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

243discussed as in [L#13] above. Although the appropriateness of use is being argued, theunderlying idea is that the concept is already known by economists.At least two attitudes towards knowledge can be detected: one of homogeneity andanother of salience. The term “homogeneity” here signifies a cohesive view of thediscipline, i.e., concepts in chemistry are well known and their use is settled so thatreviewers find no need for further specification of the sources. This homogenic view of thenomenclature is a direct result of a recognition of the maturity of the field, wherepractitioners have overcome controversy over the legitimacy of basic concepts or theories.This is especially true in the case of chemistry which deals with facts that can be provedexperimentally and which has clearly definable concepts to which researchers can givenames. There seems to be little debate over what an atom is, for example. ixAttitudes towards common knowledge seem to be more salient in linguistics, wherethe theoretical apparatus of the discipline involves debate over theories, nomenclature,methodology. Scholars are still discussing basic core concepts in language production andcomprehension, such as Modularity vs. Parallel Distribution Processing, Nature vs.Nurture, or the validity of theoretical constructs such as Krashen’s i+1 ix .In this controversial setting, reviewers convey salience through their support of onespecific approach instead of other concurrent ones. Linguistics reviewers seem to favor thepractice of standing out by referring to those approaches they accept as the mostappropriate to deal with the vast and, at times, imprecise repertoire of disciplinaryproblems. Reviewers also seem to hold a desire to show that they are well read in the field,signaling salience through the adoption of a tone of ‘authority writing to an audience of