ON STRATEGIES OF IMPLICIT EXPERT EVALUATION IN GERMAN LINGUISTIC REVIEWS
DOI: 10.23951/1609-624X-2021-6-49-59
Introduction. The article focuses on the ways scientists express expert evaluation in German academic linguistic reviews. It contributes to the socio-communicative research on evaluation in academic communicative settings. Aim. The aim of the article is to reveal the most frequent strategies of implicit expert evaluation in German linguistic reviews. Material and methods. The materials of the study are 25 reviews published in 2016–2017 in field-specific academic journals: “Zeitschrift für Angewandte Linguistik”, “Zeitschrift für Sprachwissenschaft” and “Zeitschrift für Rezensionen”. Qualitative (contextual semantic, functional pragmatic) and quantitative analysis of the German linguistic reviews provides a set of strategies used to covertly evaluate the papers reviewed. Results and discussion. We consider the expert evaluation as a specific communicative / discursive sub-type of linguistic evaluation marked by modifications of the general logical structure in terms of “subject – object – predicate of evaluation”. Adding the recipient of evaluation we obtain following structure: the subject and the recipient of expert evaluation are scientific discourse actors, the object is represented by formal and content-related aspects of the books reviewed and the predicate of expert evaluation are criteria of scientificity, norms, values and standards of communication shared by all members of the current scientific community. Our data analysis results support our hypothesis and demonstrate that it is possible to make an implicit evaluation of different polarity following the various implication strategies. Beside of well-known strategies used to express evaluation covertly in academic book reviews the article describes also new strategies, not yet mentioned in similar and related works: implicit evaluation through disagreement with the author’s viewpoint, implicit evaluation through recommendation to the review’s recipient and implicit evaluation through (in)direct question. Quantitative measures illustrate different frequencies of negative and positive implicit evaluation and lead to conclusion the explicit evaluation prevail among all types of evaluation whereas the negative implicit evaluation prevail among all tokens of implicit evaluation in our data.
Keywords: linguistic evaluation, implicit evaluation strategies, expert evaluation, academic linguistic review, academic communication
References:
1. Stockmann R., Meyer W. Evaluation. Eine Einführung. Opladen, Bloomfield Hills: Verlag Barbara Budrich, 2010. 295 S.
2. Sager S. F. Sind Bewertungen Handlungen? Zeitschrift für germanistische Linguistik, 2009, no. 10. Bd. 1. S. 38–57. DOI: 10.1515/zfgl.1982.10.1.38
3. Widmer Th., De Rocchi Th. Evaluation. Grundlagen, Ansätze und Anwendungen. Zürich, Chur: Rüegger Verlag, 2012. 188 s.
4. Il’in V. V. Kriterii nauchnosti znaniya [Criteria of scientific knowledge]. Moscow, Vysshaya shkola Publ., 1989. 128 p. (in Russian).
5. Bazhenova E. A. “Staroye znaniye” v strukture nauchnoy kommunikatsii [The “old knowledge” in the structure of scientific communication]. Nauka v obshchestvennom dialoge: tsennosti, kommunikatsii, organizatsiia: materialy Mezhdunarodnoy nauchnoy konferentsii [Science in Public Dialogue: Values, Communication, Organization: Proceedings of the International Scientific Conference]. Saint Petersburg, Peter the Graeat St. Petersburg Polytechic University Publ., 2017. Pp. 6–7 (in Russian).
6. Hyland K. Engagement and Disciplinarity: the other side of evaluation. Academic Discourse: new insights into Evaluation. Amsterdam, Peter Lang, 2004. P. 13–30.
7. Gumperz J. Sharing common ground. Soziale Welten und kommunikative Stile. Tübingen: Narr, 2002. P. 47–55.
8. Longino H. E. Science as Social Knowledge. Values and Objectivity in Scientific Inquiry. Princeton, New Jersey: Princeton University Press, 1990. 280 p.
