“Well, I think that my argument is…,” or modality in a learner corpus of English

Referencias bibliográficas

• Abraham, W. (2012). Modality and theory of mind elements across languages. Berlin: Walter de Gruyter. doi: 10.1515/9783110271072
• Aijmer, K. (1980). Evidence and the declarative sentence. Stockholm: Almqvist and Wiksell. Aijmer, K. (2002). Modality in advanced Swedish learners’ written interlanguage. In S. Granger,
• J. Hung, & S. Petch-Tyson (Eds.), Computer learner corpora, second language acquisition and foreign language teaching (pp. 55–76). Amsterdam: John Benjamins. doi: 10.1075/lllt.6.07aij
• Aikhenvald, A. Y., & Dixon, R. M. W. (2003). Studies in evidentiality. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. doi: 10.1075/tsl.54
• Aliakbari, M., & Hayatzadeh, A. (2008). Variation of language strategies among Iranian English students: The effect of gender. International Journal of Pedagogies and Learning, 4(3), 72– 87. doi: 10.5172/ijpl.4.3.72
• Allison, D. (1995). Modifying meanings: Modality and argumentation in students’ written answers to a legal problem. Hong Kong Papers in Linguistics and Language Teaching, 18, 59–72.
• Al-Sharafi, A. G. (2014). Modality in Arab EFL students’ academic writing: Implications for policy, practice, and research. In K. M. Damerow & R. M. Bailey (Eds.), Teaching and learning English in the Arabic-speaking world (pp. 14–31). New York: Routledge.
• Amanatullah, E., & Morris, M. W. (2010). Negotiating gender roles: Gender differences in assertive negotiating are mediated by women’s fear of backlash and attenuated when negotiating on behalf of others. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 98(2), 256–267. doi: 10.1037/a0017094
• Arregui, A. (2011). Counterfactual-style revisions in the semantics of deontic modals. Journal of Semantics, 28(2), 171–210. doi: 10.1093/jos/ffq017
• Baker, P. (2008). Sexed texts: Language, gender and sexuality. London: Equinox.
• Baker, P. (2014). Using corpora to analyze gender. London: Bloomsbury.
• Baron, B., & Kotthoff, H. (2001). Gender in interaction. Perspectives on femininity and masculinity in ethnography and discourse. Philadelphia, PA: John Benjamins. doi: 10.1075/pbns.93
• Bartens, H. (1999). Dynamic modality in Mari. Linguistica Uralica, 35(1), 22–34.
• Biber, D., Johansson, S., Leech, G., Conrad, S., & Finegan, E. (1999). Longman grammar of spoken and written English. London: Longman.
• Bijari, J., Mehrdad, A. G., & Karimi, L. (2014). A corpus based study of the relationship among the Iranian EFL students’ gender, language proficiency, and cross-cultural knowledge of apologizing and requesting. Theory and Practice in Language Studies, 4(9), 1954–1960. doi: 10.4304/tpls.4.9.1954-1960
• Boye, K. (2010). Semantic maps and the identification of cross-linguistic generic categories: Evidentiality and its relation to epistemic modality. Linguistic Discovery, 8(1), 4–22.
• Boye, K., & Harder, P. (2009). Evidentiality: Linguistic categories and grammaticalization. Functions of Language, 16(1), 9–43. doi: 10.1075/fol.16.1.03boy
• Butler, J. (1990). Gender trouble: Feminism and the subversion of identity. New York: Routledge.
• Bybee, J., Perkins, R., & Pagliuca, W. (1994). Mood and modality. In The evolution of grammar: Tense, aspect, and modality in the languages of the world (pp. 176–242). Chicago: The University of Chicago Press.
