英汉语言学书评语篇中的负面评价对比研究
|
摘要
负面评价现象是学术书评语篇中不可或缺的组成部分。语言学家着重从跨学科变异、跨语言变异、历时变异以及跨语类变异等视角对学术书评中显性的负面评价及其缓和策略进行了研究。但是,对英汉语言学书评(以下简称英汉书评)中负面评价的对比语义分析既不系统也不深入,亟需进一步探讨。
本研究以系统功能语言学的语言—语境分层模型为理论基础,以评价系统为主要框架,旨在发展基于语料库的负面评价对比分析和标注系统,以期对英汉书评中的负面评价进行全面、系统的对比性功能描述,发现英汉异同,并探讨其语境动因。具体来说,共有四个研究问题：(a)英汉书评中的负面态度有何异同?(b)英汉书评中负面态度的级差有何异同?(c)英汉书评中负面态度的介入有何异同?(d)英汉书评中负面评价异同的语境动因是什么?
为回答这些问题,本研究首先简要回顾了评价系统,着重对其三个子系统进行了考量,建立了适合类型学分析的标注系统。其次,探讨了评价系统分析中的问题、原则和路径。再次,建立了语类阶段、语类结构变体和书评类型的标注系统,从而促成对比评价分析和对比语境分析。
本研究自建英汉书评类比语料库,内含英汉书评各70篇,在所评书籍方面一一对应。这些书评分别选自主要英语国家和中国大陆出版的重要语言学期刊,涵盖了语言学研究的诸多领域。英语子库(ELBRC)库容为98,139个单词,汉语子库(CLBRC)库容为238,556个汉字。经整理后的语料导入到UAM CorpusTool(UAM)中。
本研究的分析程序主要分为三个步骤：(a)语料库标注,其中包括纸质版标注、UAM标注和检查三个环节；(b)对比评价分析,其中涵盖对比统计、负面评价的体现资源和负面评价的阶段分布；(c)对比语境分析,在语域、语类和意识形态等层面上展开。
下面以研究问题为主线,英汉书评的异同为重点来阐述主要的研究发现。负面态度涉及态度隐显类别和态度类别。前者逐级细分为铭刻、激发、旗示和致使,态度类别中分别引入了情感者、判断对象和鉴赏对象。英汉书评中负面态度的比率高达2：1。两种语言在态度隐显类别方面非常相似,铭刻占比均达64%,但在态度类型方面差异显著。负面情感仅在英语书评中出现20例,情感者多为书评者,凸显了英语书评的情感性。负面判断主要通过对非态度性过程进行否定来引发。汉语书评中判断对象皆为书籍作者,但英语书评中有5处书评者的自我判断。负面鉴赏主导整个态度系统,五个特征均可区分为更加细致的语义群组,但相关词汇语法资源的频次都不高。鉴赏对象类别中具体内容的比例最高。另外,两种语言中负面态度的跨阶段分布差异显著。英语书评中负面态度出现在所有四个阶段中,但汉语书评中负面态度从未出现在引言阶段。
级差的对比分析涉及四个子系统。其中级差升降是指态度值的升高或降低,级差功能是指显性态度的分级或隐性态度的引发,级差模式包括分离、重复、比较和极度,级差类型分为语力和语焦。英汉书评中级差比率高达2.2：1。两种语言在级差升降和级差类型方面差异显著,但在级差功能和级差模式方面非常相似。具体来说,英语书评中升高级差显著多于降低级差,但汉语书评中恰好相反。汉语书评中语力占比显著更高。两种语言中显性态度分级资源均逾70%,分离级差均超80%。在更精密层级中,本研究对语力和语焦的子系统和特征从级差升降、级差功能和级差模式三个维度进行了细致描述。体现级差的词汇语法资源很多,但高频者很少。最后,级差的阶段分布亦呈现出显著的英汉差异。英语书评中的分布形状与负面态度稍有不同。汉语书评中级差同样不出现在引言阶段。
介入的对比分析主要从对话视角探讨负面态度的协商环境。分析表明,英汉书评中负面态度的介入资源比率高达2.1：1。在介入类型方面,英汉书评非常相似。杂言占比均超90%。但在杂言类型方面,英汉书评差异显著,对话收缩在汉语书评中的比例显著更高。在扩展方面,接纳在英汉语书评中均处主导地位,接纳的体现资源多样,部分资源频次高。归属的两个特征频次很低。在收缩方面,否认在英汉书评中均占主导地位,其中反对和否定表现出显著的英汉差异。反对数量超过否定,尤以英语为甚。在两种语言中,否定和反对的体现资源类别不多,但频次很高。收缩的另一个子系统公告含有三个特征。其中同意和宣告表现出显著的英汉差异,而背书表现出相似性。最后,介入的阶段分布与负面态度非常接近。
负面评价的跨语言差异可以通过对比语境分析得到阐释。首先,在语域层面,语场和语式在英汉书评非常相似,但是语旨的跨语言差异显著。这些差异必然对负面评价的类别及频次都产生相当大的制约作用。其次,英汉书评在语类阶段和语类结构变体方面相似,但在书评类别方面存在显著差异。英汉书评作为一种分阶段、交际目标明确的社会化过程,其语类结构可以使用四个阶段的模式来描述,即引言阶段(IS)、概述阶段(DS)、评价阶段(ES)和结论阶段(CS)。其中前三项是必选成分,最后一项是可选成分。英汉书评共享同一个语类结构潜势Ⅰ^^D^E^(C)。四个阶段的不同配置共形成七种语类结构变体。其中主要变体三种,即IDEC,IDE和IDC,合计占比逾九成。汉语中批评性书评占比60%,而英语书评中占比达83%。这一显著差异与负面评价的跨语言差异存在很大相关性。最后,意识形态可分析为价值系统和社会实践。意识形态作为价值系统与负面评价之间存在辩证关系。一方面,负面评价建构话语社区的价值系统,前者的跨语言差异必然投射在后者之上。反之,正是价值系统的差异导致了负面评价的差异。另一方面,价值系统可以帮助表达和识别负面评价。意识形态作为社会实践直接影响着负面评价的使用。英美学术话语社区对批评性或负面书评甚至持鼓励和欢迎的态度。部分期刊的投稿指南等信息中对此亦有明确的说明。而汉语语言学期刊中对书评大多语焉不详,更不要说批评性或负面书评了。这也是造成负面评价跨语言差异的重要原因。
本研究的贡献主要有以下几点：首先,基于评价系统,设计了适用于英汉书评语篇中负面评价对比分析的标注系统。其中评价标注系统中引入了新的变量,如情感者和评价对象。其次,基于自建类比语料库,全面系统地分析了英汉书评语篇中的负面评价意义,在分析的精密阶上向前推进一步,特别是在负面鉴赏方面。分析揭示了英汉书评负面评价的异同,并在语境层面提供了解释。这对于学术话语的写作和发表具有较大参考价值,对于我国语言学期刊的发展与建设也具有借鉴意义。再次,所提出的分析程序逐步展开,步步深入,对基于语料库的对比评价分析具有较大的借鉴意义。
The phenomenon of negative evaluation is an indispensable component of academic book reviews (ABRs). Linguists have mainly approached explicit negative evaluation and its mitigation strategies in ABRs from the variational perspectives, especially cross-disciplinary variation, cross-linguistic variation, diachronic variation, and cross-generic variation. However, there are still few in-depth, systematic contrastive semantic analyses of negative evaluation in English and Chinese linguistics book reviews (LBRs), and such a study is in urgent need.
This study is carried out from the perspective of the appraisal system situated within the stratified model of language and context in systemic functional linguistics (SFL). It aims to develop corpus-based, contrastive appraisal analytical and annotation systems with the ultimate goal of creating thorough, systematic contrastive functional descriptions of negative appraisal in English and Chinese LBRs and finding out the cross-linguistic similarities and differences that are explained in terms of contextual motivations. To be more specific, there are four research questions:(a) What are the similarities and differences of negative attitudes in English and Chinese LBRs?(b) What are the similarities and differences of the graduation of negative attitudes in English and Chinese LBRs?(c) What are the similarities and differences of the engagement of negative attitudes in English and Chinese LBRs?(d) What are the contextual motivations of the similarities and differences of negative appraisal in English and Chinese LBRs?
To answer these research questions, this study firstly outlines a brief review of the appraisal system and focuses attention on the three appraisal subsystems to set up annotation systems that are applicable to the typological analysis. Secondly, the theoretical considerations cover the emergent problems, principles, and paths in appraisal analysis. Thirdly, the annotation systems of generic stages, generic structure variants, and book review types are set up to allow for the contrastive appraisal analysis and contrastive contextual analysis.
A comparable corpus is compiled, consisting of70English LBRs and70Chinese LBRs, which are corresponding to each other on a one-to-one basis in that they share the same books under review. These LBRs are chosen from important linguistics journals published in major English speaking countries and mainland China respectively, covering various sub-disciplines of linguistics. The size of English subcorpus (ELBRC) is98,139words, and that of Chinese subcorpus (CLBRC) is238,556characters. The processed corpus data are incorporated into UAM CorpusTool (UAM).
The analytical procedures are composed of three major steps:(a) the corpus annotation, which consists of annotation on paper, annotation in UAM, and checkup;(b) contrastive appraisal analysis, which consists of the analysis of comparative statistics, negative appraisal realizations, and the distribution of negative appraisal across stages; and (c) the contrastive contextual analysis at the strata of register, genre, and ideology.
In the following, major findings are reported in the order of research questions with the focus on the similarities and differences between English and Chinese LBRs. The contrastive analysis of negative attitudes is concerned with the attitude explicitness type and attitude type. The former is divided into inscribe, provoke, flag, and afford. The three attitude types also include the emoter, the judged, and the appreciated. The English-Chinese ratio of negative attitudes is2:1. The two languages are very similar in terms of the attitude explicitness type in that inscribe accounts for64%in both sub-corpora, but they are statistically different in terms of the attitude type. There are20instances of negative affect, but all English ones, and the emoters are mostly the book reviewers. This foregrounds the emotionality of English LBRs. Negative judgement is mainly invoked by grammatically negating the non-attitudinal processes. All the people judged in CLBRC are the book authors, but there are five negative self-judgement instances in ELBRC. Negative appreciation predominates in the attitude system and its five features can be further divided into smaller semantic groups. But the frequency of these lexico-grammatical resources is not high. The percentage of the specific content in the appreciated types is the highest. In addition, the distribution of negative attitudes across stages is substantially different between the two subcorpora. Negative attitudes in ELBRC occur at all of the four stages, but those in CLBRC never occur at the Introduction Stage.
The contrastive analysis of graduation involves four subsystems. The graduation scale refers to the up-scaling or down-scaling of negative attitudes, and the graduation function refers to the scaling of explicit attitude or the flagging of implicit attitude. The graduation mode is divided into isolation, repetition, comparative, and superlative; and the graduation axis is divided into force and focus. The English-Chinese ratio of graduation is up to2.2:1. The two languages are significantly different in terms of the graduation scale and the graduation axis, but are very similar in terms of the graduation function and the graduation mode. To be more specific, there are more up-scaling resources than downscaling ones in ELBRC, but it is the opposite in CLBRC. The percentage of force in CLBRC is significantly higher. In both languages, the percentage of scaling-attitude is higher than70%and that of isolation is higher than80%. At more delicate levels, the subsystems and features of force and focus are examined from the perspectives of graduation scale, graduation function, and graduation mode. The lexico-grammatical realizations of graduation are diverse but most of them are infrequent. Finally, the distribution of graduation across stages is also significantly different between ELBRC and CLBRC. The distribution of graduation in ELBRC is slightly different from that of negative attitudes. The graduation in CLBRC never occurs at the Introduction Stage.
The contrastive analysis of engagement is mainly to explore the dialogical settings in which negative attitudes are negotiated. The English-Chinese ratio of engagement is up to2.1:1. In terms of the engagement type, the two sub-corpora are very similar in that heteroglossic accounts for more than90%, but the cross-linguistic differences of the heteroglossic type are statistically significant. The percentage of dialogical contraction is significantly higher in CLBRC. Within expand, entertain predominates in both languages and it is realized via a few areas of lexico-grammatical resources, some of which are very frequent. The two attribute features are infrequent. Within contract, disclaim predominates in both languages. The cross-linguistic differences of denial and counter are statistically significant. Counter outnumbers denial, especially in ELBRC. In both languages denial and counter are realized mainly by dozens of very frequent locutions. The other subsystem of contract is proclaim, which has three features. The cross-linguistic differences of concur and pronounce are statistically significant, but that of endorse is not. Finally, the distribution of engagement in both sub-corpora is very similar to that of negative attitudes.
The cross-linguistic similarities and differences of negative appraisal are explained in the light of the contrastive contextual analysis. Firstly, at the register stratum, field and mode are very similar between ELBRC and CLBRC, but tenor shows significant cross-linguistic differences, which inevitably have a considerable impact on the types and frequencies of negative appraisal. Secondly, ELBRC and CLBRC are similar in terms of generic stages and generic structure variants, but significantly different in terms of book review types. As a staged, goal oriented social process, the genre of LBRs can be described with a model of four stages, namely, the Introduction Stage (IS), the Description Stage (DS), the Evaluation Stage (ES), and the Conclusion Stage (CS). The first three are obligatory but the last one is optional. English and Chinese LBRs share a common generic structure potential I^^D^E^(C), and the different configurations of the four stages produce seven generic structure variants. Three major variants (i.e., IDEC, IDE, and IDC) make up more than90%of the total. The percentage of critical LBRs is60%in CLBRC, but up to83%in ELBRC. This significant difference is strongly correlated with the cross-linguistic differences of negative appraisal. At last, ideology is analyzed as value systems and social practice. Ideology as value systems is in the dialectic relationship with negative appraisal. On the one hand, negative appraisal construes the value systems of the discourse community and its cross-linguistic differences are inevitably mapped onto the latter. Conversely, it is just the cross-linguistic differences of value systems that contribute to the cross-linguistic differences of negative appraisal. On the other hand, value systems are helpful in conveying and identifying negative appraisal. Ideology as social practice has an direct impact on the use of negative appraisal. The Anglo-American academic discourse community even encourages and welcomes critical or negative BRs, and the guidelines or instructions of some linguistics journals have clear statements about the use of negative appraisal and the publication of negative BRs. By contrast, Chinese linguistics journals have little information about BRs, let alone critical or negative ones. This also contributes to the cross-linguistic differences of negative appraisal.
This study makes a few contributions to the academia. Firstly, annotation systems are designed for the contrastive analysis of the negative appraisal in LBRs. The appraisal annotation system introduces new variables such as emoters, attitudinal targets. Secondly, a comprehensive analysis of the negative appraisal in English and Chinese LBRs is carried out on the basis of a self-compiled corpus, and moves one step forward along the analytical delicacy, especially in the case of negative appreciation. The analysis reveals the cross-linguistic similarities and differences of negative appraisal and offers contextual explanations. The findings are useful for the writing and publication of academic discourse, and also shed light on the development and construction of linguistics journals in China. Thirdly, the proposed analytical procedures unfold with the research questions and have some implications for the corpus-based contrastive appraisal analysis.
本研究以系统功能语言学的语言—语境分层模型为理论基础,以评价系统为主要框架,旨在发展基于语料库的负面评价对比分析和标注系统,以期对英汉书评中的负面评价进行全面、系统的对比性功能描述,发现英汉异同,并探讨其语境动因。具体来说,共有四个研究问题：(a)英汉书评中的负面态度有何异同?(b)英汉书评中负面态度的级差有何异同?(c)英汉书评中负面态度的介入有何异同?(d)英汉书评中负面评价异同的语境动因是什么?
