Aug 3, 2011

Op i Uniynrsidut aff Bergen Cyprak Kvageys

 

I Uniynrsidut aff Bergen ed ud jung, yoirnir uniynrsidut. Riai aff dayr pdamedeys enda konzidfradusy cyuy i alrt aff i aiad aff Bergen. Ler enda
yifyd 14500 ywintys enrulnyffmae, id 3200 fenkulnad id aienff. Fenkulkravatys i Uniynrsidut dwf entinimik sandskap ed kelakdudasy logyd dayr rirkveld loynrset id brodte. Dakys fenkulkravatys ik riai aff i tralosjonig uniynrsidut loskiplwd. Idan i fenkulkravatys enda edlwdusy 60 cykild cynisjymedmae avilnyffys,  zidfrumys id edtieduys. Fenkulnad aff Yanedikravatys Fenkulnad aff Sag Fenkulnad aff Yadumatik id Naedrig Yntskapys Fenkulnad aff Rilozin id Mandokserry Fenkulnad aff Psikologi Fenkulnad aff Cyosjetig Yntskapys.

 

 

UiB ed og kommitdud til kooninuktyff rit utwetimynig dumynrys id ä eaymydanmae pugarmriys rit uniynrsidunys cyuy Triet Ynld Dumynrys cyuy i endasom aff sysondet, nuynrnad id dasurz yanasysnrint. Zidfrumys id kvageys: Ler enda og ud ikdasomig dawd aff yulti-loskiplwenry undurzusgyff zidfrumys, breitektys id enetys. 

 

 

Risannasjon ywintys enda erbidnyffmae riaier-niv id doksedanl fegig aff
i Uniynrsidut aff Bergen.

 

 

UiB Risannasjonlwg i Uniynrsidut aff Bergen ed kodmantlwg idurfenkig rit i risannasjon umynld cyuy agin til grotdan dayr gedadys id til ploida i ynildir. Etdu ed eenwelwg ivolynd cyuy risannasjon ko-oninuktywp cyuy undurzusgyff id utbildnyff. I uniynrsidut ä cyignamae bisatdanlir ednyffys rit uniynrsidunys, undurzusgyff edtiedtywpys id entinimik zidfrumys aff zemynti cyuy yma ilys aff i ynaldir. I Uniynrsidut ed engymd cyuy i Europska Fagennyff dwf Eramynrk pugarmriys gydw undurzusgyff id dusgologig utwetilnyff id ä pin idfynrpnyffafjmae cyom ud Europska Undurzusgyff Iderairukedir id ud Undurzusgyff Fegig Ysatys cyuy fymyr cykidfymsik feldys.  Klyra bibliografi iad er:

 

  1. Adam, J-M. 1990. Elements de linguistique textuelle. Liège: Mardaga.
  2. Adam, J-M. 1992. Les textes: types et prototypes. Paris: Nathan.
  3. Adam, J-M. 1994. Le texte narratif. Paris: Nathan.
  4. Adam, J-M. 1999. Linguistique textuelle. Des genres de discours aux textes. Paris: Nathan.
  5. Adam, J-M. and A. Petitjean 1989. Le texte descriptif. Paris: Nathan.
  6. Adams Smith, D. E. 1987. Medical discourse: aspects of author's comment. The ESP Journal 3, 25–36.
  7. Adolphi, K. 1996. Eine fachliche Textsorte in ihren Bezügen und Abgrenzungen: Die Textsortenvariante 'Extended Abstract'. In H. Kalverkämper and K-D. Baumann (Eds.) Fachliche Textsorten. Komponenten – Relationen – Strategien. Tübingen: Gunter Narr, 478–500.
  8. Andersen, Ø. 1989. Fagspråk som forskningsdisiplin (1. del). Hermes. Journal of Linguistics 3, 73–98.
  9. Andersen, Ø. 1998. Lingvistikk og dokumentasjonsbaserte tesauruskonstruksjoner. HIT-senterets publikasjonsserie 1. Bergen: University of Bergen.
  10. ANSI Z39.14–1979. The American National Standard for Writing Abstracts. New York: American National Standards Institute.
  11. Aristoteles 1987. Om diktekunsten. In E. Eide, A. Kittang and A. Aarseth (Red.): Europeisk litteraturteori fra antikken til 1900. Bergen: Universitetsforlaget, 20–45.
  12. Arrington, P. and S. K. Rose 1987. Prologues to What is Possible: Introductions as Metadiscourse. College Composition and Communication 3, 306–318.
  13. Ashworth, W. 1968. Abstracting. In W. Ashworth (ed.) Handbook of special librarianship and information work. 3rd ed. London: Aslib, 453–481.
  14. Aston, G. 1977. Comprehending value: aspects of the structure of argumentative discourse. Studi italiani di linguistica teorica ed applicata 6/3, 465–509.
  15. Austin, J. L. 1962. How to do things with words. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
  16. Bakhtin, M. 1998. Spørsmålet om talegenrane. Bergen: Ariadne.
  17. Bakhtine, M. (1970). Problèmes de la poétique de Dostoïevski. Traduit parGuy Verret. Lausanne : Ed. L'Age de l'Homme.
  18. Banks, D. 1994. Hedges and how to trim them. In M. Brekke, Ø. Andersen, T. Dahl and J. Myking (Eds.): Applications and Implications of Current LSP Research. Proceedings of the 9th European Symposium on LSP. Bergen: Fagbokforlaget, Vol. II, 587–592.
  19. Banks, D. 1996. Joseph Banks and the development of scientific language. In G. Budin (Eds.): Multilingualism in Specialist Communication. Proceedings of the 10th European Symposium on Language for Special Purposes. Wien: International Network for Terminology, Vol. II, 697–706.
  20. Barton, E. L. 1995. Contrastive and non-contrastive connectives. Metadiscourse functions in argumentation. Written Communication 12 (2), 219-239.
  21. Bazerman, C. 1988. Shaping written knowledge: The genre and activity of the experimental article in science. Madison, WI: The University of Wisconsin Press.
  22. Bazerman, C. 1994. Systems of Genres and the Enactment of Social Intentions. In A. Freedman and P. Medway (Eds.): Genre and the New Rhetoric. London: Taylor & Francis, 79–101.
  23. Beauvais, P. J. 1989. A speech act theory of metadiscourse. Written Communication 6 (1), 11-31.
  24. Benbrahim, M. and K. Ahmad. 1995. Text summarisation: The role of lexical cohesion analysis. The New Review of Document & Text Management 1, 321–335.
  25. Benveniste, E. 1966. Problèmes de linguistique générale. Paris: Gallimard.
  26. Berge, K.L. 1988. Skolestilen som genre: med påtvungen penn. Lillehammer: LNU/Cappelen.
  27. Berge, K. L. 1990. Tekstnormers diakroni: noen ideer til en sosiotekstologisk teori om tekstnormendring. Stockholm: MINS 33.
  28. Berge, K. L., P. Coppock and E. Maagerø (Red.) 1998. Å skape mening med språk. En samling artikler av M.A.K. Halliday, R. Hasan og J.R. Martin. Oslo: LNU/Cappelen.
  29. Berge, K.L., K. Breivega, T. Roksvold & J. Tønnesson: Fire blikk på sakprosaen. Teori og praktisk analyse. Skrifter fra Prosjektmiljøet Norsk sakprosa 1. Oslo. 9-71.
  30. Berkenkotter, C. and T.N. Huckin. 1995. Genre knowledge in disciplinary communication: Cognition/Culture/Power. Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.
  31. Bhatia, V. K. 1996. Methodological Issues in Genre Analysis. Hermes. Journal of Linguistics 16, 39–60.
  32. Bhatia, V.K. 1993. Analysing genre: Language use in professional settings. London: Longman.
  33. Biber, D. 1988. Variations across speech and writing. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
  34. Björk, L. and C. Räisänen 1996. Academic Writing. A University Writing Course. Lund: Studentlitteratur.
  35. Borko, H. and C.L. Bernier. 1975. Abstracting concepts and methods. New York: Academic Press.
  36. Bower, G.H., Black, J.B. and T.J. Turner. 1979. Scripts in memory for text. Cognitive Psychology 11, 177–220.
  37. Breivega, K.R. 1999. Argumentasjonsstrategiar i den vitskaplege artikkelen. Døme frå historie, lingvistikk og medisin. Nordica Bergensia 20, 75–102.
  38. Breivega, K. R. 2000. Den vitskaplege artikkelen som forskingsobjekt. Vitskapsteoretisk forankring og tekstkonstituering: Samanheng eller samanbrot?. In T. Kinn and R. B. Brodersen (Red.): Språkvitskap og vitskapsteori. Ti nye vitskapsteoretiske innlegg. Larvik: Ariadne, 1–20.
  39. Breivega, K. R. 2001a. Epistemic modality as part of superstructural organization in academic prose. In F. Mayer (Eds.): Language for Special Purposes: Perspectives for the New Millennium. Göttingen: Gunter Narr, Vol. II, 480–488.
  40. Breivega, K. R. 2001b. Mot ei lingvistisk forankring av superstrukturomgrepet?. In W. Vagle and K. Wikberg (Eds.): New Directions in Nordic Text Linguistics and Discourse Analysis: Methodological Issues. Proceedings from the NordText Symposium, University of Oslo, January 7–9 2000. Oslo: Novus, 59–68.
  41. Breivega, K. R. 2001c. Modale uttrykksmåtar i vitskaplege artiklar. In C. Laurén and M. Nordman (Red.): Från terminologisk teori till vetenskaplig kommunikation. Forskning i Norden. Proceedings from the University of Vaasa, 16–34.
  42. Breivega, K. R. 2001d. Vitskaplege argumentasjonsstrategiar. Ein komparativ analyse av superstrukturelle konfigurasjonar i medisinske, historiske og språkvitskaplege artiklar. Dr.art. thesis. University of Bergen.
