過往研究表明，關於學術課堂中語步結構的知識可以促進學生對學術課堂內容的理解。然而仍有一些問題尚待解決，如：過去分析的學術課堂和講課教師數量有限、前人研究僅針對某些課堂階段進行分析而沒有完整探究課堂的整體語步結構、且並未探討課堂的語步結構是否存有學科上的差異。為了解決這些問題並拓展現階段對學術課堂體裁的理解，本研究基以自耶魯大學和麻省理工學院開放式課程所收集的學術課堂逐字稿與課堂錄影，對學術課堂的整體語步結構進行更廣泛的分析。為了探討學術課堂中的語步結構是否存在著學科差異，本研究亦針對文學課堂和電腦科學課堂的語步結構進行比較。此外，考慮到詞串在組織學術課堂言談中的重要性，因此本研究欲分別找出學術課堂中各個階段的詞串，並分析它們是如何幫助構建學術課堂中不同階段的言談目的。根據所收集的學術課堂資料，本研究提出了一個包含二十一個語步和二十三個步驟的語步框架。其中，課堂導論階段包含了五個語步和十一個步驟；課堂主體階段包含了十三個語步和七個步驟；而課堂總結階段則包含了三個語步和五個步驟。據此框架，本研究分別找出了文學和電腦科學課堂的語步結構並進行比較。比較發現：(1) 兩個學科在課堂中採用了不同數量的語步及步驟，又以文學課堂使用了更多的語步而電腦科學課堂使用了更多的步驟；(2) 約有百分之二十的語步為個別學科特有，這些語步也進一步反映出個别學科的特色：文學課堂特有的語步類別反映了該學科以文本闡釋為核心的特質，而電腦科學課堂特有的語步類別則反映了該學科以應用和問題解決為本的特質；(3) 在兩個學科共有的語步類別中，約有五分之一的共有語步有常規性的差異，說明兩個學科在採用個別語步時有不同的偏好。比較結果進一步凸顯了電腦科學領域的講師在課堂導論階段習慣援引先前課堂討論過的內容，而文學領域的講師在課堂總結階段則傾向於強調後續課程的計劃。這些研究結果證實，學術課堂中的語步結構確實存在著學科差異。此外，通過對不同課堂階段中的詞串作用探究，本研究發現有些詞串特別與某些語步或課堂階段有關，而詞串的功能也能反映出不同課堂階段的交際目的，如：在課堂導論階段的詞串多與組織課堂結構和表明教師意圖等目的的語步有關，而在課堂主體階段出現的詞串則較少有組織課堂結構的功能，而是多具有立場表達和指涉的功能。本研究結果亦針對學術英文教學與師資培育提出教學建議。本研究所提出的語步框架和學科特有的語步可用以輔助修習學術英語學生對學術課堂的理解能力，並增進他們對學術課堂體裁和學科差異的認知。此語步框架也可提供給非母語教師和新手教師，幫助他們更加了解學術課堂是如何以語步構建的，進一步做為輔助教師備課之參考。

Past research has indicated that the knowledge concerning the rhetorical move structure of lectures can facilitate non-native students’ lecture comprehension. However, issues remain to be addressed, including the limited number of lectures and lecturers analyzed, the restricted focus on certain lecture phases without exploring the entire move structure of lectures, and the underexplored issue of the potential influence of discipline on move structure of lectures. To address these issues and expand the current understanding of lecture genre, this study analyzes the entire move structure of lectures drawing on lecture data from Open Yale Courses and MIT Open Courseware. To explore whether there are disciplinary variations in terms of move structures of lectures, this study further compares the move structures of literature lectures and computer science lectures. Moreover, considered the essential role of lexical bundles in structuring lecture discourse, this study also investigates the frequent lexical bundles in different lecture phases to explore how they help structure the discourse in different lecture phases. The current analysis results in a move framework of lectures consisting of twenty-one moves and twenty-three steps, with five moves and eleven steps identified in the beginning phase, thirteen moves and seven steps identified in the main body phase, and three moves and five steps identified in the ending phase. Based on the move framework, the respective move structures of literature lectures and computer science lectures are also generated and compared. The comparison reveals that: (i) the two disciplines employ different numbers of moves and steps in lectures, with more moves employed in literature lectures and more steps employed in computer science lectures; (ii) around twenty percent of the moves are discipline-specific, with moves typical to literature reflecting its interpretive nature while moves specific to computer science reflecting its applied and problem-solving orientation; (iii) among the move categories shared by the two disciplines, the conventionality of around one-fifth of them are different, suggesting the different preferences between the two disciplines in employing individual moves. The comparison further highlights computer science lecturers’ conventional move to refer to contents discussed previously in the beginning phase, and literature lecturers’ tendency of highlighting plans of future lessons in the ending phase. These findings confirm that there are