The Rhetorical Analysis of Criticism in Persian and English Linguistics Papers

Shabnam Dezfoolian

Abstract


Successful academic writing depends on being familiar with different rhetorical strategies .One of these strategies used by authors of scientific articles is the act of criticism, the criticism of the previous works or other members of their respective communities. Actually this helps writers to justify their own study and to create a gap. Therefore the socio-pragmatic variable of Academic Conflict (AC) has been investigated in different academic genres and disciplines. This study aims to examine this variable in linguistics papers in Persian and English. To this end a corpus of 60 papers, 30 in Persian and 30 in English, have been chosen randomly. First in the quantitative phase of the study, the direct and indirect AC variables that have been used for critical speech acts were compared by within and between languages and then in a qualitative examine, the discourse analysis of important features were examined to show the probable relations to the cultural contexts . The results showed that English writers used more criticism acts than Persian writers and both groups used direct AC more than indirect one. Although both groups of papers are written in different cultural contexts, the strategies used by authors seem familiar and have minute differences and this may show that the effect of discipline and the language of instruction are more than cultural contexts in rhetoric of criticism.

 


Keywords


academic criticism, academic conflict, Evaluation, Attitudinal lexis, professional disagreement

Full Text:

PDF

References


Afros, E., & Schryer, C. F. (2009). Promotional (meta) discourse in research articles in language and literary studies. English for Specific Purposes, 28(1), 58-68.

Candlin , C., & Gotti, M. (Eds.). (2007). Intercultural aspects of specialized communication (Vol. 14). Peter Lang.

Ceccarelli, L. (2001). Rhetorical criticism and the rhetoric of science. Western Journal of Communication (includes Communication Reports), 65(3), 314-329.

Cheney, G., & McMillan, J. J. (1990). Organizational rhetoric and the practice of criticism. Journal of Applied Communication Research, 18(2), 93-114.

Clyne, M. (1987) . Cultural differences in the organization of academic texts: English and German. Journal of Pragmatics, 11(2), 211-241.

Connor, U. (1996). Contrastive rhetoric: Cross-cultural aspects of second language writing. Cambridge University Press.

Giannoni, D. S. (2005). Negative evaluation in academic discourse. A comparison of English and Italian research articles. Linguistica e Filologia, 20, 71-99.

Hyland, K. (1996). Writing without conviction? Hedging in science research articles. Applied linguistics, 17(4), 433-454

Hyland, K. (2000). Disciplinary discourses. Social interactions in academic writing. London: Longman

Hyland, K. (2002). Options of identity in academic writing. ELT journal, 56(4), 351-358.

Hyland, K. (2002). Authority and invisibility: Authorial identity in academic writing. Journal of pragmatics, 34(8), 1091-1112.

Hyland, K. (2004). Disciplinary discourses: Social interactions in academic writing. University of Michigan Press.

Hyland, K , & Salager‐Meyer, F. (2008). Scientific writing. Annual review of information science and technology, 42(1), 297-338.

Hunston, S.(1989). Evaluation in experimental research articles (Doctoral dissertation, University of Birmingham).

Hunston, S., & Thompson, G. (Eds.) . (2000). Evaluation in Text: Authorial Stance and the Construction of Discourse: Authorial Stance and the Construction of Discourse. Oxford University Press.

Harman, K. M. (1989). Culture and conflict in academic organisation: Symbolic aspects of university worlds. Journal of Educational Administration, 27(3).

Kourilova, M. (1998). Communicative characteristics of reviews of scientific papers written by non-native users of English. Endocrine Regulations, 32, 107-114.

Kreutz, H.,& Harres, A. (1997). Some observations on the distribution and function of hedging in German and English academic writing. Trends in linguistics studies and monographS, 104, 181-202.

Martín-Martín, P. (2005). The rhetoric of the abstract in English and Spanish scientific discourse: A cross-cultural genre-analytic approach (Vol. 279). Peter Lang.

Mauranen, A. (2002). ‘‘A good question’’. Expressing evaluation in academic speech. In G. Cortese, & P. Riley (Eds.), Domain-specific English: textual practices across communities and classrooms (pp. 115–140). Bern: Peter Lang.

McKerrow, R. E. (1989). Critical rhetoric: Theory and praxis. Communications Monographs, 56(2), 91-111.

Salager-Meyer,F. (1999). Contentiousness in written medical English discourse: A diachronic study (1810-1995). Text-the Hague then Amsterdam then berlin, 19(3), 371-398.

Salager-Meyer , F. (2000). Rhetorical evolution of oppositional discourse in French academic writing: Oppositional discourse in academic writing. Hermes, Journal of Linguistics, 25, 23-48.

Salager-Meyer, F. (2001). From self-highlightedness to self-effacement: a genre-based study of the socio-pragmatic function of criticism in medical discourse. LSP and professional communication (2001-2008), 1(2).

Salager-Meyer, F. (2002 ). Market-place, self confidence and criticism in medical editorials. Revista Canaria de Estudios Ingleses, 44, 65-78.

Salager-Meyer, F., & Zambrano, N. (2001). The bitter sweet rhetoric of controversiality in nineteenth-and twentieth-century French and English medical literature. Journal of Historical Pragmatics, 2(1), 141-174.

Salager-Meyer, F., Alcaraz Ariza, M. A., & Zambrano, N. (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., & Ariza, M. Á. A. (2003). Academic criticism in Spanish medical discourse: a cross‐generic approach. International Journal of Applied Linguistics, 13(1), 96-114.

Salager-Meyer, F., Alcaraz Ariza, M. Á., & Pabón Berbesí, M. (2007). Collegiality, critique and the construction of scientific argumentation in medical book reviews: a diachronic approach. Journal of Pragmatics, 39(10), 1758-1774.

Sellani, R. J., & Harrington, W. (2002). Addressing administrator/faculty conflict in an academic online environment. The Internet and Higher Education, 5(2), 131-145.

Stotesbury, H. (2003). Evaluation in research article abstracts in the narrative and hard sciences. Journal of English for Academic Purposes, 2(4), 327-341.

Thetela, P. (1997). Evaluated entities and parameters of value in academic research articles. English for Specific Purposes, 16(2), 101-118.

Vassileva, I. (1997). Hedging in English and Bulgarian academic writing. Trends in linguistics studies and monographs, 104, 203-222.




DOI: http://dx.doi.org/10.7575/aiac.ijalel.v.6n.6p.45

Refbacks

  • There are currently no refbacks.




Creative Commons License
This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License.

2012-2019 (CC-BY) Australian International Academic Centre PTY.LTD

International Journal of Applied Linguistics and English Literature

To make sure that you can receive messages from us, please add the journal emails into your e-mail 'safe list'. If you do not receive e-mail in your 'inbox', check your 'bulk mail' or 'junk mail' folders.