Change search
Refine search result
1 - 16 of 16
CiteExportLink to result list
Permanent link
Cite
Citation style
  • apa
  • ieee
  • modern-language-association-8th-edition
  • vancouver
  • Other style
More styles
Language
  • de-DE
  • en-GB
  • en-US
  • fi-FI
  • nn-NO
  • nn-NB
  • sv-SE
  • Other locale
More languages
Output format
  • html
  • text
  • asciidoc
  • rtf
Rows per page
  • 5
  • 10
  • 20
  • 50
  • 100
  • 250
Sort
  • Standard (Relevance)
  • Author A-Ö
  • Author Ö-A
  • Title A-Ö
  • Title Ö-A
  • Publication type A-Ö
  • Publication type Ö-A
  • Issued (Oldest first)
  • Issued (Newest first)
  • Created (Oldest first)
  • Created (Newest first)
  • Last updated (Oldest first)
  • Last updated (Newest first)
  • Standard (Relevance)
  • Author A-Ö
  • Author Ö-A
  • Title A-Ö
  • Title Ö-A
  • Publication type A-Ö
  • Publication type Ö-A
  • Issued (Oldest first)
  • Issued (Newest first)
  • Created (Oldest first)
  • Created (Newest first)
  • Last updated (Oldest first)
  • Last updated (Newest first)
Select
The maximal number of hits you can export is 250. When you want to export more records please use the 'Create feeds' function.
  • 1.
    Ädel, Annelie
    Stockholm University, Faculty of Humanities, Department of English.
    How to use corpus linguistics in the study of political discourse2010In: The Routledge handbook of corpus linguistics / [ed] Anne O'Keeffe and Michael McCarthy, Abingdon: Routledge , 2010Chapter in book (Other (popular science, discussion, etc.))
  • 2.
    Ädel, Annelie
    Stockholm University, Faculty of Humanities, Department of English.
    Involvement features in writing: do time and interaction trump register awareness?2008In: Linking up contrastive and learner corpus research / [ed] Gaëtanelle Gilquin, Szilvia Papp and María Belén Díez-Bedmar, Amsterdam & Atlanta: Rodopi , 2008, 35-53 p.Chapter in book (Other (popular science, discussion, etc.))
  • 3.
    Ädel, Annelie
    Stockholm University, Faculty of Humanities, Department of English.
    "Just to give you kind of a map of where we are going": a taxonomy of metadiscourse in spoken and written academic English2010In: Nordic Journal of English Studies, ISSN 1654-6970, E-ISSN 1654-6970, Vol. 9, no 2Article in journal (Refereed)
    Abstract [en]

     

    One of the basic functions to which language is put is to comment on discourse or on language itself. Reflexivity in language occurs in everyday discourse as well as in specialised discourse, such as academic papers or lectures. It is often referred to as metadiscourse, or „discourse about discourse‟, as in In this paper, I explore… or just to give you kind of a map of where we are going… Such expressions are very common in academic genres, where the writer/speaker is expected to guide the audience through the discourse, for example by making its structure explicit. While research into metadiscourse has focused on academic writing, academic speech has remained largely unexplored. Furthermore, comparisons of spoken and written metadiscourse are rare, so the similarities and differences between spoken and written types of metadiscourse are unknown.

    The present qualitative and corpus-based study compares the use of personal metadiscourse in 30 spoken university lectures to that of 130 highly proficient essays by graduate students. The purpose is to present an empirically based taxonomy of the discourse functions of spoken and written metadiscourse with respect to academic English. Despite claims in previous research that separate treatment is needed, a lumping approach is taken rather than a splitting one. The goal is to create one taxonomy for both modes, thereby highlighting both similarities and differences in the distribution of discourse functions across speech and writing.