为回答这些问题,本研究首先简要回顾了评价系统,着重对其三个子系统进行了考量,建立了适合类型学分析的标注系统。其次,探讨了评价系统分析中的问题、原则和路径。再次,建立了语类阶段、语类结构变体和书评类型的标注系统,从而促成对比评价分析和对比语境分析。
本研究自建英汉书评类比语料库,内含英汉书评各70篇,在所评书籍方面一一对应。这些书评分别选自主要英语国家和中国大陆出版的重要语言学期刊,涵盖了语言学研究的诸多领域。英语子库(ELBRC)库容为98,139个单词,汉语子库(CLBRC)库容为238,556个汉字。经整理后的语料导入到UAM CorpusTool(UAM)中。
本研究的分析程序主要分为三个步骤：(a)语料库标注,其中包括纸质版标注、UAM标注和检查三个环节；(b)对比评价分析,其中涵盖对比统计、负面评价的体现资源和负面评价的阶段分布；(c)对比语境分析,在语域、语类和意识形态等层面上展开。
下面以研究问题为主线,英汉书评的异同为重点来阐述主要的研究发现。负面态度涉及态度隐显类别和态度类别。前者逐级细分为铭刻、激发、旗示和致使,态度类别中分别引入了情感者、判断对象和鉴赏对象。英汉书评中负面态度的比率高达2：1。两种语言在态度隐显类别方面非常相似,铭刻占比均达64%,但在态度类型方面差异显著。负面情感仅在英语书评中出现20例,情感者多为书评者,凸显了英语书评的情感性。负面判断主要通过对非态度性过程进行否定来引发。汉语书评中判断对象皆为书籍作者,但英语书评中有5处书评者的自我判断。负面鉴赏主导整个态度系统,五个特征均可区分为更加细致的语义群组,但相关词汇语法资源的频次都不高。鉴赏对象类别中具体内容的比例最高。另外,两种语言中负面态度的跨阶段分布差异显著。英语书评中负面态度出现在所有四个阶段中,但汉语书评中负面态度从未出现在引言阶段。
级差的对比分析涉及四个子系统。其中级差升降是指态度值的升高或降低,级差功能是指显性态度的分级或隐性态度的引发,级差模式包括分离、重复、比较和极度,级差类型分为语力和语焦。英汉书评中级差比率高达2.2：1。两种语言在级差升降和级差类型方面差异显著,但在级差功能和级差模式方面非常相似。具体来说,英语书评中升高级差显著多于降低级差,但汉语书评中恰好相反。汉语书评中语力占比显著更高。两种语言中显性态度分级资源均逾70%,分离级差均超80%。在更精密层级中,本研究对语力和语焦的子系统和特征从级差升降、级差功能和级差模式三个维度进行了细致描述。体现级差的词汇语法资源很多,但高频者很少。最后,级差的阶段分布亦呈现出显著的英汉差异。英语书评中的分布形状与负面态度稍有不同。汉语书评中级差同样不出现在引言阶段。
介入的对比分析主要从对话视角探讨负面态度的协商环境。分析表明,英汉书评中负面态度的介入资源比率高达2.1：1。在介入类型方面,英汉书评非常相似。杂言占比均超90%。但在杂言类型方面,英汉书评差异显著,对话收缩在汉语书评中的比例显著更高。在扩展方面,接纳在英汉语书评中均处主导地位,接纳的体现资源多样,部分资源频次高。归属的两个特征频次很低。在收缩方面,否认在英汉书评中均占主导地位,其中反对和否定表现出显著的英汉差异。反对数量超过否定,尤以英语为甚。在两种语言中,否定和反对的体现资源类别不多,但频次很高。收缩的另一个子系统公告含有三个特征。其中同意和宣告表现出显著的英汉差异,而背书表现出相似性。最后,介入的阶段分布与负面态度非常接近。
负面评价的跨语言差异可以通过对比语境分析得到阐释。首先,在语域层面,语场和语式在英汉书评非常相似,但是语旨的跨语言差异显著。这些差异必然对负面评价的类别及频次都产生相当大的制约作用。其次,英汉书评在语类阶段和语类结构变体方面相似,但在书评类别方面存在显著差异。英汉书评作为一种分阶段、交际目标明确的社会化过程,其语类结构可以使用四个阶段的模式来描述,即引言阶段(IS)、概述阶段(DS)、评价阶段(ES)和结论阶段(CS)。其中前三项是必选成分,最后一项是可选成分。英汉书评共享同一个语类结构潜势Ⅰ^
本研究的贡献主要有以下几点：首先,基于评价系统,设计了适用于英汉书评语篇中负面评价对比分析的标注系统。其中评价标注系统中引入了新的变量,如情感者和评价对象。其次,基于自建类比语料库,全面系统地分析了英汉书评语篇中的负面评价意义,在分析的精密阶上向前推进一步,特别是在负面鉴赏方面。分析揭示了英汉书评负面评价的异同,并在语境层面提供了解释。这对于学术话语的写作和发表具有较大参考价值,对于我国语言学期刊的发展与建设也具有借鉴意义。再次,所提出的分析程序逐步展开,步步深入,对基于语料库的对比评价分析具有较大的借鉴意义。
The phenomenon of negative evaluation is an indispensable component of academic book reviews (ABRs). Linguists have mainly approached explicit negative evaluation and its mitigation strategies in ABRs from the variational perspectives, especially cross-disciplinary variation, cross-linguistic variation, diachronic variation, and cross-generic variation. However, there are still few in-depth, systematic contrastive semantic analyses of negative evaluation in English and Chinese linguistics book reviews (LBRs), and such a study is in urgent need.
This study is carried out from the perspective of the appraisal system situated within the stratified model of language and context in systemic functional linguistics (SFL). It aims to develop corpus-based, contrastive appraisal analytical and annotation systems with the ultimate goal of creating thorough, systematic contrastive functional descriptions of negative appraisal in English and Chinese LBRs and finding out the cross-linguistic similarities and differences that are explained in terms of contextual motivations. To be more specific, there are four research questions:(a) What are the similarities and differences of negative attitudes in English and Chinese LBRs?(b) What are the similarities and differences of the graduation of negative attitudes in English and Chinese LBRs?(c) What are the similarities and differences of the engagement of negative attitudes in English and Chinese LBRs?(d) What are the contextual motivations of the similarities and differences of negative appraisal in English and Chinese LBRs?
To answer these research questions, this study firstly outlines a brief review of the appraisal system and focuses attention on the three appraisal subsystems to set up annotation systems that are applicable to the typological analysis. Secondly, the theoretical considerations cover the emergent problems, principles, and paths in appraisal analysis. Thirdly, the annotation systems of generic stages, generic structure variants, and book review types are set up to allow for the contrastive appraisal analysis and contrastive contextual analysis.
A comparable corpus is compiled, consisting of70English LBRs and70Chinese LBRs, which are corresponding to each other on a one-to-one basis in that they share the same books under review. These LBRs are chosen from important linguistics journals published in major English speaking countries and mainland China respectively, covering various sub-disciplines of linguistics. The size of English subcorpus (ELBRC) is98,139words, and that of Chinese subcorpus (CLBRC) is238,556characters. The processed corpus data are incorporated into UAM CorpusTool (UAM).
The analytical procedures are composed of three major steps:(a) the corpus annotation, which consists of annotation on paper, annotation in UAM, and checkup;(b) contrastive appraisal analysis, which consists of the analysis of comparative statistics, negative appraisal realizations, and the distribution of negative appraisal across stages; and (c) the contrastive contextual analysis at the strata of register, genre, and ideology.
In the following, major findings are reported in the order of research questions with the focus on the similarities and differences between English and Chinese LBRs. The contrastive analysis of negative attitudes is concerned with the attitude explicitness type and attitude type. The former is divided into inscribe, provoke, flag, and afford. The three attitude types also include the emoter, the judged, and the appreciated. The English-Chinese ratio of negative attitudes is2:1. The two languages are very similar in terms of the attitude explicitness type in that inscribe accounts for64%in both sub-corpora, but they are statistically different in terms of the attitude type. There are20instances of negative affect, but all English ones, and the emoters are mostly the book reviewers. This foregrounds the emotionality of English LBRs. Negative judgement is mainly invoked by grammatically negating the non-attitudinal processes. All the people judged in CLBRC are the book authors, but there are five negative self-judgement instances in ELBRC. Negative appreciation predominates in the attitude system and its five features can be further divided into smaller semantic groups. But the frequency of these lexico-grammatical resources is not high. The percentage of the specific content in the appreciated types is the highest. In addition, the distribution of negative attitudes across stages is substantially different between the two subcorpora. Negative attitudes in ELBRC occur at all of the four stages, but those in CLBRC never occur at the Introduction Stage.
The contrastive analysis of graduation involves four subsystems. The graduation scale refers to the up-scaling or down-scaling of negative attitudes, and the graduation function refers to the scaling of explicit attitude or the flagging of implicit attitude. The graduation mode is divided into isolation, repetition, comparative, and superlative; and the graduation axis is divided into force and focus. The English-Chinese ratio of graduation is up to2.2:1. The two languages are significantly different in terms of the graduation scale and the graduation axis, but are very similar in terms of the graduation function and the graduation mode. To be more specific, there are more up-scaling resources than downscaling ones in ELBRC, but it is the opposite in CLBRC. The percentage of force in CLBRC is significantly higher. In both languages, the percentage of scaling-attitude is higher than70%and that of isolation is higher than80%. At more delicate levels, the subsystems and features of force and focus are examined from the perspectives of graduation scale, graduation function, and graduation mode. The lexico-grammatical realizations of graduation are diverse but most of them are infrequent. Finally, the distribution of graduation across stages is also significantly different between ELBRC and CLBRC. The distribution of graduation in ELBRC is slightly different from that of negative attitudes. The graduation in CLBRC never occurs at the Introduction Stage.
The contrastive analysis of engagement is mainly to explore the dialogical settings in which negative attitudes are negotiated. The English-Chinese ratio of engagement is up to2.1:1. In terms of the engagement type, the two sub-corpora are very similar in that heteroglossic accounts for more than90%, but the cross-linguistic differences of the heteroglossic type are statistically significant. The percentage of dialogical contraction is significantly higher in CLBRC. Within expand, entertain predominates in both languages and it is realized via a few areas of lexico-grammatical resources, some of which are very frequent. The two attribute features are infrequent. Within contract, disclaim predominates in both languages. The cross-linguistic differences of denial and counter are statistically significant. Counter outnumbers denial, especially in ELBRC. In both languages denial and counter are realized mainly by dozens of very frequent locutions. The other subsystem of contract is proclaim, which has three features. The cross-linguistic differences of concur and pronounce are statistically significant, but that of endorse is not. Finally, the distribution of engagement in both sub-corpora is very similar to that of negative attitudes.
The cross-linguistic similarities and differences of negative appraisal are explained in the light of the contrastive contextual analysis. Firstly, at the register stratum, field and mode are very similar between ELBRC and CLBRC, but tenor shows significant cross-linguistic differences, which inevitably have a considerable impact on the types and frequencies of negative appraisal. Secondly, ELBRC and CLBRC are similar in terms of generic stages and generic structure variants, but significantly different in terms of book review types. As a staged, goal oriented social process, the genre of LBRs can be described with a model of four stages, namely, the Introduction Stage (IS), the Description Stage (DS), the Evaluation Stage (ES), and the Conclusion Stage (CS). The first three are obligatory but the last one is optional. English and Chinese LBRs share a common generic structure potential I^
This study makes a few contributions to the academia. Firstly, annotation systems are designed for the contrastive analysis of the negative appraisal in LBRs. The appraisal annotation system introduces new variables such as emoters, attitudinal targets. Secondly, a comprehensive analysis of the negative appraisal in English and Chinese LBRs is carried out on the basis of a self-compiled corpus, and moves one step forward along the analytical delicacy, especially in the case of negative appreciation. The analysis reveals the cross-linguistic similarities and differences of negative appraisal and offers contextual explanations. The findings are useful for the writing and publication of academic discourse, and also shed light on the development and construction of linguistics journals in China. Thirdly, the proposed analytical procedures unfold with the research questions and have some implications for the corpus-based contrastive appraisal analysis.
引文
1 Since we are dealing with written discourse in this dissertation, we use writer and reader instead of speaker and listener following Thompson and Ye (1991).
1 http://linguistlist.org/index-during-FD2014.cfm
2 This author refers to the author of this dissertation while the (book) author is used to referred to the author of the book under review.
1 Appraisal here does not refer to the appraisal system.
1 Praise and criticism and their interaction have also been explored in genres other than book reviews. It is also referred to as good news/bad news pair (Johnson,1992, p.45), and praise-criticism binomials (Suarez,2005, p.119). In addition, Shaw (2009) discussed the criticism-praise pair, while Gea-Valor (2000-2001) examined the use of praise-criticism chunking.
1 Itakura and Tsui (2011, p.1369) wrongly claimed that only the first three strategies are drawn on Hyland (2000).
1 Of course, there may be some disadvantages with the typological organization. One distinct disadvantage is that system networks are established only by reference to specific criteria. Thus, if specific criteria cannot be determined or are too many, the system networks will be problematic. Thus, some appraisal systems are better conceptualized as scalar (Martin & White,2005, p.16).
1 This annotation system is included in the UAM Corpustool package (see http://www.wagsoft.com/CorpusTool/).
1 The English translations of Chinese example were done by this author.
1 This term is used in accordance with UAM CorpusTool 3.0 Beta.
2 Note that the use of invoking strategies is different from Bednarek (2009b).
1 Here mode is different from the term mode of discourse, which is one of the three variables in the register. Mode means a way or manner in which something is done and this usage can also be found elsewhere (e.g., Halliday & Matthiessen,2004, p.443).
1 The adverb too is not considered as a comparative adverb in this study (cf. Halliday & Matthiessen,2004, p.221).
1 For further information on negative intensification in modern English, see Quirk et al. (1985, p.785).
2 In addition, intensification may also operate over Modality (Martin & White,2005, p.142). But this kind of intensification is not discussed in detail because there are no such instances in the corpus. Furthermore, Hood (2010a, pp.92-93) also discussed intensifying a proposal. Proposals are negotiated via the modulation resources, which are modelled as engagement (Martin & White,2005, pp.110-111). Modulation which includes obligation and inclination has also been related to the attitude system as it forms a continuum with judgement (Martin & White,2005, pp.54-55).
1 It is a term different from the rhetorical structure theory (e.g., Mann, Matthiessen, & Thompson,1992)
1 The book review titles can also be considered as a stage (cf. Eggins,2004, p.67). However, it is not taken into account in this study mainly because they do not contain negative attitudes.
2 These two-letter abbreviations are used in describing the distribution of negative appraisal across stages, and the one word abbreviations are used in describing the generic structure potential and variants.
1 The caret sign is used to indicate that stages are ordered with respect to each other.
1 The numbers were counted in Microsoft Word 2010 after the corpus processing was finished.
1 htpp://www.antlab.sci.waseda.ac.jp/software.html
2 http://www.wagsoft.com/CorpusTool/
1 The arabic number in the parentheses indicates the frequency of the appraisal resources. The use of numbers outside parentheses follows the APA 6th.
1 The original version of this comment is:"The'big picture'that I present, will, I hope, provide useful ideas for others to explore. However, it will undoubtedly disappoint some." (Wray,2002, p. x)
1 The most frequently used items in this dissertation are those that occur no less than three times.
1 http://ccl.pku.edu.cn:8080/ccl_corpus/
1 The item completely has been considered as realizing intensification (Martin & White 2005, p.142), but Hood (2010a, p.88) considered completely as realizing focus.
1 The adjuncts of course, surely, obviously, clearly belong to obviousness (Halliday & Matthiessen,2004, p.82).
1 http://www.linguisticsociety.org/publications/language/bookreviews/faq
1 http://www.linguisticsociety.org/publications/language/bookreviews/faq
2 http://www.elsevier.com/journals/journal-of-pragmatics/0378-2166/guide-for-authors
3 http://www.iournals.elsevier.com/lingua/
4 http://www.iub.edu/-langrev/policies.html#policy1
1 http://www.ddyyx.com/cn/qkis.asp
2 http://www.fltr.ac.cn:8080/wyjxyj/CN/volumn/current.shtml
3 http://202.116.192.73/cn/dqml.asp
4 http://ifl.shisu.edu.cn/CN/volumn/current.shtml
Adendorff, R., & de Klerk, V. (2005). The role of APPRAISAL resources in constructing a community response. Linguistics and the Human Sciences,1(3),489-513.
Alcaraz-Ariza, M. A. (2011). Evaluation in English-medium medical book reviews. International Journal of English Studies,11(1),137-153.
Aristotle. (1908-1952). The works of Aristotle (W. D. Ross, Trans.). Oxford:Clarendon.
Babaii, E. (2011). Hard science, hard talk? The study of negative comments in physics book reviews. In F. Salager-Meyer & B. Lewin (Eds.), Crossed words:Criticism in scholarly writing (pp.55-77). Bern:Peter Lang.
Babaii, E., & Ansary, H. (2007). A cross-disciplinary study of academic book reviews: Defining a genre. In A. Pastukhov (Ed.), Genres and text types in academic and media discourse (pp.127-141). Orel, RF:Kartush Publisher.
Badger, R. (2003). The agonism and the ecstasy:Conflict and argument in applied linguistics. In A. Baynham, A. Deignan & G. White (Eds.), Applied linguistics at the interface (pp.11-28). London:BAAL & Equinox.
Baker, P., Hardie, A., & McEnery, T. (2006). A glossary of corpus linguistics. Edinburgh: Edinburgh University Press.
Bamford, J. (2007). "i i just think that it's, definitely an invasion of privacy, that isn't necessary":Negative evaluations in academic lectures. Textus,20(1),17-36.
Baumgarten, N., & Du Bois, I. (2012). Code-switching as appraisal resource in talking about third parties. Linguistik Online,51(1/12),44.
Becher, T. (1987). Disciplinary discourse. Studies in Higher Education,12(3),261-274.
