Advertisement

Evaluation and Reviewers’ Reports

  • Brian Paltridge
Chapter

Abstract

This chapter examines evaluative language used by the reviewers as they made comments on the papers they were asked to review. It first, however, provides an overview of previous studies that have examined evaluative language in reviewers’ reports. It then outlines the approaches to analysis that will be employed in the chapter, that is, a corpus-informed discourse analysis which focuses on the stance taken by reviewers in their reports. The chapter also examines through an analysis of transitivity patterns in the texts what reviewers value in the reports and the roles they assume as they do this.

Keywords

Corpus informed discourse analysis Evaluative language Stance Attitude markers Self-mentions Hedges Boosters Transitivity 

References

  1. Aull, L. (2015). First-year university writing: A corpus-based study with implications for pedagogy. Basingstoke, UK: Palgrave Macmillan.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. Aull, L., & Lancaster, Z. (2014). Linguistic markers of stance in early and advanced academic writing: A corpus-based comparison. Written Communication, 31, 151–183.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. Basturkman, H. (2009). Back cover blurbs: Puff pieces and windows on cultural values. In K. Hyland & G. Diani (Eds.), Academic evaluation: Review genres in university settings (pp. 68–83). Basingstoke, UK: Palgrave Macmillan.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. Biber, D. (2006). University language. A corpus-based study of spoken and written registers. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. Biber, D., & Conrad, S. (2009). Register, genre, and style. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. Biber, D., Connor, U., & Upton, T. A. (Eds.). (2007). Discourse on the move. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.Google Scholar
  7. Blommaert, J. (2005). Discourse: A critical introduction. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. Chang, P. (2016). EFL doctoral students’ conceptions of authorial stance in academic research writing: An exploratory study. RELC Journal, 47, 175–192.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. Chang, P., & Schleppegrell, M. (2011). Taking an effective authorial stance in academic writing: Making the linguistic resources explicit for L2 writers in the social sciences. Journal of English for Academic Purposes, 10, 140–151.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. Fairclough, N. (2013). Analysing discourse: Textual analysis for social research. Abingdon, UK: Routledge.Google Scholar
  11. Flowerdew, L. (2005). An integration of corpus-based and genre-based approaches to text analysis in EAP/ESP: Countering criticisms against corpus-based methodologies. English for Specific Purposes, 24, 321–332.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. Flowerdew, L. (2011). Corpus-based discourse analysis. In J. P. Gee & M. Handford (Eds.), The Routledge handbook of discourse analysis (pp. 174–187). Abingdon, UK: Routledge.Google Scholar
  13. Fortanet Gomez, I. (2008). Strategies for teaching and learning an occluded genre: The RA referee report. In S. Burgess & P. M. Martin (Eds.), English as an additional language in research publication and communication (pp. 19–38). Bern: Peter Lang.Google Scholar
  14. Fortanet-Gomez, I., & Ruiz-Garrido, M. F. (2010). Interacting with the research article author: Metadiscourse in referee reports. In R. Lorez-Sanz, P. Mur-Duenas, & E. Latuente-Millan (Eds.), Constructing interpersonality: Multiple perspectives on academic genres (pp. 243–254). Newcastle-Upon-Tyne: Cambridge Scholars.Google Scholar
  15. Groom, N. (2009). Phraseology and epistemology in academic book reviews. A corpus driven analysis of two humanities disciplines. In K. Hyland & G. Diani (Eds.), Academic evaluation: Review genres in university settings (pp. 122–141). Basingstoke, UK: Palgrave Macmillan.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. Gross, N., & Chesley, P. (2012). Hedging, stance and voice on medical research articles. In K. Hyland & C. Sancho Guinda (Eds.), Stance and voice in written academic genres (pp. 85–100). Basingstoke, UK: Palgrave Macmillan.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. Halliday, M. A. K. (1985). An introduction to functional grammar. London: Edward Arnold.Google Scholar
  18. Halliday, M. A. K. (1994). An introduction to functional grammar (2nd ed.). London: Edward Arnold.Google Scholar
  19. Halliday, M. A. K., & Matthiessen, C. M. I. M. (2004). An introduction to functional grammar (3rd ed.). London: Arnold.Google Scholar
  20. Handford, M. (2010). What can a corpus tell us about specialist genres? In M. McCarthy & A. O’Keeffe (Eds.), The Routledge handbook of corpus linguistics (pp. 255–269). Abingdon, UK: Routledge.Google Scholar
  21. Hart, C. (2014). Discourse, grammar and ideology. London: Bloomsbury.Google Scholar