    The proposed taxonomy consists of 23 discourse functions, divided into four main categories:

    Metalinguistic comments, Discourse organisation, Speech act labels and References to the audience. The findings reveal that most of the discourse functions in the taxonomy occurred in both speech and writing, although spoken metadiscourse performed a greater range of discourse actions than written metadiscourse. Differences in the conditions of speech and writing did indeed cause variation in the use of metadiscourse: The discourse functions REPAIRING, MARKING ASIDES and CONTEXTUALISING occurred only in the spoken data because of the lack of time for planning and revision in real-time discourse, while MANAGING COMPREHENSION/CHANNEL and MANAGING AUDIENCE DISCIPLINE occurred only in the spoken data because of the direct presence of an audience. Factors related to genre were also found to cause variation in the use of metadiscourse: ARGUING was considerably more common in the written data, since academic writers typically need to put a great deal of work into argumentation, while lecturers generally present information not based on their own research. MANAGING THE MESSAGE, on the other hand, was common in the spoken data, which can be attributed to lecturers adopting a more authoritative role than student writers.

     
  • 4.
    Ädel, Annelie
    Stockholm University, Faculty of Humanities, Department of English.
    Metadiscourse2013In: The encyclopedia of applied linguistics / [ed] Carol A. Chapelle (general editor), Oxford: Blackwell Publishing, 2013Chapter in book (Refereed)
  • 5.
    Ädel, Annelie
    Stockholm University, Faculty of Humanities, Department of English.
    Metadiscourse across three varieties of English: American, British, and advanced-learner English2008In: Contrastive rhetoric: reaching to intercultural rhetoric / [ed] Ulla Connor, Ed Nagelhout, William V. Rozycki, Amsterdam: John Benjamins , 2008, 45-62 p.Chapter in book (Other (popular science, discussion, etc.))
    Abstract [en]

    This chapter focuses on the pervasive phenomenon of metadiscourse, or reflexivity in language, looking at argumentative essay writing by university students. It presents a study of three varieties of English, using two corpora of native-speaker writing (British and American) and one corpus of advanced learner writing (L1 Swedish). Considerable differences are shown to exist in the use of metadiscourse, not just between the learners and the native speakers, but also between the British and American writers. The differences are evident both in general frequencies across corpora and in the functions the metadiscourse serves. Four factors are identified as potentially accounting for the variation found: genre comparability, cultural conventions, register awareness and general learner strategies.

  • 6.
    Ädel, Annelie
    Stockholm University, Faculty of Humanities, Department of English.
    Metadiscourse in L1 and L2 English2006Book (Other (popular science, discussion, etc.))
  • 7.
    Ädel, Annelie
    Stockholm University, Faculty of Humanities, Department of English.
    On the boundaries between evaluation and metadiscourse2005In: Strategies in academic discourse / [ed] Elena Tognini-Bonelli & Gabriella Del Lungo Camiciotti, Amsterdam and Philadelphia: John Benjamins , 2005, 153-162 p.Chapter in book (Other (popular science, discussion, etc.))
  • 8.
    Ädel, Annelie
    Stockholm University, Faculty of Humanities, Department of English.
    Rapport building in student group work2011In: Journal of Pragmatics, ISSN 0378-2166, E-ISSN 1879-1387, Vol. 43, no 12, 2932-2947 p.Article in journal (Refereed)
    Abstract [en]

    How do students build rapport in online group work, especially if all they have to work with is asynchronous text? Taking this question as a point of departure, this paper presents research into the ‘interactional’ function in group work among university students, specifically investigating rapport-building language use, defined as communicative acts promoting social concord. Rapport building is examined in online student group work, using written material in the form of discussion board messages (from the Mid-Sweden Corpus of Computer-Assisted Language Learning). To help bring out what is characteristic of the online type of discourse, spoken face-to-face material also representing student– student interaction (from the Michigan Corpus of Academic Spoken English) is included. Frequency word lists based on the two sets of material were used in combination with concordancing in order to find which of the most frequent expressions functioned as rapport building, thus combining corpus-based and discourse-analytical methods. A taxonomy of rapport-building discourse functions was developed, containing four major categories: discourse-structuring, intratextual, face-saving and bonding units. Each of these covers specific discourse functions; in the case of bonding units, these are Agreeing; Aligning with in-group; Commiserating; Complimenting; Seeking agreement; Offering encouragement; Thanking; Responding to thanks; and Chatting.

