The Differential Use of Reformulation Markers in Three Sub-corpora: L1 English, L2 English, and L1 Persian

Askari, A. (1993). Meyarol balaqeh [the criterion of eloquence]. Translated by Mohammd Javad        Nasiri. Tehran: Tehran University Press.

Al-Zamakhsharī, A. (1987). Al-Kashshāf [Revealing]. Beirut: Daar Al-Kutab'Arabi.

Atkinson, D. (2004). Contrasting rhetorics/contrasting cultures: Why contrastive rhetoric needs a better conceptualization of culture. Journal of English for Academic Purposes, 3(4), 277-289.

Barabadi, E. & Golparvar, S. E. (in press). To put it differently: A cross-disciplinary investigation of reformulation markers in student essays.  Discourse Processes.

Biber, D., Johansson, S., Leech, G., Conrad, S., & Finegan, E. (1999). Longman grammar of spoken and written English. London: Longman.

Blakemore, D. (1993). “The relevance of reformulations”. Language and Literature, 2 (2), 101–120.

Canagarajah, A.S. (2002). Critical academic writing and multilingual students. Ann Arbor: University of Michigan Press.

Candel, D. 1984. “Une approche de la langue des physiciens”. Langue Française, 64, 93–107.

Charolles, M. & Coltier, D. (1986). “Le contrôle de la compréhension dans une activité rédactionnelle: Élements pour l’analyse des reformulations paraphrastiques”. Pratiques, 49, 51–66.

Clyne, M. (1994). Intercultural Communication at Work. Cultural Values in Discourse. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge.

Connor, U. (2002). New directions in contrastive rhetoric. TESOL Quarterly, 36, 493–510.

Connor, U. (2004). Introduction. Contrastive rhetoric: Recent developments and relevance for English for academic purposes. Journal of English for Academic Purposes, 3(4), 271-276.

Cotos, E., Huffman, S., & Link, S. (2017). A move/step model for methods sections: Demonstrating Rigour and Credibility. English for Specific Purposes, 46, 90-106.

Crosthwaite, P., Cheung, L., & Jiang, F. K. (2017). Writing with attitude: Stance expression in learner and professional dentistry research reports. English for Specific Purposes, 46, 107-123.

Cuenca, M. J. (2003). Two ways to reformulate: A contrastive analysis of reformulation markers. Journal of Pragmatics, 35 (7), 1069–1093.

Cuenca, M. J., & Bach, C. (2007). Contrasting the form and use of reformulation markers. Discourse Studies, 9(2), 149-175.

Dehé, N. & Y. Kavalova (Eds.) (2007). Parentheticals. Amsterdam/Philadelphia: John Benjamins.

Dehghan, M., & Chalak, A. (2016). Code glosses in academic writing: The comparison of Iranian and native authors. Research in English Language Pedagogy, 3(2), 21-29.

Devitt, A. (2015). Translating practice into theory in genre studies. In N. Artemeva, & A. Freedman (Eds.), Genre studies around the globe (pp. 386-401). Edmonton AB: Inkshed Publications.

Farzannia, S., & Farnia, M. (2016). Metadiscourse markers in introduction sections of Persian and English mining engineering articles. English for Specific Purposes World, 49(17), 1-16.

Gao, X. (2016). A cross-disciplinary corpus-based study on English and Chinese native speakers' use of linking adverbials in academic writing. Journal of English for Academic Purposes, 24, 14-28.

Gardezi, S. A., & Nesi, H. (2009). Variation in the writing of economics students in Britain and Pakistan: the case of conjunctive ties. Academic writing: At the interface of corpus and discourse, 236-250.

Golebiowski, Z. (2018). Reshaping academic writing in internationalized higher education: A contribution from contrastive rhetoric. In: I. Liyanage (Ed.). Multilingual Education Yearbook (pp. 55-72). Springer, Cham.

Gülich, E. & Kotschi, T. (1983). “Les marqueurs de reformulation paraphrastique”. Cahiers de Linguistique Française, 5, 305–351.

Hinds, J. (1987). Reader versus writer responsibility: a new typology. In: K. Ulla Connor & B. Robert (Eds.), Writing across languages: Analyses of L2 text (pp. 141-152). Addison Wesley, Reading, MA.

Hyland, K. (2005). Metadiscourse. London: Continuum.

Hyland, K. (2007).  Applying a gloss. Exemplifying and reformulating in academic discourse. Applied Linguistics, 28 (2), 266–285.