indeed disciplinary variations in terms of move structures of lectures. Moreover, the exploration of lexical bundles in different lecture phases reveals that some lexical bundles are especially associated with certain moves or phases. Particularly, lexical bundles in the beginning phase are mostly related to moves realizing purposes of organizing structures and expressing intentions, while those identified in the main body phase seldom serve a discourse-organizing function, but primarily perform stance and referential functions. These findings have implications for EAP teaching and learning, and teacher education. The proposed move framework and the discipline-specific moves may help improve EAP students’ lecture comprehension, and their awareness of lecture genre and potential disciplinary differences. The framework may also inform non-native and novice lecturers regarding how lectures are rhetorically structured, further supporting their lesson planning.

Ädel, A. (2008). What uh the folks who did this survey found: Expert attribution in spoken academic lectures. Nordic Journal of English Studies, 7(3). 83-102.
Ädel, A. (2010). Just to give you kind of a map of where we are going: A taxonomy of metadiscourse in spoken and written academic English. Nordic Journal of English Studies, 9(2), 69-97.
Askehave, I., & Swales, J. (2001). Genre identification and communicative purpose: A problem and a possible solution. Applied Linguistics 22, 195–212.
Barr, P. (1990). The role of discourse intonation in lecture comprehension. In M. Hewings (Ed.), Discourse intonation (pp. 5-21). Birmingham, UK: English Language Research, University of Birmingham.
Barron, A. (2012). Public Information Messages: A Contrastive Genre Analysis of State-Citizen Communication. (Pragmatics & Beyond New Series, no. 222). Amsterdam/Philadelphia: John Benjamins.
Basturkmen, H. (2012). A genre-based investigation of discussion sections of research articles in Dentistry and disciplinary variation. Journal of English for Academic Purposes 11, 134–144.
Becher, T. (1994). The significance of disciplinary differences. Studies in Higher education, 19(2), 151-161.
Bernad-Mechó, E. (2017). Metadiscourse and topic introductions in an academic lecture: A multimodal insight. Multimodal Communication, 6(1), 39-60.
Bhatia, V.K. (1993). Analyzing Genres: Language Use in Professional Settings. London: Longman.
Biber, D. (2006). University language: a corpus-based study of spoken and written registers. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.
Biber, D., & Barbieri, F. (2007). Lexical bundles in university spoken and written registers. English for Specific Purposes, 26, 263-286.
Biber, D., Connor, U., & Upton, T. A. (2007). Discourse on the move. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.
Biber, D., Conrad, S., & Leech, G. (2002). Longman student grammar of spoken and written English. Harlow: Pearson.
Biber, D., Conrad, S., & Cortes, V. (2004). If you look at...: lexical bundles in university teaching and textbooks. Applied Linguistics, 25, 371-405.
Biber, D., Johansson, S., Leech, G., Conrad, S., & Finegan, E. (1999). Longman grammar of spoken and written English. Harlow, UK: Pearson Education.
Biglan, A. (1973) The characteristics of subject matter in different scientific areas, Journal of Applied Psychology, 57, 195-203.
Björkman, B. (2011). The pragmatics of English as a lingua franca in the international university: Introduction. Journal of Pragmatics, 43(4), 923-925.
Bloor, M. (1998). English for specific purposes: The preservation of the species. English for Specific Purposes 17, 47–66.