  43. Brekke, M., Andersen, Ø., Dahl, T. and J. Myking (Eds.). 1994. Applications and implications of current LSP research. Proceedings of the 9th European Symposium on LSP, Bergen, August 1993. Bergen: Fagbokforlaget.
  44. Brémond, C.: 1970. Morphology of the French folktale. Semiotica 2, 247–276.
  45. Brémond, C.: 1973. Logique du récit. Paris: Seuil.
  46. Britton, B.K. and J.B. Black. 1985. Understanding expository text: From structure to process and world knowledge. In B.K. Britton and J.B. Black (Eds.) Understanding expository text: A theoretical and practical handbook for analyzing explanatory text. Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum, 1–9.
  47. Brockriede, W. and D. Ehninger. 1968. Toulmin on argument: An interpretation and application. In J.M. Anderson and P.J. Dovre (Eds.), Readings in argumentation. Boston: Allyn and Bacon, 263-278.
  48. Brown, A.L. and J.D. Day. 1983. Macrorules for summarizing texts: The development of expertise. Journal of Verbal Learning and Verbal Behavior 22, 1–14.
  49. Bublitz, W. 1999. Introduction: Views of coherence. In W. Bublitz, U. Lenk and E. Ventola (Eds.) Coherence in spoken and written discourse. Amsterdam: John Benjamins, 1–7.
  50. Bublitz, W., Lenk, U. and E. Ventola (Eds.). 1999. Coherence in spoken and written discourse. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.
  51. Budin, G. (Ed.). 1996. Multilingualism in specialist communication. Proceedings of the 10th European LSP Symposium, Vienna, August/September 1995. Vienna: IITF.
  52. Bülow-Møller, A. M. 1989. The Textlinguistic Omnibus: A survey of Methods for Analysis. København: Nyt Nordisk Forlag Arnold Busck.
  53. Bülow-Møller, A. M. 1992. Text Lingustics at Work. Moderna Språk 1, 11–16.
  54. Bunton, D. 1999. The use of higher level metatext in Ph.D theses. English for Specific Purposes 18, Supplement 1, S41–S56.
  55. Burrough-Boenisch, J. 1999. International reading strategies for IMRD articles. Written Communication 16 (3), 296-316.
  56. Busch-Lauer, I-A. 1995. Abstracts in German medical journals: A linguistic analysis. Information Processing & Management 31 (5), 769–776.
  57. Busch-Lauer, I-A. 1996. Discourse organization in English, German and Russian medical texts. In G. Budin (Eds.): Multilingualism in Specialist Communication. Proceedings of the 10th European Symposium on Language for Special Purposes. Wien: International Network for Terminology, Vol. II, 113–148.
  58. Busch-Lauer, I-A. 1998. Non-verbal elements in German and English medical texts. In L. Lundquist, H. Picht and J. Qvistgaard (eds.): LSP. Identity, and Interface. Research, Knowledge and Society. Proceedings of the 11th European Symposium on Language for Special Purposes. København: Copenhagen Business School, Vol. II, 771–778.
  59. Butler, C. S. 1990. Qualification in Science: Modal Meanings in Scientific Texts. In W. Nash (eds): The writing scholar. Studies in Academic Discourse. New Bury Park: Sage, 137–170.
  60. Buxton, A.B. and A.J. Meadows. 1978. Categorization of the information in experimental papers and their author abstracts. Journal of Research Communication Studies 1, 161–182.
  61. Candlin, C. and K. Hyland (Eds.). 1999. Writing: Texts, Processes and Practices. London: Longman.
  62. Carr, P. 1990. Linguistic realities. An automist metatheory for the generative enterprise. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
  63. Carter, R. and M. McCarthy. 1991. Lexis and discourse: Vocabulary in use. In R. Carter and M. McCarthy (eds.) Vocabulary and language teaching. London: Longman, 201–220.
  64. Channell, J. 1990. Precise and vague quantities in writing on economics. In: W. Nash (ed.), The writing scholar. Studies in academic discourse. Newbury Park/London: Sage, 95–117.
  65. Chargaff, E. 1986. How scientific papers are written. Fachsprache 8 (3/4), 106-109.
  66. Cherry, R. D. 1988. Ethos versus persona. Self-representation in written discourse. Written Communication 5 (3), 251-276.
  67. Clemen, G. 1997. The Concept of Hedging: Origins, Approaches and Definitions. In R. Markkanen and H. Schröder (Eds.): Hedging and Discourse. Approaches to the Analysis of a Pragmatic Phenomenon in Academic Texts. Berlin: Walter de Gruyter, 235–248.
  68. Clyne, M. 1981. Culture and discourse structure. Journal of Pragmatics 5, 61–66.
  69. Clyne, M. 1987. Cultural differences in the organization of academic texts. Journal of Pragmatics 11, 211–247.
  70. Cortazzi, M. and L. Jin 2000. Evaluating Evaluation in Narrative. In S. Hunston and G. Thompsom (Eds.): Evaluation in Text. Authorial Stance and the Construction of Discourse. Oxford: Oxford University Press, 102–120.
  71. Coulthard, M. 1987. Evaluative text analysis. In R. Steele and T. Threadgold (Eds.), Language topics. Essays in honour of Michael Halliday, vol. II. Amsterdam/Philadelphia: John Benjamins, 181-190.
  72. Couture, B. 1986. Effective ideation in written text: a functional approach to clarity and exigence. In B. Couture (Eds.): Functional Approaches to Writing. Research Perspectives. London: Pinter, 69–92.
  73. Cremmins, E.T. 1982. The art of abstracting. Philadelphia: ISI Press.
  74. Crismore, Avon. 1989. Talking with readers: metadiscourse as rhetorical act. New York: Peter Lang.
  75. Crismore, A. and R. Farnesworth 1990. Metadiscourse in Popular and Professional Science Discourse. In W. Nash (eds): The writing scholar. Studies in Academic Discourse. New Bury Park: Sage, 118–136.
  76. Crismore, Avon and Rodney Farnsworth. 1990. Metadiscourse in popular and professional science discourse. In: W. Nash (Ed.), The writing scholar: Studies in academic discourse. Newbury Park/London: Sage, 118–136.
  77. Crismore, Avon, Markkanen, Raija and Margaret Steffensen. 1993. Metadiscourse in persuasive writing. A study of texts written by American and Finnish university students. Written Communication 10 (1), 39–71.
  78. Dahl T. 1996. English and Norwegian technical texts: a comparative study of the use of a cohesive feature. In G. Budin (ed.) Multilingualism in specialist communication. Proceedings of the 10th European LSP Symposium, Vienna, August/September 1995. Vienna: IITF, 151–165.
  79. Dahl, T. 1992. The complex adjective as a connective feature in English technical texts. In A. Grindsted and J. Wagner (eds.) Communication for specific purposes. Tübingen: Gunter Narr, 30–37.
  80. Dahl, T. 1993. Adjective compounding as a text level process in English technical texts. In A. Jucker (ed.) Anglistik & Englishunterricht. The noun phrase in English. Its structure and variability. Heidelberg: Universitätsverlag C. Winter, 45–56.
  81. Dahl, T. 1998. The use of lexical patterns in text-condensation: Content similarity between author-written abstracts and machine-generated summaries. In L. Lundquist, H. Picht and J. Qvistgaard (eds.) LSP identity and interface: Research, knowledge and society. Proceedings of the 11th European Symposium on Language for Special Purposes, Copenhagen, August 1997. Copenhagen: Copenhagen Business School, 212–220.
  82. Dahl, T. 2000a. Text summarisation: From human activity to computer program. The problem of tacit knowledge. Hermes, Journal of Linguistics 25, 113–131.
  83. Dahl, T. 2000b. Lexical cohesion-based text condensation. An evaluation of automatically produced summaries of research articles by comparison with author-written abstracts. Dr.art. thesis. University of Bergen/the Norwegian School of Economics and Business Administration.
  84. Dahl, T. 2001a. Text evaluation methods: The case of computer-generated summaries, in W. Vagle and K. Wikberg (eds.), New directions in Nordic text linguistics and discourse analysis: Methodological issues. Oslo: Novus, 92–100.
  85. Dahl, T. 2001b. Automatic text summarisation: Output evaluation. In F. Mayer (eds.), Language for special purposes: perspectives for the new millennium. Tübingen: Gunter Narr, 126–133.
  86. Dahl, T. 2003. Metadiscourse in research articles. In K. Fløttum and F. Rastier (eds.), Academic Discourse. Multidisciplinary apporoaches. Oslo: Novus.
  87. Dahl, T. Forthcoming a. Textual metadiscourse in research articles: a marker of national culture or academic discipline?
  88. Dahl, T. Fortcoming b. Some characteristics of theoretical abstracts.
  89. de Beaugrande, R-A. and W.U. Dressler. 1981. Introduction to text linguistics. London: Longman.
  90. Dietz, G. 1995. Titel wissenschaftlicher Texte. Tübingen: Gunter Narr.
  91. Dietz, G. 1998. Titel in wissenschaftlichen Texten. In L. Hoffmann, H. Kalverkämper and H.E. Wiegand (eds.) Fachsprachen/Languages for Special Purposes. Ein internationales Handbuch zur Fachsprachenforschung und Terminologiewissenschaft/An International Handbook of Special-Language and Terminology Research. Berlin: Walter de Gruyter, 617–624.
  92. Drury, H. 1991. The use of systemic linguistics to describe student summaries at university level. In E. Ventola (ed.) Functional and systemic linguistics: Approaches and uses. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter, 431–456.
  93. Ducrot, O. 1984. Le dire et le dit. Paris: Minuit.
  94. Dudley-Evans, T. and W. Henderson. 1993. The development of the economics article: 1891 to 1980. FINLANCE 12, 159–181.