  • 9.
    Ädel, Annelie
    Stockholm University, Faculty of Humanities, Department of English.
    Using corpora to teach academic writing: challenges for the direct approach2010In: Corpus-based approaches to English language teaching / [ed] Mari Carmen Campoy-Cubillo, Begoña Bellés-Fortuño and Maria Lluisa Gea-Valor, London and New York: Continuum , 2010Chapter in book (Other (popular science, discussion, etc.))
  • 10.
    Ädel, Annelie
    Stockholm University, Faculty of Humanities, Department of English.
    "What uh the folks who did this survey found": expert attribution in spoken academic lectures2008In: Nordic Journal of English Studies, ISSN 1654-6970, E-ISSN 1654-6970, Vol. 7, no 3, 83-102 p.Article in journal (Refereed)
    Abstract [en]

    Academic writing has been said to display a tension between originality and humility to the community (Myers 1990; Berkenkotter & Huckin 1995; Hyland 1999). One of the fundamental ways in which this tension plays out is in references to previous research, or ‘attribution’. While recent research has emphasized the importance of attribution in academic writing—Hyland (1999), for example, found the average number of citations in research articles to be as high as 70 per 10,000 words—the role of attribution in spoken academic discourse is relatively uncharted territory. In this study of attribution in academic speech, transcripts of 30 large lectures from the Michigan Corpus of Academic Spoken English (MICASE; Simpson et al. 1999) were analysed, totalling 250,000 words. References to expert sources in the academic domain were analysed, specifically third person attribution (including third person pronouns, proper names, and a selection of nouns), as in “um and, Marx points out that those are the tools that the proletariat are gonna use”. The research questions were: To what degree dolecturers situate intertextually the knowledge and facts they are presenting? Do thedisciplinary differences found in written citation practices also occur in speech? Howvariable are the formal realizations of attribution in speech?Contrary to previous research findings (e.g. Biber 2006; Swales 2005), the studyshowed both that expert attribution is quite pervasive and that there is disciplinaryvariation in academic speech. The findings are compared to studies of attribution inacademic writing (e.g. Hyland 1999; Tadros 1993), with the goal of contributing tocurrent research on the commonalities that academic speech (lectures) exhibits withacademic writing on one hand, and non-academic speech on the other.

  • 11.
    Ädel, Annelie
    et al.
    Stockholm University, Faculty of Humanities, Department of English.
    Deutschmann, Mats
    Mid-Sweden University.
    Walker, Terry
    Uppsala University.
    Garretson, Gregory
    Boston University.
    Introducing Mini-McCALL:  a pilot version of the Mid-Sweden corpus of computer-assisted language learning2009In: ICAME Journal, ISSN 0801-5775, no 33, 21-44 p.Article in journal (Refereed)
    Abstract [en]

    In this paper, we present Mini-McCALL, a 1.3-million-word corpus of computer-mediated communication in the context of online English universitycourses.1 The data consist of three types of written communication – bothbetween students and between students and teachers – in English: discussionforum messages, e-mail messages, and documents handed in as assignments.This pilot corpus comprises the first stage of a proposed 10-million-word corpusof computer-assisted language learning based on the online English coursesoffered by the Department of Humanities at Mid-Sweden University (Mittuniversitetet).In what follows, we first consider e-learning – online, off-campus study,where the medium of instruction and communication involves computer technology– from a theoretical perspective, and the need for such a corpus as oursto facilitate research into this new learning environment, as well as into the languageused in e-learning. We then describe the structure and content of Mini-McCALL and highlight both the research potential of the material and studiescurrently underway, as well as looking forward to the future development of thefull Mid-Sweden Corpus of Computer-Assisted Language Learning (McCALL).Both Mini-McCALL and the ultimate McCALL corpus will be made freelyavailable to the research community.

