Reviews of single-authored versus multiple-authored academic books. Is two less than one?

Monika Zasowska

Abstrakt
Although academic book reviews have been extensively discussed in a number of languages and in terms of a variety of factors, there is at least one point that has not yet been taken into consideration, namely the authorship factor (i.e. the number of the academic book authors) and its possible influence on evaluative language of the review. This assumption has given rise to the present study, which centres on a corpus-based analysis of one hundred linguistic book reviews with a half written by a single author and the other fifty being a collection of more than two authors. The investigation rests on Giannoni’s (2010) typology of academic values, from which three values, i.e. goodness, novelty and relevance and their lexical evaluative markers have been subjected to manual and automatic analyses with the aim to comparing and contrasting variation in value distribution in two corpora. Furthermore, the overall research findings have been presented in the form of the chi-square test in order to determine whether there exists any statistical significance between the selected categorical variables, and comment on accordingly.
Słowa kluczowe: academic book reviews, evaluation, academic values, value markers
References

Bednarek M. 2006. Evaluation in media discourse. New York, London.

Bondi M. 2005. Metadiscursive practices in academic discourse: Variation across genres and disciplines. Bamford J., Bondi M. (eds.). Dialogue within discourse communities. Metadiscursive perspectives on academic genres. Tubingen: 329.

Butler Ch. 1985. Statistics in linguistics. Oxford.

Conrad S., Biber D. 2000. Adverbial marking of stance in speech and writing. Hunston S., Thompson G. (eds.). Evaluation in text: Authorial stance and the construction of discourse. Oxford: 5673.

De Carvalho G. 2001. Rhetorical patterns of academic book reviews written in Portuguese and in English. Iglesias L. Rabade, Doval Suarez S.M. (eds.). Studies in contrastive linguistics. 2nd International Contrastive Linguistics Conference. Santiago de Compostela: 261268.

Diani G. 2009. Reporting and evaluation in English book review articles: A cross-disciplinary study. Hyland K., Diani G. Academic evaluation. Review genres in university settings. Basingstoke: 87104.

Giannoni D. 2006. Expressing praise and criticism in economic discourse: A comparative analysis of English and Italian book reviews. Del Lungo Camiciotti G., Dossena M. (eds.). Variation in business and economic discourse. Diachronic and genre perspectives. Rome: 126138.

Giannoni D. 2010. Mapping academic values in the disciplines. A corpus-based approach. Bern.

Hunston S. 1994. Evaluation and organization in a sample of written academic discourse. Coulthard M. (ed.). Advances in written text analysis. London: 191218.

Hunston S. 2010. Appraising research. Evaluation in academic writing. Basingstoke.

Hunston S., Thompson G. 2000. Evaluation in text: Authorial stance and the construction of discourse. Oxford.

Hyland K., Tse P. 2004. Metadiscourse in academic writing: A reappraisal. Applied Linguistics 25.2: 156177.

Krzeszowski T.P. 1997. Angels and devils in hell. Elements of axiology in semantics. Warszawa.

Lorés-Sanz R. 2012. Local disciplines, local cultures: Praise and criticism in British and Spanish history book reviews. – Brno Studies in English 38.2: 97116.

Martin J.R., White P.R.R. 2005. The language of evaluation. Appraisal in English. Basingstoke.

Motta-Roth D. 1998. Discourse analysis and academic book reviews: A study of text and disciplinary cultures. Fortanet I., Posteguillo S., Palmer J.C., Coll J.F. (eds.). Genre studies in English for academic purposes. Castelló de la Plana: 2958.

Puzynina J. 1992. Język wartości. Warszawa.

Römer U. 2005. This seems somewhat counterintuitive, though Negative evaluation in linguistic book reviews by male and female. Tongini-Bonelli T., Del Lungo Camiciotti G. (eds.). Strategies in academic discourse. Amesterdam: 97115.

Salager-Meyer F., Alcaraz Ariza M.A., Pabón Berbesí M. 2007. Collegiality, critique and the construction of scientific argumentation in medical book reviews: A diachronic approach. – Journal of Pragmatics 39.10: 17581774.

Scott M. 2012. WordSmith tools version 6. Stroud.

Suárez L., Moreno A.I. 2006. The rhetorical structure of academic journal book reviews: A cross-linguistic and cross-disciplinary approach. [Online document retrieved from https://www.unizar.es/aelfe2006/ALEFE06/1.discourse/28.pdf ].

Suárez-Tejerina L. 2005. Is evaluation structure-bound? An English-Spanish contrastive study of book reviews. Tongini-Boneli E., Del Lungo Camiciotti G. (eds.). Strategies in academic discourse. Philadelphia.

Swales J.M. 1990. Genre analysis. Cambridge.

Swales J.M., Burke A. 2003. Its really fascinating work: Differences in evaluative adjectives across academic registers. Leistyna P., Meyer Ch. (eds.). Corpus analysis. Language structure and language use. Amsterdam: 118.

Thetela P. 1997. Evaluated entities and parameters of values in academic research articles. English for Specific Purposes 16.2: 101118.

Thompson G., Hunston S. 2000. Evaluation: An introduction. Hunston S., Thompson G. 2000. Evaluation in text: Authorial stance and the construction of discourse. Oxford: 127.

Tse P., Hyland K. 2009. Discipline and gender: Constructing rhetorical identity in book reviews. Hyland K., Diani G. (eds.). Academic evaluation: Review genres in university settings. London: 105121.

Valor G.M.L. 2000. A pragmatic approach to politeness and modality in the book reviews articles. València.

Czasopismo ukazuje się w sposób ciągły on-line.
Pierwotną i jedyną formą czasopisma jest wersja elektroniczna.