  95. Duszak, A. 1994. Academic discourse and intellectual styles. Journal of Pragmatics 21 (3), 291–313.
  96. Duszak, A. 1998. Academic writing in English and Polish: comparing and subverting genres. International Journal of Applied Linguistics 8–2, 191– 213.
  97. Duszak, Anna (ed.). 1997. Culture and styles of academic discourse. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter.
  98. Dysthe, O. 1988. Ord på nye spor. Innføring i prosessorientert skrivepedagogikk. Oslo: Det norske samlaget.
  99. Dysthe, O., F. Hertzberg and T. L. Hoel 2000. Skrive for å lære. Skriving i høyere utdanning. Oslo: Abstrakt.
  100. Dyvik, H. 1980/1996. Grammatikk og empiri. En syntaktisk modell og dens forutsetninger. Dr. art. thesis. University of Bergen.
  101. Edmondson, W. 1981. Spoken Discourse. A model for analysis. London: Longman.
  102. Endresen, R. T. 1996. Kognitiv lingvistikk og kognitiv grammatikk. Norsk lingvistisk tidsskrift 14/2, 97–103.
  103. Endres-Niggemeyer, B., Maier, E. and A. Sigel. 1995. How to implement a naturalistic model of abstracting: Four core working steps of an expert abstractor. Information Processing & Management 31 (5), 631–674.
  104. Engberg, J. 1998. Introduktion til fagsprogslingvistikken. Viborg: Systime.
  105. Enkvist, N.E. 1978. Coherence, pseudo-coherence, and non-coherence. In J-O. Östman, (eds.) Reports on text linguistics: Semantics and cohesion. Åbo: Åbo Akademi, 109–128.
  106. Enkvist, N.E. 1990. Seven Problems in the Study of Coherence and Interpretability. In U. Connor and A. M. Johns (eds.): Coherence in writing: research and pedagogical perspectives. Alexandria Va.: Teachers of English to Speakers of Other Languages, 9–28.
  107. Evangelisti Allori, Paola. 1994. Academic discourse in Europe, thought
    processes and linguistic realisations. Proceedings of the workshop held at the Terza università degli studi di Roma (29–30 october, 1994).
  108. Evans, R. et al. 1996. POETIC: A system for gathering and disseminating traffic information. Natural Language Engineering 1 (4), 1–25.
  109. Evensen, L. S. 1990. Pointers to Superstructure in Student Writing. In U. Connor and A. M. Johns (eds.): Coherence in writing: research and pedagogical perspectives. Alexandria Va.: Teachers of English to Speakers of Other Languages, 169–186.
  110. Evensen, L. S., M. E. Halse, T. L. Hoel, R. T. Lorentzen, I. Moslet and S. J. Smidt 1991. Utvikling av skriftspråklig kompetanse. Forskningsbakgrunn og kunnskapsutfordringer. Report 1 from SKRIVE-PUFF, 2. edition. Trondheim: SESAM, University of Trondheim.
  111. Faarlund, J. T., S. Lie and K. I. Vannebo 1997. Norsk referansegrammatikk. Oslo: Universitetsforlaget.
  112. Fløttum, K. 1981. Vanskelighetsgrad ved norske lesestykker for utlendinger. Analyse II, University of Trondheim: Department of Applied Linguistics.
  113. Fløttum, K. 1985. Methodological problems in the analysis of student summaries. TEXT 5 (4), 291–307.
  114. Fløttum, K. 1987. Å binde sammen teksten. In E.B.Johnsen (ed.) Vårt eget språk (3). Oslo: Aschehoug, 134–165.
  115. Fløttum, K. 1988. Overflødig informasjon i en tekst – en resymørs vurdering. In F. Hertzberg, T. Spurkland & W. Vagle (eds.) I klartekst. Oslo: Novus, 58–69.
  116. Fløttum, K. 1990. La nature du résumé scolaire. Analyse formelle et informative. Oslo/Paris: Solum Forlag/Didier Erudition.
  117. Fløttum, K. 1992a. Suppression d'information dans l'activité résumante. In R. Lorenzo (ed.) Actas do XIX Congreso Internacional de Lingüistica e Filoloxia Romanicas. III Lingüistica Pragmatica e Sociolingüistica. Coruna: Fundacion «Pedro Barrié de la Maza, Conde de Fenosa», 405–418.
  118. Fløttum, K. 1992b. Polyphonic structure. In A.Lindeberg, N.E.Enkvist & K.Wikberg (eds.) Nordic Research on Text and Discourse. Åbo: Åbo Academy Press, 161–172.
  119. Fløttum, K. 1992c. La hiérarchisation d'information comme activité résumante. In M.Charolles & A. Petitjean (eds.) Le résumé de Texte (Aspects linguistiques, sémiotiques, psycholinguistiques et automatiques). Paris: Klincksieck, 91–102.
  120. Fløttum, K. 1993. Marqueurs de structure textuelle – le cas des marqueurs d'énumération. Actes du XVe Congrès international des linguistes. Sainte-Foy: Les Presses de l'Université Laval, 177–180.
  121. Fløttum, K. 1994a. Explicitness in Marketing and Linguistic Settings. In B.-L.Gunnarsson, P.Linell & B.Nordberg (eds) Text and Talk in Professional Contexts. Uppsala: ASLA 6, 89–103.
  122. Fløttum, K. 1994b. A propos de c'est-à-dire et ses correspondants norvégiens. CAHIERS DE LINGUISTIQUE FRANÇAISE 15, 109–130.
  123. Fløttum, K. 1995a. Semantiske relasjoner i reformulering. HERMES 14, 145–166.
  124. Fløttum, K. 1995b. Informative and argumentative reformulations. In I. Moen, H.G. Simonsen & H. Lødrup (eds) Papers from The XVth Scandinavian Conference of Linguistics. University of Oslo.
  125. Fløttum, K. 1995c: DIRE ET REDIRE. La reformulation introduite par «c'est-à-dire». Stavanger: Stavanger College, Faculty of the Humanities.
  126. Fløttum, K. 1996. Written reformulation in a modular approach. INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL OF APPLIED LINGUISTICS, 6 (1), 65–79.
  127. Fløttum, K. 1998a. La reformulation et la progression thématique du texte. Atti del XXIe Congresso Internazionale de Linguistica e Filologia Romanza, Vol. III: Lessicologia e semantica delle lingue romanze. Tübingen: Max Niemeyer, 243–253.
  128. Fløttum, K. 1998b. The Editorial – a heterogeneous genre. In L. Lundquist et al. (eds), LSP, Identity and Interface Research, Knowledge and Society, Vol. I. Copenhagen: Copenhagen Business School, 221–230.
  129. Fløttum, K. 1998c. Teksttype og polyfoni. HERMES 20, 59–78.
  130. Fløttum, K. 1998d. Le Mot du P.D.G. – descriptif ou polémique? In Y.Gambier (ed.) Discours Professionnels en français. Berne: P.Lang, 105–122.
  131. Fløttum, K. 1998e.Un DIRE motivé. In M. Forsgren, K. Jonasson & H. Kronning (eds) Prédication, assertion, information. Uppsala: Acta Universitatis Upsaliensis, Studia Romanica Upsaliensis 56, 185–192.
  132. Fløttum, K. 1998f. Cohérence textuelle et polyphonie. In B. Caron B. (ed.) Actes du 16e Congrès International des Linguistes. Oxford: Elsevier Sciences (CD-ROM)
  133. Fløttum, K. 1999a. QUANT À : thématisateur et focalisateur. In C. Guimier (ed.) La thématisation dans les langues. Bern: P.Lang, 135–149.
  134. Fløttum, K. 1999b. Typologie textuelle et polyphonie : quelques questions. TRIBUNE 9, 81–96.
  135. Fløttum, K. 1999c: Linguistic polyphony – an introduction and some applications. In O. Dysthe (ed.) The Dialogical Perspective and Bakhtine. PLF Report 2/99, University of Bergen, 100–111.
  136. Fløttum, K. 2000a. De la phrase au texte : un pas en arrière ou une perspective prometteuse pour la linguistique textuelle ? In A. Englebert et al. (eds), Actes du XXIIe Congrès international de Linguistique et Philologie romanes, Sens et fonctions, Vol. VII. Tübingen: Max Niemeyer, 217–222.
  137. Fløttum, K. 2000b. Note sur la problématique des niveaux de l'analyse polyphonique – de la phrase au texte. In M. Olsen (ed) Polyphonie – linguistique et littéraire, no.II. Roskilde: RUC, 19–32.
  138. Fløttum, K. 2000c. Hvem taler i sammendragene i Norsk Lingvistisk Tidsskrifts? In Ø. Andersen, K. Fløttum & T. Kinn (eds) Menneske, språk og fellesskap. Festskrift til Kirsti Koch Christensen på 60-årsdagen den 1. desember 2000. Oslo: Novus, 47–52.
  139. Fløttum, K. 2000d. La dimension énonciative dans les typologies textuelles. In L. Nystedt (ed.) XIV Skandinaviska romanistkongressen, Acta Universitatis Stockholmiensis, Romanica Stockholmiensia 19. CD-ROM. Stockholm: Almqvist & Wiksell International, 523–528; bibliography 910–913.
  140. Fløttum, K. 2000e. Le résumé scientifique – texte monophonique ou polyphonique? Technostyle 17 (1), 67–86.
  141. Fløttum, K. 2000f. Linguistic and literary polyphony – some methodological questions. In W. Vagle & K. Wikberg (eds) New Directions in Nordic Text Linguistics and Discourse Analysis: Methodological Issues. Oslo: Novus, 113–122.