  • 12.
    Ädel, Annelie
    et al.
    Stockholm University, Faculty of Humanities, Department of English.
    Erman, Britt
    Stockholm University, Faculty of Humanities, Department of English.
    Recurrent word combinations in academic writing by native and non-native speakers of English: a lexical bundles approach2012In: English for specific purposes (New York, N.Y.), ISSN 0889-4906, E-ISSN 1873-1937, Vol. 31, no 2, 81-92 p.Article in journal (Refereed)
    Abstract [en]

    In order for discourse to be considered idiomatic, it needs to exhibit features like fluency and pragmatically appropriate language use. Advances in corpus linguistics make it possible to examine idiomaticity from the perspective of recurrent word combinations. One approach to capture such word combinations is by the automatic retrieval of lexical bundles. We investigated the use of English-language lexical bundles in advanced learner writing by L1 speakers of Swedish and in comparable native-speaker writing, all produced by undergraduate university students in the discipline of linguistics. The material was culled from a new corpus of university student writing, the Stockholm University Student English Corpus (SUSEC), amounting to over one million words. The investigation involved a quantitative analysis of the use of four-word lexical bundles and a qualitative analysis of the functions they serve. The results show that the native speakers have a larger number of types of lexical bundles, which are also more varied, such as unattended ‘this’ bundles, existential ‘there’ bundles, and hedging bundles. Other lexical bundles which were found to be more common and more varied in the native-speaker data involved negations. The findings are shown to be largely similar to those of the phraseological research tradition in SLA.

  • 13.
    Ädel, Annelie
    et al.
    Stockholm University, Faculty of Humanities, Department of English.
    Garretson, Gregory
    Boston University.
    Who's speaking?: evidentiality in US newspapers during the 2004 presidential campaign2008In: Corpora and discourse: the challenges of different settings / [ed] Annelie Ädel, Randi Reppen, Amsterdam ; Philadelphia: John Benjamins , 2008, 157-187 p.Chapter in book (Other (popular science, discussion, etc.))
  • 14.
    Ädel, Annelie
    et al.
    Stockholm University, Faculty of Humanities, Department of English.
    Mauranen, Anna
    English Department, University of Helsinki, Finland.
    Metadiscourse: diverse and divided perspectives 2010In: Nordic Journal of English Studies, ISSN 1654-6970, E-ISSN 1654-6970, Vol. 9, no 2, 1-11 p.Article in journal (Refereed)
  • 15.
    Ädel, Annelie
    et al.
    Stockholm University, Faculty of Humanities, Department of English.
    Reppen, Randi
    Corpora and discourse: the challenges of different settings2008Book (Other (popular science, discussion, etc.))
  • 16.
    Ädel, Annelie
    et al.
    Stockholm University, Faculty of Humanities, Department of English.
    Roemer, Ute
    Research on advanced student writing across disciplines and levels Introducing the Michigan Corpus of Upper-level Student Papers2012In: International Journal of Corpus Linguistics, ISSN 1384-6655, E-ISSN 1569-9811, Vol. 17, no 1, 3-34 p.Article in journal (Refereed)
    Abstract [en]

    This paper introduces the Michigan Corpus of Upper-level Student Papers (MICUSP) as a new resource that will enable researchers and teachers of English for Academic Purposes (EAP) to investigate the written discourse of highly advanced student writers whose written assignments have been awarded the grade 'A'. The usefulness of two aspects of the design of the corpus - variation across discipline and across student level is - illustrated by two case studies, one on attribution and one on recurrent phraseological patterns. The first case study investigates how references to the work of others are realized and to what extent disciplinary variation exists in unpublished academic writing by students. The second study examines the use of phraseological items (n-grams and phrase-frames) by students at four different levels of undergraduate and graduate study. The paper closes with a discussion of the results of both case studies and describes future avenues for MICUSP-based research.

1 - 16 of 16
CiteExportLink to result list
Permanent link
Cite
Citation style
  • apa
  • ieee
  • modern-language-association-8th-edition
  • vancouver
  • Other style
More styles
Language
  • de-DE
  • en-GB
  • en-US
  • fi-FI
  • nn-NO
  • nn-NB
  • sv-SE
  • Other locale
More languages
Output format
  • html
  • text
  • asciidoc
  • rtf