Becher, T., & Trowler, P. (2001). Academic tribes and territories:Intellectual enquiry and the culture of disciplines (2nd ed.). Oxford:Oxford University Press.
Becker, A. (2007). "Are you saying...?" A cross-cultural analysis of interviewing practices. In A. Fetzer & G. E. Lauerbach (Eds.), Political discourse in the media: Cross-cultural perspectives (pp.109-137). Amsterdam/Philadephia:John Benjamins.
Becker, A. (2009). Modality and engagement in British and German political interviews. Languages in Contrast,9(1),5-22.
Bednarek, M. (2006). Evaluation in media discourse:Analysis of a newspaper corpus. London/New York:Continuum.
Bednarek, M. (2008a). Emotion talk across corpora. Basingstoke/New York:Palgrave Macmillan.
Bednarek, M. (2008b).'An increasingly familiar tragedy':Evaluative collocation and conflation. Functions of Language,15(1),7-34.
Bednarek, M. (2008c). "What the hell is wrong with you?" A corpus perspective on evaluation and emotion in contemporary American pop culture. In A. Mahboob & N. Knight (Eds.), Questioning linguistics (pp.95-126). Newcastle:Cambridge Scholars Publishing.
Bednarek, M. (2009a). Language patterns and ATTITUDE. Functions of Language, 16(2),165-192.
Bednarek, M. (2009b). Polyphony in Appraisal:Typological and topological perspectives. Linguistics and the Human Sciences,3(2),107-136.
Bednarek, M. (2010a). Corpus linguistics and systemic functional linguistics: Interpersonal meaning, identity and bonding in popular culture. In M. Bednarek & J. R. Martin (Eds.), New discourse on language:Functional perspectives on multimodality, identity, and affiliation (pp.237-266). London/New York: Continuum.
Bednarek, M. (2010b). Evaluation in the news:A methodological framework for analysing evaluative language in journalism. Australian Journal of Communication, 37(2),15-50.
Bednarek, M. (2010c). The language of fictional television:Drama and identity. London/New York:Continuum.
Bednarek, M. (2013, February). Principles for applying Appraisal theory:A perspective from corpus-based discourse analysis. Paper presented at the Symposium on Current Issues in Appraisal Theory and Practice, Sydney. http://www.socialsemiotics.org/appraisalsymposium/abstracts/
Bednarek, M., & Martin, J. R. (Eds.). (2010). New discourse on language:Functional perspectives on multimodality, identity, and affiliation. London:Continuum.
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.135-154). Norwood, NJ:Ablex.
Bloch, J., & Chi, L. (1995). A comparison of the use of citations in Chinese and English academic discourse. In D. Belcher & G. Braine (Eds.), Academic writing in a second language:Essays on research and pedagogy (pp.231-274). Norwood, NJ: Ablex.
Bock, Z. (2008).'Language has a heart':Linguistic markers of evaluation in selected TRC testimonies. Journal of Multicultural Discourses,3(3),189-203.
Bock, Z. (2011). Code-switching:An appraisal resource in TRC testimonies. Functions of Language,18(2),183-209.
Bolivar, A. (2001). The negotiation of evaluation in written text. In M. Scott & G. Thompson (Eds.), Patterns of text. In honour of Michael Hoey (pp.129-158). Amsterdam/Philadelphia:John Benjamins.
Breivega, K. R., Dahl, T., & Flottum, K. (2002). Traces of self and others in research articles. A comparative pilot study of English, French and Norwegian research articles in medicine, economics and linguistics. International Journal of Applied Linguistics,12(2),218-239.
Brown, P., & Levinson, S. (1987). Politeness:Some universals in language usage. Cambridge:Cambridge University Press.
Caffarel, A., & Rechniewski, E. (2009). A systemic functional approach to analysing and interpreting ideology:An illustration from French editorials. Revista Alicantina de Estudios Ingleses,22,27-43.
Caldwell, D. (2008). Affiliating with rap music:Political rap or gangsta rap? Novitas-ROYAL,2(1),13-27.
Caldwell, D. (2009). "Working your words":Appraisal in the AFL post-match interview. Australian Review of Applied Linguistics,32(2),1-17.
Carretero, M., & Taboada, M. (2014). Graduation within the scope of attitude in English and Spanish consumer reviews of books and movies. In G. Thompson & L. Alba-Juez (Eds.), Evaluation in context (pp.221-239). Amsterdam:John Benjamins.
Carretero, M., & Taboada, M. (in press). The annotation of Appraisal:How attitude and epistemic modality overlap in English and Spanish consumer reviews. In R. Zamorano (Ed.), Thinking modally:English and contrastive studies on modality. Bern:Peter Lang.
Chafe, W. L., & Nichols, J. (Eds.). (1986). Evidentiality:The linguistic coding of epistemology. Norwood, NJ:Ablex.
Channell, J. (2000). Corpus-based analysis of evaluative lexis. In S. Hunston & G. Thompson (Eds.), Evaluation in text:Authorial stance and the construction of discourse (pp.38-55). Oxford:Oxford University Press.
Chen, L. J. (2011). Study of evaluation in English academic book reviews. Beijing: Foreign Language Teaching and Research Press.
Chesterman, A. (1998). Contrastive functional analysis. Amsterdam/Philadelphia:John Benjamins.
Christie, F., & Martin, J. R. (Eds.). (1997). Genres and institutions:Social practices in the workplace and school. London:Cassel.
Coffin, C. (1997). Constructing and giving value to the past:An investigation into secondary school history. In F. Christie & J. R. Martin (Eds.), Genre and institutions:Social processes in the workplace and school (pp.101-133). London: Cassell.
Coffin, C. (2002). The voices of history:Theorizing the interpersponal semantics of historical discourses. Text,22(4),503-528.
Coffin, C. (2003). Reconstruing the past:Settlement or invasion? In J. R. Martin & R. Wodak (Eds.), Re/reading the past:Critical and functional perspectives on time and value (pp.219-246). Amsterdam:John Benjamins.
Coffin, C. (2006). Historical discourse:The language of time, cause and evaluation. London:Continuum.
Coffin, C., & Hewings, A. (2004). IELTS as preparation for tertiary writing:Distinctive interpersonal and textual strategies. In L. Ravelli & R. A. Ellis (Eds.), Analysing academic writing:Contextualised frameworks (pp.153-171). London:Continuum.
Coffin, C., & Hewings, A. (2005). Engaging electronically:Using CMC to develop students'argumentation skills in higher education. Language and Education,19(1), 32-49.
Coffin, C., & Mayor, B. (2004). Authorial voice and interpersonal tenor in novice academic writing. In D. Banks (Ed.), Text and texture:Systemic functional viewpoints on the nature and structure of text (pp.239-264). Paris:L'Harmattan.
Coffin, C., & O'Halloran, K. (2005). Finding the global groove:Theorising and analysing dynamic reader positioning using APPRAISAL, corpus, and a concordancer. Critical Discourse Studies,2(2),143-163.
Coffin, C., & O'Halloran, K. (2006). The role of appraisal and corpora in detecting covert evaluation. Functions of Language,13(1),77-110.
Collins. (2011). Collins COBUILD advanced learner's English-Chinese dictionary. Beijing:Foreign Language Teaching and Research Press.
Connor, U. (1996). Contrastive rhetoric:Cross-cultural aspects of second language writing. Cambridge:Cambridge University Press.
Connor, U., & Moreno, A. I. (2005). Tertium comparationis:A vital component in contrastive rhetoric research. In P. Bruthiaux, D. Atkinson, W. Eggington, W. Grabe & V. Ramanathan (Eds.), Directions in applied linguistics:Essays in honor of Robert B. Kaplan (pp.153-164). Clevedon, UK:Multilingual Matters.
Conrad, S., & Biber, D. (2000). Adverbial marking of stance in speech and writing. In S. Hunston & G. Thompson (Eds.), Evaluation in text:Authorial stance and the construction of discourse (pp.56-73). Oxford:Oxford University Press.
de Carvalho, G. (2001, October). Rhetorical patterns of academic book reviews written in Portuguese and in English. Paper presented at the 2nd International Contrastive Linguistics Conference, Santiago de Compostela, Brazil.
DeCoursey, C. A. (2012). Trialing cartoons:Teachers'attitudes towards animation as an ELT instructional tool. Computers & Education,59(2),436-448.
Derewianka, B. (2007). Using appraisal theory to track interpersonal development in adolescent academic writing. In A. McCabe, M. O'Donnell & R. Whittaker (Eds.), Advances in language and education (pp.142-165). London:Continuum.
Diani, G. (2009). Reporting and evaluation in English book review articles:A cross-disciplinary study. In K. Hyland & G. Diani (Eds.), Academic evaluation: Review genres in university settings (pp.87-104). Basingstoke:Palgrave Macmillan.
Eggins, S. (2004). Introduction to systemic functional linguistics. London:Continuum.
Eggins, S. (2012). Appraising pain:Clinician-patient interactions in hospital emergency departments [Special issue]. Revista Canaria de Estudios Ingleses,65,29-46.
Eggins, S., & Slade, D. (1997). Analysing casual conversation. London:Cassell.
Fagan, A., & Martin, P. M. (2004). The use of critical speech acts in psychology and chemistry research papers. Iberica,8,125-137.
Felber, L. (2002). The book review:Scholarly and editorial responsibility. Journal of Scholarly Publishing,33(3),166-172.
Fisiak, J. (1980). Theoretical issues in contrastive linguistics. Amsterdam:John Benjamins.
Gea-Valor, M. L. (2000). A pragmatic approach to politeness and modality in the book review articles. Valencia:Universitat de Valencia.
Gea-Valor, M. L. (2000-2001). The pragmatics of positive politeness in the book review. Revista Espanola de Linguistica Aplicada,14,145-160.
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. (2005). Negative evaluation in academic discourse:A comparison of English and Italian research articles. Linguistica e Filologia,20,71-99.
Giannoni, D. S. (2006). Expressing praise and criticism in economic discourse:A comparative analysis of English and Italian book reviews. In G. D. L. Camiciotti, M. Dossena & B. C. Camiciottoli (Eds.), Variation in business and economics discourse:Diachronic and genre perspectives (pp.126-138). Rome:Officina Edizioni.
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). Basingstoke:Palgrave MacMillan.
Giannoni, D. S. (2011). "Don't be stupid about intelligent design":Confrontational impoliteness in medical journal editorials. In F. Salager-Meyer & B. Lewin (Eds.), Crossed words:Criticism in scholarly writing (pp.79-98). Bern:Peter Lang.
Hernandez Hernandez, M. A., & Gonzalez Rodriguez, M. J. (Eds.). (2012). Evaluative uses of language:The appraisal framework [Special issue]. Revista Canaria de Estudios Ingleses,65.
Granger, S. (2003). The corpus approach:A common way forward for contrastive linguistics and translation studies. In S. Granger, J. Lerot & S. Petch-Tyson (Eds.), Corpus-based approaches to contrastive linguistics and translation studies (pp. 17-29). Amsterdam:Rodopi.
Groom, N. (2005). Pattern and meaning across genres and disciplines:An exploratory study. Journal of English for Academic Purposes,4(3),257-277.
Groom, N. (2009). Phraseology and epistemology in academic book reviews:A corpus-driven analysis of two humanities disciplines. In K. Hyland & G. Diani (Eds.), Academic evaluation:Review genres in university settings (pp.122-139). London:Palgrave Macmillan.
Gross, A. G. (2000). The science wars and the ethics of book reviewing. Philosophy of the Social Sciences,30(3),445-450.
Haddington, P. (2006). Identity and stance taking in news interviews:A case study. In I. Lassen, J. Strunck & T. Vestergaard (Eds.), Mediating ideology in text and image: Ten critical studies (pp.69-95). Amsterdam:John Benjamins.
Halliday, M. A. K. (1973). Explorations in the functions of language. London:Arnold.
Halliday, M. A. K. (1978). Language as social semiotic:The social interpretation of language and meaning. London:Arnold.
Halliday, M. A. K. (1989). Context of situation. In M. A. K. Halliday & R. Hasan (Eds.), Language, context and text (pp.3-14). Oxford:Oxford University Press.
Halliday, M. A. K. (1994). An Introduction to functional grammar. London:Arnold.
Halliday, M. A. K., & Matthiessen, C. M. I. M. (2004). An introduction to functional grammar. London:Arnold.
Hartley, J. (2006). Reading and writing book reviews across the disciplines. Journal of the American Society for Information Science and Technology,57(9),1194-1207.
Hartmann, R. R. K. (1980). Contrastive textology:Comparative discourse analysis in applied linguistics. Heideberg:Julius Groos Verlag.
Hasan, R. (1989). Part B. In M. A. K. Halliday & R. Hasan (Eds.), Language, context and text:Aspects of language in a socio-semiotic perspective (pp.52-119). Geelong: Deakin University Press.
Hedeboe, B. (2007). On the'internal dialogue'between an examination task and pre-university students. In A. McCabe, M. O'Donnell & R. Whittaker (Eds.), Advances in language and education (pp.201-216). New York/London: Continuum.
Hernandez Hernandez, M. A., & Gonzalez Rodriguez, M. J. (2012). Evaluative uses of language:The appraisal framework [Special issue]. Revista Canaria de Estudios Ingleses,65.
Hill, M. (2007). Dictionary of American idioms and phrasal verbs. Beijing:Tsinghua University Press.
Ho, C. M. L. (2010). Engagement in the Second Life Virtual World with students. In O. A. Taiwo (Ed.), Handbook of research on discourse behavior and digital communication:Language structures and social interaction (pp.651-669). Hershey/New York:Information Science Reference.
Holliday, A. (1999). Small cultures. Applied Linguistics,20(2),237-264.
Hommerberg, C. (2011). Persuasiveness in the discourse of wine:The rhetoric of Robert Parker. Vaxjo, Kalmar:Linnaeus University Press.
Hood, S. (2004). Managing attitude in undergraduate academic writing:A focus on the introductions to research reports. In L. J. Ravelli & R. A. Ellis (Eds.), Analysing academic writing:Contextualised frameworks (pp.24-44). London:Continuum.
Hood, S. (2005). What is evaluated, and how, in adademic research writing?:The co-patterning of attitude and field. Australian Review of Applied Linguistics(19), 23-40.
Hood, S. (2006). The persuasive power of prosodies:Radiating values in academic writing. Journal of English for Academic Purposes,5(1),37-49.
Hood, S. (2007). Arguing in and across disciplinary boundaries:Legitimizing strategies in applied linguistics and cultural studies. In A. McCabe, M. O'Donnell & R. Whittaker (Eds.), Advances in language and education (pp.185-200). London: Continuum.
Hood, S. (2008). Summary writing in academic contexts:Implicating meaning in processes of change. Linguistics and Education,19(4),351-365.
Hood, S. (2009). Texturing interpersonal meanings in academic argument:Pulses and prosodies of value. In G. Forey & G. Thompson (Eds.), Text type and texture (pp. 214-233). London:Equinox.
Hood, S. (2010a). Appraising research:Evaluation in academic writing. London: Palgrave Macmillan.
Hood, S. (2010b). Naming and negotiating relationships in call centre talk. In G. Forey & J. Lockwood (Eds.), Globalization, communication and the workplace:Talking across the world (pp.88-105). London:Continuum.
Hood, S. (2012). Voice and stance as APPRAISAL:Persuading and positioning in research writing across intellectual fields. In K. Hyland & C. S. Guinda (Eds.), Stance and voice in written academic genres (pp.51-68). London:Palgrave Macmillan.
Hood, S., & Forey, G. (2005). Introducing a conference paper:Getting interpersonal with your audience. Journal of English for Academic Purposes,4(4),291-306.
Hood, S., & Forey, G. (2008). The interpersonal dynamics of call-centre interactions: Co-constructing the rise and fall of emotion. Discourse & Communication,2(4), 389-409.
Hunston, S. (1993a). Evaluation and ideology in scientific writing. In M. Ghadessy (Ed.), Register analysis:Theory and practice (pp.57-73). London:Pinter.
Hunston, S. (1993b). Professional conflict:Disagreement in academic discourse. In M. Baker, G. Francis & E. Tognini-Bonelli (Eds.), Text and technology. In honour of John Sinclair (pp.115-134). Philadelphia/Amsterdam:John Benjamins.
Hunston, S. (2004a). Counting the uncountable:Problems of identifying evaluation in a text and in a corpus. In A. Partington, J. Morley & L. Haarman (Eds.), Corpora and discourse (pp.157-188). Bern:Peter Lang.
Hunston, S. (2004b).'It has rightly been pointed out...':Attribution, consensus and conflict in academic discourse. In M. Bondi, L. Gavioli & M. Silver (Eds.), Academic discourse, genre and small corpora (pp.15-33). Rome:Officina Edizioni.