Breen, M. (2001). Navigating the discourse: On what is learned in the language classroom. In C. N. Candlin, & N. Mercer (Eds.), English language teaching in its social context (pp. 306-322). London: Routledge
Brown, G., & Bakhtar, M. (1988). Styles of lecturing: a study and its implications. Research Papers in Education, 3(2), 131-153.
Brown, G., & Yule, G. (1983). Teaching the spoken language. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press.
Cashin, W. (1985). Improving lectures. IDEA Paper No. 14. Centre for Faculty of Education and Development, Kansas State University.
Chang, Y. Y. (2012). The use of questions by professors in lectures given in English: Influences of disciplinary cultures. English for Specific Purposes, 31(2), 103-116.
Chang, C. F., & Kuo, C. H. (2011). A corpus-based approach to online materials development for writing research articles. English for Specific Purposes, 30(3), 222-234.
Chang, Y. J., & Huang, H. T. (2015). Exploring TED talks as a pedagogical resource for oral presentations: A corpus-based move analysis. English Teaching & Learning, 39(4), 29-62.
Chaudron, C., & Richards, J. C. (1986). The effect of discourse markers on the comprehension of lectures. Applied Linguistics, 7(2), 113–127.
Chambers, E. (2010). Teaching First-year Students in Open and Distance Education: Aims and Methods. In Kayalis, T. & Anastasia, N. (eds.). Teaching Literature at a Distance: Open, Online and Blended Learning (pp. 19-20). London: Continuum International Publishing Group.
Chambers, E., & Gregory, M. (2006). Teaching and learning English literature. London: SAGE.
Chen, F. (2017). Instructional Language Use in Environmental Science Classroom. In Tsou, W., and S. Kao (Eds.), English as a Medium of Instruction in Higher Education: Implementations and Classroom Practices in Taiwan (pp. 57-78). Berlin, Germany: Springer.
Cheng, A. (2008). Analyzing genre exemplars in preparation for writing: The case of an L2 graduate student in the ESP genre-based instructional framework of academic literacy. Applied linguistics, 29(1), 50-71.
Cheng, S. W. (2012). “That's it for today”: academic lecture closings and the impact of class size. English for Specific Purposes, 31, 234-248.
Chiang, C. S., & Dunkel, P. (1992). The effect of speech modification, prior knowledge, and listening proficiency on EFL lecture learning. TESOL quarterly, 26(2), 345-374.
Clark, M. (2003). Computer Science: a hard-applied discipline?. Teaching in Higher Education, 8(1), 71-87.
Connor, U., Davis, K., & De Rycker, T. (1995). Correctness and clarity in applying for overseas jobs: A cross-cultural analysis of US and Flemish applications. Text, 15(4), 457–475.
Connor, U., & Mauranen, A. (1999). Linguistic analysis of grant proposals: European Union research grants. English for Specific Purposes, 18(1), 47–62.
Connor, U., Upton, U., & Kanoksilapatham, B. (2007). Introduction to Move Analysis. In D. Biber & T. Ulla Upton (Eds.) Discourse on the Move: Using Corpus Analysis to Describe Discourse Structure (pp. 23-42). Amsterdam: John Benjamins.
Cortes, V. (2013). The purpose of this study is to: Connecting lexical bundles and moves in research article introductions. Journal of English for academic purposes, 12(1), 33-43.
Cotos, E., & Chung, Y. R. (2019). Functional language in curriculum genres: Implications for testing international teaching assistants. Journal of English for Academic Purposes, 41, 100766.
Cotos, E., Huffman, S., & Link, S. (2015). Furthering and applying move/step constructs: Technology-driven marshalling of Swalesian genre theory for EAP pedagogy. Journal of English for Academic Purposes, 19, 52-72.
Cotos, E., Huffman, S., & Link, S. (2017). A move/step model for methods sections: Demonstrating Rigour and Credibility. English for Specific Purposes, 46, 90-106.
Crawford Camiciottoli, B. (2004). Interactive discourse structuring in L2 guest lectures: Some insights from a comparative corpus-based study. Journal of English for Academic Purposes, 3, 39-54.