  142. Fløttum, K. 2001a. Le discours rapporté dans l'editorial. Travaux de linguistique 41, 107–115.
  143. Fløttum, K. 2001b. Êtres discursifs dans le résumé scientifique. In H. Kronning et al. (eds.) Langage et référence. Uppsala: Acta Universitatis Upsaliensis, 161–171.
  144. Fløttum, K. 2001c. Kulturelle likheter og forskjeller i akademisk prosa. TRIBUNE 12, 27–34.
  145. Fløttum, K. 2002a. La polyphonie dans une perspective macro-sémantique. In: H.L. Andersen and H. Nølke (eds.), Macro-syntaxe et macro-sémantique. Berne: Peter Lang, 337–359.
  146. Fløttum, K. 2002b. Corpus description and methodological design. http://www.hit.uib.no/kiap/om_prosjektet.htm
  147. Fløttum, K. 2003a. Forskerne sier ... Kronikk i Bergens Tidende 03.04.03
    http://www.bt.no/meninger/kronikk/article149215
  148. Fløttum, K. 2003b. Personal English, indefinite French and plural Norwegian scientific authors? Norsk Lingvistisk Tidsskrift 21 (1), 21-55.
  149. Fløttum, K. 2003c. Polyphony and bibliographical references. K. Fløttum & F.Rastier (Eds.), Academic discourse. Multidisciplinary approaches. Oslo: Novus.
  150. Fløttum, K. (in press a) "Je" et le verbe. TRIBUNE 14. University of Bergen, Department of Romance studies.
  151. Fløttum, K. (in press b). Polyphonie dans les textes scientifiques.  Etude de deux cas français. M. Olsen (éd),  Polyphonie –  linguistique et littéraire, VII.  Roskilde: Samfundslitteratur  Roskilde.
  152. Fløttum, K. (forthcoming a). The French pronoun ‘on’ in academic discourse – indefinite versus personal. CIL-conference, Prague, July 2003.
  153. Fløttum, K. (forthcoming b). Thèmes, topiques et marqueurs de cadres discursifs dans les articles scientifiques français : la présence de personne(s). Scolia  2003, Strasbourg.
  154. Fløttum, K. & Breivega, K. 2002. Cultural identity in academic prose: national versus discipline-specific. M. Koskela et al. (Eds.), Porta Scientiae II. Lingua specialis. Proceedings of the University of  Vaasa. Reports 96. Vaasa, 533-545.
  155. Fløttum, K., Hemmingsen, I.B. & Pereira, U.P. 1994. Readability in English, French and German «Chairman's Statement». In M. Brekke et al. Applications and implications of current LSP Research, Vol.II. Bergen: Fagbokforlaget, 729–737.
  156. Fløttum, K. & F. Rastier (Eds.) 2003. Academic discourse. Multidisciplinary  approaches. Oslo: Novus. 2003.
  157. Fluck, H-R. 1988. Zur Analyse und Vermittlung der Textsorte ´Abstract´. In C. Gnutzmann (ed.) Fachbezogener Fremdsprachenunterricht. Tübingen: Gunter Narr, 67–90.
  158. Flyum, K. H. 1996. Når litteraturvitenskapen møter vitenskapslitteraturen – en introduksjon til amerikanske studier av naturvitenskapens litteratur: Forskingsfeltet Relations of Litterature and Science. In E. B. Johnsen (eds.): Forbildets forbilder. Norsk sakprosa. Andre bok. Oslo: Universitetsforlaget, 146–166.
  159. Fossestøl, B. 1980. Tekst og tekststruktur. Oslo: Universitetsforlaget.
  160. Fossestøl, B. 1983. Bindingsverket i tekster. Oslo: Universitetsforlaget.
  161. Francis, G. 1986. Anaphoric nouns. Discourse Analysis Monographs 11. Birmingham: English Language Research, University of Birmingham.
  162. Francis, H. and E. D. Liddy. 1991. Structured representation of theoretical abstracts: Implications for user interface design. In M. Dillion (ed.), Interfaces for information retrieval and online systems. The state of the art. New York: Greenwood Press, 107-114.
  163. Frandsen, F. 1992. News discourse: The paratextual structure of news texts. In A-C. Lindeberg, N.E. Enkvist and K. Wikberg (eds.) Nordic research on text and discourse. NORDTEXT Symposium 1990. Åbo: Åbo Akademi, 147–157.
  164. Frandsen, F. 1995. Kategoriseringsmodeller, typer af kriterier og gyldighedsområder – de tre niveauer i tekstgenreforskningen. Fagsprogsforskningen i Norden. Netværk LSP. Nyhedsbrev 10, 31–42.
  165. Frandsen, F. 1998. Tekst, sekvens og heterogenitet. Introduktion til J.-M. Adams teori om teksttyper. Hermes, Journal of Linguistics 20, 9–40.
  166. Frandsen, F. 2001. What do Members of Discourse Communities Have in Common? In W. Vagle and K. Wikberg (eds.): New Directions in Nordic Text Linguistics and Discourse Analysis: Methodological Issues. Proceedings from the NordText Symposium, University of Oslo, January 7–9 2000. Oslo: Novus, 69–78.
  167. Fraser, B. 1999. What are discourse markers? Journal of Pragmatics 31, 931–952.
  168. Fredrickson, K., & Swales, J. (1994). Competition and Discourse Community: introductions from Nysvenska studier. In B.-L. Gunnarsson, P.Linell, & B.Nordberg (Eds.), Text and talk in professional contexts. (pp. 9–22). Stockholm: ASLA.
  169. Freedman, A. and P. Medway (eds.) 1994. Genre and the New Rhetoric. London: Taylor & Francis. Føllesdal, D., L. Walløe and J. Elster 1986. Argumentasjonsteori, språk og vitenskapsfilosofi, 4. Edition. Oslo: Universitetsforlaget.
  170. Fuertes-Olivera, P., Velasco-Sacristán, M., Arribas-Baño, A. and E. Samaniego-Fernández. 2001. Persuasion and advertising English: Metadiscourse in slogans and headlines. Journal of Pragmatics 33, 1291–1307.
  171. Galtung, J. 1981. Structure, culture, and intellectual style: An essay comparing saxonic, teutonic, gallic and nipponic approaches. Social Science Information 20 (6), 817–856.
  172. Genette, G. 1987. Seuils. Paris: Seuil.
  173. Gibson, T.R. 1993. Towards a discourse theory of abstracts and abstracting. Monographs in systemic linguistics 5. Nottingham: University of Nottingham.
  174. Gilhus, N. E. 2003. Medisinernes publisering: eksakt overføring av ny og nyttig informasjon eller drøvtygging av gamle resultater? Akademisk Prosa 1, 15–26. University of Bergen, Department of Romance studies.
  175. Gilje, N. and H. Grimen (eds.) 1996. Kompendium i almen vitskapsteori for Dr.Polit. og Dr.Art.-graden, 4. Edition. University of Bergen.
  176. Giora, R. and Y. Shen. 1994. Degrees of narrativity and strategies of semantic reduction. Poetics 22, 447–458.
  177. Gjerstad, M. 2001. Kan Thomas Mathiesen forsvares? En vitenskapsretorisk analyse. Skrifter fra prosjektmiljøet Norsk sakprosa, 5. Universitetet i Oslo.
  178. Gläser, R. 1991. The LSP genre Abstract – revisited. Unesco ALSED – LSP Newsletter 13 (4), 3–10.
  179. Gläser. R. 1990. Fachtextsorten im Englischen. Tübingen: Gunter Narr.
  180. Gledhill, C. 1995. Scientific innovation and the phraseology of rhetoric. Posture, reformulation and collocation in cancer research articles. PhD thesis, University of Aston, Birmingham.
  181. Gnutzmann, C. 1988. Aufsatztitel in englischsprachigen Fachzeitschriften. Linguistische Strukturen und kommunikative Funktionen. In C. Gnutzmann (eds.) Fachbezogener Fremdsprachenunterricht. Tübingen: Gunter Narr, 23–38.
  182. Gnutzmann, C. and H. Oldenburg 1991. Constrative Text Linguistic in LSP-Research: Theoretical Considerations and Some Preliminary Findings. In H. Schröder (eds.): Subject-oriented Texts. Languages for Special Purposes and Text Theory. Berlin: W. de Gruyter, 103–136.
  183. Goffman, E. 1974. Frame analysis. New York: Harper and Row.
  184. Göpferich, S. 1995. Textsorten in Naturwissenschaften und Technik. Pragmatische Typologie – Kontrastierung – Translation. Tübingen: Gunter Narr.
  185. Gopnik, M. 1972. Linguistic structures in scientific texts. The Hague: Mouton.
  186. Graetz. N. 1985. Teaching EFL students to extract structural information from abstracts. In J.M. Ulijn and A.K. Pugh (eds.) Reading for Professional Purposes: Studies and Practices in Native and Foreign Languages. Leuven: ACCO, 123–135.
  187. Grepstad, O. 1997. Det litterære skattkammer. Sakprosaens teori og retorikk. Oslo: Det Norske Samlaget.
  188. Gunnarsson, B-L. 1987. Facktext. Malmö: Ord och Stil, Språkvårdsamfundets Skrifter 18.
  189. Hall, E. T. and M. R. Hall. 1990. Understanding cultural differences. Yarmouth, ME: Intercultural Press.
  190. Halliday, M. A. K. 1973. Explorations in the functions of language. London: Edward Arnold.
  191. Halliday, M.A. K. 1994. The construction of knowledge and value in the grammar of scientific discourse, with reference to Charles Darwin's The Origin of Species. In M. Coulthard (eds.): Advances in Written Text Analysis. London and New York: Routledge, 136–156.
  192. Halliday, M.A.K. 1978. Language as social semiotic: the social interpretation of language and meaning. London: Edward Arnold.
