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

276the other two disciplines, indicates that chemistry reviewers favor a more generalperspective on the publication. The pattern in chemistry seems to correlate with theoverall shorter length of BRs in the discipline. While chemistry reviewers tend to maketheir point synthetically, using less elaborated information, in linguistics and especiallyin economics, reviewers illustrate their comments, glossing, exemplifying and citingpassages from the book.With regard to item 2 above, it was observed that the introductory section ofacademic BRs was a particular complex part to deal with in the analysis, with severalpossible combinations of sub-functions across disciplines. Nevertheless, three maintypes of introductions were observed: a) Introductions with a very simple structure,usually confined to the first paragraph of the BR, in which one single sub-functionmaintains the central focus. Chemistry BRs tend to adopt this kind of introduction and tomake reference to the previous literature in the field, hence they were classified as“Field-fronted”; b) Introductions that usually have a combination of sub-functions inMove 1 in a dyad. This type of function-dyad introduction is most common in linguistics(more “Reader-fronted”) and economics (more “Topic-fronted”); and c) Introductionsthat extrapolate the borders of the first paragraph and extend in cycles over the next fewparagraphs. Hence, while chemistry texts usually have simple introductions, economicsBRs tend to have simple or combinatory introductions while linguistics, whose texts arethe lengthiest in the corpus, tend to have combinatory and cyclic patterns forintroductions. This result would seem to reflect the variable level of complexity ofsentences and overall rhetorical organization of BRs across fields.