Hunston, S. (2005). Conflict and consensus:Construing opposition in applied linguistics. In E. Tognini-Bonelli & D.1. Camiciotti (Eds.), Strategies in academic discourse (pp.1-15). Amsterdam:John Benjamins.
Hunston, S. (2011). Corpus approaches to evaluation:Phraseology and evaluative language. New York/London:Routledge.
Hunston, S., & Thompson, G. (Eds.). (2000). Evaluation in text:Authorial stance and the construction of discourse. Oxford:Oxford University Press.
Hyland, K. (1998). Hedging in scientific research articles. Amsterdam:John Benjamins.
Hyland, K. (2000). Disciplinary discourses:Social interactions in academic writing. Michigan:University of Michigan Press.
Hyland, K. (2005a). Metadiscourse:Exploring interaction in writing. London: Continuum.
Hyland, K. (2005b). Stance and engagement:A model of interaction in academic discourse. Discourse Studies,7(2),173-192.
Hyland, K. (2009). Corpus informed discourse analysis:The case of academic engagement. In M. Charles, S. Hunston & D. Pecorari (Eds.), Academic writing:At the interface of corpus and discourse (pp.110-128). London:Continuum.
Hyland, K., & Diani, G. (2009a). Introduction:Academic evaluation and review genres. In K. Hyland & G. Diani (Eds.), Academic evaluation:Review genres in university settings (pp.1-14). London:Palgrave MacMillan.
Hyland, K., & Diani, G. (Eds.). (2009b). Academic evaluation:Review genres in university settings. London:Palgrave Macmillan.
Hyland, K., & Guinda, C. S. (2012). Stance and voice in written academic genres. London:Palgrave Macmillan.
Itakura, H. (2013). Hedging praise in English and Japanese book reviews. Journal of Pragmatics,45(1),131-148.
Itakura, H., & Tsui, A. (2011). Evaluation in academic discourse:Managing criticism in Japanese and English book reviews. Journal of Pragmatics,43(5),1366-1379.
James, C. (1980). Contrastive analysis. Harlow, Essex:Longman.
Johansson, S. (2003). Contrastive linguistics and corpora. In S. Granger, J. Lerot & S. Petch-Tyson (Eds.), Corpus-based approaches to contrastive linguistics and translation studies (pp.31-45). Amsterdam/New York:Rodopi.
Johnson, D. M. (1992). Compliments and politeness in peer-review texts. Applied Linguistics,13(1),51-71.
Johnson, D. M., & Roen, D. H. (1992). Complimenting and involvement in peer reviews: Gender variation. Language in Society,21(1),27-57.
Jon, S. Y. H. (2010).'I was so angry. It was unbelievable...':A comparison of written and spoken customer service complaints. In G. Forey & J. Lockwood (Eds.), Globalization, communication and the workplace:Talking across the world (pp. 59-87). London:Continuum.
Kaplan, R. B. (1966). Cultural thought patterns in inter-cultural education. Language Learning,16,1-20.
Krzeszowski, T. P. (1990). Contrasting languages:The scope of contrastive linguistics. Berlin/New York:Walter de Gruyter.
Labov, W. (1972). Language in the inner city. Philadelphia:University of Pennsylvania Press.
Lado, R. (1957). Linguistics across cultures:Applied linguistics for language teachers. Ann Arbor:University of Michigan Press.
Lakoff, G., & Johnson, M. (1980). Metaphors we live by. Chicago:University of Chicago Press.
Lewin, B. A. (2005). Contentiousness in science:The discourse of critique in two sociology journals. Text,25(6),723-744.
Lindholm-Romantschuk, Y. (1998). Scholarly book reviewing in the social sciences and humanities:The flow of ideas within and among disciplines. London:Greenwood Press.
Lipovsky, C. (2008). Constructing affiliation and solidarity in job interviews. Discourse & Communication,2(4),411-432.
Lipovsky, C., & Mahboob, A. (2010). Appraisal of native and non-native English speaking teachers. In A. Mahboob (Ed.), The NNEST lens:Non-native English speakers in TESOL (pp.154-179). Newcastle upon Tyne:Cambridge Scholars Publishing.
Liu, S. Z. (2007). Structural potential of attitude. Beijing:China Social Sciences Publishing House.
Lores Sanz, R. (2009). 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). Basingstoke: Palgrave MacMillan.
Lores Sanz, R. (2012). Local disciplines, local cultures:Praise and criticism in British and Spanish history book reviews. Brno Studies in English,38(2),97-116.
Lores Sanz, R., Mur-Duenas, P., & Lafuente-Millan, E. (Eds.). (2010). Constructing interpersonality:Multiple perspectives on written academic genres. Newcastle upon Tyne:Cambridge Scholars Publishing.
Louw, B. (1993). Irony in the text or insincerity in the writer? The diagnostic potential of semantic prosodies. In M. Baker, G. Francis & E. Tognini-Bonelli (Eds.), Text and technology:In honour of John Sinclair (pp.157-176). Amsterdam:John Benjamins.
Lyons, J. (1977). Semantics. Cambridge:Cambridge University Press.
Macken-Horarik, M. (2003 a). APPRAISAL and the special instructiveness of narrative [Speicial issue]. Text,23(2),285-312.
Macken-Horarik, M. (2003b). Envoi:Intractable issues in appraisal analysis? [Speicial issue]. Text,23(2),313-319.
Macken-Horarik, M., & Martin, J. R. (Eds.). (2003). Negotiating heteroglossia:Social perspectives on evaluation [Special issue]. Text,23(2).
Mackiewicz, J. (2007). Compliments and criticisms in book reviews about business communication. Journal of Business and Technical Communication,21(2), 188-215.
Mann, W. C., Matthiessen, C. M. I. M., & Thompson, S. A. (1992). Rhetorical structure theory and text analysis. In W. C. Mann & S. A. Thompson (Eds.), Discourse description:Diverse linguistic analyses of a fund-raising text (pp.39-78). Amsterdam/Philadelphia:John Benjamins.
Marin Arrese, J. I., & Nunez Perucha, B. (2006). Evaluation and engagement in journalistic commentary and news reportage. Revista Alicantina de Estudios Ingleses,19,225-248.
Martin, J. R. (1992). English text:System and structure. Amsterdam:John Benjamins.
Martin, J. R. (1995). Interpersonal meaning, persuasion and public discourse:Packing semiotic punch. Australian Journal of Linguistics,15(1),33-67.
Martin, J. R. (1997). Analysing genre:Functional parameters. In F. Christie & J. Martin (Eds.), Genre and institutions:Social processes in the workplace and school (pp. 3-39). London:Cassell.
Martin, J. R. (2000). Beyond exchange:APPRAISAL systems in English. In S. Hunston & G. Thompson (Eds.), Evaluation in text:Authorial stance and the construction of discourse (pp.142-175). Oxford:Oxford University Press.
Martin, J. R. (2003). Introduction [Special issue]. Text,23(2),1-11.
Martin, J. R. (2004a). Mourning:How we get aligned. Discourse & Society,15(2-3), 321-344.
Martin, J. R. (2004b). Sense and sensibility:Texturing evaluation. In J. A. Foley (Ed.), Language, education and discourse:Functional approaches (pp.270-304). London: Continuum.
Martin, J. R. (2008a). Innocence:Realisation, instantiation and individuation in a Botswanan town. In N. Knight & A. Mahboob (Eds.), Questioning linguistics (pp. 27-54). Cambridge:Cambridge Scholars Publishing.
Martin, J. R. (2008b). Tenderness:Realisation and instantiation in a Botswanan town. Odense working papers in language and communication,29,30-58.
Martin, J. R. (2012). The author's introduction. In W. Zhenhua (Ed.), The collected works of J. R. Martin (pp.1-6). Shanghai:Shanghai Jiao Tong University Press.
Martin, J. R. (2013, February). La grande illusion:Continuing the study of lexis. Paper presented at the Symposium on Current Issues in Appraisal Theory and Practice, Sydney, http://www.socialsemiotics.org/appraisalsymposium/abstracts/
Martin, J. R., & Hood, S. (2007). Invoking attitude:The play of graduation in appraising discourse. In J. Webster, C. M. I. M. Matthiessen & R. Hasan (Eds.), Continuing discourse on language (pp.739-764). London:Equinox.
Martin, J. R., & Matthiessen, C. M. I. M. (1991). Systemic typology and topology. In F. Christie (Ed.), Literacy in social processes (pp.345-383). Darwin:Centre for Studies in Language in Education, Northern Territory University.
Martin, J. R., & Rose, D. (2007). Working with discourse:Meaning beyond the clause (2nd ed.). London:Continuum.
Martin, J. R., & Rose, D. (2008). Genre relations:Mapping culture. London:Equinox.
Martin, J. R., & White, P. R. R. (2005). The language of evaluation:Appraisal in English. London:Palgrave Macmillan.
Martin, J. R., Zappavigna, M, & Dwyer, P. G. (2010). Negotiating evaluation:Story structure and appraisal in youth justice conferencing. In A. Mahboob & N. K. Knight (Eds.), Appliable linguistics (pp.44-75). London:Continuum.
Mauranen, A. (2004). Where next? A summary of the round table discussion. In G. D. L. Camiciotti & E. T. Bonelli (Eds.), Academic discourse:New insights into evaluation (pp.203-215). Bern:Peter Lang.
Mauranen, A., & Bondi, M. (2003). Evaluative language use in academic discourse. Journal of English for Academic Purposes,2(4),269-271.
McCabe, A., & Heilman, K. (2007). Textual and interpersonal differences between a news report and an editorial. Revista Alicantina de Estudios Ingleses,20,139-156.
McEnery, T., & Xiao, R. (2007). Parallel and comparable corpora:What is happening. In G. Anderman & M. Rogers (Eds.), Incorporating corpora:The linguist and the translator (pp.18-31). Clevedon, UK:Multilingual Matters.
McEnery, T., Xiao, R., & Tono, Y. (2006). Corpus-based language studies:An advanced resource book. London/New York:Taylor & Francis.
Miller, D. R. (2004).'... to meet our common challenge':Engagement strategies of alignment and alienation in current US international discourse. Textus,18(1),39-62.
Moreno, A. I. (2008). The importance of comparable corpora in cross-cultural studies. In U. Connor, E. Nagelhout & W. Rozycki (Eds.), Contrastive rhetoric:Reaching to intercultural rhetoric (pp.25-41). Amsterdam:John Benjamins.
Moreno, A. I., & Suarez, L. (2008a). A framework for comparing evaluation resources across academic texts. Text & Talk,28(6),749-769.
Moreno, A. I., & Suarez, L. (2008b). Managing academic conflict in English and Spanish academic book reviews:An intercultural rhetoric study. Paper presented at the InterLAE Conference, Universidad de Zaragoza, Spain. http://www.unizar.es/interlae/conference08.html
Moreno, A. I., & Suarez, L. (2008c). A study of critical attitude across English and Spanish academic book reviews. Journal of English for Academic Purposes,7(1), 15-26.
Moreno, A. I., & Suarez, L. (2009). Academic book reviews in English and Spanish: Critical comments and rhetorical structure. In K. Hyland & G. Diani (Eds.), Academic evaluation:Review genres in university settings (pp.161-178). Basingstoke:Palgrave Macmillan.
Moreno, A. I., & Suarez, L. (2010). Academic book reviews in English and Spanish:Is "giving reasons for critical comments" a universal politeness strategy? In R. L. Sanz, P. Mur-Duenas & E. Lafuente-Millan (Eds.), Constructing interpersonality: Multiple perspectives on written academic genres (pp.137-162). Newcastle upon Tyne:Cambridge Scholars Publishing.
Moreno, A. I., & Suarez, L. (2011). Academic book reviews of literature in English and Spanish:Writers'visibility and invisibility strategies for expressing critical comments. In F. Salager-Meyer & B. A. Lewin (Eds.), Crossed words:Criticism in the academy (pp.225-256). Bern:Peter Lang.
Motta-Roth, D. (1995a). Book reviews and disciplinary discourses:Defining a genre. Paper presented at the TESOL 29th Annnual Convention and Exposition, Long Beach, USA.
Motta-Roth, D. (1995b). Rhetorical features and disciplinary cultures:A genre-based study of academic book reviews in linguistics, chemistry, and economics. (Unpublished doctorial dissertation), Federal University of Santa Catarina.
Motta-Roth, D. (1996a). Investigating connections between text and discourse communities:A cross-disciplinary study of evaluative discourse practices in academic book reviews. Paper presented at the Annual Meeting of the American Association for Applied Linguistics.
Motta-Roth, D. (1996b). Same genre, different discipline:A genre-based study of book reviews in academe. The ESPecialist,17(2),99-131.
Motta-Roth, D. (1998). Dsicourse analysis and academic book reviews:A study of textual and disciplinary cultures. In I. Fortanet, S. Posteguillo, J. C. Palmer & J. F. Coll (Eds.), Genre studies in English for academic purposes (pp.29-58). Castello, Spain:de la Universitat Jaume I.
Mpofu, L., & Adendorff, R. D. (2011). An APPRAISAL analysis of the discourse of student assistants'reports at an Eastern Cape girls'boarding school. Southern African Linguistics and Applied Language Studies,29(4),447-482.
Munday, J. (2012). The expression of attitude in translation [Special issue]. Revista Canaria de Estudios Ingleses,65,101-114.
Myers, G. (1989). The pragmatics of politeness in scientific articles. Applied Linguistics, 10(1),1-35.
Navarro, F. (2011). The critical act as a pragmatic unit for studying academic conflict:A methodological framework. In F. Salager-Meyer & B. A. Lewin (Eds.), Crossed words:Criticism in scholarly writing (pp.23-52). Bern:Peter Lang.
Nicolaisen, J. (2002). The scholarliness of published peer reviews:A bibliometric study of book reviews in selected social science fields. Research Evaluation,11(3), 129-140.
Oleksy, W. (1988). Contrastive pragmatics. Amsterdam/Philadelphia:John Benjamins.
Page, R. E. (2003). An analysis of APPRAISAL in childbirth narratives with special consideration of gender and storytelling style [Special issue]. Text,23(2),211-238.
Painter, C. (2003). Developing attitude:An ontogenetic perspective on APPRAISAL [Special issue]. Text,23(2),183-210.
Partington, A. (2004). "Utterly content in each other's company":Semantic prosody and semantic preference. International Journal of Corpus Linguistics,9(1),131-156.
Pascual, M., & Unger, L. (2010). Appraisal in the research genres:An analysis of grant proposals by Argentinean researchers. Revista Signos,43(73),261-280.
Petric, B. (2011). Scholarly criticism in a small academic community:A diachronic study of book reviews in the oldest Serbian journal. In F. Salager-Meyer & B. A. Lewin (Eds.), Crossed words:Criticism in scholarly writing (pp.309-338). Bern:Peter Lang.
Pounds, G. (2012). Genre- and culture-specific aspects of evaluation:Insights from the contrastive analysis of English and Italian online property advertising. Linguistics and the Human Sciences,6(1-3),253-274.
Quintana Toledo, E., & Sanchez Cuervo, M. E. (2012). Beyond the appraisal framework: Evaluation of "can" and "may" in introductions and conclusions to computing research articles [Special issue]. Revista Canaria de Estudios Ingleses,65,131-146.
Quirk, R., Greenbaum, S., Leech, G., & Svartivik, J. (1985). A comprehensive grammar of the English language. London:Longman.
Read, J., & Carroll, J. (2012a). Annotating expressions of appraisal in English. Language Resources and Evaluation,46(3),421-447.
Read, J., & Carroll, J. (2012b). Weakly-supervised appraisal analysis. Linguistic Issues in Language Technology,8,1-21.
Roget, P. M. (1972). Roget's thesaurus of English words and phrases (revised by R. A. Dutch). London:Longman.
Romer, U. (2005). "This seems somewhat counterintuitive, though...":Negative evaluation in linguistic book reviews by male and female authors. In E. T. Bonelli & G. D. L. Camiciotti (Eds.), Strategies in academic discourse (pp.97-115). Amsterdam:John Benjamins.
Romer, U. (2008). Identification impossible? A corpus approach to realisations of evaluative meaning in academic writing. Functions of Language,15(1),115-130.
Rothery, J., & Stenglin, M. (1997). Entertaining and instructing:Exploring experience through story. In F. Christie & J. R. Martin (Eds.), Genre and institutions:Social processes in the workplace and school (pp.231-263). London:Cassell.
Rothery, J., & Stenglin, M. (2000). Interpreting literature:The role of APPRAISAL. In L. Unsworth (Ed.), Researching language in schools and communities:Functional linguistic perspectives (pp.222-244). London:Cassell.
Ryshina-Pankova, M. (2011). Developmental changes in the use of interactional resources:Persuading the reader in FL book reviews. Journal of Second Language Writing,20(4),243-256.