  193. Halliday, M.A.K. 1985. An introduction to functional grammar. London: Edward Arnold.
  194. Halliday, M.A.K. and J. R. Martin 1993: Writing science: literacy and discursive power. London: Falmer Press.
  195. Halliday, M.A.K. and R. Hasan. 1976. Cohesion in English. London: Longman.
  196. Harris, J. 1989. The idea of community in the study of writing. College Composition and Communication 40 (1), 11-22.
  197. Hartley, J. 1997. Is it appropriate to use structured abstracts in social science journals? Learned Publishing 10 (4), 313-317.
  198. Hartley, J. and M. Sydes. 1997. Are structured abstracts easier to read than traditional ones? Journal of Research in Reading 20 (2), 122-136.
  199. Hartley, J., Goldie, M. and L. Steen. 1979. The role and position of summaries: Some issues and data. Educational Review 31 (1), 59–65.
  200. Harweg, R. 1968. Pronomina und Textkonstitution. München.
  201. Hasan, R. 1984. Coherence and cohesive harmony. In J. Flood (ed.) Understanding reading comprehension: Cognition, language, and the structure of prose. Newark: International Reading Association, 181–219.
  202. Heidolph, K-E. 1966: Kontextbeziehungen zwischen Sätzen in einer generativen Grammatik. Kybernetika 2, 274–281.
  203. Henderson, W. and T. Dudley-Evans (eds.). 1993. Economics and language. London: Routledge.
  204. Herslund, M. 1989: Modality. A Presentation. In M. Herslund (eds.): On modality. Papers from meetings and discussions in the linguistic circle of Copenhagen. København: Akademisk forlag, 7–16.
  205. Hertzberg, F. 1995. Uttalte og uuttalte normer for vitenskapelig skriving. In E. B. Johnsen: Virkelighetens forvaltere. Norsk sakprosa. Første bok. Oslo: Universitetsforlaget, 187–205.
  206. Hestmark, G. 1998. Når ble naturvitenskapen uleselig? In E. B. Johnsen and T. B. Eriksen (eds.): Norsk litteraturhistorie. Sakprosa fra 1750 til 1995. Oslo: Universitetsforlaget , Vol. I, 659–668.
  207. Hewings, M. and A. Hewings. 2002. "It is interesting to note that…": a comparative study of anticipatory 'it' in student and published writing. English for Specific Purposes 21 (4), 367-383.
  208. Hinds, J. 1987. Reader versus writer responsibility: A new typology. In: U. Connor and R. Kaplan (eds.), Writing across languages: Analysis of L2 text. Menlo Park, CA: Addison-Wesley, 141–152.
  209. Hinkel, E. 1997. Indirectness in L1 and L2 academic writing. Journal of Pragmatics 27, 361-386.
  210. Hoel, T. L. 1992. Tanke blir tekst. Skrivehjelp for studentar. Oslo: Det norske Samlaget.
  211. Hoey, M. 1979. Signalling in discourse. Discourse Analysis Monographs 6. Birmingham: English Language Research, University of Birmingham.
  212. Hoey, M. 1983. On the surface of discourse. London: Allen and Unwin.
  213. Hoey, M. 1988a. The clustering of lexical cohesion in non-narrative text. Trondheim Papers in Applied Linguistics 4, 154–180.
  214. Hoey, M. 1988b. Writing to meet the reader's needs: Text patterning and reading strategies. Trondheim Papers in Applied Linguistics 4, 51–73.
  215. Hoey, M. 1988c. The discourse properties of the criminal statute. In G. Nixon and J. Honey (eds.) An historic tongue. Studies in English linguistics in memory of Barbara Strang. London: Routledge, 145–166.
  216. Hoey, M. 1991. Patterns of lexis in text. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
  217. Hoey, M. 1994. Patterns of lexis in narrative: a preliminary study. In S-K. Tanskanen and B. Wårvik (eds.) Topics and comments: Papers from the discourse project. Anglicana Turkuensia 13, 1–39.
  218. Holmes, J. 1988. Doubt and Certainty in ESL Textbooks. International Journal of Applied Linguistics 9,1, 21–44.
  219. Hopper, P. J. and E. C. T. 1993. Grammaticalization. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
  220. Huckin, T.N. and L.A. Olsen 1984. On the use of informants in LSP discourse analysis. In A.K. Pugh. and J.M. Ulijn (eds.) Reading for professional purposes: Studies and practices in native and foreign languages. London: Heinemann, 120–129.
  221. Hunston, S. 1994a. Modal Meanings in the Structure of Argumentation. In M. Brekke, Ø. Andersen, T. Dahl and J. Myking (eds.): Applications and Implications of Current LSP Research. Proceedings of the 9th European Symposium on LSP. Bergen: Fagbokforlaget, Vol. II, 619–629.
  222. Hunston, S. 1994b. Evaluation and organization in a sample of written academic discourse. In M. Coulthard (eds.): Advances in Written Text Analysis. London: Routledge, 191–218.
  223. Hunston, S. 2000. Evaluation and the Planes of Discourse: Status and Value in Persuasive Texts. In S. Hunston and G. Thompsom (eds.): Evaluation in Text. Authorial Stance and the Construction of Discourse. Oxford: Oxford University Press, 177–207.
  224. Hunston, S. and G. Thompson (eds.) 2000. Evaluation in Text. Authorial Stance and the Construction of Discourse. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
  225. Hunston, S. and J. Sinclair 2000. A Local Grammar of Evaluation. In S. Hunston and G. Thompsom (eds.): Evaluation in Text. Authorial Stance and the Construction of Discourse. Oxford: Oxford University Press, 72–201.
  226. Hyland, K. 1996. «Writing Without Conviction? Hedging in Science Research Articles», International Journal of Applied Linguistics 17/ 4, 433–454.
  227. Hyland, K. 1998a. Disciplinary identity in reserach writing: Metadiscourse and academic communities. In L. Lundquist, H. Picht and J. Qvistgaard (eds.): LSP. Identity, and Interface. Research, Knowledge and Society. Proceedings of the 11th European Symposium on Language for Special Purposes. København: Copenhagen Business School, Vol. II, 648–655.
  228. Hyland, K. 1998b. Hedging in Scientific Research Articles. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.
  229. Hyland, K. 1999. Disciplinary discourses: writer stance in research articles. In C. Candlin and K. Hyland (eds.): Writing: Texts, Processes and Practices. London: Longman, 99–121.
  230. Hyland, K. 1999. Talking to students: Metadiscourse in introductory textbooks. English for Specific Purposes 18 (1), 3–26.
  231. Hyland, K. 2000. Disciplinary discourses. Social interactions in academic writing. Harlow, England/New York: Longman.
  232. Hyland, K. 2001a. Bringing in the reader: Addressee features in academic articles. Written Communication 18 (4), 549–574.
  233. Hyland, K. 2001b. Humble servants of the discipline? Self-mention in research articles. English for Specific Purposes 20, 207-226.
  234. Hyland, K. 2002. Authority and invisibility: authorial identity in academic writing. Journal of Pragmatics 34, 1091–1112.
  235. Hyland, K. and L. Hamp-Lyons. 2002. EAP: issues and directions. Journal of English for Academic Purposes 1, 1–12.
  236. Isenberg, H. 1968. Überlegungen zur Texttheorie. ASG/Bericht 2.
  237. ISO 214 – 1976 (E). International Organization for Standardization. Documentation – Abstracts for publications and documentation. Geneva: International Organization for Standardization.
  238. Ivanic, Roz. 1998. Writing and identity. The discoursal construction of identity in academic writing. Amsterdam/Philadelphia: John Benjamins.
  239. Jacobi, D. 1999. La communication scientifique. Discours, figures, modèles. Grenoble: Presses Universitaire de Grenoble.
  240. Jacobson, R. 1960/1974. Lingvistik och poetikk. In Lingvistik och poetik. Litteraturvetenskapliga bidrag valda av Kurt Aspelin och Bengt A. Lundberg. Stockholm: Pan/Norstedts, 139–179.
  241. Jensen, A. O. and H. S. Jensen 1976. Medicinsk Videnskabsteori. København: Christian Ejlers.
  242. Johansen, W. 1998. Kultursignaler i tekst og billede: Kultur og kommunikation i danske og franske præsentationsbrochurer. PhD thesis, Aarhus School of Business.
  243. Johns, A.M. and P. Mayes. 1990. An analysis of summary protocols of university ESL students. Applied Linguistics 11 (3), 253–271.
  244. Jordan, R.R. 2002. The growth of EAP in Britian. Journal of English for Academic Purposes 1, 69-78.
  245. Källgren, G. 1979. Innehåll i text. Lund: Studentlitteratur.
  246. Kaplan, R. B. 1987. Cultural thought patterns revisited. In: U. Connor and R. B. Kaplan, Writing across languages: Analysis of L2 text. Menlo Park, CA: Addison-Wesley, 9-21.
  247. Kennedy, R.A. 1967. Writing informative titles for technical papers – Guide to authors. In H.P. Luhn (ed.) Automation and scientific communication. New York, Vol I, 133–134.
  248. Kieras, D.E. 1981. The role of major referents and sentence topics in the construction of passage macrostructure. Discourse Processes 4, 1–15.
  249. Kieras, D.E. 1985. Thematic processes in the comprehension of technical prose. In B.K. Britton and J.B. Black (eds.) Understanding expository text: A theoretical and practical handbook for analyzing explanatory text. Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum, 89–107.
  250. Kinn, T. 2001. Pseudopartitives in Norwegian. Dr. art. thesis. University of Bergen.
  251. Kintsch, W. and T.A. van Dijk. 1978. Toward a model of text comprehension and production. Psychological Review 85 (5), 363–394.
  252. Kircz, J.G. 1991. Rhetorical structure of scientific articles: The case for argumentational analysis in information retrieval. Journal of Documentation 47 (4), 354–372.
