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

302WINTER, E. 1992. The notion of unspecific versus specific as one way of analysing theinformation of a fund-raising letter. In W. C. Mann and S. A. Thompson (eds.),Discourse descriptions: Diverse analyses of a fund-raising text. Amsterdam:Benjamins, pp. 131-70.__________. 1982. Towards a contextual grammar of English: The clause and its placein the definition of sentence. London: Allen & Unwin.__________. 1977. A clause-relational approach to English texts: a study of somepredictive lexical items in written discourse. Instructional Science, (special issue) 6(1):1-92.WITTGENSTEIN, L. [1953]. 1958. Philosophical investigations. Translation by G. E.M. Anscombe. New York: Macmillan.WOLFSON, N. 1979. The conversational historical present alternation. Language, 55(1): 168-82.__________. 1978. A feature of performed narrative: the conversational historicalpresent. Language in Society, 7: 215-37.Table 0-Erro! Apenas o documento principal.- Questions on the role of book reviewsin the academic settingQuestions1. How relevant are reviews? Do they help in setting or defining the field?2. Do you think that by offering a positive or a negative critique of a book and, consequently, of the theoriesand ideas in the book, they help in organizing the field in terms of which theories are considered valid, orwhich scientific paradigms are to be currently used in research in the field?3. What are the objectives of reviewers in producing such evaluative texts (e.g. individualistic aim vs.professional duty)?4. What are the resulting effects of reviews in the field?5. Does the scientific field influence the parameters for reviews? In your discipline, how much of theorganization of the book or which topics about the book ought to be discussed?6. Does the rationale underlying your field individuate some aspects of reviews?7. How do you view the opposition between scientists who often write reviews vs. those that never do? Doyou see an opposition between senior vs. junior scholars here? Who is more willing to write reviews?8. Why does your journal carry reviews? Why some other journals in the same field don’t? Is it due to thepublisher’s view of what is relevant material to the readership?9. Define your journal’s readership in terms of level and interests.