Salager-Meyer, F. (1999). From "Mr. Guthrie is profoundly mistaken..." to "Our data do not seem to confirm the results of a previous study on...":A diachronic study of polemicity in academic writing (1810-1995). Iberica,1,5-28.
Salager-Meyer, F. (2001).'This book portrays the worst form of mental terrorism' Critical speech acts in medical English book reviews (1940-2000). In A. Kertesz (Ed.), Approaches to the pragmatics of scientific discourse (pp.47-72). Frankfurt am Main:Peter Lang.
Salager-Meyer, F. (2010). Academic book reviews and the construction of scientific knowledge (1890-2005). In S. Posteguillo & M. L. G. Valr (Eds.), Linguistic and translation studies in scientific communication (pp.39-68). Bern:Peter Lang.
Salager-Meyer, F., & Alcaraz-Ariza, M. A. (2004). Negative appraisals in academic book reviews:A cross-linguistic approach. In C. Candlin & M. Gotti (Eds.), Intercultural aspects of specialized communication (pp.149-172). Bern:Peter Lang.
Salager-Meyer, F., & Alcaraz-Ariza, M. A. (2011). Expert knowledge-holders, knowledge-builders and factual reporters:Critical voices in medical genres. In F. Salager-Meyer & B. A. Lewin (Eds.), Crossed words:Criticism in scholarly writing (pp.173-202). Bern:Peter Lang.
Salager-Meyer, F., & Lewin, B. A. (Eds.). (2011). Crossed words:Criticism in scholarly writing. Bern:Peter Lang.
Salager-Meyer, F., Alcaraz Ariza, M. A., & Luzardo Briceno, M. (2012). The dynamics of critical voices over time:The case of the medical book review (1890-2010). In K. Hyland & C. S. Guinda (Eds.), Stance and voice in written academic genres (pp. 232-247). London:Palgrave Macmillan.
Salager-Meyer, F., Alcaraz-Ariza, M. A., & Pabon Berbesi, M. (2007a). Collegiality, critique and the construction of scientific argumentation in medical book reviews:A diachronic approach. Journal of Pragmatics,39(10),1758-1774.
Salager-Meyer, F., Alcaraz-Ariza, M. A., & Pabon Berbesi, M. (2007b). The prosecutor and the defendant:Contrasting critical voices in French- and English-written academic book reviews. In K. Fl(?)ttum (Ed.), Language and discipline perspectives on academic discourse (pp.109-128). Cambridge:Cambridge Scholars Publishing.
Salager-Meyer, F., Alcaraz-Ariza, M. A., & Pabon Berbesi, M. (2010). How's who? Protagonists'identification in scholarly book reviews (1890-2008). Enonciation et rhetorique dans l'ecrit scientifique(41),59-78.
Salager-Meyer, F., Alcaraz-Ariza, M. A., & Zambrano, N. (2005). From emotionality, humour and sarcasm to matter-of-factedness:The rhetoric of criticism in medical English book reviews (1940-2000). In M. L. C. Pastor (Ed.), Perspectivas interdisciplinares de la linguistica aplicada (pp.333-341). Universidad Politecnica de Valencia:AESLA.
Scott, C. (2008). Construing attitude and experience in discourse:the interaction of the TRANSITIVITY and APPRAISAL systems. In C. Jones & E. Ventola (Eds.), From language to multimodality:New developments in the study of ideational meaning (pp.87-109). London:Equinox.
Shaw, P. (2004). How do we recognise implicit evaluation in academic book reviews. In G. D. L. Camiciotti & E. T. Bonelli (Eds.), Academic discourse:New insights into evaluation (pp.121-140). Bern:Peter Lang.
Shaw, P. (2006). Evaluative language in evaluative and promotional genres. In G. D. L. Camiciotti, M. Dossena & B. C. Camiciottoli (Eds.), Variation in business and economics discourse:Diachronic and genre perspectives (pp.152-165). Rome: Officina Edizioni.
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 genres in university settings (pp.217-235). Basingstoke:Palgrave Macmillan.
Simpson, P. (1993). Language, ideology and point of view. London:Routledge.
Sinclair, J. (1991). Corpus, concordance, collocation. Oxford:Oxford University Press.
Spooner, A. (1999). The little Oxford thesaurus in A-Z form. Oxford:Oxford University Press.
Stotesbury, H. (2006). Gaps and false conclusions:Criticism in research article abstracts across the disciplines. In K. Hyland & M. Bondi (Eds.), Academic discourse across disciplines (pp.123-142). Berlin:Peter Lang.
Stubbs, M. (1995). Collocations and semantic profiles:On the cause of the trouble with quantitative studies. Functions of Language,2(1),23-55.
Stubbs, M. (1996). Text and corpus analysis:Computer-assisted studies of language and culture. Oxford:Blackwell.
Suarez, L. (2005). "Is evaluation structure-bound?" An English-Spanish contrastive study of book reviews. In E. Tognini-Bonelli & G. D. L. Camiciotti (Eds.), Strategies in academic discourse (pp.117-132). Amsterdam:John Benjamins.
Suarez, L., & Moreno, A. I. (2008). The rhetorical structure of literary academic book reviews:An English-Spanish cross-linguistic approach. In U. Connor, E. Nagelhout & W. Rozycki (Eds.), Contrastive rhetoric:Reaching to intercultural rhetoric (pp. 147-168). Amsterdam:John Benjamins.
Swales, J. M. (1990). Genre analysis:English in academic and research settings. Cambridge:Cambridge University Press.
Taboada, M. (2011). Stages in an online review genre. Text & Talk,31(2),247-269.
Taboada, M., & Carretero, M. (2012). Contrastive analyses of evaluation in text:Key issues in the design of an annotation system for attitude applicable to consumer reviews in English and Spanish. Linguistics and the Human Sciences,6(1-3), 275-295.
Taboada, M., Doval Suarez, S., & Gonzalez Alvarez, E. (2012). Editors'introduction: Functional and corpus perspectives in contrastive discourse analysis. Linguistics and the Human Sciences,6(1-3),1-16.
Tannen, D. (2002). Agonism in academic discourse. Journal of Pragmatics,34(10), 1651-1669.
Taylor, G., & Chen, T. G. (1991). Linguistic, cultural, and subcultural issues in contrastive discoure analysis:Anglo-American and Chinese scientific texts. Applied Linguistics,12(3),319-336.
Thetela, P. (1997). Evaluated entities and parameters of value in academic research articles. English for Specific Purposes,16(2),101-118.
Thompson, G., & Hunston, S. (2000). Evaluation:An introduction. In S. Hunston & G. Thompson (Eds.), Evaluation in text:Authorial stance and the construction of discourse (pp.1-27). Oxford:Oxford University Press.
Thompson, G., & Ye, Y. Y. (1991). Evaluation in the reporting verbs used in academic papers. Applied Linguistics,12(4),365-382.
Thomson, E. A, White, P. R. R., & Kitley, P. (2008). "Objectivity" and "hard news" reporting across cultures:Comparing the news report in English, French, Japanese and Indonesian journalism. Journalism Studies,9(2),212-228.
Tognini-Bonelli, E. (2001). Corpus linguistics at work. Amsterdam/Philadelphia:John Benjamins.
Tse, P, & Hyland, K. (2008).'Robot kung fu':Gender and professional identity in biology and philosophy reviews. Journal of Pragmatics,40(7),1232-1248.
Tse, P, & Hyland, K. (2009). Discipline and gender:Constructing rhetorical identity in book reviews. In K. Hyland & G. Diani (Eds.), Academic evaluation:Review genres in university settings (pp.105-121). Basingstoke:Palgrave MacMillan.
Tse, P., & Hyland, K. (2006a). Gender and discipline:Exploring metadiscourse variation in academic book reviews. In K. Hyland & M. Bondi (Eds.), Academic discourse across disciplines (pp.123-142). Berlin:Peter Lang.
Tse, P., & Hyland, K. (2006b).'So what is the problem this book addresses?': Interactions in academic book reviews. Text & Talk,26(6),767-790.
Turney, P. D., & Littman, M. L. (2003). Measuring praise and criticism:Inference of semantic orientation from association. ACM Transactions on Information Systems TOIS,21(4),315-346.
Wan, J. (2010). Call centre discourse:Graduation in relation to voice quality and attitudinal profile. In G. F. J. Lockwood (Ed.), Globalization, communication and the workplace (pp.106-124). London:Continuum.
White, P. R. R. (1997). Death, disruption and the moral order:The narrative impulse in mass-media hard news reporting. In F. Christie & J. R. Martin (Eds.), Genres and institutions:Social processes in the workplace and school (pp.101-133). London: Cassell.
White, P. R. R. (1998). Telling media tales:The news story as rhetoric. (Unpublished doctorial dissertation), University of Sydney.
White, P. R. R. (2003a). Beyond modality and hedging:A dialogic view of the language of intersubjective stance [Special issue]. Text,23(2),259-284.
White, P. R. R. (2003b). News as history:Your daily gossip. In J. R. Martin & R. Wodak (Eds.), Re/reading the past:Critical and functional perspectives on time and value (pp.61-89). Amsterdam/Philadelphia:John Benjamins.
White, P. R. R. (2012a). Attitudinal meanings, translational commensurability and linguistic relativity [Special issue]. Revista Canaria de Estudios Ingleses,65, 147-162.
White, P. R. R. (2012b). Exploring the axiological workings of'reporter voice'news stories-Attribution and attitudinal positioning. Discourse, Context & Media,1(2), 57-67.
White, P. R. R., & Sano, M. (2006). Dialogistic positions and anticipated audiences:A framework for stylistic comparisons. In K. Aijmer & A. M. Simon-Vandenbergen (Eds.), Pragmatic markers in contrast (pp.189-214). Frankfurt:Elsevier.
Whitelaw, C., Garg, N., & Argamon, S. (2005). Using appraisal groups for sentiment analysis. Paper presented at the 14th ACM International Conference on Information and Knowledge Management.
Wilson, T., Wiebe, J., & Hoffmann, P. (2005). Recognizing contextual polarity in phrase-level sentiment analysis. Paper presented at the Conference on Human Language Technology and Empirical Methods in Natural Language Processing.
Wu, S. M. (2007). The use of engagement resources in high- and low-rated undergraduate geography essays. Journal of English for Academic Purposes,6(3), 254-271.
Wu, S. M. (2008). Investigating the effectiveness of arguments in undergraduate essays from an evaluation perspective. Prospect,23,59-75.
Wu, S. M., & Allison, D. (2003). Exploring appraisal in claims of student writers in argumentative essays. Prospect,18(3),71-91.
Zhang, R. (2011). An evaluation study of book reviews in English newspapers. Kaifeng: Henan University Press.
布占廷.(2013).基于评价理论的语言学书评标题研究.外语与外语教学(04),53-57.
曹军,王俊菊.(2008).英语语言学书评语篇中态度用语的人际功能分析.山东外语教学(02),40-44.
陈晓燕,王彦.(2011).英汉社论语篇评价系统对比分析之二——介入资源.山东办语教学(06),20-27.
陈晓燕.(2007).英汉社论语篇态度资源对比分析.办国语(03),39-46.
李德超,王克非.(2010).新型双语旅游语料库的研制和应用.现代外语(01),46-54.
李健雪.(2007).论实据性策略对英语学术书评动态建构的制约作用.山东外语教学(05),30-35.
李经伟.(1996).英汉书评中的礼貌策略比较.解放军外国语学院学报(03),1-8.
连淑能.(1993).英汉对比与研究.北京：高等教育出版社.
刘宓庆.(1991).汉英对比研究与翻译.南昌：江西教育出版社.
潘文国,谭慧敏.(2006).对比语言学：历史与哲学思考.考上海：上海教育出版社.
潘文国.(1997).汉英语对比纲要.北京：北京语言文化大学出版社.
潘文国.(2002).汉英对比研究一百年.世界汉语教学(01),60-86.
潘文国.(2006).对比语言学的新发展.中国外语(06),14-19.
彭宣维.(2000,).英汉语篇综合对比.上海：上海外语教育出版社.
唐丽萍.(2004).学术书评语类结构的评价分析.外国语(03),35-43.
唐丽萍.(2005).英语学术书评的评价策略——从对话视角的介入分析.外语学刊(04),1-7.
王红阳,程春松.(2008).英汉语言学学术书评的态度意义对比研究.西安外国语大学学报(03),56-60.
王克非,秦洪武.(2012).英汉翻译与汉语原创历时语料库的研制.外语教学与研究(06),822-834.
王克非等.(2004).双语对应语料训研制与应用.北京：外语教学与研究出版社.
王振华,马玉蕾.(2007).评价理论：魅力与困惑.外语教学,28(06),19-23.
辛志英,黄国文.(2010).元话语的评价赋值功能.外语教学,(06),1-5.
徐召勋.(2006).图书评论学概论.开封：河南大学出版社.
许家金.(2013).中国学习者英语口头叙事中的话语评价研究.外语教学与研究(01),69-79.
许余龙.(1992).对比语言学概论.上海：上海外语教育出版社.
许余龙.(2009).对比语言学研究的新趋势与新思考——第五届国际对比语言学大会述评.办语教学与研究(04),279-283.
杨自俭,李瑞华.(1990).英汉对比研究论文集.上海：上海外语教育出版社.
张德禄.(2008).汉英语篇连贯机制对比研究.中国海洋大学学报(社会科学版)(04),31-35.
张今,张克定.(1998).英次语信息结构对比研究.开封：河南大学出版社.
赵世开.(1999).汉英对比语法论集.上海：上海外语教育出版社.
中国社会科学院语言研究所词典编辑室.(2005).现代汉语词典.北京：商务印书馆.
朱俊阳.(2004).《修辞学习》20年来书评语言中的套语分析.修辞学习(4),18-23.
朱永生,严世清.(2011).系统功能语言学再思考.上海：复旦大学出版社.
朱永生,郑立信,苗兴伟.(2001).英汉语篇衔接手段对比研究.上海：上海外语教育出版社.
朱永生.(2009).概念意义中的隐性评价.外语教学(04),1-5.
1 http://linguistlist.org/index-during-FD2014.cfm
2 This author refers to the author of this dissertation while the (book) author is used to referred to the author of the book under review.
1 Appraisal here does not refer to the appraisal system.
1 Praise and criticism and their interaction have also been explored in genres other than book reviews. It is also referred to as good news/bad news pair (Johnson,1992, p.45), and praise-criticism binomials (Suarez,2005, p.119). In addition, Shaw (2009) discussed the criticism-praise pair, while Gea-Valor (2000-2001) examined the use of praise-criticism chunking.
1 Itakura and Tsui (2011, p.1369) wrongly claimed that only the first three strategies are drawn on Hyland (2000).
1 Of course, there may be some disadvantages with the typological organization. One distinct disadvantage is that system networks are established only by reference to specific criteria. Thus, if specific criteria cannot be determined or are too many, the system networks will be problematic. Thus, some appraisal systems are better conceptualized as scalar (Martin & White,2005, p.16).
1 This annotation system is included in the UAM Corpustool package (see http://www.wagsoft.com/CorpusTool/).
1 The English translations of Chinese example were done by this author.
1 This term is used in accordance with UAM CorpusTool 3.0 Beta.
2 Note that the use of invoking strategies is different from Bednarek (2009b).
1 Here mode is different from the term mode of discourse, which is one of the three variables in the register. Mode means a way or manner in which something is done and this usage can also be found elsewhere (e.g., Halliday & Matthiessen,2004, p.443).
1 The adverb too is not considered as a comparative adverb in this study (cf. Halliday & Matthiessen,2004, p.221).
1 For further information on negative intensification in modern English, see Quirk et al. (1985, p.785).
2 In addition, intensification may also operate over Modality (Martin & White,2005, p.142). But this kind of intensification is not discussed in detail because there are no such instances in the corpus. Furthermore, Hood (2010a, pp.92-93) also discussed intensifying a proposal. Proposals are negotiated via the modulation resources, which are modelled as engagement (Martin & White,2005, pp.110-111). Modulation which includes obligation and inclination has also been related to the attitude system as it forms a continuum with judgement (Martin & White,2005, pp.54-55).
1 It is a term different from the rhetorical structure theory (e.g., Mann, Matthiessen, & Thompson,1992)
1 The book review titles can also be considered as a stage (cf. Eggins,2004, p.67). However, it is not taken into account in this study mainly because they do not contain negative attitudes.
2 These two-letter abbreviations are used in describing the distribution of negative appraisal across stages, and the one word abbreviations are used in describing the generic structure potential and variants.
1 The caret sign is used to indicate that stages are ordered with respect to each other.
1 The numbers were counted in Microsoft Word 2010 after the corpus processing was finished.
1 htpp://www.antlab.sci.waseda.ac.jp/software.html
2 http://www.wagsoft.com/CorpusTool/
1 The arabic number in the parentheses indicates the frequency of the appraisal resources. The use of numbers outside parentheses follows the APA 6th.
