum.
: Singer, M., Harkness, D. & Stewart, S. (1997). Constructing inferences in expository text comprehension. Discourse Processes, 24, 199-228.
: Skorczynska, H. (2010). Metaphor and knowledge specialization: The use of building metaphors in the general business and project management discourse. Proceedings of the 9th AELFE Conference (pp. 1-15). Universität de Hamburg, Germany.
: Spooren, W. & Sanders, T. (2008). The acquisition order of coherence relations: On cognitive complexity in discourse. Journal of pragmatics, 40(12), 2003-2026.
: Stark, H. (1988). What do paragraph markers do?. Discourse Processes, 11(3), 275-304.
: Stein, N. & Albro, E. (2001). The origins and nature of arguments: Studies in conflict understanding, emotion, and negotiation. Discourse Processes, 32(2-3), 113-133.
: Stein, N. & Glenn, C. (1979). An analysis of story comprehension in elementary school children. En R. Freedle (Ed.), New directions in discourse processing (pp. 53-120). Hillsdale, N.J.: Erlbaum.
: Stein, N. L. & Albro, E. R. (2001). The origins and nature of arguments: Studies in conflict understanding, emotion and negotiation. Discourse Processes, 32(2-3), 113-133.
: Stein, N. L. & Glenn, C. G. (1979). An analysis of story comprehension in elementary school children. En R. O. Freedle (Ed.), New directions in discourse processing, Volume 2 (pp. 53-120). Norwood: Ablex.
: Sternbach, Nancy Saporta. «Re-membering the Dead: Latin American Women «Testimonial» Discourse.» Latin American Perspectives, 70, 18, 3, (1991): 91-102.
: Stobbe, L. (2005). Doing machismo: Legitimating speech acts as a selection discourse. Gender work and Organization, 12(2), 105-123.
: Streb, J., Rösler, F. y Hennighaussen, E. (1999) Event-related responses to pronoun and proper names anaphors in parallel and nonparallel discourse structures. Brain and Language. 70: 273-286.
: Suau-Jiménez, F. & Piqué-Noguera, C. (2017). Hedging in tourism discourse: The variable genre in academic vs professional texts. Proceedings of the Congreso Internacional de Lingüística de Corpus, Paris, France.
: Suh, S. y Trabasso, T. (1993) Inferences during reading: converging evidence from discourse analysis, talk-aloud protocols, and recognition priming. Journal of Memory and Language, 32, 279-300.
: Suomela-Salmi, E. & Dervin, F. (Eds.) (2009). Cross-linguistic and Cross-cultural perspectives on academic discourse. Ámsterdam: John Benjamins.
: Swales, J. (1986). Citation analysis and discourse analysis. Applied Linguistics, 7(1), 39-56.
: Swales, J. (1987). Approaching the concept of discourse community. Ponencia presentada en el Annual Meeting of the Conference on College Composition and Communication, Atlanta, Georgia, Estados Unidos de Norteamérica.
: Swales, J. (1992). Re-thinking genre: Another look at discourse community effects. Em J. Swales (Ed.), Re-thinking genre colloquium (pp. 197-220). Otawa: Carleton University.
: TOMLIN, R.S. (Eds.) (1987) Coherence and grounding in discourse. Amsterdam: Benjamin.
: Taboada, M. & Das, D. (2013). Annotation upon Annotation: Adding Signalling Information to a Corpus of Discourse Relations. Dialogue & Discourse, 4(2), 249-281.
: Taboada, M. & Habel, C. (2013). Rhetorical relations in multimodal documents. Discourse Studies, 15(1), 59-85.
: Taboada, M. & Mann, W. (2006a). Rhetorical Structure Theory: Looking back and moving ahead. Discourse Studies, 8, 424-459.
: Tadros, A. (1993). The pragmatics of text averral and attribution in academic texts. En M. Hoey (Ed.), Data, Description, Discourse. Londres: Harper Collins.
