1887
Volume 28, Issue 2
  • ISSN 1018-2101
  • E-ISSN: 2406-4238

Abstract

This study aims to investigate the rhetorical genre components and the pragmatic evaluation options used to articulate the communicative function of ArBR genre, and find out how these generic and evaluation options contrast with those reported in other languages and cultures. To this end, a corpus of 50 book reviews written by 50 Arab reviewers was collected and analyzed within the rhetorical components developed and applied by Motta-Roth (1998) to English book reviews. The present study drew on Hyland (2000) , Gea Valor (2000–2001) , Moreno and Suárez (2008a) and Alcaraz-Ariza (2010) in order to examine how the qualities of ArBRs are evaluated and in which terms (i.e., criticism or praise). The results indicated that the Arab reviewers employed additional sub-moves that have not been used by other researchers. Unlike English book reviewers, Arab reviewers try to avoid criticism. Instead, they usually devote most of their book reviews to describe and summarize uncritically although critical appraisal is supposed to be the backbone of this genre. These purposive generic component preferences and evaluation tendencies can be explained with reference to the goal of the academic community and the writing culture that constrain Arab reviewers' academic behavior. I hope that the results of this study will provide graduate students and novice researchers with further awareness of the acceptable generic strategies, the linguistic choices and pragmatic evaluative options that can be used to write an evaluation of a piece of research.

Loading

Article metrics loading...

/content/journals/10.1075/prag.17006.ala
2018-05-07
2019-09-20
Loading full text...

Full text loading...

/deliver/fulltext/prag.17006.ala.html?itemId=/content/journals/10.1075/prag.17006.ala&mimeType=html&fmt=ahah

