Advertisement

Pragmatics and Reviewers’ Reports

  • Brian Paltridge
Chapter

Abstract

This chapter examines the reviewers’ reports from a pragmatics point of view. In particular, it looks at how reviewers ask for changes to be made to submissions drawing on shared understandings of the relationship between literal meanings and intended meanings as they do this. The aim of this analysis is to give academic authors an understanding of the way in which they need to read reviewers’ reports. The chapter argues that many of the comments that reviewers make in their reports need to be read in ways other than what their literal meaning might suggest. The analysis is then considered in relation to the responses the reviewers gave in the questionnaires about their experience in doing peer reviews and how this impacted on the ways in which they wrote their reports. The reviews are also considered in relation to the language background of the reviewers in terms of whether they were native or native speakers of English as this has been suggested by previous research as something that might affect how they wrote their reviews.

Keywords

Pragmatics Speech acts The co-operative principle Directions Suggestions Clarification requests Recommendations 

References

  1. Aijmer, K., & Rühlemann, C. (Eds.). (2014). Corpus pragmatics: A handbook. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
  2. Auer, P. (2009). Context and contextualisation. In J. Verschueren & J. O. Ostman (Eds.), Key notions in pragmatics (pp. 86–101). Amsterdam: John Benjamins.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. Austin, J. L. (1962). How to do things with words. Oxford: Clarendon Press.Google Scholar
  4. Baker, P. (2013). Corpora and discourse analysis. In K. Hyland (Ed.), Discourse studies reader (pp. 11–34). London: Bloomsbury.Google Scholar
  5. Beebe, L., & Waring, H. Z. (2005). Pragmatic development in responding to rudeness. In J. Frodesen & C. Holten (Eds.), The power of context in language teaching and learning (pp. 67–80). Boston, MA: Thomson/Heinle.Google Scholar
  6. Belcher, D. D. (2007). Seeking acceptance in an English-only research world. Journal of Second Language Writing, 16, 1–22.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. Biber, D., Conrad, S., & Reppen, R. (1998). Corpus linguistics: Investigating language structure and use. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. Birner, B. (2013). Introduction to pragmatics. Malden, MA: Wiley-Blackwell.Google Scholar
  9. Brown, G., & Levinson, S. (1987). Politeness. Some universals in language usage. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
  10. Burrough-Boenisch, J. (2003). Shapers of published NNS research articles. Journal of Second Language Writing, 12, 223–243.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. Celce-Murcia, M., & Olshtain, E. (2000). Discourse and context in language teaching. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
  12. Chapman, S. (2011). Pragmatics. Basingstoke, UK: Palgrave Macmillan.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. Culpeper, J. (2011). Impoliteness: Using language to cause offence. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. Cutting, J. (2008). Pragmatics and discourse (2nd ed.). Abingdon, UK: Routledge.Google Scholar
  15. Delogu, F. (2009). Presupposition. In J. Verschueren & J. O. Ostman (Eds.), Key notions in pragmatics (pp. 194–207). Amsterdam: John Benjamins.Google Scholar
  16. Derrida, J. (1984). Margins of philosophy (A. Bass, Trans.). Chicago: University of Chicago Press.Google Scholar
  17. Englander, K. (2009). Transformation of the identities of nonnative English-speaking scientists as a consequence of the social construction of revision. Journal of Language, Identity, and Education, 8, 35–53.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. Feak, C. B. (2009). Negotiating publication: Author responses to peer review of medical research articles in thoracic surgery. Revista Canaria de Estudios Ingleses, 59, 17–34.Google Scholar
  19. Flowerdew, J., & Dudley-Evans, T. (2002). Genre analysis of editorial letters to international journal contributors. Applied Linguistics, 23, 463–489.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. Gosden, H. (2001). ‘Thank you for your critical comments and helpful suggestions’: Compliance and conflict in authors’ replies to referees’ comments in peer reviews of scientific research papers. Iberica, Journal of the European Association of Languages for Specific Purposes, 3, 3–17.Google Scholar
  21. Gosden, H. (2003). ‘Why not give us the full story?’ Functions of referees’ comments in peer reviews of scientific research papers. Journal of English for Specific Purposes, 2, 87–101.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. Grice, H. P. (1975). Logic and conversation. In P. Cole & J. L. Morgan (Eds.), Syntax and semantics 3: Speech acts (pp. 41–58). New York: Academic Press. Reprinted in A. Jaworski & N. Coupland (Eds.). (2014), The discourse reader (3rd ed., pp. 62–72). Abingdon, UK: Routledge.Google Scholar
  23. Halliday, M. A. K. (1989). Context of situation. In M. A. K. Halliday & R. Hasan (Eds.), Language, context, and text: Aspects of language in a social-semiotic perspective (pp. 3–14). Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
  24. Halliday, M. A. K. (2009). Context of culture and of situation. In J. J. Webster (Ed.), The essential Halliday (pp. 55–84). London: Continuum.Google Scholar
  25. Harris, S. (2001). Being politically impolite: Extending politeness theory to adversarial political discourse. Discourse and Society, 12, 451–472.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. Hewings, M. (2004). An ‘important contribution’ or ‘tiresome reading’? A study of evaluation in peer reviews of journal article submissions. Journal of Applied Linguistics, 1, 247–274.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. Huang, Y. (2014). Pragmatics (2nd ed.). Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
