universidade federal de santa catarina pós-graduação em letras ...

99[C]There are cases where the review is not offensive but it is not a goodreview where it might have been. The author of the book then charges thenegativity of the review on the fact that the reviewer dislikes the author.The author assumes that because the reviewer does not like him, as an extensionthe reviewer does not like the book either. We can see that this intention exists or at leastis believed to exist by reading the responses authors write to negative BRs of theirbooks.Within my range of analysis (issues published in 1990), these responses are totallyabsent from my corpus but I was able to find special contributions in few issues,sometimes bearing very suggestive titles (Fairness in reviewing: a reply to O’Connel),serving as responses to reviewers as seen below:I shall not respond to the alleged theoretical shortcomings, like theneglect of intention, as we can rest assured that O’Connel will shortlysupply the theory of intention that the Western intellectual tradition hasbeen waiting for a millennia or two. But I must correct some inaccuraciesin the review, especially as they appear to support the view that “themanuscript was not yet ready for the publication.”... Typographical orspelling errors do of course occur, but within the normal rates for anyprinted work. All this seems scant provocation for the opinion that “Sucherrors are of much more than passing interest in a textbook ofpsycholinguistics...” (Journal of Psycholinguistic Research, 21(5):401-3)His comments are, in my view, ludricous, since they are based on ahighly selective reading of the literature... All the authors do is throwtheir findings in the face of my account.... It is only through agonizingover complex findings of various kinds that a field can progress. YetBadecker and his colleagues propose a different path: annihilateeverything, shred a field to dust, avoid the facts (which they call“paradigm shift in neuropsychology”). This has been, and still is,unacceptable practice. (Language and Speech, 33(4), 359-363)