: Tannen, D. (1984). Spoken and written narrative in English and Greek. En D. Tannen (Ed.), Coherence in spoken and written discourse (pp. 21-41). Norwood, N.J.: Ablex Publishing Company.
: Tannen, D. (1989). Talking Voices. Repetition, dialogue, and imagery in conversational discourse. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
: Tannen, D. (2007). Power maneuvers and connection maneuvers in family interaction. En D. Tannen, S. Kendall & C. Gordon (Eds.), Discourse and Identity in Four American Families (pp. 27-48). Nueva York: Oxford University Press.
: Tanskanen, S. (2006). Collaborating towards coherence: Lexical cohesion in English discourse. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.
: Tapiero, I. & Denhière, G. (1995). Simulating recall and recognition by using Kintsch’s construction-integration model. En C. Weaver, S. Mannes & C. Fletcher (Eds.), Discourse comprehension: Essays in honor of Walter Kintsch (pp. 211-232). Mahwah, N.J.: Erlbaum.
: The problem of inclusion / exclusion of personal deictic pronouns in political discourse has been fully covered by Rees (1983) in his pronominal scale:
: Thompson, G. & Hunston, S. (2000). Evaluation in text: Authorial stance and the construction of discourse. Oxford, Nueva York: Oxford University Press.
: Thompson, G. & Thetela, P. (1995). The sound of one hand clapping: The management of interaction in written discourse. Text and Talk, 15(1), 103-127.
: Thompson, G. & Zhou, J. (2001). Evaluation and organization in text: The structuring role of evaluative disjuncts. En S. Hunston & G. Thompson (Eds.), Evaluation in Text. Authorial Stance and the Construction of Discourse (pp. 121-140). Oxford: Oxford University Press .
: Thompson, G. (1996). Voices in the text: Discourse perspectives on language reports. Applied Linguistics, 17, 501–530.
: Thomson, R. & Murachver, T. (2001). Predicting gender from electronic discourse. British Journal of Social Psychology, 40, 193-208.
: Thornburg, L. & Panther, K. (1997). Speech act metonymies. En W. Liebert, G. Redeker & L. Waugh (Eds.), Discourse and perspectives in cognitive linguistics (pp. 205-219). Amsterdam and Philadelphia: Benjamins.
: Thorndyke, P. (1977). Cognitive structures in comprehension and memory of narrative discourse. Cognitive Psychology, 9, 77-110.
: Thorndyke, P. (1979). Knowledge adquisition from newspaper stories. Discourse Processes, 2, 95-112.
: Till, R.E., Mross, E.F. & Kintsch, W. (1988). Time course of priming for associate and inference words in a discourse context. Memory and Cognition, 16, 283-298.
: Titscher, S., Meyer, M., Wodak, R., & Vetter, E. (2000). Methods of text and discourse analysis. Londres: Sage Publications.
: Topic shift markers in parliamentary discourse: Analysis of President Zapatero’s speech [2011]
: Trabasso, T. & Magliano, J. (1996). Conscious understanding during text comprehension. Discourse Processes, 21, 255-287.
: Trabasso, T. & Suh, S. (1993). Understanding text: Achieving explanatory coherence through on-line inferences and mental operations in working memory. Discourse Processes, 16, 3-34.
: Trabasso, T. , van den Broek, P. & Suh, S. (1989). Logical necessity and transitivity of causal relations in stories. Discourse Processes, 12, 1-25.
: Trimble, L. (1985). English for science and technology. A discourse approach. Cambridge: CUP.
: Tsakona, V. (2009). Humor and image politics in parliamentary discourse: A Greek case study. Text & Talk, 29(2), 219-237.
: Upton, T. & Connor, U. (2001). Using computerized corpus analysis to investigate the textlinguistic discourse moves of a genre. English for Specific Purposes, 20, 313-329.
: Upton, T. A. & Cohen, M. A. (2009). An approach to corpus-based discourse analysis: The move analysis as example. Discourse studies, 11(5), 585-605.
: Urban, G. (1988). The pronominal pragmatics of nuclear war discourse. Multilingua, 7(1-2), 67-93.
