Hostname: page-component-7b7567c8c-2n9c9 Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2026-11-13T13:54:25.049Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Language use in peer review texts

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  19 February 2009

Agnes Weiyun He
Agnes Weiyun He
Affiliation:
Department of Linguistics, Southern Illinois University, Carbondale, IL 62901
Get accessRights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

Applying the functional approach to language developed by Halliday and Hasan, this study delineates the criterial and characteristic features of language used in 13 peer review letters from a graduate seminar by native speakers of English, with an average length of 300–350 words. Examining discourse goals, global text structure, obligatory and optional elements, sequence and co-occurrence of discourse elements, verb types, modalized directives, and lexical choice, this article demonstrates that peer review texts are shaped by the institutional and situational contexts within which they are embedded, and at the same time contribute to these contexts. (Genre studies, interactive discourse analysis, written communication, systemic linguistics, peer review, classroom discourse)

Information

Type
Research Article
Information
Language in Society , Volume 22 , Issue 3 , September 1993, pp. 403 - 420
Copyright
Copyright © Cambridge University Press 1993

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

Article purchase

Temporarily unavailable

References

REFERENCES

Firth, John R. (1957). Papers in linguistics 1931–1951. London: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Fries, Peter H. (1992). Lexical-grammatical patterns and the interpretation of texts. Discourse Processes 15: 73–91.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Goodwin, Charles, & Duranti, Alessandro (1992). Rethinking context: an introduction. In Duranti, A. & Goodwin, C. (eds.), Rethinking context: Language as an interactive phenomenon. Cambridge & New York: Cambridge University Press. 1–42.Google Scholar
Halliday, Michael A. K. (1978). Language as a social semiotic: The social interpretation of language and meaning. London: Arnold.Google Scholar
Halliday, Michael A.K (1985). An introduction to functional grammar. London: Arnold.Google Scholar
Halliday, Michael A. K., &Ruqaiya, Hasan (1985). Language, context and text: Aspects of language in a social-semiotic perspective. Geelong, Victoria, Australia: Deakin University. (Reprinted 1989, Oxford University Press.)Google Scholar
Hanks, William F. (1989). Text and textuality. Annual Review of Anthropology 18: 95–127.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Hasan, Ruqaiya (1978). Text in the systemic-functional model. In Dressier, Wolfgang U (ed.), Current trends in textlinguistics. Berlin: de Gruyter. 228–46.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Hasan, Ruqaiya (1981). What's going on: A dynamic view of context in language. In Copeland, James & Davis, Philip (eds.), The Seventh LACUS Forum 1980. Columbus, SC: Hornbeam. 106–21.Google Scholar
Hasan, Ruqaiya(1984). The nursery tale as a genre. Nottingham Linguistic Circular 13: 71–102.Google Scholar
Weiyun, He Agnes (1991). Exploring the genre of peer review. Qualifying paper for the doctoral degree in Applied Linguistics, University of California, Los Angeles.Google Scholar
Johnson, Donna M., & Weiyun, Yang (He) Agnes (1990). Politeness strategies in peer review texts. In Bouton, Lawrence F. & Kachru, Yamuna (eds.), Pragmatics and language learning, I. Urbana-Champaign: University of Illinois. 99–114.Google Scholar
Malinowski, Bronislaw (1923). The problem of meaning in primitive languages. In Ogden, Charles K. & Richards, Ivor A. (eds.), The meaning of meaning. London: Kegan Paul. 296–336.Google Scholar
Martin, James R. (1985). Process and text: Two aspects of human semiosis. In Benson, James D. & Greaves, William S. (eds.), Systemic perspectives on discourse, I: Selected theoretical papers from the 9th International Systemic Workshop. Norwood, NJ: Ablex. 248–74.Google Scholar
Peyton, Joy K., ed. (1990). Students and teachers writing together. Alexandria, VA: TESOL Inc.Google Scholar
Ventola, Eija (1983). Contrasting schematic structures in service encounters. Applied Linguistics 4: 242–58.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Ventola, Eija (1984). The dynamics of genre. Nottingham Linguistic Circular 13: 103–23.Google Scholar
Ventola, Eija (1987). The structure of social interaction: A systemic approach to the semiotics of service encounters. London: Pinter.Google Scholar
Vygotsky, Lev S. (1962). Thought and language. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Witte, Stephen P. (1992). Context, text, intertext: Toward a constructivist semiotic of writing. Written Communication 9: 237–308.Google Scholar
Weiyun, Yang (He) Agnes (1988). Use of politeness strategies in L2 peer review. Unpublished manuscript, University of California, Los Angeles.Google Scholar