  253. Kjørup, S. 1996. Menneskevidenskaberne. Problemer og traditioner i humanioras videnskabsteori. Frederiksberg: Roskilde Universitetsforlag.
  254. Kleiber, G. 1990. La sémantique du prototype. Catégories et sens lexical. Paris: Presses Universitaires de France.
  255. Knain, E. 2001. Naturfagets tause stemme. Diskursanalyse av lærebæker i Natur- og miljøfag. Skrifter fra Prosjektmiljøet Norsk sakprosa 3. Oslo.
  256. Koskela, M. 1996. Tema och rema i vetenskaplig och populärvetenskaplig text. Acta Wasaensia 47, Språkvetenskap 9. Vaasa: Universitas Wasaensis.
  257. Koskela, M. 1999. Om referenser till vetenskaplig litteratur i svenska filosofiske texter. Nordica Bergensia 20, 143–160.
  258. Koskela, M. 2000. Svenska som filosofins språk. Vaasan ylipiston julkaisuja, Tutkimuksia 235, Språkvetenskap 38. Vaasa: Universitas Wasaensis.
  259. Koskela, M. 2001. Vägar för kontextanalys inom fackspråkforskningen. In C. Laurén and M. Nordman (eds.): Från terminologisk teori till vetenskaplig kommunikation. Forskning i Norden. Proceedings from the University of Vaasa, 61–68.
  260. Kourilová, M. 1994. Some problems posed by the System of Epistemic Modality in Written Scientific Discourse. In M. Brekke, Ø. Andersen, T. Dahl and J. Myking (eds.): Applications and Implications of Current LSP Research. Proceedings of the 9th European Symposium on LSP. Bergen: Fagbokforlaget, Vol. II, 639–646.
  261. Kretzenbacher, H.L. 1990. Rekapitulation. Textstrategien der Zusammenfassung von wissenschaftlichen Fachtexten. Tübingen: Gunter Narr.
  262. Kuhn, T. S. 1970. The Structure of Scientific Revolutions, 2. edition. Chicago: The University of Chicago Press.
  263. Kuo, C.-H. 1999. The use of personal pronouns: role relationships in scientific journal articles. English for Specific Purposes 18 (2), 121-138.
  264. Køppe, S. 1990. Virkelighedens niveauer, 2. edition. København: Gyldendal.
  265. Labov, W. 1972/1999. The transformation of experience in narrative. In A. Jaworski and N. Coupland (eds.) 1999: The Discourse Reader. London: Routledge, 221–235.
  266. Labov, W. and J. Waletsky 1967. Narrative analysis: Oral versions of personal experience. In J. Helm (eds.): Essays on the Verbal and Visual Arts. Seattle: University of Seattle Press.
  267. Langacker, R. W 1999. Assessing the cognitive linguistic enterprise. In T. Janssen and G. Redeker (eds.): Cognitive Linguistics: Foundations, Scope, and Methodology. Berlin, New York: Mouton de Gruyter, 13–59.
  268. Larsen, Ø. and M. Nylenna 1998. Medisinsk sakprosa som samfunnsbygger. In E. B. Johnsen and T. B. Eriksen (eds.): Norsk litteraturhistorie. Sakprosa fra 1750 til 1995. Oslo: Universitetsforlaget, Vol. I, 302–312.
  269. Laurén, C. 1993. Fackspråk. Form, innehåll, funktion. Lund: Studentlitteratur.
  270. Laurén, C. 1999. Den suveräne individen. En sociologs syn på det egna språkbruket. Nordica Bergensia 20, 161–172.
  271. Laurén, C. and M. Nordman 2001. Från terminologisk teori till vetenskaplig kommunikation. Forskning i Norden. Proceedings from the University of Vaasa, 78. Vaasa.
  272. Ledin, P. 1996. Genrebegreppet – en forskningsöversikt. Lund: Institutionen för nordiska språk. Rapporter från projektet Svensk sakprosa 2.
  273. Ledin, P.1999. Texter och textslag – en teoretisk diskussion. Lund: Institutionen för nordiska språk. Rapporter från projektet Svensk sakprosa 27.
  274. Liddy, E.D. 1988. The discourse-level structure of natural language texts: An exploratory study of empirical abstracts. Ann Arbor, MI: UMI.
  275. Liddy, E.D. 1991. The discourse-level structure of empirical abstracts: An exploratory study. Information Processing & Management 27 (1), 55–81.
  276. Liddy, E.D., Oddy, R.N., Martin, E., Bishop, A. and B. Balakrishnan. 1988. Information retrieval as discourse. Unpublished manuscript. Syracuse University, School of Information Studies.
  277. Lindeberg, A-C. 1988. Cohesion, coherence and coherence patterns in expository and argumentative student essays in EFL: An exploratory study. Åbo Akademi.
  278. Lindeberg, A-C. 1998. Promotional Rhetorical Steps and Linguistic Signalling in Research Articles in Three Disciplines. In L. Lundquist, H. Picht og J. Qvistgaard (eds.): LSP. Identity, and Interface. Research, Knowledge and Society. Proceedings of the 11th European Symposium on Language for Special Purposes. København: Copenhagen Business School, Vol. II, 689–698.
  279. Lindeberg, A-C. Forthcoming. Abstracting across disciplines: Rhetorical structures in research article abstracts in finance, management, and marketing. To appear in The ESP Journal.
  280. Longacre, R. E. 1983. The grammar of discourse. New York: Plenum Press.
  281. Longacre, R.E. 1976. An anatomy of speech notions. Lisse: Peter de Ridder Press.
  282. Loveday, L. 1983. Rhetoric Patterns in Conflict: the sociocultural relativity of discourse – organizing processes. Journal of Pragmatics 7, 169–190.
  283. Low, G. 1996. Intensifiers and Hedges in Questionnaire Items and the Lexical Invisibility Hypothesis. International Journal of Applied Linguistics 17/1, 1–37.
  284. Lundquist, L. 1980. La cohérence textuelle. Syntaxe, sémantique, pragmatique. Copenhagen: Nyt Nordisk Forlag. 2nd ed. 1994, Copenhagen: Samfundslitteratur.
  285. Lundquist, L. 1989. Coherence in scientific texts. In W. Heydrich, F. Neubauer, J.S. Petöfi and E. Sözer (eds.) Connexity and coherence: Analysis of text and discourse. Berlin: Walter de Gruyter, 122–149.
  286. Lundquist, L. 1999. Le factum textus: Fait de grammaire, fait de linguistique ou fait de cognition? Langue française. Février, 56–76.
  287. Lundquist, L., Picht, H. and J. Qvistgaard (eds.). 1998. LSP identity and interface. Research, knowledge and society. Proceedings of the 11th European Symposium on Language for Special Purposes, Copenhagen, August 1997. Copenhagen: Copenhagen Business School.
  288. Luukka, M-R. and R. Markkanen 1997. Impersonalization as a Form of Hedging. In R. Markkanen and H. Schröder (eds.): Hedging and Discourse. Approaches to the Analysis of a Pragmatic Phenomenon in Academic Texts. Berlin.: Walter de Gruyter, 168–187.
  289. Lyons, J. 1977. Semantics. Cambrigde: Cambridge University Press.
  290. Maher, J. 1986. English for medical purposes. Language Teaching 19, 112-145.
  291. Maher, J. 1986. The development of English as the international language of medicine. Applied Linguistics 7 (2), 206-218.
  292. Marco. M. J. L. 2000. Author's comment verbs in the experimental biomedical paper. Fachsprache 22 (3/4), 133-144.
  293. Markkanen, R. and H. Schröder (eds.) 1997. Hedging and Discourse. Approaches to the Analysis of a Pragmatic Phenomenon in Academic Texts. Berlin: Walter de Gruyter.
  294. Martin, J. R. 1993. Life as a Noun: Arresting the Universe in Science and Humanities. In M.A.K. Halliday and J.R. Martin: Writing science: literacy and discursive power. London: Falmer Press, 221–280.
  295. Martín, P. M. 2003. A genre analysis of English and Spanish research paper abstracts in experimental social sciences. English for Specific Purposes 22, 25-43.
  296. Mauranen, A. 1992. Reference in academic rhetoric. A contrastive study of Finnish and English writing. In A-C. Lindeberg, N.E. Enkvist and K. Wikberg (eds.) Nordic research on text and discourse. NORDTEXT Symposium 1990. Åbo: Åbo Akademi, 237–250.
  297. Mauranen, A. 1993. Contrastive ESP rhetoric: Metatext in Finnish-English economics texts. English for Specific Purposes 12, 3–22.
  298. Mauranen, A. 1993. Cultural Differences in Academic Rhetoric. A Textlinguistic Study. Frankfurt am Main: Peter Lang.
  299. Mauranen, A. 2002. "One thing I'd like to clarify…". Observations of academic speaking. (http://www.eng.helsinki.fi/hes/Corpora/one_thing.htm, site visited 9 May 2003).
  300. Mauranen, A. 2001. Descriptions or explanations? some methodological issues in contrastive rhetoric. M. Hewings (Ed.), Academic Writing in Context . Birmingham: University of Birmingham Press, ,43–54.
  301. Mayer, Felix (eds.) 2001. Language for Special Purposes: Perspectives for the New Millennium. Göttingen: Gunter Narr.
  302. Melander, Bjørn, Swales, J. and K. Fredrickson. 1997. Journal abstracts from three academic fields in the US and Sweden: national or disciplinary proclivities. In: A. Duszak (Ed.), Culture and Styles of Academic Discourse. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter, 251–272.
  303. Melander, B. 1998. Culture or genre? Issues in the interpretation of cross-cultural differences in scientific English. J. F. Coll, I. Fortanet, J. C. Palmer, & S. Posteguillo (Eds.), Genre Studies in English for Academic Purposes. Castello de la Plana: Universitat Jaume 1, 211–226.