9. Weinrich H. Formen der Wissenschaftssprache. Jahrbuch der Akademie der Wissenschaften zu Berlin. Berlin: De Gruyter, 1989. S. 119–159.
10. Arendt B., Schäfer P. Bewertungen im Wissenschaftsdiskurs. Eine Analyse von Review-Kommentaren als Aushandlungspraxis normativer Erwartungen. Zeitschrift für Literaturwissenschaft und Linguistik, 2015, 45. Jg. Bd. 177. S. 103–124.
11. Nefedov S. T. Zhanrovyy prototip nauchnoy germanisticheskoy retsenzii [Genre prototype of the scientific review on Germanistics]. Nemetskaya filologiya v Sankt-Peterburgskom gosudarstvennom universitete. Vol. 8. Tipologiya rechevykh zhanrov [German Philology at St. Petersburg State University. Issue 8. Typology of speech genres]. Saint Petersburg, St. Petersburg University Publ., 2018. P. 105–123 (in Russian).
12. Ripfel M. Wörterbuchkritik. Eine empirische Analyse von Wörterbuchrezensionen. Tübingen: Max Niemeyer Verlag, 1989. 357 S.
13. Ivin A. A. Logika otsenok i norm. Filosofskiye, metodologicheskiye i prikladnye aspekty [Logics of values and norms]. Moscow, Prospekt Publ., 2016. 320 p. (in Russian).
14. Vol’f E. M. Funktsional’naya semantika otsenki [Functional Semantics of Evaluation]. Moscow, URSS Publ., 2002. 260 p. (in Russian).
15. Hunston S. Corpus Approaches to Evaluation. Phraseology and Evaluative Language. New York, London: Routledge, 2011. 212 p.
16. Halliday. M. A. K. Language as Social Semiotic. The social interpretation of language and meaning. London: Edward Arnold, 1978. 257 p.
17. Martin J. R., White P. R. R. The Language of Evaluation. Appraisal in English. Hampshire, New York: Palgrave Macmillan, 2005. 278 p.
18. Hood S. Voice and Stance as Appraisal: Persuading and Positioning in Research Writing across Intellectual Fields. Stance and Voice in Written Academic Genres. Houndmills, Basingstoke, Hampshire, New York: Palgrave Macmillan, 2012. P. 51–69.
19. Wang Y., Nelson M. E. Discursive Construction of Authorial Voice in English Book Reviews: A Contrastive Analysis. Hong Kong Journal of Applied Linguistics, 2012, no. 14, vol. 1, pp. 1–24.
20. Arutyunova N. D. Tipy yazykovykh znacheniy. Otsenka, sobytiye, fakt [Types of linguistic meanings: Evaluation. Event. Fact]. Moscow, Nauka Publ., 1988. 338 p. (in Russian).
21. Vorob’eva M. B. Osobennosti realizatsii otsenochnykh znacheniy v nauchnom tekste [Features of the implementation of estimated values in a scientific text]. Nauchnaya literatura. Yazyk, stil’, zhanry [Scientific literature. Language, style, genres]. Moscow, Nauka Publ., 1985. P. 47–56 (in Russian).
22. Troyanskaya E. S. Nauchnoye proizvedeniye v otsenke avtora retsenzii (k voprosu o spetsifike zhanrov nauchnoy literatury) [Scientific papers in the assessment of the author of the review (towards the specifics of the genres of scientific literature)]. Nauchnaya literatura. Yazyk, stil’, zhanry [Scientific literature. Language, style, genres]. Moscow, Nauka Publ., 1985. p. 67–81 (in Russian).
23. Danilevskaya N. V. Ob osobom statuse otsenki v nauchnom tekste [On specific status of evaluation in scientific text]. Vestnik Permskogo universiteta. Rossiyskaya i zarubezhnaya filologiya – Perm University Herald. Russian and Foreign Philology, 2013, no. 2, vol. 22, pp. 37–43 (in Russian).