References

  1. Al-Ali, M.
    2005 “Communicating Messages of Solidarity, Promotion, and Pride in Death Announcements Genre in Jordanian Newspapers.” Discourse and Society16: 5–31. doi: 10.1177/0957926505048228
    https://doi.org/10.1177/0957926505048228 [Google Scholar]
  2. 2010 “Generic Patterns and Socio-Cultural Resources in Acknowledgements Accompanying Ph.D. Dissertations.” Pragmatics20 (1): 1–26. doi: 10.1075/prag.20.1.01ali
    https://doi.org/10.1075/prag.20.1.01ali [Google Scholar]
  3. Al-Ali, M. , and Y. Sahawneh
    2011 “Rhetorical and Textual Organization of English and Arabic Ph.D. Dissertation Abstracts in Linguistics.” SKY Journal of Linguistics24: 7–39.
    [Google Scholar]
  4. Alcaraz-Ariza, M.
    2010 “Evaluation in English Medium Medical Book Reviews.” International Journal of English Studies2 (1): 137–153.
    [Google Scholar]
  5. Belcher, D.
    1995 “Writing Critically across Curriculum.” InAcademic Writing in a Second Language: Essays on Research and Pedagogy, ed. by D. Belcher , and D. Braine , 135–155. Norwood, NY: Ablex.
    [Google Scholar]
  6. Bhatia, V.
    1993Analyzing Genre: Language Use in Professional Settings. London: Longman.
    [Google Scholar]
  7. 2004Worlds of Written Discourse. London: Continuum.
    [Google Scholar]
  8. Brown, P. , and S. Levinson
    1987Politeness: Some Universals in Language Use. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
    [Google Scholar]
  9. Brown, G. , and G. Yule
    1983Discourse Analysis. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. doi: 10.1017/CBO9780511805226
    https://doi.org/10.1017/CBO9780511805226 [Google Scholar]
  10. Felber, L.
    2002 “The Book Review: Scholarly and Editorial Responsibility.” Journal of Scholarly Publication33 (3): 166–172. doi: 10.3138/jsp.33.3.166
    https://doi.org/10.3138/jsp.33.3.166 [Google Scholar]
  11. Gea Valor, M.
    2000A Pragmatic Approach to Politeness and Modality in the Book Review Articles. SELL Monograph. Valencia: Universitat Valencia.
    [Google Scholar]
  12. 2000–2001 “The Coding of Linguistic Politeness in the Academic Book Reviews.” Pragmalinguistica8–9: 165–178.
    [Google Scholar]
  13. Gea-Valor, M.
    2014 “From ‘Readers may be left wondering’ to ‘I’m genuinely puzzled’: The Construction of Self and Others in Fiction Book Reviews.” InDialogicity in Written Specialised Genres, ed. by L. Gil-Salom , and C. Soler-Monreal , 113–134. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. doi: 10.1075/ds.23.06gea
    https://doi.org/10.1075/ds.23.06gea [Google Scholar]
  14. Halliday, M.
    1994An introduction to Functional Grammar (2nd ed.). London & New York: Routledge.
    [Google Scholar]
  15. Hartley, J.
    2006 “Reading a Writing Book Reviews across Disciplines.” Journal of the American Society for Information Science and Technology57 (9): 1194–1207. doi: 10.1002/asi.20399
    https://doi.org/10.1002/asi.20399 [Google Scholar]
  16. Hunston, S.
    1993 “Evaluation and Ideology in Scientific Writing.” InRegister Analysis: Theory and Practice, ed. by M. Ghadessy , 57–73. London: Pinter.
    [Google Scholar]
  17. 1994 “Evaluation and Organization in a Sample of Written Academic Discourse.” InAdvances in Written Text Analysis, ed. by M. Coulthard , 191–218. London: Routledge.
    [Google Scholar]
  18. Hyland, K.
    2000Disciplinary Discourses. Social Interactions in Academic Writing. Harlow: Pearson Education.
    [Google Scholar]
  19. Itakura, H. , and A. Tsui
    2011 “Evaluation in Academic Discourse: Managing Criticism in Japanese and English Book Reviews.” Journal of Pragmatics43: 1366–1379. doi: 10.1016/j.pragma.2010.10.023
    https://doi.org/10.1016/j.pragma.2010.10.023 [Google Scholar]
  20. Johnson, D.
    1992 “Compliments and Politeness in Peer-review Texts.” Applied Linguistics13 (1): 51–71. doi: 10.1093/applin/13.1.51
    https://doi.org/10.1093/applin/13.1.51 [Google Scholar]
  21. Johnson, D. , and D. Roen
    1992 “Complimenting and Involvement in Peer Reviews: Gender Variation.” Language and Society21: 27–57. doi: 10.1017/S0047404500015025
    https://doi.org/10.1017/S0047404500015025 [Google Scholar]
  22. Lores-Sanz, R.
    2012 “Local Disciplines, Local Cultures: Praise and Criticism in British and Spanish History Reviews.” Brno Studies in English38 (2): 97–116. doi: 10.5817/BSE2012‑2‑6
    https://doi.org/10.5817/BSE2012-2-6 [Google Scholar]
  23. Lindholm-Romantschuk, Y.
    1998Scholarly Book Reviewing in the Social Sciences and Humanities: The Flow of Ideas within and amongst Disciplines. Westport, CT: Greenwood Press.
    [Google Scholar]
  24. Martin, J. , and P. White
    2005The Language of Evaluation. Appraisal in English. Houndmills, UK: Palgrave Macmillan.10.1057/9780230511910
    https://doi.org/10.1057/9780230511910 [Google Scholar]