: VAN DIJK,T., and W. KINTSCH, Strategies of discourse comprehension, N. York, Academic Press, 1983.
: Valle, E. (1997). A scientific community and its texts: A historical discourse study. En B. Gunnarsson, P. Linell & B. Nordberg (Eds.), The construction of professional discourse (pp. 76-98). Essex: Longman.
: Van Berkum, J., Hagoort, P. y Brown, C. (1999) Semantic integration in sentences and discourse: evidence from the N400. Journal of Cognitive Neuroscience. 11 (6): 657-671.
: Van DIJK, T.A. y KINTSCH, W (1983) Strategies of discourse comprehension. New York: Academy Press.
: Van DIJK, T.A.(1980) Macrostructures. An interdisciplinary study of global structures in discourse, interaction and cognition. Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum.
: Van Dijk, T. & Kintsch, W. (1983). Strategic of discourse comprehension. New York: Academic Press.
: Van Dijk, T. (1981). Sentence topic and discourse topic. En T. van Dijk, Studies in the pragmatics of discourse (pp. 177-193). París: Mouton.
: Van Dijk, T. (1985) Cognitive situation models in discourse production; The expression of ethnic situations in prejudices discourse. En J. Forgas (ed.), Language and social situations. London: Academic Press, 61-79.
: Van Dijk, T. (2006). Discourse and manipulation. Discourse & Society, 17(3), 359-383.
: Van Dijk, T. A. & Kintsch, W. (1983). Strategies of discourse comprehension. Nueva York: Academic Press.
: Van Dijk, T. A. (1985). Semantic discourse analysis.Handbook of discourse analysis, 2, 103-136.
: Van Dijk, T. A. (2003b). Specialized discourse and knowledge. A case study of the discourse of modern genetics. Cadernos do estudos lingüisticos, 44, 21-55.
: Van Dijk, T. y W. Kintsch (1983) Strategies of discourse comprehension. New York: Academic Press.
: Van Dijk, T.A. (1993). Principles of critical discourse analysis. Discourse and Society, 4 (2), 249-83.
: Van Dijk, T.A. (1996). Discourse, power and access. En C.R. Caldas-Coulthard & M. Coulthard (Eds.), Texts and Practices. Readings in critical discourse analysis (pp. 84-104). Londres: Routledge.
: Van Eemeren, F. & Houtlosser, P. (1999). Strategic maneuvering in argumentative discourse. Discourse Studies, 1, 479-497.
: Van Eemeren, F. & Houtlosser, P. (2008). Strategic manoeuvring in argumentative discourse: Exploring the boundaries of reasonable discussion. En F. van Eemeren, D. Cratis & I. Zagar (Eds.), Understanding Argumentation (pp. 13-26). Amsterdam: Sic Sat-Rozenberg.
: Van Eemeren, F. (2010). Strategic maneuvering in argumentative discourse. Extending the pragma-dialectical Theory of Argumentation. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.
: Van Eemeren, F. H., Grootendorst, R., Jackson, S. & Jacobs, S. (1993). Reconstructing argumentative discourse. Alabama: The University of Alabama Press.
: Van Eemeren, F.H., Grootendorst, R., Jackson, S., Jacobs,S. (1997) Argumentation. En Van Dijk, T. Discourse as Structure and Process. London: Sage Publications, Ltda.
: Van Leeuwen, T. (1996). The representation of social actors. En C. Caldas-Coulthard & M. Coulthard (Eds.), Texts and practice. Reading in critical discourse analysis (pp. 32-70). Londres: Routledge.
: Van Leeuwen, T. (2008). Discourse and practice. New tools for Critical Discourse Analysis. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
: Van de Craen P., Ceuleers, E., Lochtman, K., Allain, L. & Mondt, K. (2007). An interdisciplinary research approach to CLIL learning in primary schools in Brussels. En C. Dalton-Puffer & U. Smit (Eds.), Empirical perspectives in CLIL classroom discourse (pp. 48-64). Frankfurt: Lang.