1 The original version of this comment is:"The'big picture'that I present, will, I hope, provide useful ideas for others to explore. However, it will undoubtedly disappoint some." (Wray,2002, p. x)
1 The most frequently used items in this dissertation are those that occur no less than three times.
1 http://ccl.pku.edu.cn:8080/ccl_corpus/
1 The item completely has been considered as realizing intensification (Martin & White 2005, p.142), but Hood (2010a, p.88) considered completely as realizing focus.
1 The adjuncts of course, surely, obviously, clearly belong to obviousness (Halliday & Matthiessen,2004, p.82).
1 http://www.linguisticsociety.org/publications/language/bookreviews/faq
1 http://www.linguisticsociety.org/publications/language/bookreviews/faq
2 http://www.elsevier.com/journals/journal-of-pragmatics/0378-2166/guide-for-authors
3 http://www.iournals.elsevier.com/lingua/
4 http://www.iub.edu/-langrev/policies.html#policy1
1 http://www.ddyyx.com/cn/qkis.asp
2 http://www.fltr.ac.cn:8080/wyjxyj/CN/volumn/current.shtml
3 http://202.116.192.73/cn/dqml.asp
4 http://ifl.shisu.edu.cn/CN/volumn/current.shtml
Adendorff, R., & de Klerk, V. (2005). The role of APPRAISAL resources in constructing a community response. Linguistics and the Human Sciences,1(3),489-513.
Alcaraz-Ariza, M. A. (2011). Evaluation in English-medium medical book reviews. International Journal of English Studies,11(1),137-153.
Aristotle. (1908-1952). The works of Aristotle (W. D. Ross, Trans.). Oxford:Clarendon.
Babaii, E. (2011). Hard science, hard talk? The study of negative comments in physics book reviews. In F. Salager-Meyer & B. Lewin (Eds.), Crossed words:Criticism in scholarly writing (pp.55-77). Bern:Peter Lang.
Babaii, E., & Ansary, H. (2007). A cross-disciplinary study of academic book reviews: Defining a genre. In A. Pastukhov (Ed.), Genres and text types in academic and media discourse (pp.127-141). Orel, RF:Kartush Publisher.
Badger, R. (2003). The agonism and the ecstasy:Conflict and argument in applied linguistics. In A. Baynham, A. Deignan & G. White (Eds.), Applied linguistics at the interface (pp.11-28). London:BAAL & Equinox.
Baker, P., Hardie, A., & McEnery, T. (2006). A glossary of corpus linguistics. Edinburgh: Edinburgh University Press.
Bamford, J. (2007). "i i just think that it's, definitely an invasion of privacy, that isn't necessary":Negative evaluations in academic lectures. Textus,20(1),17-36.
Baumgarten, N., & Du Bois, I. (2012). Code-switching as appraisal resource in talking about third parties. Linguistik Online,51(1/12),44.
Becher, T. (1987). Disciplinary discourse. Studies in Higher Education,12(3),261-274.
Becher, T., & Trowler, P. (2001). Academic tribes and territories:Intellectual enquiry and the culture of disciplines (2nd ed.). Oxford:Oxford University Press.
Becker, A. (2007). "Are you saying...?" A cross-cultural analysis of interviewing practices. In A. Fetzer & G. E. Lauerbach (Eds.), Political discourse in the media: Cross-cultural perspectives (pp.109-137). Amsterdam/Philadephia:John Benjamins.
Becker, A. (2009). Modality and engagement in British and German political interviews. Languages in Contrast,9(1),5-22.
Bednarek, M. (2006). Evaluation in media discourse:Analysis of a newspaper corpus. London/New York:Continuum.
Bednarek, M. (2008a). Emotion talk across corpora. Basingstoke/New York:Palgrave Macmillan.
Bednarek, M. (2008b).'An increasingly familiar tragedy':Evaluative collocation and conflation. Functions of Language,15(1),7-34.
Bednarek, M. (2008c). "What the hell is wrong with you?" A corpus perspective on evaluation and emotion in contemporary American pop culture. In A. Mahboob & N. Knight (Eds.), Questioning linguistics (pp.95-126). Newcastle:Cambridge Scholars Publishing.
Bednarek, M. (2009a). Language patterns and ATTITUDE. Functions of Language, 16(2),165-192.
Bednarek, M. (2009b). Polyphony in Appraisal:Typological and topological perspectives. Linguistics and the Human Sciences,3(2),107-136.
Bednarek, M. (2010a). Corpus linguistics and systemic functional linguistics: Interpersonal meaning, identity and bonding in popular culture. In M. Bednarek & J. R. Martin (Eds.), New discourse on language:Functional perspectives on multimodality, identity, and affiliation (pp.237-266). London/New York: Continuum.
Bednarek, M. (2010b). Evaluation in the news:A methodological framework for analysing evaluative language in journalism. Australian Journal of Communication, 37(2),15-50.
Bednarek, M. (2010c). The language of fictional television:Drama and identity. London/New York:Continuum.
Bednarek, M. (2013, February). Principles for applying Appraisal theory:A perspective from corpus-based discourse analysis. Paper presented at the Symposium on Current Issues in Appraisal Theory and Practice, Sydney. http://www.socialsemiotics.org/appraisalsymposium/abstracts/
Bednarek, M., & Martin, J. R. (Eds.). (2010). New discourse on language:Functional perspectives on multimodality, identity, and affiliation. London:Continuum.
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.135-154). Norwood, NJ:Ablex.
Bloch, J., & Chi, L. (1995). A comparison of the use of citations in Chinese and English academic discourse. In D. Belcher & G. Braine (Eds.), Academic writing in a second language:Essays on research and pedagogy (pp.231-274). Norwood, NJ: Ablex.
Bock, Z. (2008).'Language has a heart':Linguistic markers of evaluation in selected TRC testimonies. Journal of Multicultural Discourses,3(3),189-203.
Bock, Z. (2011). Code-switching:An appraisal resource in TRC testimonies. Functions of Language,18(2),183-209.
Bolivar, A. (2001). The negotiation of evaluation in written text. In M. Scott & G. Thompson (Eds.), Patterns of text. In honour of Michael Hoey (pp.129-158). Amsterdam/Philadelphia:John Benjamins.
Breivega, K. R., Dahl, T., & Flottum, K. (2002). Traces of self and others in research articles. A comparative pilot study of English, French and Norwegian research articles in medicine, economics and linguistics. International Journal of Applied Linguistics,12(2),218-239.
Brown, P., & Levinson, S. (1987). Politeness:Some universals in language usage. Cambridge:Cambridge University Press.
Caffarel, A., & Rechniewski, E. (2009). A systemic functional approach to analysing and interpreting ideology:An illustration from French editorials. Revista Alicantina de Estudios Ingleses,22,27-43.
Caldwell, D. (2008). Affiliating with rap music:Political rap or gangsta rap? Novitas-ROYAL,2(1),13-27.
Caldwell, D. (2009). "Working your words":Appraisal in the AFL post-match interview. Australian Review of Applied Linguistics,32(2),1-17.
Carretero, M., & Taboada, M. (2014). Graduation within the scope of attitude in English and Spanish consumer reviews of books and movies. In G. Thompson & L. Alba-Juez (Eds.), Evaluation in context (pp.221-239). Amsterdam:John Benjamins.
Carretero, M., & Taboada, M. (in press). The annotation of Appraisal:How attitude and epistemic modality overlap in English and Spanish consumer reviews. In R. Zamorano (Ed.), Thinking modally:English and contrastive studies on modality. Bern:Peter Lang.
Chafe, W. L., & Nichols, J. (Eds.). (1986). Evidentiality:The linguistic coding of epistemology. Norwood, NJ:Ablex.
Channell, J. (2000). Corpus-based analysis of evaluative lexis. In S. Hunston & G. Thompson (Eds.), Evaluation in text:Authorial stance and the construction of discourse (pp.38-55). Oxford:Oxford University Press.
Chen, L. J. (2011). Study of evaluation in English academic book reviews. Beijing: Foreign Language Teaching and Research Press.
Chesterman, A. (1998). Contrastive functional analysis. Amsterdam/Philadelphia:John Benjamins.
Christie, F., & Martin, J. R. (Eds.). (1997). Genres and institutions:Social practices in the workplace and school. London:Cassel.
Coffin, C. (1997). Constructing and giving value to the past:An investigation into secondary school history. In F. Christie & J. R. Martin (Eds.), Genre and institutions:Social processes in the workplace and school (pp.101-133). London: Cassell.
Coffin, C. (2002). The voices of history:Theorizing the interpersponal semantics of historical discourses. Text,22(4),503-528.
Coffin, C. (2003). Reconstruing the past:Settlement or invasion? In J. R. Martin & R. Wodak (Eds.), Re/reading the past:Critical and functional perspectives on time and value (pp.219-246). Amsterdam:John Benjamins.
Coffin, C. (2006). Historical discourse:The language of time, cause and evaluation. London:Continuum.
Coffin, C., & Hewings, A. (2004). IELTS as preparation for tertiary writing:Distinctive interpersonal and textual strategies. In L. Ravelli & R. A. Ellis (Eds.), Analysing academic writing:Contextualised frameworks (pp.153-171). London:Continuum.
Coffin, C., & Hewings, A. (2005). Engaging electronically:Using CMC to develop students'argumentation skills in higher education. Language and Education,19(1), 32-49.
Coffin, C., & Mayor, B. (2004). Authorial voice and interpersonal tenor in novice academic writing. In D. Banks (Ed.), Text and texture:Systemic functional viewpoints on the nature and structure of text (pp.239-264). Paris:L'Harmattan.
Coffin, C., & O'Halloran, K. (2005). Finding the global groove:Theorising and analysing dynamic reader positioning using APPRAISAL, corpus, and a concordancer. Critical Discourse Studies,2(2),143-163.
Coffin, C., & O'Halloran, K. (2006). The role of appraisal and corpora in detecting covert evaluation. Functions of Language,13(1),77-110.
Collins. (2011). Collins COBUILD advanced learner's English-Chinese dictionary. Beijing:Foreign Language Teaching and Research Press.
Connor, U. (1996). Contrastive rhetoric:Cross-cultural aspects of second language writing. Cambridge:Cambridge University Press.
Connor, U., & Moreno, A. I. (2005). Tertium comparationis:A vital component in contrastive rhetoric research. In P. Bruthiaux, D. Atkinson, W. Eggington, W. Grabe & V. Ramanathan (Eds.), Directions in applied linguistics:Essays in honor of Robert B. Kaplan (pp.153-164). Clevedon, UK:Multilingual Matters.
Conrad, S., & Biber, D. (2000). Adverbial marking of stance in speech and writing. In S. Hunston & G. Thompson (Eds.), Evaluation in text:Authorial stance and the construction of discourse (pp.56-73). Oxford:Oxford University Press.
de Carvalho, G. (2001, October). Rhetorical patterns of academic book reviews written in Portuguese and in English. Paper presented at the 2nd International Contrastive Linguistics Conference, Santiago de Compostela, Brazil.
DeCoursey, C. A. (2012). Trialing cartoons:Teachers'attitudes towards animation as an ELT instructional tool. Computers & Education,59(2),436-448.
Derewianka, B. (2007). Using appraisal theory to track interpersonal development in adolescent academic writing. In A. McCabe, M. O'Donnell & R. Whittaker (Eds.), Advances in language and education (pp.142-165). London:Continuum.
Diani, G. (2009). Reporting and evaluation in English book review articles:A cross-disciplinary study. In K. Hyland & G. Diani (Eds.), Academic evaluation: Review genres in university settings (pp.87-104). Basingstoke:Palgrave Macmillan.
Eggins, S. (2004). Introduction to systemic functional linguistics. London:Continuum.
Eggins, S. (2012). Appraising pain:Clinician-patient interactions in hospital emergency departments [Special issue]. Revista Canaria de Estudios Ingleses,65,29-46.
Eggins, S., & Slade, D. (1997). Analysing casual conversation. London:Cassell.
Fagan, A., & Martin, P. M. (2004). The use of critical speech acts in psychology and chemistry research papers. Iberica,8,125-137.
Felber, L. (2002). The book review:Scholarly and editorial responsibility. Journal of Scholarly Publishing,33(3),166-172.
Fisiak, J. (1980). Theoretical issues in contrastive linguistics. Amsterdam:John Benjamins.
Gea-Valor, M. L. (2000). A pragmatic approach to politeness and modality in the book review articles. Valencia:Universitat de Valencia.
Gea-Valor, M. L. (2000-2001). The pragmatics of positive politeness in the book review. Revista Espanola de Linguistica Aplicada,14,145-160.
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. (2005). Negative evaluation in academic discourse:A comparison of English and Italian research articles. Linguistica e Filologia,20,71-99.
Giannoni, D. S. (2006). Expressing praise and criticism in economic discourse:A comparative analysis of English and Italian book reviews. In G. D. L. Camiciotti, M. Dossena & B. C. Camiciottoli (Eds.), Variation in business and economics discourse:Diachronic and genre perspectives (pp.126-138). Rome:Officina Edizioni.
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). Basingstoke:Palgrave MacMillan.
Giannoni, D. S. (2011). "Don't be stupid about intelligent design":Confrontational impoliteness in medical journal editorials. In F. Salager-Meyer & B. Lewin (Eds.), Crossed words:Criticism in scholarly writing (pp.79-98). Bern:Peter Lang.
Hernandez Hernandez, M. A., & Gonzalez Rodriguez, M. J. (Eds.). (2012). Evaluative uses of language:The appraisal framework [Special issue]. Revista Canaria de Estudios Ingleses,65.
Granger, S. (2003). The corpus approach:A common way forward for contrastive linguistics and translation studies. In S. Granger, J. Lerot & S. Petch-Tyson (Eds.), Corpus-based approaches to contrastive linguistics and translation studies (pp. 17-29). Amsterdam:Rodopi.
Groom, N. (2005). Pattern and meaning across genres and disciplines:An exploratory study. Journal of English for Academic Purposes,4(3),257-277.
Groom, N. (2009). Phraseology and epistemology in academic book reviews:A corpus-driven analysis of two humanities disciplines. In K. Hyland & G. Diani (Eds.), Academic evaluation:Review genres in university settings (pp.122-139). London:Palgrave Macmillan.
Gross, A. G. (2000). The science wars and the ethics of book reviewing. Philosophy of the Social Sciences,30(3),445-450.
Haddington, P. (2006). Identity and stance taking in news interviews:A case study. In I. Lassen, J. Strunck & T. Vestergaard (Eds.), Mediating ideology in text and image: Ten critical studies (pp.69-95). Amsterdam:John Benjamins.
Halliday, M. A. K. (1973). Explorations in the functions of language. London:Arnold.
Halliday, M. A. K. (1978). Language as social semiotic:The social interpretation of language and meaning. London:Arnold.
Halliday, M. A. K. (1989). Context of situation. In M. A. K. Halliday & R. Hasan (Eds.), Language, context and text (pp.3-14). Oxford:Oxford University Press.
Halliday, M. A. K. (1994). An Introduction to functional grammar. London:Arnold.
Halliday, M. A. K., & Matthiessen, C. M. I. M. (2004). An introduction to functional grammar. London:Arnold.
Hartley, J. (2006). Reading and writing book reviews across the disciplines. Journal of the American Society for Information Science and Technology,57(9),1194-1207.
Hartmann, R. R. K. (1980). Contrastive textology:Comparative discourse analysis in applied linguistics. Heideberg:Julius Groos Verlag.
Hasan, R. (1989). Part B. In M. A. K. Halliday & R. Hasan (Eds.), Language, context and text:Aspects of language in a socio-semiotic perspective (pp.52-119). Geelong: Deakin University Press.
Hedeboe, B. (2007). On the'internal dialogue'between an examination task and pre-university students. In A. McCabe, M. O'Donnell & R. Whittaker (Eds.), Advances in language and education (pp.201-216). New York/London: Continuum.
Hernandez Hernandez, M. A., & Gonzalez Rodriguez, M. J. (2012). Evaluative uses of language:The appraisal framework [Special issue]. Revista Canaria de Estudios Ingleses,65.
Hill, M. (2007). Dictionary of American idioms and phrasal verbs. Beijing:Tsinghua University Press.
Ho, C. M. L. (2010). Engagement in the Second Life Virtual World with students. In O. A. Taiwo (Ed.), Handbook of research on discourse behavior and digital communication:Language structures and social interaction (pp.651-669). Hershey/New York:Information Science Reference.
Holliday, A. (1999). Small cultures. Applied Linguistics,20(2),237-264.
Hommerberg, C. (2011). Persuasiveness in the discourse of wine:The rhetoric of Robert Parker. Vaxjo, Kalmar:Linnaeus University Press.