• Cameron, D. (1998). Gender, language, and discourse: A review essay. Signs: Journal of Women in Culture and Society, 23(4), 945–973. doi: 10.1086/495297
• Cameron, D. (2007). Unanswered questions and unquestioned assumptions in the study of language and gender: Female verbal superiority. Gender and Language, 1(1), 15–25. doi: 10.1558/genl.2007.1.1.15
• Cameron, D. (2010). Sex/gender, language and the new biologism. Applied Linguistics, 31(2), 173–192. doi: 10.1093/applin/amp022
• Cariani, F., Kaufmann, M., & Kaufmann, S. (2013). Deliberative modality under epistemic uncertainty. Linguistics and Philosophy, 36(3), 225–259. doi: 10.1007/s10988-013-9134-4
• Carli, L. (2002). Assertiveness. In J. Worrell (Ed.), Encyclopedia of women and gender: Sex similarities and differences and the impact of society on gender, Vol. 1 (pp. 157–168). London: Academic Press.
• Charlebois, J. (2011). Gender and the construction of hegemonic and oppositional femininities. Blue Ridge Summit, PA: Lexington.
• Chen, H. I. (2010). Contrastive learner corpus analysis of epistemic modality and interlanguage pragmatic competence in L2 writing. Arizona Working Papers in SLA and Teaching, 17, 27–51.
• Chen, Z. (2012). Expression of epistemic stance in EFL Chinese university students’ writing. English Language Teaching, 5(10), 173–179.
• Chilton, P. (2011). Language structure and geometry. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
• Coates, J. (1983). The semantics of the modal auxiliaries. London: Croom Helm.
• Coates, J. (1986). Women, men and language: A sociolinguistic account of gender differences in language. London: Longman.
• Coates, J., & Cameron, D. (Eds.). (1988). Women in their speech communities. London: Longman.
• Collentine, J. G. (1995). The development of complex syntax and mood-selection abilities by intermediate-level learners of Spanish author(s). Hispania, 78(1), 122–135. doi: 10.2307/345232
• Collentine, J. G. (2010). The acquisition and teaching of the Spanish subjunctive: An update on current findings. Hispania, 93(1), 39–51.
• Collins, P., Salkie, B., van der Auwera, R., & Pierre, J. (2010). Modality in English: Theory and description. English Language and Linguistics, 14(3), 507–511. doi: 10.1017/S1360674310000171
• Cornillie, B. (2009). Evidentiality and epistemic modality: On the close relationship between two different categories. Functions of Language, 16(1), 44–62. doi: 10.1075/fol.16.1.04cor
• Crawford, M. (1995). Talking difference: On gender and language. London: Sage. Crismore, A., Markkanen, R., & Seffensen, M. S. (1993). Metadiscourse in persuasive writing: A study of texts written by American and Finnish university students. Written Communication, 10(1), 39–71. doi: 10.1177/0741088393010001002
• Croft, R., Boddy, C., & Pentucci, C. (2007). Say what you mean, mean what you say: An ethnographic approach to male and female conversations. International Journal of Market Research, 49(6), 715–734.
• Davies, M. (2004). BYU-BNC: The British National Corpus. http://corpus.byu.edu/bnc/
• Depraetere, I., & Reed, S. (2011). Towards a more explicit taxonomy of root possibility. English Language and Linguistics, 15(1), 1–29. doi: 10.1017/S1360674310000262
• Díaz-Negrillo, A. (2007). A fine-grained error tagger for learner corpora. Unpublished PhD thesis, University of Jaén.
• Easteal, P., Bartels, L., & Bradford, S. (2012). Language, gender and ‘reality’: Violence against women. International Journal of Law, Crime and Justice, 40(4), 324–337. doi: 10.1016/j.ijlcj.2012.05.001
• Eggins, S. (2004). An introduction to systemic functional linguistics. London: Pinter.
• Ellis, R., & Barkhuizen, G. (2005). Analysing learner language. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
• Elorza, I. (2007). A corpus-based study of the priming of but in comment articles in English. Retrieved January 30, 2012, from http://www.birmingham.ac.uk/documents/college-artslaw/corpus/conference-archives/2007/54Abstract.pdf.