  28. Hyland, K. (2005a). Metadiscourse: Exploring interaction in writing. London: Continuum.Google Scholar
  29. Hyon, S. (2011). Evaluation in tenure and promotion letters: Constructing faculty as communicators, stars and workers. Applied Linguistics, 32, 389–407.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  30. Jones, R. (2016). Spoken discourse. London: Bloomsbury.Google Scholar
  31. Kourilova, M. (1998). Communicative characteristics of reviews of scientific papers written by non-native users of English. Endocrine Regulations, 32, 107–114.Google Scholar
  32. Kwan, B. (2013). Facilitating novice researchers in project publishing during the doctoral years and beyond. Studies in Higher Education, 38, 207–225.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  33. Lakoff, R. T. (2009). Conversational logic. In J. Verschueren & J. O. Ostman (Eds.), Key notions in pragmatics (pp. 102–113). Amsterdam: John Benjamins.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  34. Leech, G. (2014a). Appendix: Pragmatics, indirectness and neg-politeness—The background. In G. Leech (Ed.), The pragmatics of politeness (pp. 303–320). Oxford: Oxford University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  35. Leech, G. (2014b). The pragmatics of politeness. Oxford: Oxford University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  36. Leki, I. (2003). Tangled webs: Complexities of professional writing. In C. P. Casanave & S. Vandrick (Eds.), Writing for scholarly publication: Behind the scenes in language education (pp. 103–112). Mahwah, NJ: Erlbaum.Google Scholar
  37. Levinson, S. C. (1983). Pragmatics. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
  38. Lillis, T. M., & Curry, M. J. (2010). Academic writing in a global context: The politics and practices of publishing in English. Abingdon, UK: Routledge.Google Scholar
  39. Lillis, T. M., & Curry, M. J. (2015). The politics of English, language and uptake. The case of international academic journal article reviews. AILA Review, 28, 127–150.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  40. Mills, S. (2011). Discursive approaches to politeness and impoliteness. In Linguistic Politeness Research Group (Ed.), Discursive approaches to politeness (pp. 19–56). Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter.Google Scholar
  41. O’Keefe, A., Clancy, B., & Adolphs, S. (2010). Introducing pragmatics in use. Abingdon, UK: Routledge.Google Scholar
  42. Paltridge, B. (1997). Genre, frames and writing in research settings. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  43. Paltridge, B. (2016). Data selection as an ethical issue: Dealing with outliers in telling a research story. In P. De Costa (Ed.), Ethics in applied linguistics research. Language researcher narratives (pp. 38–50). New York: Routledge.Google Scholar
  44. Paltridge, B. (2017). Publishing from a dissertation—A book or articles? In J. McKinley & H. Rose (Eds.), Doing research in applied linguistics: Realities, dilemmas and solutions (pp. 243–252). Abingdon, UK: Routledge.Google Scholar
  45. Paltridge, B., Starfield, S., & Tardy, C. M. (2016). Ethnographic perspectives on academic writing. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
  46. Paltridge, B., Thomas, A., & Liu, J. (2011). Genre, performance and sex and the city. In R. Piazza, F. Rossi, & M. Bednarek (Eds.), Telecinematic discourse: An introduction to the fictional language of cinema and television (pp. 249–262). Amsterdam: John Benjamins.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  47. Papi, M. B. (2009). Implicitness. In J. Verschueren & J. O. Ostman (Eds.), Key notions in pragmatics (pp. 139–162). Amsterdam: John Benjamins.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  48. Reppen, R., & Simpson, R. (2002). Corpus linguistics. In N. Schmitt (Ed.), An introduction to applied linguistics (pp. 92–111). London: Arnold.Google Scholar
  49. Robinson, D. (2006). Introducing performative pragmatics. New York: Routlege.Google Scholar
  50. Rottier, B., Ripmeester, N., & Bush, A. (2011). Separated by a common translation? How the British and the Dutch communicate. Pediatric Pulmonology, 46, 409–411.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  51. Sbisà, M. (2009). Speech act theory. In J. Verschueren & J.-O. Östman (Eds.), Key notions for pragmatics (pp. 229–244). Amsterdam: John Benjamins.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  52. Searle, J. R. (1969). Speech acts. London: Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  53. Starfield, S., Paltridge, B., McMurtrie, R., Holbrook, A., Bourke, S., Lovat, T., et al. (2015). Understanding the language of evaluation in examiners’ reports on doctoral theses: An APPRAISAL analysis. Linguistics and Education, 31, 130–144.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  54. Strauss, S., & Feiz, P. (2014). Discourse analysis. Putting our worlds into words. New York: Routledge.Google Scholar
  55. Swales, J. M., & Feak, C. B. (2011). Navigating academia: Writing support genres. Ann Arbor, MI: University of Michigan Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  56. Thomas, J. (1995). Meaning in interaction. An introduction to pragmatics. London: Longman.Google Scholar
  57. Thomson, P., & Kamler, B. (2013). Writing for peer reviewed journals. Strategies for getting published. Abingdon, UK: Routledge.Google Scholar
  58. Weisser, M. (2014). Speech act annotation. In K. Aijmer & C. Rühlemann (Eds.), Corpus pragmatics: A handbook (pp. 84–111). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© The Author(s) 2017

Authors and Affiliations

  • Brian Paltridge
    • 1
  1. 1.Sydney School of Education & Social WorkUniversity of SydneySydneyAustralia

Personalised recommendations