Intercultural perspectives on research writing / edited by Pilar Mur-Dueñas, University de Zaragoza, Jolanta Ŝinkūi̇enė, Vilnius University.

Based on papers presented at a one-day seminar ""Research Publication Practices: Challenges for Scholars in a Globalized World", at the 13th ESSE (European Society for the Study of English) Conference held in Galway, Ireland, August, 2016"--Introduction.

Includes bibliographical references and index.

This volume offers a fresh intercultural perspective on the discursive and rhetorical challenges non-Anglophone scholars face while writing and publishing in English for an international readership. The volume presents a wide spectrum of text-based intercultural analyses of academic texts written in L2 English. Placed in the context of a rapidly increasing role of English as the universal language of scientific and scholarly communication, the contributions included attempt to explore the native language influence on L2 English academic texts or, conversely, the influence of rhetorical or discursive features of English on L2 texts. Spanning from texts by Chinese to Lithuanian authors, the chapters in this volume offer a rich selection of lexico-grammatical, discursive and rhetorical elements analysed and compared across genres, disciplines and languages both within synchronic and diachronic perspectives. This volume will be of interest to both experienced and novice researchers in such fields as English for Academic Purposes, Intercultural Rhetoric, Genre Theory, Corpus Linguistics, and English as a Lingua Franca.

Intro; Intercultural Perspectives on Research Writing; Editorial page; Title page; Copyright page; Table of contents; Preface: Academic writing and non-Anglophone scholars; References; Introduction: Intercultural rhetoric approaches to the analysis of academic genres; Intercultural rhetoric and EAP; Intercultural rhetoric and ELF; Book overview; References; Part I. Three-fold intercultural analysis: Comparing national, L1 English and L2 English academic texts; Chapter 1. A contrastive (English, Czech English, Czech) study of rhetorical functions of citations in Linguistics research articles

1. Introduction2. Variation in citation practices; 3. Data and method; 3.1 Typology of rhetorical functions of citations; 4. Findings and discussion; 4.1 Citation frequency and distribution of citation types across RAs sections; 4.2 Rhetorical functions of citations; 5. Conclusion; References; Chapter 2. How to internationalise and empower academic research?: The role of language and academic conventions in Linguistics; 1. Introduction; 2. Data; 3. Results; 3.1 Main features of the journals; 3.2 The macro-structure of research articles; 4. Conclusions and implications; References

Chapter 3. The power of English: I and we in Lithuanian, Lithuanian English and British English research writing1. Introduction; 2. Personal pronouns in research writing; 2. Data and methods; 3. Results and discussion; 3.1 General frequencies of personal pronouns I/aš and we/mes and their forms; 3.2 I/aš and its semantic and pragmatic profile; 3.3 We/mes and its semantic and pragmatic profile; 4. Concluding remarks; References; Part II. Two-fold intercultural analysis: Comparing L2 and L1 English academic texts / Anglophone writing conventions

Chapter 4. "This dissonance": Bolstering credibility in academic abstracts1. Introduction; 2. Background issues on labeling nouns and the uses of this as an anaphoric determiner in academic discourse; 2.1 Labeling nouns also known as general, signalling, shell, or metadiscursive nouns; 2.2 This as a determiner; 3. Corpus and methodology; 3.1 A comparable corpus of PhD abstracts written in English by writers in a French and an English context; 3.2 Approach and method for corpus study; 3.3 Approach and method for case studies; 4. Results and discussion of the corpus-based study

4.1 Definition and distribution of a functional typology of this as a determiner4.2 Definition and distribution of a semantic typology of encapsulating this + LN; 5. Back to the text: Gains and losses; 5.1 Case study 1: Building an effective argumentative flow; 5.2 Case study 2: Failing to inscribe the research project in the disciplinary field; 5.3 Case study 3: Assessing the rhetorical impact of interpretive encapsulating this; 5.4 Gains and losses; 6. Final discussion and conclusion; 6.1 Final discussion; 6.2 Conclusion; Acknowledgement; References

Online resource; title from digital title page (viewed on January 24, 2019).

eBooks on EBSCOhost EBSCO eBook Subscription Academic Collection - Worldwide