Hood, S. (2004). Managing attitude in undergraduate academic writing:A focus on the introductions to research reports. In L. J. Ravelli & R. A. Ellis (Eds.), Analysing academic writing:Contextualised frameworks (pp.24-44). London:Continuum.
Hood, S. (2005). What is evaluated, and how, in adademic research writing?:The co-patterning of attitude and field. Australian Review of Applied Linguistics(19), 23-40.
Hood, S. (2006). The persuasive power of prosodies:Radiating values in academic writing. Journal of English for Academic Purposes,5(1),37-49.
Hood, S. (2007). Arguing in and across disciplinary boundaries:Legitimizing strategies in applied linguistics and cultural studies. In A. McCabe, M. O'Donnell & R. Whittaker (Eds.), Advances in language and education (pp.185-200). London: Continuum.
Hood, S. (2008). Summary writing in academic contexts:Implicating meaning in processes of change. Linguistics and Education,19(4),351-365.
Hood, S. (2009). Texturing interpersonal meanings in academic argument:Pulses and prosodies of value. In G. Forey & G. Thompson (Eds.), Text type and texture (pp. 214-233). London:Equinox.
Hood, S. (2010a). Appraising research:Evaluation in academic writing. London: Palgrave Macmillan.
Hood, S. (2010b). Naming and negotiating relationships in call centre talk. In G. Forey & J. Lockwood (Eds.), Globalization, communication and the workplace:Talking across the world (pp.88-105). London:Continuum.
Hood, S. (2012). Voice and stance as APPRAISAL:Persuading and positioning in research writing across intellectual fields. In K. Hyland & C. S. Guinda (Eds.), Stance and voice in written academic genres (pp.51-68). London:Palgrave Macmillan.
Hood, S., & Forey, G. (2005). Introducing a conference paper:Getting interpersonal with your audience. Journal of English for Academic Purposes,4(4),291-306.
Hood, S., & Forey, G. (2008). The interpersonal dynamics of call-centre interactions: Co-constructing the rise and fall of emotion. Discourse & Communication,2(4), 389-409.
Hunston, S. (1993a). Evaluation and ideology in scientific writing. In M. Ghadessy (Ed.), Register analysis:Theory and practice (pp.57-73). London:Pinter.
Hunston, S. (1993b). Professional conflict:Disagreement in academic discourse. In M. Baker, G. Francis & E. Tognini-Bonelli (Eds.), Text and technology. In honour of John Sinclair (pp.115-134). Philadelphia/Amsterdam:John Benjamins.
Hunston, S. (2004a). Counting the uncountable:Problems of identifying evaluation in a text and in a corpus. In A. Partington, J. Morley & L. Haarman (Eds.), Corpora and discourse (pp.157-188). Bern:Peter Lang.
Hunston, S. (2004b).'It has rightly been pointed out...':Attribution, consensus and conflict in academic discourse. In M. Bondi, L. Gavioli & M. Silver (Eds.), Academic discourse, genre and small corpora (pp.15-33). Rome:Officina Edizioni.
Hunston, S. (2005). Conflict and consensus:Construing opposition in applied linguistics. In E. Tognini-Bonelli & D.1. Camiciotti (Eds.), Strategies in academic discourse (pp.1-15). Amsterdam:John Benjamins.
Hunston, S. (2011). Corpus approaches to evaluation:Phraseology and evaluative language. New York/London:Routledge.
Hunston, S., & Thompson, G. (Eds.). (2000). Evaluation in text:Authorial stance and the construction of discourse. Oxford:Oxford University Press.
Hyland, K. (1998). Hedging in scientific research articles. Amsterdam:John Benjamins.
Hyland, K. (2000). Disciplinary discourses:Social interactions in academic writing. Michigan:University of Michigan Press.
Hyland, K. (2005a). Metadiscourse:Exploring interaction in writing. London: Continuum.
Hyland, K. (2005b). Stance and engagement:A model of interaction in academic discourse. Discourse Studies,7(2),173-192.
Hyland, K. (2009). Corpus informed discourse analysis:The case of academic engagement. In M. Charles, S. Hunston & D. Pecorari (Eds.), Academic writing:At the interface of corpus and discourse (pp.110-128). London:Continuum.
Hyland, K., & Diani, G. (2009a). Introduction:Academic evaluation and review genres. In K. Hyland & G. Diani (Eds.), Academic evaluation:Review genres in university settings (pp.1-14). London:Palgrave MacMillan.
Hyland, K., & Diani, G. (Eds.). (2009b). Academic evaluation:Review genres in university settings. London:Palgrave Macmillan.
Hyland, K., & Guinda, C. S. (2012). Stance and voice in written academic genres. London:Palgrave Macmillan.
Itakura, H. (2013). Hedging praise in English and Japanese book reviews. Journal of Pragmatics,45(1),131-148.
Itakura, H., & Tsui, A. (2011). Evaluation in academic discourse:Managing criticism in Japanese and English book reviews. Journal of Pragmatics,43(5),1366-1379.
James, C. (1980). Contrastive analysis. Harlow, Essex:Longman.
Johansson, S. (2003). Contrastive linguistics and corpora. In S. Granger, J. Lerot & S. Petch-Tyson (Eds.), Corpus-based approaches to contrastive linguistics and translation studies (pp.31-45). Amsterdam/New York:Rodopi.
Johnson, D. M. (1992). Compliments and politeness in peer-review texts. Applied Linguistics,13(1),51-71.
Johnson, D. M., & Roen, D. H. (1992). Complimenting and involvement in peer reviews: Gender variation. Language in Society,21(1),27-57.
Jon, S. Y. H. (2010).'I was so angry. It was unbelievable...':A comparison of written and spoken customer service complaints. In G. Forey & J. Lockwood (Eds.), Globalization, communication and the workplace:Talking across the world (pp. 59-87). London:Continuum.
Kaplan, R. B. (1966). Cultural thought patterns in inter-cultural education. Language Learning,16,1-20.
Krzeszowski, T. P. (1990). Contrasting languages:The scope of contrastive linguistics. Berlin/New York:Walter de Gruyter.
Labov, W. (1972). Language in the inner city. Philadelphia:University of Pennsylvania Press.
Lado, R. (1957). Linguistics across cultures:Applied linguistics for language teachers. Ann Arbor:University of Michigan Press.
Lakoff, G., & Johnson, M. (1980). Metaphors we live by. Chicago:University of Chicago Press.
Lewin, B. A. (2005). Contentiousness in science:The discourse of critique in two sociology journals. Text,25(6),723-744.
Lindholm-Romantschuk, Y. (1998). Scholarly book reviewing in the social sciences and humanities:The flow of ideas within and among disciplines. London:Greenwood Press.
Lipovsky, C. (2008). Constructing affiliation and solidarity in job interviews. Discourse & Communication,2(4),411-432.
Lipovsky, C., & Mahboob, A. (2010). Appraisal of native and non-native English speaking teachers. In A. Mahboob (Ed.), The NNEST lens:Non-native English speakers in TESOL (pp.154-179). Newcastle upon Tyne:Cambridge Scholars Publishing.
Liu, S. Z. (2007). Structural potential of attitude. Beijing:China Social Sciences Publishing House.
Lores Sanz, R. (2009). 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). Basingstoke: Palgrave MacMillan.
Lores Sanz, R. (2012). Local disciplines, local cultures:Praise and criticism in British and Spanish history book reviews. Brno Studies in English,38(2),97-116.
Lores Sanz, R., Mur-Duenas, P., & Lafuente-Millan, E. (Eds.). (2010). Constructing interpersonality:Multiple perspectives on written academic genres. Newcastle upon Tyne:Cambridge Scholars Publishing.
Louw, B. (1993). Irony in the text or insincerity in the writer? The diagnostic potential of semantic prosodies. In M. Baker, G. Francis & E. Tognini-Bonelli (Eds.), Text and technology:In honour of John Sinclair (pp.157-176). Amsterdam:John Benjamins.
Lyons, J. (1977). Semantics. Cambridge:Cambridge University Press.
Macken-Horarik, M. (2003 a). APPRAISAL and the special instructiveness of narrative [Speicial issue]. Text,23(2),285-312.
Macken-Horarik, M. (2003b). Envoi:Intractable issues in appraisal analysis? [Speicial issue]. Text,23(2),313-319.
Macken-Horarik, M., & Martin, J. R. (Eds.). (2003). Negotiating heteroglossia:Social perspectives on evaluation [Special issue]. Text,23(2).
Mackiewicz, J. (2007). Compliments and criticisms in book reviews about business communication. Journal of Business and Technical Communication,21(2), 188-215.
Mann, W. C., Matthiessen, C. M. I. M., & Thompson, S. A. (1992). Rhetorical structure theory and text analysis. In W. C. Mann & S. A. Thompson (Eds.), Discourse description:Diverse linguistic analyses of a fund-raising text (pp.39-78). Amsterdam/Philadelphia:John Benjamins.
Marin Arrese, J. I., & Nunez Perucha, B. (2006). Evaluation and engagement in journalistic commentary and news reportage. Revista Alicantina de Estudios Ingleses,19,225-248.
Martin, J. R. (1992). English text:System and structure. Amsterdam:John Benjamins.
Martin, J. R. (1995). Interpersonal meaning, persuasion and public discourse:Packing semiotic punch. Australian Journal of Linguistics,15(1),33-67.
Martin, J. R. (1997). Analysing genre:Functional parameters. In F. Christie & J. Martin (Eds.), Genre and institutions:Social processes in the workplace and school (pp. 3-39). London:Cassell.
Martin, J. R. (2000). Beyond exchange:APPRAISAL systems in English. In S. Hunston & G. Thompson (Eds.), Evaluation in text:Authorial stance and the construction of discourse (pp.142-175). Oxford:Oxford University Press.
Martin, J. R. (2003). Introduction [Special issue]. Text,23(2),1-11.
Martin, J. R. (2004a). Mourning:How we get aligned. Discourse & Society,15(2-3), 321-344.
Martin, J. R. (2004b). Sense and sensibility:Texturing evaluation. In J. A. Foley (Ed.), Language, education and discourse:Functional approaches (pp.270-304). London: Continuum.
Martin, J. R. (2008a). Innocence:Realisation, instantiation and individuation in a Botswanan town. In N. Knight & A. Mahboob (Eds.), Questioning linguistics (pp. 27-54). Cambridge:Cambridge Scholars Publishing.
Martin, J. R. (2008b). Tenderness:Realisation and instantiation in a Botswanan town. Odense working papers in language and communication,29,30-58.
Martin, J. R. (2012). The author's introduction. In W. Zhenhua (Ed.), The collected works of J. R. Martin (pp.1-6). Shanghai:Shanghai Jiao Tong University Press.
Martin, J. R. (2013, February). La grande illusion:Continuing the study of lexis. Paper presented at the Symposium on Current Issues in Appraisal Theory and Practice, Sydney, http://www.socialsemiotics.org/appraisalsymposium/abstracts/
Martin, J. R., & Hood, S. (2007). Invoking attitude:The play of graduation in appraising discourse. In J. Webster, C. M. I. M. Matthiessen & R. Hasan (Eds.), Continuing discourse on language (pp.739-764). London:Equinox.
Martin, J. R., & Matthiessen, C. M. I. M. (1991). Systemic typology and topology. In F. Christie (Ed.), Literacy in social processes (pp.345-383). Darwin:Centre for Studies in Language in Education, Northern Territory University.
Martin, J. R., & Rose, D. (2007). Working with discourse:Meaning beyond the clause (2nd ed.). London:Continuum.
Martin, J. R., & Rose, D. (2008). Genre relations:Mapping culture. London:Equinox.
Martin, J. R., & White, P. R. R. (2005). The language of evaluation:Appraisal in English. London:Palgrave Macmillan.
Martin, J. R., Zappavigna, M, & Dwyer, P. G. (2010). Negotiating evaluation:Story structure and appraisal in youth justice conferencing. In A. Mahboob & N. K. Knight (Eds.), Appliable linguistics (pp.44-75). London:Continuum.
Mauranen, A. (2004). Where next? A summary of the round table discussion. In G. D. L. Camiciotti & E. T. Bonelli (Eds.), Academic discourse:New insights into evaluation (pp.203-215). Bern:Peter Lang.
Mauranen, A., & Bondi, M. (2003). Evaluative language use in academic discourse. Journal of English for Academic Purposes,2(4),269-271.
McCabe, A., & Heilman, K. (2007). Textual and interpersonal differences between a news report and an editorial. Revista Alicantina de Estudios Ingleses,20,139-156.
McEnery, T., & Xiao, R. (2007). Parallel and comparable corpora:What is happening. In G. Anderman & M. Rogers (Eds.), Incorporating corpora:The linguist and the translator (pp.18-31). Clevedon, UK:Multilingual Matters.
McEnery, T., Xiao, R., & Tono, Y. (2006). Corpus-based language studies:An advanced resource book. London/New York:Taylor & Francis.
Miller, D. R. (2004).'... to meet our common challenge':Engagement strategies of alignment and alienation in current US international discourse. Textus,18(1),39-62.
Moreno, A. I. (2008). The importance of comparable corpora in cross-cultural studies. In U. Connor, E. Nagelhout & W. Rozycki (Eds.), Contrastive rhetoric:Reaching to intercultural rhetoric (pp.25-41). Amsterdam:John Benjamins.
Moreno, A. I., & Suarez, L. (2008a). A framework for comparing evaluation resources across academic texts. Text & Talk,28(6),749-769.
Moreno, A. I., & Suarez, L. (2008b). Managing academic conflict in English and Spanish academic book reviews:An intercultural rhetoric study. Paper presented at the InterLAE Conference, Universidad de Zaragoza, Spain. http://www.unizar.es/interlae/conference08.html
Moreno, A. I., & Suarez, L. (2008c). A study of critical attitude across English and Spanish academic book reviews. Journal of English for Academic Purposes,7(1), 15-26.
Moreno, A. I., & Suarez, L. (2009). Academic book reviews in English and Spanish: Critical comments and rhetorical structure. In K. Hyland & G. Diani (Eds.), Academic evaluation:Review genres in university settings (pp.161-178). Basingstoke:Palgrave Macmillan.
Moreno, A. I., & Suarez, L. (2010). Academic book reviews in English and Spanish:Is "giving reasons for critical comments" a universal politeness strategy? In R. L. Sanz, P. Mur-Duenas & E. Lafuente-Millan (Eds.), Constructing interpersonality: Multiple perspectives on written academic genres (pp.137-162). Newcastle upon Tyne:Cambridge Scholars Publishing.
Moreno, A. I., & Suarez, L. (2011). Academic book reviews of literature in English and Spanish:Writers'visibility and invisibility strategies for expressing critical comments. In F. Salager-Meyer & B. A. Lewin (Eds.), Crossed words:Criticism in the academy (pp.225-256). Bern:Peter Lang.
Motta-Roth, D. (1995a). Book reviews and disciplinary discourses:Defining a genre. Paper presented at the TESOL 29th Annnual Convention and Exposition, Long Beach, USA.
Motta-Roth, D. (1995b). Rhetorical features and disciplinary cultures:A genre-based study of academic book reviews in linguistics, chemistry, and economics. (Unpublished doctorial dissertation), Federal University of Santa Catarina.
Motta-Roth, D. (1996a). Investigating connections between text and discourse communities:A cross-disciplinary study of evaluative discourse practices in academic book reviews. Paper presented at the Annual Meeting of the American Association for Applied Linguistics.
Motta-Roth, D. (1996b). Same genre, different discipline:A genre-based study of book reviews in academe. The ESPecialist,17(2),99-131.
Motta-Roth, D. (1998). Dsicourse analysis and academic book reviews:A study of textual and disciplinary cultures. In I. Fortanet, S. Posteguillo, J. C. Palmer & J. F. Coll (Eds.), Genre studies in English for academic purposes (pp.29-58). Castello, Spain:de la Universitat Jaume I.
Mpofu, L., & Adendorff, R. D. (2011). An APPRAISAL analysis of the discourse of student assistants'reports at an Eastern Cape girls'boarding school. Southern African Linguistics and Applied Language Studies,29(4),447-482.
Munday, J. (2012). The expression of attitude in translation [Special issue]. Revista Canaria de Estudios Ingleses,65,101-114.
Myers, G. (1989). The pragmatics of politeness in scientific articles. Applied Linguistics, 10(1),1-35.
Navarro, F. (2011). The critical act as a pragmatic unit for studying academic conflict:A methodological framework. In F. Salager-Meyer & B. A. Lewin (Eds.), Crossed words:Criticism in scholarly writing (pp.23-52). Bern:Peter Lang.
Nicolaisen, J. (2002). The scholarliness of published peer reviews:A bibliometric study of book reviews in selected social science fields. Research Evaluation,11(3), 129-140.
Oleksy, W. (1988). Contrastive pragmatics. Amsterdam/Philadelphia:John Benjamins.
