Cover not available
Part of
Variation in University Student Writing: A communicative text type approach
Larissa Goulart
[Studies in Corpus Linguistics 117] 2024
► pp. xi–xiv

List of figures

Figure 1.1Example assignment 14
Figure 1.2Example assignment 25
Figure 2.1Example of text tagged with the Biber Tagger38
Figure 2.2Overview of the components of the analysis44
Figure 3.1Text excerpt from physical sciences59
Figure 3.2Visual representation of Goulart et al.’s (2022) results for essays, explanations and methodology recounts64
Figure 4.1Most frequent combinations of minor purposes with the communicative text type of to give a procedural recount across disciplinary groups73
Figure 4.2Most frequent combinations of minor purposes with the communicative text type of to give a procedural recount75
Figure 4.3Most frequent combinations of minor purposes with the communicative type of to give a procedural recount across disciplinary groups76
Figure 4.4Most frequent combinations of minor purposes with the communicative type of to argue78
Figure 4.5Most frequent combinations of minor purposes with the communicative type of to argue across disciplinary groups80
Figure 4.6Most frequent combinations of minor purposes with the communicative text type of to explain82
Figure 4.7Most frequent combinations of minor purposes with the communicative type of to explain across disciplinary groups83
Figure 4.8Most frequent combinations of minor purposes with the communicative type of to propose85
Figure 4.9Most frequent combinations of minor purposes with the communicative type of to propose across disciplinary groups86
Figure 4.10Most frequent combinations of minor purposes with the communicative type of to compare88
Figure 4.11Most frequent combinations of minor purposes with the communicative text types of to describe, to give personal advice, and to narrate a personal event90
Figure 6.1Distribution of disciplines and registers/communicative text types along Biber’s (1988) Dimension 1: Involved versus informational production116
Figure 6.2Distribution of discipline and communicative text types along Dimension 1: Elaborated Discourse vs condensed style128
Figure 6.3Interaction Plot for Dimension 1: Elaborated discourse vs condensed style129
Figure 6.4Distribution of discipline and communicative text types along Dimension 2: Production of possibility vs content-focused description135
Figure 6.5Interaction plot for Dimension 2: Production of possibility vs content-focused description136
Figure 6.6Distribution of discipline and communicative text types along Dimension 3: Informational density vs involved, academic narrative141
Figure 6.7Interaction plot for Dimension 3: Informational density vs involved, academic narrative142
Figure 7.1Distribution of to argue, to explain and other purposes within essays across disciplines158
Figure 7.2Most frequent combination of major + minor purpose in essays159
Figure 7.3Most frequent combination of major + minor purpose in arts and humanities essays161
Figure 7.4Most frequent combination of major + minor purpose in social sciences essays162
Figure 7.5Most frequent combination of major + minor purpose in life sciences essays164
Figure 7.6Most frequent combination of major + minor purpose in physical sciences165
Figure 7.7Most frequent combinations of communicative purposes across disciplines166
Figure 7.8Mean dimension scores for dimensions 1–3 for the register of essays174
Figure 7.9Distribution of discipline and communicative text types within essays along Dimension 1: Elaborated discourse vs condensed style176
Figure 7.10Distribution of discipline and communicative text types within essays along Dimension 2: Production of possibility vs content-focused description179
Figure 7.11Distribution of discipline and communicative text types within essays along Dimension 3: Informational density vs involved, academic narrative182
Figure 8.1Distribution of discipline, communicative text types and language background along Dimension 1: Elaborated discourse vs condensed style207