Crawford Camiciottoli, B. (2005). Adjusting a business lecture for an international audience: A case study. English for Specific Purposes, 24(2), 183–199.
Crawford Camiciottoli, B. (2008). Interaction in academic lectures vs. written text materials: The case of questions. Journal of Pragmatics, 40(7), 1216-1231.
Crawford Camiciottoli, B. (2015). Elaborating explanations during OpenCourse Ware humanities lectures: The interplay of verbal and nonverbal strategies. In C. Camiciottoli, & Fortanet-Gomez (Eds.), Multimodal analysis in academic settings (pp. 144-170). New York, NY: Routledge.
Crookes, G. (1986). Towards a validated analysis of scientific text structure. Applied Linguistics 7: 57–70.
Csomay, E., & Cortes, V. (2010). Lexical bundle distribution in university classroom talk. Language & Computers, 71(1), 153-168.
Davis, B. G. (2009). Tools for teaching. San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass.
DeCarrico, J., & Nattinger, J. R. (1988). Lexical phrases for the comprehension of academic lectures. English for specific purposes, 7(2), 91-102.
Deroey, K. L. B. (2015). Marking importance in lectures: Interactive and textual orientation. Applied linguistics, 36(1), 51-72.
Deroey, K. L. B., & Taverniers, M. (2011). A corpus-based study of lecture functions. Moderna språk, 105(2), 1-22.
Deroey, K. L. B., & Taverniers, M. (2012). Just remember this: Lexicogrammatical relevance markers in lectures. English for Specific Purposes, 31(4), 221-233.
Dudley-Evans, T. (1994). Variations in the discourse patterns favoured by different disciplines and the pedagogical implications. In J. Flowerdew (Ed.), Academic listening: Research perspectives (pp. 146–158). New York, NY: Cambridge University Press.
Dudley-Evans, T., & Johns, T. (1981). A team teaching approach to lecture comprehension for overseas students. In The teaching of listening comprehension. ELT documents special (pp. 30–46). London: The British Council.
Durrant, P. (2017). Lexical bundles and disciplinary variation in university students’ writing: Mapping the territories. Applied Linguistics, 38(2), 165-193.
Ellington, H. (2000). How to become an excellent tertiary-level teacher. Seven golden rules for university and college lecturers. Journal of Further and Higher Education, 24(3), 311-321.
Flowerdew, J. (1994). Academic listening: Research perspectives. New York, NY: Cambridge University Press.
Flowerdew, J. & Dudley-Evans T. (2002). Genre analysis of editorial letters to international journal contributors. Applied Linguistics 23: 463–489.
Flowerdew, J., & Miller, L. (1995). On the notion of culture in L2 lectures. TESOL quarterly, 29(2), 345-373.
Flowerdew, J., & Miller, L. (1997). The teaching of academic listening comprehension and the question of authenticity. English for Specific Purposes, 16(1), 27–46.
Flowerdew, J., & Tauroza, S. (1995). The effect of discourse markers on second language lecture comprehension. Studies in Second Language Acquisition, 17(4), 435–458.
Flowerdew, L., (2001). The exploitation of small learner corpora in EAP material designs. In M. Ghadessy, A. Henry & R. L. Roseberry (Eds.), Small corpus studies and ELT: theory and practice (pp. 363-380). Amsterdam: John Benjamins.
Goh, C. C. M. (2013). ESP and listening. In B. Paltridge & S. Starfield (eds.), The handbook of English for specific purposes (pp. 77–94). Oxford: Wiley-Blackwell.
Gorsuch, G. J. (2006). Discipline-specific practica for international teaching assistants. English for Specific Purposes, 25(1), 90-108.
Gray, T., & Madson, L. (2007). Ten easy ways to engage your students. College Teaching, 55(2), 83-87.
Gustafsson, H. (2018). Capturing EMI teachers’ linguistic needs: a usage-based perspective. International Journal of Bilingual Education and Bilingualism, 1-12.
