Contents -- Acknowledgements 11 -- 1. Introduction 13 -- 1.1. Mapping discipline-specific values 14 -- 1.2. Outline of contents 16 -- 2. Theoretical background 19 -- 2.1. Academia and the disciplines 19 -- 2.2. Discourse communities 29 -- 2.3. Academic English and ELF 34 -- 2.4. Research genres 37 -- 2.4.1. The research article 40 -- 2.5. The values of academia 42 -- 2.6. Evaluation and stance 53 -- 2.7. Working with corpora 58 -- 3. Materials and data 65 -- 3.1. Disciplinary fields 65 -- 3.2. Source journals 66 -- 3.3. Text selection 68 -- 4. Methodology 73 -- 4.1. Corpus data 73 -- 4.2. Selection of candidate items 75 -- 4.3. Additional candidate items 78 -- 4.4. Assessing value-marker status 79 -- 4.5. Pilot study 81 -- 4.6. Linguistic analysis 83 -- 4.6.1. Distribution of values across disciplines 83 -- 4.6.2. Qualified entities 84 -- 4.6.3. Collocational evidence 85 -- 4.7. Interpretation of data 86 -- 5. Goodness markers 89 -- 5.1. Identification of value-marker status 89 -- 5.2. Preliminary results 93 -- 5.3. Additional items 94 -- 5.4. Overall results 95 -- 5.5. Distribution across disciplines 98 -- 5.6. Different parts of speech 103 -- 5.7. Qualified entities and realisations 104 -- 5.7.1. Group A 105 -- 5.7.2. Group B 113 -- 5.7.3. Group C 114 -- 5.7.4. Group D 115 -- 5.7.5. Group E 117 -- 5.8. Discussion 119 -- 5.8.1. Saliency of goodness 119 -- 5.8.2. Type of marker and qualified entity 121 -- 6. Size markers 123 -- 6.1. Selection of candidate items 124 -- 6.2. Additional items 125 -- 6.3. Overall results 126 -- 6.3.1. Predicative vs. attributive uses 127 -- 6.4. Distribution across disciplines 129 -- 6.5. Qualified entities and realisations 133 -- 6.5.1. Group A 133 -- 6.5.2. Group B 135 -- 6.5.3. Group C 137 -- 6.5.4. Group D 140 -- 6.6. Discussion 141 -- 6.6.1. Saliency of size 142 -- 6.6.2. Type of marker 143.

6.6.3. Qualified entities and collocations 144 -- 6.6.4. Vagueness vs. precision 145 -- 7. Novelty markers 147 -- 7.1. Why novelty matters 148 -- 7.2. Selection of candidate items 149 -- 7.3. Additional items 151 -- 7.4. Overall results 152 -- 7.4.1. Predicative vs. attributive uses 154 -- 7.5. Distribution across disciplines 154 -- 7.6. Qualified entities and realisations 156 -- 7.6.1. Group A 157 -- 7.6.2. Group B 164 -- 7.6.3. Group C 166 -- 7.7. Discussion 168 -- 7.7.1. Saliency of novelty 169 -- 7.7.2. Type of marker 170 -- 7.7.3. Qualified entities and collocations 172 -- 8. Relevance markers 175 -- 8.1. Selection of candidate items 176 -- 8.2. Additional items 177 -- 8.3. Overall results 179 -- 8.3.1. Predicative vs. attributive uses 180 -- 8.4. Distribution across disciplines 181 -- 8.5. Qualified entities and realisations 184 -- 8.5.1. Group A 184 -- 8.5.2. Group B 190 -- 8.5.3. Group C 193 -- 8.5.4. Group D 198 -- 8.5.5. Group E 200 -- 8.6. Discussion 202 -- 8.6.1. Saliency of relevance 203 -- 8.6.2. Type of marker 204 -- 8.6.3. Qualified entities and collocations 206 -- 9. General discussion 209 -- 9.1. Analytical basis 209 -- 9.2. Evaluative lexis and value markers 211 -- 9.3. Academic values signalled in the corpus 213 -- 9.3.1. Interdisciplinary variation 213 -- 9.3.2. Intradisciplinary variation 218 -- 9.3.3. Axiological profile of disciplines 219 -- 9.4. Lexical resources encoding value 220 -- 9.4.1. Syntactic position of adjectives 222 -- 9.4.2. Lexical transparency of markers 223 -- 9.5. Variation among qualified entities 224 -- 9.5.1. Goodness referents 224 -- 9.5.2. Size referents 225 -- 9.5.3. Novelty referents 226 -- 9.5.4. Relevance referents 227 -- 9.6. Final remarks 228 -- 10. Conclusions 231 -- 10.1. Theoretical insights 231 -- 10.2. The role of academic values 235 -- 10.3. Methodological considerations 239.

10.4. Directions for further research 241 -- References 245 -- Appendices 271 -- Appendix 1. Corpus texts 271 -- Appendix 2. Corpus outline 280 -- Appendix 3. Candidate value-marking items 282 -- Index 285.