Evaluation in English-Medium Medical Book Reviews

Referencias bibliográficas

• Alejo R. & McGinity M. (1997). Terminological Loans and the Teaching/Learning of Technical Vocabulary: The Use of Economic Anglicisms in the Business Classroom. In Piqué, J. & D.J. Viera (Eds), Applied Languages: Theory and Practice in ESP. Valencia: Universidad de Valencia.
• Biber, D., Conrad, S. & Reppen, A. (1998). Corpus Linguistics. Investigating Language Structure and Use. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
• Alcaraz-Ariza, M.Á. & Salager-Meyer, F. (2005). Las reseñas de libros en español: estudio retórico y diacrónico.” Spanish in Context, 2(1), 29-49.
• Alcaraz-Ariza, M.Á. (2009). Complimenting others: The case of English-written medical book reviews. Fachsprache, 1-2, 50-65.
• Basturkmen, H. (2009). Back cover blurbs: Puff pieces and windows on cultural values. In K. Hyland & G. Diani (Eds.), Academic Evaluation. Review Genres in University Settings. (pp. 68-83). Houndmills: Palgrave Macmillan.
• Bazerman, C. (1994). Constructing Experience. Carbondale: Southern Illinois University Press.
• Belcher, D. (1995). Writing critically across the curriculum. In D. Belcher. & G. Braine (Eds.), Academic Writing in a Second Language: Essays on Research and Pedagogy (pp. 135-155). Norwood (NY): Ablex Publishing Corporation.
• Bondi, M. & Mauranen, A. (2003). Evaluation in academic discourse. Journal of English for Academic Purposes, 2(4), 269-71.
• Brown, P. & Levinson, S. (1987). Politeness: Some Universals in Language Usage. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
• Butler, C.S. (2004). Corpus studies and functional linguistic theories. Functions ofLanguage, 11(2), 147-186.
• Carnet, D. & Magnet, A. (2006). Editorials: An intrinsic and/or extrinsic genre in medical journals. In M. Gotti & F. Salager-Meyer (Eds.), Advances in Medical Discourse Analysis: Oral and Written Contexts (pp. 229-250). Bern: Peter Lang.
• Carvalho, G. de (2002). Rhetorical patterns of academic book reviews written in Portuguese and in English. In L. Iglesias Rábade & S.M. Doval Suárez (Eds.), Studies in Contrastive Linguistic. 2nd International Contrastive Linguistics Conference (pp. 261-268). Santiago de Compostela: Universidade de Santiago de Compostela.
• Charles, M. (2003). ‘This mystery…’: a corpus-based study of the use of nouns toconstruct stance in theses from two contrasting disciplines. Journal of English for Academic Purposes, 2(4), 313- 326.
• Connor, U. (2004). Intercultural rhetoric research: Beyond texts. Journal of English for Academic Purposes, 3(4), 291-305.
• Fortanet, I. (2004). The use of 'we' in university lectures: reference and function. English for Specific Purposes, 23(1), 45-66.
• Gea Valor, M.L. (2000): A Pragmatic Approach to Politeness and Modality in Book Review Articles. SELL Monograph. València: Universitat de València.
• Gea Valor, M.L (2005). Advertising books: a linguistic analysis of blurbs. Ibérica, X, 41-62.
• Gea Valor, M.L. & del Saz Rubio, M.M. (2000-2001). The coding of linguistic politeness in the academia book review. Pragmalingüística, 8-9, 165-178.
• Gesuato, S. (2007). Evaluation in back-cover blurbs. Textus, 20(1), 83-102.
• Giannoni, D.S. (2002). Hard words, soft technology. Criticism and endorsement in the software review genre. In M. Gotti, D. Heller & M. Dossena (Eds.), Conflict and Negotiation in Specialized Texts (pp. 335-363). Bern: Peter Lang.
• Giannoni, D.S. (2006). Expressing praise and criticism in economic discourse: A comparative analysis of English and Italian book reviews. In G. del Lungo Camiciotti, M. Dossena & B. Crawford Camiciottoli (Eds.), Variation in Business and Economics Discourse. Diachronic and Genre Perspectives (pp. 126-138). Rome: Officina Edizioni.
• Giannoni, D.S. (2007). Metatextual evaluation in journal editorials. Textus, 20(1), 57-82.
• Giannoni, D.S. (2009). Negotiating research values across review genres: A case study in applied linguistics. In K. Hyland & G. Diani (Eds.), Academic Evaluation. Review Genres in University Settings (pp. 17-33). Houndmills: Palgrave Macmillan.
• Halliday, M.A.K. (1994). An Introduction to Functional Grammar (2nd Ed.). London: Edward Arnold.
• Hemais, B. (2001). The discourse of research and practice in marketing journals. English for Specific Purposes, 20(1), 39-59.
• Hyland, K. (1998). Boosting, hedging, and the negotiation of academic knowledge. Text, 18(3), 349- 382.
• Hyland, K. (2000). Disciplinary Discourses: Social Interactions in Academic Writing. London: Longman.
• Hyland, K. (2001). Humble servants of the discipline? Self-mention in research articles. English for Specific Purposes, 20(3), 207-226.
• Hyland, K. (2005). Stance and engagement: a model of interaction in academic discourse. Discourse Studies, 7(2), 173-191.