  304. Meyer, P. 1975. The English language: A problem for the non-Anglo-Saxon scientific community? British Medical Journal 2, 553–554.
  305. Miller, J.R. 1985. A knowledge-based model of prose comprehension: Applications to expository texts. In B.K. Britton and J.B. Black (eds.) Understanding expository text: A theoretical and practical handbook for analyzing explanatory text. Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum, 199–226.
  306. Minsky, M. 1975. A framework for representing knowledge. In P.H. Winston (ed.) The psychology of computer vision. New York: McGraw-Hill, 11–77.
  307. Moirand, S. et al. (eds) 1994. Parcours linguistiques de discours spécialises. Colloque en Sorbonne les 23-25 septembre 1992. Collection sciences pour la communication. Berne: P. Lang.
  308. Moore, T. 2002.Knowledge and agency: a study of 'metaphenomenal discourse' in textbooks from three disciplines. English for Specific Purposes 21, 347-366.
  309. Moreno, A. 1997. Genre constraints across languages: Causal metatext in Spanish and English RAs. English for Specific Purposes 16 (3), 161–179.
  310. Morris, A.H., Kasper, G.M. and D.A. Adams. 1992. The effects and limitations of automated text condensing on reading comprehension performance. Information Systems Research 3 (1), 17–35.
  311. Myers, G. 1990. Making a discovery: Narratives of split genes. In C. Nash (ed.) Narrative in culture: The use of storytelling in the sciences, philosophy, and literature. London: Routledge, 102–126.
  312. Myers, G. 1991. Lexical cohesion and specialized knowledge in science and popular science texts. Discourse Processes 14, 1–26.
  313. Myking, J. 1999. Norsk fagspråkforsking. Ein manglande (?) tradisjon. Nordica Bergensia 20, 17–62.
  314. Nølke, H. 1989. Polyfoni. En sprogteoretisk indføring. ARK (Sproginstitutternes Arbejdspapir Handelshøjskolen i København), 48.
  315. Nølke, H. 1994. Linguistique modulaire: de la forme au sens. Louvain: Peeters.
  316. Nølke, H. 1999. Linguistique modulaire: principes méthodologiques et applications. In H. Nølke and J-M. Adam (eds.): Approches modulaires: de la langue au discours, 17–73. Lausanne: Delachaux et Niestlé.
  317. Nølke, H. 2001. LaScaPoLine 2001: version revisée de la théorie scandinave de la polyphonie linguistique. In: M. Olsen (ed.), Polypohonie-linguistique et littéraire III. Roskilde: RUC, 43–65.
  318. Nordman, M. 1999. Individen bakom den vetenskapliga texten: exemplet Rita Liljeström. Nordica Bergensia 20, 173–191.
  319. Nylenna, M. and Ø. Larsen 1998. Medisinsk sakprosa som samfunnsbygger. In E.B. Johnsen and T. B. Eriksen (eds.): Norsk litteraturhistorie. Sakprosa fra 1750 til 1995. Oslo: Universitetsforlaget, Vol. I, 302–313.
  320. Palmer, F.R. 1986. Mood and Modality. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
  321. Paltridge, B. 1997. Genre, frames and writing in research settings. Amsterdam: John Benjamins Publishing Co.
  322. Paltridge, B. 1997. Genre, frames and writing in research settings. Amsterdam/Philadelphia: John Benjamins.
  323. Paradis, J. 1987. Montaigne, Boyle and the Essay of Experience. I G. Levine (eds.): One Culture. Essays in Science and Literature. Madison: University of Wisconsin Press.
  324. Parsons, G. 1991. Cohesion coherence: Scientific texts. In E. Ventola (ed.) Functional and systemic linguistics: Approaches and uses. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter, 415–429.
  325. Pennycook, A. 1994. The politics of pronouns. ELT Journal 48 (2), 173-178.
  326. Pettersen, T. 1996. Skriv. Fra idé til fagoppgave. Oslo: Ad Notam.
  327. Phillips, M. 1985. Aspects of text structure: An investigation of the lexical organisation of text. Amsterdam: North-Holland.
  328. Pöckl, W. 1995. Nationalstile in Fachtexten? Vom Tabu- zum Modethema. Fachsprache 3/4, 98-107.
  329. Polanyi, M. 1958. Personal knowledge. Towards a post-critical philosophy. Rev. ed. 1962. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.
  330. Polanyi, M. 1967. The tacit dimension. London: Routledge and Kegan Paul.
  331. Posteguillo, S. 1999. The schematic structure of computer science research articles. English for Specific Purposes 18 (2), 139-160.
  332. Preiss, S. 1983. Textlinguistische Aspekte des Abstracts. Linguistische Arbeitsberichte 41, Karl-Marx-Universität, Leipzig, 82–91.
  333. Publication Manual of the American Psychological Association, 1994, 4. Edition. Washington, DC.
  334. Rastall, P. 2003. What do we mean by we? Some thoughts on a complex pronoun. English Today 73, 19 (1), 50-53
  335. Rastier, F. 1987. Sémantique interprétative. Paris: Presses Universitaires de France. Rev. ed. 1996.
  336. Rastier, F. 1989. Sens et textualité. Paris: Hachette.
  337. Rastier, F. 1997. Herméneutique: textes, sciences. Paris: PUF.
  338. Ratteray, O.M.T. 1985. Expanding roles for summarized information. Written Communication 2 (4), 457–472.
  339. Ricoeur, P. 1980. L'histoire comme récit. In D. Tiffeneau (eds.): La Narrativité. Paris: Éditions du Centre National de la Recherche Scientifique.
  340. Riley, K. 1991. Passive voice and rhetorical role in scientific writing. Journal of Technical Writing and Communication 21 (3), 239-257.
  341. Roald, J. 1986. Om begrepet fagspråk. In T. Jacobsen, J.K. Sanaker, S. Storelv and L. Tufte (eds.): Romansk fra Vest. Festskrift til Lars Otto Grundt, Arne-Johan Henrichsen og Hans Aaraas. Særnummer av Tribune: skriftserie for romansk institutt, Universitetet i Bergen, 2, 177–186.
  342. Rosier, L. 1999. Le discours rapporté. Bruxelles: Duculot.
  343. Roulet, E., Auchlin, A., Moescler, J., Rubattel, C. and M. Schelling. 1985. L'articulation du discours en français contemporain. Bern: Peter Lang.
  344. Rumelhart, D.E. 1977. Understanding and summarizing brief stories. In D. Laberge and S.J. Samuels (eds.) Basic processes in reading: Perception and comprehension. Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum, 265–303.
  345. Sager, J.C., Dungworth, D. and P.F. McDonald. 1980. English special languages: Principles and practice in science and technology. Wiesbaden: Brandstetter.
  346. Salager-Meyer, F. 1998. Reference Patterns in Medical English Discourse. In L. Lundquist, H. Picht and J. Qvistgaard (eds.): LSP. Identity, and Interface. Research, Knowledge and Society. Proceedings of the 11th European Symposium on Language for Special Purposes. København: Copenhagen Business School, Vol I, 495–504.
  347. Salager-Meyer, F. and N. Zambrano. 2001. The discourse of competing knowledge claims in academic prose. In: F. Meyer (ed.), Language for special purposes: Perspectives for the new millennium, vol. 2. Tübingen: Gunter Narr, 474–479.
  348. Salager-Meyer, F., G. Defives and M. Hamelynck 1996. A diachronic study of hedges in medical English written discourse. In G. Budin (eds.): Multilingualism in Specialist Communication. Proceedings of the 10th European Symposium on Language for Special Purposes. Wien: International Network for Terminology, Vol. I, 267–286.
  349. Schnotz, W. 1983. On the influence of text organization on learning outcomes. In G. Rickheit and M. Bock (eds.) Psycholinguistic studies in language processing. Berlin: Walter de Gruyter, 152–181.
  350. Schröder, H. (eds.): Subject-oriented Texts. Languages for Special Purposes and Text Theory. Berlin: W. de Gruyter.
  351. Searle, J. R. 1969. Speech acts. An Essay on the Philosophy of Language. Cambridge. Cambridge University Press.
  352. Searle, J. R. 1976. A classification of illocutionary acts. Language in Society 5, 1–24.
  353. Searle, J. R. 1995. The construction of Social Reality. London: Penguin Books.
  354. Selinker, L. 1979. On the use of informants in discourse analysis and language for specialized purposes. International Review of Applied Linguistics in Language Teaching 17 (3), 189–215.
  355. Shaw, P. 2002. Contrastive rhetoric in context: Danish economists writing in two languages. In: M. Koskela, C. Laurén, M. Nordman and N. Pilke (eds.), Porta Scientiae II. Lingua specialis. Vaasa: University of Vaasa, 668–680.
  356. Simpson, P. 1990. Modality in Literary-Critical Discourse. In W. Nash (eds.): The writing scholar. Studies in Academic Discourse.Written Communication Annual. An International Survey of Research and Theory. New Bury Park: Sage, Vol. III, 62–94.
  357. Sinclair, J. M. 1982. Planes of discourse. In S.N.A. Rizvi (eds.): The Two-Fold Voice: Essays in Honour of Ramesh Mohan. Salzburg: University of Salzburg, 70–91.
  358. Skelton, J. 1997. The representation of truth in academic medical writing. International Journal of Applied Linguistics 18/ 2, 121–140.
  359. Skulstad, A. 1997. Established and emerging business genres: genre analyses of corporate annual reports and corporate enviromental reports. Dr.art. thesis, Department of English: University of Bergen.
  360. Spillner, B. 1992. Textes médicaux français et allemands. Contribution à une comparaison interlinguale et interculturelle. Langages, 42–65.