: Van de Kopple, W. (1985). Some exploratory discourse on metadiscourse. College Composition and Communication, 36(1), 82-93.
: Vande Kopple, W. (2002). Metadiscourse, discourse and issues in composition and rhetoric. In E. Barton & G. Stygall (Eds.), Discourse studies in composition. Cresskill (pp. 91-113). New Jersey: Hampton Press.
: Vande Kopple, W. J. (1985). Some exploratory discourse on metadiscourse. College Composition and Communication, 36, 82-93.
: Varela Suárez, A. (2017). The question-answer adjacency pair in dementia discourse. International Journal of Applied Linguistics, 1-16.
: Varttala, T. (2001). Hedging in scientifically oriented discourse. Exploring variation according to discipline and intended audience. Tesis doctoral, Universidad de Tampere, Tampere, Finlandia.
: Vassileva, I. (2000). Who is the author? A contrastive analysis of authorial presence in English, German, French, Russian and Bulgarian academic discourse. Sankt Augustin: Asgard Verlag.
: Veel, R. (1997). Learning how to mean -scientifically speaking: Apprenticeship into scientific discourse in the secondary school. In F. Christie & J. R. Martin (Eds.), Genre and institutions: Social processes in the workplace and school (pp. 161-195). London: Cassell.
: Veel, R. (2005). The greening of school science: Ecogenesis in secondary classrooms. En J. R. Martin & R. Veel (Eds.), Reading Science. Critical and Functional Perspectives on Discourse of Science (pp.115-152). Londres: Taylor & Francis e-Library.
: Viechnicki, G. B. (2002).Evidentiality in scientific discourse. Unpublished doctoral dissertation, University of Chicago, Chicago, USA.
: Vine, B. (2004). Getting things done at work. The discourse of power in workplace interaction. Amsterdam: Benjamins.
: Violi, Patrizia. "Letters". Discourse and Literature. Ed. Teun A. Van Dijk. Amsterdam/Philadelphia: John Benjamin Publishing Company, 1985: 149-167.
: Virtanen, T. (2004). Text, discourse and cognition: An introduction. En T. Virtranen (Ed.), Approaches to Cognition through Text an Discourse (pp. 1-16). Berlín/Nueva York: Mouton de Gruyter.
: Vitaljevna, A. (2009). Reported speech as an element of argumentive newspaper discourse. Discourse & Communication, 3(1), 79-103.
: Voutilainen, L., Henttonen, P., Stevanovic, M., Kahri, M. & Peräkylä, A. (2019). Nods, vocal continuers, and the perception of empathy in storytelling. Discourse Processes, 56(4), 310-330. [204]https://doi.org/10.1080/0163853X.2018.1498670
: WIDDOWSON, H. (1979) Conceptual and communicative functions in written discourse. U. London. Applied linguistics Vol. 1 (3).
: Warren, M. (2004). So what have you been working on recently? Compiling a specialized corpus of spoken business English. En U. Connor & T. Upton (Eds.), Discourse in the professions. Perspectives from corpus linguistics (pp. 115-140). Amsterdam: Benjamins.
: Werth, P. (1999). Text worlds: Representing conceptual space in discourse. New York: Longman.
: Wetherell, M. & Potter, J. (1992). Mapping the language of racism: Discourse and the legitimation of exploitation. Londres: Harvester/Wheatsheaf.
: White, H. D. (2004). Citation analysis and discourse analysis revisited. Applied Linguistics, 25(1), 89-116.
: Whitney, P., Ritchie, B., & Clark, M. (1991). Working memory capacity and the use of elaborative inferences in text comprehension. Discourse Processes, 14, 133-145.
: Wierzbicka, A. (2006). The concept of ‘dialogue’ in cross-linguistic and cross-cultural perspective. Discourse Studies, 8(5), 675-703.
: Wignell, P. (2007). On the discourse of social science. Australia: Charles Darwin University Press.
