Advertisement

Historians at Work: Reporting Frameworks in English and Italian Book Review Articles

  • Marina Bondi

Abstract

Review genres are inherently reflexive and are defined by their need to present critical evaluations of other texts. Their key language features can thus be expected to lie in two interestingly related areas: evaluative language use on the one hand and reporting verbs (or frameworks) on the other.

Keywords

Academic Discourse Discourse Community Historical Character Small Corpus Disciplinary Culture 
These keywords were added by machine and not by the authors. This process is experimental and the keywords may be updated as the learning algorithm improves.

Preview

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

References

  1. Bondi, M. (1999) English across Genres: Language Variation in the Discourse of Economics (Modena: Il Fiorino).Google Scholar
  2. Bondi, M. (2001) ‘Small Corpora and Language Variation. Reflexivity across Genres’ in M. Ghadessy, A. Henry and R. L. Roseberry (eds) Small Corpus Studies and ELT (Amsterdam: John Benjamins), 135–74.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. Bondi, M. (2005) ‘Metadiscursive Practices in Academic Discourse: Variation across Genres and Disciplines’ in J. Bamford and M. Bondi (eds) Dialogue within Discourse Communities: Metadiscursive Perspectives on Academic Genres (Tübingen: Niemeyer), 3–29.Google Scholar
  4. Bondi, M. (2007) ‘Authority and Expert Voices in the Discourse of History’ in K. Flottum (ed.) Language and Discipline Perspectives on Academic Discourse (Newcastle: Cambridge Scholars Publishing), 66–88.Google Scholar
  5. Bondi, M. and Silver, M. (2004) ‘Textual Voices: A Cross-Disciplinary Study of Attribution in Academic Discourse’ in L. Anderson and J. Bamford (eds) Evaluation in Oral and Written Academic Discourse (Rome: Officina Edizioni), 117–36.Google Scholar
  6. Charles, M. (2006) ‘Phraseological Patterns in Reporting Clauses Used in Citation: A Corpus-Based Study of Theses in Two Disciplines’, English for Specific Purposes, XXV, 3, 310–31.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. Coffin, C. (2006) Historical Discourse (London: Continuum).Google Scholar
  8. Connor, U. (2004) ‘Intercultural Rhetoric Research: Beyond Texts’, Journal of English for Academic Purposes, III, 4 (Special Issue), 291–304.Google Scholar
  9. Dahl, T. (2003) ‘Metadiscourse in Research Articles’ in K. Flottum and F. Rastier (eds) Academic Discourse. Multidisciplinary Approaches (Oslo: Novus Press), 120–38.Google Scholar
  10. Diani, G. (2004) ‘A Genre-Based Approach to Analysing Academic Review Articles’ in M. Bondi, L. Gavioli and M. Silver (eds) Academic Discourse, Genre and Small Corpora (Rome: Officina Edizioni), 105–26.Google Scholar
  11. Diani, G. (2006) ‘Reviewer Stance in Academic Review Articles: A Cross-Disciplinary Comparison’ in G. Del Lungo Camiciotti, M. Dossena and B. Crawford Camiciottoli (eds) Variation in Business and Economics Discourse: Diachronic and Genre Perspectives (Rome: Officina Edizioni), 139–51.Google Scholar
  12. Diani, G. (2007) ‘The Representation of Evaluative and Argumentative Procedures: Examples from the Academic Book Review Article’, Textus, XX, 1, 37–56.Google Scholar
  13. Flottum, K., Dahl, T., Kinn, T., Müller Gjesdal, A. and Vold, E. T. (2007) ‘Cultural Identities and Academic Voices’ in K. Fløttum (ed.) Language and Discipline Perspectives on Academic Discourse (Newcastle: Cambridge Scholars Publishing), 14–39.Google Scholar
  14. Groom, N. (2005) ‘Pattern and Meaning across Genres and Disciplines’, Journal of English for Academic Purposes, IV, 3, 257–77.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. Hunston, S. (2004) ‘“It Has Rightly Been Pointed Out...” Attribution, Consensus and Conflict in Academic Discourse’ in M. Bondi, L. Gavioli and M. Silver (eds) Academic Discourse, Genre and Small Corpora (Rome: Officina Edizioni), 15–33.Google Scholar
  16. Hunston, S. and Sinclair, J. McH. (2000) ‘A Local Grammar of Evaluation’, in S. Hunston and G. Thompson (eds) Evaluation in Text. Authorial Stance and the Construction of Discourse (Oxford: Oxford University Press), 74–101.Google Scholar
