This study aims to cast light on developments in three main areas of discourse: the discourse of disability, academic discourse, and legal and courtroom discourse. Drawing on insights provided by critical genre studies ((Bazerman 1988; Swales 1990, 1996, 2004; Drew / Heritage 1992; Bhatia 1993, 2002a, 2002b, 2004; Berkenkotter / Huckin 1995; Ventola / Mauranen 1996; Hyland 2000, 2002, 2005a, 2006a; Candlin / Bhatia / Jensen 2002; Bhatia / Candlin / Gotti 2003; Hyland / Bondi 2006; Bhatia / Gotti 2006; Gotti 2009, Garzone / Archibald 2010, Gotti / Williams 2010, Berkenkotter / Bhatia / Gotti 2012, Williams / Tessuto 2013), each chapter focuses on a clearly defined corpus of written or spoken texts, originating primarily in countries where English is the official language, or one of the official languages, though in some instances reference is made to lexical developments also in French, German and Italian, often in connection with lexical innovations in English. Part One, The Discourse of Disability, comprises three chapters focusing on the language of disability, that has undergone major changes in recent decades, particularly following the passing of the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA) (1990). In this scenario, conceptual and lexical innovation is seen to take place across national borders as legislators, researchers, professionals and disability rights advocates in various countries seek to learn from experiences beyond their national borders. Part Two consists of three chapters on Academic Discourse, again examining language from a genre-based perspective, but with a view to casting light on achieving proficiency in academic writing. The first two chapters in this section provide an analysis of a corpus of 40 peer review reports, an academic genre that has so far received limited attention in the literature, partly due to the methodological problem of gaining access to the materials (‘an occluded genre’ for Swales. In Chapters 5 and 6 the focus is on the strategies employed by the (anonymous) peer reviewers to express dissent (and criticism) while maintaining collegiality. Part Three, Legal and Courtroom Discourse, develops another research strand within genre studies, this time focusing on legal language. Chapter 7 examines discourse and cultural variation in employment tribunals, considering the International Labour Organization Administrative Tribunal (Geneva), Employment Tribunals (Britain), and the European Union Civil Service Tribunal (Luxembourg). In Chapter 8, the focus is once again on spoken discourse in an institutional setting, but in this case the corpus of material under examination consists of a transcript of cross-examination in a criminal trial in Scotland.. The analysis then seeks to outline a three-move structure, with the cross-examination starting with a sympathetic tone in Move One, followed by a more hostile tone in Move Two, culminating in Move Three in a direct assault on the evidence and on witness credibility. The devastating effect of this three-move strategy becomes clear to the witness only when it is too late for her to save face (Brown and Levinson 1987) with implications for Foucault’s observations about power relations in courtroom discourse.