Cover not available

Article published In: Pragmatics
Vol. 28:2 (2018) ► pp.159–183

Get fulltext from our e-platform
JBE logo with link
PDF logo with download linkDownload PDF

A genre-pragmatic analysis of Arabic academic book reviews (ArBRs)

 | Jordan University of Science and Technology
Open Access logo
Available under the Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial (CC BY-NC) 4.0 license.
Published online: 7 May 2018
DOI logo with link
https://doi.org/10.1075/prag.17006.ala
Abstract
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, 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.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar to English book reviews. The present study drew on Hyland, K. 2000. Disciplinary Discourses. Social Interactions in Academic Writing. Harlow: Pearson Education.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar, 2000–2001. “The Coding of Linguistic Politeness in the Academic Book Reviews.” Pragmalinguistica 8–91: 165–178.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar, 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. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar and Alcaraz-Ariza, M. 2010. “Evaluation in English Medium Medical Book Reviews.” International Journal of English Studies 2 (1): 137–153. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar 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)
References
Al-Ali, M. 2005. “Communicating Messages of Solidarity, Promotion, and Pride in Death Announcements Genre in Jordanian Newspapers.” Discourse and Society 161: 5–31. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
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.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Alcaraz-Ariza, M. 2010. “Evaluation in English Medium Medical Book Reviews.” International Journal of English Studies 2 (1): 137–153. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
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.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Bhatia, V. 1993. Analyzing Genre: Language Use in Professional Settings. London: Longman.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
2004. Worlds of Written Discourse. London: Continuum.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Brown, P., and S. Levinson. 1987. Politeness: Some Universals in Language Use. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Brown, G., and G. Yule. 1983. Discourse Analysis. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Felber, L. 2002. “The Book Review: Scholarly and Editorial Responsibility.” Journal of Scholarly Publication 33 (3): 166–172. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Gea Valor, M. 2000. A Pragmatic Approach to Politeness and Modality in the Book Review Articles. SELL Monograph. Valencia: Universitat Valencia.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
2000–2001. “The Coding of Linguistic Politeness in the Academic Book Reviews.” Pragmalinguistica 8–91: 165–178.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Gea-Valor, M. 2014. “From ‘Readers may be left wondering’ to ‘I’m genuinely puzzled’: The Construction of Self and Others in Fiction Book Reviews.” In Dialogicity in Written Specialised Genres, ed. by L. Gil-Salom, and C. Soler-Monreal, 113–134. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Halliday, M. 1994. An introduction to Functional Grammar (2nd ed.). London & New York: Routledge.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Hartley, J. 2006. “Reading a Writing Book Reviews across Disciplines.” Journal of the American Society for Information Science and Technology 57 (9): 1194–1207. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Hunston, S. 1993. “Evaluation and Ideology in Scientific Writing.” In Register Analysis: Theory and Practice, ed. by M. Ghadessy, 57–73. London: Pinter.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
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.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Hyland, K. 2000. Disciplinary Discourses. Social Interactions in Academic Writing. Harlow: Pearson Education.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Itakura, H., and A. Tsui. 2011. “Evaluation in Academic Discourse: Managing Criticism in Japanese and English Book Reviews.” Journal of Pragmatics 431: 1366–1379. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Johnson, D. 1992. “Compliments and Politeness in Peer-review Texts.” Applied Linguistics 13 (1): 51–71. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Johnson, D., and D. Roen. 1992. “Complimenting and Involvement in Peer Reviews: Gender Variation.” Language and Society 211: 27–57. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
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. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
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.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Martin, J., and P. White. 2005. The Language of Evaluation. Appraisal in English. Houndmills, UK: Palgrave Macmillan. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
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.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
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. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
. 2008b. “A Framework for Comparing Evaluation Resources across Academic Texts.” Text and Talk 28 (6): 749–769. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
. 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. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
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.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
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.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
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.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
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. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
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. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Stotesbury, H. 2003. “Evaluation in Research Article Abstracts in the Narrative and Hard Sciences.” Journal of English for Academic Purposes 21: 327–342. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Suárez, T., and A. Moreno. 2008. “The Rhetorical Structure of Academic Book Reviews of Literature: An English-Spanish Cross-Linguistic Approach.” In Contrastive Rhetoric: Reaching to Intercultural Rhetoric, ed. by U. Connor, E. Nagelhout, and W. Rozycki, 147–168. Amsterdam, Philadelphia: John Benjamin Publishing Company. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Swales, J. 1990. Genre Analysis: English in Academic and Research Settings. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Thetela, P. 1997. “Evaluated Entities and Parameters of Value in Academic Research Articles.” English for Specific Purposes 16 (2): 101–118. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
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.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
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. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Cited by (3)

Cited by three other publications

Liu, Xueying & Haoran Zhu
2025. The diachronic change in linguistic positivity in the academic book reviewing of language studies: a text-mining analysis. Scientometrics 130:1 ► pp. 133 ff. DOI logo
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. DOI logo
Ho, Mei-ching
2022. A corpus-pragmatics approach to evaluation in professor reviews. Concentric. Studies in Linguistics 48:1 ► pp. 114 ff. DOI logo

This list is based on CrossRef data as of 29 november 2025. 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.

Mobile Menu Logo with link to supplementary files background Layer 1 prag Twitter_Logo_Blue