  25. Morrow, J.
    2006 “The Origin of the Allah Lexicon.” InArabic, Islam, and the Allah Lexicon, ed. by J. Morrow , 115–187. New York: Edwin Mellen Press.
    [Google Scholar]
  26. Moreno, A. , and L. Suarez
    2008a “A Study of Critical Attitude across English and Spanish Academic Book Reviews.” Journal of English for Academic Purposes7: 15–26. doi: 10.1016/j.jeap.2008.02.009
    https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jeap.2008.02.009 [Google Scholar]
  27. 2008b “A Framework for Comparing Evaluation Resources across Academic Texts.” Text and Talk28 (6): 749–769. doi: 10.1515/TEXT.2008.038
    https://doi.org/10.1515/TEXT.2008.038 [Google Scholar]
  28. 2009 “Academic Book Reviews in English and Spanish: Critical Comments and Rhetorical Structure.” InAcademic Evaluation: Review Genres in University Settings, ed. by K. Hyland , and D. Giuliana , 161–178. Basingstoke: Palgrave Macmillan.10.1057/9780230244290_10
    https://doi.org/10.1057/9780230244290_10 [Google Scholar]
  29. Motta-Roth, D.
    1998 “Discourse Analysis and Academic Book Reviews: A Study of Text and Disciplinary Cultures.” InGenre Studies in English for Academic Purposes, ed. by I. Fortanet , S. Posteguillo , J. C. Palmer , and J. Coll , 29–559. Colleccio Summa, Seri Filolgia 9. Castellón: Universitat Jaume I.
    [Google Scholar]
  30. Nicolaisen, J.
    2002 “Structure-based Interpretation of Scholarly Book Reviews: A New Research Technique.” InEmerging Frameworks and Methods: Proceedings of the 4th International Conference on Conceptions of Library and Information Science, ed. by H. Bruce , R. Fidel , P. Ingwersen , and P. Vakkari , 123–135. Westport, CT: Libraries Unlimited.
    [Google Scholar]
  31. Salager-Meyer, F. , and M. Alcaraz-Ariza
    2004 “Negative Appraisals in Academic Book Reviews; A Cross-Linguistic Approach.” InInternational Aspects of Specialized Communication, ed. by C. Candlin , and M. Gotti , 149–172. Bern: Peter Lang.
    [Google Scholar]
  32. Salager-Meyer, F. , M. Angeles , A. Ariza , and N. Zambrano
    2003 “The Scimitar, the Dagger and the Glove: Intercultural Differences in the Rhetoric of Criticism in Spanish, French and English Medical Discourse (1930–1995).” English for Specific Purposes22 (3): 223–247. doi: 10.1016/S0889‑4906(02)00019‑4
    https://doi.org/10.1016/S0889-4906(02)00019-4 [Google Scholar]
  33. Salager-Meyer, F. , M. Angeles , A. Ariza , and M. Berbesi
    2007 “Collegiality, Critique and the Construction of Scientific Argumentation in Medical Book Reviews: A Diachronic Approach.” Journal of Pragmatics39: 1758–1774. doi: 10.1016/j.pragma.2006.06.003
    https://doi.org/10.1016/j.pragma.2006.06.003 [Google Scholar]
  34. Stotesbury, H.
    2003 “Evaluation in Research Article Abstracts in the Narrative and Hard Sciences.” Journal of English for Academic Purposes2: 327–342. doi: 10.1016/S1475‑1585(03)00049‑3
    https://doi.org/10.1016/S1475-1585(03)00049-3 [Google Scholar]
  35. Suárez, T. , and A. Moreno
    2008 “The Rhetorical Structure of Academic Book Reviews of Literature: An English-Spanish Cross-Linguistic Approach.” InContrastive Rhetoric: Reaching to Intercultural Rhetoric, ed. by U. Connor , E. Nagelhout , and W. Rozycki , 147–168. Amsterdam, Philadelphia: John Benjamin Publishing Company. doi: 10.1075/pbns.169.10sua
    https://doi.org/10.1075/pbns.169.10sua [Google Scholar]
  36. Swales, J.
    1990Genre Analysis: English in Academic and Research Settings. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge.
    [Google Scholar]
  37. Thetela, P.
    1997 “Evaluated Entities and Parameters of Value in Academic Research Articles.” English for Specific Purposes16 (2): 101–118. doi: 10.1016/S0889‑4906(96)00022‑1
    https://doi.org/10.1016/S0889-4906(96)00022-1 [Google Scholar]
  38. Thompson, G. , and S. Hunston
    2000 “Evaluation: An Introduction.” InEvaluation in Text, ed. by S. Hunston , and G. Thompson , 1–27. Oxford: Oxford University press.
    [Google Scholar]
  39. Vandenbroucke, J. , and A. de Craen
    2001 “Alternative Medicine: A “Mirror Image” for Scientific Reasoning in Conventional Medicine.” Annals of Internal Medicine135: 507–513. doi: 10.7326/0003‑4819‑135‑7‑200110020‑00010
    https://doi.org/10.7326/0003-4819-135-7-200110020-00010 [Google Scholar]
http://instance.metastore.ingenta.com/content/journals/10.1075/prag.17006.ala
Loading
/content/journals/10.1075/prag.17006.ala
Loading

Data & Media loading...

  • Article Type: Research Article
Keyword(s): Academic discourse , Arabic , Book review and Genre
This is a required field
Please enter a valid email address
Approval was successful
Invalid data
An Error Occurred
Approval was partially successful, following selected items could not be processed due to error