• Facchinetti, R., Krugg, M., & Palmer, F. R. (Eds.). (2003). Modality in contemporary English. Berlin/New York: Mouton de Gruyter. doi: 10.1515/9783110895339
• Flores Salgado, E. (2011). The pragmatics of requests and apologies: Developmental patterns of Mexican students. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. doi: 10.1075/pbns.212
• Florian, V., & Zernitsky-Shurka, E. (1987). The effect of culture and gender on self-reported assertive behavior. International Journal of Psychology, 22(1), 83–95. doi: 10.1080/00207598708246769
• Fox, A. B., Bukatko, D., Hallahan, M., & Crawford, M. (2007). The medium makes a difference. Gender similarities and differences in instant messaging. Journal of Language and Social Psychology, 26(4), 389–397. doi: 10.1177/0261927X07306982
• Gabrielatos, C. (2010). A corpus-based examination of English if-conditionals through the lens of modality: Nature and types. Unpublished PhD thesis, University of Lancaster.
• Gabrielatos, C., & McEnery, T. (2005). Epistemic modality in MA dissertations. In P. A. Fuertes Olivera (Ed.), Lengua y sociedad: Investigaciones recientes en lingüística aplicada. Lingüística y filología, 61 (pp. 311–331). Valladolid: University of Valladolid.
• Gibbs, D. A. (1990). Second language acquisition of the English modal auxiliaries can, could, may, and might. Applied Linguistics, 11(3), 297–314. doi: 10.1093/applin/11.3.297
• Gisborne, N. (2007). Dynamic modality. SKASE Journal of Theoretical Linguistics, 4(2), 44–61. Gilquin, G., & Paquot, M. (2008). Too chatty: Learner academic writing and register variation. English Text Construction, 1(1), 41–61. doi: 10.1075/etc.1.1.05gil
• Goga-Vigaru, R. (2012). A corpus-based analysis of deontic and epistemic values of the modal shall in legal texts. Contemporary Readings in Law and Social Justice, 4(2), 752–763.
• Granger, S., Dagneaux, E., & Meunier, F. (Eds.). (2002). International corpus of learner English. Louvain-la-Neuve: UCL Presses Universitaires.
• Gudmestad, A. (2012) Acquiring a variable structure: An interlanguage analysis of second-language mood use in Spanish. Language Learning, 62, 373–402. doi: 10.1111/j.1467-9922.2012.00696.x
• Halliday, M. A. K. (1985). An introduction to functional grammar. London: Edward Arnold.
• Halliday, M. A. K., & Matthiessen, C. M. I. M. (2013). An introduction to functional grammar (4th ed.). Milton Park, Abingdon, Oxon: Routledge.
• Haan, F. de. (2001). The relation between modality and evidentiality. Linguistische Berichte, 9, 201–216.
• Hansen, B., & Haan, F. de. (Eds.). (2009). Modals in the languages of Europe. Berlin/New York: Mouton de Gruyter. doi: 10.1515/9783110219210
• Hart, D. (Ed.). (2003). English modality in context: Diachronic perspectives. Bern: Peter Lang.
• Harwood, N. (2005). What do we want EAP teaching materials for? Journal of English for Academic Purposes, 4, 149–161. doi: 10.1016/j.jeap.2004.07.008
• Hermerén, L. (1978). On modality in English: A study of the semantics of the modals. Lund: CWK Gleerup.
• Holmes, J. (1995). Women, men and politeness. London/New York: Longman.
• Holmes, J. (2009). Discourse and politeness: Ambivalent face in Japanese. Journal of Sociolinguistics, 13(2), 279–282. doi: 10.1111/j.1467-9841.2009.00407_6.x
• Holmes, J., & Marra, M. (2011). Leadership discourse in a Maori workplace: Negotiating gender, ethnicity and leadership at work. Gender and Language, 5(2), 317–342. doi: 10.1558/genl.v5i2.317
• Holmes, J., Marsden, S., & Marra, M. (2013). Doing listenership: One aspect of sociopragmatic competence at work. Pragmatics and Society, 4(1), 26–53. doi: 10.1075/ps.4.1.02hol
• Holmes, J., & Schnurr, S. (2006). ‘Doing femininity’ at work: More than just relational practice. Journal of Sociolinguistics, 10(1), 31–51. doi: 10.1111/j.1360-6441.2006.00316.x
• Hyland, K., & Milton, J. (1997). Qualification and certainty in L1 and L2 students’ writing. Journal of Second Language Writing, 6(2), 183–205. doi: 10.1016/S1060-3743(97)90033-3
• Huddleston, R. D., & Pullum, G. K. (2002). The Cambridge grammar of the English language. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
• Hunston, S. (1989). Evaluation in experimental research articles. Unpublished PhD Thesis, University of Birmingham, Retrieved March 25, 2012, from http://etheses.bham. ac.uk/912/2/Hunston89PhD2.pdf.
