Hostname: page-component-cd9895bd7-gvvz8 Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-12-28T11:54:17.143Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Current Developments and Future Prospects

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  19 November 2008

John M. Swales
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Extract

As the previous chapters in this volume have made amply clear, the last few years have seen a considerable increase in work related to our understanding of the roles, forms, and processes of professional communication and of the complex of forces that give rise to those roles, forms, and processes. The reasons for this upsurge of interest are doubtless manifold. Some are related to administrators' felt needs to keep “channels of communication open” in the face of exponential information growth and the increasing bureaucratlzation of many professions. One consequence of this is that lines of research funding are obtainable relatively easily for communication studies in such areas as scientific research, medicine, business, law, and military affairs.

Type
Current Development and Future Prospects
Information
Annual Review of Applied Linguistics , Volume 7 , March 1986 , pp. 120 - 130
Copyright
Copyright © Cambridge University Press 1986

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

References

UNANNOTATED BIBLIOGRAPHY

Adams Smith, D. E. 1984. Medical discourse: Aspects of author's comment. The ESP journal. 3.25–36.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Agar, M. 1985. Institutional discourse. Text. 5.147–168.Google Scholar
Ard, J. 1983. The role of the author in scientific discourse. Paper presented at AAAL, 12.Google Scholar
Atkinson, J. M. 1979. Order in court. London: Oxford University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Bazerman, C. 1985. Studies in scientific discourse–e pluribus unum? The 4 S review. 3.13–20.Google Scholar
Bley-Vroman, R. and Selinker, L.: 1984. Research design in rhetorical/grammatical studies: A proposed optimal research strategy. English for specific purposes. 82–83.1–4 and 84.1–6.Google Scholar
Canale, M. and Swain, M. 1980. Theoretical bases of communicative approachesto second language teaching and testing. Applied linguistics. 1.1–47.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Coleman, H. and Burton, J. 1985. Aspects of control in the dentist-patient relationship. International journal of the sociology of language. 51. 75–104.Google Scholar
Crookes, G. 1986. Towards a validated analysis of scientific text structure. Applied linguistics. 7.57–70.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Davies, A. et al. (eds.) 1985. Interlanguage. Edinburgh: Edinburgh University Press.Google Scholar
Doheny-Farina, S. 1986. Writing in an emerging organization: An ethnographic study. Written communication. 3.158–185.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Doheny-Farina, S. and Odell, L.. 1985. Ethnographic research on writing:Assumptions and methodology. In Odell, L. and Goswami, D. (eds.) Writing in non-academic settings. New York: The Guildford Press. 503–535.Google Scholar
Dubois, B. L. 1982. The construction of noun phrases in biomedical journal articles. In Hoedt, J. et al. (eds.) Pragmatics and LSP. Copenhagen:School of Economics. 49–67.Google Scholar
Erickson, F. and Schultz, J. 1982. The counselor as gatekeeper. New York:Academic Press.Google Scholar
Faigley, L. 1985. Nonacademic writing: The social perspective. In Odell, L. and Goswami, D. (eds.) Writing in non-academic settings. New York: The Guildford Press. 231–248.Google Scholar
Frankel, R. 1984. From sentence to sequence: Understanding the medical encounter through microinteractional analysis. Discourse processes.7.135–170.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Geertz, C. 1973. The interpretation of cultures. New York: Basic Books.Google Scholar
Gilbert, G. N. and Mulkay, M.. 1984. Opening Pandora's box: A sociologic alanalysis of scientists’ discourse. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Glover, A. et al. 1984. Seaspeak reference manual. Oxford: Pergamon Press.Google Scholar
Herrington, A. J. 1985. Writing in academic settings: A study of the contexts for writing in two college chemical engineering courses. Research in the teaching of English. 19.331–361.Google Scholar
Hoedt, J. et al. 1982. Pragmatics and LSP. Copenhagen: School of Economics.Google Scholar
Huckin, T. and Olsen, L.. 1984. On the use of informants in LSP discourse analysis. In Pugh, A. and Ulijn, J. (eds) Reading for professional purposes. London: Heinemann. 120–129.Google Scholar
Hymes, D. H. 1985. Towards linguistic competence. AILA review. 2.9–24.Google Scholar
Jablin, F. M. and Krone, K. 1984. Characteristics of rejection letters and their effects on job applicants. Written communication. 1.387–406.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Johnson, E. 1985. Seaspeak: Computer-assisted language research. In Perrin, M. (ed.) Pratique d’ aujourd'hui et besoins de demain. Bordeaux: UNESCO.235–254.Google Scholar
Kachru, B. B. 1985. ESP and non-native varieties of English: Towards a shift in paradigm. Paper presented at the International Conference on English for Special Purposes.Sri Lanka. 04.Google Scholar
Knorr-Cetina, K. D. 1981. The manufacture of knowledge. Oxford: Pergamon Press.Google Scholar
Long, B. E. L. 1985: A study of the verbal behavior of family doctors. International journal of the sociology of language. 51.5–25.Google Scholar
Maher, J. 1986. The development of English as the international language of medicine. Applied linguistics. 7.206–218.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
McDonough, J. 1984. ESP in perspective. London: Collins.Google Scholar
Mead, R. 1985. Courtroom discourse. Birmingham, England: ELR Monographs.Google Scholar
Miller, C. R. and Selzer, J. 1985. Special topics of argument in engineering reports. In Odell, L. and Goswami, D. (eds.) Writing in non-academic settings. New York: The Guildford Press. 311–341.Google Scholar
Munby, J. 1978. Communicative syllabus design. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Myers, G. 1985a. Texts as knowledge claims: The social construction of two biology articles. Social studies of science. 15.593–630.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Myers, G.. 1985b. The social construction of two biologists’ proposals. Written communication. 2.219–245.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Myers, G.. 1985c. The social construction of popular science: The narrative of science and the narrative of nature.Mimeo.Google Scholar
Odell, L. and Goswami, D. (eds.) 1985. Writing in non-academic settings. New York: The Guildford Press.Google Scholar
Perrin, M. 1985. Pratique d'aujourd'hui et besoins de demain. Bordeaux:UNESCO.Google Scholar
Pettinari, C. 1985. Medical action into surgical text: A discourse analysisof the production and acquisition of a particular genre. Ann Arbor:University of Michigan. Ph.D. diss.Google Scholar
Pugh, A. and Ulijn, J. (eds.) 1984. Reading for professional purposes. London:Heinemann.Google Scholar
Robertson, F. 1985. Teaching radiotelephony to pilots. In Perrin, M. (ed.)Pratique d’ aujourd'hui et besoins de demain. Bordeaux: UNESCO. 295–314.Google Scholar
Selinker, L. 1985. The current state of IL studies: An attempted critical summary. In Davies, A., et al. (eds.) Interlanguage. Edinburgh: Edinburgh University Press. 332–343.Google Scholar
Selinker, L. and Douglas, D.. 1985. Wrestling with ‘context’ in interlanguage theory. Applied linguistics. 6.190–204.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Strevens, P. 1978. The language of seafaring. Oxford: Pergamon Press.Google Scholar
Swales, J. 1981. Aspects of article introductions. Birmingham, England: The University of Aston Language Studies Unit.Google Scholar
Swales, J. 1986. Citation analysis and discourse analysis. Applied linguistics. 7.39–56.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Thomas, J. 1984. Cross-cultural discourse as ‘unequal encounter’: Towardsa pragmatic analysis. Applied linguistics. 5.226–235.CrossRefGoogle Scholar