Open Access
E3S Web Conf.
Volume 210, 2020
Innovative Technologies in Science and Education (ITSE-2020)
Article Number 18033
Number of page(s) 10
Section Environmental Education
Published online 04 December 2020
  1. D. Banks, E. Di Martino, Introduction: Linguistic and discourse issues in contemporary scientific communication. Aspects of communicating science to a variety of audiences. Journal of Pragmatics, 139, 185–189 (2019) doi:10.1016/j.pragma.2018.10.011 [Google Scholar]
  2. S. Ni, K. K. Sin, A matrix of legislative speech acts for Chinese and British statutes. Journal of Pragmatics, 43(1), 375–384 (2011) doi:10.1016/j.pragma.2010.07.012 [CrossRef] [Google Scholar]
  3. P. John, B. Brooks, U. Schriever, Speech acts in professional maritime discourse: A pragmatic risk analysis of bridge team communication directives and commissives in full-mission simulation. Journal of Pragmatics, 140, 12–21 (2019) doi:10.1016/j.pragma.2018.11.013 [CrossRef] [Google Scholar]
  4. B. P. H. Lee, Mutual knowledge, background knowledge and shared beliefs: Their roles in establishing common ground. Journal of Pragmatics, 33(1), 21–44 (2001) doi:10.1016/s0378-2166(99)00128-9 [CrossRef] [Google Scholar]
  5. J. Engberg, Knowledge construction and legal discourse: The interdependence of perspective and visibility of characteristics. Journal of Pragmatics, 42(1), 48–63 (2010)doi:10.1016/j.pragma.2009.05.011 [CrossRef] [Google Scholar]
  6. Y. Ge, H. Wang, Understanding the discourse of Chinese civil trials: The perspective of Critical Genre Analysis. Journal of Pragmatics, 152, 1–12 (2019) doi:10.1016/j.pragma.2019.07.024 [CrossRef] [Google Scholar]
  7. A. Matulewska, Legal and LSP Linguistics and Translation: Asian Languages’ Perspectives. International Journal of Semiotics of Law, 32, 1–11 (2019) doi: 10.1007/s11196-019-09602-x [CrossRef] [Google Scholar]
  8. M. Sokół, “Have you wondered why sportspeople die?” The medical weblog as a popularisation tool. Discourse, Context [amp] Media, 25, 13-24 (2018) doi:10.1016/j.dcm.2018.07.004 [Google Scholar]
  9. V. V. Stepanova, Translation Strategies of Legal Texts (English-Russian). Procedia - Social and Behavioral Sciences, 237, 1329–1336 (2017) doi:10.1016/j.sbspro.2017.02.218 [Google Scholar]
  10. L. V. Bartley, Book review. Journal of Pragmatics, 139, 129–131 (2019) doi:10.1016/j.pragma.2018.11.007 [CrossRef] [Google Scholar]
  11. A. Reimerink, Q. M. García de, S. Montero-Martínez, Contextual information in terminological knowledge bases: A multimodal approach. Journal of Pragmatics, 42(7), 1928–1950 (2010) doi:10.1016/j.pragma.2009.12.008 [CrossRef] [Google Scholar]
  12. S. V. Pervukhina, Characteristic features of adapted legal text. Language and Culture. 1(5), 20-24 (2015) doi: 10.17223/24109266/5/3 [Google Scholar]
  13. M. Dynel, Participation framework underlying YouTube interaction. Journal of Pragmatics, 73, 37–52 (2014) doi:10.1016/j.pragma.2014.04.001 [CrossRef] [Google Scholar]
  14. A. Fetzer, “And I quote”: Forms and functions of quotations in Prime Minister’s questions. Journal of Pragmatics, 157, 89-100 (2019) doi:10.1016/j.pragma.2019.05.004 [CrossRef] [Google Scholar]
  15. G. G. Matveeva, I. A. Zyubina, Written text: approaches to identifying implicit pragmatics. Vestnik of Volgograd State University. Series 2. Linguistics, 17(2), 26–32 (2018) [Google Scholar]

Current usage metrics show cumulative count of Article Views (full-text article views including HTML views, PDF and ePub downloads, according to the available data) and Abstracts Views on Vision4Press platform.

Data correspond to usage on the plateform after 2015. The current usage metrics is available 48-96 hours after online publication and is updated daily on week days.

Initial download of the metrics may take a while.