• Iatridou, S., & Zeijlstra, H. (2013). Negation, polarity, and deontic modals. Linguistic Inquiry, 44(4), 529–568. doi: 10.1162/LING_a_00138
• Jacobs, R. A. (1995). English syntax: A grammar for English language professionals. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
• Jespersen, O. (1922). Language: Its nature, development and origin. London: George Allen and Unwin.
• Jiménez Catalán, R. M. (Ed.). (2010). Gender perspectives on vocabulary in foreign and second languages. New York: Palgrave Macmillan. doi: 10.1057/9780230274938
• Jinyu, D. (2014). Study on gender differences in language under the sociolinguistics. Canadian Social Science, 10(3), 92–96.
• Kader, M. I. B. A., Begi, N., & Vaseghi, R. (2013). A corpus-based study of Malaysian ESL learners’ use of modals in argumentative compositions. English Language Teaching, 6(9), 146– 157.
• Kärkkäinen, E. (1992). Modality as a strategy in interaction: Epistemic modality in the language of native and non-native speakers of English. Pragmatics and Language Learning, 3, 197–216.
• Kiefer, F. (1994). Modality. In R. E. Asher (Ed.), The encyclopaedia of language and linguistics (pp. 2515–2520). Oxford: Pergamon Press.
• Kirkham, S. (2011). Personal style and epistemic stance in classroom discussion. Language and Literature, 20(3), 207–217. doi: 10.1177/0963947011413505
• Kosur, H. M. (2010). In pursuit of a description of modality: A comprehensive review of linguistic modality. Retrieved December 5, 2010, from http://ilstu.academia.edu/HeatherMarieKosur/ Papers/320886/In_Pursuit_of_a_Description_of_Modality_A_Comprehensive_Review_ of_Linguistic_Modality.
• Lakoff, R. (1975). Language and woman’s place. New York: Harper and Row.
• Lazar, M. M. (Ed.). (2005). Feminist critical discourse analysis: Gender, power and ideology in discourse. Houndmills: Palgrave Macmillan.
• Lee, J. F. (1987). Morphological factors influencing pronominal reference assignment by learners of Spanish. In T. Morgan, J. F. Lee, & B. VanPatten (Eds.), Language and language use: Studies in Spanish (pp. 221–232). Lanham, MD: University Press of America.
• Litosseliti, L., & Sunderland, J. (Eds.). (2002). Gender identity and discourse analysis. Philadelphia, PA: John Benjamins. doi: 10.1075/dapsac.2
• Lyons, J. (1977). Semantics. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Maltz, D. N., & Borker, R. A. (1982). A cultural approach to male-female miscommunication. In J. J. Gumperz (Ed.), Language and social identity (pp. 196-216). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
• Marín Arrese, J. I. (Ed.). (2004). Perspectives on evidentiality and modality. Madrid: Editorial Complutense.
• McConnell-Ginet, S. (2011). Gender, sexuality, and meaning: Linguistic practice and politics. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
• McElhinny, B. S. (2008). Words, worlds, and material girls: Language, gender, globalization. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter.
• McEnery, T., & Kifle, N. A. (2002). Epistemic modality in argumentative essays of second-language writers. In J. Flowerdew (Ed.), Academic discourse (pp. 182–195). Harlow: Longman.
• Mills, S. (2012). Gender matters: Feminist linguistic analysis. London: Equinox.
• Mondorf, B. (2011). Gender differences in English syntax. Munich: Walter de Gruyter.