Halleck, G. B., & Connor, U. M. (2006). Rhetorical moves in TESOL conference proposals. Journal of English for academic purposes, 5(1), 70-86.
Hativa, N. (1997). Teaching in a research university: Professors’ conceptions, practices, and disciplinary differences. Paper presented at the Annual Meeting of the American Educational Research Association, Chicago, March 24–28, 1997.
Henry, A. (2007). Evaluating language learners’ response to web-based, data-driven, genre teaching materials. English for Specific Purposes, 26(4), 462-484.
Henry, A. & Roseberry, R. L. (2001a). Using a small corpus to obtain data for teaching a genre. In M. Ghadessy, A. Henry & R. L. Roseberry (Eds.), Small corpus studies and ELT: theory and practice (pp. 93–133). Amsterdam: John Benjamins.
Henry, A., & Roseberry, R. L. (2001b). A narrow-angled corpus analysis of moves and strategies of the genre: ‘Letter of Application’. English for Specific Purposes, 20(2), 153-167.
Hoey, M. 2001. Textual interaction: An introduction to written text analysis. London: Routledge.
Hopkins, A., & Dudley-Evans, T. (1988). A genre-based investigation of the discussion sections in articles and dissertations. English for Specific Purposes, 7, 113-122.
Hyland, K. (2002). Genre: Language, context, and literacy. Annual Review of Applied Linguistics, 22, 113-135.
Hyland, K. (2003). Genre-based pedagogies: A social response to process. Journal of second language writing, 12(1), 17-29.
Hyland, K. (2005). Metadiscourse: Exploring Interaction in Writing. London, England: Continuum.
Hyland, K. (2006). Disciplinary differences: Language variation in academic discourses. In K. Hyland & M. Bondi (Eds.), Academic discourse across disciplines (pp. 17-45). Frankfurt: Peter Lang.
Hyland, K. (2008). As can be seen: Lexical bundles and disciplinary variation. English for specific purposes, 27(1), 4-21.
Hyland, K. (2011). Disciplines and Discourses: Social Interactions in the Construction of Knowledge. In D. Starke-Meyerring, A. Paré, N. Artemeva, M. Horne, & L. Yousouboca (Eds.), Writing in the knowledge society (pp. 193-214). West Lafayette: Parlor Press and the WAC Clearinghouse.
Jung, E. H. (2003). The role of discourse signaling cues in second language listening comprehension. The Modern Language Journal, 87(4), 562–577.
Jung, E. H. (2006). Misunderstanding of academic monologues by nonnative speakers of English. Journal of Pragmatics, 38, 1928–1942.
Kanoksilapatham, B. (2005). Rhetorical structure of biochemistry research articles. English for specific purposes, 24(3), 269-292.
Kanoksilapatham, B. (2007). Rhetorical moves in biochemistry research articles. In D. Biber, U. Connor, & T. A. Upton (Eds.), Discourse on the move: Using corpus analysis to describe discourse structure (pp. 73–119). Amsterdam: John Benjamins.
Kashiha, H., & Chan, S. H. (2013). An exploration of lexical bundles in academic lectures: examples from hard and soft sciences. Journal of Asia TEFL, 10(4), 133-161.
Kintsch, W., & Van Dijk, T. A. (1978). Toward a model of text comprehension and production. Psychological review, 85(5), 363.
Kwan, B. (2006). The schematic structure of literature reviews in doctoral theses of applied linguistics. English for Specific Purposes, 25(1), 30–55.
Lee, J. J. (2009). Size matters: An exploratory comparison of small- and large-class university lecture introductions. English for Specific Purposes, 28(1), 42–57.
Lee, J. J. (2016). “There's intentionality behind it…”: A genre analysis of EAP classroom lessons. Journal of English for Academic Purposes, 23, 99-112.
Lee, J. J., & Subtirelu, N. C. (2015). Metadiscourse in the classroom: A comparative analysis of EAP lessons and university lectures. English for Specific Purposes, 37, 52-62.
Li, L. J., & Ge, G. C. (2009). Genre analysis: Structural and linguistic evolution of the English-medium medical research article (1985–2004). English for Specific Purposes, 28(2), 93-104.
