Argument or evidence? Disciplinary variation in the use of the Noun that pattern in stance construction
By M. Charles. 2007
155 citations recorded by the source corpus.
Subfields: Experimental and Cognitive Psychology, Language and Linguistics, Literature and Literary Theory
View Paper: https://www.semanticscholar.org/paper/95299397eca7e258d110f6428d1cd2677369073b
How researchers see this paper
The researchers whose trusted networks rank it highest, strongest advocate first. Every researcher gets a different order.
In Experimental and Cognitive Psychology
In Language and Linguistics
- Feng Kevin Jiang
- Ken Hyland
- Douglas Biber
- Jim McKinley
- Shih-Chieh Chien
- A. Molino
- R. Ruegg
- Shulin Yu
In Literature and Literary Theory
- Feng Kevin Jiang
- Ken Hyland
- Raffaella Negretti
- Douglas Biber
- A. Molino
- Jim McKinley
- Shih-Chieh Chien
- Paul Thompson
Citations in the corpus
- Metadiscursive nouns: Interaction and cohesion in abstract moves (2017, background): “While Charles (2003, 2007) and Jiang & Hyland (2016) have turned their attention to the interactional dimension of these nouns, this is largely unchartered territory.”
- ‘The fact that’: Stance nouns in disciplinary writing (2015, background): “The more frequent use of the noun complement structure in the soft fields is therefore not surprising, as authors in the humanities and social sciences are more likely to take a stance towards what they discuss and evaluate both their own and others’ work (Charles, 2007; Hyland, 2005).”