24. Nefedov S. T. Towards Evaluation in Scientific Reviews (Based on German Linguistics). Journal of Siberian Federal University. Humanities & Social Sciences, 2019, no. 12, vol. 10, pp. 1868–1886. DOI: 10.17516/1997–1370–0494
25. Shaw Ph. How do we recognise implicit evaluation in academic book reviews? Academic Discourse: Linguistic Insights into Evaluation. Bern: Peter Lang, 2004. P. 121–140.
26. Goffman E. Interaction Ritual. Essays in Face-to-Face Behavior. New Brunswick, New Jersey: Transaction Publishers, 2005. 280 p.
27. Busch F. Rezension auf: Wagner, Franc & Kleinberger, Ulla (Hrsg.). 2014. Sprachbasierte Medienkompetenz von Kindern und Jugendlichen. Bern u.a.: Peter Lang (Sprache in Kommunikation und Medien, Bd. 5). 252 s. Zeitschrift für Angewandte Linguistik, 2016, No. 65, S. 197–204.
28. Römer D. Rezension auf: Siefkes, Martin & Doris Schöps. 2013. Neue Methoden der Diskursanalyse. Themenheft Zeitschrift für Semiotik, Bd. 35, Heft 3–4. Tübingen: Stauffenburg Verlag. 332 s. Zeitschrift für Angewandte Linguistik, 2017, No. 67, S. 193–203.
29. Vogel F. Rezension auf: Niehr, Thomas. 2014. Einführung in die Politolinguistik. Göttingen: UTB. 191 S. Klein, Josef. 2014. Grundlagen der Politolinguistik. Ausgewählte Aufsätze. Berlin: Frank & Timme. 392 S. Zeitschrift für Angewandte Linguistik, 2016, no. 64, ss. 153–158.
30. Auer P., Baßler H. Der Stil der Wissenschaft. Reden und Schreiben in der Wissenschaft. Frankfurt. New York: Campus Verlag, 2007. S. 9–31.
31. Rohde A. Rezension auf: Gebele, Diana & Zepter, Alexandra L. 2016. Inklusion: Sprachdidaktische Perspektiven – Theorie, Empirie, Praxis. KöBeS (11) 2016. Duisburg: Gilles & Francke.405 s. Zeitschrift für Angewandte Linguistik, 2017, No. 67, Ss. 185–191.
32. Senoner D. Rezension auf: Bendel Larcher, Sylvia. 2015. Linguistische Diskursanalyse. Ein Lehr- und Arbeitsbuch. Tübingen: Narr Francke Attempto Verlag. 256 s. Zeitschrift für Angewandte Linguistik, 2016, No. 65, Ss. 233–240.
33. Lenk H. Rezension auf: Agnieszka Marta Kurzyńska. 2015. Das deutsche Poplied als Textsorte. Eine Studie über neuere deutsche Liedertexte aus textuell-stilistischer Sicht (Danziger Beiträge zur Germanistik 49). Frankfurt a. M. u. a.: Peter Lang. 177 s. Zeitschrift für Rezensionen, 2016, No. 8. Bd. 1–2, Ss.124–130.
34. Nefedov S. T. Funktsional’nyy potentsial voprositel’nykh struktur v nauchnykh lingvisticheskikh tekstakh [On functional potential of interrogative structures in academic linguistic discourse]. Vestnik Volgogradskogo gosudarstvennogo universiteta. Seriya 2. Yazykoznaniye – Science Journal of Volgograd State University. Linguistics, 2015, no. 4, vol. 28, pp. 65–74. DOI: 10.15688/jvolsu2.2015.4.8 (in Russian).
( 437.4 kB ) 
( 430.19 kB )
Issue: 6, 2021
Series of issue: Issue 6
Rubric: GERMANIC LANGUAGES
Pages: 49 — 59
Downloads: 579