  22. Harwood, N. (2005). “We do not seem to have a theory … the theory I present here attempts to full this gap”: Inclusive and exclusive pronouns in academic writing. Applied Linguistics, 26, 343–375.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. 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
  24. Hood, S. (2010). Appraising research: Evaluation in academic writing. Basingstoke, UK: Palgrave Macmillan.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. Hood, S. (2012). Voice and stance as Appraisal: Persuading the positioning in research writing across intellectual fields. In K. Hyland & C. Sancho Guinda (Eds.), Stance and voice in written academic genres (pp. 51–68). Basingstoke, UK: Palgrave Macmillan.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. Hunston, S., & Thomson, G. (2000a). Evaluation: An introduction. In S. Hunston & G. Thomson (Eds.), Evaluation in text (pp. 1–27). Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
  27. Hunston, S., & Thomson, G. (Eds.). (2000b). Evaluation in text. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
  28. Hyland, K. (2002a). Authority and invisibility: Authorial identity in academic writing. Journal of Pragmatics, 34, 1091–1112.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  29. Hyland, K. (2002b). Options of identity in academic writing. ELT Journal, 56(4), 351–358.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  30. Hyland, K. (2004a). Disciplinary discourses: Social interactions in academic writing (2nd ed.). Ann Arbor, MI: University of Michigan Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  31. Hyland, K. (2004b). Disciplinary interactions: Metadiscourse in L2 postgraduate writing. Journal of Second Language Writing, 13, 133–151.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  32. Hyland, K. (2005a). Metadiscourse: Exploring interaction in writing. London: Continuum.Google Scholar
  33. Hyland, K. (2005b). Stance and engagement: A model of interaction in academic discourse. Discourse Studies, 7, 173–192.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  34. Hyland, K. (2008a). As can be seen: Lexical bundles and disciplinary variation. English for Specific Purposes, 27, 4–21.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  35. Hyland, K. (2008b). Academic clusters: Text patterning in published and postgraduate writing. International Journal of Applied Linguistics, 18, 41–62.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  36. Hyland, K. (2009a). Academic discourse. London: Continuum.Google Scholar
  37. Hyland, K. (2009b). Corpus informed discourse analysis: The case of academic engagement. In M. Charles, D. Pecorari, & S. Hunston (Eds.), Academic writing: At the interface of corpus and discourse (pp. 110–128). London: Continuum.Google Scholar
  38. Hyland, K. (2010). Community and individuality: Performing identity in applied linguistics. Written Communication, 27, 159–188.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  39. Hyland, K. (2011a). Projecting an academic identity in some reflective genres. Iberica, Journal of the European Association of Languages for Specific Purposes, 21, 9–30.Google Scholar
  40. Hyland, K. (2011b). Writing in the university: Education, knowledge and reputation. Language Teaching, 46, 53–70.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  41. Hyland, K. (2012a). Disciplinary identities: Individuality and community in academic discourse. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
  42. Hyland, K. (2012b). Undergraduate understandings: Stance and voice in final year reports. In K. Hyland & C. Sancho Guinda (Eds.), Stance and voice in written academic genres (pp. 134–150). Basingstoke, UK: Palgrave Macmillan.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  43. Hyland, K. (2015). Academic publishing: Issues in the challenges in the construction of knowledge. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
  44. Hyland, K., & Diani, G. (Eds.). (2009). Academic evaluation: Review genres in university settings. Basingstoke, UK: Palgrave Macmillan.Google Scholar
  45. Hyland, K., & Tse, P. (2004). Metadiscourse in academic writing: A reappraisal. Applied Linguistics, 25, 156–177.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  46. Ivanić, R. (1998). Writing and identity: The discoursal construction of identity in academic writing. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  47. Johns, A. M. (1990). L1 composition theories: Implications for developing theories of L2 composition. In B. Kroll (Ed.), Second language writing: Research insights for the classroom (pp. 24–36). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  48. Kandil, M., & Belcher, D. (2011). ESP and corpus-informed critical discourse analysis: Understanding the power of genres of power. In D. Belcher, A. M. Johns, & B. Paltridge (Eds.), New directions in English for specific purposes research (pp. 252–270). Ann Arbor, MI: University of Michigan Press.Google Scholar