Lim, J. M. H. (2006). Method sections of management research articles: A pedagogically motivated qualitative study. English for Specific Purposes, 25(3), 282-309.
Liu, C. Y. & Chen, H. J. (2020). Analyzing the functions of lexical bundles in undergraduate academic lectures for pedagogical use. English for Specific Purposes, 58, 122-137.
Liu, C. Y. & Chen, H. J. (forthcoming). Functional Variation of Lexical Bundles in Academic Lectures and TED Talks. Register Studies.
Liu, C. Y. (2019). Gender and Discipline: Intensifier Variation in Academic Lectures. Corpus Pragmatics, 3(3), 211-224.
McKeachie, W. J. (2002). McKeachie's Teaching Tips. Boston, MA: Houghton Mifflin.
Mauranen, A. (2002). A good question: expressing evaluation in academic speech. In G. Cortese, & P. Riley (Eds.), Domain-specific English: textual practices across communities and classrooms (pp. 115-140). Bern: Peter Lang.
Mauranen, A. (2004). Where next? A summary of the round table discussion. In Del Lungo Camiciotti. G. & E. Tognini Bonelli, E. (Eds.), Academic discourse-new insights into evaluation (pp. 203-216). Bern: Peter Lang.
Mauranen, A. (2010). Discourse reflexivity – A discourse universal? Nordic Journal of English Studies, 9(2), 13-40.
Morell, T. (2007). What enhances EFL students' participation in lecture discourse? Student, lecturer and discourse perspectives. Journal of English for Academic Purposes, 6, 222-237.
Moreno, A. I., & Swales, J. M. (2018). Strengthening move analysis methodology towards bridging the function-form gap. English for Specific Purposes, 50, 40-63.
Motta-Roth, D. (1996). Same genre, different discipline: A genre-based study of book reviews in academe. the ESPecialist, 17(2).
Neely, E., & Cortes, V. (2009). A little bit about: Analyzing and teaching lexical bundles in academic lectures. Language Value, 1(1), 17-38.
Nesi, H., & Basturkmen, H. (2006). Lexical bundles and discourse signalling in academic lectures. International Journal of Corpus Linguistics, 11(3), 283-304.
Neumann, R. (2001). Disciplinary differences and university teaching. Studies in higher education, 26(2), 135-146.
Norris, S. (2004). Multimodal discourse analysis: A conceptual framework. In P. Levine, & R. Scollon (Eds.), Discourse and technology: Multimodal discourse analysis (pp. 101-115). Washington, DC: Georgetown University Press.
Nunan, D., & Bailey, K. M. (2009). Exploring second language classroom research: A comprehensive guide. Boston, MA: Heinle.
Nwogu, K. N. (1997). The medical research paper: Structure and functions. English for specific purposes, 16(2), 119-138.
Olsen, L. A., & Huckin, T. N. (1990). Point-driven understanding in engineering lecture comprehension. English for Specific Purposes, 9, 33-47.
Palmer-Silveira, J. C. (2004). Delivery strategies in classroom lectures: organising the message. In P. Garcés Conejos, R. Gómez Morón, L. Fernández Amaya, & M. Padilla Cruz (Eds.), Current Trends in Intercultural, Cognitive and Social Pragmatics (pp. 97-114). Sevilla: Editorial Kronos.
Petrovic, M. & Samraj, B. (2015). Discourse analysis of law school lectures and suggestions for listening comprehension. In Stojković, N. (Ed). Vistas of English for Specific Purposes (pp. 93-106). Newcastle upon Tyne, UK: Cambridge Scholars Publishing.
Rost, M. (1994). On-line summaries as representations of lecture understanding. In Flowerdew, J. (ed). Academic listening. Research perspectives (pp. 93-127). Cambridge: CUP.
Rowley-Jolivet, E., & Carter-Thomas, S. (2005). The rhetoric of conference presentation introductions: context, argument and interaction. IJAL, 15, 45-70.