Hyland, K., & Jiang, F. K. (2018). “In this paper we suggest”: Changing patterns of disciplinary metadiscourse. English for Specific Purposes, 51, 18-30.

Hyland, K., & Jiang, F. K. (2020). Text-organizing metadiscourse: tracking changes in rhetorical persuasion. Journal of Historical Pragmatics, 21(1), 137-164.

Işık-Taş, E. E. (2018). Authorial identity in Turkish language and English language research articles in Sociology: The role of publication context in academic writers' discourse choices. English for Specific Purposes, 49, 26-38.

Jalilifar, A. R. (2011). World of attitudes in research article discussion sections: A cross-linguistic perspective.

 

Jiang, F. K., & Hyland, K. (2017). Metadiscursive nouns: Interaction and cohesion in abstract moves. English for Specific Purposes, 46, 1-14.

Kaplan, R. B. (1988). Contrastive rhetoric and second language learning: Notes toward a theory of contrastive rhetoric. In A. C. Purves (Ed.), Writing across languages and cultures: Issues in contrastive rhetoric (pp. 275-304). Newbury Park: Sage.

Kuhi, D., & Mojood, M. (2014). Metadiscourse in newspaper genre: A cross-linguistic study of English and Persian editorials. Procedia-Social and Behavioral Sciences, 98, 1046-1055.

Landis, J. R., & Koch, G. G. (1977). An application of hierarchical kappa-type statistics in the assessment of majority agreement among multiple observers. Biometrics, 363-374.

Le, T. N. P., & Harrington, M. (2015). Phraseology used to comment on results in the Discussion section of applied linguistics quantitative research articles. English for Specific Purposes, 39, 45-61.

Mauranen, A. (1993). Cultural Differences in Academic Rhetoric. Frankfurt am Main: Peter Lang.

Molino, A. 2010. “Personal and impersonal authorial references: A contrastive study of English and Italian linguistics research articles”. Journal of English for Academic Purposes, 9 (2), 86–101.

Murillo, S. (2004). “A relevance reassessment of reformulation markers”. Journal of Pragmatics, 36 (11), 2059–2068.

Murillo, S. (2007). A contribution to the pragmalinguistic contrastive Study of explicatory reformulative discourse markers in contemporary journalistic written English and Spanish. PhD thesis. Universidad de Zaragoza.

Murillo, S. (2012). The use of reformulation markers in Business Management research articles: An intercultural analysis. International Journal of Corpus Linguistics, 17(1), 64-90.

Najafi, S. R. (2000). Balaqate hazf va ijaz va rabeteye an ba majaz [the eloquence of omission and brevity and its relation with imagery]. Maqalat va Barrasiha, 68, 153-170.

Rahimpour, S., & Faghih, E. (2009). Contrastive rhetoric of English and Persian written texts: Metadiscourse in applied linguistics research articles. Rice Working Papers in Linguistics, 1.

 

Rajaee, M. (1993). Maalemo albalaqeh [The signs of eloquence]. Shiraz: Shiraz University.

Salas, M. D. (2015). Reflexive metadiscourse in research articles in Spanish: Variation across three disciplines (Linguistics, Economics and Medicine). Journal of Pragmatics, 77, 20-40.

Shamse Qeis, (1994). Al-mojam [The dictionary]. Tehran: Ferdows publication.

Sheldon, M. (2011). Rhetorical differences in RA introductions written by English L1 and L2 and Castilian Spanish L1 writers. Journal of English for Academic Purposes, 10, 238-251.

Shokouhi, H., & Baghsiahi, A. T. (2009). Metadiscourse functions in English and Persian sociology articles: A study in contrastive rhetoric. Poznań Studies in Contemporary Linguistics, 45(4), 549-568.

Swales, J. (1981). Aspects of article introductions. Aston ESP Monographs 1. Birmingham: Aston University.

Thoiron, P. & Béjoint, H. 1991. “La place des reformulations dans les textes scientifiques”. Meta, 36 (1), 101–110.

Validi, M., Jalilifar, A., G Shooshtari, Z., & Hayati, A. (2016). Medical research article introductions in Persian and English contexts: Rhetorical and metadiscoursal differences. Research in Applied Linguistics, 7(2), 73-98.

Vold, E. T. (2006). “Epistemic modality markers in research articles: A cross-linguistic and cross-disciplinary Study”. International Journal of Applied Linguistics, 16 (1), 61–87.