Academic style and format of doctoral thesesThe case of the disappearing discussion chapter

Referencias bibliográficas

• American Psychological Association. (2001). Publication Manual of the American Psychological Association, 5th ed. Washington, DC: Author.
• Belanger, M. (1982). A Preliminary Analysis of the Structure of the Discussion Sections in Ten Neuroscience Journals Articles. Unpublished Mimeo.
• Berkenkotter, C. & T.N. Huckin (1995). Genre Knowledge in Disciplinary Communication: Cognition, Culture, Power. Hillsdale: Lawrence Erlbaum.
• Bunton, D. (1998). Linguistic and Textual Problems in Ph. D. and M. Phil Theses: An Analysis of Genre Moves and Metatext. Unpublished Ph.D. thesis, University of Hong Kong.
• Bunton, D. (2005). “The structure of Ph.D. conclusion chapters”. Journal of English for Academic Purposes 4: 207-224.
• Connor, U., R. Nagelhout & V. William (eds.) (2008). Contrastive Rhetoric: Reaching to Intercultural Rhetoric. London: John Benjamins.
• Dudley-Evans, T. (1997). “Eleven genre models for the teaching of academic writing to second language speakers: Advantages and disadvantages” in T. Miller (ed.), Functional Approaches to Written Text, 150-159. Washington: US Information Services.
• Flottum, J., T. Dahl & K. Torrodd (2006). Academic Voices across Languages and Disciplines. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.
• Hewitt, E. (2008). The university discourse of thesis writing and the case of the disappearing discussion chapter. Paper presented at the conference for Les Discours Universitaires: Formes, Pratiques, Mutations. Brussels, Belgium, 24-28 April.
• Hopkins, A. & T. Dudley-Evans (1988). “A genrebased investigation of the discussion sections in articles and dissertations”. English for Specific Purposes 7: 113-122.
• Huckin, T. (1987). “Surprise value in scientific discourse”. Paper presented at the College Composition and Communication Conference, Atlanta, GA. March 1987. Eric Document number ED 284291.
• Hyland, K. (2000). Disciplinary Discourses: Social interactions in Academic Writing. London: Longman.
• Hyland, K. (2004). Genre and Second Language Writing. Michigan: University of Michigan Press.
• Luque Durán, J. de D. (ed.) (2006). Actas del V Congreso Andaluz de Lingüística General. Vol. 3. Granada: Granada Lingvistica.
• Martín Martín, P. (2003). “A genre analysis of English and Spanish research paper abstracts in experimental social sciences”. English for Specific Purposes 22: 25-43.
• Modern Humanities Research Association (2008). MHRA Style Guide, 2nd edition. London: Author.
• Myers, G. (1990). Writing Biology: Texts in the Social Construction of Scientific Knowledge. Madison, WI: The University of Wisconsin Press.
• Peng, J. (1987). “Organisational features in chemical engineering research articles”. ELR Journal 1: 79-116.
• Shaw, P. (2000). “Towards classifying arguments in research genres” in A. Trasborg (ed.), Analysing Professional Genres, 41-56. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.
• Swales, J. (1981). Aspects of Article Introductions. Aston: The University of Aston Language Studies Unit.
• Swales, J. (1990). Genre Analysis. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
• Swales, J. (2004). Research Genres: Explorations and Applications. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
• Thompson, D. K. (1993). “Arguing for experimental ‘facts’ in science: a study of research article results sections in biochemistry”. Written Communication 8: 106-128.
• Thompson, P. (1999). “Exploring the contexts of writing: Interviews with Ph.D. supervisors” in P. Thompson (ed.), Issues in EAP Writing Research and Instruction, 37-54. Reading: CALS.
• Williams, I. A. (2005). Contrasting discourse styles in Spanish and English research article Discussions: Evidence for progressive and retrogressive patterns. URL: http://www.metmeetings.org/pagines/Abstracts/williamssat%201600.htm [27/7/09]
• Zahra, A., K Zohreh & T. Mansoor (2008). “Genre analysis: An investigation of the discussion sections of applied linguistics research articles”. Asian ESP Journal 4: 39-63.