Page, R. E. (2003). An analysis of APPRAISAL in childbirth narratives with special consideration of gender and storytelling style [Special issue]. Text,23(2),211-238.
Painter, C. (2003). Developing attitude:An ontogenetic perspective on APPRAISAL [Special issue]. Text,23(2),183-210.
Partington, A. (2004). "Utterly content in each other's company":Semantic prosody and semantic preference. International Journal of Corpus Linguistics,9(1),131-156.
Pascual, M., & Unger, L. (2010). Appraisal in the research genres:An analysis of grant proposals by Argentinean researchers. Revista Signos,43(73),261-280.
Petric, B. (2011). Scholarly criticism in a small academic community:A diachronic study of book reviews in the oldest Serbian journal. In F. Salager-Meyer & B. A. Lewin (Eds.), Crossed words:Criticism in scholarly writing (pp.309-338). Bern:Peter Lang.
Pounds, G. (2012). Genre- and culture-specific aspects of evaluation:Insights from the contrastive analysis of English and Italian online property advertising. Linguistics and the Human Sciences,6(1-3),253-274.
Quintana Toledo, E., & Sanchez Cuervo, M. E. (2012). Beyond the appraisal framework: Evaluation of "can" and "may" in introductions and conclusions to computing research articles [Special issue]. Revista Canaria de Estudios Ingleses,65,131-146.
Quirk, R., Greenbaum, S., Leech, G., & Svartivik, J. (1985). A comprehensive grammar of the English language. London:Longman.
Read, J., & Carroll, J. (2012a). Annotating expressions of appraisal in English. Language Resources and Evaluation,46(3),421-447.
Read, J., & Carroll, J. (2012b). Weakly-supervised appraisal analysis. Linguistic Issues in Language Technology,8,1-21.
Roget, P. M. (1972). Roget's thesaurus of English words and phrases (revised by R. A. Dutch). London:Longman.
Romer, U. (2005). "This seems somewhat counterintuitive, though...":Negative evaluation in linguistic book reviews by male and female authors. In E. T. Bonelli & G. D. L. Camiciotti (Eds.), Strategies in academic discourse (pp.97-115). Amsterdam:John Benjamins.
Romer, U. (2008). Identification impossible? A corpus approach to realisations of evaluative meaning in academic writing. Functions of Language,15(1),115-130.
Rothery, J., & Stenglin, M. (1997). Entertaining and instructing:Exploring experience through story. In F. Christie & J. R. Martin (Eds.), Genre and institutions:Social processes in the workplace and school (pp.231-263). London:Cassell.
Rothery, J., & Stenglin, M. (2000). Interpreting literature:The role of APPRAISAL. In L. Unsworth (Ed.), Researching language in schools and communities:Functional linguistic perspectives (pp.222-244). London:Cassell.
Ryshina-Pankova, M. (2011). Developmental changes in the use of interactional resources:Persuading the reader in FL book reviews. Journal of Second Language Writing,20(4),243-256.
Salager-Meyer, F. (1999). From "Mr. Guthrie is profoundly mistaken..." to "Our data do not seem to confirm the results of a previous study on...":A diachronic study of polemicity in academic writing (1810-1995). Iberica,1,5-28.
Salager-Meyer, F. (2001).'This book portrays the worst form of mental terrorism' Critical speech acts in medical English book reviews (1940-2000). In A. Kertesz (Ed.), Approaches to the pragmatics of scientific discourse (pp.47-72). Frankfurt am Main:Peter Lang.
Salager-Meyer, F. (2010). Academic book reviews and the construction of scientific knowledge (1890-2005). In S. Posteguillo & M. L. G. Valr (Eds.), Linguistic and translation studies in scientific communication (pp.39-68). Bern:Peter Lang.
Salager-Meyer, F., & Alcaraz-Ariza, M. A. (2004). Negative appraisals in academic book reviews:A cross-linguistic approach. In C. Candlin & M. Gotti (Eds.), Intercultural aspects of specialized communication (pp.149-172). Bern:Peter Lang.
Salager-Meyer, F., & Alcaraz-Ariza, M. A. (2011). Expert knowledge-holders, knowledge-builders and factual reporters:Critical voices in medical genres. In F. Salager-Meyer & B. A. Lewin (Eds.), Crossed words:Criticism in scholarly writing (pp.173-202). Bern:Peter Lang.
Salager-Meyer, F., & Lewin, B. A. (Eds.). (2011). Crossed words:Criticism in scholarly writing. Bern:Peter Lang.
Salager-Meyer, F., Alcaraz Ariza, M. A., & Luzardo Briceno, M. (2012). The dynamics of critical voices over time:The case of the medical book review (1890-2010). In K. Hyland & C. S. Guinda (Eds.), Stance and voice in written academic genres (pp. 232-247). London:Palgrave Macmillan.
Salager-Meyer, F., Alcaraz-Ariza, M. A., & Pabon Berbesi, M. (2007a). Collegiality, critique and the construction of scientific argumentation in medical book reviews:A diachronic approach. Journal of Pragmatics,39(10),1758-1774.
Salager-Meyer, F., Alcaraz-Ariza, M. A., & Pabon Berbesi, M. (2007b). The prosecutor and the defendant:Contrasting critical voices in French- and English-written academic book reviews. In K. Fl(?)ttum (Ed.), Language and discipline perspectives on academic discourse (pp.109-128). Cambridge:Cambridge Scholars Publishing.
Salager-Meyer, F., Alcaraz-Ariza, M. A., & Pabon Berbesi, M. (2010). How's who? Protagonists'identification in scholarly book reviews (1890-2008). Enonciation et rhetorique dans l'ecrit scientifique(41),59-78.
Salager-Meyer, F., Alcaraz-Ariza, M. A., & Zambrano, N. (2005). From emotionality, humour and sarcasm to matter-of-factedness:The rhetoric of criticism in medical English book reviews (1940-2000). In M. L. C. Pastor (Ed.), Perspectivas interdisciplinares de la linguistica aplicada (pp.333-341). Universidad Politecnica de Valencia:AESLA.
Scott, C. (2008). Construing attitude and experience in discourse:the interaction of the TRANSITIVITY and APPRAISAL systems. In C. Jones & E. Ventola (Eds.), From language to multimodality:New developments in the study of ideational meaning (pp.87-109). London:Equinox.
Shaw, P. (2004). How do we recognise implicit evaluation in academic book reviews. In G. D. L. Camiciotti & E. T. Bonelli (Eds.), Academic discourse:New insights into evaluation (pp.121-140). Bern:Peter Lang.
Shaw, P. (2006). Evaluative language in evaluative and promotional genres. In G. D. L. Camiciotti, M. Dossena & B. C. Camiciottoli (Eds.), Variation in business and economics discourse:Diachronic and genre perspectives (pp.152-165). Rome: Officina Edizioni.
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 genres in university settings (pp.217-235). Basingstoke:Palgrave Macmillan.
Simpson, P. (1993). Language, ideology and point of view. London:Routledge.
Sinclair, J. (1991). Corpus, concordance, collocation. Oxford:Oxford University Press.
Spooner, A. (1999). The little Oxford thesaurus in A-Z form. Oxford:Oxford University Press.
Stotesbury, H. (2006). Gaps and false conclusions:Criticism in research article abstracts across the disciplines. In K. Hyland & M. Bondi (Eds.), Academic discourse across disciplines (pp.123-142). Berlin:Peter Lang.
Stubbs, M. (1995). Collocations and semantic profiles:On the cause of the trouble with quantitative studies. Functions of Language,2(1),23-55.
Stubbs, M. (1996). Text and corpus analysis:Computer-assisted studies of language and culture. Oxford:Blackwell.
Suarez, L. (2005). "Is evaluation structure-bound?" An English-Spanish contrastive study of book reviews. In E. Tognini-Bonelli & G. D. L. Camiciotti (Eds.), Strategies in academic discourse (pp.117-132). Amsterdam:John Benjamins.
Suarez, L., & Moreno, A. I. (2008). The rhetorical structure of literary academic book reviews:An English-Spanish cross-linguistic approach. In U. Connor, E. Nagelhout & W. Rozycki (Eds.), Contrastive rhetoric:Reaching to intercultural rhetoric (pp. 147-168). Amsterdam:John Benjamins.
Swales, J. M. (1990). Genre analysis:English in academic and research settings. Cambridge:Cambridge University Press.
Taboada, M. (2011). Stages in an online review genre. Text & Talk,31(2),247-269.
Taboada, M., & Carretero, M. (2012). Contrastive analyses of evaluation in text:Key issues in the design of an annotation system for attitude applicable to consumer reviews in English and Spanish. Linguistics and the Human Sciences,6(1-3), 275-295.
Taboada, M., Doval Suarez, S., & Gonzalez Alvarez, E. (2012). Editors'introduction: Functional and corpus perspectives in contrastive discourse analysis. Linguistics and the Human Sciences,6(1-3),1-16.
Tannen, D. (2002). Agonism in academic discourse. Journal of Pragmatics,34(10), 1651-1669.
Taylor, G., & Chen, T. G. (1991). Linguistic, cultural, and subcultural issues in contrastive discoure analysis:Anglo-American and Chinese scientific texts. Applied Linguistics,12(3),319-336.
Thetela, P. (1997). Evaluated entities and parameters of value in academic research articles. English for Specific Purposes,16(2),101-118.
Thompson, G., & Hunston, S. (2000). Evaluation:An introduction. In S. Hunston & G. Thompson (Eds.), Evaluation in text:Authorial stance and the construction of discourse (pp.1-27). Oxford:Oxford University Press.
Thompson, G., & Ye, Y. Y. (1991). Evaluation in the reporting verbs used in academic papers. Applied Linguistics,12(4),365-382.
Thomson, E. A, White, P. R. R., & Kitley, P. (2008). "Objectivity" and "hard news" reporting across cultures:Comparing the news report in English, French, Japanese and Indonesian journalism. Journalism Studies,9(2),212-228.
Tognini-Bonelli, E. (2001). Corpus linguistics at work. Amsterdam/Philadelphia:John Benjamins.
Tse, P, & Hyland, K. (2008).'Robot kung fu':Gender and professional identity in biology and philosophy reviews. Journal of Pragmatics,40(7),1232-1248.
Tse, P, & Hyland, K. (2009). Discipline and gender:Constructing rhetorical identity in book reviews. In K. Hyland & G. Diani (Eds.), Academic evaluation:Review genres in university settings (pp.105-121). Basingstoke:Palgrave MacMillan.
Tse, P., & Hyland, K. (2006a). Gender and discipline:Exploring metadiscourse variation in academic book reviews. In K. Hyland & M. Bondi (Eds.), Academic discourse across disciplines (pp.123-142). Berlin:Peter Lang.
Tse, P., & Hyland, K. (2006b).'So what is the problem this book addresses?': Interactions in academic book reviews. Text & Talk,26(6),767-790.
Turney, P. D., & Littman, M. L. (2003). Measuring praise and criticism:Inference of semantic orientation from association. ACM Transactions on Information Systems TOIS,21(4),315-346.
Wan, J. (2010). Call centre discourse:Graduation in relation to voice quality and attitudinal profile. In G. F. J. Lockwood (Ed.), Globalization, communication and the workplace (pp.106-124). London:Continuum.
White, P. R. R. (1997). Death, disruption and the moral order:The narrative impulse in mass-media hard news reporting. In F. Christie & J. R. Martin (Eds.), Genres and institutions:Social processes in the workplace and school (pp.101-133). London: Cassell.
White, P. R. R. (1998). Telling media tales:The news story as rhetoric. (Unpublished doctorial dissertation), University of Sydney.
White, P. R. R. (2003a). Beyond modality and hedging:A dialogic view of the language of intersubjective stance [Special issue]. Text,23(2),259-284.
White, P. R. R. (2003b). News as history:Your daily gossip. In J. R. Martin & R. Wodak (Eds.), Re/reading the past:Critical and functional perspectives on time and value (pp.61-89). Amsterdam/Philadelphia:John Benjamins.
White, P. R. R. (2012a). Attitudinal meanings, translational commensurability and linguistic relativity [Special issue]. Revista Canaria de Estudios Ingleses,65, 147-162.
White, P. R. R. (2012b). Exploring the axiological workings of'reporter voice'news stories-Attribution and attitudinal positioning. Discourse, Context & Media,1(2), 57-67.
White, P. R. R., & Sano, M. (2006). Dialogistic positions and anticipated audiences:A framework for stylistic comparisons. In K. Aijmer & A. M. Simon-Vandenbergen (Eds.), Pragmatic markers in contrast (pp.189-214). Frankfurt:Elsevier.
Whitelaw, C., Garg, N., & Argamon, S. (2005). Using appraisal groups for sentiment analysis. Paper presented at the 14th ACM International Conference on Information and Knowledge Management.
Wilson, T., Wiebe, J., & Hoffmann, P. (2005). Recognizing contextual polarity in phrase-level sentiment analysis. Paper presented at the Conference on Human Language Technology and Empirical Methods in Natural Language Processing.
Wu, S. M. (2007). The use of engagement resources in high- and low-rated undergraduate geography essays. Journal of English for Academic Purposes,6(3), 254-271.
Wu, S. M. (2008). Investigating the effectiveness of arguments in undergraduate essays from an evaluation perspective. Prospect,23,59-75.
Wu, S. M., & Allison, D. (2003). Exploring appraisal in claims of student writers in argumentative essays. Prospect,18(3),71-91.
Zhang, R. (2011). An evaluation study of book reviews in English newspapers. Kaifeng: Henan University Press.
布占廷.(2013).基于评价理论的语言学书评标题研究.外语与外语教学(04),53-57.
曹军,王俊菊.(2008).英语语言学书评语篇中态度用语的人际功能分析.山东外语教学(02),40-44.
陈晓燕,王彦.(2011).英汉社论语篇评价系统对比分析之二——介入资源.山东办语教学(06),20-27.
陈晓燕.(2007).英汉社论语篇态度资源对比分析.办国语(03),39-46.
李德超,王克非.(2010).新型双语旅游语料库的研制和应用.现代外语(01),46-54.
李健雪.(2007).论实据性策略对英语学术书评动态建构的制约作用.山东外语教学(05),30-35.
李经伟.(1996).英汉书评中的礼貌策略比较.解放军外国语学院学报(03),1-8.
连淑能.(1993).英汉对比与研究.北京：高等教育出版社.
刘宓庆.(1991).汉英对比研究与翻译.南昌：江西教育出版社.
潘文国,谭慧敏.(2006).对比语言学：历史与哲学思考.考上海：上海教育出版社.
潘文国.(1997).汉英语对比纲要.北京：北京语言文化大学出版社.
潘文国.(2002).汉英对比研究一百年.世界汉语教学(01),60-86.
潘文国.(2006).对比语言学的新发展.中国外语(06),14-19.
彭宣维.(2000,).英汉语篇综合对比.上海：上海外语教育出版社.
唐丽萍.(2004).学术书评语类结构的评价分析.外国语(03),35-43.
唐丽萍.(2005).英语学术书评的评价策略——从对话视角的介入分析.外语学刊(04),1-7.
王红阳,程春松.(2008).英汉语言学学术书评的态度意义对比研究.西安外国语大学学报(03),56-60.
王克非,秦洪武.(2012).英汉翻译与汉语原创历时语料库的研制.外语教学与研究(06),822-834.
王克非等.(2004).双语对应语料训研制与应用.北京：外语教学与研究出版社.
王振华,马玉蕾.(2007).评价理论：魅力与困惑.外语教学,28(06),19-23.
辛志英,黄国文.(2010).元话语的评价赋值功能.外语教学,(06),1-5.
徐召勋.(2006).图书评论学概论.开封：河南大学出版社.
许家金.(2013).中国学习者英语口头叙事中的话语评价研究.外语教学与研究(01),69-79.
许余龙.(1992).对比语言学概论.上海：上海外语教育出版社.
许余龙.(2009).对比语言学研究的新趋势与新思考——第五届国际对比语言学大会述评.办语教学与研究(04),279-283.
杨自俭,李瑞华.(1990).英汉对比研究论文集.上海：上海外语教育出版社.
张德禄.(2008).汉英语篇连贯机制对比研究.中国海洋大学学报(社会科学版)(04),31-35.
张今,张克定.(1998).英次语信息结构对比研究.开封：河南大学出版社.
赵世开.(1999).汉英对比语法论集.上海：上海外语教育出版社.
中国社会科学院语言研究所词典编辑室.(2005).现代汉语词典.北京：商务印书馆.
朱俊阳.(2004).《修辞学习》20年来书评语言中的套语分析.修辞学习(4),18-23.
朱永生,严世清.(2011).系统功能语言学再思考.上海：复旦大学出版社.
朱永生,郑立信,苗兴伟.(2001).英汉语篇衔接手段对比研究.上海：上海外语教育出版社.
朱永生.(2009).概念意义中的隐性评价.外语教学(04),1-5.