2021
DOI: 10.1016/j.jeap.2021.100979
|View full text |Cite
|
Sign up to set email alerts
|

Looking past limiting conditions: Prioritizing meaning in EAP

Help me understand this report

Search citation statements

Order By: Relevance

Paper Sections

Select...
1

Citation Types

0
1
0

Year Published

2023
2023
2024
2024

Publication Types

Select...
3

Relationship

0
3

Authors

Journals

citations
Cited by 3 publications
(1 citation statement)
references
References 8 publications
0
1
0
Order By: Relevance
“…Besides, a large number of comparative researches keep appearing on the use of nominalizations to expose disciplinary differences and variations in academic discourses, for example, Jalilifar et al (2014Jalilifar et al ( , 2017, Gonzalez and Valeska (2019), Marr and Mahmood (2021), Ahmad (2012), He and Yang (2018), etc. There is a demonstration that nominalizations in academic discourses are not sensitive across disciplines, and some of the above studies indeed verified that there is no significant variation across disciplines on nominalization in scientific language (Jalilifar et al 2014, He and Yang 2018, and other studies revealed nominalization was designed with the universality and technicality without mentioning any disciplinary differences nominalization used (Ahmad 2012).…”
Section: Introductionmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…Besides, a large number of comparative researches keep appearing on the use of nominalizations to expose disciplinary differences and variations in academic discourses, for example, Jalilifar et al (2014Jalilifar et al ( , 2017, Gonzalez and Valeska (2019), Marr and Mahmood (2021), Ahmad (2012), He and Yang (2018), etc. There is a demonstration that nominalizations in academic discourses are not sensitive across disciplines, and some of the above studies indeed verified that there is no significant variation across disciplines on nominalization in scientific language (Jalilifar et al 2014, He and Yang 2018, and other studies revealed nominalization was designed with the universality and technicality without mentioning any disciplinary differences nominalization used (Ahmad 2012).…”
Section: Introductionmentioning
confidence: 99%