Academic Evaluation: Review Genres in University Settings

247 Pages·2009·1.702 MB·English

by  Ken Hyland, Giuliana Diani (eds.)

Academic Evaluation
This page intentionally left blank
Academic Evaluation
Review Genres in University Settings
Editedby
Ken Hyland
InstituteofEducation,UniversityofLondon,UK
and
Giuliana Diani
UniversityofModenaandReggioEmilia,Italy
©Selectionandeditorialmatter©KenHylandandGiulianaDiani2009
Chapters©theirindividualauthors2009
Softcover reprint of the hardcover 1st edition 2009 978-0-230-22433-9
Allrightsreserved.Noreproduction,copyortransmissionofthis
publicationmaybemadewithoutwrittenpermission.
Noportionofthispublicationmaybereproduced,copiedortransmitted
savewithwrittenpermissionorinaccordancewiththeprovisionsofthe
Copyright,DesignsandPatentsAct1988,orunderthetermsofanylicence
permittinglimitedcopyingissuedbytheCopyrightLicensingAgency,
SaffronHouse,6-10KirbyStreet,LondonEC1N8TS.
Anypersonwhodoesanyunauthorizedactinrelationtothispublication
maybeliabletocriminalprosecutionandcivilclaimsfordamages.
Theauthorshaveassertedtheirrightstobeidentified
astheauthorsofthisworkinaccordancewiththeCopyright,
DesignsandPatentsAct1988.
Firstpublished2009by
PALGRAVEMACMILLAN
PalgraveMacmillanintheUKisanimprintofMacmillanPublishersLimited,
registeredinEngland,companynumber785998,ofHoundmills,Basingstoke,
HampshireRG216XS.
PalgraveMacmillanintheUSisadivisionofStMartin’sPressLLC,
175FifthAvenue,NewYork,NY10010.
PalgraveMacmillanistheglobalacademicimprintoftheabovecompanies
andhascompaniesandrepresentativesthroughouttheworld.
Palgrave®andMacmillan®areregisteredtrademarksintheUnitedStates,
theUnitedKingdom,Europeandothercountries.
ISBN 978-1-349-30930-6 ISBN 978-0-230-24429-0 (eBook)
DOI 10.1057/9780230244290
Thisbookisprintedonpapersuitableforrecyclingandmadefromfully
managedandsustainedforestsources.Logging,pulpingandmanufacturing
processesareexpectedtoconformtotheenvironmentalregulationsofthe
countryoforigin.
AcataloguerecordforthisbookisavailablefromtheBritishLibrary.
AcatalogrecordforthisbookisavailablefromtheLibraryofCongress.
10 9 8 7 6 5 4 3 2 1
18 17 16 15 14 13 12 11 10 09
Contents
Acknowledgements vii
Introduction:AcademicEvaluationandReviewGenres 1
KenHylandandGiulianaDiani
Part I AnOverviewofReviewGenres
1 NegotiatingResearchValuesacrossReviewGenres:ACase
StudyinAppliedLinguistics 17
DavideSimoneGiannoni
2 ReviewingScienceinanInformation-OverloadedWorld 34
JudyNoguchi
3 LiteratureReviewsinAppliedPhDTheses:Evidenceand
Problems 50
PaulThompson
4 BackCoverBlurbs:PuffPiecesandWindowsonCultural
Values 68
HelenBasturkmen
Part II DisciplinaryVariation
5 ReportingandEvaluationinEnglishBookReviewArticles:
ACross-DisciplinaryStudy 87
GiulianaDiani
6 DisciplineandGender:ConstructingRhetoricalIdentity
inBookReviews 105
PollyTseandKenHyland
7 PhraseologyandEpistemologyinAcademicBookReviews:
ACorpus-DrivenAnalysisofTwoHumanitiesDisciplines 122
NicholasGroom
v
vi Contents
Part III Cross-LinguisticVariation
8 (Non-)CriticalVoicesintheReviewingofHistory
Discourse:ACross-CulturalStudyofEvaluation 143
RosaLorésSanz
9 AcademicBookReviewsinEnglishandSpanish:Critical
CommentsandRhetoricalStructure 161
AnaI.MorenoandLorenaSuárez
10 HistoriansatWork:ReportingFrameworksinEnglishand
ItalianBookReviewArticles 179
MarinaBondi
Part IV DiachronicVariation
11 OntheDynamicNatureofGenre:ADiachronicStudyof
Blurbs 199
Maria-LluïsaGea-ValorandMartaInigoRos
12 TheLexisandGrammarofExplicitEvaluationin
AcademicBookReviews,1913and1993 217
PhilipShaw
NotesonContributors 236
NameIndex 239
SubjectIndex 243
Acknowledgements
KenHyland
This book is the outcome of a collaborative project by a group of
authors whose interest in academic review genres has greatly stimu-
latedandexpandedmyowncuriosityaboutevaluationinwrittentexts.
Mythanksgotothem.IalsowanttothankPollyTse,JohnSwalesand
Vijay Bhatia, colleagues and friends whose knowledge and enthusiasm
forunderstandingdiscourseisaconstantinspiration.Finally,asalways,
mythanksgotoFionaHyland,forherstimulatingthoughtsonwriting
andforherconstantsupportandencouragement.
GiulianaDiani
IamparticularlyindebtedtoProfessorMarinaBondiforawakeningmy
interest in the topic of evaluative language use in academic discourse
andwhoseencouragementconvincedmetowritethebook.Iwouldlike
tooffermywarmthankstoProfessorKenHylandforacceptingtheidea
togetinvolvedintheproject.Therewouldhavebeennobookwithout
hissupport.
vii
Introduction: Academic