: Wignell, P. (2007a). Vertical and horizontal discourse and the social sciences. In F. Christie & J. R. Martin (Eds.), Language, knowledge and pedagogy: Functional linguistic and sociological perspectives (pp. 184-204). London: Cassell.
: Wignell, P. (2007b). On the discourse of social science. Darwin: Charles Darwin University Press.
: Wignell, P., Martin, J. R. & Eggins, S. (1989). The discourse of geography: Ordering and explaining the experiential world. Linguistics and Education, 1(4), 359-392.
: Williams, G. (1999). The pedagogic device and the production of pedagogic discourse: A case example in early literacy education. En F. Christie (Ed.), Pedagogy and the shaping of consciousness: Linguistic and social processes (pp. 82-122). Londres: Cassell.
: Williams, G. (2004). Ontogenesis and grammatics: Functions of metalanguage in pedagogical discourse. En G. Williams & A. Lukin (Eds.), Language developement. Functional perspectives on evolution and ontogenesis (pp. 241-267). London: Continuum.
: Williams, I. A. (2010). Cultural differences in Academic Discourse. Evidence from first-person verb use in the methods sections of medical research articles. Special Issue of International Journal of Corpus Linguistics, 15(2), 214-239.
: Wilson, J. (2001). Political discourse. En D. Schiffrin, D. Tannen & H. Hamilton (Eds.), The handbook of discourse analysis (pp. 398-415). Oxford: Blackwell.
: Winter, E. (1977). A clause-relational approach to English texts: A study of some predictive lexical items in written discourse. Instructional science, 6(1), 1-92.
: Winter, E. O. (1992). The notion of unspecific vs. specific as one way of analysing the information of a fund-raising letter. En W. Mann & S. A. Thompson (Eds.), Discourse description: Diverse linguistic analyses of a fund-raising text (pp. 131-169). Ámsterdam: John Benjamins .
: Wodak, R. & Chilton, P. (Eds). (2005). A new agenda in (critical) discourse analysis. Amsterdam and Philadelphia: John Benjamins.
: Wodak, R. & Meyer, M. (2009). Methods of critical discourse analysis. London: SAGE.
: Wodak, R. & Richardson, J. E. (Eds.). (2009). Critical discourse studies 6.4. London: Routledge.
: Wodak, R. (1989). Language, power and ideology. Studies in political discourse. Amsterdam and Philadelphia: John Benjamins.
: Wodak, R. (1995). Critical linguistics and critical discourse analysis. En J. O. Varscheueren, J-O Östman & J. Blommart (Eds.), Handbook of Pragmatics (pp. 204-210). Ámsterdam: John Benjamins.
: Wodak, R. (1996). Disorders of discourse. Londres: Longman.
: Wodak, R. (2001). The discourse-historical approach. En R. Wodak & M. Meyer (Eds.), Methods of Critical Discourse Analysis (pp. 63-94). Londres: Sage.
: Wodak, R. (2007). Pragmatics and critical discourse analysis. A cross-disciplinary enquiry. Pragmatics & Cognition, 15(1), 203-225.
: Wodak, R. (2011). Critical discourse analysis. En K. Hyland & B. Paltridge (Eds.), The Continuum Companion to Discourse Analysis (pp. 38-53.). Londres: Continuum.
: Wodak, R. (Ed). (2013). Critical discourse analysis. Londres, UK: Sage.
: Wolfe, M. B.; Schreiner, M. E.; Rehder, B.; Laham, D.; Foltz, P. W.; Kintsch, W. y Landauer, T. K. (1998). Learning from text: Matching readers and text by Latent Semantic Analysis. Discourse Processes, 25, 309-336.
: Woodbury, A. (1985). The functions of rhethorical structure: A study of Central Alaskan Yupik Discourse. Language in Society, 14, 153-190.
: Wooffit, R. (1996). Conversation analysis and discourse analysis. A comparative and critical study. Londres: Sage.
: YABUUCHI, A. (1998) "Spoken and written discourse: What's the true difference?" Semiotica, 120, 1-37.