• Hyland, K. & Diani, G. (2009). Introduction: Academic evaluation and review genres. In K. Hyland & G. Diani (Eds.), Academic Evaluation. Review Genres in University Settings (pp. 1-14). Houndmills: Palgrave Macmillan.
• Ivanic, R. (1998) Writing and Identity: The Discoursal Construction of Identity in AcademicWriting. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.
• Johnson, D.M. & Roen, D.H. (1992). Complimenting and involvement in peer reviews: gender variation. Language in Society, 21(1), 25-57.
• Kuhn, T.S. (1970). The Structure of Scientific Revolution (2nd Ed). Chicago: University of Chicago Press.
• Kuo, C.H (1999). The use of personal pronouns: role relationships in scientific journal articles. English for Specific Purposes, 18(2), 121-138.
• Lindholm-Romantschuk, Y. (1998). Scholarly Book Reviewing in the Social Sciences and Humanities: The Flow of Ideas within and among Disciplines. Westport: Greenwood Publishing Group.
• Linguist List (2009). http://www.linguistlist.org/pubs/reviews/guidelines.html.
• Lorés Sanz, R. (2009). (Non-)critical voices in the reviewing of history discourse: a cross-cultural study of evaluation. In K. Hyland & G. Diani (Eds.), Academic Evaluation. Review Genres in University Settings (pp. 143-160). Houndmills: Palgrave Macmillan.
• Martin, J.R. & White, P.R.R. (2005). The Language of Evaluation: Appraisal in English. Houndmills: Palgrave Macmillan.
• Moreno, A.I. & Suárez, L. (2008). A study of critical attitude across English and Spanish academic book reviews. Journal of English for Academic Purposes, 7(1), 15-26.
• Motta-Roth. D. (1998). Discourse analysis and academic book reviews: a study of text anddisciplinary cultures. In I. Fortanet, S. Posteguillo, J.C. Palmer & J.F. Coll (Eds.), Genre Studies in English for Academic Purposes (pp. 29-59). Collecció Summa, Sèrie Filología 9. Castellón: Universitat Jaume I.
• Myers, G. (1989). The pragmatic of politeness in scientific articles. Applied Linguistics, 10, 1-35.
• Painter, C. (2003). Developing attitude: an ontogenetic perspective on appraisal. Text, 23(2), 183-209.
• Pennycook, A. (1994). The politics of pronouns. ELT Journal, 48, 170-197.
• Salager.-Meyer, F. (2001). ‘This book portrays the worst form of mental terrorism’: critical speech acts in medical English book reviews. In A. Kertész (Ed.), Approaches to the Pragmatics of Scientific Discourse (pp. 47-72). Frankfurt am Main: Peter Lang.
• Salager-Meyer, F. & Alcaraz-Ariza, M.Á. (2004). Negative appraisals in academic book reviews: A cross-linguistic approach. In N. Candlin & M. Gotti (Eds.), Intercultural Aspects of Specialized Communication (pp. 149-172). Bern: Peter Lang.
• Salager-Meyer, F.; Alcaraz-Ariza, M.Á. & Pabón, M. (2007a): The prosecutor and the defendant: Contrasting critical voices in Frenchand English-written academic book reviews. In K. Flottum (Ed.), Language and Discipline Perspectives on Academic Discourse (pp. 109-127). Cambridge: Cambridge Scholars Publishing.
• Salager-Meyer, F.; Alcaraz-Ariza, M Á. & Pabón, M. (2007b). Collegiality, critique and the construction of scientific argumentation in medical book reviews: a diachronic approach. Journal of Pragmatics, 39, 1758-1774.
• Salager-Meyer, F. (2010). Academic book reviews and the construction of scientific knowledge (1890-2005). In M.L. Gea-Valor, I. García-Izquierdo & M.J. Esteve (Eds.), Linguistic and Translation Studies in Scientific Communication (pp. 39-68). Bern: Peter Lang.
• Shaw, P. (2009). The lexis and grammar of explicit evaluation in academic book reviews, 1913 and 1993. In K Hyland & G. Diani (Eds.), Academic Evaluation. Review Genre in University Setting. (pp. 217-235). Houndmills: Palgrave Macmillan.
• Sniderman, A.D. (1999). Clinical trials, consensus conferences, and clinical practice. The Lancet, 354(9175), 327-330.
• Stubbs, M. (1996). Towards a modal grammar of English: A matter of prolonged field work. In M. Stubbs (Ed.), Text and Corpus Analysis: Computer-Assisted Studies of Language and Culture (pp. 196-229). Oxford: Blackwell.
• Tang, R. & John, S. (1999). The ‘I’ in identity: Exploring writer identity in student academic writing through the first person pronoun”. English for Specific Purposes, 18, 23-39.
• Thompson, G. & Hunston, S. (2000). Evaluation: An introduction. In S. Hunston & G.Thompson (Eds.), Evaluation in Text (pp. 1-27). Oxford: Oxford University Press.
• Tse, P. & Hyland, K. (2006). Gender and discipline: Exploring metadiscourse variation in academic book reviews. In K. Hyland & M. Bondi (Eds.), Academic Discourse across Disciplines (pp. 177-202). Bern: Peter Lang.
• Vandenbroucke, J.P. & de Craen, J.J. (2001). Alternative medicine: a “mirror image” for scientific reasoning in conventional medicine. Annals of Internal Medicine, 135, 507-513