Beverly A. Lewin

Communication in Internet message boards

A quantitative analysis of usage in Computer-Mediated Conversation (CMC). While commentators as ‘early’ as 1984 were predicting that the “organizational, social, and personal effects of computers will be deeply felt”, they could only speculate on the strength of its impact. As this account was being written, at the end of 2001, the effects of Computer-Mediated Communication (CMC) were fast overtaking our poor ability to measure them. There are many ways to communicate through computers: Usenet newsgroups, mailing lists, and message boards, which allow users to discuss specific topics with each other. (The term CMC allows for the possibility that some methods of communication, e.g., “chat rooms”, will not meet the definition of ‘mail’. The most popular method of CMC is e-mail. For those who have internet access, CMC is often their preferred choice of indirect (i.e., non face-to-face) communication, thanks to its speed, efficiency, and flexibility. Perhaps for these reasons, e-mail has already overtaken the telephone as the primary means of business communication.

Contentiousness in science: The discourse of critique in two sociology journals

Abstract In the study of scientific discourse, most of the linguistic literature emphasizes politeness strategies, claiming that the scientific role demands maintaining objectivity and, therefore, mitigating criticism of other scientists (e.g., Myers 1989; Hyland 1998). However, this literature is based on studies of research reports. Adversative discourse, highlighted by Tannen (1998, 2002), has received much less attention. This paper focuses on an institutionalized genre for expressing criticism. The corpus consists of 30 ‘comments’ from the two major sociological journals. In general, the findings show that, although non-contentious or polite options are available for giving criticism, the critics often chose a more confrontational alternative. For one, criticism is often directly leveled at the target (termed Judgment) rather than restricted to his/her work. Specifically, most texts cast at least one aspersion about the target’s honesty, propriety, competence, or ability to perceive. Secondly, Judgments are unhedged and, in fact, are often intensified. Lastly, sometimes discourse strategies are employed that force the reader to concur in the criticism. These practices, which leave no room for negotiating, are inconsistent with both politeness theory and the commitment to open inquiry in science. The genre of ‘comment’ apparently allows expression of the intrapersonal needs of scientists in their role as academics. There, personal goals might dictate disregarding politeness strategies, as well as adopting an adversarial rather than collegial stance to fellow scientists.

Attitudinal aspects of immigrants’ choice of home language

Abstract This study explores the relationship between language‐related attitudes of English speaking immigrants in Israel and their choice of L1 or L2 (Hebrew) for communication with their Israeli‐born children. A sample of 20 parents was interviewed. An unexpected finding was that lack of proficiency in L2 just as often encouraged a parent to choose L2 as L1. Among the other motivating factors, child‐based reasons, including the estimated effects of bilingualism, were more significant overall than socially‐based sentiments. Measures of traditionalism and nationalism and of prejudice for or against each language group did not discriminate between the two kinds of parents. However, attitudes toward the language per se were in the direction of language choice. Each group attributed more positive characteristics to its own choice then to the other language.

Crossed Words: Criticism in Scholarly Writing

one outstanding feature of the book under review that most immediately captures our attention is its paradoxical title, all-embracing and yet concise. The metaphor “Crossed Words” not only evokes the coexistence of conflict and consensus inherent in academic criticism, but also the polyphony it entails, both reflected in the volume structure. in effect, all throughout we are presented with issues regarding the interplay of positive and negative evaluation – known as the “praise/blame” tandem – which reveals the critics’ strategies to accomplish positioning and proximity (hyland, 2010); that is, to express stance and authority while simultaneously following conventions. Such interplay is voiced across communities and shaped by cultures, disciplines, genres, and time.

Recruiting the reader in literary criticism

Abstract In this paper, we analyze an array of rhetorical strategies directly aimed at recruiting the reader to be an active collaborator in the construction of arguments in literary criticism. Many techniques for this purpose have been posited, mainly reporting the frequency of specific, discrete lexicogrammatical items. However, this approach does not capture techniques that are not necessarily realized by a discrete structure but can be interpreted in terms of function. Our approach brought to light some techniques not previously reported, which operate simultaneously in individual texts. In addition, a framework is needed to account for the saliency of the diverse strategies involved. We propose a typology of techniques that tap various aspects of the readers experience – among them the social, affective, ideological, and the intellectual spheres. Furthermore, analysis of recruitment strategies has been mainly restricted to scientific and other texts that validate their arguments by empirical research. Our study is based on texts in literary research, a field which is dependent on convincing the reader of the superiority of the critics new reading and presumably entails a greater need for active collaboration of the reader.