Abstract
In review genres the control of evaluative resources is central to both effective writing and authorial identity. The ways in which writers judge others’ work and express these judgements in their texts not only signals what they think, but also who they are, displaying both their status as disciplinary insiders and their individual competences and values. In other words, and in an important sense, we are what we write, and what we write in review texts is a discursive construction of self through evaluation. In this chapter we explore the role of gender and discipline in the performance of such an academic identity by examining a corpus of reviews, written by men and women, in the contrasting fields of philosophy and biology.
This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.
Access this chapter
Tax calculation will be finalised at checkout
Purchases are for personal use only
Preview
Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.
References
Bakhtin, M. (1986) in C. Emerson and M. Holquist (eds), Speech Genres and Other Late Essays (University of Texas, Austin, TX V: McGee, Trans).
Becher, T. and Trowler, P. (2001) Academic Tribes and Territories: Intellectual Enquiry and the Culture of Disciplines, 2nd edn (Milton Keynes: SRHE/Oxford University Press).
Belcher, D. (1997) ‘An Argument for Non Adversarial Argumentation: On the Relevance of the Feminist Critique of Academic Discourse to L2 Writing Pedagogy’, Journal ofSecond Language Writing, VI, 1, 1–21.
Benwell, B. and Stokoe, E. (2006) Discourse and Identity (Edinburgh: Edinburgh University Press).
Bloor, T. (1996) ‘Three Hypothetical Strategies in Philosophical Writing’, in E. Ventola and A. Mauranen (eds), Academic Writing: Intercultural and Textual Issues (Amsterdam: John Benjamins), 19–43.
Cameron, D. (2007) The Myth of Mars and Venus (Oxford: Oxford University Press).
Crammond, J. (1998) ‘The Uses and Complexity of Argument Structures in Expert and Student Persuasive Writing’, Written Communication, XV, 2, 230–68.
Crismore, A., Markkanen, R. and Steffensen, M. (1993) ‘Metadiscourse in Persuasive Writing’, Written Communication, X, 1, 39–71.
Flynn, E. (1988) ‘Composing as a Woman’, College Composition and Communication, XXXIX, 423–35.
Francis, B., Robsen, J. and Read, B. (2001) ‘An Analysis of Undergraduate Writing Styles in the Context of Gender and Achievement’, Studies in Higher Education, XXVI, 3, 313–26.
Frey, O. (1990) ‘Beyond Literary Darwinism: Women’s Voices and Critical Discourse’, College English, LII, 5, 507–26.
Gray, J. (1992) Men Are from Mars, Women Are from Venus (New York: Haper-Collins).
Hatch, J. A., Hill, C. A. and Hayes, J. R. (1993) ‘When the Messenger Is the Message: Readers’ Impressions of Writers’ Personalities’, Written Communication,X, 4, 569–98.
Herbert, R. K. (1990) ‘Sex-Based Differences in Compliment Behaviour’, Language in Society, XIX, 1, 201–24.
Holmes, J. (1988) ‘Paying Compliments: A Sex-Preferred Positive Politeness Strategy’, Journal ofPragmatics, XII, 3, 445–65.
Hyland, K. (2000) Disciplinary Discourses: Social Interactions in Academic Writing (London: Longman).
Hyland, K. (2001) ‘Bringing in the Reader: Addressee Features in Academic Articles’, Written Communication, XVIII, 4, 549–74.
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, VII, 2, 173–91.
Hyland, K. and Tse, P. (2004) ‘Metadiscourse in Academic Writing: A Reappraisal’, Applied Linguistics, XXV, 2, 156–77.
Ivanič, R. (1998) Writing and Identity: The Discoursal Construction of Identity in Academic Writing (Amsterdam: John Benjamins).
Johnson, D. M. and Roen, D. H. (1992) ‘Complimenting and Involvement in Peer Reviews: Gender Variation’, Language in Society, XXI, 1, 27–57.
Kirsch, G. (1993) Women Writing in the Academy: Audience, Authority, and Transformation (Carbondale and Edwardsville: Southern Illinois University Press).
Luke, C. and Gore, J. (1992) ‘Women in the Academy: Strategy, Struggle, Survival’, in C. Luke and J. Gore (eds), Feminisms and Critical Pedagogy (New York: Routledge), 192–210.
Lynch, C. and Strauss-Noll, M. (1987) ‘Mauve Washers: Sex Differences in Freshman Writing’, English Journal, LXXVI, 1, 90–4.
Robson, J., Francis, B. and Read, B. (2002) ‘Writers of Passage: Stylistic Features of Male and Female Undergraduate History Essays’, Journal of Further and Higher Education, XXVI, 4, 351–62.
Roen, D. H. and Johnson, D. M. (1992) ‘Perceiving the Effectiveness of Written Discourse through Gender Lenses: The Contribution of Complimenting’, Written Communication, IX, 435–64.
Rubin, D. and Greene, K. (1992) ‘Gender-Typical Style in Written Language’, Research in the Teaching of English, XXVI, 7–40.
Tannen, D. (1990) You Just Don’t Understand: Men and Women in Conversation (New York: William Morrow).
Tannen, D. (1994) Talking from 9 to 5: How Women’s and Men’s Conversational Styles Affect Who Gets Heard, Who Gets Credit, and What Gets Done at Work (New York: William Morrow).
Editor information
Editors and Affiliations
Copyright information
© 2009 Polly Tse and Ken Hyland
About this chapter
Cite this chapter
Tse, P., Hyland, K. (2009). Discipline and Gender: Constructing Rhetorical Identity in Book Reviews. In: Hyland, K., Diani, G. (eds) Academic Evaluation. Palgrave Macmillan, London. https://doi.org/10.1057/9780230244290_7
Download citation
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1057/9780230244290_7
Publisher Name: Palgrave Macmillan, London
Print ISBN: 978-1-349-30930-6
Online ISBN: 978-0-230-24429-0
eBook Packages: Palgrave Language & Linguistics CollectionEducation (R0)