  361. Stålhammar, M. 1998. Doctoral Dissertations in different disciplines. In L. Lundquist, H. Picht and J. Qvistgaard (eds.): LSP. Identity, and Interface. Research, Knowledge and Society. Proceedings of the 11th European Symposium on Language for Special Purposes. København: Copenhagen Business School, Vol. II, 761–769.
  362. Stålhammar, M. 2002. Abstracts of doctoral dissertations in the humanities and social sciences. In M. Koskela et al. (eds.), Porta scientiae I, Lingua specialis. Vaasa: University of Vaasa, 264-275.
  363. Stoddard, S. 1991. Text and texture: Patterns of cohesion. Norwood, NJ: Ablex.
  364. Stotesbury, H. 1999. Reporting, evaluation and discussion as exponents of interpretation in critical summarization. University of Joensuu Publications in the Humanities 23. Joensuu: University of Joensuu.
  365. Swales, J. 1986. Citation analysis and discourse analysis. Applied Linguistics 7 (1), 39–56.
  366. Swales, J.M. 1990. Genre analysis: English in academic and research settings. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
  367. Swales, J.M.1998. Other floors, other voices. A Textography of a Small University Building. Mahwah m.fl.: Lawrence Erlbaum.
  368. Swales, J. and H. Najjar. 1987. The writing of research article introductions. Written Communication 4 (2), 175-191.
  369. Tanskanen, S-K. 1994. Continuity and interaction: Aspects of lexical cohesion in conversation. In S-K. Tanskanen and B. Wårvik (eds.) Topics and comments: Papers from the discourse project. Anglicana Turkuensia 13, 99–114.
  370. Taylor, J.R. 1995. Linguistic Categorization. Prototypes in Linguistic Theory, 2. Edition. Oxford: Clarendon Press.
  371. Thetala, P. 1997. Evaluated entities and parameters of value in academic research articles. English for Specific Purposes 16 (2), 101-118.
  372. Thompson, S.E. 2003. Text-structuring metadiscourse, intonation and the signalling of organisation in academic lectures. Journal of English for Academic Purposes 2, 5–20.
  373. Tibbo, H.R. 1992. Abstracting across the disciplines: A content analysis of abstracts from the natural sciences, the social sciences, and the humanities with implications for abstracting standards and online information retrieval. Library and Information Science Research 14 (1), 31–56.
  374. Tirkkonen-Condit, S. 1985. Argumentative Text Structure and Translation, Ph.D. Studia Philologica Jyväskyläensia 18. Jyväskylä: University of Jyväskylä.
  375. Tønnesson, J.L. 2001. Vitenskapens stemmer. Vitenskapsbilder, dialogisme og forskernærvær i fire historiefaglige tekster for allmennheten. Skrifter fra prosjektmiljøet Norsk sakprosa, 2. Universitetet i Oslo.
  376. Toulmin, S. 1964. The uses of argument. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
  377. Toulmin, S. E. 1958: The Uses of Argument. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
  378. Trosborg, A. 2000. Analysing professional genres. Amsterdam: John Benjamins Publishing Co.
  379. Tuomarla, U. 1999. La citation mode d'emploi. Sur le fonctionnement discursif du discours rapporté direct. Academia Scientiarum Fennica, Helsinki. Humaniora 308, Saarijärvi, Finland.
  380. Vagle, W., M. Sandvik and J. Svennevig 1993. Tekst og kontekst. En innføring i tekstlingvistikk og pragmatikk. Oslo: LNU/Cappelen.
  381. Valero-Garcés, C. 1996. Contrastive ESP rhetoric: Metatext in Spanish-English economics texts. English for Specific Purposes 15 (4), 279–294.
  382. Valle, E. 1996. Representation of the discourse community in scientific and popular writing. In M. Gustafsson (ed.) Essays & Explorations. A ´Freundschrift´ for Liisa Dahl. Anglicana Turkuensia 15, 157–170.
  383. van Dijk, T. A. 1977: Semantic Macro-Structures and Knowledge Frames in Discourse Comprehension. In M.A. Just and P.A. Carpenter (eds.): Cognitive Processes in Comprehension. New York: Lawrence Erlbaum, 3–32.
  384. van Dijk, T.A. 1972. Some aspects of text grammars: A study in theoretical linguistics and poetics. The Hague: Mouton.
  385. van Dijk, T.A. 1980. Macrostructures: An interdisciplinary study of global structures in discourse, interaction, and cognition. Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.
  386. van Dijk, T.A. 1988a. News analysis: Case studies of international and national news in the press. Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.
  387. van Dijk, T.A. 1988b. News as discourse. Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.
  388. van Dijk, T.A. and W. Kintsch. 1983. Strategies of discourse comprehension. New York: Academic Press.
  389. van Eemeren, F., R. Grootendorst and S. Henkemans 1996. Fundamentals of Argumentation Theory. A handbook of Historical Backgrounds and Contemporary Developments. Mahwah: Lawrence Erlbaum.
  390. Vande Kopple, W. J. 1985. Some exploratory Discourse on Metadiscourse. College Composition and Communication 36/1, 82–93.
  391. Varttala, T. 1999. Remarks on the communicative functions of hedging in popular scientific and specialist research articles on medicine. English for Specific Purposes 18 (2), 177–200.
  392. Vassileva, I. 1995. Some aspects of the rhetorical structure of specialized written discourse in English, Bulgarian and Russian. International Journal of Applied Linguistics 5/2, 173–190.
  393. Vassileva, I. 1997. Hedging in English and Bulgarian academic writing. In: A. Duszak (ed.), Culture and styles of academic discourse. Berlin/New York: Mouton de Gruyter, 203–222.
  394. Vassileva, I. 1998. Who am I/who are we in academic writing? A contrastive analysis of authorial presence in English, German, French, Russian and Bulgarian. International Journal of Applied Linguistics 8/2, 163–190.
  395. 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.
  396. Vassileva, I. 2001. Commitment and detachment in English and Bulgarian academic writing. English for Specific Purposes 20 (1), 83–102.
  397. Ventola, E. 1994. Finnish writers' academic English. Problems with reference and theme. Functions of Language 1 (2), 261–293.
  398. Ventola, E. and A. Mauranen (eds.). 1996. Academic writing: Intercultural and textual issues. Amsterdam/Philadelphia: John Benjamins.
  399. Ventola, E. and A. Mauranen. 1991. Non-native writing and native revising of scientific articles. In E. Ventola (ed.) Functional and systemic linguistics: Approaches and uses. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter, 457–492.
  400. Virtanen, T. 1992. Issues of text typology: Narrative – a basic type of text? TEXT An interdisiplinary journal for the study of discourse 12–1, 293–310.
  401. Weil, B.H. 1970. Standards for writing abstracts. Journal of the American Society for Information Science 21, 351–357.
  402. Weinrich, H. 1973. Le temps: le récit et le commentaire. Paris: Seuil.
  403. Werlich, E. 1983. A Text Grammar of English. 2nd ed. Heidelberg: Quelle & Meyer.
  404. West, G. K. 1980. That-nominal constructions in traditional rhetorical divisions of scientific research papers. TESOL Quarterly 14, 483–489.
  405. Wetlesen, J. 1983. Samtaler med tekster i lys av Gadamers hermeneutikk. Norsk filosofisk tidsskrift 18, 219–244.
  406. Wifstad, Å. 1991. Helhetsforståelse og kommunikasjon. Filosofi for klinikere. Universitetet i Tromsø: Institutt for Samfunnsmedisin: ISM skriftserie 18.
  407. Wikborg, E. and L. Björk 1989. Sammanhang i text. En empirisk undersökning och skrivpedagogiske konsekvenser. Uppsala: Hallgren & Fallgren.
  408. Williams, I. A. 1999. Results sections of medical research articles: analysis of rhetorical categories for pedagogical purposes. English for Specific Purposes 18 (4), 347-366.
  409. Winter, E. O. 1971. Connection in science material: a proposition about the semantics of clause relations. In Centre for Information on Language Teaching. Papers and Reports 7. London: Centre for Information on Language Teaching and Research for British Association for Applied Linguistics, 41–52.
  410. Winter, E. O. 1974. Replacement as a function of repetition: A study of some of its principle features in the clause relations of contemporary English. PhD thesis, University of London.
  411. Winter, E. O. 1978. A look at the role of certain words in information structure. In K.P. Jones and V. Horsnell (eds.) Informatics 3. Proceedings of a conference held by the Aslib Co-ordinate Indexing Group on 2–4 April 1975 at Emmanuel College, Cambridge. London: Aslib, 85–97.
  412. Winter, E.O. 1979. Replacement as a fundamental function of the sentence in context. Forum Linguisticum 4 (2), 95–133.
  413. Wittgenstein, L. 1967. Philosophical Investigations. Oxford: Basil Blackwell.
  414. Ziman, J.M. 1968. Public knowledge. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
  415. Zuck, J.G. and L. V. Zuck 1986. Hedging in Newswriting. In A-M. Cornu, J. van Parijs, M. Delahaye and L. Baten (eds.). Beads or braclets? How do we approach LSP? Selected Papers from the Fifth European Symposium on LSP. Oxford: Oxford University Press, 172–180.
  416. Zuck, L.V. and J.G. Zuck. 1984. The main idea: Specialist and non-specialist judgments. In A.K. Pugh and J.M. Ulijn (eds.) Reading for professional purposes: Studies and practices in native and foreign languages. London: Heinemann, 130–135.
  417. Øfsti, A 1980. Vitenskapsteori og transcendentalfilosofi. En kritisk kommentar til Føllesdal og Walløe: «Argumentasjonsteori og vitenskapsfilosofi». Trondheim: Tapir.
by Ayndryl on Wednesday, August 03, 2011
Labels , ,
Template Design by SkinCorner