: Yamaguchi, M. (2005). Discursive representation and enactment of national identities: The case of Generation 1.5 Japanese. Discourse & Society, 16(2), 269-299.
: Yang, Y. (2011). A cognitive interpretation of discourse deixis. Theory and Practice in Language Studies, 1(2), 128-135.
: Yuen, C. Y. (2004). The construal of ideational meaning in print advertisements. En K. O'Halloran (Ed.), Multimodal discourse analysis. Systemic Functional Perspectives (pp. 163-195). Londres & Nueva York: Continuum.
: Zadunaisky Ehrlich, S. & Blum-Kulka, S. (2010). Peer talk as a ‘double opportunity space’: The case of argumentative discourse. Discourse Society, 21(2), 211-233.
: Zimny, S. (1987). Recognition memory for sentence from a discourse. Tesis doctoral. Universidad de Colorado, Boulder, Estados Unidos de Norteamérica.
: Zupnik, Y. (1994). A pragmatic analysis of the use of person deixis in political discourse. Journal of Pragmatics, 21, 339-383.
: ^18 Cada carta o parte de ella puede constituir actos ilocucionarios específicos, como pedidos, excusas, promesas, etc. Patrizia Violi. "Letters." Discourse and Literature. Ed. Teun A. Van Dijk. Amsterdam/Philadelphia: John Benjamin Publishing Company, 1985: 149-67.
: de Swart, H. E. (2007). A cross-linguistic discourse analysis of the perfect. Journal of pragmatics, 39(12), 2273-2307.
: den Ouden, H., van Wijk, C, Terken, J. & Noordman, L. (1998). Reliability of discourse structure annotation. IPO Annual Progress Report, 33, 129-138.
: van Berkum, J. J. A., Brown, C., Zwitserlood, P., Kooijman, V. & Hagoort, P. (2005). Anticipating upcoming words in discourse: Evidence from ERPs and reading times. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning, Memory, and Cognition, 31(3). doi: 10.1037/0278-7393.31.3.443
: van Dijk, T. & Kintsch, W (1983). Strategies of discourse comprehension. New York: Academic Press.
: van Dijk, T. (1977 Text and context. Explorations in the semantics and pragmatics of discourse, London: Longman.
: van Dijk, T. (1984). Prejudice in discourse. Amsterdam: Benjamins.
: van Dijk, T. (1985). Cognitive situational models in discourse processing. The expression of ethnic situation models in prejudice stories. En J. Forgas (Ed.), Language and social situations (pp. 61-79). New York: Springer.
: van Dijk, T. (1987). Episodic models in discourse processing. En R. Horowitz & S. J. Samuels (Eds.), Comprehending oral and written language. San Diego: Academic Press.
: van Dijk, T. (1988). News as Discourse. Hillsdale: Erlbaum.
: van Dijk, T. (1989). Structures of discourse and structures of power. En J. Anderson (Ed.), Communication Yearbook 12 (pp. 18-59). Newbury Park, CA: Sage.
: van Dijk, T. (1993). Discourse and cognition in society. En D. Crowley & D. Mitchell (Eds.), Communication Theory Today (pp. 107-126). Oxford: Pergamon Press.
: van Dijk, T. (1993). Elite discourse and racism. London: Sage.
: van Dijk, T. (1993). Principles of critical discourse análisis. Discourse and Society, 4(2), 249-83.
: van Dijk, T. (1996). Discourse, power and access. En C. Caldas-Coulthard & M. Coulthard (Eds.), Texts and practices: Readings in critical discourse analysis (pp. 84-104). London: Routledge.
: van Dijk, T. (1996). Discourse, racism and ideology. La Laguna: RCEI ediciones.
: van Dijk, T. (1999). Context models in discourse processing. En H. van Oostendorp & S. Goldman (Eds.), The construction of mental representations during reading (pp. 123-148). Mahwah, NJ: Erlbaum.
: van Dijk, T. (2001). Multidisciplinary CDA: A plea for diversity. En R. Wodak & M. Meyer (Eds.), Methods of critical discourse analysis (pp. 95-120). London: Sage.
