Laurie Bauer - WordPress.com — Get a Free Blog Here

35
Reference lists
Reference lists versus bibliographies
The general practice in linguistics is to list at the end of any work the books and
articles that have been referred to in it. This means that something is listed at
the end if and only if there is a reference in the text to that work (i.e. the work
is specifically mentioned in the text). To make it clear that the list is restricted
in this way, it is usually entitled ‘References’, although alternatives such as
‘Works cited’ would be possible. The label ‘Bibliography’ is also used in the
same way by some, but it is potentially misleading, since it can also mean
‘Bibliography of works consulted’. Such a list would include everything the
author had read in order to write what has been written, whether those items
have been cited or not. In most cases, you will probably find that you are
encouraged to provide a reference list; if you are not, it is helpful to distinguish
between ‘References’ and ‘Bibliography of works consulted’ just to be absolutely
unambiguous. This means you should avoid a heading ‘Bibliography’
without any further elaboration.
Subdividing the reference list
It is sometimes useful to subdivide your reference list into two or more subsections.
You should do this only if there will be a reasonable number of works
in each subsection.
One type of division that is likely to be useful in writing about historical linguistics
or about points of grammar is that between texts and general works.
Texts are those works which are used as sources of data; general works are those
which you used to help with the theoretical background or the analysis. Texts