  49. Khamkhien, A. (2014). Linguistic features of evaluative stance: Findings from research article discussions. Indonesian Journal of Applied Linguistics, 4, 54–69.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  50. Koutsantoni, D. (2004). Attitude, certainty and allusions to common knowledge in scientific research articles. Journal of English for Academic Purposes, 3, 163–182.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  51. Koutsantoni, D. (2007). Developing academic literacies: Understanding disciplinary communities’ culture and rhetoric. Oxford: Peter Lang.Google Scholar
  52. Lancaster, Z. (2012). Stance and reader positioning in upper-level student writing in political theory and economics. Doctoral dissertation, University of Michigan, USA. Retrieved from https://deepblue.lib.umich.edu/handle/2027.42/93976
  53. Lancaster, Z. (2014). Exploring valued patterns of stance in upper-level student writing in the disciplines. Written Communication, 31, 27–57.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  54. Lee, D. Y. E. (2008). Corpora and discourse analysis: New ways of doing old things. In V. K. Bhatia, J. Flowerdew, & R. H. Jones (Eds.), Advances in discourse studies (pp. 86–128). Abingdon, UK: Routledge.Google Scholar
  55. Lee, J. J., & Deakin, L. (2016). Interactions in L1 and L2 undergraduate student writing: Interactional metadiscourse in successful and less-successful argumentative essays. Journal of Second Language Writing, 33, 211–234.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  56. 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
  57. Lillis, T. M. (2008). Ethnography as method, methodology, and “deep theorizing”. Closing the gap between text and context in academic writing research. Written Communication, 25, 353–388.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  58. Machin, D., & Mayr, A. (2012). How to do critical discourse analysis. London: Sage.Google Scholar
  59. Martin, J. R. (2000). Beyond exchange: Appraisal systems in English. In S. Hunston & G. Thomson (Eds.), Evaluation in text (pp. 142–175). Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
  60. Martin, J. R., & White, P. R. R. (2005). The language of evaluation: Appraisal in English. Basingstoke, UK: Palgrave Macmillan.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  61. Matsuda, P. K. (2015). Identity in written discourse. Annual Review of Applied Linguistics, 35, 140–159.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  62. McGrath, L., & Kuteeva, M. (2012). Stance and engagement in pure mathematics research: Linking discourse features to disciplinary practice. English for Specific Purposes, 31, 161–173.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  63. Nesi, H., & Gardner, S. (2012). Genres across disciplines. Student writing in higher education. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
  64. Paltridge, B. (2015). Language, identity and communities of practice. In D. Djenar, A. Mahboob, & K. Cruickshank (Eds.), Language and identity across modes of communication (pp. 15–25). Boston, MA: De Gruyter Mouton.Google Scholar
  65. Paltridge, B., & Starfield, S. (2016). Getting published in academic journals: Navigating the publication process. Ann Arbor, MI: University of Michigan Press.Google Scholar
  66. Paltridge, B., Starfield, S., & Tardy, C. M. (2016). Ethnographic perspectives on academic writing. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
  67. Pho, P. D. (2013). Authorial stance in research articles: Examples from applied linguistics and educational technology. Basingstoke, UK: Palgrave Macmillan.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  68. Samraj, B. (2016b). Research articles. In K. Hyland & P. Shaw (Eds.), The Routledge handbook of English for academic purposes (pp. 403–415). Abingdon, UK: Routledge.Google Scholar
  69. Starfield, S., Paltridge, B. & McMurtrie, R. (2014). Evaluation and instruction in PhD examiners’ reports: Roles and functions. Paper presentation, AILA congress, Brisbane.Google Scholar
  70. 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
  71. Tardy, C. M. (2012). Current conceptions of voice. In K. Hyland & C. Sancho Guinda (Eds.), Stance and voice in written academic genres (pp. 34–48). Basingstoke, UK: Palgrave Macmillan.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  72. Tribble, C. (2002). Corpora and corpus analysis: New windows on academic writing. In J. Flowerdew (Ed.), Academic discourse (pp. 131–149). London: Longman.Google Scholar
  73. Tse, P. (2012). Stance in academic bios. In K. Hyland & C. Sancho Guinda (Eds.), Stance and voice in written academic genres (pp. 69–84). Basingstoke, UK: Palgrave Macmillan.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  74. Tse, P., & Hyland, K. (2009). Discipline and gender: Constructing rhetorical identity in book reviews. In K. Hyland & G. Diani (Eds.), Academic evaluation: Review genres in university settings (pp. 87–104). Basingstoke, UK: Palgrave Macmillan.Google Scholar
  75. van Leeuwen, T. (2008). Discourse and practice: New tools for critical discourse analysis. Oxford: Oxford University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  76. Wodak, R. (2011). Critical discourse analysis. In K. Hyland & B. Paltridge (Eds.), Continuum companion to discourse analysis (pp. 38–53). London: Continuum.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