Self-mentioningauthority, authorship or sef-promotion in 17thC prefaces to manuals on obstetrics?

Referències bibliogràfiques

• Anon. (1682). The English midwife enlarged. London: Thomas Sawbridge. <http://eebo.chadwyck.com> [04/05/08].
• Barton, E. L. (1993). Evidentials, argumentation, and epistemological stance. College English, 55(7), 745-769.
• Barton, D. (2007). Literacy: An introduction to the ecology of written language. Oxford: Blackwell.
• Barret, R. (1699). A companion for midwives, child-bearing women and nurses. London: Tho. Ax. <http://eebo.chadwyck.com> [04/05/08]
• Biber, D. et al. (1999). Longman grammar of spoken and written English. New York: Longman.
• Claude Moore Health Science Library. (2009).“English physician by Nicholas Culpeper”. <http://www.hsl.virginia.edu/historical/rare_books/herbalism/culpeper.cfm> [21/1/2011].
• Culpeper, N. (1651). A directory for midwives. London: Peter Cole. <http://eebo.chadwyck.com> [04/05/08].
• Davis, Ll. (1998). Sexuality and gender in the English Renaissance: An annotated edition of contemporary documents. London: Taylor & Francis.
• Downing, A. (2001). ‘Surely you knew!’ Surely as a marker of evidentiality and stance. Functions of Language, 8(2), 251-282.
• Downing, A. (2009). Surely as a marker of dominance and entitlement in the crime fiction of P.D. James. Brno Studies in English, 35(2), 80-92.
• Dunn, P. M. (1999). The Chamberlen family (1560-1728) and obstetric forceps. Perinatal lessons from the past. Arch Dis Child Fetal Neonatal, 81, 232-235 <www.archdischild.com> [22/1/2011].
• Dunn, P. M. (2004). Louise Bourgeois (1563-1636): Royal midwife of France. Perinatal Lessons from the Past. Arch Dis Child Fetal Neonatal, 89, 185-187. <www.archdischild.com> [17/11/2008].
• Evenden, D. (2000). The midwives of seventeenth century London. Cambridge: CUP.
• Guillimeau, J. (1612). Child birth or, The happy deliverie of women. London: A. Hatfield. Accessed at: <http://eebo.chadwyck.com> [04/05/08].
• Harwood, N. (2005). ‘Nowhere has anyone attempted... In this article I aim to do just that’. A corpus-based study of self-promotional I and WE in academic writing across four disciplines. Journal of Pragmatics, 37(8), 1207-1231.
• Hyland, K. (1998). Boosting, hedging and the negotiation of academic knowledge. TEXT, 18(3), 349-382.
• Hyland, K. (2001). Humble servants of the discipline? Self-mention in research articles. English for Specific Purposes, 20(3), 207-226.
• Hyland, K. (2002). Directives: Argument and engagement in academic writing. Applied Linguistics, 23(2), 215-239.
• Hyland, K. (2005a). Stance and engagement: A model of interaction in academic discourse. Discourse Studies, 7(2), 173-192.
• Hyland, K. (2005b). Metadiscourse: Exploring interaction in writing. London: Continuum.
• Hyland, K. (2006). Disciplinary differences: Language variation in academic discourses. In K. Hyland and Marina Bondi (Eds.), Academic discourse across disciplines (pp. 17-49). Germany: Peter Lang.
• McTavish, L. (2005). Childbirth and the display of authority in early modern France. Hampshire: Ashgate Publishers Ltd.
• Martín-Martín, P. (2003). Personal attribution in English and Spanish scientific texts. Barcelona English Language and Literature Studies, 12 <http://www.raco.cat/index.php/Bells/article/view/82918/108653>
• Mauriceau, F. (1672). The diseases of women with child and child bed. London: John Darby. <http://eebo.chadwyck.com> [04/05/08].
• Mele-Marrero, M. & Alonso-Almeida, F. (forthcoming). The role of the pronouns he and she in seventeenth century obstetric directives.
• Mur-Dueñas, P. (2007). I/we focus on...: Across-cultural analysis of self-mentions in business management research articles. Journal of English for Academic Purposes, 6, 143-162.
• Murphy, J. (1986). La retórica en la Edad Media. Méjico: Fondo de Cultura Económica.
• Nevala, M. (2009). Altering distance and defining authority. Journal of Historical Pragmatics, 10(2), 238-259.
• Porter, J. (1986). Intertextuality and the discourse community. Rhetoric Review, 5(1), 34-47.
• Power, D’Arcy. (1927). The birth of mankind or the woman’s book. A bibliographic study. The library, 8(1) 2-37.
• Radcliffe, W. (1989). Milestones in midwifery and the secret instrument. San Francisco: Norman Publishers.
• Raynalde, Thomas. (1552). The birth of mankind, otherwise named the woman’s book <http://eebo.chadwyck.com> [04/05/08].
• Sánchez-Cuervo, M. (2009). Rhetorical evaluation of seventeenth century prefaces to English treatises on midwifery. Studia Anglica Postnaniensia, 46(1), 17-34.
• Sermon, W. (1671). The ladies companion or the English midwife. London: Edward Thomas. http://eebo.chadwyck.com [04/05/08].
• Spencer, H. (1927). Wolveridge’s ‘Speculum Matricis’. Proceedings of the Royal Society of Medicine (pp. 56-62). <http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC2100830/pdf/procrsmed01198-0062.pdf> [10/12/2010].
• T. C., I. D., M. S., & T. B. (1656). The complete midwifes practice. London: Nathaniel Brooke. Accessed at <http://eebo.chadwyck.com> [04/05/08].
• Thulesius, O. (1994). Nicholas Culpeper, father of English midwifery. Journal of the Royal Society of Medicine, 87, 552-556.
• Van Teijlingen, E., Lowis, G. W. & McCaffery, P. (Eds.). (2004). Midwifery and the medicalization of childbirth: Comparative perspectives. New York: Nova Science Publishers.
• Weber, P. (2005). Interactive features in medical conference monologue. English for Specific Purposes, 24,157-181.
• Wellcome Library. (2009). The Birth of Mankind. <http://wellcomelibrary.blogspot.com/ 2009/06/birth-of-mankind.html> [21/10/2010].
• Wolveridge, J. (1669). Speculum matricis hibernicum or the Irish midwives handmaid. London: E. Okes. <http://eebo.chadwyck.com> [04/05/08].