Samraj, B. (2014). Move structure. In K. P. Schneider, & A. Barron (Eds.), Pragmatics of discourse (pp. 385-405). Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter.
Schleef, E. (2008). The “Lecturer’s OK” revisited: Changing discourse conventions and the influence of academic division. American Speech, 83(1). 62-84.
Scott, M. (2011). WordSmith Tools version 6, Liverpool: Lexical Analysis Software.
Seidel, L. F., & Gaff, J. G. (2006). Preparing future faculty (PFF): Optional or required. Journal on Excellence in College Teaching, 17(1-2), 13-21.
Simpson, R. C., Briggs, S. L., Ovens, J., & Swales, J. M. (2002). The Michigan corpus of academic spoken English. Ann Arbor, MI: The Regents of the University of Michigan.
Simpson-Vlach, R., & Ellis, N. C. (2010). An academic formulas list: New methods in phraseology research. Applied linguistics, 31(4), 487-512.
Smeby, J. (1996). Disciplinary differences in university teaching. Studies in Higher Education, 21, 1, 69–79.
Strodt-Lopez, B. (1991). Tying it all in: Asides in university lectures. Applied Linguistics, 12(2), 117-140.
Suviniitty, J. (2010). Lecturers’ questions and student perception of lecture comprehension. Helsinki English Studies, 6, 44-57.
Swales, J. M. (1981). Aspects of article introductions. Birmingham, UK: The University of Aston, Language Studies Unit.
Swales, J. M. (1990). Genre analysis: English in academic and research settings. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Swales, J. M. (2001). Metatalk in American academic talk: The cases of “point” and “thing”. Journal of English Linguistics, 29, 34-54.
Swales, J. M. (2004). Research genres: Explorations and application. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Swales, J. M. & Feak, C. B. (1994). Academic Writing for Graduate Students: Essential Tasks and Skills. Ann Arbor, MI: University of Michigan Press.
Swales, J. M. & Feak, C. B. (2009). Abstracts and the Writing of Abstracts. Ann Arbor, MI: University of Michigan Press.
Tauroza, S., & Allison, D. (1994). Expectation-driven understanding in information systems lecture comprehension. In J. Flowerdew (Ed.), Academic listening: Research perspectives (pp. 35-54). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Tessuto, G. (2015). Generic structure and rhetorical moves in English-language empirical law research articles: Sites of interdisciplinary and interdiscursive cross-over. English for Specific Purposes, 37, 13-26.
Thompson, S. (1994). Frameworks and contexts: a genre-based approach to analyzing lecture introductions. English for Specific Purposes, 13, 171-186.
Thompson, S. E. (2003). Text-structuring metadiscourse, intonation and the signalling of organisation in academic lectures. Journal of English for academic purposes, 2(1), 5-20.
Thompson, G., & Hunston, S. (2000). Evaluation: an introduction. In S. Hunston & G. Thompson (Eds.), Evaluation in text: authorial stance and the construction of discourse (pp. 1-27). Oxford: OUP.
Vande Kopple, W. J. (1985). Some exploratory discourse on metadiscourse. College Composition and Communication, 36(1), 82-93.
Yang, R., & Allison, D. (2003). Research articles in applied linguistics: Moving from results to conclusions. English for specific purposes, 22(4), 365-385.
Young, L. (1990). Language as behaviour, language as code: A study of academic English. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.
Young, L. (1994). University lectures - macro-structure and micro-features. In J. Flowerdew (Ed.), Academic listening: Research perspectives (pp. 159-175). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Zare, J., & Keivanloo-Shahrestanaki, Z. (2017). Genre awareness and academic lecture comprehension: The impact of teaching importance markers. Journal of English for Academic Purposes, 27, 31-41.
Zhang, L., Kopak, R., Freund, L., & Rasmussen, E. (2011). Making functional units functional: The role of rhetorical structure in use of scholarly journal articles. International Journal of Information Management, 31(1), 21-29.
Zhang, Q. (2005). Immediacy, humor, power distance and classroom communication apprehension in Chinese college classrooms. Communication Quarterly, 53(1), 109-124.