Evaluation and Review Genres
KenHyland and Giuliana Diani
The expression of personal opinions and assessments is a ubiquitous
feature of human interaction and, despite its apparently impersonal
facade, central to academic writing. It could be argued, in fact, that
among all the activities of the academy, what academics mainly do is
evaluate. Their research and publishing is a continual round of com-
paring methods, assessing sources, weighing up outcomes, contrasting
claims and considering data. They are constantly making judgements
about whether samples are representative, findings are accurate and
interpretations valid. The texts they produce while conducting these
activities reflect this concern with evaluation and its expression per-
vadesresearcharticles,lectures,conferencepresentations,textbooksand
studentassignments.
Perhaps most explicitly, however, evaluation is central to a constel-
lation of related activities, which we label review genres. These are texts
and part texts that are written with the explicit purpose of evaluating
the research, the texts and the contributions of fellow academics and
include book reviews, book review articles, review articles, book blurbs
and literature reviews. Academic review genres collectively represent
‘thepublicevaluationsofresearch’(Lindholm-Romantschuk,1998)and
playasignificantroleinscholarship,supportingboththemanufacture
of knowledge and the social cohesiveness of disciplinary communities
(Hyland,2000).Togethertheycompriseacrucial,andhighlyvisible,role
inacademicdisciplinesastheyassessthevalueofresearchandprovidea
platformformembersinacommunitytoengagewitheachother’sideas
andanalysesinconventionalfora.
Review genres are, in fact, crucial sites of engagement where writers
arguetheirviewpoints,signaltheirallegiancesanddisplaytheircredibil-
ity.Thesegenresareoftenmoreinteractivelycomplexthantheirmore
1
2 Introduction
celebrated research genre cousins as they do not simply respond to a
generalbodyofmore-or-lessimpersonalliterature,butcriticallyengage
withparticulartexts,andthereforetheirauthors.Itis,then,somewhat
surprising that their contribution has not received more attention in
the applied linguistics literature. It is even more surprising when we
consider that evaluation is a term that has begun to capture the imag-
ination of theorists and analysts from a range of different perspectives
acrossthehumanitiesandsocialsciences.Inthisintroductionwecon-
sider the nature of review genres and offer an overview of the role of
evaluationinacademictexts.
Whatarereviewgenres?
Reviewingtheworkofothershasbeenpartofthatacademiclandscape
for almost 2000 years (Orteza y Miranda, 1996), but its evolution into
modern review genres really began in the mid seventeenth century,
when the output of books, and thus new knowledge, increased enor-
mously. Initially, dedicated book reviews summarized and chronicled
uncritically the explosion of learning in the sciences for the reading
public and journals such as the Analytical Review and the Monthly Epit-
omeemergedwhichweredevotedentirelytothispurpose(Roper,1978).
A more selective and critical approach to reporting published scholar-
ship only came into being with the introduction of The Edinburgh in
1802. The style of reviews also underwent a rhetorical shift with the
publication of this journal. The common practice of transcribing long
passages from the reviewed text without comment was now replaced
withthereviewer’sownopinion,oftenconveyedatlengthandwithlit-
tleconnectiontotheoriginal(Roper,1978,p.45).Today,bookreviews,
book review articles and state-of-the-art articles all play an important
roleinthelifeofdisciplinarycommunities.
Many international journals devote a section to book reviews and
they play an important role in supporting both the manufacture of
knowledge and the social cohesiveness of disciplinary communities.
Evaluation of recent publications not only provides the research com-
munitywithvaluableinformationabouttitlesthatmightotherwisepass
unnoticed, but also provides an alternative forum in which academics
can set out their views without engaging in the long cycle of inquiry,
review and revision involved in a full-length paper. Very much a pub-
licdiscourse,reviewscontributetothedisseminationandevaluationof
researchandofferameansbywhichjunioracademicscangaininstitu-
tionalcreditandapublicationprofileandestablishedwritersarhetorical