• Motschenbacker, H. (2010). Language, gender and sexual identity: Poststructuralist perspectives. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. doi: 10.1075/impact.29
• Mukundan, J., Saadullah, K. A. B., Ismail, R. B., & Zasenawi, N. H. B. J. (2013). Malaysian ESL students’ syntactic accuracy in the usage of English modal verbs in argumentative writing. English Language Teaching, 6(12), 98–105. doi: 10.5539/elt.v6n12p98
• Murphy, B. (2010). Corpus and sociolinguistics: Investigating age and gender in female talk. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. doi: 10.1075/scl.38
• Murphy, B. (2011). Gender identities and discourse. In G. Andersen & K. Aijmer (Eds.), Pragmatics of society (pp. 53–77). Berlin/Boston: Walter de Gruyter.
• Nordström, J. (2010). Modality and subordinators. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. doi: 10.1075/slcs.116
• Nuyts, J. (2001). Epistemic modality, language, and conceptualization: A cognitive-pragmatic perspective. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. doi: 10.1075/hcp.5
• Oh, S. Y., & Kang, S. Y. (2013). The effect of English proficiency on Korean undergraduates’ expression of epistemic modality in English argumentative writing. The Journal of Asia TEFL, 10(4), 97–132.
• Palmer, F. R. (1986). Mood and modality. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
• Patard, A., & Brisard, F. (2011). Cognitive approaches to tense, aspect, and epistemic modality. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. doi: 10.1075/hcp.29
• Peck, J. J. (2006). Women and promotion: The influence of communication style. In M. Barrett & M. Davidson (Eds.), Gender and communication at work (pp. 50–68). Aldershot, Hampshire: Ashgate.
• Preisler, B. (1986). Linguistic sex roles in conversation: Social variation in the expression of tentativeness in English. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter. doi: 10.1515/9783110862973
• Rayson, P., & Garside, R. (2000). Comparing corpora using frequency profiling. Retrieved July 15, 2012 from http://dl.acm.org/citation.cfm?id=1604686.
• Recsky, L. (2006). Epistemic modality and spoken discourse: An English-Portuguese cross-linguistic investigation. Linguagem and Ensino, 9(1), 159–185.
• Rett, J., & Hyams, N. (2014). The acquisition of syntactically encoded evidentiality. Language Acquisition, 21(2), 173–198. doi: 10.1080/10489223.2014.884572
• Rocci, A. (2009). Modalities as indicators in argumentative reconstruction. In F. H. van Eemeren & B. Garssen (Eds.), Pondering on problems of argumentation (pp. 207–228). Dordrecht: Springer. doi: 10.1007/978-1-4020-9165-0_15
• Rodríguez Louro, C., & Harris, T. (2013). Evolution with an attitude: The grammaticalisation of epistemic/evidential verbs in Australian English. English Language and Linguistics, 17(3), 415–443. doi: 10.1017/S1360674313000105
• Roth, S. S. (2014). Power, politics, and gender-related epistemic modality in interview discourse. Retrieved June 30, 2014, from https://gupea.ub.gu.se/bitstream/2077/37146/1/gupea_2077_37146_1.pdf.
• Salazar, D., & Verdaguer, I. (2009). Polysemous verbs and modality in native and non-native argumentative writing: A corpus-based study. International Journal of English Studies, Special Issue, 209–219.
• Salkie, R., Busuttil, P., & van der Auwera, J. (Eds.). (2009). Modality in English: Theory and description. Berlin/New York: Mouton de Gruyter. doi: 10.1515/9783110213331
• Sánchez M. J., & Alonso, P. (2010). Effect of an expert and contextual instruction of modals on learning. RESLA, 23, 267–280.