  17. Hyland, K. (1998) ‘Persuasion and Context: The Pragmatics of Academic Metadiscourse’, Journal of Pragmatics, XXX, 4, 437–55.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. Hyland, K. (1999) ‘Academic Attribution: Citation and the Construction of Disciplinary Knowledge’, Applied Linguistics, XX, 3, 341–67.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. Hyland, K. (2000) Disciplinary Discourses: Social Interactions in Academic Writing (London: Longman).Google Scholar
  20. Hyland, K. (2002) ‘Directives: Argument and Engagement in Academic Writing’, Applied Linguistics, XXIII, 2, 215–39.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. Hyland, K. (2005) Metadiscourse. ExploringInteraction in Writing(London: Continuum).Google Scholar
  22. Hyland, K. (2008) ‘Academic Clusters: Text Patterning in Published and Postgraduate Writing’, International Journal of Applied Linguistics, XVIII, 1, 41–62.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. Hyland, K. and Tse, P. (2005) ‘Hooking the Reader: A Corpus Study of Evaluative that in Abstracts’, English for Specific Purposes, XXIV, 2, 123–39.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. Hyland, K. and Bondi, M. (eds) (2006) Academic Discourse across Disciplines (Bern: Peter Lang).Google Scholar
  25. Mauranen, A. (1993) Cultural Differences in Academic Rhetoric. A Textlinguistic Study (Frankfurt: Peter Lang).Google Scholar
  26. Mauranen, A. (2001) ‘Descriptions or Explanations? Some Methodological Issues in Contrastive Rhetoric’ in M. Hewings (ed.) Academic Writing in Context (Birmingham: University of Birmingham Press), 43–54.Google Scholar
  27. Mauranen, A. (2003) ‘“But There’s a Flawed Argument”: Socialisation into and through Metadiscourse’, Language and Computers, XLVI, 1, 19–34.Google Scholar
  28. Merlini Barbaresi, L. (ed.) (2003) Complexity in Language and Text (Pisa: Edizioni Plus).Google Scholar
  29. Moreno, A. I. and Suárez, L. (2008) ‘A Study of Critical Attitude across English and Spanish Academic Book Reviews’, Journal of English for Academic Purposes, VII, 1, 15–26.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  30. Motta-Roth, D. (1998) ‘Discourse Analysis and Academic Book Reviews: A Study of Text and Disciplinary Cultures’ in I. Fortanet, S. Posteguillo, J. C. Palmer and J. F. Coll (eds) Genre Studies in English for Academic Purposes (Castello de la Plana: Publicacions de la Univesitat Jaume I), 29–58.Google Scholar
  31. Römer, U. (2008) ‘Identification Impossible? A Corpus Approach to Realisations of Evaluative Meaning in Academic Writing’, Functions of Language,XV,1, 115–30.Google Scholar
  32. Salager-Meyer, F., Alcaraz Ariza, M. A. and Pabon Berbesi, M. (2007) ‘Collegiality, Critique and the Construction of Scientific Argumentation in Medical Book Reviews: A Diachronic Approach’, Journal of Pragmatics, XXXIX, 10, 1758–74.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  33. Scott, M. (2004) WordSmith Tools (Oxford: Oxford University Press).Google Scholar
  34. Shaw, P. (2004) ‘How Do We Recognise Implicit Evaluation in Academic Book Reviews?’ in G. Del Lungo Camiciotti and E. Tognini Bonelli (eds) Academic Discourse — New Insights into Evaluation (Bern: Peter Lang), 121–40.Google Scholar
  35. Sinclair, J. McH. (1987) ‘Mirror for a Text’, Manuscript. (Published 1988 Journal of English and Foreign Languages, Hyderabad, India), 15–44.Google Scholar
  36. Stati, S. (1994) ‘Passive Moves in Argumentation’ in S. Cmejrkovâ and F. Sticha (eds) The Syntax of Sentences and Text (Amsterdam: John Benjamins), 259–71.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  37. Thompson, G. (1996) ‘Voices in the Text: Discourse Perspectives on Language Reports’, Applied Linguistics, XVII, 4, 501–30.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  38. Thompson, P. (2005) ‘Aspects of Identification and Position in Intertextual Reference in PhD Theses’ in E. Tognini-Bonelli and G. Del Lungo Camiciotti (eds) Strategies in Academic Discourse (Amsterdam: John Benjamins), 31–50.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  39. Thompson, G. and Hunston, S. (2000) ‘Evaluation: An Introduction’ in S. Hunston and G. Thompson (eds) Evaluation in Text: Authorial Stance and the Construction of Discourse (Oxford: Oxford University Press), 3–27.Google Scholar
  40. Tse, P. and Hyland, K. (2008) ‘Robot Kung Fu: Gender and Professional Identity in Biology and Philosophy Review’, Journal of Pragmatics, XL, 7, 1232–48.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Marina Bondi 2009

Authors and Affiliations

  • Marina Bondi

There are no affiliations available

Personalised recommendations