A genre-pragmatic analysis of Arabic academic book reviews (ArBRs)
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.
Article outline
- 1.Introduction
- 2.Literature review
- 3.Analytical framework and methods
- 4.The corpus
- 5.Data analysis
- 5.1Introducing the book
- 5.2Describing the book
- 5.3Evaluating
- 5.3.1What is being evaluated in ArBRs and in which terms?
- 5.3.2Mitigating criticism in ArBRs
- 5.4Closing
- 6.Discussion
- 7.Concluding remarks
- Acknowledgements
- Transliteration
-
References
References (39)
Al-Ali, M.
2005 “
Communicating Messages of Solidarity, Promotion, and Pride in Death Announcements Genre in Jordanian Newspapers.”
Discourse and Society 161: 5–31.
Al-Ali, M., and Y. Sahawneh
2011 “
Rhetorical and Textual Organization of English and Arabic Ph.D. Dissertation Abstracts in Linguistics.”
SKY Journal of Linguistics 241: 7–39.
Alcaraz-Ariza, M.
2010 “
Evaluation in English Medium Medical Book Reviews.”
International Journal of English Studies 2 (1): 137–153.
Belcher, D.
1995 “
Writing Critically across Curriculum.” In
Academic Writing in a Second Language: Essays on Research and Pedagogy, ed. by
D. Belcher, and
D. Braine, 135–155. Norwood, NY: Ablex.
Bhatia, V.
1993 Analyzing Genre: Language Use in Professional Settings. London: Longman.
Bhatia, V.
2004 Worlds of Written Discourse. London: Continuum.
Brown, P., and S. Levinson
1987 Politeness: Some Universals in Language Use. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Brown, G., and G. Yule
1983 Discourse Analysis. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Felber, L.
2002 “
The Book Review: Scholarly and Editorial Responsibility.”
Journal of Scholarly Publication 33 (3): 166–172.
Gea Valor, M.
2000 A Pragmatic Approach to Politeness and Modality in the Book Review Articles. SELL Monograph. Valencia: Universitat Valencia.
Gea Valor, M.
2000–2001 “
The Coding of Linguistic Politeness in the Academic Book Reviews.”
Pragmalinguistica 8–91: 165–178.
Halliday, M.
1994 An introduction to Functional Grammar (2nd ed.). London & New York: Routledge.
Hartley, J.
2006 “
Reading a Writing Book Reviews across Disciplines.”
Journal of the American Society for Information Science and Technology 57 (9): 1194–1207.
Hunston, S.
1993 “
Evaluation and Ideology in Scientific Writing.” In
Register Analysis: Theory and Practice, ed. by
M. Ghadessy, 57–73. London: Pinter.
Hunston, S.
1994 “
Evaluation and Organization in a Sample of Written Academic Discourse.” In
Advances in Written Text Analysis, ed. by
M. Coulthard, 191–218. London: Routledge.
Hyland, K.
2000 Disciplinary Discourses. Social Interactions in Academic Writing. Harlow: Pearson Education.
Itakura, H., and A. Tsui
2011 “
Evaluation in Academic Discourse: Managing Criticism in Japanese and English Book Reviews.”
Journal of Pragmatics 431: 1366–1379.
Johnson, D.
1992 “
Compliments and Politeness in Peer-review Texts.”
Applied Linguistics 13 (1): 51–71.
Johnson, D., and D. Roen
1992 “
Complimenting and Involvement in Peer Reviews: Gender Variation.”
Language and Society 211: 27–57.
Lores-Sanz, R.
2012 “
Local Disciplines, Local Cultures: Praise and Criticism in British and Spanish History Reviews.”
Brno Studies in English 38 (2): 97–116.
Lindholm-Romantschuk, Y.
1998 Scholarly Book Reviewing in the Social Sciences and Humanities: The Flow of Ideas within and amongst Disciplines. Westport, CT: Greenwood Press.
Martin, J., and P. White
2005 The Language of Evaluation. Appraisal in English. Houndmills, UK: Palgrave Macmillan.
Morrow, J.
2006 “
The Origin of the Allah Lexicon.” In
Arabic, Islam, and the Allah Lexicon, ed. by
J. Morrow, 115–187. New York: Edwin Mellen Press.
Moreno, A., and L. Suarez
2008a “
A Study of Critical Attitude across English and Spanish Academic Book Reviews.”
Journal of English for Academic Purposes 71: 15–26.
Moreno, A., and L. Suarez
2008b “
A Framework for Comparing Evaluation Resources across Academic Texts.”
Text and Talk 28 (6): 749–769.
Moreno, A., and L. Suarez
2009 “
Academic Book Reviews in English and Spanish: Critical Comments and Rhetorical Structure.” In
Academic Evaluation: Review Genres in University Settings, ed. by
K. Hyland, and
D. Giuliana, 161–178. Basingstoke: Palgrave Macmillan.
Motta-Roth, D.
1998 “
Discourse Analysis and Academic Book Reviews: A Study of Text and Disciplinary Cultures.” In
Genre 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.
Nicolaisen, J.
2002 “
Structure-based Interpretation of Scholarly Book Reviews: A New Research Technique.” In
Emerging 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.
Salager-Meyer, F., and M. Alcaraz-Ariza
2004 “
Negative Appraisals in Academic Book Reviews; A Cross-Linguistic Approach.” In
International Aspects of Specialized Communication, ed. by
C. Candlin, and
M. Gotti, 149–172. Bern: Peter Lang.
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 Purposes 22 (3): 223–247.
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 Pragmatics 391: 1758–1774.
Stotesbury, H.
2003 “
Evaluation in Research Article Abstracts in the Narrative and Hard Sciences.”
Journal of English for Academic Purposes 21: 327–342.
Suárez, T., and A. Moreno
Swales, J.
1990 Genre Analysis: English in Academic and Research Settings. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge.
Thetela, P.
1997 “
Evaluated Entities and Parameters of Value in Academic Research Articles.”
English for Specific Purposes 16 (2): 101–118.
Thompson, G., and S. Hunston
2000 “
Evaluation: An Introduction.” In
Evaluation in Text, ed. by
S. Hunston, and
G. Thompson, 1–27. Oxford: Oxford University press.
Vandenbroucke, J., and A. de Craen
2001 “
Alternative Medicine: A “Mirror Image” for Scientific Reasoning in Conventional Medicine.”
Annals of Internal Medicine 1351: 507–513.
Cited by (2)
Cited by 2 other publications
Tan, Hua
2023.
What makes a good book review on translation studies? An interview with Reviews Editor Anna Strowe.
Asia Pacific Translation and Intercultural Studies 10:2
► pp. 179 ff.
This list is based on CrossRef data as of 15 july 2024. Please note that it may not be complete. Sources presented here have been supplied by the respective publishers.
Any errors therein should be reported to them.