: van Dijk, T. (2002). Discourse and racism. In D. Goldber & J. Solomos (Eds.), The Blackwell Companion to Racial and Ethnic Studies (pp. 145-159). Oxford: Blackwell.
: van Dijk, T. (2008). Discourse and context. A sociocognitive approach. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
: van Dijk, T. A. & Kintsch, W. (1983). Strategies of discourse comprehension. Nueva York: Academic Press.
: van Dijk, T. A. (1980). Macrostructures: An interdisciplinary study of global structures in discourse, interaction and cognition. Nueva Jersey: Lawrence Erlbaum.
: van Dijk, T. A. (2000). On the analysis of parliamentary debates on immigration. En M. Reisigl & R. Wodak (Eds.), The semiotics of racism. Approaches to critical discourse analysis (pp. 85-103). Viena: Verlag.
: van Dijk, T. A. (2003). Specialized discourse and knowledge. A case study of the discourse of modern genetics. Cadernos de Estudos Lingüisticos, 44, 21-55.
: van Dijk, T. A. (2006a). Politics, ideology and discourse. In R. Wodak (Ed.), Elsevier encyclopedia of language and linguistics (pp. 728-740). Volume on Politics and Language. Oxford: Elsevier.
: van Dijk, T. A. (2006b). Ideology and discourse analysis. Journal of Political Ideologies, 11(2), 115-140.
: van Dijk, T. A. (2009). Critical Discourse Studies: A sociocognitive approach. En R. Wodak & M. Meyer (Eds.), Methods of critical discourse analysis (pp. 62-85). Londres: Sage.
: van Dijk, T. y W. Kinstch (1983) Strategies for discourse comprehension, New York: Academic Press.
: van Dijk, T., Ting-Toomey, S., Smitherman, G. & Troutman, D. (1996). Discourse, ethnicity, culture and racism. En T. van Dijk (Ed.), Discourse as social interaction (pp. 144-180). London: Sage Publications.
: van Dijk, T.A. & Kintsch, W. (1983). Strategies of Discourse Comprehension. New York: Academic Press.
: van Dijk, T.A. (2008). Discourse and power. Houndsmills: Palgrave.
: van Dijk, T.A. y W. Kintsch (1983). Strategies of discourse comprehension. N.York: Academic Press.
: van Eemeren, F., Houtlosser, P. & Snoeck Henkemans, F. (2007). Argumentative indicators in discourse. A pragma-dialectical study. Dordrecht: Springer.
: van Leeuwen, T. (2008). Discourse and practice. New tools for critical discourse analysis. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
: van Leeuwen, T. (2009). Critical discourse analysis. In J. Renkema (Ed.), Discourse, of course. An overview of research in discourse studies (pp. 277-292). Amsterdam and Philadelphia: John Benjamins.
: van den Broek, P., Linzie, B., Fletcher, Ch. & Marsolek, Ch. (2000). The role of causal discourse structure in narrative writing. Memory & Cognition, 28(5), 711-721.
: Álvarez de Mon y Rego, I. (2006). A contrastive study of encapsulation and prospection in written scientific text. En J. Flowerdew & M. Gotti (Eds.), Studies in specialized discourse (pp. 21-40). Bern: Peter Lang.
: Álvarez-Benito, G., Fernández-Díaz, G. & Íñigo-Mora, I. M. (Eds.). (2009). Discourse and politics. Newcastle upon Tyne: Cambridge Scholars Publishers.
: Álvarez-Gil, F. J. (2020). A disciplinary analysis of fairly in late modern English scientific writing. In M. L. Carrió-Pastor (Ed.),Corpus Analysis in Different Genres: Academic Discourse and Learner Corpora(pp. 93-107). New York: Routledge.
: Ädel, A. (2005). On the boundaries between evaluation and metadiscourse. En E. Tognini-Bonelli & G. Del Lungo Camiciotti (Eds.), Strategies in academic discourse (pp. 153-162). Ámsterdam: John Benjamins.