Jump to ContentJump to Main Navigation
Show Summary Details
More options …

Text & Talk

An Interdisciplinary Journal of Language, Discourse & Communication Studies

Ed. by Sarangi, Srikant

IMPACT FACTOR 2018: 0.400
5-year IMPACT FACTOR: 0.750

CiteScore 2018: 0.61

SCImago Journal Rank (SJR) 2018: 0.305
Source Normalized Impact per Paper (SNIP) 2018: 0.670

See all formats and pricing
More options …
Volume 25, Issue 6


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

Beverly A. Lewin
Published Online: 2005-10-13 | DOI: https://doi.org/10.1515/text.2005.25.6.723


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.

About the article

Published Online: 2005-10-13

Published in Print: 2005-10-26

Citation Information: Text, Volume 25, Issue 6, Pages 723–744, ISSN (Online) 1613-4117, ISSN (Print) 0165-4888, DOI: https://doi.org/10.1515/text.2005.25.6.723.

Export Citation

Citing Articles

Here you can find all Crossref-listed publications in which this article is cited. If you would like to receive automatic email messages as soon as this article is cited in other publications, simply activate the “Citation Alert” on the top of this page.

Miguel Urra Canales, Ana María Garzón Ferro, Mayra Alejandra García Jurado, Camilo Castiblanco Durán, Alexander Gamba Trimiño, and Sthefanía Lizarazo Zuloaga
Revista Colombiana de Sociología, 2019, Volume 42, Number 2, Page 163
Beverly A. Lewin and Hadara Perpignan
Text & Talk, 2012, Volume 32, Number 6
Elena Afros
English for Specific Purposes, 2014, Volume 34, Page 79
Elena Afros and Catherine F. Schryer
English for Specific Purposes, 2009, Volume 28, Number 1, Page 58

Comments (0)

Please log in or register to comment.
Log in