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

260suggested that each one of the three disciplines is placed in one of the three vertices inrelation to its focus of interest in evaluation:6.5 Concluding remarksThrough the analysis developed in the present chapter, I have exploredconnections between text features and the cultural environment in the disciplines or, inKuhn’s terms, the “disciplinary matrix”. These connections manifested themselves in thedistinct ways that each of the three fields realize the basic rhetorical structure of thegenre and in the choices of evaluative terms.Differences in the length of moves, in the frequency and order of presentation ofrhetorical sub-functions within moves, as well as differences in the choices of terms ofpraise and blame employed along BRs in linguistics, economics, and chemistry, suggestthat these disciplinary matrices have diverse modes of proposing knowledge. Chemistryreviewers tend to be more objective in their texts, using a more global view of the book,without providing exhaustive descriptions and evaluations. Economists and linguists, onthe other hand, tend to have a lengthier and more elaborated argumentation, more“literary” (McCloskey, 1981) with the use of metaphors (Klamer, 1987) and ‘humanisticliterary flourish’ (Swales, 1993b) in the case of economics, or more didactic, with theuse of plenty of exemplification and glossing in the case of linguistics. These differingways in which practitioners of each area describe and evaluate with variable amount ofdetail and evaluation point to the existing variability within the same genre of academicBRs. How practitioners refer to previously produced knowledge was investigated inassociation with expressions deployed without dissent by group members, i.e.,