• Saussure, L. de, Moeschler, J., & Puskás, G. (Eds.). (2007). Recent advances in the syntax and semantics of tense, aspect and modality. Berlin/New York: Mouton de Gruyter. doi: 10.1515/9783110198768
• Scott, M. (1999). Wordsmith Tools 3.0. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
• Simon-Vandenbergen, A. M., & Aijmer, K. (2007). The semantic field of modal certainty: A corpus-based study of English adverbs. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter. doi: 10.1515/9783110198928
• Snitz, B. E., Unverzagt, F. W., Chang, C. H., Bilt, J. V., Gao, S., Saxton, J., Hall, K. S., & Ganguli, M. (2009). Effects of age, gender, education and race on two tests of language ability in community-based older adults. International Psychogeriatrics, 21(6), 1051–1062. doi: 10.1017/S1041610209990214
• Soufleros, E. (2010). Theories of second/foreign language learning/acquisition. Patterns of modality in argumentative essays by L1 Greek and L1 Spanish advanced EFL learners. Retrieved March 14, 2012, from http://ionio.academia.edu/epamsouf/Papers/199117/Patterns_of_ modality_in_argumentative_essays_by_L1_Greek_and_L1_Spanish_advanced_EFL_ learners.
• Talmy, L. (2000). Force dynamics in language and cognition. In Toward a cognitive semantics, Vol. 1 (pp. 409–470). Boston, MA: The MIT Press.
• Tannen, D. (1990). You just don’t understand. New York: Harper Collins.
• Tannen, D. (1996). Gender in research on language: Researching gender-related patterns in classroom discourse. TESOL Quarterly, 30(2), 341–344. doi: 10.2307/3588149
• Thompson, G. (2004). Introducing functional grammar (3rd ed.). London: Arnold.
• Thompson, P. (2002). Modal verbs in academic writing. In B. Kettemann & G. Marko (Eds.), Teaching and learning by doing corpus analysis (pp. 305–325). Amsterdam: Rodopi.
• Toulmin, S. E. [1958] (2003). The uses of argument. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
• Traugott, E. C. (2011). Modality from a historical perspective. Language and Linguistics Compass, 5(6), 381–396. doi: 10.1111/j.1749-818X.2011.00280.x
• van der Auwera, J., & Salkie, R. (2009). Modality in English: Theory and description. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter. doi: 10.1515/9783110213331
• van Linden, A. (2012). Modal adjectives: English deontic and evaluative constructions in synchrony and diachrony. Berlin/Boston: Walter de Gruyter. doi: 10.1515/9783110252941
• Vitanova, G. (2010). Authoring the dialogic self: Gender, agency and language practices. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. doi: 10.1075/ds.8
• Vold, E. T. (2006). Epistemic modality markers in research articles: A cross-linguistic and crossdisciplinary study. International Journal of Applied Linguistics, 16(1), 61–87. doi: 10.1111/j.1473-4192.2006.00106.x
• Weatherall, A. (2002). Gender, language and discourse. New York: Routledge.
• West, C., & Zimmerman, D. H. (1983). Small insults: A study of interruptions in conversations between unacquainted persons. In B. Thorne, C. Kramarae, & N. Henley (Eds.), Language, gender and society (pp. 102–117). Rowley, MA: Newbury House.
• Willett, T. (1988). A cross-linguistic survey of the grammaticization of evidentiality. Studies in Language, 12(1), 51–97. doi: 10.1075/sl.12.1.04wil
• Whitt, R. J. (2009). Auditory evidentiality in English and German: The case of perception verbs. Lingua, 119(7), 1083–1095. doi: 10.1016/j.lingua.2008.11.001
• Williams, C., & Dellinger, K. (2010). Gender and sexuality in the workplace. Bradford: Emerald. doi: 10.1108/S0277-2833(2010)20
• Wright, G. H. von. (1951). An essay in modal logic. Amsterdam: North-Holland Publishing Company.
• Yong, F. L. (2010). A study on the assertiveness and academic procrastination of English and communication students at a private university. American Journal of Scientific Research, 9, 62–72.
• Zamorano-Mansilla, J. R., & Carretero, M. (2010). An annotation scheme for dynamic modality in English and Spanish. Linguistics and the Human Sciences, 6(1-3), 297–320.
• Zhao, T., & Intaraprasert, C. (2013). Use of communication strategies by tourism-oriented EFL learners in relation to gender and perceived language ability. English Language Teaching, 6(7), 46–59.